Police State Progressives

And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?

Revelation 13:4

Those who take a cyclical view of history often contend that democracy must eventually end in some form of Caesarism.

That always seemed reasonable enough, but I must admit I’ve always had a bit of trouble believing that today’s “liberals” or “progressives” would ever clamor for totalitarian state. The achievement of order by force is supposed to be a masculine fantasy driven by the insecurities neuroses of the authoritarian personality. By rights, if anyone is going to demand the iron fist and the jackboot, it ought to be me. The hippie Boomer mentality that has dominated American culture and politics for the last generation has always been so anti-authoritarian that it seemed unlikely to me that today’s “liberals” would ever openly support a police state. But then, maybe I’ve just absorbed too much of their projection. It actually makes perfect sense that the spoiled, weak-willed and fearful type would cry the loudest for discipline, direction and protection. Virile men want the reins, not the harness!

I’ve long perceived the underlying passive-aggressive character of so-called liberals who want to regulate the world into what Max Weber called an “iron cage” of bureaucracy for their own comfort and security. But their authoritarianism has always been couched in the soothing language of motherly love and peace and harmony. Lately, it seems those worms have finally turned.

In response to recent calls for gun control, I asked, “Who will control the guns?”

My point was that gun rights advocates always seem to get lost in tangential debates about self-defense or hunting or sport shooting, but the best argument in favor of having an armed citizenry is as a check against tyranny. If you’re worried about the abuse of power, you should be worried about who has all of the weapons.

The entire American conception of freedom — which was essentially a liberal project (for better or worse) — comes from men who seceded from and made war against one of the most powerful empires in the world. Men who are truly free must have access to the means to challenge oppressive or failed states, and speaking truth to pepper spray doesn’t always cut it. I’ll concede that at some level of escalation — say, nukes — this becomes absurd, but the kind of weapons currently available to average gun owners are hardly weapons of world-ending mass destruction.

They are enough, however, to make any attempt at true totalitarian oppression long, bloody, and expensive. Afghanistan is smaller than Texas, and those backward insurgents have been hurting superior military forces for…ever. Imagine fighting an insurgency in Texas and 49 other states. There are 300 million firearms in America…a rifle behind every blade of grass, as they say.

I’ve always thought this was a pretty basic idea of “liberty.” Power-grabbing presidents, courts and bureaucrats have hemmed in our freedoms to better suit their ambitions and ideologies over the years, but this is all the more reason to draw the line at this fundamental American right.

The response I received from gun control advocates caught me off guard.

I expected maudlin pleas on behalf of “the children” and a bunch of weepy Lennon-esque quotes about learning to live more peacefully. After any high profile shooting, I know I can count on feminists to re-write the same old essays and op-eds about “toxic masculinity” and the need to “reimagine” masculinity, and some will probably even use the same dusty references to Baby Boomer bad guys like John Wayne and the Marlboro Man. That’s the old default.

What surprised me was the tone of at least three or four different “liberals” (and I feel confident they would all describe themselves as such) who mocked the idea that Americans could ever stand up to their government.

Smugly, they argued that my “camo-clad” militia buddies and I would never stand a chance against the US Military, and these “evolved” progressives delighted openly in the fantasy of all of us Soldier of Fortune subscribers getting mowed down by Apache helicopters and the National Guard. A blogger for the Houston Press wrote matter-of-factly that, “people who decide to stand up to the government with a firearm usually end up as a stain.”

They all seemed positively tickled by our imminent slaughter and subjugation.

These so-called liberals argued that the government is already so powerful that any sense that an armed populace wields more political capital against a potentially oppressive state is mere delusion, so it would be better if we all simply surrendered our weapons. In a nutshell: “Give up your guns, because the state can already crush you whenever it wants.”

The American left used to be uncomfortable with power, but it’s getting the hang of it. Our Leader is once again the Person of the Year, and there’s a palpable sense that — due to changing demographics — the old American right has fallen and can’t get up. Progressives have lorded over the media and universities for years, but with this recent election, it seems likely that they’ll maintain political power as well.

Power is bad when it’s someone else’s power, but maybe not so bad if you believe that power is on your side.

Self-proclaimed liberals once feared and loathed Big Brother, but as things move forward, I think we’ll see more and more of them acting like Little Brothers, taunting their bullies…

My Big Brother’s gonna whup you! You’ll see!

In the Obama era, many of those who were once “outraged” have simply stopped paying attention. Few of the enraptured bother to criticize The Leader and many seem reasonably content with whatever he and his cronies sign into law. When asked about a recent extension to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008, which allows the federal government to spy on American citizens without a warrant, Washington University law professor Neil Richards actually said, “Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad.” Naomi Wolf did recently warn of a coming drone attack on America, but the average bumper sticker Democrat isn’t exactly taking to the streets to protest free-range surveillance drones. Those folks are more worried about, well, whether or not crazy kids and scary white rednecks can get AR-15s with high-capacity “clips.” They aren’t overly concerned about a police state, because after all, it’s supposed to be their police state.

It’s time to break the habit of referring to these people as “liberals.” True anti-authoritarian liberalism probably died with a Smith & Wesson at Owl Farm. Whatever their faults, classical liberals believed that the state should, for the most part, stay out of people’s business. Today, we call them libertarians. Modern  — or “social” — liberals are simply socialists. Many want to avoid the stigma of the that word, but we shouldn’t flatter them by placing them in the company of anything having to do with “liberty.” The truth is that everything they want requires the state to get into people’s business. These police state progressives always want more regulation and state involvement, and more regulation will always demand more enforcement at every level.

The Year in Review

The Maya were wrong, as we always knew they would be, but 2012 turned out to be a full and interesting year nonetheless, if at times dark and difficult. Here to help you remember is a month-by-month account of the Old Year seen through the eyes of Alternative Right.

JANUARY: With 2012 an election year, we started as we meant to go on – being sceptical about the electoral process and the options it offered. For those in our movement the main point of engagement was the possibility that Ron Paul might somehow make waves and reverse the self-destructive path that America is clearly set on. In his article Ron Paul as Both Denial and Possibility Alex Kurtagic looked at how Paul fitted within the dominant political system while also unwittingly challenging certain aspects of it:

Yet, like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Ron Paul’s quantitative, rationalist, individualist outlook makes sense only in prosperous, stable, racially homogeneous societies.

In times of austerity, instability, and racial heterogeneity it poses an existential threat because the collectivism and authoritarian bias of competing non-White groups enable them better to exploit the opportunities opened to them by crises and uncertainty.

Another figure half-in and half-out of the political system was Pat Buchanan. This month his tenuous connection with the establishment was ended when he was fired from his job at US Cable News channel MSNBC for some of the arguments put forward in his book Suicide of a Superpower. So much for freedom of speech!

January also saw significant contributions from Jonathan Bowden as he teamed up with Richard to discuss the Ayn Rand, the New Right, Democracy, and the nuclear politics of the Middle East.

FEBRUARY: The second month opened with the Leftist Huffington Post jumping on the HBD bandwagon with the claim that Right Wingers were dumb. Alex hit back with a list of points that ended with “The core message is: ‘only morons disagree with us, so don’t openly disagree with us unless you want to look like a moron.” Fear of the Huffington post was never going to be an issue here at Alternative Right as subsequent articles saw particularly hard-hitting articles, including an interview with Gianluca Iannone, the leader of Italy's CasaPound and Mark Hackard’s scathing attack on the half-time entertainment at Super Bowl XLVI:

Madonna Ciccone is a 53-year-old woman who in any healthy society would be relegated to its more sordid undersides. In this degraded age she is crowned songstress to the world, a tawdry prefiguration of the scarlet harlot from St. John's Apocalypse. A veteran perpetrator of three decades of cultural subversion, Madonna executed yet another lewd, insipid musical extravaganza before a global audience.

Other outstanding pieces were Alex’s Why Conservatives Always Lose and Frank Borzellieri's The War on Guns, both of which in their own ways presaged major events much later in the year, namely the defeat of Romney and the big push for more gun control following the Sandy Hook massacre.

MARCH: This month saw the annual American Renaissance Conference reported on by Alfred Smith. The event featured speeches by Jared Taylor, Alex Kurtagic, and Guillaume Faye, a legend of the French New Right whose books are only now coming out in English thanks to Arktos.

While Faye was in America, the presidential election underway in his homeland was dominated by a gunman shooting several people, including some Jews in Toulouse. This was enough to convince the French and international media that the shooter was a White nationalist, although he later turned out to be a radicalized Muslim, highlighting the emerging "under-reality" of Western multicultural politics and the intensified need for suppression and denial of all race realism, something that is packaged as "tolerance."

Tragicomedy was added to this farce by the implosion of Jason Russell, the founder of the Kony 2012 campaign, a simplistic panacea for SWPLs with a vague interest in the complex problems of Africa. Just as the internet-driven campaign was starting to drive the mainstream, it all fell apart when Russell was arrested by police after running around naked screaming at cars in San Diego, effectively “doing a Kurtz” (Heart of Darkness), that is becoming corrupted and animalized by the savagery of Africa, but without actually being in Africa.

APRIL: This month was dominated by the tragic death of the great Jonathan Bowden. Another fine podcast from Richard and Jonathan at the start of the month on the topic of eugenics emphasized the astounding erudition of Bowden. Both Richard and Alex wrote heartfelt commemorations our fallen comrade.

Another big event was the sacking of John Derbyshire from the National Review for a common sense article published at Taki's emphasizing the importance of teaching children about the dangers of certain situations involving violent Blacks. Along with Buchanan’s sacking earlier in the year, it seemed that the establishment was striving to build a firewall to protect itself from certain "heretical" concepts that it feared, and with good reason as the underlying problems of America came increasingly into focus throughout this election year. Colin Liddell touched on this, with regard to the Derbyshire case, in The Asymmetry of America:

The most obvious of the many divisions that have arisen is that Blacks are no longer held to the same standards as the rest of the country, with the result that a great many of them have simply given up trying to live in a way compatible with Whites. While some see this as a disaster for the "Black family," it can also be seen as the rejection of what are essentially Northern European modes of behaviour, and the reassertion of the tribal and extended family patterns inherent in African populations.

Derbyshire’s sacking made perfect sense in the context of an official state religion of "Equality." Alex's excellent article Equality as an Evil demonstrated that it was the orthodoxy that was in fact the true heresy:

Difference is what makes us individual. To assert that everyone is equal, therefore, is to negate individuality, because individuality implies uniqueness, autonomy, non-interchangeability. None are compatible with equality. The demand for uniformity— even when made in the name of individualism—entails a demand for conformity, a renunciation of the self, a demotion or degradation of the individual. This is not just another contradiction, but an affront to so-called ‘human dignity’, and since dignity is human, equality is inhuman. A philosophical outlook that simultaneously exalts and affronts dignity is not a coherent outlook.

Another fascinating piece was Andy Nowicki’s The Survivor, which further explored the Columbine massacre with an interview with one of the survivors, Richard Castaldo. The article revealed a strong anti-Christian animus in the killers that has largely been covered up.  

MAY: The month started with Richard deciding to take on a more backseat role in the day-to-day running of Alternative Right, something he addressed in The Future of AlternativeRight. Despite this, interesting content continued to appear driven by events around the world, such as the French Presidential elections (The Death of France) and the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece (Golden Dawn Sheds Light On Itself). A particularly interesting piece came to us courtesy of Filipino writer Siryako Akda whose Rethinking Colonialism offered a fresh outlook:

My answer to that is to look at Colonialism as a perennial pattern of human behavior that will continue to exist in human affairs but constantly take on different forms. This view is inherently conservative in that it assumes that conflict, conquest and expulsion of populations will not be done away with at the Liberal "end of history" but will continue in ways that will defy the definitions set by the prevailing zeitgeist.

Gender and sexual issues were also covered in Andy’s piece Antisexualism and Matt Forney's powerful debut Planet of the Bitches.

JUNE: This was a relatively quiet month, although it also had its highpoints, including appearances on Vanguard Radio by Kerry Bolton discussing geopolitics and conspiracy theories and Derek Turner introducing his excellent new novel Sea Changes. Other articles of interest were Andy's tribute to the "seminal mansophere blog" In Mala Fide, which closed at this time, and Colin's invocation of monarchical mysticism Lizzie the Jinx in what was the 60th year of Queen Elizabeth's 'reign':

Monarchs who don't rule – and British monarchs ceased ruling sometime in the 18th century – can only have one function, that is, to act as talismans or lucky charms for their nation. If they succeed in bringing luck, then they can be considered to have done their job, regardless of their other imperfections, whether these include talking to trees (George III), marrying American divorcees (Edward VIII), or stuttering (George VI). Selection, it should be remembered, is not by ballot, but merely consists of appearing in the right birth canal at the right moment.

Monarchy without power not only has a hint of the mystical about it, it is in fact entirely mystical and nothing else but mystical, and it must be judged in these terms, rather in the same way as you would judge the juju from your local witch doctor (a real possibility in modern Britain).

Other articles of interest were Brett Stevens excellent You're the Victim? which expertly exposed the way that many of us on the right lapse into paranoia and a victim mentality. This contrasted with the positive attitude shown by real victims in Andy’s Niggers of the Earth and Sebastiaan of Orania, both pieces excerpted from his major article for Radix, looking at the efforts of South Africa’s increasingly downtrodden White minority to preserve their existence.

JULY: Summer with its skimpy fashions was the perfect backdrop for Jack Donovan’s hard-hitting article Everyone a Harlot which eviscerated the creeping feminization of a West that increasingly resembles what he describes as the "Bonobo Masturbation Society":

People used to have decent aspirations. They wanted to have families. They wanted to do good work. They wanted to be good citizens, good Christians, good people. Now everyone wants to be a player and a porn star. Everyone wants to be the kind of monkey that all of the other monkeys want to rub up against.

July also saw a number of substantial articles by Keith Preston on the fascinating foursome of Aleister Crowley, Corneliu Codreanu, Julius Evola, and Friedrich Nietzsche. In Nietzsche the Visionary Keith tried to extrapolate the kind of society that would ultimately arise in a future consistent with the great German philosopher's views:

As one anonymous commentator has suggested: "I think that the future will be a world of dizzying social complexity, replete with small city-states with governments ranging the gamut from democratic to monarchical to theocratic, surrounded by vast hinterlands filled with eco-villages and wild ranges where hunter gatherer humans chase wild game and forage for nuts and berries, while vast trade fleets of ultra-light zeppelins transfer goods and services all over the planet, and transhumanist consciousnesses zip through endless, decentralized computer networks maintained by industrial syndicates a million workers strong, who build satellites and launch them into orbit to maintain a global network of communication so primitivists can use cell-phones to trade furs for plastic-composite bows… and so on."

As the US presidential election campaign started to build momentum, the coming rise of ethno-politics was highlighted in Colin's The Changing Face of Democracy.

Vanguard Radio also saw the first of the programs involving the triumvirate of Richard, Andy, and Colin, a new format that was to become increasingly regular as the year progressed.

AUGUST: This month was dominated by the London Olympics and an impressive opening ceremony that contained a very unimpressive message of multiculturalism and welfarism as the UK's dominant values. This provoked a couple of responses from AltRight, including the podcast Political Games and the article Olympic Requiem in the Indigenocidal State.

The Summer also saw pressure growing on President Assad in Syria in a struggle that had become essentially an ethnic and religious conflict (Assad Sad Story). Meanwhile American politics continued to deny all semblance of reality with a mood that was perfectly captured in Unleash The Beef's The Whooping Of The Tards:

Politics is evil. Participation is a forfeiture of sovereignty and consent to be fucked in every sense of the word.

The Democratic Party is an organization that exploits the inexplicable self-hatred of feeble-minded people.

The Republican Party is an organization that exploits the inexplicable pride of feeble-minded people.

There’s a bunch of other parties that no one cares about because anyone stupid enough to potentially care won’t be allowed to by the Democrat and Republican parties. The Libertarian Party has the least cataclysmic philosophy of all parties, but in light of the fact that government is the negation of liberty, having a “Libertarian” political party is a deeply mind-fucking contradiction.

SEPTEMBER: The big event of September was the killing of the US ambassador in Benghazi by a Muslim mob in what looked like massive incompetence from the State Department or even a bad case of karma (Getting “Gaddafied”). The suppression of democracy in the UK also figured big with the ‘kettling’ of yet another EDL march. The roots of such pernicious behavior and stupidity were explored more deeply in Andy’s excellent piece Murderous Equality:

Again, as we see, the legacy of genocide, terror, and tyranny that the push for equality has engendered makes absolutely no difference; equality will remain perversely sacrosanct among our cultural betters; it will continue to be trumpeted as a good in itself, an end unquestionably worthy of fulfillment, and its conspicuous historical dark side will be downplayed, if not completely ignored. In Europe and North America, the wish to impose “equality” now carries a more and more pronounced anti-white subtext; its advocates tend to be deracinated white liberals (or SWPLs, as they are now called) who have imbibed poisonous cultural Marxism like mother’s milk, and who flatter themselves as being the vanguard of the ongoing societal revolution, ridiculously romanticizing the cultures of urban blacks, barrio Latinos, and other ethnic minorities, while viewing their conservative Middle American racial brethren with an unhinged, embittered hostility worthy of an Ellen Barkin Twitter hissy-fit.

OCTOBER: This month belonged to Génération Identitaire, from their "Declaration of War" video to their occupation of the Great Mosque of Poitiers (Génération Identitaire's 'War' Takes Shape),” but elsewhere other interesting developments were underway. In Greece Dimitrios Papageorgiou examined Golden Dawn’s continued strong showing (The Gladiators) and came to some surprising conclusions:

The main cause of Golden Dawn's popularity is not its views and solutions for the economic problems that Greece is facing. I would dare to go even further and claim that it is not even its staunch views on immigration. It is exactly what nationalists in the recent years have been afraid of admitting, that is the readiness to use violence. GD has cultivated the image of its members as people who can act violently against those that threaten the Greek populace, be they politicians, immigrants, or thugs. It’s their tendency for action instead of words that has won over a number of people, even if they do not entirely agree with them or vote for them.

Also, things were afoot in the world of British nationalism, with a new party forming in the North, centred around Andrew Brons and other ex-members of the BNP. Nationalist stalwart Kevin Scott made the case for the new party in The Death of the BNP:

Thankfully, such a formation is now on the horizon following the long-awaited departure of Andrew Brons from the party, after a series of meetings in the West Midlands, which investigated the possibility of a new successor party being established to fill the space left by the BNP. As a result of those meetings, Andrew Brons agreed to leave the BNP citing "constructive expulsion" after he had been earlier smeared as a "state agent" on the party's website and his supporters dubbed "vermin" by a petulant Nick Griffin who is increasingly desperate to retain control of the party's purse strings and his dwindling support base within nationalist politics as a whole.

Other popular articles of interest were Mark Hackard’s Shock Troops of Dystopia, Alexander Forrest's Interview with a Contractor, and Gwendolyn Taunton's enlightening account of the Zen-like thought of the reactionary guru Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

According to Gómez Dávila, in the modern era the reactionary cannot hope to formulate arguments that will convince his opponent, because he does not share any assumptions with his opponent. Moreover, even if the reactionary could argue from certain shared assumptions, modern man’s dogmatism prevents him from listening to different opinions and ideas. Faced with this situation, the reactionary should instead write aphorisms to illicit a response rather than engaging in direct debate. Gómez Dávila compares his aphorisms to shots fired by a guerrilla from behind a thicket on any idea that dares advance along the road. Thus, the reactionary will not convince his opponent, but he may convert him. Furthermore, the aphorisms themselves are not written in isolation – when placed together in their context they are equally as informative as any normally composed text could hope to be.

NOVEMBER: As election month arrived, AltRight took up a strong position of apathy, ridicule (Election Rhetoric: The Full-On Wank), and disengagement. Richard summarized the essentials in Withdrawal 2012:

From a Leninist, revolutionary perspective—"the worse, the better"—one could make equally valid arguments for each candidate.  Obama, as a mulatto, looks like his policies; he gives White Americans a visual representation of their dispossession. That's a good thing. Romney, on the other hand, gives the people a false sense of WASP continuity.  He is also more likely to join Israel in attacking Iran, launching another trillion-dollar war, or even a global conflict.  Thus, the governor might be better positioned to bring about the final collapse of the American empire and the global dollar system that underpins it.

But then, both Romney and Obama are "worse-is-better" in that they are but two aspects of the same system—which itself is destructive and self-destructive.

Instead of arm-chair speculation about which candidate is more likely to bring on a major crisis, we should begin finding solutions outside democracy and the two parties. The first step in this process is to actively disengage from this equally evil and stupid political system.

Brett Stevens presented an interesting "minority report" viewpoint throughout the election campaign, with a series of articles that supported Romney, like The Hidden Fault:

People want to go in a right-wing direction, but this is not going to happen through an ideal candidate arriving from the heavens and mentioning the sayable. It occurs in increments: a candidate appears, pushes the boundaries of the sayable, and gets elected. The next election, more from the unsayable realm is sayable.

You have a choice in this election to represent your interests. If you do not choose it, you will not be represented, and you will be rolled over by those who are representing their interests.

The re-election of Obama brought up issues of immigration amnesty and secession. As always AltRight had some counterintuitive approaches, such as Jack Donovan's The Bright Side of Illegal Immigration:

Illegal immigration is killing my grandfather’s America, but that America is never coming back.  The bright side I see is that this is all part of the process of creating a failed state—a state where no one believes in the system, where the government is just another shakedown gang, where no one confuses the law with justice. A state where there is no such thing as a law-abiding citizen, a state full of middle class criminals. A state where overregulation and corruption, combined with a lack of the will and the resources to enforce the law, leads to widespread civil disobedience.

In a failed state, we go back to Wild West rules, and America becomes a place for men again—a land full of promise and possibility that rewards daring and ingenuity, a place where men can restart the world.

America of course is not the only country to face this trajectory of demographic decline and replacement leading to chaos and struggle. This was very much an issue in France too where Falko Baumgartner examined the data (The Africanization of France), while Génération Identitaire formulated a response. Roman Bernard reported on the party's conference (Remaking a People).

Culture also began to figure prominently as Vanguard focused on the James Bond myth in Goldenball while Andy released yet another novel, the excellent and salacious Heart Killer, with a couple of excerpts to titilate readers on AltRight. Also of great cultural interest was Siryako Akda's piece on the archeofuturist message of Warhammer 40,000 (Into the Grim Darkness).

Other important articles included Colin’s lengthy interview with veteran British nationalist John Bean and John Maelstrom’s thoughts on secession (The Ultimate Secession).

DECEMBER: This month was dominated by the Sandy Hook massacre and the intensified debate over gun control. What couldn’t be discussed by the mainstream media was the kind of society you would need to create in order to make gun control even possible, one of the points raised in Colin’s Of Guns and Monkeys.

The issue was also extensively discussed by Richard, Andy, and Colin on Vanguard, which by now was operating as a separate website. Other topics covered on the podcasts included The Hobbit, Japanese politics (they too had an election!), the new movie about Abraham Lincoln, the phenomenon of "Gangnam Style," and Tarantino's celebration of anti-White violence Django Unchained.

The year ended on a high point with the print copy of Radix finally being sent out, after too many delays, in what has been an extremely busy and sometimes difficult year, but also a very exciting one.

Last but not least, the comment boards were always a pleasure to read, with a wide range of opinions and lots of interesting information finding its way onto the site. Many thanks to all our writers, readers, and commenters for a great year! And may the gods bless us all in 2013!

Demand A Plan...

Remember Kony 2012? Well, we all know how well that viral, internet-driven, celebrity-endorsed campaign worked out.

Next up on the moronic, feel-good, meaningless message bandwagon is Demand a Plan, whose current manifestation is a video featuring a load of celebs (most of them unknown outside America) advocating gun control against a grey background of nebulous guilt, designed to creep up on the average, unthinking American while he's weighed down with turkey, eggnog, and the jaded sense of bloated consumerism that accompanies the festive season. Another key feature of the video is the repetitiveness of the message, the attempt to drum it in, rather in the style of brainwashing religious cults.

It should be noted that there is a growing hunger for simple, reductionist 'solutions' like this, which is probably driven by the increased "effective complexity" of the world as it impacts on each individual. This is something that is rising as social, moral, and political structures that once brought order, taxonomy, and compartmentalization to our vast and varied world are dismantled, eroded, or overridden by no-borders globalism and sweeping universalist myths. Quite frankly, we should expect a lot more of this in years to come.

But a feelgood Youtube video with a dopey, utopian endorsement of Big Government in a country trending towards race-war and/or tyranny is no substitute for the complex systems of the past that once modulated the effect of the world's complexity on individuals.

It is therefore heartening to see that one of the main contradictions underlying this disingenuous video has already been brilliantly exposed in a counter video (see video tab), which draws attention to the fact that most of the Demand a Plan celebrities have had no qualms about embracing "the culture of guns" when it could further their careers. How many of them would have even been in a position to participate in this act of po-faced preaching if in the past they had taken a "principled stand" against guns by refusing any role or TV appearance that involved guns?

The Hidden Reality That Politics Obscures

The grim truth about politics is that it’s a translation of a translation. People set out ideas about how we should rule ourselves, and then to make them palatable to the masses, we dumb them down and turn them into the mechanics of a football game.

Conservatives are at the disadvantage here because conservatism is not political, but a choice of way of life. It is not something you can write down as an ideology, rage about at the polls, vote and then consider yourself done. It is a way of looking at life that pervades everything you do, and it’s organic because it is based on your inner moral compass.

Politics obscures this truth. It does so because in order to mobilize a mass to do anything, you need to provoke them with fears and pander to them with promises not about what will happen, but about what they want to happen. The disconnect between cause and effect is complete because cause/effect is more complex than symbol and group.

The result is that our politics neatly hides complex truths under simple cheerleading:

1. Individual moral decisions are more important than state policy. The liberal wants you to believe that every person is equal, thus we are all blank slates, and we only act in certain ways because we are “forced” to by our circumstances. This is self-serving apologism that seeks to let liberals off the hook for their own bad behavior. The truth is that a society is defined by the behavior of its individuals. If they are all oriented toward healthy and constructive behavior, society thrives. The more of them aren’t, the less it thrives. Social institutions have almost nothing to do with this, except that by making excuses for people, they encourage them to not struggle to make moral decisions.
2. Individual incompetence is the enemy of human civilization. We are taught by media to blame government, bankers, kings, popes, etc. but the main enemy of humankind is its own bungling. Most people get most things wrong most of the time. When put in committees or worse, companies or social organizations, the bungling is hidden by the group and it intensifies. The reason we have strong governments or corrupt bankers is that most people, being incompetent, create a need for strong and deceptive leadership to ensure society’s basic functions continue.
3. There is no conflict between religious and secular thinking. All thinking is done by individuals. A smart individual will come up with a reality-based interpretation of religion or non-religion. A dumb individual will turn anything, even the most sciency science, into a type of primitive mysticism based on superstition. Religion and secularism describe the same world, which if it is the work of an omnipotent God, reflects His order. Thus we’re running in circles describing the same thing using slightly different language, where if we apply intelligence to the situation, we arrive at the same answers regardless of which road we take.
4. Evil is not a demon below, but is commonplace narcissism and refusal to think about the consequences of our errors in reality. Evil is in fact the most common and least interesting thing in the human world. It occurs when we deny reality in favor of our own wishful thinking. In doing so, we create consequences that are destructive for others, either as individuals or as a group. Most evil is accepted as “normal” and so people give it a pass and grow increasingly resentful for reasons they cannot articulate. Very rarely is evil deliberate, meaning aware that it is evil. It is usually people being opportunistic and taking what they want, in denial of any consequences, because this is the easiest path for them at the time.
5. Most people can be wrong and, in fact, most people are wrong at any given point in history. We are told there is strength in numbers and wisdom in crowds. The truth is that crowds follow trends because when a new idea comes about, every person in the herd is afraid of being left behind in case this new idea really is powerful, so without proof of its veracity they adopt it and use their new-found status to beat up anyone who hasn’t adopted it. Thus ideas spread like diseases, and usually they are wrong, because in all but a few cases the people dreaming them up aren’t thinking about reality, but how they want to see themselves. These ideas are thus limited to the short-term human individual viewpoint in terms of feelings, judgments and desires.

In the translation into politics, these truths got lost. It then became profitable for them to stay lost, and so we got liberalism. The more we orient politics toward simple and clear truths like these, the quicker we can do away with the pretense and pandering that makes modern politics turn away from any real issue as soon as it is stated.

Vanguard 2012 Christmas Special

Visit Vangaurd Radio here.  Please consider supporting the podcast; you can donate here.  Subcribe via iTunes here.  

Andy, Colin, and Richard continue their discussion of The Hobbit as well as J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings books. They then turn to Quentin Tarantino's unpleasant slave-revolt and revenge fantasy, Django Unchained. The podcast is brought to a close with a warm-and-fuzzy conversation about Christmas memories, the meaning of Christmas, the war on Christmas, as well as the holiday's pagan origins.

Notes:
Alex Kurtagic, "A Very Different Kind of Wedding."  
Fredic Spotts, Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics
Patrice Chereau's production of Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelugen.
Trailer, Djangao Unchained
Mandingo
South Park, "Naggers"
Richard Spencer, "Race Baiting and Its Discontents." 
James Russell, The Germanization of Early Modern Christianity
World Net Daily's "War on Christmas."

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Gun Control as Castration

Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point.

The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murder happens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abiding folks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense for the crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas where the shooter is the only armed individual and thus faces no resistance. Criminals, and particularly those driven enough to carry out such a rampage, will find a way to arm themselves one way or the other no matter what the law may be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless against such psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be putting more guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.

Some of these points have merit, and some may be stretching it, but the fact remains that gun control is just damned impractical. It cannot actually be done with anything close to the degree of effectiveness that the liberal fanatics would wish. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in the US. The culture of gun ownership is a part of the fabric of society in areas outside of the liberal havens of the northeast. Any attempt to ban or restrict guns will inevitably lead to far more social unrest and potential violence than it would ever solve. Even if one finds this distasteful, it is the only conclusion that can be drawn based on a sober assessment of reality.

Yet the issue is still pushed with religious fervor by the true believers and social crusaders. Gun rights groups and gun owners are cast as evil accomplices to murder by these do-gooders merely for engaging in pro-gun advocacy. Such was the case earlier today when members of the women’s protest group “Code Pink” – a sort of liberal, feminist version of the Westboro Baptist Church — interrupted an NRA press conference by screaming slogans and unfurling a banner accusing the NRA of guilt by proxy in the recent school killings.

How to explain this? Why such hysterics over the NRA, a fairly moderate and mainstream group by most standards? Do these women really think that they can stop such outbreaks of violence merely by passing some petty bureaucratic measures, all the while continuing to hide their heads in the sand about the real social roots of the “mass shooter” phenomenon?

The answer is that killings and violence are not really the issue as far as the deeper impulses and desires these women have to ban or restrict access to firearms. The fact that it was a feminist group protesting the NRA is not an accident. Gun control is an issue that has historically been pushed by feminist and women’s groups. It comes down to the psychological roots of feminism and the desperate need of such women to control, manage and limit male agency. Essentially gun control is an attempt to perform a symbolic castration of all men in society, in particular those men that would outwardly manifest strength and a will to power by owning a gun, being committed to self defense and engaging in hunting or sportsmanship with firearms.

A gun is an obvious symbol of male power, sexuality and virility. This is the real reason why the gun issue is such an emotional flashpoint for feminists and prompts them to frantic outbursts such as the one at the NRA press conference. Unfortunately as our society gets ever more feminized, as masculinity is ever more marginalized and the traditional male virtues of strength, agency and vitality are ever more demonized, a growing number of virtually cuckolded liberal beta males can be expected to fall in line with this agenda and willingly castrate themselves on the altar of feminism. And of course in a democracy politicians are all too willing to indulge this sort of movement in exchange for power.

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

and that:

…men and women have different patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes. The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.

One of the exercises in the survey invited students to do a sentence completion exercise to express in their own words their feelings on guns, gun owners, gun clubs and hunting  The responses are revealing:

When I think of Gun Clubs, I think… (female, unfavorable)

People who seek power/control… Boys trying to prove their value… No guns whatsoever should be allowed anywhere… I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should not exist, only purpose is killing people and animals… Violent men with a violent pastime… Men collected there to show off their strength and women who go along with it… Of heartless men and wonder about why they attend those clubs; I hate gun clubs… Fear, unacceptable activity… Men who have something to prove by acting “macho.” They are dangerous to society and to themselves… Masochistic people who have to live their lives behind a gun in fear… Kinky, weird people… Ignorance, uneducated… Power through sick minds. Violence.

The psychology here should be apparent. The idea of powerful males or males expressing some sort of dominance, even if only in imagination, is clearly distressing to these women. Their immediate response is to want to control it and shut it down, to appeal to a higher power to enforce the rules on those naughty men and boys. The general hostility and suspicion with which feminists regard male only or “boys club” type social spaces is also at play.

To further hammer home the point that the desire for gun control is essentially irrational and not based on any facts or real world knowledge Buckner tested the students on their own personal knowledge and experience with guns and then correlated those results with their attitudes on gun control. He found:

Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty for an unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knew that handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessed that it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger. Figure 5 shows, knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do not appear to depend on knowledge or rationality.

Figure 6 The less knowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun control they are. In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lower the support for gun control.

It is clear from these results that the gun control attitude is not an informed opinion that one comes to after sober reflection and analysis. Rather is a product of ignorance, irrational fear and the desire to control and manage what is perceived as the threat of out of control male sexuality and agency. Gun control is castration.

Originally published at The Right Stuff

Welcome Back To The Future

12/21/2012 has come and gone.

Despite our collective desire to either meet a spectacular end or get swept up in a thrilling life-or-death struggle to survive an onslaught of earthquakes, asteroids, floods, or whatever…

…nothing happened.

So, welcome back. Welcome back to the future. Their future.

Everything is still progressing according to plan.

People obsess over the end times because they are bored and safe and sleepy. They want to be afraid and threatened and alive. Or at least sometimes they do. Most of the time people are happy enough to watch other people be afraid and threatened and alive on television.

In times of chaos and danger, men with heroic traits emerge from the crowd to lead, to protect, to do what needs to be done, to take what we need from “them” and bring it to “us.” Natural hierarchies form, and men follow men of action — men who are a little larger than life. Strong men. Courageous men. Men who master the world. Men of honor.

There isn’t a lot of room for those kind of men in their future.

Their future is for small, petty men.

It’s made by and for the kind of men who terrorize with pencils and keyboards and electronic ticketing devices. The kind of men whose chests expand only when they have other men with truncheons and pistols behind them. The kind of men who wield the power of the ever-expanding bureaucracy. The clipboard carrying box-checkers and the bean counters; the meter maids and tax collectors. The junk inspectors; the pat-down police. The pee collectors and finger prickers. The tow truck drivers and claims adjusters and collection agents. The shoe-shine boys for the police state.

These are the men of the future. The men who ensure compliance with policy. The guys who enforce the regulations.

And there will only be more regulations. That’s what they keep telling us. What we really need is more regulations.

Can you imagine a massive movement to de-regulate?

It’s never going to happen. No government wants to get smaller, and there will always be some tiny, petty man who writes his congressman to demand one more rule — because something annoyed him, because it’s unsightly, because it’s somehow out of order or so suspiciously wild and free that it gives him a touch of indigestion.

Unfortunately, the only way to fight these men most of the time is to snipe back at them, to fight passive-aggression with passive aggression, to use policy against policy.

“I’m going to sue you.”

“I want to talk to your supervisor.”

“I’m going to tell.”

Yeah, because that’s what men do.

It’s all of these little men who make sure we follow the rules, so we don’t hurt ourselves or each other. They get flustered and wag their little fingers and find ways to penalize us. And there’s nothing we can do, because Big Brother is standing right behind them.

No wonder people were half-hoping that fire would rain from the sky this morning.

This is what progress really looks like. The future is now.

Destroy the future.

START THE WORLD.

Boss Tweed: I said, you’re turning your back on the future.

Bill: Not our future. - Gangs of New York

From Polis to Ghetto

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

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

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

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

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

World Without End

Originally published 11th January, this year.

One of the legacies of the world financial crisis is that it showed how absolutely clueless pundits, politicians, and financial planners can be about the direction we are heading in. This also explains our growing fascination with the mysterious Maya and their reputation for fathoming the distant future by reading the stars and the courses of the planets.

With the great vacuum of ignorance that enshrouds the future, it is not surprising that this long dead civilization with an astronomical bent has been sucked into the role of providing gnostic hints of what is to come. It was either that or Madame Zaza’s tea leaves.

According to a lot of breathless twats on the Discovery Channel, the Mayans saw something very important lined up for 2012, namely the end of their Grand Cycle, scheduled to end on the 21st of December this year. Depending on who you speak to this will precipitate either the end of the universe in a cataclysm of fire, a new age with everyone being very nice to each other, or the election of Ron Paul as President of the United States.

But before we get carried away with the impending sense of momentous cosmic change, shouldn’t we pause to ask the all-important question, “Who the heck were the Maya?” just in case they turn out to be a bunch of jungle bums stoked up on fermented coconut juice rather than credible prognosticators of the end of humanity.

Like any semi-barbaric, non-European people, the Maya are nowadays talked about in the hushed reverential tones dictated by political correctness as one of the great civilizations, even though they lacked metal tools and wheels, and enjoyed a spot of human sacrifice. 

Rather than evidence of their primitiveness, their lack of tools is often cited as proof of their civilizational superiority, as only a truly higher culture could have built pyramids with so little in the way of technology. In such encomiums little is said about the possibility that the threat of human sacrifice probably served as an extremely important motivator for the toolless masses.

The key to understanding the Maya is their astronomy. The basic problem all primitive agricultural societies face is timekeeping. In the case of Britain, this led to the founding of Neolithic sites such as Stonehenge, where the stones were aligned to measure changes in the position of the rising sun and thus the seasons.

Such a convenient and easily accessible way of determining the agricultural calendar was not available to the Maya. The point where the sun rose was difficult to determine due to the surrounding jungle, while even if it could be observed—presumably from the top of a pyramid—the seasonal variations in position were much less marked than in the North. It thus became very important early on for the Maya to study the stars and planets to get a grip on time, an option much less open to the Neolithic Brits in their cloud-enshrouded abode.

The development of and dependence on an astronomically literate elite also created a tendency towards extreme hierarchy because an ability to read the stars and planets was not knowledge that was easily transferable in a society where the only form of writing was a dense, impenetrable system of hieroglyphics. With such vital but esoteric knowledge in their hands the elite could imperiously lord it over the vast underclass.

By contrast, in Neolithic Britain almost any semi-intelligent tribesman could get the hang of the sunrise trick, making it easy to bypass the authority of would-be astronomer-priest-kings. Perhaps a contributory factor towards the greater democratic nature of Northern peoples was the reliance of our ancestors on solar observation to set the agricultural calendar, rather than the much more complicated stellar system.

An important aspect of extreme hierarchies is their inherent instability, while a major characteristic of any hierarchy is the desire to show social status. These two factors along with the peculiar way the Maya chose to display their status suggests a possible reason for the civilization’s downfall. This is a mysterious event that has thrown up a wide range of pedantic and unsatisfying explanations, ranging from invasion and disease to trendy notions of economic collapse and ecological exhaustion that seem little more than anachronistic projections from our own age.

One of the unique features of Mayan civilization was the fashion of head shaping. This was practiced by the elite on the still pliable heads of their infants, using a variety of squeezing techniques to get a sloping forehead and a pointed skull. The reason for this has been linked with veneration for the Mayan maize god, sometimes called Itzamna, who had a head shaped like an ear of maize, the Maya’s staple crop.

At first, the distortions inflicted on the craniums of the future ruling class would have been mild and have had a negligible effect on the workings within, but as with any popular fashion—whether it be the bound feet of the Manchus, the quiffs of 1950s teddy boys, or the neck rings of Karen tribeswomen—the impetus to outdo others no doubt kicked in, leading to extremes of head shaping that would have impacted on the mental abilities of those involved.

The cultural relativism now in vogue dictates that such obvious stupidity should not be criticized as this would in some way be racist or Eurocentric, thus the custom of squashing infant’s heads is routinely treated as no more odd or harmful than the modern Western penchant for wearing bum-crack-revealing pants—admittedly an equally stupid fashion statement but at least one that is a lot less physically damaging.

Extreme head-shaping is liable to weaken the sutures that join the cranial plates together by preventing them sealing properly and lead to conditions such as hydrocephalus, which in turn is linked to a wide range of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis.

With enough maize-aping head-shaping, the ruling class would have become mentally debilitated to the point where their leadership would have lost credibility and led to the underclass rising up, probably with the malformed skulls of their rulers being smashed in the process. There is much evidence for such conflict and violence in the archaeological ruins of the Mayan cities.

With the elimination of the astronomically literate part of the population, however, much of the knowledge of the correct times to plant would have been lost, leading to further miscalculation, famine, depopulation, and the reversion of the Maya back to humble forest dwellers eking out a bare existence, which is how the Spanish found them in the 16th century.

The way in which this oddball civilization is accorded undue respect, especially this year, shows that our own ruling and academic elites have chosen to distort the internal workings of their own brains as much as the Maya elite distorted the outer carapaces of theirs.

The cosmic predictions of a semi-barbaric civilization that didn’t even know what a wheel was and which disappeared back into the jungles that spawned it after a period of pointless pyramid proliferation and skull bending should merit slightly less attention than the palm readings of the average faux-gypsy.

If 2012 is to mark the end of the universe as we know it or the dawning of a new age, either event will be a mere coincidence unrelated to the stargazing of a bunch of Mesoamerican coneheads.

The Case For Open Borders

Originally published here on 5th April, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not an American woman

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

Alt Right on the BBC

Before the shadow of political correctness descended on the BBC, starting in the 1980s, the Corporation used to be a hive of intellectual freedom and creativity.

For this reason some of the more intelligent and in-depth programs from its golden era now seem to have an almost Alt-Rightish feel to them. These include Connections, a fascinating documentary series by James Burke, which explored the development of technology and civilization throughout the ages (see video tab).

What makes this program particularly Alt-Right is the ambivalence about the benefits of technology. This is especially apparent in the first program in the series, The Trigger Effect, in which Burke looks at “technology traps” and our blind dependence on technology that few of us understand. The program focuses in particular on the massive power cut that blacked out a large part of the North East United States in 1965.

Burke also imagines how life would be if the closely interdependent technological systems on which we all depend broke down completely, presenting in effect an archeofuturist scenario.

One of the key points in the program, which was made in 1978, is encapsulated in the phrase, “Never have so many people understood so little about so much,” something which is even truer today.

Sea Changes

The fact that Derek Turner’s magisterial Sea Changes is a deeply “relevant” novel ought not to fool the potential reader into thinking that it has the typical earmarks of a “timely” read. Though its multifaceted, intricately-weaved storyline perfectly embodies the “ripped from today’s headlines” cliché, Sea Changes also has the feel of a timeless work, written less for the day and more for the ages.

Indeed, though Turner is writing about events and phenomena that many find enraging—politically-correct British ethno-masochism, mass Third World immigration and the concomitant mounting threat of white extinction in England—Sea Changes is notable for not reading as an angry or incendiary novel. Those expecting a crudely cartoonish anti-anti-racism screed a la The Turner Diaries are sure to be disappointed. Though Turner clearly means to skewer and savage the anti-“racist” (read: anti-white) cant-driven dogmas and smelly little orthodoxies that saturate our era, he does so in a most elegant and compassionate manner, with malice towards none except the unforgivably disingenuous.

The plot of Sea Changes revolves around Ibraham, an Iraqi man who attempts, for perfectly understandable and sympathetic reasons, to illegally enter Great Britain. When the plan goes spectacularly awry, resulting in a shipwreck of which Ibraham is the sole survivor, the hapless man becomes a pawn of forces he never before knew existed: namely the left-wing anti-“racism” industry of contemporary England.

The narrative branches in a four-pronged direction, which tracks the parallel stories of 1) the reluctant immigrant himself, 2) a well-meaning but naïve English villager who witnesses the wreckage and afterwards becomes known in the media for making certain unfortunately impolitic pronouncements about foreigners, 3) a staid, aging Tory columnist, and 4) a supremely odious, but undeniably spirited, left-wing muckraking journalist.

Events unfold in a manner that is both depressing in its familiarity and fascinating in its detailed chronicling of various circumstances and personality types. Sea Changes is funny and sad, profound in its insight, and subtly devastating in its scathing portrayal of our intellectually bankrupt Zeitgeist. In short, it would make a terrific Christmas present for Alt-Right readers!

I recently caught up with Derek, a frequent Alternative Right contributor and editor of the acclaimed British journal The Quarterly Review, to discuss his book:

Before we begin talking about your powerful new novel SEA CHANGES, a general question on fiction writing in general with respect to the "Alt-Rightosphere"... You and Tito Perdue have been working for a long time, and in recent years you have been joined by novelists like Alex Kurtagic, Troy Southgate, and myself -- we are all writers of a paleocon or alt-right or nationalist or anti-modernist mindset of one stripe or another, yet we're writing *fiction*, and our concerns are *aesthetic*, not just political and social. What would you say is the importance of being able to maintain a vigorous aesthetic and artistic resistance to the Zeitgeist, as opposed to a mere *polemical* resistance?

Sea Changes is my first book, so you are being much too kind in saying I’ve been working for a long time devising “a vigorous aesthetic and artistic resistance” to anything! I am a natural flâneur and dilettante, and don’t really see myself as being a committed novelist per se, nor a member of any movement. Besides, political novels have a deservedly bad name, because the author usually wants to make at least one world-historical point in every paragraph, and usually gives in to the temptation! I have my own interests and sympathies, and I think these are evident in the book – but I hope it is also calm and fair. I like to see myself as resembling Cavafy, observed by E. M. Forster “standing absolutely motionless, at a slight angle to the Universe”.

But however committed or uncommitted I may be, it’s true that fiction is often a better persuader than fact, and has a longer-lasting effect. Even the most brilliant polemical writing dates horribly quickly, becoming of interest only to specialists. For example, most Britons see 19th century England through the prism of Dickens rather than through the prisms of the Quarterly Review or Edinburgh Review – yet those journals were contemporaneously regarded as august social forces and ornaments to English letters, existing on a far higher plane than Dickens’ didactic potboilers. Now these once-great magazines moulder on the shelves of country houses with just the clock ticking for company, while Dickens is revived for every generation. Similarly, moderns who want to find out about the Muslim world are more likely to resort to Salman Rushdie than read think-tank reports. So whether you want to change the world, or just comment on a few of its odder and less satisfying aspects, fiction can be an immensely powerful ingredient of the arsenal.

What inspired or compelled you to write SEA CHANGES?

Simply, I was interested in the subject matter – modern racial neuroses – and no-one else seemed to be taking much of an interest in this curious, cloying tangle of saccharine self-delusion and sheer fear. There seemed to be a lot of unexplored conceptual hinterland – unexplored presumably because of that sheer fear! The lurking suspicion, even amongst liberals, that mass immigration has been a massive mistake also explains the great frequency and fervency with which multiculturalism is often “celebrated” – a classic example of protesting too much. It is glaringly obvious that diversity is not, and never could be, a social strength. The left prides itself on breaking taboos, and yet they are too frightened to examine this particular psychological phenomenon.

There was also a lot of scope for satire, and I secretly enjoyed picking apart all the crashing clichés and PC pretensions that some people call analysis. I was startled to realize quite how easy it is to write leftist opinion-pieces. Our society is so suffused with this stuff that it is almost like the “automatic writing” beloved of mediums in séances – and it is of roughly equal usefulness. My opinion of leftwing scribes, which was never high, has sunk even lower as a result of dipping a toe into their demi-rational demi-monde. I have a lot of sympathy for what one might call honest liberalism, but I find that is very rare; most people, of Left and Right, prefer a crude schematic where all moral good is on their side and all moral evil on the other.

From a very young age, I have felt that immigration matters greatly to society – any society. In a way I couldn’t then explain, it mattered much more than the economy, or party politics, or the Prime Minister’s hairstyle, or lots of other things people get passionate about. People were obviously different both as individuals and as groups, and they seemed to stay largely different whatever was done to make them the same. And this mania for making people the same always seems to mean equalizing downwards rather than upwards – just as in L. P. Hartley’s Facial Justice, when all those who can’t be beautiful themselves want the next best thing, which is to make the beautiful more like them.

I have never understood why this difference is seen as a problem. Surely it is a wonderful evolutionary gift, lending colour and texture to the world. As far as I’m concerned, the more peoples, cultures, languages, countries, principalities, dukedoms, margavates, provinces and fiefdoms there are in the world the better. I dislike anything – whether mass immigration, big business, the EU, or neoconservative foreign policy – which seeks to make everything bland and boring.

I used to get very frustrated wondering why others couldn’t see this, and being called racist and fascist and so forth. I expect I was bad at explaining myself, and I was probably also a bore. Even now, it seems oddly difficult getting people to accept that the English people made England, and if they were replaced by non-English people it would not be England, but just a place. Most people often don’t wish to think about this, especially politicians who are here today and gone tomorrow and whose prime motivation appears to make their careers as pleasant as possible. Non-discrimination is a cult for an age that foolishly believes because it has dumped God it is governed by Reason. Yet in their way liberals are as superstitious as Salafists. Their frantic attempts to bring about human equality – despite the fact that there has never been an egalitarian society at any time in history, or in any culture – are as bootless as the Buddhists’ search for bliss, and infinitely more harmful.

You have had, to date, a highly successful career in journalism. SEA CHANGES, however, doesn't read like a book penned by a journalist. In fact, for all of its topicality, it has a literary quality about it that seems timeless. I daresay that even readers who don't share your perspectives on issues can still enjoy and appreciate SEA CHANGES for the beauty of the language, the sweep of the story, and the full development of the fascinating characters depicted. Who would you say are your literary influences?

I have certainly been published in lots of journals, but it hasn’t translated into influence or even a decent income! But thank you for what you say about the book. It is a big theme, which demands a degree of expansiveness.

As for my influences, it is difficult to answer, because I have always read voraciously, everything from comics to classics, Hergé to Homer. I like all kinds of genres, although clearly some books are more influential or loveable. I also write in several different styles, and working out which bits of which sentences in which articles might derive from which author would be impossible.

I go through phases of particular authors. When I come across a new writer who interests me, or about whom I feel I should know, I will often read several of their books one after the other, alongside related biographies and histories. Then I may go onto comparable contemporaries. For instance, I remember when I discovered the 18th century English novel I read, first of all, Johnson’s Rasselas (I had been going through a Johnsonian phase, from which I have never fully emerged) then in rapid succession all of Fielding, Smollett, Richardson and Sterne – plus essays about 18th century letters by critics like Augustine Birrell and William Hazlitt. When eventually I come up for air after such deep-sea dives, I am left with only an aggregated and slightly jumbled memory of plots, characters and other such details, but a strong and lasting impression of an author’s style, language, personality and preoccupations. I probably also copy some of their stylistic tricks for a time, without even realizing it. I am an impressionist rather than a precisionist.

It is much quicker to say what kinds of books I tend to dislike – abstract philosophy, celebrity memoirs, esotericism, health tips, mysticism, pop psychology, pornography, schmaltz, self-help (which is secretly self-pity), sports, theology, tub-thumping. I don’t enjoy the stripped-down Hemingway style much either; it’s too self-consciously macho, as you might expect from a man who suffered from impotence.

But even in that short list there are exceptions – I love for instance the gentle Anglican mysticism of Sir Thomas Browne, whose sonorous meditations vibrate through the troubled England of his time, a variant of religion as soothing and beneficial as perusing a few pages of The Compleat Angler. Certain subjects also turn me off – for example, I would probably never read even a very well-written book about football, or the “Arab Spring”.

You probably want me to offer a specific list of authors from whom I may have taken something. I am reluctant to do this, because such lists are often just snapshots, revealing the mood of a day rather than a lifetime of omnivorous and sometimes undiscriminating bibliophilia – but if you insist…

Please take all or most of “the classics” as read, but I would add in roughly chronological order Langland, Chaucer, Spenser, Marlowe, Browne (mentioned above), Walton (whose Compleat Angler I alluded to above), and Robert Burton, whose Anatomy of Melancholy is so determinedly plangent that it becomes deeply pleasurable. Moving on a hundred years or so, via Pope, Defoe and Addison/Steele, I could never tire of the company of Boswell’s Johnson, or Oliver Goldsmith, or even Gibbon. Jumping forward another century, I like stately historians like Motley and Prescott, the cynical sprightliness of Thackeray, the ponderous provincialism of Trollope, Dickens at times (Pickwick will always remain my favourite Dickens, because it is the least “Dickensian”). Into the last century, there is of course Proust and “the English Proust”, Anthony Powell – Conrad, Hardy, Golding, Faulkner, Leigh Fermor, Chatwin, Wolfe, Sebald…where to stop? Even now, having come up with such a list I regret countless wonderful writers unaccountably omitted. And I have not even started on the numerous non-English authors who have moved me.

Your writing is lovely, but SEA CHANGES is a kind of "downer," as well as a frustrating read, in the sense that the bad guys win and the good guys lose, and there seems to be little hope of the bitter tide ever being reversed. Are you as pessimistic about the future for your country as this book would seem to suggest?

I don’t think the ending is as gloomy as you suggest. It is much less gloomy than Camp of the Saints, for example, in which all of Europe is wiped off the cultural map by people pressure. And it is no gloomier than, say, Bonfire of the Vanities. I would say in many ways Sea Changes is inconclusive – but that is because life is usually inconclusive. It is very rare for there to be total cataclysms or completely clean breaks. Indeterminacy suits the book’s oceanic ambience. The beach is a metaphor for all borders – real but permeable, a dynamic place different with each tide, but which remains somehow the same, while immigration is an agglomeration of drifters, what Jonathan Raban has called “that archetypal modern figure – the man caught between frontiers”.

I did not want to Disneyfy (is that a word?) the book by tacking on a sugary ending, with white-hatted cavalry riding improbably to the rescue just when all seems lost. The book is about subtle changes – gradual erosion, accumulating alienation, growing grief, a death of a thousand cuts, population replacement one person at a time, one family at a time, one house at a time, one street at a time, one district at a time. Mass immigration is not an invasion – it’s more of an infiltration.

But the overall theme of English extrusion is desperately sad, and I wanted the sadness and waste of it all to register with readers who may not necessarily have thought about such things before. The downfall of a proud people, the end of an old line, seeing an old house’s furniture being sold off in front of the shuttered building, should always be cause for chivalric pity, even when they are not one’s own people (and I am not English). England is one of the most ancient nations on the face of the earth – Bede used the term English as long ago as the 8th century, and many people in England have ancestral roots in the country going back even further. Every inch of England is littered with English remains, and laden with English significance. To see such a people, such a country, so abased is a truly pitiable spectacle – as pitiable as the extirpation, penning and gelding of the Red Indians, or the ethnic cleansing of today’s Tibetans by the Chinese.

One of the major characters in your novel is John Leyden, a left-wing columnist and investigative journalist who is certainly one of the more obnoxious and loathsome characters ever written... I'm curious to know if this guy is based on anyone in particular who you may have met during your career... You're far too classy a person to “dish” or “name names,” I expect, but could you maybe just give us a *hint* concerning his true identity? Or is he a composite of despicable, self-righteous and morally bankrupt men you have known?

John Leyden was named in “honour” of John of Leiden, an especially obnoxious Dutch Anabaptist of the 16th century, whose inflammatory rhetoric, egalitarian politics and claim to a monopoly on moral virtue led to the deaths of many thousands of men and women in religious violence. My John Leyden is not quite in this noxious league, but I wanted to highlight the recklessness and unreason of some highly influential people, who do not stop to think what the consequences of their columnar incontinence may be on the streets of, say, Deptford or Brick Lane in London, areas where I used to live – which at the best of times are drenched in distrust. He is not modeled on anyone in particular, and I have exaggerated his ghastliness – although not by very much. I had imagined that as well as being repellent he was in some ways a pathetic, faintly ridiculous figure – an empty vessel, someone who believes he is a dangerous rebel when he is really a conformist who deals in clichés, who has never quite grown up, and in his thirties is still metaphorically begging the adult world to “look at me, look at me!”

A lot of "nativist" lingo or rhetoric lends itself to the perception that critics of mass Third World immigration hate and loathe the racial "outsider." But critics can't credibly make this claim about SEA CHANGES, since this book's most poignant and sympathetic character is Ibraham Nassouf, an Iraqi man who escapes the (largely West-created) chaos, illegally enters the United Kingdom and becomes a cause celèbre of white multiculturalist leftists, a sort of pawn in their endgame to further their own feelings of righteous superiority to their more "benighted" countrymen. What led you to create this character, and what function do you see him serving in your story?

I detest any kind of politics which dehumanizes people, or foments hatred. Immigrants are human beings, and in many cases they are only doing what we would do if we had been unlucky enough to have been born poor in Iraq during the Saddam period. One reviewer of Sea Changes averred that Third World immigrants were motivated by “envy and greed”. To me, this seems harsh – while some immigrants may be resentful and avaricious, most simply want a better hand than the one they have been dealt by the Fates. Who can blame them? What young man of spirit born into a cramped life would not seek new horizons? It is their moral right to seek them.

However, it is also the moral right of the recipient nations to decline to admit immigrants if they wish to do so, for any reason. European countries are not infinitely absorbent, and even if they were it would still be wholly legitimate for indigenous Europeans to demur at social revolution. But they should never do this on the basis of sour hatred. When it comes to immigration, people usually take sides for perfectly understandable reasons, whether their own ethnic interests or on some point of principle. The problem is not people, but rather a perverse ideology. As Meredith wrote in “Love’s Grave”:

“No villain need be! Passions spin the plot

We are betray’d by what is false within.”

If there are enemies as such, they are not immigrants, but a tiny number of indigenous operatives who use immigrants as ideological human shields. Some who might come close to “enemy of England” status might be those Labour advisers in the Blair era who apparently wanted to ramp up population replacement in order to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” (and – purely coincidentally, of course! – reinforce Labour’s electoral coalition).

Immigration skeptics must make a positive case, using positive symbolism – global diversity, international co-operation rather than conglomeration, national and regional distinctiveness, local freedoms, local biodiversity, cultural cohesion, social trust, the common good.

What effect do you hope SEA CHANGES will have upon those who read it?

I hope it may make a few presently uncommitted people think about the truly revolutionary implications of the present process of population replacement going on in European (and European-descended) countries. I hope it may remind them that behind every politically correct platitude or abstract UN aspiration there are real people leading real lives in real places, and these people have at least as many natural rights as immigrants. Finally, I hope it may give them an insight into some of society’s most intractable problems – the gradual retreat into inner exile, the withdrawal of everyone from everyone else, the angst and alienation that pierce through public life like stigmata.

CGI Nordicism

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

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

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Who Will Control The Guns?

When people talk about guns in the aftermath of a public shooting tragedy, they argue about what “we” should do about guns in America.

“We should limit the capacity of magazines. No one needs the ability to fire off hundreds of rounds.”

“We should ban assault rifles. No one needs that kind of gun. It was designed for the military.”

“We should stop people from buying body armor. No one needs that kind of protection.”

“We should prevent the ‘mentally unstable’ from getting access to guns.”

If you’re saying stuff like that, you must have a gnome in your pocket.

Who is this “we?” You and your tiny vote? Is it you and your elected representatives in Congress—those morally upright do-gooders who have an approval rating hovering around 20%? Is it you and them? Your niggaz?

When you say “we” should control guns, what you’re effectively saying is that “they” should control guns. After all, unless you’re a legislator or a law enforcement officer, you won’t be writing the laws or enforcing the laws or controlling the guns. Someone else will be doing that. And he or she will have a gun, or be standing in front of someone who does.

Who will decide who is mentally unstable? Not you.

Who will decide how many bullets you need or how much protection you need? Not you.

They will take care of that for you. You will be powerless to stop them. You will be powerless to do anything but scream and shout and “protest.” And be careful, because if you scream and shout too much, they might declare you mentally unstable. Who would stop them? Who could? Not you.

Recently, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore gave an emotional speech on television about the need for more gun control laws. Moore specializes in films about big business and state corruption. If Americans agreed tomorrow to peacefully turn their guns over to the state, would this corruption end? Would the global corporations, foreign interests, and extremely wealthy men stop influencing public policy?

Of course not.

Moore was also a vocal supporter of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, which criticized the “one percent” of Americans who control almost half of the nation’s wealth.  The “one percent” are no doubt responsible for a great deal of injustice and obviously, they play a major role in state corruption.  If the “one percent” controls the state, they also control the majority of its guns by proxy. After all, doesn’t America—if Moore and others are to be believed—go to war primarily to protect the financial interests of the “one percent?”

People say they want “equality.”  Well, guns are great equalizers.

It’s not important for citizens to own guns so they can go hunting or sport shooting. Self-defense is a good reason to own a gun, but it’s not the most important reason. The most important reason for citizens to own guns is as a deterrent against state corruption and tyranny. The state doesn’t fight with swords or magic wands. It fights with guns. Americans need assault rifles precisely because they were designed for the military. Americans need guns because without them, Americans can never do what the nation’s founding fathers did. Without guns, Americans will never again be able to say ENOUGH in a way that matters. Sure, they’ll be able to scream and shout and protest. But, what happens to protesters when they are confronted with superior firepower? Eventually, they go home or they go to jail. What else can they do? They accomplish nothing, because they have no power that matters. The “one percent” stays in charge. Guns even the odds in favor of the “ninety-nine percent.”

Mao Zedong famously wrote that, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” He was right. Violence is golden. Giving the state complete control of that power means giving one hundred percent of the power to the “one percent” who controls the corrupt state.

Men without guns are at the mercy of men who have guns. If the state controls all of the guns, the people are at the mercy of the state. All they can do is plead. Men who are not allowed access to the means to challenge tyranny are no longer free men. They are subjects, possibly even slaves. A country where the people have no power that matters can no longer call itself a free country.  A state where the people must rely on the benevolence of small, all-powerful ruling class that maintains a complete monopoly on violence is a police state.

The police state controls the guns, and they use the guns to control you.

Gun control advocates are, in effect, advocating a police state.

I think we should start calling them out on it. I think we should start referring to them as “Police State Advocates,” because a police state is essentially what they are asking for.

Americans today are distracted by superficial ideas about what freedom means. To many, “freedom” means legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage. None of those “freedoms” threaten the police state.

By all means—our handlers must snicker—get stoned and marry your gay boyfriend if that makes you feel “free.” Just don’t stand up to our ever-expanding and intrusive authority, or threaten our financial interests. Give us your guns, and never say ENOUGH in any way that matters.

It’s for the best, you see. We don’t want you to hurt yourselves, or each other.

Of Guns and Monkeys

A bit like in the 1850s, modern American culture has been overtaken by the tendency to polarize, although it seems that it is mainly the Whites doing the polarizing. This of course helps the present two-party power establishment who use cultural polarization to lock in their hold on the political convergence that has been going on at least since the 1950s.

Incidents like the latest school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut are perfect fodder for this cultural polarization, as White Americans once again get all excited about an item of news-candy and fall predictably into two knee-jerking camps, like ionized particles: gun control liberals versus more-God-in-the-classroom conservatives, etc., etc.

Anyway it’s not as if either of these 'solutions' could even be imposed or would work if they were imposed. The sad fact is that the USA is stuck with a slow drip-drip-drip of incidents like this for the foreseeable future.

Events like this, however, can serve some good because they offer scope to challenge the cultural polarization of America and even its political convergence. As with most things in America, behind the issue lies the real issue. Rather than arguing the details of the case, like what computer games the shooter played, or the “surface issues” of gun control vs. the right to bear arms/ kill burglars/ hunt/ feel like a man, etc., the goal should be to get to the fundamental issue underlying it all, the reason why American society is the way it is – and can be no other – and to breach the constant curtain of denial that is draped over this. No points for guessing what is being denied.

Typically when American Liberals argue for something, whether it’s gun control, new styles of education, green policies, better public transport, or welfare, they cite “happy foreign countries,” usually Scandinavian ones, which are still overwhelmingly White (at least in their imagination).

The Liberal utopia is strangely blond and Teutonic. Sometimes Japan and Singapore, which are overwhelming Oriental, get a mention, but, strangely (or not really), they never, never, under any circumstances, cite Black countries. Can't think why.

When you run into your local liberal, banging on about whatever he likes to bang on about – right now it’ll be gun control and related issues (thanks rolling news!) – the thing to do is not to disagree with him. Disagreeing with him will only enhance his Manichean sense of divine righteousness and help the disease of liberalism to make further inroads into his already weakened brain. No, instead agree with him!

When you start agreeing with people, a funny thing happens. Psychologically they also start feeling that they should agree with you about something. This is probably a trait from our monkey ancestors – you know, along the lines of you scratch my back (and pick the parasites out of my fur) and I’ll scratch your back (and pick the parasites out of your fur).

Yes, by all means agree with him. Talk glowingly of a world where little fuckheads like the latest shooter would be forced to carry out a school massacre with a “child safety hammer” (just make up names as you need them). Then once you’ve established your bona fides and made him psychologically indebted to patting your fur in return, talk about the practical difficulties of achieving his little slice of the Liberal utopia – the fact that there is so much crime, fear, and racial division in American society.

Another quirk of the Liberal mind is that when a solution doesn’t work the only thing to do is enlarge the solution. In present day America this means that when local, unenforced no-shooting zones don’t work, the thing to do is to keep stepping things up until they do. What you want to do here is hijack the liberal’s tendency to step things up but with your own ideas.

At this point, while he’s still looking for a chance to pat your fur, tell him that the key to successful gun control is for America to be more like Sweden (the mythical one in which Malmo is not an Islamic slum), and to end racial divisions, and that the best way to do this – at this point use the word “ironically” – is to divide the races “with borders or something.”

Immediately at this point pretend to be fatigued with the horror of the shooting and the news media’s unhealthy obsession with it, and start talking about something else, maybe the price of bananas. You have now successfully 'seeded' your liberal. Allow to simmer for several weeks, then repeat the process with other hot button issues - the environment, education, welfare, etc. - as the media dictates.

Our More Perfect Union

Every third week of November, Americans gather to celebrate the annual feast of Black Friday, a high holy day dedicated to the acquisition of various products cranked out by Chinese slave labor. On the eve of this festival, a time once known as "Thanksgiving", citizens will habitually watch football on television and engorge themselves unto nausea. Then, with nightfall and the ritual about to commence, it is time to hurry off to shopping malls and big-box department stores, veritable temples of consumption that can be found in practically every corner of the country. Here at the temple doors they form lines, crowd and wait impatiently until that moment of climax. Unfortunate employees draw back the gates to be immediately slammed by the ecstatically furious oncoming mob. Through the store the shoppers swarm like locusts, grasping at anything marked a "bargain", clawing at each other in desperation over the latest piece of electronics that supposedly renders meaning to existence. The news media is dutifully on hand to broadcast any deaths or incidences of violence, sacrifices in their own way, as well as imprint the frenzy into the public psyche.

Viewing footage of the Black Friday rite, we must conclude that it is one phenomenon among many uniting Americans of the most diverse ancestry into a common cause- the cult of Mammon. Look into the consumer throngs: here can be seen the uprooted children of Africa, Meso-Americans, Asians and the sad descendants of the Indo-Europeans. As editorial writers have informed us upon President Obama's re-election, the United States has entered "a new normal" of cultural and demographic transformation. The old holiday of Thanksgiving simply did not extract the necessary profits desired by the corporate-financial priesthood, and so it was re-formulated to fulfill their wishes. In the same way the U.S. population has been subjected to several decades of Cabalistic processing through every available means: psychological warfare waged by the media-entertainment complex, indoctrination in academia and so many of the churches, and waves of immigration from alien lands. Black Friday marks the perfection of mass man, the "individual" consumer wholly divorced from generations of his faith, ethnic heritage and family, a slave to debt, technology and base impulses.

"Where did America go wrong?" many will ask, searching out some terrible error from the recent past in the hope of applying a remedy. An observer might feel as if he has been sucked into an absurd alternate reality similar to the narratives of popular science fiction. In the second installment of the Back to the Future films, hero Marty McFly finds his hometown, the quaint Hill Valley, in a state of anarcho-tyranny under the control of idiot-villain Biff Tannen. Marty's antagonist managed to make himself a wealthy national icon through time travel and ruled his empire from the casino Biff's Pleasure Paradise. Today we recognize the Pleasure Paradise as our own society, as large swathes of the country resemble a crime-ridden theme park of strip malls featuring taxpayer-funded Goodwill centers, massage parlors, liquor stores and check-cashing outlets. Yet there is no readily convenient culprit to accuse, no Biff to confound in order to make things right again. The elites of Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood are villainous to the core, but their ascent was guaranteed by the very tenets of American civic religion.

Degeneration is America's destiny; no other outcome is possible when a polity embraces the toxic, nation-destroying ideals of liberty and equality. For this reason we must look past the accelerated implosion of the past decade, the entirety of the 1960s or the Federal Reserve Bank's incorporation in 1913. The United States was created as a rationalist republic and beacon for the progress of humanity, and its driving ethos has always been secular-pluralist.

The time has come to discard any lingering delusions relative to America's religious mission. All the florid entreaties to some generic Providence by the Deist-Masonic Founders were but rhetorical cover for man's grand experiment in self-transfiguration and the re-ordering of the world according to his supreme will. This is revolution par excellence, the usurpation of divine sovereignty in the name of "We the People", an amorphous and alienated mass useful in legitimizing oligarchic power. No less than the Declaration of Independence, that treasured document so matter-of-factly pronouncing all men created equal, was authored by an immeasurably proud intellect who wrote Christ's divinity out of the Gospels. Why, then, should there be any surprise that America's Gospel is the Book of Mammon? Our land is ordained "the last, best hope on earth", so that every nation may enjoy democracy, usury, pornography and abortion.

Behold our more perfect union! We witness humanism's final revelation: an engineered and entertained sub-humanity is to be governed by inhuman predators who fancy themselves gods. And throughout this chaos, many well-intentioned Americans continue to call for a restoration of the Constitution, the ultimate Enlightenment project, a bloodless abstraction held sacred and infallible. Never do they see how the operation of this artificial regime, administering "rights" and "liberties" held by autonomous self-creating wills, has led directly to the Babylonian nightmare we inhabit at present. This, too, shall perish from the earth: after the orgy there is no freedom, just entropy and death. A people committed to survival, especially survival in eternity, will hold liberal conceits like the social contract in contempt.

Even Locke's disciples, the revered Founders of the United States, would be shocked and horrified by today's America, yet it was they who laid its ideological cornerstone. Brilliant statesmen the calibre of John Adams knew well of the inevitable slide toward decadence and despotism in democracy, but they considered their republic of reason to be a sublime enterprise. The common-law traditions of the Anglo-Saxons were pressed into the service of an arrogant, disembodied rationalism that subverted what the human heart always held dear: loyalty to God, an organic notion of authority and solidarity with one's kin. Because of this the Constitution in its essence was a suicide pact. European man turned away from Christ the Savior and rejected his blessed patrimony to worship at the altar of reason, that prostitute to infernal passions. The 20th-century Serbian scholar and monk St. Justin Popovic apprehended what fate awaited a West glorying in its own apostasy:

In the world of man there is no even approximately equivalent value that could in any way replace the God-Man Christ. In all spheres of human life He is absolutely irreplaceable. All genuine values derive from Him and find completion in him. If human reason wishes to resolve any problem without Him or aside from Him, it will inevitably collapse into abysses of nihilism or the chaos of anarchism. And because in Western Europe the God-Man is supplanted by man, namely because of this European humanity dwells in chaos. Revolutions, anarchy, tyranny, massacres, cannibalism and murders serve as the only way out. That which is not built upon the God-Man is in itself destroyed. Full of the superman's proud spirit of megalomania, mined with a virulent element of self-proclaimed 'infallibility', the body of Europe must explode and disintegrate into dust and ash.

Daily the Black Mass of the triumphant moderns is celebrated in rebellion against God, and the world cannot but wish its own destruction. The murderous vanity of the Novus Ordo Seclorum will not go unpunished. And what shall become of the ruined West? According to the desires of the materialists, it would be cast into darkness and utterly forgotten. Yet hope still resides in the few men who conquer through prayer and repentance, combatants who will be sanctified in struggle. Salvation is attained not in any temporal kingdoms, but only in our Heavenly Fatherland.

In Defense of Laziness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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