Now that Ferguson has been destroyed, the Great and the Good have moved on to their next target—college students. Not college students who beat women; that is forgivable as long as they are black and can throw a ball. The real enemies are White fraternity members who can remember what sex they are and occasionally send emails attached with mean words.
The mainstream media’s latest campaign against Greek organizations has already spread beyond the University of Oklahoma. SAE is being targeted nationally because of its “Confederate” heritage, a Confederate flag in a private bedroom is cause for furrowed brows and frantic media coverage, and Gawker is doing its best to launch a SJW jihad at UMD as part of their larger campaign to “ban frats.” Needless to say, none of these incidents qualify as real “news” and the excessive media coverage is offensive, not to say obscene, when it is contrasted with the usual pattern of violent minority crime, racially motivated attacks against Whites, and ongoing campaigns of ethnic cleansing like those directed against White farmers in South Africa.
But clarity is achieved if we pretend we are foreigners viewing this hate campaign from the outside. If some Asian or African nation’s press was frantically campaigning against a certain group, calling their control of property and capital “unfair,” and ignoring violence in favor of promoting petty incidents and slights, we might conclude the ground was being prepared for more overt repression including the seizure of property or expulsion from state positions. And if we look past the demands to “ban fraternities” and the caterwauling about “racism,” we can see that the real agenda in these cases is about concrete demands for money, power, and resources.
This battle operates at two levels. The first is at the university itself. At the University of Oklahoma, the group that initially created the controversy was the ironically named black students’ organization “Unheard.” That group is now essentially dictating terms to University of Oklahoma President David Boren and receiving set-asides, including new “diversity” positions, more money for multicultural programs, and, we can assume, increased attention to admitting more minority students.
Each one of these policies acts as a kind of force multiplier for left-wing student activism. Perhaps the greatest weakness of politically right-of-center or White Identitarian youth in the United States is the critical lack of mentor figures permanently entrenched on any given campus. A left-leaning student or racially conscious non-white will set foot on a campus and find a whole network of tenured radicals, lavishly funded resource centers, set-aside housing, and even entirely artificial academic departments (Multicultural studies, Queer Studies, etc) designed to indoctrinate, radicalize, support, and defend any given extremist campaign.
The establishment of such academically questionable but politically valuable programs was the explicit goal of many student protests during the 1960’s and their existence at universities all over the country provides a cushy retirement home for leftists. Just ask Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
The existence of this vast support apparatus sustains both the grassroots student activists and the intellectual elite. Your typical black or Chicano activist is going to graduate, get a job, and operate in the same bourgeois society as everyone else, but he or she will not lose the Identity imposed in the formative years and will dedicate time, political support, and resources to leftist or anti-White causes for the rest of his or her life. More importantly, a smaller number of those graduates will become full time political activists, academics, or political functionaries skilled in the manipulation of language and media to secure further resources.
In the end, it leads to a society where ordinary White Americans find themselves aggressively challenged and dispossessed by angry minorities screaming about once esoteric and fringe concepts like “White privilege” or “institutional racism.” Ideas have consequences, as they say, but they have far greater consequences when there are entire academic departments, academic journals, and conferences at reputable universities discussing them.
What resistance exists? On campus, you might be able to find a professor or two who is willing to sponsor a College Republican club, but that’s about it. Such professors that do flirt with genuinely subversive ideas, even for completely apolitical reasons, are targeted by left-wing students and administrators. (Just ask Dr. Kevin MacDonald). Insofar as there is a “conservative” youth movement on campus, it is largely directed by Beltway Right groups that funnel students down ideological dead ends. The result is that the leftward drift of the universities is largely unopposed, and the most educated members of our society also tend to be those most exposed to overtly anti-Western, anti-White, and far-Left ideologies.
But this battle operates at a second level that extends outside the universities. The battle over fraternities is also about jobs after college and the theory that underlies “white privilege.”
It’s a strange theory of privilege where the supposed elite can have their lives and careers utterly destroyed because of a few seconds of video or a leaked email. Meanwhile, the “oppressed” enjoy the right to collectively organize on racial grounds, receive heavy state subsidies, and are indulged with lowered standards. But what the theory of “white privilege” relies on is the idea that there are closed networks that allow white men to exploit family ties and past success in order to obtain jobs and resources. Fraternities are seen as the most visible example of this.
Thus, the current campaign against fraternities is justified on the grounds of fighting “institutional racism.” As adult diaper avatar PZ Myers put it, fraternities are “a tool for young men of means to associate with other men of means and perpetuate the old boys’ network in ways that will allow them to propagate the same biases and wealth for another generation.” Aggressively integrating and/or destroying fraternities and other traditionally White institutions is a way to open up these networks and remove the competitive advantage Whites enjoy. (And let’s face it, to racially integrate is to destroy.)
Nor is this kind of effort simply limited to white collar jobs. Even blue collar White workers are actually recipients of “privilege.” And the solution of course is state intervention. As “Director of the Center for the Study of Inequality” and Professor Dierdre Royster put it in her 2003 book Race and the Invisible Hand, “Without governmental initiatives that provide incentives for inclusion, white tradesmen will have no reason to open their networks to men of color.” (192)
Taken to its logical conclusion, this justifies an essentially unlimited conception of government. If informal social networks to obtain even modest jobs and resources constitute “privilege,” it allows the government to set racial quotas, intermediary institutions, and official supervisors for every job in the entire country.
As we see with the case of SAE, even informal comments are taken as sweeping declarations of exclusion and privilege that legitimize collective punishment of implicitly White organizations and everyone who belongs to them. And such a theory of “institutional racism” is essentially unfalsifiable. Once you accept the premise of racial equality, the only possible explanation you can have of unequal representation in certain jobs is the presence of institutional discrimination.
There’s also a great deal of hypocrisy involved in such theorizing. Immigrant communities in the United States take over entire industries because of their aggressive use of ethnic nepotism, often subsidized by government programs that reward such behavior. Non-white businessmen enjoy preferences in obtaining government contracts and other state subsidized benefits, which gives them a huge competitive advantage as the government swallows an ever increasing share of the American economy. And the elephant in the room is the “informal networking” of Jewish-Americans as enabled by their ethnic religion, which despite their higher rates of education, income, and political representation are rarely portrayed as recipients of “privilege.”
Yet there’s something else enabled by all this—the emergence of a frankly Parasitic Class that distributes resources and jobs to ethnic minorities while serving as a drain on the overall economy. The best representatives of this class are figures like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both of whom enjoy huge economic support from major American corporations, seem exempt from tax laws and immune from charges of corruption, and receive respectful and fawning treatment from the media despite long careers inciting racial hatred and division.
It’s important to accurately definite the Parasitic Class. We can call a Hollywood celebrity “worthless” or sneer at a certain lawyer, but these aren’t “parasites.” They provide services or perform tasks that we may not like but for which there is a legitimate economic demand.
A true member of the Parasitic Class is different. The activists and advocates being churned out by all those Studies departments and “nonprofit” organizations don’t produce anything. They don’t meet any demand or provide any necessary or desirable service. They exist as a permanent drain on productive members of society, making all of our lives worse by the sheer fact of their existence.
Indeed, the main purpose of American life is to make enough money to shield yourself against the consequences of their efforts. And once you reach a certain level of success, you have to pay them off, either by creating a phony “diversity” position in your company, throwing some money at a Sharpton or Jackson so they don’t protest you, or by appointing unqualified minorities to meet an arbitrary quota and trusting that your real workers can make up the slack.
The worst part is that the Parasitic Class contains within it a kind of self-reinforcing growth mechanism. The more money you throw at this Class to make them go away in the short-term, the more resources you provide them in the long-term to churn out activists who have no skills beyond screaming about new forms of oppression.
Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer estimated that the cost of compliance with affirmative action policies was close to 4 percent of GNP in 1993. For comparison’s sake, it’s estimated that the Italian ‘Ndrangheta accounts for three percent of Italy’s GDP, an astounding figure given that this particularly active criminal syndicate is mostly active in Calabria. This dead weight of corruption is enough to significantly restrict the economic prospects of many young Italians, especially when combined with the efforts of the Sicilian Mafia and the Neapolitan Camorra. It’s no wonder that Southern Italy is seen as a black hole of economic productivity and prosperous Northern Italy wants out.
But the economic burden of diversity in the United States is worse. A National Policy Institute study of the costs of diversity during the Bush Administration found that tens of billions of dollars are essentially wasted every year, a figure which we can guess has significantly expanded during the Obama years. We also have to factor in the lost productivity due to affirmative action employees, the wasted capital spent paying off professional protesters, the negative effects of economic programs such as the ill-conceived effort to increase minority home ownership, or the ruinous consequences of Section 8 housing, assistance programs for illegal immigrants, or other forms of subsidized degeneracy. We are well beyond 4 percent of GNP being simply thrown away.
What comes next? After implicitly white institutions are destroyed, the next step will be going after accumulated wealth. One of the more worrying campaigns is the media’s current focus on the “wealth gap” between White and non-white households. This includes a sizable difference in the amount of money that Whites and blacks save for retirement. While the outright seizure of 401k’s seems unlikely, the campaign will most likely lead to cries for a “wealth tax” to limit economic racial inequality. After that, reparations is the inevitable next step.
This process has no end. And as the real economy is squeezed, an ever greater number of people will realize the real money lies in trying to become a member of the Parasitic Class than having to produce anything. After all, complaining about “discrimination” in video games is easier than, you know, having to learn programming. Being a “black poet” is more profitable than having to be, you know, an actual poet. And why bother to contribute something to the world if you can take some half-baked theory and get someone to pay you simply to exist?
The decline of the white race has religious, metapolitical, political, spiritual, economic, sociological, and even biological causes beyond counting. But one of the easiest ways to clarify what is happening is that we are paying for our own dispossession. The institutions that are supposed to preserve our civilization are subsidizing its own destruction.
It’s difficult to determine if we are getting anywhere. After all, read any “white nationalist” book from the last 30 years and you’ll see the same old theories about people finally “waking up,” the inevitability of “collapse,” or the inherently unstable nature of the System. The revolution is always just around the corner or over the next hill.
I have a simpler theory. We can say we are getting somewhere when people start trying to pay us off. The day we have one full time White Advocate in this country that our enemies are paying for is the day we are about to win. And I have faith that day will come if we can organize. After all, even one of ours is worth every Ethnic Studies department in the country.