Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

An Age Without a Woman

International Women’s Day has come and gone, as a fly landing briefly on the face of the Venus de Milo. The substantively identical Day Without a Woman and the International Women’s Strike took place in solidarity on March 8, endorsed by the usual suspects and calling for women’s abstinence from paid and unpaid labor in favor of a nebulous “day of action”.

International Women’s Day has come and gone, as a fly landing briefly on the face of the Venus de Milo. The substantively identical Day Without a Woman and the International Women’s Strike took place in solidarity on March 8, endorsed by the usual suspects and calling for women’s abstinence from paid and unpaid labor in favor of a nebulous “day of action”. No normal responsibility was safe from this collective tantrum:

Originally, the organizers urged women to shun all kinds of labor — paid and unpaid. They also encouraged women to forgo “reproductive labor” — everything from sex to child care — and “emotional labor,” which could be construed as the application of Band-Aids and kisses.

But it’s unrealistic to think that women who have young children will go on strike, noted Lauren Duncan, the Smith College professor who teaches the psychology of political activism.

“There’s no way women would let their children fend for themselves to make a point,” she said. “That’s just not going to happen.”

Still, the call to action may open some women’s eyes to how much they are doing, both at work and at home, said Duncan.

“This is a thing that all women struggle with,” Duncan said. “Women are socialized as little girls to take care of other people, starting with dolls and little siblings. . . . All of that is reinforced in school.

“Something like this,’’ she said, “can make you just more aware of, ‘Wait, you don’t have to do everything.’ ”

In the profoundly disfigured world of the feminist, where marketplace productivity is the pivotal aspiration of life, even tending her child’s boo-boo is a commercial activity—a contemptible one.

Much more than a Day Without a Woman, we are living in the Age Without a Woman. It is not one self-righteous personal day that will lodge on the register of history, but the tremendous social pathology pursuant of the abdication of hearth and home by women en masse in the 20th and 21st centuries. The woman whose absence is most significant is the “angel in the house” so jealously vituperated by feminists, not the woman working in social media marketing or the dystopian “helping professions.”

The sensibility of the woman to serve as a conduit to the sublime for her intimate circles has been replaced by the clownish pathos of ersatz masculinity. Where once she concerned herself with her family’s daily experience of beauty and cultivation of virtue and craft, she now presides dormant over a glowing laptop screen. Her generativity has been replaced with productivity, her legacy lining the shelves at Walmart. Instead of the magical babble of an infant, she has the mechanical growl of the office Keurig machine. The useful idiots of the women’s “movement” behold the spiritual ugliness of their world and are hoodwinked into a scheme that perpetuates it. Wearing red to symbolize “revolutionary love and sacrifice” does not a sacrifice or a revolutionary make. The future is for the women who understand women’s future formation lies in their children, not the wasted fossil fuels and discarded placards of “women’s activism.”

No Comments on An Age Without a Woman

De-Ciphered Space

The lie that the liberal state sells you is that you are free. The lie that it sells itself is that it is in control.

The much vaunted “deep state”, a constellation of intelligence, media, and administrative apparatuses has waged a virtual(literally) war on the administration of Donald Trump since before he even took office. His election, as has been repeated, was not supposed to happen. Hillary Clinton was supposed to represent the end of history when women where to take their rightful place as the first among last men. But, history has a way of going on, despite shrill shrieks to the contrary.

The lie that the liberal state sells you is that you are free. The lie that it sells itself is that it is in control.

The much vaunted “deep state”, a constellation of intelligence, media, and administrative apparatuses has waged a virtual(literally) war on the administration of Donald Trump since before he even took office. His election, as has been repeated, was not supposed to happen. Hillary Clinton was supposed to represent the end of history when women where to take their rightful place as the first among last men. But, history has a way of going on, despite shrill shrieks to the contrary.

Just as Donald Trump was not supposed to take the White House, so too was the CIA’s vast intelligence apparatus never to be exposed. In one swift moment, Wikileaks with the release of “Vault 7” has brought the deep state’s machinations out into the open. Naturally, they are none too pleased.

In post-modernity, information and image are power. The ability to gather information and shape narratives is what passes for power today. Everything, from who we are(or who we pretend to be) is shaped by the forces of technology. Much has been made of innovation in gadgetry or commerce. But what the past few years have taught us, are the dangers and potentials of our mechanized-technological society.

Our deep state cheered on color revolutions from Ukraine to Libya. They manipulated social media and worked back channels to open new spaces to control.

Today, the shriek about the sanctity of what they are doing. About traitors and about “truth”.

No doubt the revelations are coming as a shock to millions of Americans. To find out that your television, your phones, and your apps could make you an easy target for an all-pervasive administrative state is certainly jolting. The Orwellian fears of millions weren’t just the paranoia of a lunatic fringe but a very real concern.

So what now?

There has never been a better time for the truth. A better time to discover who you are outside of the television box or social media screens. Economist Thomas Naylor referred to the world the deep state is selling us as “cipherspace”, or a simulacrum of lies:

“We live in the world of make-believe, a world controlled by ciphers such as Wall Street, Corporate America, the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon. These ciphers enjoy the enthusiastic support of the media, the academy, and the shamans to whom we entrust the care of body, mind, and soul. They reside in cipherspace, a euphemism for what French writer Albert Camus called the absurd.”

The Alt Right has grown in reaction to this world of lies.

We are more than the mere atomized pixels on a screen, and we have a history that stretches back to times immemorial. “Vault 7” is a water shed because it exposes the creeping rot at the heart of the liberal state. In its quest for an end of history, to spread “freedom” to all it has become just as corrupt and as controlling as any state in history.

Who they are is clear. Who we need to be is now the question.

Martin Heidegger in his “Question Concerning Technology” saw that the destructive tendencies of modern technology just over the horizon. However, he also said that were the danger is, so too is the saving power close.

The technological-administrative state has long perfected tools against the struggle of our people. But now, we are starting to fight back. “Meme wars” and online trolling are just low-level skirmishes in the attempt to wrest narrative control from Liberal hegemony.

Wikileaks has given the narrative a deep blow this week. Now is the time to keep the pressure up. It’s time to tune out of cipherspace and tune into the truth. We can do no other!

1 Comment on De-Ciphered Space

Got Milk?

Have you heard about the latest esoteric “racist” symbol? No, it’s not Pepe the Frog, but milk. That’s right the gallon you buy at the store every week for your…

Have you heard about the latest esoteric “racist” symbol? No, it’s not Pepe the Frog, but milk. That’s right the gallon you buy at the store every week for your morning cereal has become a code word for “white nationalism”, this threat has become so pervasive that the British tabloid Metro is here to provide an explainer:

For the last few weeks, white supremacists have been proudly declaring that they’re ‘lactose tolerant’, and are adding ‘glass of milk’ emojis into their Twitter names….

Gasp?! Lactose tolerance!

For example Richard Spencer, who is most famous for getting punched in the face, has replaced the ‘Pepe the Frog‘ emojis in his name with the glass of milk.

Who knew Richard had the power to make something racist just by associating his name with it. Next thing one knows, soon Apple products will be “racist”, oh wait.

According to Metro the trend began on 4Chan and escalated at Shia LaBeouf’s faux art exhibit:

It started when one user posted a world map (minus the US for some reason) of lactose tolerance in different countries, apparently showing that tolerance was higher in the UK and northern Europe… Sort of, although there’s another reason why the whole meme has taken off. When Nazis hijacked Shia LaBeouf’s ‘He Will Not Divide Us’ art performance (which has since been forced to close), they were seen on camera chugging milk and dancing around topless – showing off their runic and swastika tattoos.

Quelle horreur!

Now it has evolved into a general indicator that someone is a white supremacist. So there you have it.If someone you know starts adding milk emojis to their name and talking about how well they can tolerate lactose, it’s probably time to de-friend.

There you have it indeed. The left are so paranoid that a simple glass of milk triggers them. What’s next? Breathing air? After all, he-who-must-not-be-named also breathed air. It could be a gateway to “white supremacy”, to the barricades go comrades!

No Comments on Got Milk?

Richard Spencer’s Interview with Europe Maxima

This interview about Donald Trump, the question of identity, geopolitics, Islam, and other issues originally appeared in a French publication Europe Maxima. Richard was interviewed by Thierry Durolle.

This interview about Donald Trump, the question of identity, geopolitics, Islam, and other issues originally appeared in a French publication Europe Maxima. Richard was interviewed by Thierry Durolle.

Europe Maxima: First and foremost, thank you for answering my questions. To begin this interview, could you introduce yourself and the National Policy Institute to our readers?

Richard Spencer: The National Policy Institute is an independent non-profit think tank dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States and around the world. I am the President and Director of The National Policy Institute and Washington Summit Publishers. I am also the founder and Editor of Radix Journal, RadixJournal.com, and a co-founder of the recently-launched AltRight.com.

Europe Maxima: You are considered by the media as a kind of showcase or spokesman of the now-famous Alt Right. We know that the Alt Right is more of a nebula of different tendencies rather than a homogeneous movement. Where do you fit in this Alt-Right nebula?

Richard Spencer: I coined the term “alternative Right” in 2008 in order to differentiate myself from the failures of mainstream American conservatism. I saw the latter as a purely reactive form, seeking to preserve the status quo as opposed to focusing on passing down key aspects of our ancestral traditions to future generations. I have been referred to as the intellectual vanguard of this movement.

Today, Alt Right is, indeed, an umbrella term to describe those seeking the way out of Liberal Postmodernity dominating the United States and Europe through various means: culturally, socially, politically. Alt Right’s current diversity is a natural state in its early stages of development, as we consolidate our message and improve our communication with likeminded counterparts outside the U.S.

Europe Maxima: Several protagonists of the Alt Right seem to be influenced by the French Nouvelle Droite and particularly by Guillaume Faye and Alain de Benoist. As far as you are concerned, you invited the latter in 2013 to talk about the identity question. What did you learn from the French Nouvelle Droite and do you believe that its influence is that important among Alt Righters?

Richard Spencer: The so-called French New Right has left a tremendous impact on the Alt Right, as have earlier renditions of the Right in continental Europe: from Friedrich Nietzsche to the Conservative Revolutionary thinkers in the interwar period. One of the reasons for this influence is the fact that continental Europe has a rich tradition of right-wing intellectuals as compared to the United States, which has, relative to its population, few. Apart from a number of notable exceptions, today, the Right in the U.S. comprises neoconservatives, libertarians, and paleoconservatives, who either fail to address key questions of identity or do not go far enough in doing so.

Europe Maxima: Except the Nouvelle Droite and some famous thinkers like Julius Evola and Oswald Spengler, we don’t really know American thinkers who influenced the Alt Right. Could you name a few?

Richard Spencer: Some of the notable thinkers of recent times in the U.S. include Sam Francis, Patrick Buchanan, Murray Rothbard, and Paul Gottfried. In various ways, these thinkers criticized Washington’s foreign policy of chaos led by neocons and liberal interventionists, questioned the decline of the West, and examined questions of identity.

Europe Maxima: The Lügenpresse depicts you as a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist whereas you consider yourself a race-realist. Does this mean you want a « nice white country » or that you would accept living in a multicultural country as long as there is no racial and cultural mixing between its communities?

Richard Spencer: I consider myself an Identitarian. I have also repeatedly stated that to move forward, we must discard all ideologies of the past.

Proponents of Liberalism (even those who self-describe as the mainstream Left) refer to anyone who opposes them by using emotionally-charged keywords, including “Nazi.” This shows the power of such keywords to shut down rational discussion, but also the fact that globalist elites and their supporters have been in a state of hysteria about the slow paradigm shift toward identity-focused populism since Brexit and, especially, since Trump’s election and inauguration.

If you look at recent violent protests during Trump’s inauguration or those in Berkeley, you will notice that those who have been attacked—both verbally and physically—are not only people like me, with bold and radical ideas, but also mainstream conservatives wearing red Trump hats. This means that our attackers do not differentiate between us. The explicit nature of this friend/enemy distinction is good: our opponents are hostile and even violent, which should convert more open-minded people to our message.

Europe Maxima: Is race, as a concept, more than simple biological materialism to you? What would be the answer of the spiritual vacuity and nihilism the post-modern white man is afflicted by?

Richard Spencer: I do not subscribe to pure biological determinism. I believe that one’s identity is a complex interplay of nature and nurture: from one’s DNA to cultural and social interactions, and, of course, geography—the sense of rootedness in one’s native landscape.

Our European counterparts must understand the uniqueness of American development: our society is hyper-racialized because our history on this continent involved slavery, various waves of immigration, mainly from Europe and, more recently, from other parts of the world, segregation, and so forth. Whereas some older dwindling immigrant communities such as the Irish certainly exist, the majority of Americans of European descent is not only ethnically mixed but also self-identifies as simply White. This is both their reality in terms of self-perception and in terms of being the Other—when they encounter members of other groups.

In some ways, this perception is similar to Americans of African, Hispanic, and other backgrounds. Yet whereas these minority groups are encouraged to embrace their respective group identities through their own institutions and encouragement by the state, such as Affirmative Action in education, Americans of European descent do not have such mechanisms. It is true that up until recently, White Americans held social and cultural hegemony and did not need their own organizations. This, however, has changed: the combination of demographics, immigration, and Kulturkampf has left many Americans of European descent with a keen sense of dispossession.

Europe Maxima: For a couple of years in France, some people like Laurent Ozon created the concept/neologism “Remigration.” “Remigration” is the return of non-white French people to their countries of origin in a peaceful way thanks to bi-lateral state concords, for example. Do you believe something similar could be achieved someday in the U.S.A.?

Richard Spencer: The Alt Right is in the initial stages of political development. We must use our time wisely rather than biting off more than we can chew in outlining currently unfulfillable political goals. That said, I believe that we, as a group, must act solely in our own interests. By definition, this would leave out those outside it. In theory, this could be achieved by various peaceful and voluntary means. So I am not excluding concepts like re-migration from the list of possibilities.

Europe Maxima: What is your opinion on Islam?

Richard Spencer: In the best circumstances, we could both live and let live.

Framing the question of immigration—or mass migration—to Europe and the U.S. along the lines of Islam is incorrect. Islam is practiced in very different regions around the world: Indonesian Muslims are distinct from those in Lebanon and those in Nigeria. Saudi Arabia practices horrific beheading, while Tatar Muslims in Russians are largely secular adherents to generic Russian-European culture. Thus, this question should not only be framed along the lines of religion but also along the lines of ethnicity, culture, and geography.

That said, with some exceptions of historic, indigenous minority communities, large-scale Islamic migration has no place in Europe. At the same time, Washington and its European allies must stop the ongoing chaos and destruction they have caused in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia creating a seemingly never-ending flow of war refugees and economic migrants, which includes serious criminal elements and even terrorists. It surprises me that when the question of refugees is discussed, virtually no one—not even the self-described Leftist antiwar activists—mentions that the best solution, after ceasing to aid the so-called “moderate rebels” and helping in the struggle against global terrorism, is resettlement of refugees and, perhaps, aid in rebuilding in their own ancestral lands, not in Europe or the U.S.

But then one wonders if it will ever be “live and let live” with Islam, and not “live and let die.”

I’ve generally turned up my nose at the “Islam debates” of the 2000s. On one side, liberals (including George W. Bush) claimed that Islam was a “religion of peace”; on the other side, conservative supporters of Bush and the War on Terror claimed that Islam was a maniacal religion bent on installing Sharia Law in Oklahoma—which is why we should engaged in endless wars for democracy in the Middle East.

Needless to say, both sides are wrong and misguided. But as much as I hate to admit it, because I opposed the Iraq War so vehemently, the conservative side does contain a kernel of truth. Islam—at its full flourishing (for instance, Wahhabi or Salafi Islam—Islam as a political ideology)—isn’t some peaceful denomination like Methodism or religion like Buddhism; Islam is a Black Flag. It is an expansive, domineering ideology, and one that is directed against Europe. In this way, Islam give non-Europeans a fighting spirit and integrates them into something much greater than themselves. Islam is a “civilization” in Huntington’s sense, and a grave danger for European peoples.

Europe Maxima: Racial and cultural tensions are growing more and more in both of our countries along with a general despondency, mistrust towards the political and media elite and the rise of populism. According to you is it because of an economical and social crisis, a political crisis, a crisis of identity, a crisis of Meaning or even everything all together?

Richard Spencer: Current crisis in the West has multiple causes—both immediate and deep-rooted. The former is obvious: the warfare-welfare state creates crises abroad, accepting the results of those crises—migrants and refugees—at home, while benefitting globalist elites with transnational capitalist interests. This perpetual cycle occurs against the backdrop of moral and cultural degeneration: from entertainment culture to suicidal “tolerance.” Even if it were possible in certain cases, refugees cannot be assimilated because there is no viable culture to assimilate them to. The results are horrific.

Yet many critics of our predicament simply want to turn back the clock to the time of three of four decades ago, when things seemed reasonably “okay,” without asking difficult—fundamental—questions. This is wrong. After all, it was that seemingly comfortable time that set us on the trajectory that led us to where we are now.

Others trace the decline of the West to the era of the Enlightenment that spawned ideologies of Modernity; others yet—to the origins of Christianity; while thinkers like Heidegger go as far back as ancient Greece and the framing of Being.

So this time around we must ask ourselves these difficult questions starting with, “Who are we?” and “What is our place in history?”

Europe Maxima: Do you believe the concepts of Left and Right are still valid?

Richard Spencer: On the one hand, the political spectrum that everyone is used to is largely outmoded. After the collapse of Communism, Liberalism became the only remaining ideology of Modernity with global aspirations, in which both the mainstream Left and Right represent two cosmetically different versions of the same fundamental trajectory. This is why, for instance, you see many Identitarians who would self-describe as Right with a keen interest in the environment and conservation, i.e. issues traditionally associated with leftist “greens,” or they subscribe to anti-interventionist foreign policy—another putatively “left-wing” cause.

At the same time, in a somewhat abstract, semantic sense we can speak of an eternal Left and Right, where the former is about horizontal movement, destruction of existent norms, decentralization, whereas the latter is about eternity, vertical movement, centralization, consolidation, creative spirit, and monumentality. These semantic forms are cyclical.

Europe Maxima: Donald Trump finally became President of the U.S. What do you expect from him in terms of domestic and foreign policy?

Richard Spencer: My expectation of Trump remains pragmatic and therefore modest. At best, he will face inward in order to attempt to solve a multitude of domestic problems, while adhering to Realpolitik in international relations. I do not expect him to dismantle NATO—despite the fact that this alliance is a Cold War relic—contrary to the paranoid theories of his opponents. But needless to say, the alliance needs to be radically rethought.

For me, Trump is more important as a symbol of the kind of energies he has unleashed instead of his actual policies. He, for instance, recently nominated an Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Neil Gorsuch, for the Supreme Court. In practice, Gorsuch’s decisions will likely adhere to examining Constitutional law. Symbolically, however he represents the founding stock of America as a nascent state, whereas none of the recent selections have been representative thereof. Similarly, Trump’s comments, ranging from those about a reasonable relationship with Russia to explicitly questioning immigration, have provided hope for a future paradigm shift.

Europe Maxima: As the name of our website suggests, we defend the greater Europe. What is your opinion on both Europe as a civilisation and as a (pseudo) political and economic structure names the European Union?

Richard Spencer: If you look at maps of, say, the Holy Roman Empire in the past and the European Union today, there will be quite a bit of an overlap. What this demonstrates is that there is a vast spiritual, geographic, and ethno-cultural entity that we could refer to as Greater Europe. Yet the form of this entity has been filled with different content throughout history. Today, the European Union is a symbol of all that is wrong: from its massive bureaucracy to its culturally destructive policies. What this means is that the form needs to be filled with correct content in line with true European identities and traditions.

I’ve expressed skepticism of “Brexit,” as well as all forms of ethnic nationalism, that is, nationalisms that view fellow Europeans as “The Other.” Whether we like it or not, the fault lines of the 21st century—and beyond—are racial and civilizational. We must address issues and crises on this level; in this sense, we must think and act racially.  How exactly this Identitarian spirit would express itself in terms of political structures remains to be seen.

No Comments on Richard Spencer’s Interview with Europe Maxima

A Woman’s Touch

Editor’s Note: Recently the Economist had a brief article on women and the Alt Right. Our very own Cecilia Davenport was quoted, however, the results were a bit…economized. We’ve taken the liberty of reproducing Ms. Davenport’s full answers to the magazine below:

 

Editor’s Note: Recently the Economist had a brief article on women and the Alt Right. Our very own Cecilia Davenport was quoted, however, the results were a bit…economized. We’ve taken the liberty of reproducing Ms. Davenport’s full answers to the magazine below:

The Economist: I’m wondering if you might be able to tell me a bit about what attracts you to the alt-right/white nationalist movement. What about the movement’s politics speaks to you?

Cecilia Davenport: I was originally drawn to the alt-right long before the Trump phenomenon or the internet troll fever of the past two years. I think I was searching for an intellectual movement that genuinely challenged the status quo of liberal modernity, so when I encountered some of the thinkers who shaped the ideas of the alt-right early on, I was taken with this whole new world of ideas that opened up.

It appealed to me on philosophic and aesthetic grounds primarily, and still does. For example, pre-modern philosophy—Plato, Aristotle, the ancients—always struck me as being more real, more sensible, more sane than anything neoliberalism has created. But I also never deluded myself that we could return to some kind of golden age located somewhere in the past. The idea of archeofuturism—a term coined by Guillaume Faye of the French New Right—resonates with me. There are certain unchanging principles, aspects of nature, of human beings, that are eternal. But they can be recast in new circumstances, new worlds. Though man has a nature, he has an incredible ability to shape and adapt to the world around him. It is possible to move forward without losing sight of what is real.

E: I’m also interested in understanding women’s place within the movement. For instance, what is the movement’s view about women’s roles in American society? Does it encourage feminism and female leadership & empowerment? Why do you think there are so few women in today’s alt-right movement?

CD: There are a variety of views about this on the alt-right; it’s important to note that not everyone has exactly the same views on the value and role of women in society. I think most people on the alt-right, men and women, agree that the sexes are morally equal but materially very different, and further, that we aren’t just ghosts in a machine, that our bodies are coextensive or incarnate with our identities.

Men and women are made to fulfill separate yet complementary roles. Biologically speaking, just like we assert that race is real, sex is real: and is, in fact, the most fundamental distinction in humanity. I’ve never met a man on the alt-right who wanted less for their women than happiness and fulfillment—but we believe that feminism does not make women happy or fulfill them. I thought this long before I discovered the alt-right; I was heavily influenced early on by conservative thinkers such as Allan Bloom and Harvey Mansfield, so it was a major point of convergence.

I think most men and women on the alt-right agree that a woman’s unique ability to have children and affinity for child-rearing is nature’s highest role. At the very least, alt-righters want women to have the option to stay home and raise a family if that’s what they want to do. This is not only unpopular in modern society, but often mocked as a valid choice. Furthermore, our economy is set up to prevent the vast majority of couples from being able to make that choice: it is very difficult for most American families to survive on a single salary, if not impossible. I would argue that in a healthy society, this would be possible for every family. All we want is the freedom to pursue our own happiness. Along these lines, the policies advocated by Ivanka Trump about maternity leave for all American mothers, whether working or at home, was one of the best pieces of domestic policy I’ve seen proposed in my lifetime.

As for female empowerment, there’s nothing that has made me feel more empowered in my life than supporting and being supported by a strong man. I think that men and women are better off when we stop fighting nature and allow our distinct identities to shine through, working together as a team. Again: just like race is real, biology is real. Why do so many fight it?

As Richard Spencer and others have explained, it’s true that women are less likely to join a vanguard political movement than men are. That said, I don’t actually think there are “so few women” in the alt-right. Personally, I know of at least a few hundred. Think of it this way: just as the polls in England couldn’t encompass the Brexit vote, and just as the polls in America couldn’t pick up Trump voters, the usual methods for looking for women on the alt-right don’t work. I’m a bit unusual with my blogging, twitter presence, and conference attendance. You see alt-right women a lot more at private gatherings. Most women keep to the shadows a lot more, which is to be expected, I think. Married women especially want to shield their children from the harm that could befall them if their political views were known. Men are, by nature, more likely to take risks: and there are real risks involved in being active in this cause.

E: Finally, what did you make of Donald Trump’s statements about and treatment of women? (I’m referring here to the audio tape about grabbing women “by the pussy,” the multiple allegations of sexual assault, calling women “pigs,” his statements like, “It doesn’t really matter as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass” etc.) Why didn’t his sexism deter you from voting for him (assuming, in fact, that you did vote for him)?

CD: It didn’t bother me because I think there were much bigger issues at stake in the election than how Trump spoke to or about other people. I think women care a lot more about sparing those they love from dying in unnecessary wars, or being subject to violent assault by illegal immigrants, or becoming marginalized in a country their ancestors created for themselves and their posterity.

No Comments on A Woman’s Touch

Antifa: An Obituary

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa.

“What’s equality? Muck in the yard,
Historic nations grow, from above to below”
W.B. Yeats Three Songs

If you listened carefully enough to the din of broken glass and shrill Leftist lamentations, you’d have heard another sound this weekend: the death rattle of Antifa. The cheap assault on Richard Spencer, along with the damage wrought in Washington DC, does not mitigate the fact that so-called ‘anti-fascism,’ in all meaningful respects, has been dying since the mid-1990s. What we witnessed in the weekend that has just passed was the desperate actions of a spent force. What occurred was disgraceful, and we should challenge it, but we shouldn’t be unduly disturbed about future prospects. Nor should we exaggerate the threat these people pose, or our response to it. In its death agonies, Antifa has been as noisy as it was in life, and this noise may have caused the less well-informed to conclude that there was vitality yet in this old hag. The perceptive, however, will have noted that this noise only slightly masked the increasing senility of an obsolete movement that has struggled, staggered, and gasped its way to the pyrrhic victory of a cheap-shot and a few burnt trashcans. In this new era, the age of Trump, Brexit, Nationalist murmurings across Europe, and the rise of the Alt-Right, anti-fascism is politically dead.

No autopsy is required. ‘Anti-fascism’ was born with the defect that would ultimately carry it off; a deformation of its vital systems that for long periods rendered it heavily dependent on its adversaries for political oxygen. Part of this deformation arose from its internal divisions. On the one hand, a substantial element of Antifa activity consists of the peaceful, democratic type. These are the misguided vicar’s daughters and soccer moms who are inveigled into organizing, attending, or donating to ‘anti-racist’ demonstrations, music concerns, or similar public events. We witnessed much of its constituency in the Women’s March that followed Trump’s inauguration. This element has always been ideologically lightweight, and participates less out of ideological convictions than it does out of vague moral twinges and panics. The other element of Antifa has always been smaller, but is the one we are perhaps more familiar with. This is the revolutionary anti-fascist or crypto-Bolshevik wing, consisting of Trotskyists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Jews. Its members possess a tangled mess of often conflicting ideologies that are nevertheless set aside in the name of confronting the perceived fascist threat. The latter element has always frightened and disillusioned the former. The tensions between the two have marred the history of anti-fascism, which witnessed several fractures, and failed attempts at even the most basic form of ideological unification, from the 1970s to the 2010s.

The pathology of anti-fascism, present from its birth, is that it has all the hallmarks of a particularly weak parasite. Here is an entity that is conceived purely as an anti-ideology. Its stated primary foe was ‘the Fascist,’ who was understood to lie behind all societal ills. Since actual Fascists were difficult to find after 1945, and organizing explicitly against them was thus liable to have one regarded as a paranoid eccentric, ‘anti-fascists’ hastily added ‘the State’ as a secondary, quasi-substitute for the real thing. If ‘Fascists’ couldn’t be found, they would have to be invented. Language about ‘the Fascist State’ thus became ubiquitous in these circles. Eventually, this mode of language became endemic on the Left. All political movements to the right of modern liberalism were perceived, and labelled, as quasi-Fascistic, and ‘anti-fascism’ would thus provide itself with something to mobilize against. The problem, of course, was one of linguistic economics. As the Left flooded the verbal ‘market’ with its currency, this currency underwent a dramatic deflation in emotive value. The Left’s incessant invocation of ‘Fascism’ led to the term’s precipitous and irreversible decline. Anti-fascism, in the fulfilment of its pathology, began undermining the strength of its own propaganda.

The in-born pathology of anti-fascism extended to its tactical capacities, which were also stunted and retarded from birth. Anti-fascism’s founding tactical principle was that it would oppose with violence any attempts by ‘fascists’ to organize at street level. For a time, there was some vitality in this tactical emphasis. From the 1960s to the early 1990s Antifa was sporadically engaged in violent activity against Nationalist groups throughout the West and, particularly when one considers running battles with Britain’s National Front, one could argue that there was a kind of ongoing ‘battle for the streets.’ However, by the early 1990s Nationalism became aware that it had allowed itself to be relegated to the fringes of political discourse where, along with its opponents in Antifa, it became trapped in futile turf wars that made little impact on national political trajectories. There was an internal revolution in Nationalism that led to the influx of greater numbers of ‘quality’ people, and the adoption of policies, aesthetics, and approaches that began to cut into the ‘mainstream.’ Nationalists began winning electoral victories, appearing on television, and creating their own media.

Anti-fascism at first claimed a kind of victory. With much aplomb it claimed to have conclusively ‘won the streets’ and, according to many an Antifa screed, the spineless fascists had fled the field. It was only during the late 1990s that Antifa realized that it hadn’t won anything, and had been caught on the wrong foot. If the primary weapon in your tactical arsenal is street confrontation, and your opponent is enjoying unprecedented success precisely because they have abandoned street confrontation, one might expect that a tactical change would be necessary. However, anti-fascism’s stunted development led instead to stagnancy and confusion. Nationalism had gone places that anti-fascism couldn’t or wouldn’t follow. Anarchists, a sizeable proportion of the Antifa cohort, were ideologically and temperamentally disinclined to participate in parliamentary and traditional politics. Militant Antifa was thus even more starkly contrasted with its non-violent allies, and even less likely to find acceptance in mainstream society. Antifa tactics were redundant. It was thus symbolically significant when, in 2001, England’s Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) formally disbanded.

Other factions limped on, of course. In these foul residues, problematic ideological abscesses continued to fester. The movement continue to posture itself as being opposed to a ‘system’ it perceived as reactionary, ultra-conservative, and anti-working class. It escaped many on the far-Left that anti-fascism was itself reactionary by nature, being entirely dependent for stimulus on the actions or moves of its opponents. Indeed, this was the conclusion of Nigel Copsey, scholar of fascism and anti-fascism, who described Antifa as a “reactive phenomenon” that could only manifest in accordance to stimulus. Further, while Nationalists, and others labelled as fascists, began advancing structured programs for social and economic change, Antifa could advance no vision, no position beyond reactive opposition. The assertion that Nationalists and others were ultra-conservative also began to ring increasingly hollow in an age when the far-Left influenced political outcomes to a greater extent than it has ever openly admitted. Marxism, in its cultural expressions, went mainstream. Mass immigration obliterated the efficacy of national borders. Social engineering led to the slow destruction of the family. In this context, the goals of Antifa and the ‘the State’ it claimed to oppose became indistinguishable. Antifa, more than Nationalists, had more to gain from ‘conserving’ the status quo. Nationalists, the alleged ultra-conservatives, increasingly distinguished themselves by their open desire for cultural revolution; a destruction of all that is, a revisiting of what once was, and the planned construction of what might be.

But perhaps the greatest of Antifa’s internal incoherencies was its claim to support the cause of the working-class. To be sure, Antifa was from its inception a diseased protrusion of the neurotic middle-class. In particular, it drew its lifeblood from pathological or alien elements in the upper middle-class. Always directed by middle-class intellectuals, who were frequently Jewish, Antifa was staffed by a motley of materially spoiled, attention-seeking youngsters, who sought in their Jewish or Russian gurus what they could not find from disinterested, career-minded parents. These spurned children would seek to destroy the material assets and values of the world of the hated parents, substituted now with the ‘Fascist’ or ‘the State.’ It goes without saying that the real world of the worker played no part in this drama. Bernd Langer of the Autonome Antifa, Germany’s largest anti-fascist organization, once admitted: “Most of the political activists have a middle class background, few workers are involved in the movement. They are rather the exception. The working class plays no role in the anti-fascist struggle.”

Similarly, when the Sydney Morning Herald sought out members of Australian Antifa for an inside look at the movement there, the journalist might have been persuaded by Leftist propaganda to expect to find a young dock-worker or manual laborer. Instead, and more predictably from our perspective, he found dialogue with a young, “gluten intolerant,” activist who had grown up in the wealthy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, had been sent to an expensive university by his parents, and had developed a love affair with ‘Marxism’ at the behest of guru professors. Our young Anarchist apparently proceeded to explain his moribund political philosophy between sips of rose tea at a fashionable cafe, as he peered over a pair of designer spectacles. Antifa is the bastard child of Marx and Goldman Sachs, conceived in the Hamptons, and nursed on the psychiatrists couch.

These yawning gaps between Antifa’s proclamations of class war and the reality of its staffing, led in many instances to friction between the duped and the deluded. Particularly during the 1990s, there were conflicts between those who saw themselves as old-school class warriors and those who came from, or drew ideological succor from more newly emerged victimhood narratives. Unlike Nationalists, with their almost obsessive care for statistics, facts and news analysis, the far-Left was bogged down in barely penetrable theory and a reliance on emotional responses to perceived slights. Thus, even the most committed economic Marxist couldn’t prevent the inevitable descent of Antifa into what Nigel Copsey described as “a multicultural, middle-class mind-set, in which the deification of difference (race, gender, and sexual preference) had replaced class equality.” Anti-fascism thus found it increasingly difficult to posture as a movement with even tangential mass appeal, instead pigeon-holing itself as a mere movement of ‘victims.’ The middle-class ‘daddy issue’ set now found themselves joined by those with other resentments; the homosexuals wanting ever more attention and acceptance, the feminists seeking revenge on an explicitly male form of political expression, and the minorities nursing ethnic grievances and possessing an interest in weakening White identity politics.

Resentment can provide a certain amount of energy. But this energy is not inexhaustible, and is certainly not comparable to the drive that can arise from the pursuit of a higher vision. Once Nationalism largely ceased its public expression in the form of marches, anti-fascism switched its focus to the disruption of conferences and meetings. This is a tactic we were all familiar with. There has rarely been a major meeting of American Renaissance, the National Policy Institute, or the London Forum that has not in some form been protested against or otherwise disturbed by Antifa intrusion. However, the cost-benefit outcome of such actions have always been negative for Antifa. In a pattern very likely to have been replicated elsewhere, Copsey found that German militant Antifa comprised only around five thousand individuals who amplified their impact by travelling non-stop around the country to disrupt meetings. It goes without saying that a large amount of time and resources would be required to maintain such an effort, and this time and resources was most often wasted. While Nationalist meetings may be disturbed to some extent, this disturbance has rarely been serious. Few meetings have had to be cancelled. Nationalism has continued to grow, both in terms of numbers and political victories. While Nationalists maintain a focus on the ‘main event,’ Antifa has remained a side-show; a kind of half-time entertainment during conferences.

Another area which Antifa neglected, and which Nationalists have exploited to an unprecedented extent, was the sphere of the ‘counterpublic.’ Having abandoned the streets, and remaining excluded from mainstream media, it was Nationalism that truly embraced cyberspace. Here the limits of “physical space,” and hence “physical confrontation,” were truly thrown into sharp relief. As the internet grew, Nationalism expanded into new forms of intellectual space, pioneering both the political forum and systematic, alternative media. Increasingly, Antifa reliance on countering mostly non-existent marches, and holding concerts for migrants and other ‘victim’ classes, began to look dated. Meanwhile, by the close of the first decade of the new millennium, Nationalism was pioneering TV channels, publishing outlets, intellectual and mass-appeal webzines, and a plethora of podcasts ranging from the high-brow to the comedic. Antifa inherently lacked the creative power of its opponents, and its main expression turned to endless sober warnings to the mainstream that here was ‘fascism’ in new clothing. First they came in suits, then with cartoon frogs.

By contrast, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin hold little comedic appeal for the masses. Nor do such figures even evoke the kind of edgy discomfort that can be elicited by a gothic bogeyman of the type that Hitler, the ultimate Fascist, had been crafted to be. Since Communism eked out its last days with sputtering cars, and against the background scent of chemicals and stale soup, it is neither darkly attractive nor particularly intimidating. Like Antifa itself, explicit radical socialism is an anachronism; a joke perhaps, but one where the punchline made sense only in a prior age. Anarchists can sport t-shirts promising “An Ice Pick for Every Trot,” but this is a weak gallows humor. As Trotsky himself might have testified, jokes and even light dissent cost lives in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ and Leftists are notoriously thin-skinned when it came to the dogma of Marxist-Leninist theory. The Anti-fascist environment is one in which everything is taken seriously, and nothing more so than the anti-fascists themselves.

It is this extremely high level of self-obsession that gave rise to such tremendous shock when, in 2016, the Antifa’s proverbial sky began to fall. With great self-assurance, the radical Left and its fellow travellers in academia and the media asserted that Brexit would never happen. What the Left failed to realize was that, as long as the principle of the secret ballot remains, and as long as Nationalists or their ideas have any means whatsoever to influence the opinions of voters exercising that secret ballot, their monopoly of the media, the colleges, and ‘the streets’ will never be enough to end our politics or assure the victory of theirs. Having failed to learn from the Brexit experience, the same smugness asserted itself on the eve of an allegedly ‘inevitable’ win for Hillary Clinton in the US Presidential elections. We now live in the age of President Trump.

The outburst of juvenile violence which accompanied the Trump inauguration should not be taken as indicative of the health of Antifa. This is not a robust movement. It is floundering tactically, and its biggest mistake has been its misguided portrayal of Trump and his voters as fascists. The Left wins when the Alt-Right and the Antifa remain on the fringes of mainstream discourse and the mainstream remains under Left-liberal ideological control (via academia, the media, and political tunnel-vision). However, in its shock and rage at Trump’s victory, the Left has been unable to move away from a discourse that paints Trump and his very substantial bloc of voters as belonging to a homogenous Far Right. What the Left risk doing by pursuing such a strategy is reshaping the mainstream, essentially splitting it in two. Trump voters will be forced by Leftist hostility into buying into the narrative that they belong with the Alt-Right. In this scenario, Antifa and the Left do our work for us. Thus, while I agree that the assault on Richard Spencer was a huge story that deserves our attention, the bigger story from the inauguration weekend was the assaults that took place on Trump supporters unaffiliated with the Alt-Right. In scenarios like these, Antifa will act as recruiting sergeants for our cause. This is the definition of a movement that has failed in every possible sense.

To conclude, I might caution against the advice given by some in our movement that we should ‘take the fight’ to Antifa, or attempt to engage them once more on the streets. By doing so, we would validate their existence once more, and run the risk of again placing ourselves on the margins. Without compromising our values, we should continue to push as deeply into the mainstream as we can, and especially focus on forging links with Trump voters, Brexit voters, and right-leaning citizens throughout the West. As the Left continues to wail at its losses, it will continue to lash out indiscriminately. This will be to our benefit. For our part, we should focus on improving our security, while allowing the Left to show its true face to the people. Our priority is winning cultural influence and political power, not confronting small numbers of social effluent. And, rest assured, we will one day be in a position to drag this fading nuisance into the light and deliver to it a long-overdue coup de grâce.


[1] N. Copsey, ‘Crossing Borders: Anti-Fascist Action (UK) and Transnational Anti-Fascist Militancy in the 1990s,’ Contemporary European History, 25 (4), 707-727.

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid. 

No Comments on Antifa: An Obituary

The Intolerant Politics of Reality

As I am sure you are all aware, on the day of the Presidential Inauguration our very own Richard Spencer was assaulted in Washington, DC while giving an interview. Surrounded…

As I am sure you are all aware, on the day of the Presidential Inauguration our very own Richard Spencer was assaulted in Washington, DC while giving an interview. Surrounded by self- proclaimed anti-fascists, aka “antifa” who were waving signs that read “White Lives Matter Too Much”, a masked man cowardly sucker-punched Richard Spencer and ran off. The story blew up Twitter, meanwhile Washington was left in flames and broken glass from antifa who were protesting President-elect, now President, Donald Trump from being sworn into office.

You can already hear the likes of Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars, in his British accent, complaining about “the intolerant Left” and how they are simply avoiding having a debate about ideas. Paul is certainly right about that. But so what? This is a new age in American politics. We no longer live in a nation where friends and family can gather around the dinner table, discuss politics, and simply agree to disagree about some issues (or perhaps even convince one another that the other has a point – shock!). Oh no, those days are no more. The age of Reason is over.

This is bad news for those who fancy themselves as “rational skeptics” or classical liberals. They now find themselves in the ever-shrinking middle ground of politics. Slowly but surely, they are losing grounds to political radicals like antifa, the alt-right, or the various ethno-cultural voting blocks that exist in the US. Sorry Paul, no matter how convincing or sound your classical liberal logic and reason is, you are never going to convince more than 10% of Blacks to support your politics. The center cannot hold. So what are the likes of Paul going to do?

It seems the antifa are going to make that choice for them. The night before the inauguration, some of the “alt-lite” personalities – Mike Cernovich, Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern, Gavin McInnes, and others, held a party titled the “DeploraBall” at the National Press Club. This party became the target of an antifa plot. Thanks are due to James O’Keefe, of Project Veritas, for uncovering the antifa terrorist plot to put butyric acid in the ventilation system of the National Press Club. Butyric acid is the ingredient used in stink bombs. While it is unlikely anyone would have been harmed, the intention of the antifa was to cause mayhem and incite political fear in the DeploraBall attendees. This is the textbook definition of terrorism. It turns out that supporting Donald Trump for President makes you a de facto Nazi according to antifa, and that alone grants them the sense of moral righteousness to commit acts of terrorism and violence against you.

What do so-called rationalist classical liberals do when confronted with an extremely irrational political foe? I guess we will find out in due time. I will say that complaining about the “intolerant left” as they are bashing your heads in, setting fires, and smashing windows is
probably not going to get you very far. They aren’t really interested in hearing how you are “one of the good Trump supporters” unlike those “bad people” over there, like Richard Spencer. To them, you are equally as deplorable as Richard Spencer. I mean, come on, you did vote for Literally Hitler TM over the almost First Female President, Hillary Clinton… and anyone who voted for Literally Hitler TM is a Nazi too! No amount of reasoning with these degenerates is going to change their minds.

The alt-right has its disagreements with the various personalities in the cultural libertarian movement. However, we are still willing to agree to disagree with you. We are not committing acts of violence against you (the alt-right is the religion of peace!) Meanwhile, le edgy faggot, Milo Yiannopoulos is having his speaking tour interrupted by violent antifa on a semi-regular basis. It’s only a matter of time before someone is seriously harmed at one of his events (oops,too late).

I know this is a lot to ask of the alt-lite but it’s time to snap out of it already. It’s time to drop the rationalist way of looking at the world. That way of thinking is quickly becoming outdated. We are slowly finding ourselves moving closer and closer to civil war. There is already an unspoken civil war taking place as we speak. We see interracial violence in our country on a daily basis.

We are now beginning to see antifa move their cross-hairs from the likes of Richard Spencer to the likes of the everyday normal Trump supporter. There is no going back folks. The America you grew up loving where you could freely speak about ideas with one another is dead. We now live in the age of the soft totalitarianism of Political Correctness. However, that totalitarianism is quickly losing its softness as we find antifa have gleefully stepped into the role of the modern-day Cheka of the managerial state. It’s time to realize that there is not going to be a rational and logical discussion about the future of the USA, Europe, or Western Civilization. Our political opponents are emotionally and spiritually invested in seeing that we are all destroyed. This is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. It is time to act accordingly.

No Comments on The Intolerant Politics of Reality

The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘JewishAlternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

The following is an interview I recently conducted with ‘Reactionary Jew’ and ‘The Rebbe,’ two Twitter figures from a small grouping known as the Jewish ‘Alt-Right,’ or ‘Jewish Alternative.’ As someone who has studied Jewish dynamics in White societies for more than a decade, I was interested by recent media attention in The Forward and elsewhere concerning Josh Seidel, an American Jew who claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. I say interested rather than ‘surprised’ or ‘puzzled’ because history is replete with small numbers of Jews who have pursued, what are from their perspective, ostensibly unusual political and ideological paths. In the most extreme cases, Jews have been pioneers of what has been termed ‘anti-Semitism.’ For example, one of the first great exposures of the anti-Gentile content of the Talmud was carried out in Germany by the 16 th century Jewish apostate Johannes Pfefferkorn. Between 1507 and 1521 Pfefferkorn acted like a kind of early modern Andrew Anglin, printing more pamphlets (in both German and Latin) attacking Jewish behavior than any other author. He demanded that Jews cease their practice of usury, and aggressively upbraided them for what may be loosely described as a range of ‘anti-social’ behaviors.

Despite his great zeal in anti-Jewish activity, because of his origins Pfefferkorn was the object of much distrust, derision, and suspicion by his contemporaries. The same responses have been evident in relation to the small collective of Jewish nationalists seeking shade under the Alt-Right umbrella. Hostile non-Jewish responses are, given the sobering weight of grim history between our peoples, predictable, justified, and eminently sensible. The threat of infiltration, co-option, and misdirection is very real. I have composed essays explicitly dealing with this subject from a historical perspective, and I have advocated for the exclusion of Jews from the life of our movement for the sake of its ideological and material integrity. Possessing an eye for historical context, I didn’t like Seidel’s use of the term ‘Alt-Right’ to describe what he is, or what he claims to be. Seidel may well be a reactionary of sorts, and he may well be opposed to much of the agenda of the mainstream Jewish community. However, that does not make him a part of the Alt-Right, a movement which is, in the main, an outgrowth of European ethno-nationalism. He can no more be part of the Alt-Right than I can be a part of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect. The Alt-Right is not a social club. It is the organic expression of national will – the will of the best elements of the European peoples.

One doesn’t need to feel that the proverbial “all Jews” are dedicated to fighting against us in order to see that a blanket exclusion would be useful. Any suggestion of co-operation should be considered moot. A blunt ‘anti-Semitism’ that paints in broad strokes isn’t necessarily intellectually sophisticated, but it is a useful ‘shorthand’ for confronting some of our most pressing social, political, and economic issues. One might consider the analogy that our opposing forces act as a giant knife, cutting into the heart of the nation. The coterie of Leftists, anarchists, degenerates, homosexuals, self-interested elites, and others of our race make up the bulk of the blade. But with what preponderance are Jews found at the razors edge! It is almost always Jewish radicals that are found with the most cutting, most offensive, and most devastating theories and activism; theories and activism that appear designed only to divide, to separate, to tear apart. It is because of what occurs at the ‘razor’s edge’ that ‘anti-Semitism’ finds both its cold logic and shattering power.

That being said, one should be wary of being sucked into a lowly resentment of one’s opponents. One should be aware of socio-political realities without being consumed by them. Nietzsche once astutely observed that the aristocratic mind is capable of shrugging off opposition, and of always finding the means to a respect for one’s opponents. The lower mind, more fearful and shadowy, will recoil from a full confrontation with reality, preferring instead to view his enemy as monolithic, as ‘evil.’ His enemy stalks him everywhere. Like Nietzsche, I reject the concepts of good and evil, as they are popularly understood, and with that I reject the notion that all Jews are ‘evil,’ or even that there is something ‘evil’ about Jews. We have opposing interests and differing approaches and strategies to life. And I believe that these differences also have metaphysical expressions. However, I do not believe that Jews are all-powerful, and I do not believe that, in and of itself, communication with Jews is liable to leave one vulnerable to ideological deviation. Communication and co-operation are entirely different spheres.

Having laid this groundwork, I ask of readers only that the treat the following interview with the aristocratic mind-set I expect them to have. For my part, I have dispensed with soft approaches and have posed questions in a respectful attempt to get to the heart of what these individuals are in relation to us. They are clearly not members of the Alt-Right, but as strongly identified Jews what do they have to say about issues that the Alt-Right is concerned with? About identity? About the Jewish assault on Europeans? About future prospects for both peoples? One might enquire why such answers would matter. Purely on a personal level I would reply by pointing to curiosity; curiosity about truth, but also the truth that can be found even in deception, self-deception, or the sense of self that prevails in an opposing tribe. For the same reasons, I would interview the leadership of both the ADL and the SPLC if they’d dare to let me. I am sure that the answers provided in such interviews would provide food for both thought and discussion. Such interviews would sharpen our indignation, our ideological understanding, and our political senses. This one, I believe, is no different.

AJ: In the last 12 months there have been spasmodic debates surrounding the definition of ‘Alt-Right.’ How do you define it?

RJ: I perceive it as a broad-tent coalition bound together by one thing: explicitly fighting for white European interests, manifested via nationalism, either in one’s own country, or around the world. Within this label, there are many disagreements about peripheral issues (socialism vs. more libertarian economic systems, ethnic nationalism vs. racial nationalism, etc.). Some Alt-Right issues are considered important by the majority of the movement and seem almost inseparable from that core of white interests, such as the Jewish Question, traditionalist revival, etc., but are valued specifically because of how they are tied to white group interests and identity within the context of the movement. While I do think the Jewish question is (very) important, and I do believe in traditional sexual morality, I also consider those who disagree with me on both of those fronts to still be considered Alt-Right if they are fighting for explicitly white European interests. I should note that I do not consider Breitbart/Milo/PJW/etc. to be Alt-Right, since they refuse to talk in explicitly racial terms and will “condemn racism” when it comes down to it.

TR: The traditional “National Review” center-right confronted communism on a global scale and delayed creeping socialism. These two threats were stalking horses for the real enemy of the West: what you call “Cultural Marxism” (Jews would describe as “Frankism”). This Jewish Satanic heresy is the dominant paradigm of the Jewish intelligentsia and the Reformed/Re-constructivist denominations. The Alt-Right is a late-hour counter-reaction to this threat. While much of the Alt-Right doesn’t even fully comprehend this inchoate “POZ,” it has nevertheless mounted a successful intellectual assault and helped bring about the greatest political upset since Truman.

AJ: I regard the work of Kevin MacDonald as one of the primary ideological foundations for the Alt-Right. Have you read MacDonald, and do you view the critical analysis of Jewish behavior as a necessary and appropriate facet of Alt-Right activity?

RJ: I have read Dr. MacDonald’s work. I have also corresponded with him, and even spoken to him face-to- face. I learned many things from his work, and although we definitely have our disagreements, I think he tries his best to be objective. As stated above, in my opinion, the Jewish Question is not one that can be ignored, both by whites and by Jews. It is too immense and far-reaching. The consequences can be dire, for both peoples. For the skeptics out there, remember that the early Zionists themselves dealt heavily with the Jewish Question, and came to many of the same conclusions as “anti-Semites,” albeit not entirely for the same reasons. A central theme in Judaism itself, especially the traditional Rabbinic variant, is understanding our own group behavior and how that it plays out when we interact with other nations, but from a different angle. The most severe early criticism and harsh condemnations of Jewish behavior can be found in none other than th Bible itself.

TR: MacDonald’s well-researched work regarding ethnic interest provides an accurate model to explain historical Jewish behavior. However, when explaining the demonic Jewish radical Left, his theories break down like the laws of physics around a black hole. I could find only one article on Occidental Observer’s site that mentions Sabbatai Zevi or Jacob Frank, the two heretics who heavily influenced the POZ (as the article acknowledges). Rabbi Emden, the most noted pro-Christian Jewish theologian, first warned gentiles in the 1760s that the Sabbatians sought to “destroy the World”—their Satanic theology: “What is holy, unholy. What is unholy, holy”. Torah wisdom is systematically inverted by the POZ: homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism, pedophilia, obesity, pagan environmentalism, multi-culturalism, supporting Islamists, etc. They loathe the World of Creation and seek the Sabbatian Kabbalist apocalypse: all genders, races, and religions meld into one.

A great example of the lack of self-reflection on the part of contemporary Jews is the bizarre confrontation between the Reform rabbi (with his confused account of “radical inclusion”; Jewish heresy) and Spencer a few weeks ago. The rabbi had likely never seriously confronted Spencer’s viewpoint in his lifetime. Most Leftist Jews are like this in real life and sound like pod people. The most influential immigration propaganda, the “Melting Pot”; by Zangwill, actually recreated the Kabbalist apocalypse on stage. Frankfurt, of the Frankfurt School, was a hold out of Frankist ideas. Freud admitted to being a Sabbatian (as other intellectuals of the time) and seeking to destroy the West. Since the Jewish Left is steeped in heretical Jewish theology and functions often under the “Jewish interest”, it’s childish to think that any serious movement to oppose it can be conducted while ignoring the JQ. If anything, the “National Review” conservative movement debacle of the last few decades tried to sidestep any Jewish connection. So, any Jew serious about defeating this bizarro Left needs to be at peace with the research and blunt discussion of the JQ.

AJ: To what extent, if any, do you see yourself as White, or a part of Western culture?

RJ: I do not consider Jews to be white, even Ashkenazis. We have a fundamentally different identity, despite some of us having European blood. I am myself half-Mizrahi, which makes me even more “diluted” I could write an essay about the intersection of Jews and Western culture, but I’ll try to keep it brief. I’ll start by saying that I personally love European classical music, philosophy, literature, and art significantly more than I do those of other civilizations on average (sometimes second to my own), but most of that is subjective preference, and no doubt partly due to my upbringing in the US. As for Jews more broadly, European culture has certainly left its mark on us via the diaspora, for better and for worse. I’d like to keep the good parts as I see them, such as the structure of institutions, religious garb, academic methodology in multiple disciplines (with certain exceptions), etc. However, as a religious Jew, I do think it is dangerous to start thinking of oneself as “Western” as many Jews do, since we have our own unique moral philosophy that has been defined historically by specifically being not only the opposite of Greek and Roman ideals, but even strongly averse to them.

TR: White and Western. My mother converted from Anglicanism and her ancestors played bit parts in the last 1000 years of English history.

AJ: The Alt-Right is undoubtedly driven by the desire of Europeans to assert their own story and fulfil their destiny as a people. In such a context, do you think that Europeans need Jewish assistance in this effort, and what practical assistance do you believe Jews can offer Europeans?

RJ: If you’re talking about European cultural revival, no, I don’t think that is the case. Europeans should reconstruct their societies on their own terms. However, there is much to be gleaned from our successful nationalist movement, ethnostate, general history of group survival, etc. and I think that should at the very least interest Europeans who care about their group’s continuity both as a model and a warning. Dr. MacDonald has said similar things in his essay “Can the Jewish Model Help The West Survive?”

TR: Trump’s election would likely not have been possible without Jewish help. The young Donald Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn, a street-wise right-wing NYC Jew. Trump surrounds himself with a cadre of similar Jews to this day (whose very presence inoculate him against charges of being “Hitler”). Sheldon Adelson went out on a limb to provide Trump a major early endorsement in his Times of Israel. Jared Kushner’s audacious media/electoral college strategy helped capture PA, MI, and WI. And let’s not forget the contribution of Anthony Weiner’s laptop in saving Western Civilization.

AJ: European history is replete with instances of Jews using and abusing their host populations, facilitated primarily through alliances with native corrupt elites. In response, many European populations have abused their Jewish communities when opportunities to do so have arisen. Given this long, sordid, and extremely vicious history, would you agree that a total separation of our peoples is the best path to avoiding future bloodshed?

RJ: I completely agree that total separation is the ideal, and I’d love to see it happen. One can blame whoever they want to for the history between Jews and whites (I’ve seen both extremes); regardless of how one analyzes the cycle, it almost never seems to end well. Why keep trying a model that fails nine times out of ten? Additionally, regardless of the issues whites may have with Jews living in their societies, many Jewish religious leaders and committed Zionists have expressed similar sentiments due to Jewish collective survival concerns, such as the rampant assimilation and intermarriage of Jews in white societies.

TR: I’d encourage any Jew to support Israel through Aliyah.

AJ: To what extent would you agree that most Jews who look to the Right are motivated mainly by an aversion to Leftist positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

RJ: It is important to clarify the different schools of thought at play here. There are Jews who want to continue living in white societies, and see Islam as a much bigger threat in that regard than they do the white far-right. There are also Jews who see the American and European left as a much bigger threat to Israel on the international stage than they do the right. While I agree with both instances of risk assessment, I’d like to specifically distinguish myself from the “Democrats are the real(ly important) anti-Semites” camp. I acknowledge that Islam is not the only threat to the West, and the demographic decline from Africans and other groups would still be a huge issue without it. I also acknowledge that the traditional neocon narrative
of “greatest ally against Islam” is mostly wrong; Europe would be safer if it closed its borders and deported people rather than by supporting Israel more. Additionally, I don’t want Jews to continue living in the West and I don’t shy away from the JQ. That being said, I do not deny the self-interest involved; it appears that white nationalists and I have many common goals -living apart from each other, the breakdown of the post-WWII international order, and the survival of the West – so why not work with them? Even in that last one listed I don’t deny the self-interest. While I value the West as a great civilization, Israel is much better off existing as part of a broader successful and productive first-world, or “Global North” if you will. I try to be as clear and honest as I can in this regard.

TR: You could say that, but there’s also a Christian case for Israel. I’ll just take Richard the Lionheart’s position: safe access to the Holy Land is essential to Christian dignity. Correspondingly, Islamic dominion (through politics or war) over Jerusalem and Bethlehem is a central objective of Jihadis and the POZ to demoralize Christians and the West. Fifteen years ago, Palestinians took over the Church of Nativity (where Jesus was born in the manger). They desecrated it with urine and feces, used the bibles as toilet paper, took monks hostage, and stole gold antiquities. Instead of condemning this, Christians generally blamed Israel. The Jihadi’s continued their terror campaign against Bethlehem’s Christian residents for years onward. The city’s Christian population has declined from 40% before the Church takeover to 12% today.

AJ: Many in the Alt-Right perceive highly ethnocentric Jews, in positions of influence, to be their most concerning opponent. Who is yours?

RJ: To me, as a Jewish nationalist, the biggest threat is the dynamic of the status quo created by the “international community” institutions (UN/ICC/EU), fueled (and even funded) by Jewish leftist traitors, perpetuated by useful idiot academics serving the cause of Arab Islamic nationalist ideologues, and re-entrenched by the US. The fact that we can’t take further measures (such as ethnic cleansing, or even annexation with tighter “security” measures) in the West Bank is actively getting my people killed in the land where they belong. Every move we make, we have be concerned with sanctions, due to the useless concepts of “human rights” and “international law” that only draw out the conflict, cause the situation to fester, and cost more blood in the long-term because they won’t allow for a swift resolution. It’s not any one particular group, but a combination of all of these, and when you put it all together, it creates a big problem for us on the international stage.

TR: The Frankists/Cultural Marxists are the existential threat, yet a movement based upon quasi-Satanism will inevitably implode under the weight of its decadence, madness, and sadism (PizzaGate?). Many of today’s Jewish intelligentsia are the “learn nothing and forget nothing” Bourbons. They are coddled nepotism placements. Ironically, it’s the Alt-Right who have the moxie of Trotsky and Alinsky. The Alt-Right rages about hypocrisy because Israel refuses refugees while the Jewish Left foists them on the West. However, you’re projecting a rudimentary capacity for introspection upon the Jewish Left. This movement of man-children will hopefully expire soon before causing any further undo harm. The USA’s end game will be the same as Israel’s: after quelling its own internal misanthropic Left, the remaining adversaries will be Islam and the global Left (including Communist China).

AJ: As a step toward European self-assertion, I would love to see the dismantling of organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and an overall decline in Jewish influence in our societies. How would you feel about the decline of Jewish power in the West?

RJ: I can tell you right now that I have no positive feelings whatsoever towards the ADL. There are few organizations that go to such great lengths to give us a bad reputation, which is especially ironic considering what they call themselves. The same goes for the SPLC and the rest of the alphabet soup of Jewish organizations which I see as actively destroying society. Their positions on Israel are also awful (such as the ADL’s support for a two-state solution) most of the time. While I am not a big fan of lumping together forces so disparate and fragmented, however prevalent they may be, as Jewish influence, in order to make a sweeping generalization of definitive negativity, I definitely don’t think it’s imperative that we have influence in the West beyond the typical influence of a foreign first-world regional superpower (on the world stage, as befits our geopolitical situation). While we’re on the topic of self-determination and purging external influence, I’d like to do the exact same in Israel, and I sympathize with that very basic desire, which is currently a far-cry from reality in both of our civilizations.

TR: Before the refugee invasion, Europe was first prepped for Islamic conquest with decades of pro-Palestinian propaganda, thereby normalizing Jihadi terrorism. Jihadi’s were victims of oppression with whom lasting peace could be forged but for Israel’s cruelty and Islamophobia. Zionist power in the US, thankfully, has inoculated our country from Jihadi tactics. Indeed, hostility to Obama’s program of importing millions of Islamic “immigrants” helped propel Trump’s candidacy. Jewish power sometimes acts to destroy the West and at other times to help it. It takes the better part of wisdom to know which is which. That’s why it’s called “The Jewish Question”.

No Comments on The Jewish Question(and Some Answers)

A Cautionary Tale

I also wanted to speak about the current political situation, since we are all thinking about Trump’s victory. The main point I wanted to make was the necessity of prompt and decisive action on the part of the incoming administration, especially on immigration related issues. But everyone else I have read on our side has been making the same point. So rather than repeat them, I will limit myself to a brief cautionary tale about the consequences of delaying action on those fleeting occasions when all the political stars align perfectly.

Editor’s Note: Adapted from an address to NPI’s 2016 Conference by F. Roger Devlin

I also wanted to speak about the current political situation, since we are all thinking about Trump’s victory. The main point I wanted to make was the necessity of prompt and decisive action on the part of the incoming administration, especially on immigration related issues. But everyone else I have read on our side has been making the same point. So rather than repeat them, I will limit myself to a brief cautionary tale about the consequences of delaying action on those fleeting occasions when all the political stars align perfectly.

It concerns Ronald Reagan. I am pleased that we have a fairly young audience here, but that means many of you are likely to have a distorted view of Reagan and his presidency. It is stunning how quickly the history of a single generation ago has been spun, rewritten and in parts forgotten: a process which began as the events were still unfolding. The failure of Ronald Reagan’s presidency—by its own declared standard of judgment—is the single best-kept secret of the American Right.

This is what actually happened. Reagan the candidate was analogous in many ways to Donald Trump, a political outsider distrusted by the elites but popular with the plain men and women of the United States. He began his march to the White House in 1976 by challenging an incumbent Republican president, thereby earning the hostility of the party establishment.

In 1980, they would have greatly preferred to nominate George Bush, Sr. When they were unable to do so, they presented Reagan with an ultimatum: put Bush on the ticket or we will not support your candidacy. Thus, the disastrous Bush dynasty was foisted upon our country. I have sometimes wondered what would have happened if Reagan had just said “screw you” and gone on to run without the party’s support. Trump certainly showed it can be done.

In any case, Reagan’s message resonated powerfully with ordinary Americans, many of whom crossed over from the democratic party to vote for him. In part this is because his campaign rhetoric was almost as radical as Trump’s talk of “draining the swamp.” Reagan aptly summarized his politics in the aphorism that “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” He vowed to cut the size of the Federal government drastically. Two departments he promised to abolish outright: transportation and education.

Immediately after taking office, Reagan made a few inconsequential cuts to the federal payroll, after which the Federal government resumed its previous rate of growth, and nothing was ever heard again about cutting it. At the end of eight years, Reagan left the Federal Behemoth significantly larger than when he had found it—including the departments of transportation and education.

He bore responsibility for other egregious failures as well, such as the 1986 Amnesty. That was supposed to combine legalization for a million or so aliens with strict enforcement ever after. What we got instead was legalization of over four million and no enforcement. Hence the precarious situation we are in today.

Columnist Joe Sobran got it right when he wrote that the Reagan administration had in reality marked an historic failure of nerve. Placed at the levers of power, Reagan flinched from the radicalism of his own campaign rhetoric. He satisfied himself with administering the welfare state he had promised to go at with hammer and tongs.

But perhaps even more disturbing than this failure itself was that it did not really matter to his followers. Having gotten a self-described “conservative” elected turned out to be enough for them. To true believers, Reagan’s whole presidency was like an eight-year- long inaugural ball. Some of them are celebrating to this day.

And after Reagan, the right would never get a second chance to go after the welfare state. We would never—until now, when it is almost too late—get another chance to go after mass immigration. By the Obama years, if not before, the Reagan presidency could just as well never have happened.

We cannot afford a failure of nerve today. We are no longer talking about overregulation hampering economic growth, as in Reagan’s time, but about whether we shall survive as a people at all. And it is easy for those who remember the excitement over Reagan to imagine a future in which every hack politician operating in the dwindling White enclaves of what used to be America will be fishing for votes by piously describing himself as a “Trump conservative.” If this happens, it will mean we have failed. I don’t say this is going to happen, but preventing it is our task for the next four years.

Now, to conclude my remarks I want to offer some thoughts to our younger followers and those who have joined us recently. Popular accounts of the Alt Right highlight the phenomenon of “trolling,” in other words saying things in order to shock or provoke our enemies. We’ve seen a lot of this since the election, especially. In my view, trolling is not a worthwhile activity and does nothing to advance our cause. It may have been more excusable when the anti-White Left’s grip on power seemed unassailable. But we have just won a great victory, and we need to raise our sights. We need to understand that the kind of people we may be tempted to troll are simply not worth your time. Let’s leave them to talk only with one another. We have more important work to do.

Much of this work involves educating ourselves and others. If you wish to play an active role in the transformation we are trying to effect, you must go beyond tweets and blogs. The section of the Radix site called “The Red Pill” is a good place to start, and we are going to be adding to it in the coming months. When you do speak to those outside our movement, ignore declared enemies and concentrate your efforts on ordinary Whites : “normies,” as we call them. Remember that you will catch more flies with honey than with gall.

Our movement sometimes gets into internal disputes over how best to label itself: Alt Right, nationalism, White advocacy, and so forth. Past a certain point, such disputes can become unprofitable. But if we must bear a label, my personal favorite is “the Reality Based Community.”

The universalistic liberalism we oppose is forced by its very nature to ignore or deny certain realities: human differentiation by race and by sex, the universality of the tribal instinct and ethnic conflict. We are simply people who strive conscientiously to study these realities objectively and to shape prudent policy with a view of them. We believe this will benefit our own people without doing any injustice to others. And it is an infinitely more rewarding and profitable activity than attempting to rivet any ideological mold upon the living reality of human society.

No Comments on A Cautionary Tale

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