Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

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

The Cancer of Mankind(Podcast)

Richard Spencer, Andrew Joyce, and Charles Lyons discuss the Orwellian future of beauty pageants, White Genocide and the “Great Erasure,” the coming Trump inauguration, and Barack Obama’s legacy.

Andrew Joyce, Charles Lyons, and Richard Spencer discuss the Orwellian future of beauty pageants, White Genocide and the “Great Erasure,” the coming Trump inauguration, and Barack Obama’s legacy.

NOTES:

Chicago, Institutionalized racism meme/BLM

Susan Sontag, “Whites are the cancer of human history”

Great Erasure of Shakespeare

Black Students Burn portraits of university founders

Miss Helsinki

Kris Kobach as “Immigration Czar”

Trump an enigma/Obama legacy/Inauguration

No Comments on The Cancer of Mankind(Podcast)

Normal

A professor brags about his desire to genocide an entire race. He is the victim. Those who notice what he’s done are evil because “White genocide” is somehow both a myth and a self-evident good.

 

A professor brags about his desire to genocide an entire race. He is the victim. Those who notice what he’s done are evil because “White genocide” is somehow both a myth and a self-evident good.

Members of a group who commit wildly disproportionate violence against both their own and other peoples are occasionally shot by police while committing crimes. This is “genocide” against this group. Those who deny it have death wished upon them by thousands of people. Those who make these threats are praised for doing so.

People whose presence in the country is illegal, go on to commit additional crimes. A newly elected president, widely called a “fascist,” says he will deport them. This is called an attack on families.

The President-elect takes a congratulatory phone call from an American ally under constant threat of attack and invasion by a nominally Communist and indisputably authoritarian state. This is condemned as a provocation.

The same President-elect praises a far less repressive leader for not imposing sanctions on the United States to the detriment of both countries. This is also condemned as a provocation.

A donut-licking thot famous for posing in cat ears and grinding to autotune baselines about getting screwed till you can’t walk excites one of the thirsty male fans that sustain her lifestyle. This is taken for a violation of the decorum she evidently expects. She is now a feminist hero.

A homosexual teacher and his “husband” commit suicide after being exposed for abusing underage boys for years. They claim they are the real victims in a suicide note and other teachers hold a moment of silence for them. The school which presided over the abuse issues a bland statement about how it strives to provide a “safe and secure learning environment,” and is offering “mental health counseling.”

Members of one group receive preferential treatment in applying for jobs and coveted slots in elite institutions. Individuals of mixed race, or even entirely of other races, try to become members of this group to receive social and economic benefits. This group is still “oppressed.” Even denying that this group is oppressed renders one a “racist.”

Members of another group have high rates of income and education relative to other groups. They systematically organize in defense of their group identity and are concentrated in culturally influential professions. The United States military defends their ethnostate, even though the alliance brings no benefit to America anyone can identity. This group is also “oppressed.” If you deny it, your career will be ended and you will be cast out of polite society.

Violence and shootings of predominantly African-American residents have increased in most major cities across the country, especially in cities affected by a movement proclaiming itself “Black Lives Matter.” Attacks on police officers have also increased, including ambushes against cops sitting in their cars. In response to the unrest, there is now a painting portraying police officers as pigs hanging in the U.S. Capitol’s office complex. Saying “All Lives Matter” is a deeply offensive statement. Saying “White Lives Matter” is economic suicide.

An activist group attempts to extort a woman for financial gain. The government and the media join the campaign. This is called activism for “human rights.”

Voters in the United Kingdom overcome an unprecedented media campaign and say they want to withdraw from the European Union. A thrice-married woman from Guyana who moved to England at 10, whose latest husband is nicknamed “Mr. Hedge Fund,” files a lawsuit and stops it. She credits her “strength” to the breakup of her last marriage. Her ex-husband says she simply married someone who had more money. She is praised as the “woman of the century.” Perhaps she is.

A ‘model’ named Tess Holiday, who weighs 280 pounds, is too disgustingly obese to fit into a complimentary robe provided at hotels. She “calls out” the hotels. She is very brave.

The United States government, currently $18.96 trillion in debt, provides grant money to illegal immigrants who get deported to El Salvador. This is perhaps one of the less objectionable expenditures of the federal government, which include, at random, $152,000 to stimulate adoption by lesbians, $100,000 to produce “socially-conscious puppet shows,” and $4.6 million to increase the “emotional wellness of refugees.” Meanwhile, Republicans say Trump’s border wall may not be constructed because it is too expensive.

While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had a foundation where foreign countries could donate money. Reports from even left wing media sites suggest it may have been used in pay-for-play schemes. This was fine, but the incoming president has his name on hotels, so he should be impeached.

A video game for children features a hero saving a princess. This is called unsuitable for children. A lesbian relationship is inserted into another video game. This is a “step forward for video games.”

For no ostensible gain and after no vote, Europe’s most powerful nation insists on abandoning border controls to admit an unlimited number of young, male, Muslim migrants. It is perhaps the most consequential decision in postwar history, but there is no mainstream party which disagrees with the policy. The overwhelming majority of migrants are both unemployed and unemployable. The cost is ruinous. Crime has increased and dozens of lives have been taken in terrorist attacks. In response, the government is censoring news, covering up reports of crime, arresting citizens for posting criticism, and allowing armed thugs to attack anyone who disagrees. This is called liberal democracy.

A Catholic priest sets up a nativity scene where the Virgin Mary is placed in a burqa and the Star of Bethlehem is replaced with the homosexual flag.

A woman says she is in love with a robot and wants to get married.

Children as young as four are having sex change operations. A nine year old transsexual is on the cover of National Geographic. A male YouTube “celebrity” was recently made the face of CoverGirl. They are all, we are told proudly, “making history.”

At the same time, at a university named after a man who used to be called the Father of Our Country, history majors are no longer required to study U.S. history. Given the quality of education, this is probably a good thing.

And finally, the only White father on television who isn’t portrayed as weak, cowardly, degenerate, or perverted is a Literal Nazi.

This is “normal.”

In contrast to the above, we are told Donald Trump isn’t “normal.” Indeed, he and his supporters must not be “normalized” by portraying them as reasonable people with legitimate ideas or grievances. In fact, those who did portray Trump as a normal man, television hosts like Jimmy Fallon, should “go to hell.”

Instead, the propaganda of pathology must be intensified. Trump won because of “fake news.” He won because Russia “hacked the election.” He won because the media didn’t do enough to shut down “racist” viewpoints. It’s not because free people agreed with him and made an informed choice. It was all a nefarious scheme of some kind, some aberration of the natural order. After all, what could be more sick, unnatural and self-evidently evil than a leader who, at least rhetorically, believes it is his job to guard the interests of his own citizens?

Of course, civic nationalism, as objectionable as it is to those who determine our morality, is not what they truly fear. What is the most horrific, noxious, and insane thing imaginable is White people living by their own standards and on their own terms.

There’s no scenario where White people are reduced to a small enough minority or stripped of enough wealth and power to be left alone. If the entire White population was one village living in the middle of nowhere, there would be an international media campaign screaming about the evils of “segregation” and exclusion.

In fact, there already is. Consider the situation in South Africa, where a small but hardy group of Afrikaners have, in full compliance with the law, created the settlement of Orania where they can live in peace. It is in undesirable land near a desert. The people pose no threat nor can anyone seriously argue there is “exploitation.” Yet every year, some journalist goes there to pathologize the residents and implicitly agitates for it to be abolished.

The latest is from Thomas Page of CNN, who appears and thinks exactly as you would expect. His article marvels that the settlement is allowed to exist and sneers at those who “intellectualize the argument for self-imposed segregation” as opposed to embracing the glories of the Rainbow Nation. Orania’s residents have “divisive” views on race, we are told.

Page also shills for a book from a Swedish woman, Kajsa Norman, who worries about the “radicalism” of her kinsmen that question their dying nation’s immigration policies. Norman spent time in Orania and, having been let into the lives of its residents, now works to deconstruct and destroy them. Poor Afrikaners have it rough, but they lack “empathy.” People in Orania may not be the most racist people she knows, but they are “not role models.” Incredibly, Norman also dismisses Whites’ fears of violent crime because more Blacks are victims than Whites. Of course, that’s also because they tend to be surrounded by other Blacks, which is exactly what journalists are demanding of Whites.

This is what you would expect of course. Journalism is not a profession; it is a tactic. It is activism by different means, no different in intent than protesting, sabotage, throwing shit at your political opponents, or simply murdering your enemies. The usual goal of a journalist is to destroy his subject. Information is a weapon. Trying to “convince” a journalist is like trying to have an earnest exchange of views with the far-Left fanatic hysterically screaming he wants to kill you. They’re the same people, with the same ends and driven by the same hateful beliefs. And they have truly skewed belief about what is normal and what is not.

Orania, in their view, is not “normal.” South Africa’s president singing songs about killing Afrikaners at political rallies obviously is.

What is “normal?” Well, consider Steven Otter. He was a White man who rejected “self-imposed segregation” and lived in a Black township. He lectured his fellow Whites about the “misperception” of high crime. He attended rallies of the comically anti-White Julius Malema and his “Economic Freedom Fighters,” complete with a goofy red beret and indoor sunglasses. (Incidentally, abolishing the “racist enclave” of Orania is a goal of some in the EFF.) He also indulged in the kind of ethno-masochism pushed on Whites worldwide, berating himself for thought-crime when he pondered “racist things.” Objectively, Otter was an unstable lunatic. By the standards of the society which gives us all the blessings listed above, he was “normal.”

And he died as you’d expect, murdered by robbers who broke into his home, the fifth recent housebreaking in his neighborhood and the third on his street. No one has been arrested and probably no one ever will be. Does Otter deserve sympathy? Poor form to celebrate a man’s death, but Otter demanded that all White South Africans live like this, with no possibility of escape. Why shouldn’t he be forced to live, or die, with the consequences?

Norman smirks in the CNN article that Afrikaners who have “become the most successful in South Africa today have given up their Afrikaner identity and become South Africans first and foremost.” Otter was a South African and he died as one. And despite all the virtue signaling and temporary tributes, his death was essentially meaningless. None of the underlying premises of that Third World society will be challenged. In South Africa, the goal of the deracinated European is simply to make enough money to isolate yourself from social collapse – or just move to another country entirely, as many of the liberal Whites who agitated against apartheid have already done.

This is not meant as an insult to South Africa. Today, every Western country is a “Rainbow Nation.” An as an spokesman for the Orania Movement puts it to CNN, today there is an “existential attitude towards human identity that views it as a mere construct, to be reconstructed by anyone and everyone for and by him/herself.” I’d argue that to be “normal,” this is exactly what you need to believe. And once you build your society around this, the headlines above are only the beginning of what you will get.

The Orania spokesman said defiantly, “That is not the way we plan to live.” And neither can we. Living under siege is more noble, and more “normal,” than living the way we do now. And as some reviews of Norman’s book note, ultimately, the choice of whether to separate and survive or deracinate and die confronts not just the Boers but the Swedes and ultimately all Europeans. And this isn’t “normal.”

“Normal” is knowing who you are, living with dignity and purpose, and leaving a legacy which means something. Normal is pursuing the upward development of your own people, not tearing down everything decent and beautiful in pursuit of the twisted visions of egalitarianism. Normal is taking pride in your own nation. Normal is having a place to call home. We owe the perverted fanatics who seek to take this away from us no explanations, only defiance.

All the progressives freaking out about Trump and the course of 2016 are right for the wrong reasons. This isn’t normal. Nothing about our culture is normal. Nothing about the state of our people is normal. But Trump’s election is one tiny step towards normality. And we should be confident in our eventual triumph and restoration.

After all, we are Europeans. Victory is our birthright.

No Comments on Normal

Whose America First?

One of the most remarkable turn of events in America’s 2016 election has been the revitalization of the phrase “America First!” America First as a slogan has its origins in the pre-World War II America First Committee which was dedicated to keeping the United States out of that war. It was a slogan that energized many in the hinterlands against what they saw as a useless entanglement over foreign interests many thousands of miles away. Notable supporters of the Committee included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford along with cultural figures like Walt Disney, Frank Lloyd Wright and E.E. Cummings. It even included many leftists independent of communist marching orders like Norman Thomas. And of course, there was its most noted celebrity spokesman, aviator Charles Lindbergh. 

One of the most remarkable turn of events in America’s 2016 election has been the revitalization of the phrase “America First!” America First as a slogan has its origins in the pre-World War II America First Committee which was dedicated to keeping the United States out of that war. It was a slogan that energized many in the hinterlands against what they saw as a useless entanglement over foreign interests many thousands of miles away. Notable supporters of the Committee included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford along with cultural figures like Walt Disney, Frank Lloyd Wright and E.E. Cummings. It even included many leftists independent of communist marching orders like Norman Thomas. And of course, there was its most noted celebrity spokesman, aviator Charles Lindbergh.

America First as a slogan gained a second life in the candidacy of Pat Buchanan in the early nineties, a figure who sought to shake off the moribund morass of the Cold War and return America to its earlier traditions. However, by this time a new America was emerging, one which was not only at war with the Old America, but was downright hostile to its history, traditions and very people.

Old America

Many involved with America First had radically different views of what America ultimately was, but what united them was an understanding that America was a nation with its own interests and its own people. The old America that they defended was, in many ways, birthed out of the tragedy of the War Between the States. The all-consuming fire that tore asunder what could be called the American First Republic was put back together after a painful process of radicalism and reconciliation between its formerly warring parts.

After the shameful and destructive excess of Reconstruction in the Old South was ended, a place was carved in American history for its formerly warring White nations. The valor and honor of the Southern cause was acknowledged, as well as its monuments and particular memory, while at the same time the nation was understood as one, moving ever towards the frontier.

This was acknowledged from the Founding onwards; for instance, John Jay in Federalist no.2 states:

”With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

In 1921 then Vice President Calvin Coolidge would re-enunciate this similar spirit in an article for Good Housekeeping, writing:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

The title of his article? “Whose Country is This?”

Ultimately, the American nation of this time was defined by its White citizens, be they Yankee, Confederate, or Western. It was a tapestry reaching back to Plymouth Rock, Jamestown, and Columbus that provided a shared history and vision, and it was, for the most part, based on the history of its White citizens.

The settlement of the frontier led to the creation of what is now deemed “the American Heartland,” the breadbasket from whence America was fed and the yeoman collection of family farms birthed a vision of the “American Dream,” regardless of its fulfillment. The White men and women who went west formed the backbone of the America First Committee, along with many old stock Americans who were perturbed by foreign influence on American affairs.

The America First Committee was much maligned by many in the mainstream media of its day, as Nazis, Babbitts, or even Bolsheviks.

Things came to a head on September 11, 1941 when a man simultaneously derided as a “Nazi” and a “gopher Bolshevik” gave a speech to a Des Moines, Iowa crowd. Here, in the heartland, Charles Lindbergh made his plea:

” Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory–a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.”

That “American destiny” that our “forefathers established” was at the crux of Lindbergh’s argument: that the destiny of America should be in the hands of Americans alone, and in particular, the historic American Nation bequeathed to us by the Founders. Not an abstraction, not an ideal, and sure as hell not an idea, but a people.

Of course, Lindbergh’s speech would go on to name another group of people, a group that could roughly be described by an American of his time as an anti-America. was one which sought to put various tribal, ideological and commercial interests ahead of those of the living historic America. In some ways, this was a milder form of a division that also occurred in that other “nation of the enlightenment,” France, which had similarly divided up into a France/Anti-France distinction.

Lindbergh went on to describe the groups as follows:

” The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

Of course, it didn’t matter that in the speech Lindbergh acknowledged the Jewish plight against Germany as “understandable.” It was enough to sink him and the movement. Just two months later Pearl Harbor would come, America would be at war, and the America First Committee would shut its doors and do their part for their country.

Even Lindbergh would fly in bomber raids over the Pacific. However, the America he fought to preserve started on a dialectical path that would forever change the nature of its people and its history.

The post-war Lindbergh serves as an interesting microcosm of the America he wanted to put first. He got involved in environmental activism preserving the natural beauty of his America.

Many of today’s largest immigration restrictionist organizations trace their origins to the nascent environmentalist movement with concerns about quality of life and a literal preservation of America as a place. Many old stock Americans were involved in this cause including not only Madison Grant and Lindbergh, but people like John Tanton, another American from the heartland who seeks to preserve not just America, but its people.

This impulse was even derided throughout popular culture. Thus, you have jokes like those of brash fraudster Gordon Gekko in 1987’s Wall Street who declaims, “That’s the one thing you have to remember about WASPs: they love animals and hate people.” Contra Mr. Gekko, it’s not hatred of people, just an indifference to an alien people. Indeed, among the groups who opposed the 1965 Immigration Act, which transformed the United States demographically, were the Daughters of the American Revolution, who if thought of at all now are just a prop to establish someone’s WASP identity in popular culture.

But America was a changing place after the war, and prosperity and progress were intermingled with battles for the soul of the American nation that reverberate to this day.

Boomer America

Post-war America was one of peace, prosperity and cultural hegemony, so much so that many refer to this era as “the American Century.” The generation that returned from the carnage of Europe and the Pacific eagerly started to enjoy the fruits of their victory: in the G.I. Bill, the massive infrastructure improvements, and most of all, in starting families. Between the end of the war and the beginning of the 1960s Americans gave birth to millions of children who would grow up in a much different America than the one we have today, and would go on to shape America in a vastly different direction than many of their predecessors.

The children of America’s soldiers came of age not only in an “American” era, but one dominated by mass forms of media, large corporations, and big government. The way mass media consumption of movies and television have shaped “boomer” attitudes towards their own history would come to have massive repercussions for the America of today.

Looked on from today, many complain that the boomer generation faced few if any conflicts; however, that is not exactly correct.

The boomer childhood witnessed some of the greatest feats of humanity, including our earliest voyages into space and our (so far) impressive discipline in not blowing ourselves into a cinder. At the same time, it was punctuated with “events” that gave them the feeling of history. I say events, because in the dawn of the mass-media age, history is never just “made” but is molded not just in its moments but for many years after. The two biggest of these events were the Vietnam War and the so-called “Civil Rights” movement.

The Vietnam War was more of a watershed for White America than the Civil Rights movement, even if it is hard to see it that way today. In addition to its literal battlefields, Vietnam served as a sort of opening salvo in the culture wars. While the descendants of Lindbergh’s America First coalition were largely yelling to “nuke Hanoi,” left-wing inspired youth largely staged massive draft protests and became known as “hippies” and founders of the peace movement.

Even the demonstrations were very different. Take for example one of the Vietnam War’s most well-known protesters: Jane Fonda.

There couldn’t be a bigger difference between Jane Fonda and Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was known throughout the world for his daring feats of aviation and engineering prowess. The man even started work on a heart perfusion pump when his sister-in-law came down with a condition. This in contrast with Fonda, who was a second-generation actor whose biggest claims to fame at that point included “Barbarella” and being amongst the radical chic set.

One has only to contrast the ways the speak against their wars, and of the America they represent:

”In the shadow of the Temple of Literature I saw Vietnamese actors and actresses perform the second act of Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons, and this was very moving to me- the fact that artists here are translating and performing American plays while US imperialists are bombing their country…I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam- these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.”

While the Vietnam War was a major tragedy on the part of America, the country that Fonda speaks of is very different than the one spoken of by Lindbergh.

For Fonda, America is Arthur Miller, Hollywood and its assorted causes. It is ultimately an idea and not a place. The tragedy isn’t just that Americans are bombing the Vietnamese, but that the Vietnamese are living closer to some fantasy of America than Americans themselves. For many who came of age at this time, their patriotism was essentially forged as one for a country as an idea, rather than a place built by a particular people.

This was a watershed stage in the decline of American consciousness. Where once it was asked to think twice about its foreign interventions by a hero, here it was asked to do so by a harlot.

Vietnam was the first time that White America felt a modicum of doubt about the way history was moving. The American South had tasted such a reversal of history before, giving it a kind of strangeness to the rest of the American spirit, but the post-war reconciliation that carried through the World Wars largely delivered an American South that was, to paraphrase Walker Percy, victorious and prosperous. That is, except for the vexing race issue.

The Civil Rights movement has gone down as the new Founding Epoch of America’s new post-1968 mythology. The “dream” of Martin Luther King Jr. has gone on to crowd out all other dreams of America, to animate a far different country than the one its original Founders intended.

More ink has been spilled on this era than almost any other by movement pens. However, what is usually missed is how deep the story of the Civil Rights Movement goes into the America of today. That’s because America now is largely a different country than the one most American right-wingers envision it to be.

The America of today declared its independence with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has sought to bring in line the rest of its institutions by any means necessary.

But for an older generation of White Americans, the Civil Rights movement was less of a revolution in the very mythological underpinnings of the American state and more just another brokered peace. Just as there was reconciliation after the “brother’s war” between the states, so too did many White Americans see the passages of most Civil Rights legislation. In this way, all the programs initiatives and welfare of the past half century have been nothing more of a counterfeit peace offering that White America deludes itself into believing. That’s because unlike the truce between the warring factions of North and South which were united by “common ancestry, customs” etc. the irreconcilable differences between the different racial groups in America have almost always led to conflict.

Understanding the America that the boomer generation has constructed helps to understand what it is they want to preserve. The triumphalist narrative of their history is best represented in such popular schlock at Forrest Gump which depicts an idiot’s encounters through various nodes on the staircase to progress.

For boomers, America was less a place of ancestry and heritage and more of a place of potential. In particular, individual potential. Its why an old hippie can become a yuppie without batting an eye. Their America is one of narrow possibilities and potentials, not an America of blood and soil.

Thus, the radicalism of the sixties gave way to the American boosterism of the Reagan years. Supply-side economics made everyone a king, from the Huxtables to Family Ties. The America of Ronald Reagan represented the conservative entrenchment of the revolution begun in the sixties. It even had its own “shining city on a hill” speech.

We arrive in an America forged on the cliffs or Normandy, where it once was Plymouth Rock, and declaring its own independence and purpose in ordaining that “all men are created equal” (with the only dispute within that catechism as to what it is true equality actually means).

That most boomer of presidents Bill Clinton captured this spirit when he spoke about the coming racial transformation of America and said:

“We should be honored that America, whether it’s called the City on a Hill, or the Old Gold Mountain, or El Norte, is still seen around the world as the land of new beginnings…America is not so much a place as a promise, not a guarantee but a chance, not a particular race but an embrace of our common humanity”

This would become the new American dream of boomer America. An America where everyone could be another unique brick in the wall. An America that didn’t see any colors but red, white, and blue. It was an America that was built through orgiastic dreaming and even some good impulses, but it was a fantasy America that never existed.

America was birthed anew, and today we are living in it.

Obama’s America

Pat Buchanan tried to build a new coalition around “America First” throughout the 1990s. It was largely a failure, but succeeded in questioning the contours of the new America in both foreign and domestic policy. His most lasting testament however might be that he elucidated the divide in America more clearly than anyone else in his famous “Culture War” speech of the 1992 GOP national convention.

He intoned:

”My friends, this election is about more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe, and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as was the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America.”

Buchanan was largely correct that America was now engaged in its own internal cold war. What was missing, however, was the fact that not only was there a grand cultural replacement going on, but also a demographic one. America was losing its historic, meaning White, character. The events of the following decade would only make this clearer.

On September 11, 2001, the certainties of this new America came shattering down in downtown Manhattan. The ‘end of history’ turned out to merely be its prelude. The attack by Islamic extremists on what was then the pax Americana sent shockwaves throughout the system with many trying to justify the horror that had just been broadcast to millions of people.

People were lectured about how our enemies hate us “for our freedoms” and a variety of the other various nostrums of the day. Many believe in this, because, having grown up with tales of America’s inexorable march towards the current year, no one could hate us for what we do. There was a right and a wrong, a Japan and a Pearl Harbor, a Bull Connor and a Martin Luther King Jr: and we had a “decider” as president.

It didn’t take long for America’s response to go south. Soon we were engaged in a war in Iraq, with soldiers largely coming from the rural south, America at home meanwhile was engaged in an orgiastic economic boom of “home ownership” whose hollowness would be laid bare.

But when many of those same men returned home, it was to empty homes. Most of them were foreclosed on in one of the largest economic downturns since the Great Depression. America, drunk on a mix of the prosperity gospel and anti-discrimination laws, at last found itself at a bust.

The “conservative” movement of this time was a largely moribund husk which mixed snake-oil evangelical outreach along with “MLK Was a Republican” style argumentation. In fact, it was argued that by their very existence Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had shown that the color-blind society of boomer conservatives was not only real, but in practice.

The Bush years however, only managed to accelerate major trends in America. Its indifference to immigration and obsession with policy minutiae just moved the age of Barack Obama closer.

Obama’s eventual triumph in the 2008 election was the culmination of the America that was given birth in the sixties. The multicultural smart set finally had everything they ever wanted in a president. To quote the first lady “first the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Obama was also perhaps the first presidential candidate of the left to articulate the internal cold war going on in America. At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania he decried rural mostly White Americans who “cling to their guns and bibles.” Cultural agitprop is largely used as a proxy for speaking in demographic terms. That’s the truce in our cold war: race is the identity that dare not speak its name, lest we have blood on the streets.

Whose America?

Today, writing from Trump’s America one assumes that today Michelle Obama couldn’t be sadder. Trump’s campaign revived the phrase “America First” in a way that Pat Buchanan’s just couldn’t do. However, what remains is the question of what “America” it is that Donald Trump wants to put first.

Usually the phrase is interpreted by those on the right as having to do with the American “heartland” and the rural people there who “cling to their guns and their bibles.” But this is begging the question, who are these people?

They are mostly White, older Americans who have felt deeply betrayed by the way their country has been run. In turn the inhabitants of the other America largely see this group as Kulaks to be liquidated on the march to progress.

For conservatives, the question “who are we?” is an unsettling one, because they’ve bought into an America not based on a people, but on “principles.” Unless it comes to grips with the fact that America was founded and largely defined by White men, the country it puts first will always be one born of the left.

For them, they must answer the question: whose America first? And they must answer before it’s too late.

No Comments on Whose America First?

On the Death of John Berger

John Berger, who died very recently at the age of 90, is probably not a familiar name to Radix readers. Like many activists hostile to our people and our civilization, Berger carved out an influential but relatively undisturbed career for himself. In this case, our deceased protagonist was an ‘art critic’ and author. Berger did not openly promote a course on ‘Whiteness studies,’ nor did he advance an agenda of White guilt. His mode of operation was more perhaps more insidious, consisting of an influential but somehow barely perceptible drip-feeding of intellectual poison into Western cultural self-confidence. He was a quintessential contributor to what Kevin MacDonald has termed the ‘Culture of Critique’ and, in his most famous TV and book project, Ways of Seeing (1972), he steadily chipped away at confidence in traditional Western cultural aesthetics, paving the way for ‘feminist readings’ of traditional art and pop culture. Ways of Seeing is now required reading for many college art courses. 

John Berger, who died very recently at the age of 90, is probably not a familiar name to Radix readers. Like many activists hostile to our people and our civilization, Berger carved out an influential but relatively undisturbed career for himself. In this case, our deceased protagonist was an ‘art critic’ and author.

Berger did not openly promote a course on ‘Whiteness studies,’ nor did he advance an agenda of White guilt. His mode of operation was perhaps more insidious, consisting of an influential but somehow barely perceptible drip-feeding of intellectual poison into Western cultural self-confidence. He was a quintessential contributor to what Kevin MacDonald has termed the ‘Culture of Critique’ and, in his most famous TV and book project, Ways of Seeing (1972), he steadily chipped away at confidence in traditional Western cultural aesthetics, paving the way for ‘feminist readings’ of traditional art and pop culture. Ways of Seeing is now required reading for many college art courses.

Berger was born in November 1926 to Stanley and Miriam Berger, secular Jews living in the heavily-Jewish suburbs of an area of London called Stoke Newington. In 1946 he enrolled in the Chelsea School of Art and the Central School of Art in London. He doesn’t appear to have impressed his instructors with artistic talent.

Although Berger’s Wikipedia entry states that his early work was exhibited in London galleries, it should be noted that his entire early promotion was a product of ethnic networking rather than artistic merit. Berger exhibited at only two art galleries during this period, the first being the Wildenstein, Redfern, which should require no elaboration. The other venue was Leicester Galleries, owned by Cecil and Wilfred Phillips. The Phillips brothers, connected by blood to the Anglo-Jewish elite, including the Joseph and Levy families, were part of a wealthy clique of modern art promoters. As well as sponsoring the work of John Berger, the gallery also gave prominence to other figures of questionable talent, but not questionable kinship, including David Bomberg and Jacob Epstein.

After his art career failed to reach any meaningful heights, Berger followed the maxim that “Those that can, do; Those who can’t, teach.” While teaching drawing from 1948 to 1955, he began posturing as an art critic and made little attempt to hide his budding affinity with Marxism. His first big break in television came in the late 1960s when Berger was given a job creating art-related content for Granada, a new Manchester-based television company owned by Sidney Bernstein. Berger would also soon present himself as a novelist.

Francis Parker Yockey once wrote that the modern craze for originality is a manifestation of decadence. It should, therefore, come as no great surprise that Berger’s 1972 novel G won the Booker Prize, owing mainly to the text’s unconventional and informal style, not to mention sexual content. The ‘plot’ is so bare that the novel’s Wikipedia entry is more barren than any other work of literature in existence. Ever-antagonistic to Western culture, Berger accepted the Booker prize before giving half the money to the Black Panthers, asserting with an empty bravado that the gesture was a protest at Booker McConnell’s colonialist past.

Politically, Berger was an avowed ‘Marxist humanist.’ He titled an early collection of essays Permanent Red, as part as a statement of political commitment, and worked tirelessly to imbue his work in the art world with the same red hue. He was keen to critique and deconstruct the pride attached to traditional art in Britain, and every aspect of his work was designed to undermine confidence in older art forms.In contrast with the presentation of traditional art shows on British television, during the filming of Ways of Seeing Berger refused to dress formally, opting instead for a ‘pop art’ shirt. Rather than adopt a serious and reverent tone, Berger would move rapidly about the screen, mocking, and pulling garish faces.

The tone of Ways of Seeing was dominated by derisiveness and opposition. As one of Berger’s interviewers later remarked, he would “compare the old masters with advertisements and solicit the opinions of mini-skirted feminists.” Experts keen to celebrate the artistic triumphs of the West were ignored or described indirectly as out-of-touch chauvinists. Berger would later state that “Our concept was, I suppose, distinctly opposed to [traditional art shows] like Civilization. Kenneth Clark was a much more erudite art historian than I was, or am. He was an expert, sharing his knowledge with those less expert. And we wanted somehow…to destructure expertise…That was our strategy.”

For the remainder of his career, Berger would advance a relentless Marxist assault on the entire Western art tradition since the Renaissance. Given a platform to address millions by the BBC, he presented oil paintings by the old masters not as the perfect capturing of light and form, but instead as perfect examples of a civilization adapted to depicting objects and people as things to be owned as private property. To Berger, all Western art was an expression of capitalist social relations. An admirer of the Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin, whom he regarded as ‘tender,’ he advanced the feminist-pleasing argument that Western art systematically depicted women not as active subjects but as objects to be looked at and possessed. Western art was thus morally suspect, aesthetically limited, and ultimately worthy only of derision and harsh critique.

It is a sad indictment of the contemporary arts that the last twenty-four hours have seen a veritable outpouring of grief at the passing of this individual. Panegyrics have burst forth on Twitter, describing Berger as “the best ever writer on art,” and “an energy source in a depleted world.” There is, I suppose, no hindsight for the blind, and many of our people have been blinded to the accomplishments of their forebears. But Berger’s legacy will ring hollow to those with a deeper sense of themselves. I shall not be mourning his passing or paying homage to his life’s work. To me, Berger will always be an artificial ‘talent’ concocted by the Wildenstein’s, the Phillips’s, and the Bernstein’s, and given an unparalleled and undeserved platform to lecture the West on its artistic accomplishments. He was a genius, like so many of his ilk, only in shaping ways of seeing.

No Comments on On the Death of John Berger

The Winter of Our Discontent

  

The industrial revolution wasn’t the beginning of our discontents. No, what Weber calls the disenchantment of the world begins further back, some say with Machiavelli, some say with Luther—in fact, both were probably required to break the incarnate medieval spell. In any case, those of us who have found ourselves on the Alt-Right have almost undoubtedly viscerally experienced the hollowed-out character of the age: for most of our lives, we’ve wandered through a dead world.

 

“The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization, and, above all, by the ‘disenchantment of the world.’ Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life either into the transcendental realm of mystic life or into the brotherliness of direct and personal human relations.” —Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism

The industrial revolution wasn’t the beginning of our discontents. No, what Weber calls the disenchantment of the world begins further back, some say with Machiavelli, some say with Luther—in fact, both were probably required to break the incarnate medieval spell. In any case, those of us who have found ourselves on the Alt-Right have almost undoubtedly viscerally experienced the hollowed-out character of the age: for most of our lives, we’ve wandered through a dead world.

What Weber spoke of was summed up in Nietzsche’s famous proclamation: “God is dead.” We killed him. When the early moderns (Machiavelli, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke), decided that God was not coming to save mankind and that mankind must instead conquer nature to save itself, it embarked upon a seemingly splendid and glorious endeavor that finally resulted in flat-souled consumers. “Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality…” Machiavelli’s famous break with the ancient philosophers and the Church was simply a foreshadowing of Nietzsche’s three words.

The phrase “the disenchantment of the world” made a comeback three years ago when former editor of First Things, Joseph Bottum, wrote a famous essay in which he essentially surrendered the culture war on the issue of same-sex marriage. In many ways, Bottum’s argument, confused as it was, was indisputably true: the culture war was lost anyway. His logic turned on the question of whether an understanding of natural law was even possible in our disenchanted world. Allow me to quote extensively from Bottum’s essay:

“Indeed, once the sexual revolution brought the Enlightenment to sex, demythologizing and disenchanting the Western understanding of sexual intercourse, the legal principles of equality and fairness were bound to win, as they have over the last decade: the only principles the culture has left with which to discuss topics such as marriage.”

Those consequences were, in essence, the stripping away of magic—the systematic elimination of metaphysical, spiritual, and mystical meanings. Science, Francis Bacon told us, could not advance in any other way. Real democracy, Diderot explained, would not arrive “until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” When the Supreme Court gave us the infamous “mystery passage” in the 1992 abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey—“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”—the justices were merely following out to its logical conclusion the great modern project of disenchantment.”

“The goal of the church today must primarily be the re-enchantment of reality.”

“We should not accept without a fight an essentially un-Catholic retreat from the public square to a lifeboat theology and the small communities of the saved that Alasdair MacIntyre predicted at the end of After Virtue (1981). But there are much better ways than opposing same-sex marriage for teaching the essential God-hauntedness, the enchantment, of the world—including massive investments in charity, the further evangelizing of Asia, a willingness to face martyrdom by preaching in countries where Christians are killed simply because they are Christians, and a church-wide effort to reinvigorate the beauty and the solemnity of the liturgy. Some Catholic intellectual figures will continue to explore the deep political-theory meanings manifest in the old forms of Christendom, and more power to them, but the rest of us should turn instead to more effective witness in the culture as it actually exists.”

I’m not ultimately interested in whether Bottum’s argument about whether natural law can be understood in the modern world is correct. His general analysis of our predicament seems nevertheless true.

There are various reactions to disenchantment: over the top romanticism, LARPing, existentialism in its various forms, neopaganism, traditional liturgical Christianity—all of these are more healthy than an embrace of decayed reality, but none seem to be enough to overcome the modern world. We pretend that we’re asleep, hoping to awaken to a midsummer night’s dream. But we’re awake. The dream isn’t coming. Nothing is coming.

And then there was 2016.

What is truly remarkable is that a project that many men and women, not to mention the oldest human institution on earth, have undertaken and failed to carry through over the past several centuries—the re-enchantment of reality—was made possible this year by Donald Trump and meme-making shitlords on the internet. It isn’t just that history began again on June 16th,2015—it isn’t that the past 18 months felt like a dizzying dream—it’s that slowly, and then all at once, reality felt real again. That’s the thing about enchantment: you feel more alive, and more real, not less. Both the natural and the supernatural world come alive. Each present moment is more pregnant with meaning and feeling. Time stands still and speeds up all at once. And so on.

Perhaps we needed something like a king to rouse us from our waking nightmare. Perhaps there’s no rational, non-supernatural explanation for it at all. But enchantment has returned. There may be no going back to a pre-Enlightened world, but for the first time in all our lives, there is hope for a new world, a time that is redeemed. We can look forward to 2017 with the renewed faith that in this brave new world, there will be time for you, time for me, and time for our people.

As Lawrence of Arabia said, “the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.” We often culturally appropriate Hertzl’s famous line, “If you will it, it is no dream.” But perhaps in 2016 we were given a gift: the gift of understanding that it takes more than will. It takes enchantment.

No Comments on The Winter of Our Discontent

Announcing: Homo Americanus

I’m very happy to announce that, in February of 2017, Radix will release the second, revised and expanded edition of Tomislav Sunic’s classic volume, Homo Americanus: A Child of the…

I’m very happy to announce that, in February of 2017, Radix will release the second, revised and expanded edition of Tomislav Sunic’s classic volume, Homo Americanus: A Child of the Postmodern Age. This edition is substantialy re-written and includes additional essays by Kevin MacDonald and Alain de Benoist.

Homo Americanus

24.00
Add To Cart

 

Tomislav Sunic
Homo Americans: A Child of the Postmodern Age
With Essays by Kevin MacDonald and Alain de Benoist
Radix / 2017


Communism was a make-belief system, which, ironically, citizens never really believed in, and which everybody, including Communist party dignitaries, made fun of in private. Eventually, this mendacity spelled the death of the ideology and even the legitimacy of Communist states. In America, however, politicians and scholars, even the masses, passionately believe every word of democratic pablum.

The end of the Cold War was accompanied by the global triumph of the “American Way of Life,” not to mention the American-led financial system and global order. With Communism and Fascism in the dustbin, no one could question the legitimacy of such moral buzzards as “democracy,” “freedom,” “rights,” and “diversity.”

First published in 2006, and now substantially expanded and revised, Tomislav Sunic’s Homo Americanus: A Child of the Postmodern Age examines the history and “political theology” of America and Americanism—as well as their mirror reflections, Communism and “Anti-Americanism.” Today, millions of Americans pride themselves as living in a kind of universal nation, a place for all peoples; but Americanism has a peculiar history. The “Shining City on the Hill”—a favorite metaphor of Ronald Reagan, neoconservatives, and even Barack Obama—was first voiced by Puritan John Winthrop, who, before setting foot on land, declared the New World to be a New Jerusalem. Sunic interrogates this religious quality to American identity, and speculates as to the future of the American ideology in the multicultural 21st century.

Included in this volume are an introductory essay by Kevin MacDonald, on the Jewish experience in America, and a new essay by Alain de Benoist, detailing the perspective on America from the European New Right.

No Comments on Announcing: Homo Americanus

The Alt Right: The American Resistance

The United States is a sick place. In 1958, famous poet Ezra Pound once noted that “America is an insane asylum,” and those words seem truer today than they did back then. Many Americans feel that the United States is in decline. Our culture has become too hedonistic, too materialistic, too degenerate, too apathetic and too nihilistic.

The United States is a sick place. In 1958, famous poet Ezra Pound once noted that “America is an insane asylum,” and those words seem truer today than they did back then. Many Americans feel that the United States is in decline. Our culture has become too hedonistic, too materialistic, too degenerate, too apathetic and too nihilistic.

Massive demographic changes are taking place that will permanently alter the fabric of society. Both men and women are fallen to a large degree from masculine and feminine ideals. Political Correctness has run amok and imposed a set of soft totalitarian speech codes upon our discourse. Our elites appear to be openly hostile to us.

Our media, which no one trusts anymore, is controlled by a therapeutic managerial state which seeks to modify our behaviors and thoughts through propaganda. If you have a problem with any of this then you are some type of thought criminal who needs to fired from your job, exiled from polite society, or sent off to be re-educated in the values of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity.’ If you are said thought criminal, then welcome to the resistance.

Finally, it seems that the winds are blowing in a new direction. We have identified the demon that is destroying our nation: globalism. Donald Trump built his entire presidential run on opposing globalism in favor of what he calls ‘Americanism’ – a type of civic nationalism.

This is a positive shift but it is not quite enough.

What is it about globalism that makes it so terrible? Sure, the off-shoring and outsourcing of labor overseas creates unfriendly economic conditions at home for some American workers. That is not the most damaging effect of globalism though. The most damaging effect of globalism is the free movement of labor across borders – that is to say immigration, mass Third World immigration. Importation of different ethno-cultural groups is damaging to our culture and our way of life. It deracinates and degenerates the traditional American nation – that is to say White people, people of European ancestry.

This has become more than just immigration with failure to assimilate – this is an invasion. Multiculturalism is just colonialism in reverse. We are being colonized. We are being replaced.

“But America is a nation of immigrants!” you hear our critics screech. America has been throughout most of its history a White nation. Sure, there were various ethnicities that came to the US: the English, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, etc. Sure, there were many different religious denominations that came as well. These various Europeans all assimilated to an Anglo-Saxon culture.

The traditional American nation that existed up until 1965 was a White nation. Sure, there were a handful of other groups like Blacks or Native Americans that constituted about 10% of the population. It is important to note that even after having shared this continent with other races for centuries there has still not been any assimilation of these groups – only a desire to be separate from us.

People of European ancestry have come to define what it means to be an American. White Americans are the de facto American whereas all other racial groups are some type of hyphenated American. By replacing the traditional American nation, you replace America. It becomes something entirely different. It will never be the same either.

This is why Trump’s civic nationalism is not enough because it ultimately does not solve the most damning aspect of globalism. If anyone can be an American simply by filling out their paperwork properly then being an American is entirely meaningless. Even in Trump’s America, we will still find ourselves culturally and racially alienated from our own countrymen. We will still find ourselves living in an America which is changing for the worse.

Don’t get me wrong, I do admire Donald Trump. I admire him for clearing the way for our movement. He has given us a chance to breakthrough and try and save the traditional American nation.

The Alt Right is the sole authentic resistance movement of our time. Do not be fooled by other so-called revolutionary or populist movements as they only offer you false hope. As mentioned previously, the Trumpian ‘New Right’ of civic nationalism is simply inadequate along with the other names it is known by – Western chauvinism, cultural libertarianism, or the ‘alt lite‘. The Bernie Sanders movement was a promising populist movement on the political left that we saw in 2016. Sadly, their movement is entirely compatible with the design of the managerial state. In many ways, their populist demands will only increase the size and power of the managerial state as they demand more social programs while grumbling about the corporate greed of the 1%. Not to mention that their “anti-racist” rhetoric is entirely aligned with the multiculturalist agenda of the managerial state. Civic nationalism and left-wing populism offer phony opposition to the system.

If you really want to challenge the status quo and speak truth to power then join the Alt Right. The Alt Right seeks to wage all-out metapolitical warfare against all enemies of the traditional American nation. We are identitarians and this is our concern. We seek to preserve and foster White identity – both here at home and globally around the world to all of our European brothers and sisters no matter where they may be.

Considering that the USA is the breeding grounds for globalism and has cultural hegemony that reaches every inch of this planet, we American identitarians find ourselves in the heart of Mordor. Our success here will very likely determine the future of all European people around the globe who find themselves in a very similar boat of being replaced in their own homelands by Third Worlders. Our movement is a global effort in alliance with European identitarians of all stripes. We must unite to destroy the great evil that is destroying our peoples.

We will halt the Third World invasion. We will reverse its colonialism. We will destroy the ideology of globalism. We will fight. We will win. We have no other option.

No Comments on The Alt Right: The American Resistance

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