Given the challenges we face, it would seem only prudent that we accept offers of help from others willing to carry water for our cause.

Except I would rather decline the “help” proffered by faux-conservative Jews.

For example, on paper radio show host and best-selling author Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) sounds good for our cause, as Wiki testifies:

Savage has summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture. Some, including Savage himself, have characterized his views as conservative nationalism, while critics have characterized them as “fostering extremism or hatred.” He outspokenly opposes illegal immigration to the United States, supports the English-only movement and argues that Liberalism and Progressivism are degrading American culture.

An early Savage book from nearly twenty years ago, The Death of the White Male: The Case Against Affirmative Action, sounded like its heart was in the right place, arguing that affirmative action was reverse discrimination.

Savage’s big publishing break, however, came in 2003 when his book The Savage Nation made it to the top of the NYTimes best-seller list. There he claimed to be saving us from a “homosexualized, feminized America” that is “unraveling the very fabric of this great nation.”

Next came The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military which argues, among other things, that “the Left operates specifically to undermine God, country, family, and the military” and that liberalism is “either treason or insanity” or “a mental disorder.” He also goes after immigration again, discusses “Hollywood Idiots,” and claims that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appointment to the Supreme Court was “akin to appointing the general counsel of the Ku Klux Klan to the bench.”

Since this all sounds pretty good, what’s my beef? Basically, my beef is that Savage seems to me to fit into the mold of the controlled opposition. By that, I mean that the largely Jewish elite in America attempts to appease and distract Whites from successfully pursuing their best interests by co-opting a genuine White movement.

Someone like Rush Limbaugh perfectly fits the bill. He’ll hit many of the crucial issues that Whites embrace, but he will never get close to the core of the problem: Jews fomenting these anti-White movements.

The result is that Jews are prominent only on the left, but also on the (faux) conservative Right. I’m not even going to talk about the neocons. I want to talk about the culture warriors who are Jewish and have elbowed aside more genuine White activists like Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis.

Sure, Savage mocks a few Jews, prompting at least one group to call him a self-hating Jew. But does his oeuvre do anything to help us get to the Jewish core of this “culture of critique” that Savage only superficially attacks?

Here he gives his views on “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” He blames four individuals, three of whom are Jews and all of whom are linked to the 1960s counterculture: Alan Ginsberg, Bella Abzug, William Kunstler, and Timothy Leary. But he never identifies them as Jews, and that’s as far as his “analysis” goes — perhaps all one can expect from mainstream talk radio.

Another example of a Jewish faux-conservative is Bernard Goldberg. His book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, is devilishly effective at feigning an attack on the problems of liberalism. Its real accomplishment, however, is that it lets Jews as Jews off scot-free. It creates the illusion of attacking the proper target but in fact leads readers off to pursue harmless remedies. Thus, Professor Connelly here will give Goldberg an “A+” for obfuscation.

This tactic has been necessary for the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, for it fends off the normal outrage of a dispossessed and mocked host culture. As Kevin MacDonald noted in the TOO Blog on the issue of Jewish loyalty to Israel, “This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas.”

The Jewish culture of deceit indeed.

One of the more sophisticated examples of Jewish faux-conservatism comes in the person of former radical David Horowitz, whose conversion book DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the ’60s is quite candid about Jewish behavior. His even more personal book Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey was one of the best insider views of the Jewish subversive mindset that I’ve read. It left me convinced that Horowitz to a large degree personally believes in his critique of Jewish thinking and behavior.

Be that as it may, it really does nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam. His book Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom, for instance, appears sincere in some parts in its attack on the Left. But for anyone wishing to look carefully, it is abundantly clear that the main point is to attack leftist critics of Israel.

I’ve been studying these Jewish faux-conservatives for some time now and am impressed with the way the mainstream media accepts them as authoritative, all the while going through the motions of labeling them as dangerous because of their “extreme” conservative views. In fact, however, they are all part of the game — members of the inner circle. And they can get away with far more than their Gentile counterparts.

Now comes a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, slathered with lox and cream cheese (and maybe followed by a whiskey chaser): the case of one Andrew Breitbart, Internet phenomenon, and socially constructed Jew.

Last month, TIME magazine ran a long story on him, “Citizen Breitbart: The Web’s New Right-Wing Impresario.” Before knowing anything about the man, I thought the first part of the story sounded good, as he was attacking our rotten, anti-White liberal system:

“Their entire structure is writhing in diseased agony on the side of the road, and they don’t even realize it,” Breitbart says. But the left isn’t the only object of disdain. “I’m sick of this effete GOP nothing sandwich,” he adds, growing more animated. “As long as everyone is so pristine and socially registered, we’re going to lose.” . . .

Breitbart perceives himself as a new-media David out to slay old-media Goliaths. As he sees it, the left exercises its power not via mastery of the issues but through control of the entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy. “Politics,” he often says, “is downstream from culture. I want to change the cultural narrative.” . . .

Great, he’s on to Jewish cultural hegemony. I then wondered how far he would go.

Before I got an answer to that, I ran into this shocker:

Breitbart was raised in Brentwood, on Los Angeles’ privileged west side. The area is home to studio executives and producers, and the politics are Democratic. Breitbart was never fully comfortable in L.A.’s ’80s social milieu. His parents are Midwestern Jews. (His father ran a Santa Monica steak house.) They saw life differently than the other kids’ sophisticated dads and moms did. “My folks are from an older and very silent generation,” Breitbart says. “My dad is as conservative as William F. Buckley was, but without the same presentation.

Oh, so Breitbart gets a seat at the conservative table because his parents are from the Midwest?

The problem is, my J-Dar was not set off by the photo TIME magazine ran with the story:

Here’s another shot of him:

To my mind, that is not a Jewish face. In fact, it reminds me of some of the stock Irish actors Hollywood uses to denote an Irish face, such as that of Colm Meaney, who played Miles O’Brien on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

Or John C. Reilly, who appeared in The Perfect Storm, among other films:

It seems my J-Dar was right; Breitbart is not really Jewish . . . sort of. TIME may have opted to go with a self-description, but Slate gives us more nuance. In “Big Breitbart: Andrew Breitbart is messing with you,” we learn that “He’s Irish-American by blood. His sister is Hispanic. Their father is Jewish. Their mother was born Midwestern Protestant.”

Well if this doesn’t open up a box of postmodern multicultural worms, I don’t know what does.

In one sense, Breitbart is treated like TIME tells us—as a powerful new Jewish media mogul. In other words, just more of the same old tired controlled “opposition.” Like James Howard Kunstler, he’ll talk a good game about the problems. (Kunstler is no conservative, but he attacks our parasitical bankers, etc.) But nowhere will he connect those problems to the Jews who cause them.

(Frankly, I’ve had the same feeling about Laurence Auster as well. In fact, just recently fellow-Jew Paul Gottfried accused him of the standard neocon crime of hating Muslims. Auster defends himself here.)

Getting back to Andrew Breitbart, his story has all the trappings of staged opposition. Plus he’s media savvy and full of self-confidence as well, two traits some have said Jews possess in generous amounts.

The TIME writer gushes that Breitbart “has become the Web’s most combative conservative impresario — part new-media mogul, part Barnumesque scamp. Last fall, he launched Big Government, the flagship of his wickedly right-of-center sites, which also include Big Hollywood, Big Journalism — which described the House’s March 21 passage of the health care reform bill as a ‘socialist putsch’ — and the news aggregators Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv.”

Then at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February

Breitbart introduced the star speaker, Sarah Palin, and delivered a rousing jeremiad of his own. Assailing national reporters for portraying the movement as “racist and homophobic,” he used the dais at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel to speak his version of truth to mainstream media power: “It’s not your business model that sucks. It’s you that sucks.”

So our “new-media David” intends to slay “old-media Goliaths”? Since we all know that media is heavily controlled by Jewish interests, Breitbart is going to compromise their interests, right?

I don’t think so. This is all part of Breitbart’s “Barnumesque scamp” routine, but it won’t fool media Jews. It has, apparently, fooled the goyim, just as the hyping of Sarah Palin is fooling them. James Edwards of The Political Cesspool has consistently exposed Palin for the controlled opposition dupe that she is. And to the extent we buy this hoax, we are “neoconned again.”

Still, as a White advocate, I’m a firm believer in the power and reality of race; it is not merely a social construct. If Breitbart was born White, then he’s White. There must be some remnants of that in him, no matter what his upbringing.

Indeed there are. For starters, instead of going to a top-tier university like his Jewish classmates, he went to Tulane University in New Orleans. And he drank heavily. “The social life at Tulane was splendid. ‘I was a drunk,’ says Breitbart, who estimates he spent five nights a week at New Orleans bars with fellow Delta Tau Delta fraternity members.”

And unlike many Jews, he actually liked Southerners, finding them “warm and smart and less neurotic than Californians.” And what to make of his statement “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”?

While we can count on other Jewish faux-conservatives to faithfully cloak the identity and behavior of their fellow Tribe members, Breitbart may turn out to be a wild card — if he isn’t corrupted by the financial rewards of being a media star. And maybe this time the wild card will play in our favor.

The Occidental Observer, April 18, 2010

Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.

I am not “suiciding” myself and I don’t know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as “suicide by repopulating their countries” is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don’t want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as “us” or these countries as “ours.” It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed “suicide” makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person — a “racist” or “nazi.” You’re a mortal threat to the interests of “minorities.”

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That’s why anyone who stands against this so-called “suicide” is called a “nazi” — whether or not they have any knowledge of “nazi” history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don’t hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for “suiciding” ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.

Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don’t. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.

This isn’t about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of “nazism,” which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising “racist” motives.

I’m not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn’t religion. It’s “anti-semitism.” If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn’t matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.

There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I’ve never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.

Auster only poses as an anti-”liberal” “conservative.” His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about “liberalism” and “judeo-Christian” heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a “conservative” against “liberalism”. Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to “liberals” and leftist politics.

I’ll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as “Protestants,” then as “Christians,” and finally as the “white gentile majority”) are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster’s emphasis):

LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks’ backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you’ve been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you’ve been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You’ve summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I’ve been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.

Jews, including “conservatives” like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right’s ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster’s lame reply to “ignorant and off-base statements about me.” He complains that:

Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer’s website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer’s long article, “Austercized” (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer’s podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste’s blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I’ve put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, “Larry”-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as “Larry”) is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.

Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:

Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I’ve only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried’s main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.

The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his “real” views do not demonstrate any “wild mischaracterizations” made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried’s main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: “The Myth of ‘Judeo-Christian Values.’” Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. “Judeo-Christian” rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, “liberal” view of “judeo-Christian” history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn’t address the criticism that’s actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about “personal attacks” and “reckless indifference to factual truth” and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried’s blunt words concerning their dim views of “Christians,” i.e., Europeans.

I’m disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish “conservative” poseurs, but I’m happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren’t fooled.

Age of Treason, April 15, 2010

In particular, White women are disillusioned with America’s first black president. According to a recent Quinnipac Poll, 55% of Tea Party members are women versus 45% men. This belies the stereotype of Tea Party activists as Nazi stormtroopers reenacting Kristallnacht on the Congressional Black Caucus. The Tea Party Movement has always had prominent female leaders like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Obama’s declining approval ratings are partially attributable to his policies. The Washington Times gets this right. A mid-March Gallup survey found that while 57% of Whites thought Obamacare would help the uninsured, only 20% thought it would help their own families. Working class White voters also tended to be more skeptical of “health care reform” than their more affluent White peers.

So far Obama has only received a “dead cat bounce” from the passage of his administration’s signature piece of legislation. According to Reuters, “‘Obama’s approval seems to have moved up a few points during and slightly after passage. Then it fell back down again.’” For a candidate running on his record in 2012, this can’t be good news.

What the Times editorial gets wrong is the assumption that Obama’s declining approval rating has nothing to do with race. Obama’s support among White voters began to collapse back in July 2009 when he sided with Henry Louis Gates over Officer Crowley. His approval rating slipped seven points among White voters solely because of his racial solidarity with the “Big Cheese” of Harvard.

That memorable incident punctured his “post-racial” aura. The holier-than-thou Left jumped the shark this week and browbeat White America over its bigotry and racism. After this fit of moral self righteousness is over, I doubt Obama will ever recover the “post-racial” image in the eyes of White voters.

The most intelligent liberal commentators understand that all this braying about White racism works to our advantage. It defuses the charge, alienates independents, and encourages implicit Whites to tune out shrill liberal voices while becoming more receptive to White Nationalism.

I’m hoping this news cycle will continue. Keep up the good work boys!

Occidental Dissent, March 30, 2010

I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama’s Plan: White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.

I am sick of these people — and those who make excuses for them and their victim-whiner mentality.”

Any White columnist who wrote a similar column for a conservative magazine or newspaper threatening violence against blacks would be fired on the spot. He would be untouchable. His career in respectable mainstream journalism would be over. “White privilege” works in mysterious ways.

The Tea Party Movement can bury its collective head in the sand and pretend that the healthcare debate is not about race. The Left passionately disagrees. It is composed of professional grievance organizations (racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation) who are accustomed to thinking in ”us vs. them” terms. They look at the Tea Party protests and see scores of angry White people. The mental image of White resistance to the Civil Rights Movement (Bull Connor and firehoses) instantly comes to mind.

Once again, I will reiterate one of the oldest White Nationalist adages: you might not be interested in race, but race-based groups are interested in you. The Tea Party Movement is going to be demonized as “racist” for no other reason than the fact that the majority of its members are White, angry, and opposed to Obama. We’ve come full circle in America: White skin color is now enough to earn you hatred, vitriol, and racial abuse from the multiculturalist establishment.

Here are a few questions I would like to ask the Tea Party Movement:

1.) In light of recent experience, do you still believe we are “progressing” toward a “post-racial” society, or does it seem more likely that Whites will become a degraded over-taxed minority as our numbers dwindle?

2.) Do you think your White grandchildren will live in a better world than the one you inherited?

3.) Does the America you love seem to be slipping away?

4.) Barack Obama promised a “post-racial” America in his 2008 campaign. Does this seem like a “post-racial” society to you? If Barack Obama can’t move America beyond race, can anyone?

5.) Do you honestly believe all of these privileged race-based groups will suddenly fall to their knees and embrace individualism and colorblindness any time soon?

6.) Have you ever pondered the thought that America might be lost?

I suspect your answers are similar to ours.

In The Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuehner wonders whether America will break up in the future. He notes that the American Heartland is dangerously alienated from the political class in Washington. Kuehner points out that the rhetoric of state sovereignty, states’ rights, and nullification are back in the air.

White Nationalists have already accepted this fate. The broader American Right finally appears to be moving beyond its distraction with Islamic terrorism and realizing that the country itself is being subverted from within. The earliest glimmers of this awakening might portend unsavory consequences for the Obama administration.

Occidental Dissent, March 28, 2010

He predicts the Tea Party Movement will radicalize in its frustration with the Republican establishment and the defeats inflicted upon it from the Left. A significant cross section of the Tea Party Movement (the purists who reject electioneering) might get involved with the growing militia movement or migrate to the White Nationalist fringe.

That’s one possible scenario. Personally, I think it is unlikely to materialize. Instead, the Tea Party Movement will be invigorated by its defeat and will attract more independent voters into its ranks who disagree with President Obama’s policy initiatives on immigration and healthcare. The economy won’t turn around over the summer and the Republicans will retake Congress in November.

The Tea Party Movement will interpret its electoral triumph as a sign that frustrated conservatives should continue to work within the system. In the meantime, the Tea Partiers will fight Obamacare in the federal courts and through separate state action. The great conservative hope will come along on his (or her) white horse — Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin — and will ride the wave of anti-government sentiment and activated implicit whiteness to victory in 2012.

The “Don’t Tread on Me” coalition of Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, White Nationalists, and alienated White male blue collar Democrats will prove short lived. The crafty Republican establishment will hijack the movement, install its own people in positions of power, and milk the Tea Party Movement for everything it is worth. Jews and White liberals will continue to control the commanding heights of American culture and poison the young with their degenerate ideas.

Barack Obama’s defeat in 2012 will be interpreted by the liberal establishment and the black community as the definitive proof that White America is hideously racist and reactionary. Blacks have never understood the concept of a changing of the guard. In our major cities, once blacks install one of their own in power, they feel entitled to indefinite black rule. I predict a turbulent period of race relations ahead, not the “post-racial” utopia that the mountebank in the White House promised in 2008.

The Left has failed time and again to take the rhetoric of the Tea Party Movement at face value. They have assigned to these people a crypto-racist agenda that the vast majority of Tea Partiers do not share. In their hearts, the majority of Tea Partiers truly believe in individualism and MLK’s ideal of colorblindness. That’s why their ultimate destiny is to be crushed by the Minority Majority of organized racial grievance groups.

In 2010, the Tea Partiers are certainly innocent of the left-wing charges of “racism,” but in the future that might change. Most White Nationalists once believed in the vague liberal vision of a post-racial El Dorado. There came a point though in each of our lives when the so-called anti-racists pushed too hard and we spit out their whole message.

As the Left’s vision of a “post-racial” utopia crumbles in the eyes of White Americans, White Nationalists are eagerly waiting on the sidelines. Unlike the Faux Right, we have a clear vision of what needs to be done. The White Nationalist movement is increasingly sophisticated, organized, and effective at getting its message out. In the proper historical conditions, we will be prepared to break out of our isolation.

Occidental Dissent, March 26, 2010

The Republicans are not even a useful opposition on issues of limited government; indeed, the most likely presidential nominee in 2012 passed some form of socialist health care in his own state. Republicans can also not be counted on to be of any use in the looming battle over amnesty, as many of the most “extreme” conservatives (Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, and Sarah Palin) are all on the other side.

Conservatism, as an electoral force, is finished. The constituency for it is disappearing and the social order it once exemplified has disintegrated. The battle to restrain the size of the state has failed massively, and as National Review columnist Mark Steyn notes in an excellent column, once an entitlement like health care is passed, there is no going back. Similarly, regardless of whether amnesty for illegal aliens is passed this session or in the future, the demographic battle has already been lost. California, the state that gave us Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, will never again elect anything resembling a conservative governor. Within fifteen years, Texas will be similarly lost to anything resembling conservatism.

There are essentially three responses about what to do with the large rump of white, conservative voters that will still be in an America that they no longer have any chance of governing through democratic means. The first is what the conservative movement will undoubtedly do, which is continue its program of foreign wars, cheap labor, deficit spending, and blaming the bigotry of its own supporters for its failure to win any minority votes. Conservatives are incapable of promoting white interests even for reasons of self preservation.

Hence, we get GOP head Ken Mehlman (Jew) apologizing for the “Southern Strategy,” which delivered innumerable victories to the Republican Party. We get Michael Steele (token Negro) installed as the new head of the Republican party, who promptly blows millions on a comically bad website filled with token minorities. He then manages to shovel money to failed candidates that endorse the Democrats and alternatively insults both the blacks he’s trying to recruit and the gullible whites that prop him up.

We get Mel Martinez, a Latino who attacked the GOP’s own base to try to win amnesty for illegal immigration.

We get silly buffoons like Dick Armey, leader of FreedomWorks and self appointed Tea Party pontiff who declares that his number one foreign policy priority is to protect Israel (not America) and who thinks that if all the anti-immigration members of the Republican Party are kicked out, socially conservative Hispanics (who for some reason have higher rates of out of wedlock birth, abortion, and crime) will vote for the party of tax cuts for millionaires. Not even the average Mexican illegal immigrant, who has less than a high school education, is as stupid as Dick Armey.

The second response is more interesting, and clearly the movement that is growing right now. This is the radically anti-state Right, exemplified by Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty and the less respectable elements such as the various constitutional militias and media figures such as Alex Jones. The problem with this movement is obvious.

For one, the culture of a “free state” would likely be even more degraded and degenerate than that farce of a culture that we have today, which is at least restrained by the timid remnants of a conservative, Christian, bourgeois society. However, even ignoring the question of culture altogether, libertarianism contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. Libertarians refuse to recognize the existence of race, they are just as defensive and cowardly as the Republicans when it comes to issues of political correctness, and they simply do not have the constituency that can actually lead them to victory. Leftists are fundamentally correct when they note that the Constitution and the abstractions about “rights” that libertarians hold to be sacred are manifestations of white privilege. They are. They were created by white men for a white nationalist society. They do not work and do not apply in any other context.

In a libertarian society that has no recognition of race, a colored underclass would quickly develop as the facts of racial difference in intelligence manifest themselves in the economy. Many Whites, absent civil rights laws and the fist of the managerial state, will associate with themselves and exclude blacks, Hispanics and Asians from certain establishments. While race mixing and miscegenation would undoubtedly continue, it would be far less prevalent. Class divisions would be even more associated with racial divisions than today. The white working class that would exist would have little stake in preserving a system that offers no guarantees for unemployment, medical care, social security, poverty relief, food stamps, or other social services, that, for better or worse, workers have come to expect and which serve as a deterrent from socialist radicalism. Absent these services, left wing extremists would be far more able to co-opt the white working class.

Ultimately, the libertarian society would need an active domestic security force and a radically limited franchise in order to prevent the colored masses from either voting in socialism or overthrowing the system. To his credit, paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard (Jew) noted that the truth about racial differences should be shouted from the rooftops in order to preserve a libertarian society. He stated that “if you scratch an egalitarian, you will find a statist” and held that opposition to Martin Luther King Jr. was true mark of a libertarian. He even endorsed something approaching the ethnostate.

Unfortunately, this paleolibertarian movement that Rothbard exemplified is dead. As the leftward migration of LewRockwell.com shows, even the better libertarians feel the need to mouth politically correct platitudes about racial egalitarianism. Today, they overtly champion the Hispanic Conquest of the American Southwest and mass immigration. They deny racial differences because there are no races, only autonomous “individuals” that sprang fully formed from the ether.

(Racial identity for non whites, however, is ok.)

They champion Rothbard only so far as he remains within the boundaries of permissible debate. When challenged, they fall all over themselves in their willingness to prostrate themselves before the gods of egalitarianism.

It has been said that a capitalist will sell a rope to a Communist on Friday, even if he will be hanged with that rope on Sunday. Capitalists will always give in to their lust for cheap labor (read, colored labor) even if it dooms them in the long run. A society that has as its only standard of morality the profit motive will not be able to resist the profit motive. Any libertarian utopia that did exist would not last very long.

There is only one realistic alternative to the problems facing the white masses that built this country. That alternative is white nationalism. White nationalism is not racial realism, or conservatism, or immigration restriction. Realizing that race exists and that there are differences between them means that you have transcended ignorance, but does not make you a white nationalist.

White nationalism is far more radical. It is a political, cultural, and social movement that demands, as a matter of right and survival, an ethnostate that is explicitly designated for white people.

Despite this radicalism, it is far more practical and realistic to work for a white homeland than to be a moderate reformist. White victory will be difficult, and, frankly, our odds are not good. That said, a Southern homeland, or a Midwestern homeland, or even an Aryan empire in the Northwest led by Harold Covington will happen long before “true conservatives” do something like secure the border, or scrap the income tax, or even cut entitlements in the most trivial way. All the scribblers and self appointed philosophers simply are irrelevant. Conservatism, libertarianism, and the rest of these reformist approaches are not just immoral, they are fundamentally impractical. They have never worked, and they will never work. Conservatism and libertarianism were tried and they failed. They are only useful insofar as they serve as stepping stones to the white republic.

That is not just the Sorelian myth that we need. That is simply reality.

Occidental Dissent, March 17, 2010

My point here isn’t to argue that the former vice-president is wrong when he advocates torture of Al-Qaida leaders, though I believe he is. It’s to show how intellectually hollow the modern day conservative movement is. Including the 9/11 attack, terrorism has been responsible for no more than 2.2 percent of the murders in the United States since 2001.  But it’s unlikely that anyone would be named “Conservative of the Year” for his handling of the issue of crime.

Simon Downer is a thug. He plunged a knife into the stomach of a girlfriend and got six years in prison. Whilst there he met another woman, Tracey, a single mother in her late 30s.

Tracey fell head over heels in love, married the violent criminal on his release and brought him home to live with her 8-year-old daughter. The married couple were very happy together.

Until they had an argument one night, just three months after their marriage. Simon Downer shoved aside his stepdaughter, stabbed his new wife fatally in the heart telling her “that’s what happens if you push it with me.”

Most women would not have married the thug. Even so, there has been a spate of reports in recent times of women, sometimes quite respectable professional women, choosing to have relationships with violent criminals.

One thing this tells us is that the ruling idea of human nature in Western societies is mistaken. John Kekes describes this ruling idea as follows:

The view of human nature at the core of the liberal faith is thus that human beings are by their nature free, equal, rational, and morally good.

If you accept this view of human nature as adequate, then you will think it not only possible but desirable to leave each individual to arrive at their own moral view. The ideal will be a society of free, equal and morally elevated individuals, untouched by any external restraints on their choices.

But the liberal view of human nature hasn’t brought us closer to a society of independent, high-minded gentlemen and women who freely, and therefore most virtuously, choose to discipline their lives to some morally elevated purpose.

Look what happens, for instance, when the “no rules” principle is applied to women like Tracey Downer. Her sexuality is liberated from the influence of traditional morals, which then unleashes a destructive attraction to violent, dangerous men. The result is disastrous.

The problem is that we are not equal in our natures. Not everyone has the same level of moral conscience, prudence and self-discipline. Nor are we entirely rational in our natures. We are moved too by passions and loves, which for both better and worse define the human experience in important ways.

Liberals worry that if a society sets a moral standard, or if we are influenced by the culture we live in to be good, that we are acting like automatons, and losing the virtue of freely choosing the good. A liberal wants to feel morally elevated because of his own autonomous character.

I think this fear is mistaken. There will always be the possibility of acting badly, no matter how great the influence of society. Our moral free will to choose for the better or the worse will always be there. All that a society can do is to bolster the voice of moral conscience and encourage prudence.

Second, it can be argued that it’s the liberal view which undercuts the need for character and moral will. After all, if people are naturally and equally good, then doing the good will come easily. It’s only if you think that human nature is fallen, with each individual struggling to follow the better part of his nature, that our acts of goodness become achievements of character.

From Oz Conservative, February 24, 2010

Original news article.

Gazing out at his overwhelmingly white audience, Mr. Mack felt the need to say, “This meeting is not racist.” Nor, he said, was it a call to insurrection. What is needed, he said, is “a whole army of sheriffs” marching on Washington to deliver an unambiguous warning: “Any violation of the Constitution we will consider a criminal offense.”

The crowd roared.

Mr. Mack shared his vision of the ideal sheriff. The setting was Montgomery, Ala., on the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat for a white passenger. Imagine the local sheriff, he said, rather than arresting Ms. Parks, escorting her home, stopping to buy her a meal at an all-white diner.

When they feel the need to open their meetings by insisting that it’s not racist, it’s pretty clear that the movement is so PC it’s not even worth bothering with. It used to be that “conservative” meetings would open with the Pledge of Allegiance; now they evidently open with the Pledge to Diversity.

Then he goes on to praise Communist activist Rosa Parks as some sort of hero! He says the sheriff shouldn’t have arrested her, but given her a ride home and then violated the sanctity of private property by taking her into a whites only restaurant!

And this Tea Party leader is against “big government”? And he’s concerned with the government violating the Constitution? And he’s praising Rosa Parks and the “Civil Rights” movement?!

Right.

He has no problem with the government forcing people to do business or associate with people they want nothing to do with, in fact, he thinks it’s just terrific! But he’s for limited government? There aren’t words to describe this level of blind stupidity. Praising Rosa Parks? Thirty years from now “conservatives” will no doubt be praising that Muslim who shot up Fort Hood.

This is incredible. The government that has the right to tell a restaurant owner whom to serve has the right to do anything it damn well pleases. And anyone who agrees with laws against discrimination on private property has no business denouncing “big government”. He hasn’t got a clue, and should just shut up and go back to watching FOX News.

And get a load of this guy. Mark Williams is a radio talk show host and a spokesman for something called the Tea Party Express. He recently sent out an email denouncing CNN for calling him a racist. And you gotta see this email to believe it!

CNN went over more than seven thousand articles on my site; likely they also listened to the shows archived there too. No doubt they did a Lexis Nexis on me and found thirty years of work by and about me. The best that they could do as a result was string together three quotes, out of context, and throw in a false allegation of me calling Obama a “Nazi.”

I was in the streets marching for civil rights while a**hole southern sheriffs were swinging nail studded baseball bats at black’s heads, and stood between black kids and even more f**ked up northern a**holes were throwing rocks and gas bombs at school buses in my hometown during forced busing for deseg.

Wow . . . where do you even start with this? First off, I don’t remember reading about Southern sheriffs swinging nail studded baseball bats. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but it’s news to me. Second, those “civil rights” blacks were marching for were nothing less than the abolition of private property rights and the freedom of association in America. And he’s proud of that? Third, he sure did get around. A few years years later he’s up North somewhere fighting for integration in schools. Fourth, he’s proud that he helped destroy public schools in his hometown by filling them up with low IQ thugs? And how much ya wanna bet he’s always raising hell on his radio show about how terrible and dangerous big city schools are these days? But he’s mighty proud that he helped make them that way. What a clown.

But here’s the really rich part. Check out a very recent picture of this guy.

What is he, about 45 years old? Maybe 50? And he was battling evil Southern sheriffs back in the late 50s and early 60s? What, when he was 2 months old?

Even if you stretch it, and assume he’s 60, which is extremely unlikely, he would’ve been no older than 13 or 14 at the tail end of the “Civil Rights” movement.

The dupes in his audience and in the Tea Parties can believe this crap if they want.

And they probably do.

That’s why con artists like him feel no qualms about telling laughably obvious lies; they know they can get away with it because their followers will let them.

He should write a book. The Littlest Freedom Rider. Or I Was A Prenatal Honky Civil Rights Activist.

I’m sure it would sell like hotcakes at Tea Party meetings.

The Political Cesspool, February 23, 2010

James Edwards

My good friend Sam Dickson has often noted that whites in America are like abused children. The more whites are mistreated and abused by those in authority, the tighter we cling to them.

It’s easy to see why a small child clings to abusive parents. In his limited understanding of the world around him, his parents are everything. He’ll do his best to try to please them, to conform to the twisted world those parents create for him.

Why grown men and women do the same is harder to explain. The more their freedoms and rights are trampled and spit upon, the harder they wave the flag.

Take the American Renaissance conference as an example. It was canceled after the fourth or fifth hotel turned them away. Hotel employees received death threats and who knows what other kind of pressure.

I’m sure if you wandered around CPAC this week, asking the respectable conservative types manning the tables about the AmRen cancellation, they would all applaud the fact that such “hate” was snuffed out.

Even if they were stout enough to repeat the tired platitude, “I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll defend your right to say it” it’s not very likely that they will draw the obvious conclusion.

It’s too unpleasant to consider. Easier to stand in line for a picture with Sarah Palin.

What is the obvious conclusion we have to draw from the AmRen experience? There are only two choices.

One is that the billions of dollars spent on “Homeland Security” have been poured down a rat hole. If we can’t stop a bunch of creeps from the local Yeshiva from repeatedly calling in death threats to major hotels all around our capitol city, over a period of several weeks, then who are we kidding?

The second choice is that the establishment supports these stooges and has no intention of stopping them. They are doing their master’s bidding.

Which option do you prefer? Which one gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling like Sarah Palin?

How would your local congressman answer the question? Cuts pretty deeply to the heart of the issue, doesn’t it?

Think you’ll hear it discussed at CPAC, or by Rush, Hannity, or Beck?

How about at your local Tea Party, or by the Dead Elephants?

No, that’s the sort of thing you’ll only get on the Cesspool, or in a party like the American 3rd Position.

Well, this Saturday night (Feb. 20), you won’t have to choose, as we interview the chairman of American3P, Bill Johnson.

I’m a member of their board of directors, and proud to be associated with them.

Learn more about the American 3rd Position here:

And tune in Saturday night, for a little American relic, known as freedom of speech.

See you then,
James Edwards

The Political Cesspool can be heard live each Saturday night from 6pm-9pm Central Time on AM 1380 WLRM in Memphis, Tennessee, and on the AM / FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network.

The Political Cesspool, February 20, 2010

Sam Francis (1947 - 2005)

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.

–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect

Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).

(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)

Francis laid out the problem starkly:

. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)

Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).

What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).

As Francis saw it,

The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)

Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).

If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.

“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).

(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)

That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.

In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”

Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).

So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.

Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.

Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?

When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).

Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)

Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.

Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.

A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”

He continues:

I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.

A similarly well-informed friend adds,

Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.

It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!

Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.

Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.

Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.

When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”

Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.

Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”

Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:

Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]

Sam shot back:

I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.

My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]

Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.

The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.

As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”

The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.

A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.

Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.

The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.

Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.

Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.

Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?

It’s official

Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of the American Conservative, has become a mestizo apologist.

American Conservative now reads like the neocon Weekly Standard in support of open borders

This is not surprising, considering:

Buchanan and Taki no longer have anything to do at all with the American Conservative

Ron Unz opposed Prop. 187 in California (a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services)

A link was provided to a new article by Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of The American Conservative, called “His-Panic: The Myth of Immigrant Crime.” Razib Khan of Gene Expression assisted Unz with the technical data. After visiting the site, I noticed that it is the cover story of the March issue. Personally, I’ve never written a single word about Hispanic crime at this website. VDARE and Amren have addressed the issue and should respond to Unz in some fashion.

In addition to “His-Panic,” there is another headline article called “Open Arms, Open Doors” from The Washington Post that argues U.S. immigration policy is killing Haitians and that the best way to help them is to let millions of starving refugees flood into the United States. What’s that doing in a paleoconservative magazine? Some of you might recall that last month Unz published Peter Hitchen’s “Far Wrong” hit piece on the BNP. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going.

The choice of “His-Panic” as the title of the headline article in the new TAC is revealing. Geraldo Rivera (the Jewish/Puerto Rican liberal journalist) has a book called His-Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S. I knew the term sounded familar. I want to say that the neocon Linda Chavez has also written something under that label.

After hearing this, I think most White Nationalists will have the same reaction. A cardinal belief of White Nationalism is that Jews control the media and that their collective influence has pushed America in a more liberal, anti-racist direction. An important corollary is that Jews should be totally excluded from our media and organizations. This is why Amren’s inclusion of Jews has stirred so much controversy within the racialist community.

As The American Conservative goes the way of National Review, a few chastened paleos might learn something from this experience. Even if you disagree with White Nationalism, you can’t build viable conservative institutions with Jews in leading positions of influence. It never pans out. The idea that Jews could be relied upon to restore a healthy White Christian America was always absurd.

Unfortunately, I doubt this episode will put an end to that fanciful notion on the Alternative Right.

Occidental Dissent, January 26, 2010

How is it, therefore, that someone who has no political ambitions can cause so much angst at the White House and in the mainstream news media? The irrefutable answer is that what Cheney is saying, primarily on foreign policy, defense and anti-terrorism, makes sense to more and more American citizens growing increasingly worried by the Obama Administration’s insouciance when U.S. national interests are threatened, both at home and abroad. Since the only real, long-term way to deal with persuasive positions on substantive policy matters is to refute them with sounder policy arguments, it is not hard to understand why the Obama White House is near panic. Where are they going to go to find a better policy inside his administration?

Bolton’s last two articles for Human Events? “Time for an Israeli Strike?” and “Reinventing Conservatism,” an article with a title that indicates he will be dealing with many topics but in which he calls for a belligerent foreign policy without mentioning any other issue. He gives away what conservatism has devolved into.

The con game works like this. Human Events publishes Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter for social conservatives and those of us who hate political correctness. They publish Thomas Sowell for the small government and libertarian crowd. And they publish foaming at the mouth neo-cons like Bolton. The right wing establishment sometimes even excites us by supporting Charles Murray. But when Bush and the Republicans had power, the neo-cons were the only ones who got what they wanted. I give them credit for Alito and Roberts, but that’s it.

And the right wing masses are no better. Go to Free Republic and contrast how the commentators treat Joe Lieberman and Pat Buchanan. The first is pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay marriage, has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO union thugs, and gets an F from the NRA. But he supports a pro-Israel foreign policy. Buchanan is an anti-war conservative with protectionist sympathies who is the most un-PC person that appears on TV.

In this random post about Lieberman, most of the commentators can’t stop going on about what a great guy he is. Some respectfully pointed out that he’s not actually a conservative, but nobody except one poster who claims Lieberman will weaken the GOP goes beyond that.

Now look at the first ten comments on this thread of an article by Buchanan.

Poster #1

Pat’s stuck in the 1950s.

#3

Pat Buchanan can go…. well, I can’t SAY what he can go do or I’ll get Banned from FR!

#5

When will he just go away…

#6

When will Pat just go away?

We can use Occam’s Razor to understand what’s going on here; everyone with any brains has either been

A) brainwashed by liberalism.

B) become a biorealist or at least a libertarian

The only ones left to post on Free Republic are those too stupid to either be brainwashed or think for themselves.

I’ll also repeat my idea that masses of white people have channeled the anger they have about what non-whites have done to this country towards innocent Iraqis and Palestinians as well as anybody that their government may get their hands on and torture. Still, it’s doubtful that they would be clamoring to defend South Korea against the North if they weren’t led in that direction. The fact that they are so easily pulled wherever the Neo-cons want to go is explained by their low IQs. The leaders are little more than Israeli nationalists and careerists.

From HBD Books, December 23, 2009

Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, “vanguardist” wing of the movement and the newer, “mainstreamer” wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.

Origins and Beliefs

The lineage of the “vanguardists” can be traced back to a number of twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith’s Christian Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, William Pierce’s National Alliance, Glenn Miller’s White Patriot Party, Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen’s World Church of the Creator, and Cliff Herrington’s National Socialist Movement. Let’s be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.

The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the aftermath of their long anticipated “collapse” of the federal government.

In a certain sense, the “mainstreamers” have always existed. America was explicitly founded as a “white man’s country.” Racialists dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners, these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed to the margins after America’s WASP ruling class was overthrown by monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.

The split between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” can be traced back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the incipient “mainstreamers,” created the White Citizens’ Council. They litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty commissions, hoisted the banner of states’ rights, invoked interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated public schools, created private academies, and voted for George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered “massive resistance” to integration.

In the final days of Jim Crow, the “mainstreamers” kept the “vanguardists” at arm’s length. They generally wanted nothing to do with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in America’s role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually fought in Europe. These people were FDR’s voters and the base of the Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal, decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.

Unlike the “vanguardists,” the “mainstreamers” are defined by their belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an electoral path to victory. The “mainstreamers” reject violence, strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical strategy.

Since the late 1980s, the “mainstreamer” wing has enjoyed a resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind, Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes, moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in Louisiana. The White Citizens’ Council evolved into the Council of Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer, launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the “mainstreamer” point of view.

In the 1990s and 2000s, largely due to the spread of the internet and the death of “vanguardist” leaders, the “mainstreamers” wrestled back control of the pro-White movement from the “vanguardists,” who had dominated the scene in the 1970s and 1980s. The typical White Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively in cyberspace.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I

Ever since the resurgence of the “mainstreamers,” a destructive myth has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the “vanguardists” are responsible for the marginalization of racialists. If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White Nationalist movement.

This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The “mainstreamers” once dominated the entire American nation, but they progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.

The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the 1830s. In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” the remaining anti-miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were repealed in the wake of the Civil War.

The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in the late nineteenth century.

The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.

In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War. White liberals like Claude “Red” Pepper and Franklin Graham were thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in the socially conservative Black Belt counties.

In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v. Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put, the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto, the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II

At this critical junture, the “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophe from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the “vanguardists.” The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial arguments against “big government.” Instead of fighting the racial battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They would engage in “practical politics,” strategically retreat, and extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the Democratic Party.

The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964 presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries. In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale in 1986.

In the 1990’s, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous “Red State” vs. “Blue State” divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans, focused on “practical politics,” and became steadily deracialized over the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.

Vanguardists Triumphant

The “vanguardists” who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980’s didn’t win through superior arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default. The “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics. The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.

In the late 1980s, the “mainstreamers” began to stir again, but found themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States. They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The fringe group image stuck and lots of “mainstreamers” began to draw the erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament … which brings us to where we are today.

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers’” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant, and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.

In the “vanguardists’” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.

Synthesis

In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.

There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.

The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.

The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.

After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.

The Fringe

In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.

Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.

The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.

Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.

Final Thoughts

I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.

From Occidental Dissent, December 2, 2009

At Majority Rights, Friedrich Braun has outlined his new stance on the Jewish Question, which is a 180 degree turn from his old material at The Civic Platform. Needless to say, I disagree with a number of his points:

1. Braun says that only a “Right” friendly to Israel and the Jewish community can succeed in the political arena.

In the United States, the “Right” has been defined by the philo-Semitic conservative movement since the 1960s. It has had a lot of electoral success … but so what? White Americans are worse off in every single way, racially and culturally speaking, than my grandparents’ generation.

Voting for conservatives isn’t an option for the pro-White movement. We get absolutely nothing in return but the scorn of these people and the tireless promotion of Jewish and non-White interests at our expense. It is better to do nothing at all – retreat from the public sphere and enjoy the pleasures of private life – than to support conservatives.

2. Braun claims that anti-Semitism is a political loser.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think the American public cares nearly as much about “anti-Semitism” as the philo-Semites insist they do. David Duke won the majority of the White vote in Louisiana. In Alabama, the race-mixing Holocaust denier Larry Darby won 43% of the vote in the 2006 Democratic Party primary for Attorney General.

In the popular imagination, I live in the heart of the Bible Belt. Everyone around here is supposed to be uber philo-Semitic evangelical Christians. I know my peers fairly well and this couldn’t be more untrue. Most of them are either irreligious or outright atheists. None of them care about the Jews. They don’t have any opinion on the issue.

3. The Right should put Jews in position of authority.

We already have the neocons in control of the conservative movement. A Right that puts Jews in a position of authority will never be anything more than a front group for Jewish interests.

4. There are plenty of racialist and rightwing Jews with whom we can build alliances.

Name them. I don’t think all of them combined could fill more than half of an Applebee’s restaurant. What’s more, these racialist and rightwing Jews are more interested in “fighting anti-Semitism” than any other pro-White cause. Bringing them into White Nationalism is tantamount to creating just another ideological vehicle for the promotion of Jewish interests.

5. White Nationalism hasn’t accomplished anything in the postwar era.

There is a good reason for that. After the demise of segregation, racially conscious Whites flocked into the aracial, philo-Semitic conservative movement where they became steadily deracialized. Braun is advocating more of the same. It will produce exactly the same result.

6. A friendly disposition towards Jewry will get us into the media and political area.

No, it won’t. It will get us about where Jared Taylor and American Renaissance are now. Jews will persist in their hostility to us. They will continue to relentlessly push their interests at our expense. We won’t get anything in return for abandoning our hostility to the Jews.

7. We must counter the Nazi image.

I disagree. We should wait for the “Greatest Generation” to die off and the Boomers to retire. Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers don’t care nearly as much about the Jews.

8. Jews will bring vast resources into our movement.

No, they won’t.

9. Jews are moving to the Right.

No, they haven’t. See Steve Sailer’s recent column about American Jewry.

10. We should emulate Vlaams Belang, the BNP, the Front National, and Geert Wilders.

Why? They haven’t accomplished anything. Muslims continue to settle to Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the UK. The only thing they have accomplished is watering down the “Right”; thereby pushing the next generation further to the “Left.”

11. It is time to adopt a winning strategy.

The conservative movement has already adopted the philo-Semitic strategy. Its existence is arguably the single biggest cause of White racial decline since the 1960s.

From Occidental Dissent, November 22, 2009

Steyn and Wilders deserve our praise for their brave iconoclasm. Nevertheless, their work, and the work of many other prominent “Islamophobes,” sets a dangerous precedent. The utility of attacking Islamic immigration specifically, rather than the broader subject of Third-World immigration, is obvious. The drawbacks of such a strategy are less apparent, but could ultimately undermine the immigration restrictionist movement. Hating the tenets of Islam is not going to save the West, and more white patriots must wake up to this fact.

Like many written works opposed to the Islamization of the West, Fitna made the tiresome “Muslims are like Nazis” argument by displaying anti-Semitic remarks made by Muslim leaders, and pro-Hitler signs carried by Muslim protesters. It also graphically depicted examples of Muslim terrorism, Muslim violence against women, and Muslim intolerance for homosexuality. None of this is news. Every image in Fitna has been shown before. Fitna demonstrates, however, why the nature of Islam has been an apparent boon for immigration opponents: much of Islamic doctrine is anathema to the “tolerant” and “progressive” contemporary West. Islam is, after all, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, “homophobic,” and at odds with most aspects of modernity. By focusing on the most backward elements of Islam, Western patriots are able to take a stand against Third-World immigration while skirting charges of “racism.” Given the terrible consequences that befall anyone who speaks honestly about race, this is understandable. I contend, nevertheless, that this approach is patently dishonest, and may not be as useful as many immigration restrictionists think it is.

There is presently no dearth of books and websites critical of mass Muslim immigration. Writers like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald seemingly spend every waking minute sounding the anti-Islam alarm on websites such as Jihad Watch, Dhimmi Watch, and New English Review. The ever-irascible David Horowitz is now leading the charge on American campuses against “Islamofascism”—whatever that is. Like Steyn and Wilders, these writers and activists primarily emphasize the degree to which Islamic values are incompatible with Western values, and frequently add the caveat that this “isn’t about race.” My sincere hope is that the emphasis by most immigration restrictionists on religion, culture, and ideology, rather than on blood and soil, is based on necessity rather than true conviction. The rise of Islam is but one negative consequence of the Third World’s invasion and slow-motion conquest of the West, and Western patriots do themselves a great disservice by taking such a myopic view of the immigration issue.

In their failed efforts to stay in the good graces of our left-liberal managerial elites, many immigration restrictionists posthumously embraced libertine cultural-leftists like Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh, and furiously excoriated the conservative author Dinesh D’Souza for daring to suggest that Christians and traditional Muslims can find common ground on some cultural issues. In order to attack Islamic immigration in a politically-correct fashion, the restrictionists have been all too willing to declare their allegiance to the gay-rights and radical feminist movements. Are these really the Western values we are most keen on protecting? Is the West only worth defending because of its high level of tolerance for sexual deviants? I certainly do not think so, and I suspect most anti-Islamists do not either. Unfortunately, their dishonesty will not get them very far.

The “Islam-is-not-progressive-enough” approach to the immigration issue would be more acceptable if our willingness to recite leftist cant was bringing more leftists to our side. That, unfortunately, does not appear to be happening. When contemporary left-liberals are forced by circumstance to choose between their devotion to multiculturalism and their devotion to feminism, secularism, radical environmentalism, or any other fashionable “ism,” they always err on the side of multiculturalism. The leftist elites are not ever going to ally themselves with white patriots on the issue of immigration. That being the case, we should not waste our breath trying to appease them by feigning devotion to progressive pieties. Pandering to the left on cultural issues will lead only to the further deracination of white European culture; it forces immigration opponents to perpetually demonstrate that they are, in fact, more tolerant than the Muslims they wish to restrict from their continent, and ultimately undermines the perceived legitimacy of all forms of cultural conservatism.

The emphasis on Islam and Islamic culture may actually do us more harm than good. The implicit assumption of many of the anti-Islam writers is that if Islam is reformed, Islamic immigration will no longer be a problem, and we can go ahead and leave the floodgates open. Mark Steyn (who also incessantly repeats, “It not about race; it’s about culture”) is once again a case in point. He contends that all our problems will be solved by the Bush Doctrine, which will ostensibly change the nature of the Islamic world. For you see, once the more insidious effects of Islam have been ameliorated, and the Koran is reinterpreted to allow for free elections and women’s suffrage, all will be well and we can stop worrying about the Arab, Turkish, and South Asian exodus into Europe and America. This is dangerous nonsense. This type of “Islamophobia” not only does nothing about the immigration issue, but provides the impetus for further military incursions into the Middle East—which are doomed to fail and will only increase the emigration of Muslims from their homelands.

It is time for the anti-Islamists to face reality. Islam is not like Nazism, Communism, or any other homegrown Western ideology, nor does it make sense to treat it as such. In some important ways, Islam is far weaker and less threatening than either of those twentieth-century bogeymen. In other ways, however, it is much, much more dangerous. The danger, however, has nothing to do with Islamic doctrine.

When considering Islam’s weakness, it is important to note that the odds of an Islamic Revolution in an advanced European nation are all but nonexistent; there is no Muslim leader capable of pulling off such a revolution, nor would any European country long accept such a leader if he managed to take power. Nor is there much danger that sizable numbers of white Europeans will convert to Islam. There is furthermore no powerful Muslim army capable of conquering all or part of Europe or America by force—despite the nonsensical neoconservative blather about terrorists “following” us home from Iraq. At least in terms of the framework from which we viewed conflicts in the last century, Islam is weak, even pathetic.

That being said, Islam poses a threat to Europe far greater than Hitler or Stalin. The thing to remember about Nazism and Communism is that they were, in their essence, Western ideologies. They rose and fell in a Western context, and when the dust settled from the Second World War and the Cold War, Germany and Russia were still Western countries with majority Western populations. If Islam dominates Europe, it will be because Europe is no longer dominated by white Europeans. Muslims will not rule Europe unless traditional European majorities are displaced and replaced by Arabs, Turks, blacks, and Asians. If that happens, Western Civilization is finished. Forever. And it doesn’t matter how Islam reforms from that point on. Muslims could tear out every offensive page from the Koran, and this fact will remain. We do not have to hate the Mohammedan races, or waste our time proving we are better or more tolerant and enlightened than they. We do have to unequivocally declare that they will never be allowed to dominate any European country, no matter what they believe.

Although there are many aspects of Islam I find quite disagreeable, Europe would not be better off if it was being overrun by African Christians or Indian Hindus. Problems would manifest themselves in different ways, but they would be there nonetheless. The United States is a perfect example of this essential fact. Latin Americans are as Christian as they come, yet waves of Hispanics entering both legally and illegally are in the process of fundamentally changing the United States, in a negative way, forever. We are right to oppose this Völkerwanderung just as vehemently as we oppose the one presently destroying Europe, even though Islam is not a factor in the American case at all. Sometimes, it is about race.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pointing out the most dangerous aspects of Islam, and I commend those writers and activists who risk their careers, and in some cases, their lives, to do so. We should nevertheless not lose sight of the more important issue. The displacement of white Europeans by Third World immigrants is what should disturb us—no matter what their religion. It is considered impolite (and in some places, illegal) to speak frankly about race. Unfortunately, that is what the immigration debate is really about, and the utility of using religion as a rhetorical proxy for race has reached its limits.

The Vicomte de Bonald, 1754 - 1840

Read Part 1 here.

Divorce

The reader may be forgiven for wondering why the foregoing matters are discussed at length in a treatise called On Divorce. Today we are inclined to view marriage as a “personal matter.” But it is not. Most obviously, it also concerns the interests of the children it produces:

Public power is the guarantor of the commitment of the two spouses to form a society; for public power always represents the absent person in the family: the child before birth, the father after death. The contract formed between three persons cannot be broken by two, to the prejudice of the third, the weakest one in the society. (176)

It also concerns the larger society, since the family is its fundamental element.

As Bonald says, “no question is simpler in its principles or more fertile in its consequences, since by itself [divorce] raises all the fundamental questions for society concerning power and duty.” (38)

Bonald’s treatise was occasioned by the proposal of a new Civil Code which allowed divorce on various grounds. Arguing against the permission, he referred to his threefold division of societies: primitive or patriarchal, perfect or natural, and deviant or unnatural. The law of polygamy, as well as the Mosaic permission to repudiate wives, are imperfect laws permissible to a primitive society:

[They] can be tolerated in that state of society which precedes any public establishment and is called the patriarchal state; because the multiplication of the species, which polygamy encourages at this age of society alone, may be appropriate to a small tribe which is trying to raise itself to the strength and dignity of a nation. (79)

Polygamy is imperfect because it creates conflicting interests within the family; but it does not separate children from their parents.

Similarly, the law of repudiation is harsh, since it punishes a woman for the fault of nature (childlessness). But it is not unnatural, since it leaves exclusively in man the essential attribute of power, the right to judge the woman; it is always an act of jurisdiction even when it is not an act of justice. The power vested in the man is, indeed, excessive and despotic; but in this respect it merely resembles public authority in its earliest stage.

The permission of repudiation has less dangerous consequences among a nascent people than it would for us. The family lived a rural life, isolated from other families, occupied with healthy work; repudiation was seldom used except in cases of infertility.

In a more advanced state of society, “communication of the sexes becomes more frequent through the proximity of families, and less innocent through the taste for pleasure and the progress of the arts, which follows that of wealth” (79). Under these circumstances, repudiation is certain to be abused. Among the Jews of a later age, for example, one famous rabbi taught that a man could repudiate his wife for having burned the soup; another because he found one more beautiful, or even without any pretext at all (82).

“Among Christian peoples,” says Bonald, “marriage makes woman, not a being equal to man, but a helper (or minister) similar to him.” (108) The purpose of the union is not merely the production of children (for which marital indissolubility is unnecessary), but for their proper conservation—what sociobiologists term “high-investment parenting.” For society does not consist of those who are born, but of those who subsist.

“The law of indissoluble monogamy is perfect,” declared Bonald; “its opponents themselves acknowledge this, since they only criticize its perfection.” (The legislators had alleged that indissolubility laid too great a burden on weak human nature.) He even quotes Christ’s injunction “be ye perfect!” (96).

It is not difficulties which must be opposed to man’s desires, for difficulties only enflame them, but the impossibility of satisfying them altogether. (185)

Laws must be more severe in proportion as society is more advanced and man looser. Thus the grown man has duties to fulfill which are far broader and involve a whole different level of obligation than those to which the child is subject. (129)

Like many writers of our own time, Bonald notes that divorce can be especially hard on women:

Out of everything [the wife] brought into the [domestic] society, she can only, in the case of dissolution, recover her money. And is it not supremely unjust that the woman, having entered the family with youth and fertility, may leave it with sterility and old age; and that, belonging only to the domestic state, she should be put out of the family to which she gave existence, at the time in life when nature denies her the ability to begin another one?

But unlike many of our contemporaries, Bonald was perfectly cognizant “that most divorces are provoked by women; which proves that they are weaker or more impassioned, not that they are more unhappy” (106). He even calls indissolubility a way of protecting women from their own inconstancy, a privilege feminists have rarely demanded for their constituency. He also notes that the plurality of men is “more contrary to nature” than the plurality of women practiced by primitives (119). (The sociobiologist would say that polyandry does not contribute to the evolutionary fitness of the species.) Finally, allowing women to divorce the father of their children overturns the natural pattern of authority within the family; it makes wives the judges or tyrants of their husbands.

Bonald notes that separation remains perfectly legal even where marriage is indissoluble: “the separation of goods and bodies (a mensa et a toro) remedies all the disorders of the disunion of hearts: reason is satisfied with it. It is the passions which go further and demand the capacity to form new bonds” (177-78).

To allow divorce on the grounds of adultery is to propose adultery as a means to divorce; such a law makes “change the cure for inconstancy [and] pleasure the restraint on voluptuousness” (197). It also encourages false accusations of adultery. And it creates analogous incentives for abandonment, cruelty, or false accusations of mistreatment, wherever these are named as permissible grounds.

[Divorce] takes all authority from the father, all dignity from the mother, all security from the child, and transforms domestic society into a struggle between strength and weakness; [it] constitutes the family as a temporary lease, where the inconstancy of the human heart stipulates its passions, and which ends where new passions begin. (38)

The reader may wonder: was this book really written in 1801?

Bonald did not succeed in persuading the Empire’s legislators; the Civil Code was ratified, including the provisions for legal divorce. But after the Bourbon Restoration, he would be given a second chance.

The Vicomte de Bonald, 1754 - 1840

On Divorce
Louis de Bonald
Translated and edited by Nicholas Davidson
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1992

On the European continent, Louis de Bonald has long been named alongside Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre as a foremost first generation critic of the French Revolution and founder of modern conservatism. De Maistre himself, late in life, wrote to Bonald: “I have thought nothing you have not written; I have written nothing you have not thought.” But while Burke has become the object of a veritable cult, and de Maistre is at least widely known and available in translation, it was not until 1992 that a work of Bonald’s (On Divorce ) finally appeared in English. Two other volumes have recently been added to his English bibliography; these will be the subject of a future essay.

Early Life

Louis Gabriel Ambroise Viscount de Bonald was born the only son of a landowning family near Millau in the Rouergue region of Southern France in 1754. The area had long been a center of religious strife, with a Protestant rebellion breaking out as late as 1702. Bonald’s father died when he was four, and he was raised by his mother, a pious Jansenist; he himself remained an orthodox Catholic his entire life.

Bonald received an unusually extensive education for a provincial nobleman of his time. He attended the celebrated College de Juilly near Paris (1769-1772), run by the Oratorians since the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1762. While the Jesuits had offered a strict classical education, the Oratorians embraced the new learning: Cartesianism and the latest advances in empirical science. Bonald’s closest mentor, Fr. Mandar, with whom he always remained in contact, was even a disciple of Rousseau! After graduation, Bonald joined the Royal Musketeers and served until their dissolution in 1776. He then returned to his native region and married. He and his wife of forty-eight years had seven children, of whom four would survive to adulthood.

Content to devote himself to domestic life, Bonald was pressed by the royal intendant into accepting the mayoralty of Millau in 1785; the citizens retained him as Mayor when the office was made elective in 1790. He initially imagined the Revolution might lead to a revival of localism, and even led civic celebrations of some of the early acts of the National Assembly. He also succeeded in averting a riot between Catholics and Protestants in Millau at this time, an accomplishment in which he took special pride.

Elected to the departmental assembly, Bonald resigned rather than countenance the Civil Constitution of the Clergy which subordinated the Church to the revolutionary State. In October 1791, he fled with his two eldest sons to Heidelberg, where the Duc de Bourbon was gathering a counter-revolutionary army, and took part in the abortive Jemappes campaign. Back home, the rest of his family were forced into hiding.

During this exile, Bonald produced his first book: Theory of Political and Religious Power (1796). Most of the copies were smuggled into Paris, where they were seized and burned by the authorities. This early work has been described as “an immense, rambling statement of his principles in impenetrable Latinate prose.” Bonald’s finest work is almost always found in shorter pieces written in response to specific situations; his attempts at general treatises have contributed less to his reputation.

In 1797 Bonald returned to France, “traveling across the mountains at night to avoid French border patrols,” and was briefly reunited with his family in Montpellier. But the modest “Jacobins revival” of 1798-99 intervened and he sought the anonymity of Paris. In hiding there, he produced three books: An Analytical Essay on the Natural Laws of the Social Order (1800), “essentially a more economical statement of A Theory of Power,” On Divorce (1801), written in opposition to the legalization of divorce in the proposed Civil Code of 1800; and Primitive Legislation (1802), “a systematic statement of the principles of his political philosophy.”

Fundamental Concepts

On Divorce is a good place to begin studying Bonald’s leading ideas. Unlike Burke and de Maistre, he devotes little space to analyzing the Revolution itself. He is interested in explaining what was lost because of it, viz., a social pattern he viewed as natural.

The work opens:

It is a fertile source of error, when treating a question relative to society, to consider it by itself, with no relationship to other questions, because society itself is only a group of relationships. In the social body as in every organized body—that is, one in which the parts are arranged in certain relationships to each other relative to a given end—the cessation of vital functions does not come from the annihilation of their parts, but from their displacement and the disturbances of their relationships. (3)

We note at once the rejection of enlightenment ‘individualism.’ That vision of man and society, still very much alive, assumes a materialist metaphysic: since only bodies are real without qualification, society is simply the sum of its members, and the social good is ‘the greatest good of the greatest number.’ Bonald described enlightenment thought (“la philosophie”) as “the universal solvent.”

For Bonald himself, society has a natural structure or order analogous to that of a living organism. Our social roles are part of what we are, so that people are not interchangeable (“equal”). Society suffers, therefore, when the natural disposition of different kinds of men to one another is disturbed.

Editor Nicolas Davidson points out the relevance of this organic view of society to the failure of modern ‘progressive’ social crusades. The reformer does not grasp “the infinite feedback loops that relentlessly frustrate [his] targeted plans” (xx). For example, he sets out to help ‘the working man’ by championing him against his employers, with whom he is engaged in a common enterprise. Or he advocates for women by encouraging them to compete against men in a zero-sum game rather than partner with men in marriage.

A little farther down, Bonald states that all beings and their relationships can be comprehended under the “three general ideas: cause, means, and effect.” They may be seen, for example, in the natural human family:

[T]he father has, or is, the power to accomplish through the means or ministry of the mother the reproductive and conservative action of which the child is the term or subject. . . . The father is active or strong, the child passive or weak; while the mother, median term between the two extremes of this continuous proportion, is passive to conceive, active to produce, receives to transmit, learns to teach, and obeys to command. (44-45)

The purposes of the natural family are the production and conservation of man. The relationship between the sexes produce the child, and the relationship between the ages (parenthood) conserve him. Conservation includes not only nourishment and physical preservation but everything which comes under the heading of education.

The reader of Bonald cannot fail to notice his frequent references to “conserving,” “conservative,” and “conservation.” His use of these terms is, in fact, the direct source of the modern political term “conservative.” In 1818, Bonald and Chateaubriand would found a newspaper called Le Conservateur, which made it popular. Chateaubriand is more often given the credit, but the term does not occur frequently in his works. (The first self-described “liberal,” by the way, was a member of the Spanish parliament of 1812 who opposed the restoration of the old regime.)

The three fundamental social relations power, minister, and subject apply not only to family members but “to all intelligent beings; [they] embrace the generality, the immensity of their relationships, and open the very gates of the infinite to contemplation.” For even the relations between God (“our Father”) and man are conceived no differently:

The society between God and primitive man has all the general characteristics of the society we have observed between men, and I see in it the moral persons: the power, who is God; the subjects, who are the domestic persons; the minister, who is the father of the family. The father is at once passive and active, partaking of the dependence of the child and the power of God himself; receiving orders to transmit them, and obeying one to command the other. (50)

According to Bonald, this original religion of the family predates the establishment of civil society: “nowhere do I find a historical truth better established than the religion of the first families and the priesthood of the first patriarchs” (50; examples include the Roman lares and Laban’s “gods” mentioned in Genesis 31: 19, 30-35).

As the domestic society of the family is necessary to conserve man, so the public or political society becomes necessary to conserve families:

Common needs bring [families] together but equally strong passions more often disunite them. Women, children, herds, territories, hunting and fishing grounds—everything becomes a subject of conflict between families. In every society there are private wars as soon as there are families living close together, and neighbors who sue each other today would have taken up arms a few centuries ago. (54)

The pattern of public society is once again a mediated hierarchy:

Among all peoples I perceive a man who speaks and commands and men who listen and obey—i.e., men in an active state and men in a passive one. I perceive other men (magistrates or warriors) median between the two extremes, who receive orders which they transmit, and obey to command. (54)

Contra Rousseau

Bonald’s explanation of social structure as mediated hierarchy may strike the reader as trite or obvious if he does not perceive the implied polemic against Rousseau. “What God wills man to do,” Rousseau declares, “he does not tell him through another man; he tells it to him himself, and writes it in the bottom of his heart.” In other words, Rousseau rejects all human or visible forms of authority. The Social Contract was his attempt to construct a state without such authority, something Bonald would consider a fool’s errand. (The final outcome of Rousseau’s effort was his inability or refusal to provide an unambiguous method for determining the general will: see my “From Salon to Guillotine,” TOQ 8:2, p. 74.)

The notion of God writing things on our heart—direct individual inspiration—Bonald calls “the theory of all extravagances and the arsenal of all crimes” (51). For anyone may assert that God has “told” him to do anything. Some radical puritans, indeed, were known to claim divine inspiration as authority for criminal behavior, and Bonald believed Rousseau got the idea from his early Protestant upbringing.

Bonald even defines “fanaticism” as “believing that God perpetually acts without means, like a prince who, relying on God for the care of his defense by a supernatural operation, neglects to levy troops.”

Rousseau does not explain what criterion to use when the divine inspiration of one man contradicts the divine inspiration of another. It seems there would have to be some public authority to make such decisions.

(An atheistic version of the claim to private inspiration, viz., the imputing of “false consciousness,” is alive and well on American university campuses today.)

Nature in Bonald: Contra Rousseau Again

“Everything that is not in nature has its disadvantages,” writes Rousseau, “and civil society more than all the rest” (quoted in 9).

To this vision of an originally good nature corrupted by the development of society, Bonald opposed his idea of “the three states: imperfect; perfect or natural; [and] corrupted or against nature.” These states apply to all living beings:

The organized beings which have an end and the external means to attain it are born in a state of weakness of means which prevents them from attaining their end. So begin man and society. This is the imperfect state; and it is imperfect since it tends toward another state which is better and stronger, and since the being perishes if it does not attain this latter state.

Time and acquisitions develop its means, and cause the being successively to pass to a more advanced state. Thus the seen becomes a plant, the fetus becomes a man, and a savage people becomes civilized. (67)

There is no such thing as a natural man prior to all society: we are born into the domestic society of our family, if nothing more.

Some [beings] use their developed means in the manner best suited to the end for which they exist, and attain that state which is called maturity in the plant, manhood and reason in the man and civilization in society. This is the perfect or natural state of beings (67). Thus the adult is more natural than the child, the educated man more natural than the ignorant one, the virtuous man more natural than the vicious one, and the civilized man more natural than the savage (71).

Bonald implicitly returns to the premodern understanding of nature found in Aristotle and scholastic philosophy. He himself cites Leibniz, the modern philosopher most conversant with this older tradition: “certain philosophers locate nature in the state which has the least art, failing to notice that perfection always includes art.”

Society, to attain its end, which is its conservation, has laws, which are its will, and persons, the means or ministers of the laws in the execution of social action. Nascent society is in the imperfect state: it has weak laws and a weak or violent action (for violence is weakness). [This] is political despotism which subjects everything to its whims. Sometimes it acts without ministers, like Clovis, who personally split the skull of one of his soldiers. Sometimes power is usurped by its ministers, [e.g.,] by the mayors of the palace under the first dynasty. (68)

In the good or perfect state of society, will, represented by the laws, is perfect, and action is ruled by will. Power is absolute and not arbitrary; the ministers are subordinate, the subjects obedient. This state of society rests on laws rather than persons. (69)

Later on, Bonald concedes that the “natural, perfect” society is an ideal type which actual societies—particularly Christian societies—tend to approach: “although no society is in this fulfilled state, no more than any man, one can observe, in the social world, more enlightenment, virtue, strength and resolve among Christians than among other peoples” (76).

Rousseauan primitivists made their same characteristic mistake in treating religion:

As the religion of primitive families was exclusively called natural, and the religion of the State was exclusively called revealed, it was concluded that only primitive or patriarchal religion was natural, and that the religion of the State was artificial, and the religion of priests. (72)

There was a great debate at the time opposing the ‘positive’ religion of Christian dogma to an alleged ‘natural’ or ‘rational’ religion which never quite got worked out; eminent thinkers such as Kant, Fichte, and Hegel contributed. Bonald rejected the very terms of this debate. To him, the religion of the Christian State was the natural development of the original patriarchal religion (which he tended to identify with biblical Judaism).

The third state is the deviant state which beings fall into

either because their means are insufficiently developed, because they have deviated in the course of their development, or because they do not use them in a manner appropriate to their end. For man, this is the state of bodily infirmity or moral weakness. In society, it is the state opposed to civilization: evil, corrupt, unnatural. (67)

In other words, corruptio optimi pessima. And for once, Bonald quotes Rousseau with approval: “If the legislator, mistaking his object, establishes a principle different from that which arises from the nature of things, the State will not cease to be agitated until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature has resumed her sway” (75-76).

Bonald again:

Once a nation has attained the perfect state, and has tasted the heavenly gift of natural laws, it cannot descend from thence without falling into the last degree of misery and degradation. France, having fallen into the monarchical democracy of 1789, descended to the vile and bloody demagogy of 1793. Thus a nation declines and falls when it descends from the perfect state. Who would dare to contemplate the probably consequences of this revolutionary delirium, if the principle of life which fourteen centuries of constitution had given this society had not drawn it back from the abyss of shame, corruption, and sorrow.

The Assyrians, Medes, Romans, and Greeks perished because they had passed from the imperfect state of nascent peoples to the corrupt state of degenerate peoples. The Northern peoples continue to exist in Europe, stronger than at the time of their establishment, because they have passed from the imperfect to the perfect state of society. There is no rest for a people but in society’s perfect state. (75-77)

Read Part 2 here.

Frederick Douglass, Republican hero

The Republican party recently came out with a new website. The whole thing, like everything else in this country, pays homage to the God of diversity.  And being an official conservative site, it of course takes the whole thing to a sickening level.  Take a look at the first page of the “Heroes” section.  There’s Ronald Reagan, Susan B. Anthony, a white judge who opposed segregation, a Hispanic and eight Blacks.

The forums were slow and reflected the fact that the site was new.  Interestingly, they’re not moderated.  I took the opportunity to post a link to Jared Taylor’s book excerpt from TakiMag on NAM academic failure.  Needless to say it was deleted, but it at least lasted a good six hours and generated some discussion.  The Republicans haven’t banned my account like Free Republic did, so I will be back soon.

The forums seem structured to avoid talking about anything having to do with race.  The topics are Health Care, Economy, National Defense, Education, Energy, and Courts.  Conspicuously absent are immigration, affirmative action, the homosexual agenda, and abortion.  Still, undoubtedly there are ways to steer discussions towards race.  The most obvious is using Education to talk about racial differences in achievement and then go into IQ, the way I did.  In Economy one can talk about affirmative action lending and our economic future with a less capable population.  There isn’t an issue that can’t be framed in a racial context.

The question is whether we should bother talking to people who go to an official Republican site.  A commentator at my blog doesn’t think so. Admittedly, they do seem pretty hopeless.  Here’s what one writes in a post entitled “African American Heroes.”

It’s great to see so many famous and heroic African Americans in the GOP of yesterday and today.  Now lets all work together and get more African Americans voting!!!  I applaud you all for this website and the focus on black GOP heroes.

Lets support a drive to register the African American votes, especially in the deep Southern states — Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, North Carolina!

Why yes, getting out the vote of a group that votes 95 percent against you.  A sure path to victory!  Nobody even points out how absurd this is, or even gives any indication that they have any idea how blacks vote.  A poster responding says that the GOP should stop lionizing Lincoln, not because he killed off a generation of America’s best, but because he was a “white supremacist.”

Despite all that, a pro-white movement needs to start somewhere.  The radical leftists operated outside and within the establishment.  The fact that the homosexualists formed a block within the Democratic Party wasn’t hurt by the existence of queer studies departments and more extreme degenerates.  Ideally, I’d like to see a pro-white movement that stuck to its principles but went out there and tried to find a place in the mainstream Right.  TOQ could exist in its present form while some went and out and debated on mainstream conservative forums.  Dreaming about grand revolutions is fun, but we need not take the Right over.  Blacks get everything they want from the Democrats and live peacefully with the homosexuals in their coalition whom they are antagonistic towards.  We may have to do the same with religious fundamentalists or others.

I believe that the average white person who calls himself conservative, if not one who gains power, does so because somewhere deep down he knows that what is being done to his people is wrong and resents those who are doing it.  He more often than not stumbles upon FoxNews or GOP.com before American Renaissance.  If we’re not going to talk to people like this, who is our audience?

If the GOP website became flooded with White Nationalists, it would either be taken over by them, the forum would be censored or the whole thing would be done away with completely.  The first possibility is the best case scenario and would draw media attention but is also the least likely.  Censorship would destroy morale among those who run the site and may be impractical if the board gets enough members.  If the forums have to be shut down, we may have Keith Olbermann in a few nights foaming at the mouth about how the racist Republicans can’t run a simple website without “Neo-Nazis” taking over.  It would be a symbolic victory and show that we can’t be ignored.  A model should be Ron Paul’s movement, which has gained a following thanks to his energized followers who seem to hijack everything from town hall meetings to blog comment sections.  At the GOP forums they’ve generated a discussion on the Federal Reserve, an issue that mainstream Republicans won’t touch.  The arguments for white preservation are as convincing and just as any out there.  It’s time we took them to the general public.

A Campaign Begins

Joining with two other non-city hall groups, we launched a campaign to get recognition for a European American employee association among San Jose employees. This was mainly an educational effort designed to persuade the city manager’s office to allow such groups. One of our key members was admitted to the holy high ground of the human rights commission for San Jose, and she put the issue on every meeting’s agenda.

Permission Granted

Finally permission was granted, but only six employees were willing to participate. We had helped a couple of them overcome discrimination in joining the firefighting department, so they owed us and had to participate, but one moaned that he just wanted to be an American, and this was after he had to sue with our support to join the department! We usually find a white American or two buried in the background who is a significant opponent of bringing equity to employment and an end to defamation. Usually and surprisingly to many people, the so-called people of color stand back at junctures like this and let the issue play out. Oh, the angry head of the NAACP may get vociferous, but that doesn’t amount to much.

Finally the European American San Jose City Employee Association was recognized, and set to work to draft bylaws to satisfy the city manager’s office.

The End Cometh

One month after the City of San Jose recognized the European American San Jose City Employee Association by, the city manager’s office ruled that ethnicity-based employee organizations would no longer be recognized.

We have seen this over and over. A victory for non-defamation or non-discrimination brings with it the end of the booklet, magazine, or policy as a whole that had provided the basis and urgency for organization.

It seems that the powers that be would rather have a color-blind system than one in which whites are racially conscious.

Happy Conservatives

This should make sincere conservatives very happy because they are usually very angry about the trend to tribalization in the USA. Conservatives somehow fail to speak up when so-called people of color work energetically for their own tribalization, but conservatives take out their anger on Euro-American groups when we figure out what is going on. Just listen for the conservative voice when they learn that UC-Berkeley has imposed a 30% quota on white student admissions, and that one-half of those admissions go to just two ethnicities. Ooops, conservatives are silent.

To a certain extent, it makes us wonder why conservatives don’t finance all kinds of white activist groups, knowing as they must that the most frequent outcome of controversies is the undoing of the whole policy in question. But who can understand conservatives in an age of re-tribalization?