Our Little Secret about the Hispanic Panic

                           By Matt Parrott

              

The Republican Party lost because the rising tide of color demographically dooms its geriatric, out-of-touch, and dwindling base. In order to win, it needs to embrace amnesty, engage in outreach to America’s exciting and dynamic Hispanic, black, Asian, and Pacific Islander youths, and openly renounce its radical fringe. It must take a stand against the racist and extremist elements in its party which would decrease the rate of immigration, deport people who illegally immigrate, and turn back the clock on the civil rights victories of the Obama administration.

Marco Rubio is prepared to serve up austerity policies with a zesty Latin flavor. Mia Love is on deck to connect with family values voters from a Mormon female Haitian refugee’s perspective. Michael Steele’s rejected effort to refashion the GOP as the hip-hop party of Reconstruction negro domination is looking like a lost opportunity. The votes have been counted, the verdict is in, and whites are old news. The leading luminaries of the GOP elite, the mainstream media, and the think tank crowd are united behind a clear vision: the vision of descending on America’s ethnic ghettos to take away their mobile phones, their food stamps, their health care, their street drugs . . . and their votes.

   

As we discussed in our recent Post-Election Round Table, the election results could not have delivered us a better outcome. The system has a hostile Black face on it and the party they’re trained to turn to for salvation is going to be going out of its way to insult, alienate, and betray them. Yankees have chosen the n****rand thrown the noble Confederacy under the bus, whipping up regional discord.  Sure, there will be some laws and court rulings which will put further stress and pressure on our folk. But if you think there’s any hope of achieving our bare minimum objectives through laws and court rulings, then you have some more learning to do.

There’s just one little problem: it’s not actually true.While the demographic crisis is real, it’s mitigated by a series of factors. Whites are older, so they vote more. Whites tend to vote more, even when accounting for differences in income, education, and age. According to the census projections, whites won’t be a minority in the United States until 2042, and will remain the majority of the electorate for a few years after that. At the current rate of displacement, our youngest readers will be elderly retirees (presuming they have the luxury of retirement) before the GOP is actually in a situation where it makes more sense to reach out to minorities than to appeal more effectively to white voters.

With the exception of three New England strongholds and Iowa, every state — including the overwhelming majority of Northern states — the White voters who voted favored Mitt Romney. Problem is, Whites stayed home. According to RCP’s The Case of the Missing White Voters . . .

[T]he 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.

. . .

Assuming the 72/13/10/5 percentage split described above for 2012, that would equate to about 91.6 million votes cast by whites, 16.6 million by blacks, 12.7 million by Latinos, with the balance of 6.3 million votes spread among other groups.

Compare this with 2008, when the numbers were 98.6 million whites, 16.3 million blacks, 11 million Latinos, and 5.9 million from other groups.

Mitt Romney lost because he failed to connect with his base. He lost because the white working class deeply distrusted this absurd parody of cannibal capitalism run amok. While myriad factors go into the final tally, and creeping demographic changes didn’t do the GOP any favors, the precipitous drop in white turnout was the single greatest statistical difference between this and previous elections. If the GOP started pitching a more populist message and pursued the Sailer Strategy, reaching out to rather than antagonizing its white working class base, it would be able to look forward to decades of success.

The RCP article continues . . .

Had the same number of white voters cast ballots in 2012 as did in 2008, the 2012 electorate would have been about 74 percent white, 12 percent black, and 9 percent Latino (the same result occurs if you build in expectations for population growth among all these groups). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home. The other groups increased their vote, but by less than we would have expected simply from population growth.

Fortunately, we can trust that this article and its facts will be stuffed down the memory hole. The GOP’s Hispanic Panic is assuredly irreversible at this point. This reality, the reality that the conservative political status quo is not imminently doomed by demographic displacement and Yankee race traitors, will get to be our little secret. The Republican Party is stampeding over a cliff and will drive a fresh new wave of supporters out of kosher politics and into our orbit.

The Revolutionary Conservative Critique of Oswald Spengler

                           By Lucian Tudor

Oswald Spengler

Oswald Spengler is by now well-known as one of the major thinkers of the German Conservative Revolution of the early 20th Century. In fact, he is frequently cited as having been one of the most determining intellectual influences on German Conservatism of the interwar period – along with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Jünger – to the point where his cultural pessimist philosophy is seen to be representative of Revolutionary Conservative views in general (although in reality most Revolutionary Conservatives held more optimistic views).[1] 

To begin our discussion, we shall provide a brief overview of the major themes of Oswald Spengler’s philosophy.[2] According to Spengler, every High Culture has its own “soul” (this refers to the essential character of a Culture) and goes through predictable cycles of birth, growth, fulfillment, decline, and demise which resemble that of the life of a plant. To quote Spengler:

A Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the proto-spirituality of ever-childish humanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and mortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of an exactly-definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It dies when the soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in the shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and reverts into the proto-soul.[3]

There is an important distinction in this theory between Kultur (“Culture”) and Zivilisation(“Civilization”). Kultur refers to the beginning phase of a High Culture which is marked by rural life, religiosity, vitality, will-to-power, and ascendant instincts, while Zivilisation refers to the later phase which is marked by urbanization, irreligion, purely rational intellect, mechanized life, and decadence. Although he acknowledged other High Cultures, Spengler focused particularly on three High Cultures which he distinguished and made comparisons between: the Magian, the Classical (Greco-Roman), and the present Western High Culture. He held the view that the West, which was in its later Zivilisation phase, would soon enter a final imperialistic and “Caesarist” stage – a stage which, according to Spengler, marks the final flash before the end of a High Culture.[4]

Perhaps Spengler’s most important contribution to the Conservative Revolution, however, was his theory of “Prussian Socialism,” which formed the basis of his view that conservatives and socialists should unite. In his work he argued that the Prussian character, which was the German character par excellence, was essentially socialist. For Spengler, true socialism was primarily a matter of ethics rather than economics. This ethical, Prussian socialism meant the development and practice of work ethic, discipline, obedience, a sense of duty to the greater good and the state, self-sacrifice, and the possibility of attaining any rank by talent. Prussian socialism was differentiated from Marxism and liberalism. Marxism was not true socialism because it was materialistic and based on class conflict, which stood in contrast with the Prussian ethics of the state. Also in contrast to Prussian socialism was liberalism and capitalism, which negated the idea of duty, practiced a “piracy principle,” and created the rule of money.[5]

Oswald Spengler’s theories of predictable culture cycles, of the separation between Kultur and Zivilisation, of the Western High Culture as being in a state of decline, and of a non-Marxist form of socialism, have all received a great deal of attention in early 20th century Germany, and there is no doubt that they had influenced Right-wing thought at the time. However, it is often forgotten just how divergent the views of many Revolutionary Conservatives were from Spengler’s, even if they did study and draw from his theories, just as an overemphasis on Spenglerian theory in the Conservative Revolution has led many scholars to overlook the variety of other important influences on the German Right. Ironically, those who were influenced the most by Spengler – not only the German Revolutionary Conservatives, but also later the Traditionalists and the New Rightists – have mixed appreciation with critique. It is this reality which needs to be emphasized: the majority of Conservative intellectuals who have appreciated Spengler have simultaneously delivered the very significant message that Spengler’s philosophy needs to be viewed critically, and that as a whole it is not acceptable.

The most important critique of Spengler among the Revolutionary Conservative intellectuals was that made by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck.[6] Moeller agreed with certain basic ideas in Spengler’s work, including the division between Kultur and Zivilisation, with the idea of the decline of the Western Culture, and with his concept of socialism, which Moeller had already expressed in an earlier and somewhat different form in Der Preussische Stil (“The Prussian Style,” 1916).[7] However, Moeller resolutely rejected Spengler’s deterministic and fatalistic view of history, as well as the notion of destined culture cycles. Moeller asserted that history was essentially unpredictable and unfixed: “There is always a beginning. . . . History is the story of that which is not calculated.”[8] Furthermore, he argued that history should not be seen as a “circle” (in Spengler’s manner) but rather a “spiral,” and a nation in decline could actually reverse its decline if certain psychological changes and events could take place within it.[9]

The most radical contradiction with Spengler made by Moeller van den Bruck was the rejection of Spengler’s cultural morphology, since Moeller believed that Germany could not even be classified as part of the “West,” but rather that it represented a distinct culture in its own right, one which even had more in common in spirit with Russia than with the “West,” and which was destined to rise while France and England fell.[10] However, we must note here that the notion that Germany is non-Western was not unique to Moeller, for Werner Sombart, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann have all argued that Germans belonged to a very different cultural type from that of the Western nations, especially from the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. For these authors, Germany represented a culture which was more oriented towards community, spirituality, and heroism, while the modern “West” was more oriented towards individualism, materialism, and capitalistic ethics. They further argued that any presence of Western characteristics in modern Germany was due to a recent poisoning of German culture by the West which the German people had a duty to overcome through sociocultural revolution.[11]

Another key intellectual of the German Conservative Revolution, Hans Freyer, also presented a critical analysis of Spenglerian philosophy.[12] Due to his view that that there is no certain and determined progress in history, Freyer agreed with Spengler’s rejection of the linear view of progress. Freyer’s philosophy of culture also emphasized cultural particularism and the disparity between peoples and cultures, which was why he agreed with Spengler in terms of the basic conception of cultures possessing a vital center and with the idea of each culture marking a particular kind of human being. Being a proponent of a community-oriented state socialism, Freyer found Spengler’s anti-individualist “Prussian socialism” to be agreeable. Throughout his works, Freyer had also discussed many of the same themes as Spengler – including the integrative function of war, hierarchies in society, the challenges of technological developments, cultural form and unity – but in a distinct manner oriented towards social theory.[13]

However, Freyer argued that the idea of historical (cultural) types and that cultures were the product of an essence which grew over time were already expressed in different forms long before Spengler in the works of Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hegel. It is also noteworthy that Freyer’s own sociology of cultural categories differed from Spengler’s morphology. In his earlier works, Freyer focused primarily on the nature of the cultures of particular peoples (Völker) rather than the broad High Cultures, whereas in his later works he stressed the interrelatedness of all the various European cultures across the millennia. Rejecting Spengler’s notion of cultures as being incommensurable, Freyer’s “history regarded modern Europe as composed of ‘layers’ of culture from the past, and Freyer was at pains to show that major historical cultures had grown by drawing upon the legacy of past cultures.”[14] Finally, rejecting Spengler’s historical determinism, Freyer had “warned his readers not to be ensnared by the powerful organic metaphors of the book [Der Untergang des Abendlandes] . . . The demands of the present and of the future could not be ‘deduced’ from insights into the patterns of culture . . . but were ultimately based on ‘the wager of action’ (das Wagnis der Tat).”[15]

Yet another important Conservative critique of Spengler was made by the Italian Perennial Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola, who was himself influenced by the Conservative Revolution but developed a very distinct line of thought. In his The Path of Cinnabar, Evola showed appreciation for Spengler’s philosophy, particularly in regards to the criticism of the modern rationalist and mechanized Zivilisation of the “West” and with the complete rejection of the idea of progress.[16] Some scholars, such as H. T. Hansen, stress the influence of Spengler’s thought on Evola’s thought, but it is important to remember that Evola’s cultural views differed significantly from Spengler’s due to Evola’s focus on what he viewed as the shifting role of a metaphysical Perennial Tradition across history as opposed to historically determined cultures.[17]

In his critique, Evola pointed out that one of the major flaws in Spengler’s thought was that he “lacked any understanding of metaphysics and transcendence, which embody the essence of each genuine Kultur.”[18] Spengler could analyze the nature of Zivilisation very well, but his irreligious views caused him to have little understanding of the higher spiritual forces which deeply affected human life and the nature of cultures, without which one cannot clearly grasp the defining characteristic of Kultur. As Robert Steuckers has pointed out, Evola also found Spengler’s analysis of Classical and Eastern cultures to be very flawed, particularly as a result of the “irrationalist” philosophical influences on Spengler: “Evola thinks this vitalism leads Spengler to say ‘things that make one blush’ about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Greco-Roman civilization (which, for Spengler, is merely a civilization of ‘corporeity’).”[19] Also problematic for Evola was “Spengler’s valorization of ‘Faustian man,’ a figure born in the Age of Discovery, the Renaissance, and humanism; by this temporal determination, Faustian man is carried towards horizontality rather than towards verticality.”[20]

Finally, we must make a note of the more recent reception of Spenglerian philosophy in the European New Right and Identitarianism: Oswald Spengler’s works have been studied and critiqued by nearly all major New Right and Identitarian intellectuals, including especially Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner, Pierre Krebs, Guillaume Faye, Julien Freund, and Tomislav Sunic. The New Right view of Spenglerian theory is unique, but is also very much reminiscent of Revolutionary Conservative critiques of Moeller van den Bruck and Hans Freyer. Like Spengler and many other thinkers, New Right intellectuals also critique the “ideology of progress,” although it is significant that, unlike Spengler, they do not do this to accept a notion of rigid cycles in history nor to reject the existence of any progress. Rather, the New Right critique aims to repudiate the unbalanced notion of linear and inevitable progress which depreciates all past culture in favor of the present, while still recognizing that some positive progress does exist, which it advocates reconciling with traditional culture to achieve a more balanced cultural order.[21] Furthermore, addressing Spengler’s historical determinism, Alain de Benoist has written that “from Eduard Spranger to Theodor W. Adorno, the principal reproach directed at Spengler evidently refers to his ‘fatalism’ and to his ‘determinism.’ The question is to know up to what point man is prisoner of his own history. Up to what point can one no longer change his course?”[22]

Like their Revolutionary Conservative precursors, New Rightists reject any fatalist and determinist notion of history, and do not believe that any people is doomed to inevitable decline; “Decadence is therefore not an inescapable phenomenon, as Spengler wrongly thought,” wrote Pierre Krebs, echoing the thoughts of other authors.[23] While the New Rightists accept Spengler’s idea of Western decline, they have posed Europe and the West as two antagonistic entities. According to this new cultural philosophy, the genuine European culture is represented by numerous traditions rooted in the most ancient European cultures, and must be posed as incompatible with the modern “West,” which is the cultural emanation of early modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism.

The New Right may agree with Spengler that the “West” is undergoing decline, “but this original pessimism does not overshadow the purpose of the New Right: The West has encountered the ultimate phase of decadence, consequently we must definitively break with the Western civilization and recover the memory of a Europe liberated from the egalitarianisms . . .”[24] Thus, from the Identitarian perspective, the “West” is identified as a globalist and universalist entity which had harmed the identities of European and non-European peoples alike. In the same way that Revolutionary Conservatives had called for Germans to assert the rights and identity of their people in their time period, New Rightists call for the overcoming of the liberal, cosmopolitan Western Civilization to reassert the more profound cultural and spiritual identity of Europeans, based on the “regeneration of history” and a reference to their multi-form and multi-millennial heritage.

Notes

[1] An example of such an assertion regarding cultural pessimism can be seen in “Part III. Three Major Expressions of Neo-Conservatism” in Klemens von Klemperer, Germany’s New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).

[2] To supplement our short summary of Spenglerian philosophy, we would like to note that one the best overviews of Spengler’s philosophy in English is Stephen M. Borthwick, “Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student,” Institute for Oswald Spengler Studies, 2011, <https://sites.google.com/site/spenglerinstitute/Biography>.

[3] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West Vol. 1: Form and Actuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), p. 106.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See “Prussianism and Socialism” in Oswald Spengler, Selected Essays (Chicago: Regnery, 1967).

[6] For a good overview of Moeller’s thought, see Lucian Tudor, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck: The Man & His Thought,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 17 August 2012, <https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/>.

[7] See Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 238-239, and Alain de Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,”Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 15 (11 June 2011), p. 30, 40-42. <http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__15>.

[8] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck as quoted in Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,” p. 41.

[9] Ibid., p. 41.

[10] Ibid., pp. 41-43.

[11] See Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990), pp. 183 ff.; John J. Haag, Othmar Spann and the Politics of “Totality”: Corporatism in Theory and Practice (Ph.D. Thesis, Rice University, 1969), pp. 24-26, 78, 111.; Alexander Jacob’s introduction and “Part I: The Intellectual Foundations of Politics” in Edgar Julius Jung,The Rule of the Inferiour, Vol. 1 (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 1995).

[12] For a brief introduction to Freyer’s philosophy, see Lucian Tudor, “Hans Freyer: The Quest for Collective Meaning,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 22 February 2013, <https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/hans-freyer-the-quest-for-collective-meaning/>.

[13] See Jerry Z. Muller, The Other God That Failed: Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 78-79, 120-121.

[14] Ibid., p. 335.

[15] Ibid., p. 79.

[16] See Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar(London: Integral Tradition Publishing, 2009), pp. 203-204.

[17] See H. T. Hansen, “Julius Evola’s Political Endeavors,” in Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist(Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2002), pp. 15-17.

[18] Evola, Path of Cinnabar, p. 204.

[19] Robert Steuckers, “Evola & Spengler,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 20 September 2010, <https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/evola-spengler/> .

[20] Ibid.

[21] In a description that applies as much to the New Right as to the Eurasianists, Alexander Dugin wrote of a vision in which “the formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed . . . the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place – these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern” (See Alexander Dugin, “Multipolarism as an Open Project,” Journal of Eurasian Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2013), pp. 12-13).

[22] Alain de Benoist, “Oswald Spengler,” Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 10 (15 April 2011), p. 13.<http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__10>.

[23] Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence (London: Arktos, 2012), p. 34.

[24] Sebastian J. Lorenz, “El Decadentismo Occidental, desde la Konservative Revolution a la Nouvelle Droite,” Elementos No. 10, p. 5.

Source: http://www.motpol.nu/english/2014/11/07/the-revolutionary-conservative-critique-of-oswald-spengler/

Why Conservatives Conserve Nothing

                         By Greg Johnson

        

The White Nationalist critique of conservatives is simple: they conserve nothing. Therefore, we need to stop wasting our political time, energy, and money on conservatives and invest them in White Nationalism instead. And we need to do it immediately, while there is still something left to conserve.

Why do conservatives conserve nothing? Because to conserve anything, they have to win political power. Winning requires a conservative majority. Conservative voters tend to identify with their nation and its history, whereas Leftists tend to be alienated from it. In the United States and other white countries, it is natural that conservative voters are overwhelmingly white, whereas the Left tends to be a coalition of Jews, non-whites, and alienated whites (e.g., liberal ideologues, feminists, and sexual deviants).

White birthrates are below replacement levels in every country around the globe. If this trend continues, white countries will cease to exist. White populations will be replaced by growing non-white populations, whether through legal and illegal immigration or simply through the increase of non-white populations already within their borders. Even if a white country has secure borders and no non-whites, if its population declines enough, eventually burgeoning non-white populations will simply march in and make themselves at home. (While white populations decline worldwide, the population of black Africa is expected to double between now and 2050.)

As whites become minorities in our own homelands, it will be impossible for conservative politicians to win election. Therefore, it will be impossible to implement conservative policies. Therefore, the things that conservatives love will disappear. In the United States, that means limited constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, private enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, etc. These values have tenuous enough footholds even in white countries and are almost non-existent in non-white countries.

In the short run, it might be possible for conservatives to hold onto power in certain localities and even to gain national office from time to time, due to unpredictable factors like wars, famines, scandals, and electoral whims. But in the long run, conservative policies will become politically impossible because the Left will have elected a new people with solidly Leftist preferences.

In short, conservatives will conserve nothing, because they will do nothing to preserve the white majorities needed to elect them.

At this point, conservatives will take another hit on the crack pipe of “minority outreach.” They’ll tell themselves that non-whites are “natural conservatives,” even though there is precious little constitutionally limited government, fiscal responsibility, or individual freedom south of the Rio Grande, in Africa, or anywhere else where non-whites are the majority. They’ll pander and cuck a little harder for the brown people. They’ll put forward more black and Hispanic affirmative action candidates (Cain, Carson, Cruz, Rubio). They’ll blubber and hope and pray that Jesus will miracle their asses into power for just once more election cycle. Anything, really, to avoid facing up to the slow, unrelenting countdown to white demographic Armageddon.

Of course white liberals are in the same boat. Both groups are aware that they are dying out. Neither group will lift a finger to stop the process. And when both groups contemplate the future of their values in a brown world, both of them pin everything on somehow converting their replacements, a kind of ideological transmigration from their enfeebled wraith-like bodies into the fecund, swarming colored masses. They never ask themselves why healthy races would want to adopt the values of a race that created the greatest political and economic orders in history, then consumed itself in self-indulgence, opened its borders, and gave everything away to peoples they should have held in contempt.

The only way for conservatives to conserve anything is first to conserve the white majority of natural conservatives. It can be done. White demographic decline is not a cosmic mystery. It is the predictable consequence of bad political decisions: affirmative action, feminism, desegregation, open borders, and economic globalization, for starters. It can be fixed by better decisions, starting with closing the borders; cutting illegal aliens off from employment, education, and social benefits; and then deporting the ones that do not self-deport.

Saving the white majority will be difficult. It becomes more difficult with each passing day. But it can be done, as I outline in my essay “The Slow Cleanse.” All we lack is political will. Why, then, are conservatives so opposed to doing the one thing that can save them and their values from long-term extinction? Why are they willing to gamble everything on the far more dubious and difficult path of converting a rising non-white majority to conservatism?

The answer is simple: like a herd of elephants being stampeded off a cliff by a tiny mouse, conservatives are destroying themselves, their values, and their nations out of fear of a single word: “racism.” Under the present dispensation, it is regarded as perfectly moral for Jews, blacks, Asians, Hispanics — everyone, really, except whites — to think of themselves as ethnic groups and to fight for their group interests in the political realm. For whites, however, that would be the sin of racism. And conservatives are willing to sin quite a lot — to lie, to break oaths, to betray their constituencies and their nations — but they’d rather die than be racist. They’d rather us die too, a decision that our enemies applaud.

Whites are allowed to think of ourselves only as human beings with generic human interests that by definition cannot conflict with those of other human beings. We can benefit as a group only by benefiting all humanity. This is the basis of the desperate conservative attempt to convert blacks and browns to the virtues of constitutional government and free enterprise, as if these are a race-neutral, universal ideology rather than specifically European cultural practices, which cannot be transplanted everywhere on the globe and cannot be sustained in our own homelands once we are replaced by non-whites.

Of course, conservatives are not above making crass appeals to the ethnic interests of non-whites. It is only white ethnic interests that are taboo. As I put it in my article, “The Conscience of a Cuckservative“:

By treating appeals to white ethnic interests as simply immoral, Republicans are . . . playing by rules dictated by the Democrats. And of course the Democrats have rigged the rules in their favor.

Imagine American politics as a poker game. Each ethnic group has a place at the table and a certain number of chips, representing its collective wealth and power. Whites have the largest stack. But every group gets to play a wild card, “the race card,” except for whites. No matter how big our initial advantage might be, if we play by those rules, we will lose hand after hand, until we have surrendered our wealth, our power, our country, and any control we might have over our destiny — or we kick over the table and refuse to play a game rigged against us.

I used to think conservatives were unprincipled. But they are highly principled. The problem is that their principles are provided by their enemies, and if we act upon them, we will be destroyed.

In America, however, the conservatives are getting worried. They were stung by the cuckservative barb; they are nervous about the rise of the Alt Right; and they are terrified of Donald Trump, who merely stands for a moderate, non-racial form of nationalism. But like their cousins the Social Justice Warriors, when their bullshit is called, conservatives just double down. A case in point is David French’s National Review article, “The Race-Obsessed Left has Released a Monster it Can’t Control,” which correctly argues that Left-wing, anti-white identity politics is giving rise to Right-wing, white identity politics (the “monster” in French’s title).

French, however, is primarily concerned with keeping his hands clean of the taint of “racism.” So he recommends that we ignore the fact that we are being attacked as whites and focus instead on “universal human dignity, with each of us created in the image of God.” The trouble with such high-minded religious universalism is that it does not stop the onslaught of anti-white identity politics. It only numbs whites to the organized ethnic interest groups gnawing at our entrails.

Theodoor Rombouts, Prometheus

As F. Roger Devlin argues so brilliantly in his essay “Why I Write“:

Those traditional conservatives who continue to admonish us against the dangers of “biological determinism” are increasingly condemning themselves to irrelevance. The plea that “race isn’t everything” is valid per se, but not especially germane to the situation in which we find ourselves. For we are not the aggressors in the battle now being fought. And in any battle, it is the aggressors’ prerogative to choose the point of attack: if they come at you by land, you do not have the option of fighting them at sea.

Race is everything to our enemies, and it is the angle from which they have chosen to attack our entire civilization. It is also where they have achieved their greatest victories: you can see this from the way “conservative” groups feel they must parrot the language of the egalitarians just to get a hearing. Such well-meaning but naive friends of our civilization are in effect consenting to occupy the status of a “kept” opposition.

The more we try to avoid confronting race directly, the more our enemies will press their advantage at precisely this point. Tactically, they are correct to do so. And they will continue until we abandon our defensive posture and turn to attack them on their own chosen ground.

The great political battle of our time is over race and identity. Our enemies know it, but our friends don’t. Conservatives conserve nothing because they won’t fight. Whites are being attacked as a race. The conservative response, however, is to mumble something about universal human dignity and change the topic to ethanol subsidies. Whites can only defend ourselves as a race. We can only secure conservative values by conserving our race. We must embrace the politics of white racial identity. The only true conservatism is White Nationalism.

5 to 9 Conservatism

                         By Greg Johnson

   

Grant Wood, “Fall Plowing,” 1931

Years ago, the friend who had the most influence on my awakening on race and the Jewish question offered a quite clarifying distinction between “9 to 5” and “5 to 9” conservatism.

The 9 to 5 conservatives take their name from the standard 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work day. These conservatives focus on the economic realm. They wish to preserve economic freedom from government interference. They also focus on cutting taxes and resisting new taxes, so that productive people can keep more of the fruits of their labor. 9 to 5 conservatism, in short, is just economic liberalism. Its most ideologically pure advocates in America today are libertarians and the Tea Party.

5 to 9 conservatives take their name from the rest of the day. They focus on preserving the non-economic realms of life: the family, civil society, religion, culture, history, the environment, etc.

Many 5 to 9 conservatives are actually political liberals. For instance, environmentalists, historical preservationists, and promoters of walkable communities, mixed-used development, human-scale architecture, and public spaces are all objectively conservatives of the 5 to 9 variety (regardless of any genuinely liberal positions they might also hold). But politically they tend to be left-of-center and at odds with the commercial interests championed by 9 to 5 conservatives.

There is good reason why the two kinds of conservatives are at loggerheads. Unlimited economic freedom tends to corrode the other realms of society. The best way to appreciate this is to consider working hours. In America today, we do not have a 9 to 5 economy. We have a 24/7 economy.

As a bohemian intellectual, I can’t complain about this. I find it very convenient to be able to go out at 4:00 am to buy a carton of milk from a meth-zombie. Americans living in Germany are shocked that most stores are closed by 6:00 pm and are not open at all on weekends. It forces them to actually plan ahead, one of the many faculties that American life has allowed to grow slack.

The reason why Germany and other countries regulate the hours of businesses is not because they are “socialists” or “liberals.” It is because they are 5 to 9 conservatives. They realize that shop clerks have friends and families and communities. Work days are regulated so that more people can spend the 5 to 9 hours, and weekends, with their families and friends. Yes, such laws inconvenience us insofar as we are consumers. But we are more than consumers. We have families, friends, communities. Or we should have them.

Why does the government have to get involved? Say that there are no laws regulating the hours of retail establishments. If one firm decides they will extend their evening hours to increase their market share, others will be pressured to follow. Eventually, through the magic of the marketplace, we will compete our way into a 24/7 economy, in which there will be entire industries where the entry level jobs often taken by young people who have children (or should have them) are on aptly-named “graveyard” shifts.

From a social point of view, this is a profoundly destructive development. And from an economic point of view, it is destructive too, since the same amount of milk is sold in a 24 hour day as would be sold in a 10 hour day, yet all are forced to keep the lights on and the buildings manned 24/7 lest they lose their market share.

F. Roger Devlin uses an excellent analogy to illustrate the nature of destructive competition. Imagine you are seated at a sports event. It might be to your advantage to stand up to see an exciting play. But if one person stands, then others will be forced to stand as well. Eventually, everyone will be standing, so the advantage to any individual of standing will be erased. Everyone will have just as good a view of the game as when they started, but they will all be less comfortable . . . because they are standing. The only way to stop this sort of destructive competition is for people in authority to legislate and enforce rules against it. The same goes for the economic realm.

The idea of 5 to 9 conservatism is useful to White Nationalists, because we are 5 to 9 conservatives ourselves. After all, we are concerned to preserve our race, and we are willing to do battle with the 9 to 5 conservatives who are destroying us by importing non-white labor to take white jobs, or exporting white jobs to non-white countries.

The distinction between 5 to 9 and 9 to 5 conservatism is also helpful for envisioning new political alliances—and breaking up existing ones. In America today, the major political parties are coalitions, both of which include significant numbers of 5 to 9 conservatives.

Among Republicans, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be religious conservatives and traditionalists. Among Democrats, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be environmentalists, consumer advocates, historical preservationists, new urbanists, and the like.

In both parties, the 5 to 9 conservatives tend to be overwhelmingly white. Furthermore, in both parties, 5 to 9 conservatives are exploited by party leaders for their votes. Finally, in the end, 5 to 9 conservative interests are vetoed by the leaders of the major parties, because their primary focus is the promotion of socially corrosive ideologies: economic liberalism for the Republicans, social liberalism for the Democrats. It would be enormously subversive/productive if 5 to 9 conservatives could free themselves from the corrosive ideology of liberalism, whether of the left or the right.

It would be interesting to bring together 5 to 9 conservatives from across the political spectrum to begin a dialogue. I think they would discover that they have a lot more in common than they think. It is a conversation in which we White Nationalists need to take part. We need to be there to help bring their implicit whiteness to full consciousness. We must show them that their values are the products of homogeneous white communities and cannot be preserved without them. We need to explain to them that the leaders of the major parties are exploiting and betraying them. And we cannot neglect to explain to them why both parties pursue Jewish interests at the expense of white interests.

It is also important to help them understand that before the emergence of the modern aberrations of economic and political liberalism, the mainstream of Western political thought from Aristotle through the American Founders recognized that a free society requires private property broadly distributed and stably possessed, and that to achieve this end, a certain amount of economic regulation is necessary.

In the end, White Nationalists are more than mere conservatives, for although a lot of what we want can be captured by the idea of 5 to 9 conservatism, it is not enough. From my Nietzschean/Spenglerian point of view, mere conservatism is not really an alternative to decadence. Instead, it is a form of decadence, for a healthy organism does not merely preserve or repeat the past, but carries it forward and transforms it creatively. But politically speaking, conservatism comes first, since our race needs to survive before we can worry about the luxury of self-perfection.

American Patriotism

                    By Alexis de Tocqueville

       

Translated by Guillaume Durocher.

Editor’s Note:

Taken from Alexis de Tocqueville, De la Démocratie en Amérique (Paris: Gallimard, 1986), vol. 1, “Public Spirit in the United States,” 353-56. The title is editorial. 

There exists a love for the fatherland which has its source principally in that unthought, disinterested, and undefinable feeling, which binds man’s heart to the places where he was born. This instinctive love is synonymous with the taste for old customs, with respect for ancestors and memories of the past; those who feel it cherish their country as one loves the paternal household. They love the tranquility which they enjoy; they value the peaceful habits they have acquired; they cling to the memories which it presents them, and they even find some sweetness in living there in obedience. Often this love for the fatherland is exalted further by religious zeal, and then one sees it achieve wonders. It is itself a kind of religion; one does not reason, one believes, one feels, one acts. There have been peoples who, in a certain way, personified their fatherland, and saw it in the prince. They therefore transported into him a part of the feelings which make up patriotism; they took pride in his triumphs, and they were proud of his power. There was a time, under the old monarchy, when the French felt a kind of joy in being subjected without recourse to the arbritariness of the monarch, and said with pride: “We live under the most powerful king in the world.”

Like all thoughtless passions, this love of country pushes one to great short-lived efforts rather than to continuity of efforts. After having saved the State in a time of crisis, it often lets it wither in the peace.

When peoples are still simple in their customs and firm in their beliefs; when society rests gently upon an ancient way of things, whose legitimacy is not contested, one sees reign this instinctive love of the fatherland.

Childe Hassam, Rainy Day Fifth Avenue, 1916

There is another more rational than this; less generous, less ardent perhaps, but more fertile and more lasting; this one is born of enlightenment; it develops thanks to the laws, it grows with the exercise of rights and it ends, in a sense, by becoming synonymous with personal interest. A man understands the influence which the well-being of the country has on his own; he knows that the law allows him to contribute to producing this well-being, and he takes an interest in the prosperity of his country, first as something which is useful to him, and then as something which is his own work.

But occasionally happens, in the lives of peoples, a time when the old customs are changed, the mores destroyed, the beliefs shaken, the prestige of memories dispelled, and where, however, enlightenment has remained incomplete and political rights poorly guaranteed or restrained. Men then only see their fatherland in a weak and dubious light; they place it no longer in the soil, which has become in their eyes an inanimate land, nor in the customs of their forefathers which they have been taught to consider a yoke; nor in religion, which they doubt; nor in the laws which they do not make, nor in the legislator which they fear and despise. They see it nowhere then, no more under its own traits than under any other, and they withdraw to a narrow and unenlightened egotism. These men escape prejudices without recognizing the empire of reason; they have neither the instinctive patriotism of the monarchy, nor the considered patriotism of the republic; but they have stopped between the two, amidst confusion and misery.

What is to be done in such a state? To step backward. But peoples no more return to the feelings of their youth, than men return to the innocent tastes of their infancy; they can miss them, but never make them be born again. One must then continue to march forward and hasten to join together in the eyes of the people individual interest and national interest, for disinterested love of the fatherland is fleeing with no return.

Childe Hassam, The Fourth of July, 1916, 1916

Assuredly, far be it from me to claim that to arrive at this result one must grant all of a sudden the exercise of political rights to all men; but I say that the most powerful means, and perhaps the only one which remains to us, to interest men in the destiny of their fatherland, is to have them participate in its government. Nowadays, civic spirit seems to me inseparable from the exercise of political rights; and I think that henceforth we shall see increase or decrease in Europe the number of citizens in proportion to the extension of these rights.

Whence comes it that in the United States, where the inhabitants arrived yesterday on the soil they occupy, where they brought neither customs nor memories; where they meet each other for the first time without knowing each other prior; where, in a word, the instinct for the fatherland can barely exist; why is it that each interests himself in the interests of his town, of his county, of his entire State as though they were his own? It is that each, in his own sphere, takes an active part in the government of society.

The man of the people, in the United States, has understood the influence which the general welfare has on his happiness, an idea so simple yet so little known by the people. What’s more, he has accustomed himself to looking upon this prosperity as his own work. He sees then in public fortune his own, and he works for the good of the State, not only out of duty or pride, but I daresay almost by avariciousness.

One does not need to study the institutions or history of the Americans to know the preceding truth, the customs indicate this enough. The American, taking part in everything which is done in this country, believes he has an interest in defending everything which is criticized; for it is not only the country one is attacking then, but himself: one also sees his national pride resorting to all the artifices and stooping to all the puerilities of individual vanity.

There is nothing more bothersome living habit than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. The foreigner is happy to praise a great deal in their country; but he would like to be allowed to criticize something, and that is he absolutely forbidden to do.

America is then a country of liberty, where, to not hurt anyone’s feelings, the foreigner must speak freely neither of private citizens, nor of the State, nor of the governed, nor of the governing, nor of public endeavors, nor of private endeavors; of ultimately nothing that one encounters there, except perhaps the climate and the soil; and one even finds Americans ready to defend one and the other, as though they had participated in making them.

Nowadays, one must know how to take sides and dare to choose between the patriotism of all and the government of the few, because one cannot at the same time have the social strength and activity of the first, with the guarantees of tranquility which sometimes provides the latter.

From Patriots to Traitors?

                          By Jack Donovan

        

Gregory Hood’s recent goading of “Beltway Rambos” highlighted the kind of psychological shift that’s going to have to take place in the minds of Americans—in the minds of men who consider themselves American patriots—before they “start shooting people.”

Are beltway conservatives going to peel the “God bless our troops” stickers off their SUVs and start mowing down the Marines?

Probably not.

In his January 16, 2013 press conference on gun control, Barack Obama said that pundits and politicians and special interests lobbyists will call him a tyrant to “gin up” fear or ratings or money.

But we all know there’s no real money in treason or sedition. Pundits and lobbyists and politicians are going to stop short of saying anything that threatens their six figure salaries. If Congress passes the gun control laws Obama wants, they will be the first to hand their guns over to the authorities. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren’t going to jail for freedom or anything else. If they do, well God bless ‘em, but I just don’t see it happening.

What about the average NRA member? What about the average Ted Nugent-loving, Wal-Mart shopping, flag-waving, Budweiser-drinking, GODDAMN PATRIOTIC WOLF SHIRT-wearing, buck-hunting, God-fearing gun owner? What about the guy who prides himself on being a law-abiding citizen and still tears up when they sing the national anthem at the beginning of baseball games? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Wayne LaPierre aren’t going to dig in and fight anyone. It’s the average American gun owner—the average American patriot—who is going to have to say “NO MORE” if this thing is gonna go down.

What’s it going to take for that patriot to become a traitor?

Because—make no mistake—that’s exactly what he’s going to be. That man may believe with his whole heart that he is making a brave sacrifice to defend America from tyranny, but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Wayne LaPierre will call him a “nutjob” before the echo of his first shot fades. Republicans will injure each other in a wild scramble to denounce him. And it goes without saying that the anti-gun mainstream media will surely make a monster of any man who uses “violence” to cause social change. His former friends and neighbors will tell Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow every dirty detail of his personal life and all of them will conclude that he was “always a little bit strange” and that he probably had some sort of “psychological problem.”

What’s it going to take for that patriotic man to make peace with the idea of being publicly smeared, abandoned and charged with treason, and know that he is—at least legally speaking—guilty as charged?

What’s it going to take to peel off that red, white and blue and give everything he has for something new?

Well, for starters, that man is going to have to abandon all hope that he can vote his way to a better future. He’s going to have to let go of the idea that the US is governed by “We The People” and he’s going to have to accept the fact that it is governed by “those greedy assholes who don’t care if I live or die.” He is going to have to know—not simply fear—that the future of the Union is their future, not his. The agents and agencies of the federal government will have to become every bit as evil in his mind as the Stormtroopers of the Galactic Empire. And frankly, that’s not so big of a stretch. After all, Lord Vader has an almost endless supply of fantastic weaponry, nuclear death stars, and armed drones to deploy against any rebellion. Hell, after a couple drinks and a pack of Marlboro Reds, I bet old Obama can probably even do a passable James Earl Jones impression.

C’mon, imagine it.

 “I find your lack of faith disturbing.”  

“Commander, tear this ship apart until you find those plans!”

“If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.”

Do you see? I’m tellin ya, all the man needs is a mask and a cape.

Jokes aside, the point is that real red-blooded American patriots are going to have to pull off a major mental gear shift to go from lawn-mowing registered voters to wanted—and hated—outlaws.

This is where folks online have the opportunity to present some cojones.

Every time some guy on the right actually pulls the trigger, even the most radical anti-state writers look to find fault in his actions. They want to distance themselves from his actions and armchair quarterback the man. Well, like Teddy Roosevelt said:

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

America is cracking. There may not be one breaking point, but there are going to be men in the next five years who reach their own breaking points. There are going to be men who decide a particular issue is their hill to die on. They aren’t going to be perfect and they are going to make bad decisions and they will absolutely be portrayed as unsavory and unlikeable characters by the media. They may be men without prospects, men who slipped through the cracks, men who failed at this or that in life. They will, in all likelihood, be the kind of men who have nothing else to lose, men who decide that taking a stand on an issue is more important than living to shop another day.

What are YOU going to say about it?

What are YOU going to write about that man?

Are you going to nit-pick everything he does or doesn’t do?

Are you going to write something disparaging so people won’t think that YOU are a dangerous kook, too?

Or are you going to have the courage to say:

“Here is a man who stood up. Here is a man who stood up for freedom. He wasn’t perfect, but he did something to hurt a system I hate, too.”

Are you going to be willing to let that traitor be a hero?

Are you going to let that traitor be your patriot?

Because that’s where it starts.

We don’t all have the skills or the software to be warriors.

But we can honor them.

In a virile society, that’s what writers and storytellers are supposed to do.

What will YOU do?

Source: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/01/from-patriots-to-traitors/

I Keep Forgetting That I'm Not an American

                           By Jef Costello

       

The other night I turned on Fox News and watched Bill O’Reilly’s commentary on the recent WikiLeaks exposure of classified CIA documents. For those of you living in caves, under the name “Vault 7” WikiLeaks released 7,818 web pages with 943 attachments spilling the beans on the Agency’s abilities to compromise smartphones and smart TVs, as well as web browsers and even, it seems, cars. And there is much more. I greeted this news with elation: “The bastards have been exposed!”

Imagine my shock when O’Reilly cried “treason!” “Our intelligence capabilities have been set back by decades!” he moaned. Now, I most definitely do not consider O’Reilly to be “one of us.” I am laboring under no such illusions. However, I tend to agree with him more often than not, and I find him to be one of the more intelligent commentators on TV. So I watched in consternation – and then turned to other “conservative” broadcasts (all on YouTube), waiting for somebody to gloat about the fact that the Beast 666 had been exposed and its ability to spy on us compromised. But I got nothing. And it quickly dawned on me: For all their “populism” and pro-Trumpism, these people are thoroughly identified with America – or perhaps I should say that these people are Americans. And this realization put me momentarily into confusion.

Sometimes our views get all tangled and we have to ask ourselves, what do I believe? For months now, like most readers of this Website, I’ve been all agog about Donald Trump. Now, I know that he is not one of us either. Yet he offers hope, and there is a part of us that has been secretly hoping that perhaps things can be turned around. As I wrote in my essay “After Trump” (published before the election):

For years we’ve been holding out the hope that it might be possible to fix the system, and the country. And that’s the real reason we’re so fired up about Trump, and so emotionally involved in this election. All the time we were claiming that the system cannot be fixed and must be destroyed, and that the country cannot be saved and must divide along racial lines, we’ve been secretly wishing that we were wrong, and that there might be some hope after all. There is a part of us that loves this country, for no other reason than that it is ours and it’s what we’ve always known. And the older you are, the more you feel this.

Now I find that I at least appear to be of two minds about this. I am cheering all the good that Trump is doing, and for the first time in years feeling hopeful. Yet I am also cheering when the country’s intelligence apparatus is undermined. So which is it? I am an American hoping that Trump can rescue my country? Or am I an anti-American, hoping to see the destruction of what D. H. Lawrence called “the death continent”? The dialectician in me wants to sublate this antithesis, but I find I cannot. I choose the latter. In spite of my support for Trump I do yearn for the destruction of this awful country, which should never have been in the first place.

Yes, I hear your wheels turning. I hear the pitter-patter of your little fingers racing to the comments section, satisfied you need read no further to now overcharge us for what you call your “two cents.” “That’s a contradiction!” you will cry. But it is not. As I pointed out in my essay “Trump Will Complete the System of German Idealism!”, the Donald is a World-Historical Individual. But this is NOT because he is going to “save America.” It is because he is acting as an agent of destruction. Trump is one factor among many (nevertheless, right now the leading factor) helping to bring about the end of globalism and multiculturalism. He is aware of the former, but not the latter. Trump wants to keep out illegals simply because they are illegal (and often dangerous), not because he wants to keep America majority white. At least, all signs point to this.

The liberals, on the other hand, have branded Trump an enemy of multiculturalism, a White Nationalist, a fascist, and another Hitler. In doing so, they have unwittingly forced a situation in which decent, hardworking normies are going to start questioning – more and more openly – whether multiculturalism is really a good thing; whether it’s really true that “diversity is our strength.” And those same normies – overwhelmingly white – are going to start asking why they are always being demonized, and why they don’t have just as much right as anyone else to stick up for themselves. Indeed, we already see this happening.

What will be the end result of it? No one knows, of course. It is likely that if Trump’s economic policies are successful, America is going to keep plugging away for many more years. But, as most of us agree, the country doesn’t seem sustainable in the long-term. We haven’t been this divided since the War of Northern Aggression. And race relations are abysmal. With so many whites now waking up, and feeling emboldened to at least think forbidden thoughts (thanks, again, mostly to Trump), it looks increasingly likely that the process now unfolding is not going to end with a strengthened, multicultural America in which we all live happily ever after. And, of course, from the standpoint of White Nationalism, this is a very good thing.

In short, there’s absolutely no inconsistency in a White Nationalist such as myself supporting Trump. It just depends on why. A lot of us – myself included – are being lured just a bit by the siren song of patriotism. Perhaps, our hearts are telling us, there’s hope for this country (my home, after all). Perhaps it’s even okay to feel a bit proud to be an American, now that “our guy” in the White House. (Or so we think.) It’s pretty difficult – isn’t it? – living in a constant state of rebellion against all that exists; being filled with loathing every day for your culture and the stupidity of your (hopefully curable) people. “Feeling good about the country” promises us a comforting respite from the constant state of tension that we all live in. But we’ve got to resist it. We’ve got to keep our eyes on the ultimate goal.

By all means, love Trump. But love him as an avatar of Shiva the Destroyer, not Vishnu, the god who brings order. This is not my country. I am not an American. I’ve been feeling so good since November, I have to keep reminding myself of this. So what am I? Well, I am a revolutionary. I am a man without a country. But I am not a man without a nation. And that’s the whole point. We must ruthlessly root out and suppress any part of ourselves that is consciously or subconsciously thinking in terms of what Trump can do “for America.” We must think only in terms of what he can do for our people. And in those terms, Trump is simply one major player in a process that is going to unfold over a long period of time, in unpredictable ways, and probably not without considerable violence and upheaval.

So, wake up now. We’ve had our much-needed little vacation, our little shot in the arm. It’s now time to put things back into focus and start thinking like revolutionaries again. And try saying this to yourself: “I am not an American.” Say it often. It’s quite liberating, actually.

The Christian Question in White Nationalism

                          By Greg Johnson

       

There is a strong anti-Christian tendency in contemporary White Nationalism.

The argument goes something like this: Christianity is one of the primary causes of the decline of the white race for two reasons. First, it gives the Jews a privileged place in the sacred history of mankind, a role that they have used to gain their enormous power over us today. Second, Christian moral teachings—inborn collective guilt, magical redemption, universalism, altruism, humility, meekness, turning the other cheek, etc.—are the primary cause of the white race’s ongoing suicide and the main impediment to turning the tide. These values are no less Christian in origin just because secular liberals and socialists discard their supernatural trappings. The usual conclusion is that the white race will not be able to save itself unless it rejects Christianity.

I think that this argument is half-right. I do believe that Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline, for the reasons given above. But I do not believe that discarding Christianity is a necessary condition of white revival. I am not a Christian. But the fact that I am not a Christian might lend credibility to my argument that the White Nationalist movement need not and indeed should not be anti-Christian.

First, although intellectual debate is definitely part of White Nationalism (perhaps too large a part), we must never lose sight of the fact that White Nationalism is a political movement, not a purely intellectual one. Intellectual movements require agreement on first principles as well as ultimate goals. Political movements require agreement only on practical goals.

Our goal is a white homeland in North America. This political goal is, as a matter of fact, shared by Christians and non-Christians alike. To achieve a white homeland, we have to work with our allies, not against them. We might wish that they agree with us on other matters besides the goal of a white homeland. But this is not necessary, and emphasizing differences of opinion is not productive. When one is on the barricades, one does not turn to one’s comrades and start finding fault.

Not emphasizing differences of opinion is not the same thing as hiding them, however. A mature and healthy White Nationalist movement should cultivate a culture of openness and frankness. We need to be as willing to express our differences in a civil manner as we are to put them aside to work for the common good.

Second, Christianity may be a necessary condition of white racial suicide, but it is not really the driving force. Christianity has long ceased to be the ruling power in Western societies or individual Christian lives. Instead, the churches preach white suicide and Christian Zionism because they wish to suck up to the real intellectual and political power structure, and today that power structure is overwhelmingly dominated and defined by Jews and Jewish interests.

This is not a new phenomenon, either. The church has long trimmed its sails to the winds of expediency. When there were absolute monarchs, the church preached the divine right of kings. When there was slavery, it bade slaves to obey their masters. When there was patriarchy, it taught wives to obey their husbands.

It is tempting to condemn this tendency as mere political opportunism, but that would be a mistake. The church has always been supple at bending to the reigning political and intellectual orthodoxies because, ultimately, its kingdom is not of this world. In spite of aberrations like the Social Gospel movement, the church has always been more concerned with saving individual souls than with social justice. Thus churchmen regard sucking up to the secular powers as a small price to pay to stay in the soul-saving business.

What this implies for White Nationalism is that the church will resist us less fervently than those whose aims are primarily secular, such as Jewish organizations, non-white ethnic organizations, and the secular Left. And when we gain power, ministers will begin hunting for Bible verses to justify the new regime. There is no reason why a White Nationalist regime cannot become a new Caesar, to whom Christians render their secular loyalty while reserving their religious loyalty for God.

Third, it is a basic principle of political struggle that one should always work to preserve the unity of one’s ranks while sowing division among the enemy. Christian resistance to White Nationalism will be weaker if the churches are divided, and they can be divided if there are Christians in our ranks, especially Christians with personal ties to church leaders. Resistance will be stronger, however, if White Nationalism ceases being a merely political movement and takes on the aspect of an anti-Christian crusade.

Once a White Nationalist regime emerges, White Nationalist Christians can use their ties with the churches to better bring them into compliance with the new order.

Although the presence of Christians in the White Nationalist movement will help split the churches and weaken their resistance, their presence will not split or weaken White Nationalism as long as it remains a purely political movement unified solely by the pursuit of a white homeland.

Today White Nationalism is a movement of the political Right. Someday, however, it may become the common sense of white people up and down the political spectrum. To my mind, this would be a positive development, because when it comes to religion and politics, I am very much a liberal: I believe in the separation of religion and politics and in basing political decisions on secular reason.

To me, it seems fortunate that the separation of church and state in the white homeland may well be necessitated by political reality. The White Nationalist movement must unite whites of widely different religious convictions in the struggle for a homeland. That means we must build religious pluralism and tolerance into our movement today, which means they will be built into our homeland tomorrow.

The Occidental Observer, May 14, 2010

Christianity & European Identity

                         By Greg Johnson

Saint George and the Dragon, Stockholm Cathedral

Author’s Note:

The following text is my opening statement for a debate with Jonas De Geer on Christianity and European revival held in Stockholm, Sweden, on Saturday, April 18, 2015. My subsequent statements were extemporaneous. The debate was recorded, and can be heard on YouTube here.

What is the relationship of Christianity and European identity? I do not say “Western Civilization,” because I wish to speak of the whole of Europe, East and West, and the whole of European history and prehistory, not just the civilized bits.

There are two perspectives we can take on this question. One looks back at history. The other looks forward to the future.

Looking back at history, we see that Christianity played an important role in Europe for more than 1700 years. It might have been otherwise. Many wish it were otherwise. It might be different in the future. But even if there comes a day in which Europe is no longer Christian, there will never come a day when Europe has never been Christian. In that sense, Christianity will always be part of European identity. Just as pre-Christian religions and cultures stretching all the way back to the last Ice Age will also always be part of European identity.

But although there was a time when Europe was Christian, Christianity was never European. I am not referring to the Jewish origins of Christianity, although that should never be forgotten. From the start, though, Christianity was as Hellenic as it was Jewish. Moreover, it defined itself in contradistinction to Judaism, just as Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity.

What makes Christianity essentially non-European are the doctrines it shares with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and not with the Jews, namely the idea that a universal truth is the foundation of a universal community; if Christianity is true for all men, then it is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion. Because of its nature as a universal religion, Christianity is not tied to any particular race or people. Christendom is not and never has been co-extensive with Europe. European folk believed in Christianity, but Christianity was never a European folk religion. Many Europeans believe in the cause of Christianity, but Christianity has never believed in the cause of Europe. For the Christian cause is the salvation of all mankind.

Defenders of both Europe and Christianity point to the fact that, in the past, the Church supported the defense of Europe from Islam. But the Church was defending Europe only incidentally. What she was really defending was Christendom, which at the time was centered in Europe, but even then extended into Ethiopia, the Middle East, and as far away as China. And the Church has always been willing to shed European blood to defend and extend Christendom, from the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land on to centuries of global missionary work that continues to this day. Far from being an example of the harmony of Christianity and the ethnic-genetic interests of Europeans, the Crusades are an example of how the Church led Europeans to shed their blood to recoup lost Christian territories in the Middle East.

Let us now look to the future. If present trends are not reversed, European man will cease to exist. I do not fear for the artifacts of European civilization, since Bach and Rembrandt would continue to be prized by Jews and Orientals. I fear for the race that created these glories, and can create new glories. Our race is facing simple biological extinction due to below-replacement fertility, miscegenation, and the loss of our homelands to non-white invaders. If European man is to survive, we must exclude all non-whites from our homelands and adopt policies that cause our birthrates to rise, particularly the birthrates of the genetically best-endowed. In short, we need White Nationalism with pro-natal policies, preferably eugenic ones.

Is Christianity likely to help or to hinder White Nationalists in preventing the biological extinction of our race? To answer this question, we must first look at the actual behavior of the existing churches. All of the mainstream Christian denominations are opposed to White Nationalist policies. Instead, they provide intellectual and institutional support for ongoing white dispossession that is at least on a par with the support of the organized Jewish community, their senior partner in crime. Regardless of the views we may hold about “true” Christian teaching, if the white race is to be saved, we will have to fight the existing churches every step of the way.

Naturally, this battle will be aided if we have sympathizers inside the churches. All too often, White Nationalists who are also Christians spend their time battling against non-Christians in our ranks rather than against anti-whites in their churches. To prove that their White Nationalism is in good faith, they must instead take the battle to the churches. I wish them the best, but I also caution them. Political entryism within the churches will be no easy matter, since the churches were long ago subverted in just this manner, and the existing clergy are Old Masters in that particular black art. They will see you coming.

The battle within the churches will be aided if White Nationalists can find resources from the Bible and the traditions of the Church that support rather than oppose ethnonationalist politics. I have no doubt that such resources exist. Mobilizing them is an important metapolitical project, and it will be credible only if carried out by believers.

However, the battle within the Church is not likely to be successful unless our movement makes progress in the larger social realm, for the simple reason that the Church follows secular opinion rather than leads it. The church has a long history of supple accommodation to secular power, simply because its kingdom is not of this world. Its ultimate goal is the salvation of the soul. Thus, if White Nationalism achieves political power, the churches will hunt for Biblical precedents for our policies and reinterpret, downplay, or ignore contrary tendencies. The Church knows how to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Our job is to become Caesar.

Many defenders of Christianity argue that societies and individuals need religion, and they recommend Christianity simply because of its illustrious past and the fact that it is still here. Of course, this argument is somewhat premature, because the white race first has to survive before we can worry about how we might best organize a future white society.

Furthermore, in the last century, Christianity has been dramatically declining in Europe. Indeed, I have argued in New Right vs. Old Right (here and here) that for three centuries now, liberalism, not Christianity, has been the de facto civil religion of Europe. I see no reason to believe that Christianity will be more significant in the future than it is at present. It may revive; it may continue to decline; it may persist in diminished form; or it may cease to exist altogether.

Thus the mere fact that Christianity is here does not recommend it, if we are choosing a religion based merely on social utility. Indeed, if that is our primary concern, I have argued that we would be better served by trying to reform liberalism in a race-realist, non-individualist direction, since liberalism dominates everything today, even Christianity itself.

European Christianity will have a future only if European man has a future. But the Church is at best indifferent to white survival, and today it is actively working against it. Thus my recommendation to White Nationalists, Christian and non-Christian, is to focus primarily on white survival, which requires that we be more concerned with battling the churches than preserving them. The Christians among us must be White Nationalists among them. They must be our fifth column, doing whatever is possible to weaken the Church’s opposition to us. They need not fear for the Church, which will survive even if whites do not. God will take care of His Church, but whites must take care of ourselves.

Who are We? Nordics, Aryans, & Whites

                           By Greg Johnson

             

White Nationalism presupposes an answer to the question “Who is white?” White Nationalism is a political movement, whereas white identity is a metapolitical question. A precise answer to this question provides the foundation for effective white advocacy. False or imprecise answers, however, lead to confused and ineffective efforts. I wish to deal with two such misleading answers: “Nordicism” and “Aryanism.” Both attitudes undermine White Nationalism by introducing confusions about white identity.

The archetypal Nordic is tall, long-headed, and fair-skinned, with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nordic types and traits are found throughout Europe, but as the name suggests, they are more prevalent in the North. As I define it, Nordicism is the view that the Nordic type is the model, paradigm, or archetype of whiteness, with the implication that non-Nordic is non-white, or white to a lesser degree. The most childish Nordicists actually imagine that the only way Europeans could acquire dark hair, eyes, and complexions is through racial admixture.

The Aryans were the creators of a particular language and culture. Their homeland, apparently, was in Eastern Europe, somewhere between the Baltic and Black Seas (an area now populated by Slavs and Balts, whom some Nordicists consider inferior breeds). In the second millennium BC, the Aryans began to migrate West into Europe, South into the Middle East, and East as far as India and China, diffusing their language, culture, and genes in the process. Because of the expanse of this diffusion, Aryans are also called Indo-Europeans. The original Aryans are thought to have been Nordic types, hence the same physical traits are described as Aryan and Nordic. Just as Nordicism regards the Nordic as archetypically white, the Aryanist makes Indo-European languages and cultures normative.

What’s wrong with Nordicism? Nothing really, if one is a Nordic. It seems perfectly natural and healthy for Nordic people to prefer the company of genetically similar people. Indeed, the brain is hard-wired to do so. I am a Nordic type, and I am most comfortable in northern climes among Nordic people. Other things being equal, I would prefer a Nordic mate who shares my recessive traits and can help pass them on to the next generation. These attitudes would only be objectionable if I expected non-Nordics to share them as well. This would be to take a natural preference that is relative to a subracial group and turn it into an absolute standard for all groups.

I don’t even object to the idea of Nordic superiority. If groups really are different, then every group is bound to be objectively better than others by some standards. But we must remember that this also implies that the same groups are bound to be inferior by other standards. Nordics are objectively superior at creating prosperous, egalitarian, high-trust, low corruption societies. As a Nordic, I am most comfortable in such societies, and many other peoples are attracted to such societies, if only as sponges and plunderers. Nordics, however, are proving objectively inferior at preserving our societies due to low ethnocentrism, high trust, and extreme credulity in the face of predatory tribal peoples out to dispossess us. Nordic superiority becomes objectionable only if (1) we assume that Nordic excellences are the onlycriteria for judging societies, and (2) we forget that Nordics are not superior in everything.

Although such White Nationalists as Wilmot Robertson and William Pierce were strongly Nordicist, and their attitudes linger on, in my experience Nordic White Nationalists are the most aware of the weaknesses of our own people. Beyond that, the Nordics that have the most naive and ingrained supremacist attitudes tend to be the liberals and Leftists who believe that non-white immigrants can become citizens of Nordic societies, that they want to become citizens, and that apparently we don’t even have to try to assimilate them, because the Nordic way of life is so intrinsically compelling that everyone would spontaneously and voluntarily want to adopt it (without, I might add, divesting themselves of their own ethnic identities, which are apparently only superficial matters of clothing and food anyway).

Nordicism is problematic for White Nationalists because it undermines cooperation and trust among different European groups. This damages the ability of White Nationalists to advocate for white interests in European colonial societies like the United States and Canada, which were peopled by many different European ethnic groups which are increasingly blended into a generic “white” identity. In Europe itself, it also undermines the pan-European solidarity necessary to prevent European infighting and to unify Europe in the face of extra-European threats.

Imagine, for instance, the feelings of a Greek or Italian American toward William Pierce’s National Alliance if he read Pierce’s Who We Are, in which he laments that the Nordic invaders of Greece mongrelized themselves with the indigenous European populations rather than exterminating them to keep their blood pure — an exterminationist agenda that he envisioned for the future in The Turner Diaries. Such attitudes follow logically from the premise that Nordics are the only authentic Europeans, which implies that non-Nordics are lesser men. The National Alliance accepted non-Nordics as members, but such people could legitimately ask if the organization could really take their money and represent their interests in good faith.

The idea that Nordics are authentically and archetypically white is simply an intellectual error.

1. First, there is no reason to think that the first Europeans were Nordic.

2. Second, even if the first Europeans were Nordic, there is no reason to suppose that all departures from the Nordic type represent a decline from the ideal.

Nordics are just one branch of the European family tree, and are no more or less authentically European than any other branch.

Another error that is allied to Nordicism is what I call the son-in-law fallacy. Many whites operate on the assumption that the only truly white people are those they would have marry into their family. And since most people’s attitudes about such matters are based on genetic similarity, the son-in-law fallacy is really just a form of unconscious sub-racial chauvinism. It is perfectly natural and healthy to want to marry people who are genetically similar, so one can more reliably pass on one’s genes and culture to the next generation. But this does not imply that groups one would not wish to marry into are less European or less white.

Aryanism is an even more problematic attitude than Nordicism. Again, Aryanism is the view that Indo-European language and culture are normatively white. At its most childish, Aryanism leads to the false inference that Basques, Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians are “not white” because they do not speak Indo-European languages. Equally childish is the inference that non-European Caucasians (Persians, Armenians, Indians) are somehow “us” because they speak Indo-European languages. The reductio ad absurdum of Aryanism is a European who feels more kinship with Persians and Hindus than Hungarians or Finns because of common linguistic roots. Of course, due to colonialism there are also millions of Africans, Amerindians, and Asians who speak Indo-European languages and even carry European genes. Logically, the Aryanist should also prefer these people to Basques or Estonians, but let us hope they shrink back before this absurdity. Europeans can learn a great deal about our own pre-Christian language and culture through the study of Aryan offshoots among non-Europeans. But those who bear these languages and cultures today are still non-Europeans — not “us.”

There is no reason to presume that Indo-European language and culture are normatively European. The Aryans were a branch of the European family that split off from the main stem, evolved a distinct language and culture in isolation for untold millennia, and then migrated back into the European heartland, as well as into the Near, Middle, and Far East.

The Aryans certainly contributed to European civilization but they did not create it. Indeed, when the various waves of Aryans returned to Europe, they were rightly regarded as barbarians. They even regarded themselves as barbarians. Agriculture, ceramics, metal-working, written language, clocks, calendars, astronomy, irrigation, urban life, the wheel, refined arts and crafts, monumental architecture — all of these were pre-Aryan inventions. Europe’s first high civilizations arose around the Mediterranean shore, not in the North. Its creators were subracially Mediterranean, not Nordic. The creators of the high civilizations of Mesopotamia were Caucasian, but they were probably no more European than the current residents of those lands. And when the Aryans diffused themselves throughout Europe and the Orient, they were awestruck by the superior civilizations they found and eagerly to assimilated them, culturally and genetically, until Aryans in the pure form became extinct.

Europeans today, culturally and genetically, are more or less composites of Aryan and pre-Aryans. Thus it is a form of false consciousness — of inauthenticity — to identify ourselves, individually or collectively, with the Aryans, an extinct people who live on only as genetic and cultural ingredientsof modern Europeans. The Aryans are part of us, but they are not us. Dreaming that we are Aryans is like a dog dreaming that he is a wolf.

Who are we then? Who is white? Who is European? A simple but pragmatic answer is that we are the branch of the Caucasian race that has inhabited Europe since the last Ice Age. Pragmatically, this common ancestry embraces all groups that we recognize as Europeans, but also excludes the non-European Caucasians in the Middle East, the Caucasus Mountains, and Central and South Asia.

Europeans and non-European Caucasians apparently had common ancestors. But when I speak of the European or white race, I am referring to the subset of the Caucasian race that settled and developed in Europe. Although there are liminal cases where the two sub-races blended, non-European Caucasians are culturally and genetically distinct from Europeans. Furthermore, non-European Caucasians exist in vast numbers and unlike Europeans, they are in no danger of extinction. Although breeding between European and non-Europeans Caucasians is not race-mixing in the strict sense, it should still be discouraged, since it erodes the genetic distinctness of an already threatened race.

If Nordicists think this definition includes people they would not want to live or breed with, they need not do so as long as they maintain their own distinct homelands.

Whites are united by a common origin, common enemies, and a common threat of extinction. The only common thing we lack is a way to prevent our complete genetic and cultural oblivion. The purpose of White Nationalism is to give our race a future again. Changing the course of history is no small task. It requires white consciousness and solidarity, as well as organization and world-historical action.

White solidarity need not conflict with particular regional, national, and sub-racial identities. Indeed, the whole purpose of White Nationalism is to protect such differences. But sub-racial and national chauvinisms — and imaginary identifications with extinct ancestors and non-Europeans who speak Indo-European languages — do conflict with the solidarity we need to save us. Nordicists and Aryanists are slated for destruction with all the rest of us. Which means that such attitudes are ultimately self-defeating. They are luxuries and indulgences a dying race can ill afford.