​All Leftist Movements Are ISIS in The End

by Jonathan Peter Wilkinson on August 16, 2017

If you never managed to understand much of history, we have a solution for that. You can just tear down all the monuments and pretend that history exist. You will then avoid any confrontation with facts or logical truths that contradict what you want to believe is true, or even have used as the foundation for your personality construct.
This has great historical precedent on the Left, who specialized in editing history and replacing it with propaganda. If you lead a political movement that offers no ability to build anything other than a mound of the enemy’s skulls, you better tear down the cathedrals, museums and statues erected by your more civilized betters. Books that are thousands of years old and that form a canon of accumulated cultural wisdom? Bring on the kerosene and cigarette lighters.
Your success consists in denying your enemies a platform. If you can’t build it, maintain it or even understand the ruins you see decaying around you, remove it from sight before it becomes too great a reminder of your own impotence and a catalyst of shame.
    Illegally pulling down statues of Confederate soldiers and taking videos of “brave” unemployed liberal arts major social justice warriors kicking the Confederate soldier is what passes for activism in today’s warped society. Liberal mayors and city councils across the south are falling all over themselves wasting time and taxpayer money to remove statues of Confederate generals to appease the left and make a display of how anti-racist they can be. Meanwhile, their cities are bankrupt, their infrastructure is decaying, black crime is rampant and their education systems matriculate functionally illiterate deranged snowflakes into society. 
The destruction of monuments is both a form of distraction and a rejection. It is a distraction from the failure of Leftism to lead anywhere other than death. It is also a rejection of the superiority of what came before the Leftists. The contemporary Amerikan is not a capable, progressive (in the honorable, older definition of the term), inventive, strong or useful human being. We are a failed country that doesn’t want to face what we once could accomplish in the harsh, glaring light of a hungover, unemployed morning.
But you can’t make a statue of obese, blue-haired people failing to make any connections to anything larger than their beautiful Rubenesque selves. So in the dark of night, like the thieving cowards that perhaps many contemporary Amerikans truly are, they creep into the parks and remove the monuments to a local junkheap. The cowards who claim to govern Baltimore continue to destroy all value bequeathed to them by the culture and society (and the white people) that built the city.
    Private contractors, city officials and a few onlookers were on the site of the Lee-Jackson monument as it was being taken down overnight into early Wednesday. The preparation began around midnight and by 3:00 a.m. FOX45 crews confirmed that at least two of the four monuments had been removed. After more than a century, the Roger Taney statue in Mount Vernon was removed, the base is all that remains.
    Crews on at the site of the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument in Wyman Park say, Mayor Catherine Pugh looked on as the monument was lifted from its base. 
But where does it all end? whinges a cuck over at National Review. It will end with his finely-coiffed head on some primitive SJW savage’s totem pole. In an almost ironic paragraph of coruscating self-unawareness, his article explains why.
    Two miles from our offices at National Review, there is an 18-foot statue of Vladimir Lenin. (The real-estate website Curbed calls it “quirky.” It was commissioned by the Soviet Union and discovered in a junkyard in Moscow.) You will not doubt my sincerity when I say everyone at NR despises Lenin and everything he stands for. So will Kevin Williamson be putting on a balaclava and leading a band of self-appointed historical-correctness commissioners down to 178 Norfolk Street on a commando raid to pull it down? No. 
The wimps at NRO have no will to resist Leftist culture. The Leftists have the intent, the will, and the hatred to utterly smash your face for what they view as the hideous crime of ever existing (and for being an evil white male oppressor). 
This is why anyone who follows mainstream Right will find themselves in the gulag or facing a guillotine. A nation defended by irresolute cowards will be nuked and burned from the pages of history. Their families will be raped and enslaved by BLM and Antifa.
The Alt-Left has no problem with ISIS because this is ultimately what they are striving to emulate and become. ISIS, the destroyer of culture, decency and civility resembles what all major Leftist causes degenerate into by the end. This is why Socialism always leads to death. This is why anyone who wants to reason together with the Deray McKessons of the world will end up dying unmourned and unlamented as the barbaric and gibbering Leftist pseudo-sapiens idly desecrate his smoldering and mutilated mortal remains. 

Locus say, “white men you have a choice to make, you can continue to cowardly refuse to put anything on the line and allow these communist to gain power, eventually leading to state sponsored extermination of your race, your families, the very removal of your people from the history books, or you can stand as men and fight the leftist with everything you got, your gonna have to make a choice very soon, if we fight, I guarantee many of us will not make it, we will lose a lot, tens of millions will have to die, but we will WIN, and future generations will remember this was the generation that fought back the darkness and rebuilt our civilization.”

Conceived In White Nationalism – What the Founders Really Thought About Race

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison:

Ben Franklin:

Charles Pickney:

David Wilmot:
https://books.google.com/books?id=iNs… that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? . . . The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.&f=false

Chinese Population of the United States:

Oregon Constitution:

Jared Taylor – What the Founders Really Thought About Race:

Naturalization actof 1790:

United_States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923):

1924 Immigration act:

Anti-Miscegenation Laws in the United States:

Race and Political Views:

Fiscal Impact of Racial Groups:

What the Founders Really Thought About Race


Today, the United States officially takes the position that all races are equal. Our country is also committed―legally and morally―to the view that race is not a fit criterion for decision-making of any kind, except for promoting “diversity” or for the purpose of redressing past wrongs done by Whites to non-Whites.

Many Americans cite the “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence to support the claim that this view of race was not only inevitable but was anticipated by the Founders. Interestingly, prominent conservatives and Tea Party favorites like Michele Bachman and Glenn Beck have taken this notion a step further and asserted that today’s racial egalitarianism was the nation’s goal from its very first days.[1]

They are badly mistaken.

Since early colonial times, and until just a few decades ago, virtually all Whites believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities, and built markedly different societies. They believed that only people of European stock could maintain a society in which they would wish to live, and they strongly opposed miscegenation. For more than 300 years, therefore, American policy reflected a consensus on race that was the very opposite of what prevails today.

Those who would impute egalitarianism to the Founders should recall that in 1776, the year of the Declaration, race slavery was already more than 150 years old in North America and was practiced throughout the New World, from Canada to Chile.[2] In 1770, 40 percent of White households in Manhattan owned Black slaves, and there were more slaves in the colony of New York than in Georgia.[3] It was true that many of the Founders considered slavery a terrible injustice and hoped to abolish it, but they meant to expel the freed slaves from the United States, not to live with them in equality.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”[4] He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[5] Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,”[6] and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”[7]

Jefferson opposed miscegenation for a number of reasons, but one was his preference for the physical traits of Whites. He wrote of their “flowing hair” and their “more elegant symmetry of form,” but emphasized the importance of color itself[8]:

Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one [whites], preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black, which covers all the emotions of the other race?

Like George Washington, Jefferson was a slave owner. In fact, nine of the first 11 Presidents owned slaves, the only exceptions being the two Adamses. Despite Jefferson’s hope for eventual abolition, he made no provision to free his slaves after his death.

James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”[9] He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate Blacks.[10]

Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time:

[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Franklin therefore opposed bringing more Blacks to the United States[11]:

[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?”

John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength[12]:

Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?

Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,”[13]

a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[14] and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.

Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[15] John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”[16] Neither man would have countenanced immigration of non-Whites.

Blacks, even if free, could not be citizens of the United States until ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The question of their citizenship arose during the Missouri crisis of 1820 to 1821. The Missouri constitution barred the immigration of Blacks, and some northern critics said that to prevent Blacks who were citizens of other states from moving to Missouri deprived them of protection under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution. The author of that clause, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, was still alive, and denied that he, or any other Framer, intended the clause to apply to Blacks: “I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”[17]


Today, it is common to think of the antebellum North as united in the desire to free the slaves and to establish them as the social and political equals of Whites. Again, this is a distorted view. First of all, slavery persisted in the North well into the post-Revolutionary period. It was not abolished in New York State until 1827, and it continued in Connecticut until 1848.[18]

Nor was abolitionist sentiment anything close to universal. Many Northerners opposed abolition because they feared it would lead to race mixing. The easiest way to stir up opposition to Northern abolitionists was to claim that what they were really promoting was intermarriage. Many abolitionists expressed strong disapproval of miscegenation, but the fact that speakers at abolitionist meetings addressed racially mixed audiences was sufficiently shocking to make any charge believable. There were no fewer than 165 anti-abolition riots in the North during the 1820s alone, almost all of them prompted by the fear that abolition would lead to intermarriage.[19]

The 1830s saw further violence. On July 4, 1834, the American Anti-Slavery Society read its Declaration of Sentiments to a mixed-race audience in New York City. Rioters then broke up the meeting and went on a rampage that lasted 11 days. The National Guard managed to bring peace only after the society issued a “Disclaimer,” the first point of which was: “We entirely disclaim any desire to promote or encourage intermarriages between white and colored persons.”[20]

Philadelphia suffered a serious riot in 1838 after abolitionists, who had had trouble renting space to hold their meetings, built their own building. On May 17, the last day of a three-day dedication ceremony, several thousand people—many of high social standing—gathered at the hall and burned it down while the fire department stood by and did nothing.[21]

Sentiment against Blacks was so strong that many Northern Whites supported abolition only if it was linked, as Jefferson and Madison had proposed, to plans to deport or “colonize” Blacks. Most abolitionist activism therefore reflected a deep conviction that slavery was wrong, but not a desire to establish Blacks as social and political equals. William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina and Sarah Grimké favored equal treatment for Blacks in all respects, but theirs was very much a minority view. Henry Ward Beecher, brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, expressed the majority view: “Do your duty first to the colored people here; educate them, Christianize them, and then colonize them.”[22]

The American Colonization Society was only the best known of many organizations founded for the purpose of removing Blacks from North America. At its inaugural meeting in 1816, Henry Clay described its purpose: to “rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population.”[23] The following prominent Americans were not just members but served as officers of the society: James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, William Seward, Francis Scott Key, Winfield Scott, John Marshall, and Roger Taney.[24] James Monroe, another President who owned slaves, worked so tirelessly in the cause of “colonization” that the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in recognition of his efforts.

Early Americans wrote their opposition to miscegenation into law. Between 1661 and 1725, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and all the southern colonies passed laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage and, in some cases, fornication.[25] Of the 50 states, no fewer than 44 had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage at some point in their past.[26] Many Northern Whites were horrified to discover that some Southern slave owners had Black concubines. When Bostonian Josiah Quincy wrote an account of his 1773 tour of South Carolina, he professed himself shocked to learn that a “gentleman” could have relations with a “negro or mulatto woman.”[27]

Massachusetts prohibited miscegenation from 1705 to 1843, but repealed the ban only because most people thought it was unnecessary.[28] The new law noted that inter-racial relations were “evidence of vicious feeling, bad taste, and personal degradation,” so were unlikely to be so common as to become a problem.[29]

The northern “free-soil” movement of the 1840s is often described as friendly to Blacks because it opposed the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. This is yet another misunderstanding. Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmot started the movement when he introduced an amendment banning slavery from any territories acquired after the Mexican-American War. The “Wilmot Proviso” was certainly anti-slavery, but Wilmot was not an abolitionist. He did not object to slavery in the South; only to its spread into the Western territories. During the congressional debate, Wilmot asked:

whether that vast country, between the Rio Grande and the Pacific, shall be given up to the servile labor of the black, or be preserved for the free labor of the white man? … The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent; let us keep what remains for ourselves, and for our children.

Wilmot called his amendment the “white man’s proviso.”[30]

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for Whites. Every state that entered the Union between 1819 and the Civil War denied Blacks the vote. In 1855, Blacks could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the nation’s Black population. The federal government prohibited free Blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.[31]

Several states that were established before the Civil War hoped to avoid race problems by remaining all White. The people of the Oregon Territory, for example, voted not to permit slavery, but voted in even greater numbers not to permit Blacks in the state at all. In language that survived until 2002, Oregon’s 1857 constitution provided that “[n]o free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate.”[32]

Despite Charles Pinckney’s confirmation in 1821 that no Black could be an American citizen, the question was taken up in the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The seven-to-two decision held that although they could be citizens of states, Blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Roger Taney, the chief justice who wrote the majority decision, noted that slavery arose out of an ancient American conviction about Negroes[33]:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.   Abraham Lincoln’s time was well beyond the era of the Founders, but many Americans believe it was “the Great Emancipator” who finally brought the egalitarian vision of Jefferson’s generation to fruition.

Again, they are mistaken.

Lincoln considered Blacks to be—in his words—“a troublesome presence”[34] in the United States. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates he stated[35]:

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

His opponent Stephen Douglas was even more outspoken (in what follows, audience responses are recorded by the Chicago Daily Times, a Democratic paper):

For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. [Cheers—Times] I believe that this government was made on the white basis. [‘Good,’—Times] I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races. [‘Good for you. Douglas forever,’—Times]

Douglas, who was the more firmly anti-Black of the two candidates, won the election.[36]

Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery outside the South, but was not an abolitionist. He made war on the Confederacy only to preserve the Union, and would have accepted Southern slavery in perpetuity if that would have kept the South from seceding, as he stated explicitly.[37]

Indeed, Lincoln supported what is known as the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress shortly before he took office, which forbade any attempt by Congress to amend the Constitution to give itself the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. The amendment therefore recognized that the federal government had no power over slavery where it already existed, and the amendment would have barred any future amendment to give the government that power. Outgoing President James Buchanan took the unusual step of signing the amendment, even though the President’s signature is not necessary under the Constitution.

Lincoln referred to the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address[38], adding that he had “no objection” to its ratification, and he sent copies of the text to all state governors.[39] Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois eventually ratified the amendment. If the country had not been distracted by war, it could well have become law, making it more difficult or even impossible to pass the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of September 22, 1862 was further proof of his priorities. It gave the Confederate states 100 days to lay down their arms, and threatened to emancipate only those slaves living in states still in “rebellion.” Lincoln always overestimated Unionist sentiment in the South, and genuinely believed that at least some of the Southern states would accept his offer of union in exchange for the preservation of slavery.[40]

As late as the Hampton Roads conference with Confederate representatives—this was in February 3, 1865, with the war almost won—Lincoln was still hinting that the South could keep its slaves if it made peace. He called emancipation strictly a war measure that would become “inoperative” if there were peace, and suggested that if the Confederate states rejoined the union, they could defeat the 13th Amendment, which had been sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln appears to have been prepared to sacrifice the most basic interests of Blacks if he thought that would stop the slaughter of white men.[41]

Throughout his presidency, Lincoln took the conventional view that if slaves were freed, they should be expatriated. Even in the midst of the war, he was making plans for colonization, and appointed Rev. James Mitchell to be Commissioner of Emigration, with instructions to find a place to which Blacks could be sent.[42]

On August 14th, 1862, Lincoln invited a group of free Black leaders to the White House to tell them, “there is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us.” He urged them to lead others of their race to a colonization site in Central America.[43] Lincoln was the first president to invite a delegation of Blacks to the White House—and he did so to ask them to leave the country. Later that year, in a message to Congress, he argued not just for voluntary colonization but for the forcible removal of free Blacks.[44]


The record from colonial times through the end of the Civil War is therefore one of starkly inegalitarian views. The idea of colonizing Blacks was eventually abandoned as too costly, but until the second half of the 20th century, it would be very hard to find a prominent American who spoke about race in today’s terms.

Blacks were at the center of early American thinking about race because of the vexed question of slavery and because Blacks lived among Whites. Indians, of course, had always been present, but were of less concern. They fought rearguard actions, but generally withdrew as Whites settled the continent. When they did not withdraw, they were forced onto reservations. After the slaves were freed, Indians were legally more disadvantaged than Blacks, since they were not considered part of the United States at all. In 1884, the Supreme Court officially determined that the 14th Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians associated with tribes. They did not receive citizenship until an act of Congress in 1924.[45] The traditional American view—Mark Twain called the Indian “a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one”[46]—cannot be retroactively transformed into incipient egalitarianism and celebration of diversity.[47]

There was similar disdain for Asians. State and federal laws excluded them from citizenship, and as late as 1914 the Supreme Court ruled that the states could deny naturalization to Asians. Nor was the urge to exclude Asians limited to conservatives. At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough with Negroes.[48]

Samuel Gompers, the most famous labor leader in American history, fought to improve the lives of working people, but Whites were his first priority[49]:

It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”

The ban on Chinese immigration and naturalization continued until 1943, when Congress established a Chinese immigration quota—of 105 people a year.[50]

Even if we restrict the field to American Presidents—a group notoriously disinclined to say anything controversial—we find that Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s thinking of race continued well into the modern era.

James Garfield wrote[51],

[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way.

Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1901 that he had “not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent.”[52] As for Indians, he once said, “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the health of the tenth.”[53]

William Howard Taft once told a group of Black college students, “Your race is adapted to be a race of farmers, first, last, and for all times.”[54]

Woodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as President of Princeton he refused to admit Blacks. He enforced segregation in government offices[55] and favored exclusion of Asians: “We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”[56]

Warren Harding wanted the races separate: “Men of both races [Black and White] may well stand uncompromisingly against every suggestion of social equality. This is not a question of social equality, but a question of recognizing a fundamental, eternal, inescapable difference. Racial amalgamation there cannot be.”[57]

In 1921, Vice President-elect Calvin Coolidge wrote in Good Housekeeping about the basis for sound immigration policy[58]:

There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.

Harry Truman wrote: “I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.” He also referred to the Blacks on the White House staff as “an army of coons.”[59]

As recent a President as Dwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant Blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality “or that a Negro should court my daughter.”[60] It is only with John Kennedy that we finally find a president whose conception of race begins to be acceptable by today’s standards.

Today’s egalitarians are therefore radical dissenters from traditional American thinking. A conception of America as a nation of people with common values, culture, and heritage is far more faithful to vision of the founders.

  1. Speaking at an “Iowans for Tax Relief” event in January, 2011, Rep. Bachmann claimed, “It didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter their language, it didn’t matter their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn’t that remarkable?” Taking up the slavery issue, Bachmann continued, “We also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” She would later defend her position when questioned by journalists. Bachmann’s speech can be viewed here. Glenn Beck has been equally enamored with historical revisionism. Throughout his “Founding Fathers’ Fridays” series on his (now discontinued) television program, Beck featured speakers who theorized that “American history can be described as one long Civil Rights struggle” and who told tales of the indispensable contributions of Blacks to the Revolutionary War as well as racially mixed churches in 18th-century. Episodes can viewed here. Bachmann and Beck are representative of a broader tendency among conservatives. For instance, in 2011, Tennessee Tea Party activists demanded that public schools teach children that the Founders “brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody—not all equally instantly.” See “The Commercial Appeal,” 13 January 2011.  ↩
  2. Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 142.  ↩
  3. Ibid, p. 128.  ↩
  4. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Jefferson.  ↩
  5. Ibid.; quoted in Nash and Weiss, The Great Fear, p. 24.  ↩
  6. Papers of Jefferson, Vol. IX, p. 218; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p.86.  ↩
  7. Lipscomb and Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. X, p. 296; quoted in Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny, p. 92.  ↩
  8. “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Thomas Jefferson: Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), pp. 264–65.  ↩
  9. Letter from James Madison to Robert J. Evans, June 15, 1819, Writings 8:439–47.  ↩
  10. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, pp. 105–107.  ↩
  11. Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind,” (1751).  ↩
  12. “Observations on the Constitution Proposed by the Federal Convention,” No. 8, by “Fabius” (John Dickinson).  ↩
  13. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 38.  ↩
  14. Quoted in Brimelow, Alien Nation, p. xii.  ↩
  15. Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.  ↩
  16. Quoted in Wattenberg and Buchanan, “Immigration.”  ↩
  17. Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. “History of Congress.” 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834–56. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s15.html  ↩
  18. Davis, Inhuman Bondage, p. 128.  ↩
  19. Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 90. This count was reported by the three leading anti-slavery newspapers of the period.  ↩
  20. Ibid., pp. 59, 83.  ↩
  21. Ibid., pp. 87–91.  ↩
  22. Quoted in Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 115.  ↩
  23. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 133.  ↩
  24. Ibid., p. 132.  ↩
  25. Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation,” p. 57.  ↩
  26. Ibid., p. 2.  ↩
  27. Ibid., p. 11.  ↩
  28. Legal opposition to miscegenation lasted many years. In 1967, when the Supreme Court finally ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, 16 states still had them on the books. The laws were only sporadically enforced, but state legislatures were unwilling to rescind them.  ↩
  29. Ibid., p. 139.  ↩
  30. Earle, Jacksonian Antislavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824–1854, pp. 138–39.  ↩
  31. Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 55.  ↩
  32. Peter Prengaman, “Oregon’s Racist Language Faces Vote,” Associated Press, Sept. 27, 2002.  ↩
  33. Full text of the decision is available here  ↩
  34. Ginsberg and Eichner, Troublesome Presence, p. ix.  ↩
  35. See Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235–236.  ↩
  36. Holzer, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 54f.  ↩
  37. See, for instance, Lincoln’s 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune: “[\M]\y paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Available online here  ↩
  38. For the full text of the address is available here  ↩
  39. Holzer, Lincoln President-Elect, p. 429.  ↩
  40. Escott, What Shall We Do With the Negro?, p. 55.  ↩
  41. Ibid., pp. 206–211.  ↩
  42. Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 217.  ↩
  43. Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Colored Men,” quoted in Wilson Moses, Classical Black Nationalism, p. 211.  ↩
  44. Weyl and Marina,* American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro*, p. 227.  ↩
  45. Keyssar, The Right to Vote, p. 165.  ↩
  46. Mark Twain, “The Noble Red Man,” The Galaxy, Sept. 1870.  ↩
  47. Ichioka, The Issei, pp. 211ff.  ↩
  48. Ibid., pp. 293–6.  ↩
  49. Samuel Gompers & Heran Gutstadt, “Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism,” quoted in Joshi, Documents of American Prejudice, pp. 436–438.  ↩
  50. Lutton, The Myth of Open Borders, p. 26.  ↩
  51. Quoted in Frederickson, The Black Image in the White Mind, p. 185.  ↩
  52. Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 317.  ↩
  53. Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West; quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.  ↩
  54. Quoted in Fikes, “Racist Quotes from Persons of Note, Part I,” p. 142.  ↩
  55. Letter to Oswald Garrison Villard, Nov. 11, 1913; quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 336.  ↩
  56. Quoted in Robert Fikes, “Racist Quotes From Persons of Note, Part II,” p. 1  ↩
  57. New York Times, October 27, 1921; quoted in Lewis H. Carlson & George Colburn, In Their Place, p. 94.  ↩
  58. Calvin Coolidge, “Whose Country is This?” Good Housekeeping, February 1921, p. 13.  ↩
  59. Rick Hampson, “Private Letters Reveal Truman’s Racist Attitudes,” Washington Times, Oct. 25, 1991.  ↩
  60. Quoted in Weyl and Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro, p. 365.  ↩

More Chaos is coming, this is only the Beginning


CHAOS erupts when cops disappear during illegal Antifa/BLM march (Faith Goldy excerpts)

(FIRST MINUTE GIVES YOU THE GIST) Excerpts from Faith Goldy’s Periscope video shot Aug. 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, VA

Charlottesville Demonstrates The Spirit of Mordor



Karl Marx was big on social engineering. It should surprise nobody that American Leftist Mini-mes are attempting to take a page out his windbag Critique of The Gotha Program by replacing the core of America with new obedient Leftists, as Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe describes what he wants to see replace sic semper tyrannis on the proud flag of The Old Dominion.

The future of life on the planet depends on bringing the 500-year rampage of the white man to a halt. For five centuries his ever more destructive weaponry has become far too common. His widespread and better systems of exploiting other humans and nature dominate the globe. The time for replacing white supremacy with new values is now. And just as some whites played a part in ending slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow segregation, and South African apartheid, there is surely a role whites can play in restraining other whites in this era.

The American Left has assumed the mission of eradicating the Western European genetics and culture brought to the United States by settlers who came from Europe and braved a harsh new land to establish a European-style society. Their official organ to effect national policy is the Left. Any White Male who even thinks of thinking about supporting a Democratic Party politician is a race-traitor. Every White politician that runs as a Democrat might as well run as Grima Wormtongue. After everything the Democrats in power in Virginia did to ensure a riot at Charlottesville, we can no longer doubt the hideously obvious evil that American Leftists represent in full.

Yet these detestable members of the Anti-American Hate Group known as the Democrat Party are just the easily identifiable malefactors. Cuckservatives are quickly lining up to condemn anything White People do to defend themselves from what is obviously an othering to be followed by a banishment to be capped off with a serious attempt at White Genocide. (((John Podhertz))), whose nickname at a BLM riot would undoubtedly be “Honkey Pinata,” was there to make sure no unified opposition would be allowed to emerge and remain credible. What a sick and dishonest weasel this man truly is.

I couldn’t live with myself if I supported a president who can’t bring himself to denounce Nazis and white supremacists unqualifiedly and by name.

So just what would forestall the horrible tragedy to humanity of (((John Podhertz))) rolling himself under a moving municipal bus? If Trump were to make the Alt Right wear Auschwitz pyjamas with cute little yellow stars, perhaps then St. John of Butthurt Cuckservatism could at long last put down the overbrimming chalice of Jim Jones’ Finest Bug Juice. I mean the alternative would be more White People. More stuff like this that would flunk most two-bong-hit Patrice Lumumbas out of Oberlin or Evergreen State.

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Skyscrapers. The piano. The harpsichord. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that’s nerve gas, and maybe we didn’t really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera at great length.

The miserable, gibbering pseudo-primates of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, SJWLU, $PLC et al., proudly proclaim they own the streets. George Soros, Governor McAuliffe and numerous others have paid a young fortune to give them this miserable stretch of pavement. As soon as Black Lives Matter owns your streets, the property values go the way of Birmingham, Baltimore or Detroit. There is no greater force towards devolution or barbarism than the current Leftist attempt to destroy White Culture.

Speaking of Evil White Albanoids that write confusing words and stuff, Robert Heinlein gives us a foretaste of what we can expect should The American Left succeed in their ethnic cleansing as well as the ANC has in Pretoria:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded—here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck’.

That tiny minority in Amerika is almost exclusively White. Banish that remnant that escapes cranial-rectal inversion and you live in Brazil. The root of civilization is the unity of an ethnic population and its abilities. When you remove that population, you kill the goose that laid golden eggs, and all that is left is for the Left to divide up the spoils and hop on private planes to Switzerland.

In closing, I believe primarily in choice, not “Bad Luck.” One man with courage is the true majority. In life and in Newtonian Physics (damn honkey mofos again) accidents do not just happen. It acquires momentum from a righteous kick in the ass. Get off your sofa and visit your local gun range. Connect with the brothers who can stand in your Viking Circle and legitimately guard your back. Do not look for trouble or initiate violence against Antifa. In the New Amerika, it will notice your lack of melanin and find you. Let it find you ready. Your family depends on you to make that fight completely unfair.


Predictions Proven Right About the Alt Right


In the late 1980s, I started writing about discontent with modern society and its alienating influence on the spirit. A few years later, I turned toward what would become the far-Right simply by insisting on the core principles of conservatism, namely realism and qualitative improvement, that made sense where equality, democracy and diversity did not.

At that time, there was a backlash building against Clinton, emboldened by the collapse of the Soviet Union. This, it seemed, was our time for Generation X: we had finally seen the mental virus that was equality tumble down, we had an obviously corrupt president who was spending tomorrow to pay for today, and race riots in LA showed us the failure of diversity.

And yet, it went nowhere.

Part of the reason for this was what Hunter Wallace calls white nationalism 1.0, which failed because instead of acquiring an audience from within normal Americans, it pushed itself to further extremes and by doing so, limited itself to a fanatical but ineffectual audience.

Given that fully half of it consisted of people who seemed to be either paid government informants or acting like them, and many of the rest who were interested in their own fame and profits more than doing what was right, it became a niche audience of entertainment. People who felt bad about life went to White Nationalism for a little pick me up, a reason why their lives were important, a commiseration.

Like every other support group on Earth, this one was toxic.

Wallace identifies a series of problems with White Nationalism — individualism, extremism, negativity, low quality leaders, impracticality, a narrow message, and an attempt to be a political force — that persist today in the Alt Right, or at least parts of it. These problems make a group appear to succeed, and then go nowhere, finally fading away.

Remember when the media used to cite Stormfront.org? They do not do that much anymore because the word got out that the bulk of the posters there did nothing and had no influence. They are the opposite of newsmakers; they are people looking to be told that the black man or the Jews is holding them down, so languishing in obscurity is OK.

My experience even before Stormfront made me leery of the far-Right. There was too much dysfunction, emotionality, and endless ego. It did not resemble a political movement so much as a barroom brawl, and any time someone suggested that we focus, they got shouted down chants of “muh freedom” and “we want action.” Twenty years later, no action has happened except a few hate crimes.

During those days, I wrote a series of editorials that eventually became writings critical of neo-Nazism and white nationalism as forms of ethno-Bolshevism, or movements where nobodies got to pretend to be somebodies while advocating ideas that most of us rejected because those ideas were unstable, unrealistic and would turn out badly. We, the functional people of the West, do not want to re-live National Socialism or the French Revolution just for bragging rights, and these movements incorporated both of those.

At the same time, it seemed to me that we needed to broaden our focus to existential misery, the death of spirit, our environmental/overpopulation crisis, and the need for nationalism for all ethnic groups. These were pushing the edge in two ways: first, they affirmed taboo truths, and second, they pushed back against the tendency to use the fact of those truths being taboo as carte blanche to act out emotionally and with an impulse to destroy.

This in turn took me toward looking at The Human Problem, which is that all of our organizations fail once they become popular and adjust themselves to their audience, instead of keeping a focus on abstract goals. Called Crowdism, this behavior originates in human individualism, or desire to be important that leads to denial of hierarchy and the patterns of nature, and destroys all good things, requiring us to reject a human-centric view of the world and instead focus on extreme realism plus moderate solutions.

Over the next two decades, I watched others take similar ideas, strip them of whatever was interesting, and turn them into self-pity narratives that portrayed whites as victims of an unjust world, and called for horrific solutions. I have no problem criticizing diversity and materialism, but when we make someone else a scapegoat, we make them our master. I predicted that if we became monsters, we would lose all of the goodwill and interest extended to us by our fellow citizens.

My predictions all turned out to be correct, but this was not widely understood because people were busy chasing the “next big theme” that would make them personally famous, wealthy or powerful. Given a little bit of power, the Right thought itself invincible — the good days had returned, or this was the great apocalyptic race war finally — and so they listened to the popular voices instead.

The people writing these simplified things got famous and I did not, mainly because the time was not right for these ideas. The time is now: again we have seen the problems of modern society, again people are ready for a solution, and again the people who tell the Crowd what it wants to hear become popular and run away with the herd, only to marginalize it and make it impotent.

To my mind, the Alt Right has more potential, so long as it avoids the conditions that make these circular, airless groups. Inherent in this outlook is the idea that we can rebuild the collapsed Western Civilization, and aim higher toward new levels of greatness. As it became clear that popularity was leaning toward White Nationalism 2.0, I proposed that the Alt Right go even further and become 1788 conservatives dedicated to an uncompromising form of conservatism on the Ultra-Right.

More recently, Everitt Foster and I wrote about how the Alt Right needs a comprehensive platform, not recycled ideas from the past, to which I added a warning about letting the audience define the message. Charles Watson added an analysis of how the Alt Right could defeat itself by repeating old behaviors that are popular with this audience, but not the upper half of the middle class in Europe and America which the Alt Right needs to reach.

Again these predictions have been proven correct.

With events in Charlottesville, the Alt Right has entered a new level: it is now playing with the big boys. It is not playing as a political force, but a social one, changing cultural attitudes toward many of the ideas that the West has held sacred since The Enlightenment.™ This means that the Alt Right needs to become the type of entity that people can rely on to do the right thing and take the lead.

I do not write to criticize the leaders of the current Alt Right. They are stuck between a hostile media establishment and an audience that, not knowing the past of white nationalism, wants White Nationalism 2.0, and many of them want swastikas, Roman salutes and the type of authoritarian outlook that seems at first as if it would salve the heart broken by realizing that it has witnessed a civilization die. These leaders are trying to balance the extremes.

They cannot do this alone. We, the people who make up the audience for the Alt Right, need to press toward a responsible direction. We do not want experiments that failed in now-distant history, nor do we want to make another modern hell, except this time working in our favor. We cannot use the methods of our enemies to make this right. We have to go back to basics, focus on what is real, and make greatness from it.

For the the Alt Right to not just survive but thrive and influence American politics, it needs a plan that will both address long-term concerns like civilization collapse and racial erasure, and also address the everyday needs of our people. People need money, jobs, communities, activities, purpose, and reasons to get up in the morning. Can we deliver that to them?

If the answer is not a yes, it is time to go back to the drawing board. We do not have to throw out everything we have done so far, but we need to make it mature. We need to refine the details and get rid of the unnecessary, illogical and emotional. We need to offer this rising anti-democratic and anti-diversity cultural wave a new future which brings hope and a sense of belonging.

This is not easy. The people who are inclined to understand the Right, which is more complex than the Left, tend not to be the type of people who become salesmen, actors, carnival barkers, televangelists, politicians and other deceivers. We cannot play the game that the Left does so well of offering mentally convenient excuses, justifications and scapegoats. We need to mobilize people toward something, not solely against things.

Growing pains are a beast. It is hard to make decisions, knowing that you may be wrong or through no fault of your own, lose or lose out. But if we are serious about saving our civilization by saving its genetic root, we must cast aside all of these failings and focus on the destination. We are here to restore Western Civilization and, at the end of the day, that is all that matters.


Dark Wisdom

Of all of humanity, very few act as decision-makers because few have wisdom. Like everything else in this universe, wisdom occurs in degrees. Some have only enough wisdom to master method, and this makes them oblivious to goal, where others contemplate goal and the reasons for choosing one goal over another, and this takes them to a fuller wisdom.

There are two types of wisdom, but there are also other non-wise types.

  • Negative/dark wisdom primarily deals with self service and advancing one’s own power, wealth, and prestige with no regard to the harm caused to others and/or actively harming others in pursuit of ones own desires and goals. Many high level politicians, and other “social climbers,” suffer from this.
  • Positive wisdom also looks to most competently achieve ones goals, but with the caveat that others should not be harmed in that process and helping them may even be a necessary step towards spiritual advancement/contentment.
  • Then you have repeaters who posses no wisdom. They are called repeaters because without any wisdom they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. They just can’t learn, or learn extremely slowly and inefficiently. Joe Six-pack who only thinks about immediate and small-minded concerns and trivialities like the latest sportsball match is likely a repeater.
  • Then you also have a group who are interested in more high-minded concerns, especially with great empathy, but generally lack the wisdom to manifest their desires in realistic ways. Useful idiot leftists often fall in this category. They see that the world is not perfect, and could potentially be better, but their lack of wisdom grounded in reality continually and consistently foils all of their efforts at meaningful positive change.

The greatest difficulty in the positive wisdom path is likely accepting realities that aren’t nice, and probably can’t be changed (ethnic and sex differences leading to disparate outcomes in life, for example). The best that could ever be hoped for is mitigation. Those on the positive path do avoid harming others whenever possible, but are wise enough to know not all things are fixable.

Someone pursuing the left-hand path, or dark wisdom, is forced to block their understanding of others in order to proceed along that path. They must specifically and consciously block their ability to feel empathy towards the suffering of others. For if they did not, how could they live with the great evil and suffering they intentionally unleash into the world? However, the knowledge of others’ states is as much an aspect of reality as any physical form or biological determination and blocking that knowledge from your understanding creates a large blind spot. Dark wisdom is thus by necessity incomplete. The darkly wise also risk another possible, but not guaranteed, shortcoming: an inability or unwillingness to see and accept personal deficiencies or failures. Acknowledging personal issues does not seem to them to serve their interest in elevating themselves to the status of godhood.

The person with positive wisdom seeks out what is real, and having found that, sees patterns in that reality and deduces from them a gentleness to life, a desire to always produce the best of everything, and to make golden states of supreme beauty and excellence wherever it can. In this full understanding of natural order, they see that the universe has tendencies toward goodness, and thus, that goodness is a supreme form of wisdom.

The person adopting dark wisdom does not make it so far in their studies as to reach this transcendental point. When we describe something as transcendental, we are referring to the tendency to understand the patterns of nature and their wisdom, making them easier to accept and, as they are more sensible than our own brain-mutterings, easy to adopt and to allow them to shape us toward the good. Because the darkly wise do not seek this state, they have wisdom only as a method, and the goal they find in themselves.

Virtue is thus the root and final stage of wisdom. Like many things in life, the first 95% is learned relatively quickly, but the last five percent instead of being linear takes on the form of something like another dimension, where each incremental step requires greater prowess and there is more to learn, only at the level of coordinating many details at once instead of taking big, adventurous steps.

Perhaps the darkly wise miss a quarter of what is there in reality, and do not know they miss it, because to discover it, they would have to seek virtue, and that would require overcoming their treatment of wisdom as a means-to-an-end, and for them to see it as an end in itself, which by converse makes the human individual into a means to the end of wisdom. In that moment of self-sacrifice, the individual sees virtue as a higher value than themselves, and escape the confines of the ego.

Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that competence alone will make people effective and through that, they will create virtuous change. Perhaps he is right; to a point he is correct, in that competence is needed for wisdom, and those who reach competence will look for new mountains to climb and new objectives to strive for. However, not all of them do, and so it seems that Blake is correct in that “Some are Born to sweet delight / Some are Born to Endless Night.”

The darkly wise become the most competent people they know, but their focus is still on comparing themselves to others. They never come to the stage of seeing value in life outside the veil upon which the movie of everyday life, with its relative measurements of people and money, is projected. And so they foreclose to themselves the final steps that, had they virtue in their hearts, they would have undertaken, and then understood that virtue and its value, and thus pursued it.


Accepting Truth



I have had this article on the back-burner for some time, but the recent furor at google about gender disparities has forced me to dredge it back up and actually get it completed. It is, I would argue, extremely relevant while also advocating a somewhat novel approach to the insufferable faith and religiosity of leftist progressivism. For background, you can see the original memo written by a google employee tired of diversity commissars here. I recommend this non-cucked, for once, national review article which highlights the religiosity of the progressives so incensed by differing opinions. Michael Dougherty does a good job presenting several evidence-immune leftists in all their faithfully irrational glory. I also recommend this post at slate star codex which goes over evidence that gender disparities may be largely explained by differences in work preferences. This exists and it definitely can explain some differences when you restrict occupations to those with middling intellectual demands. However, I think this explanation is limited when there is also substantial evidence about intellectual differences directly and when you consider the occupational roles with the most stringent intellectual requirements. Anyway, that difference isn’t important for this article so I am going to drop it here and simply refer you to “Smart and Sexy” if you want to know more.

Scott Alexander and I, in that book, have both taken the approach that the best way to persuade people that they have gotten things wrong is to present the contrary evidence. For many praisable souls, this is exactly what they need and it works. For many others, it isn’t enough, and with them I think we need a new approach. “If at first you don’t succeed, try again several hundred thousand times before deciding to maybe try something new” is a good summary of how many on the side of realistic understanding have actually acted towards irrational leftism in the past, myself included. I’m not saying that the resulting work wasn’t good or worthwhile, I am just saying that perhaps something radically different needs to be done for those who this will never reach no matter what. In other words, keep an open mind with an emphasis on “ends justify the means” if you find yourself feeling incredulous later on down the page.

If the cathedral and progressivism really IS mostly a problem of misapprehended religiosity, like we advocate in neoreaction, then whatever the workable solution for progressivism ends up being must by necessity require some form of corrected or proper spirituality as the only effective countermeasure. You don’t want to remove the parasite just to leave a void that lets something even nastier in.  In my opinion, this can be done without necessarily resorting to any extant religious framework, but rather with a more generalized approach to personal (spiritual) advancement. Anyway, I started this stab at addressing this problem some months ago and this event seems like the optimum opportunity to finally get it out there. Enjoy.

I originally started writing this article because I wanted to take the time to explain something I talked about in my red ice interview about“Smart and SeXy” which was only tangentially related to the hard evidence presented in the book. Some of the statements in the interview and in this article are an indirect follow-up to my previous post on stripping charity of virtue, and also vaguely prompted by a (no longer) recent article on kindness being domain restricted. In other words, kindness is an act one person does for another who is actually right in front of and likely known to the kindness giver. I said something very similar in my post on charity. According to our particular definitions, kindness and charity seem almost like imperfect synonyms, though of course they aren’t due to some subtle differences. However, I think the overlap here is obvious. As mentioned in the kindness article, the word “kindness” has an advantage against leftist word manipulation in that it starts from an implied position of particular close inter-personal interaction. How do you express kindness to a person half-way around the world? In addition, unlike charity, kindness is possible without material exchange. Pleasantness and acceptance is sufficient for kindness. Charity, on the other hand, implies some form of material exchange which allows for the distortion from reality that it could or should be done impersonally. I was therefore required to explain why this distortion is on very shaky ground.

Charity, in its true good form, happens when one individual takes pity on and helps another who they can see, hear, touch, and (if unfortunate) smell. A real person right in front of their eyes that they directly interact with.

The main relation between the current topic and the previous ones is that all three could be classified as a discussion of metaphysics and/or spiritual virtuousness. I don’t talk about this often, and even when I do, I don’t feel much need to appeal to any sort of non-natural workings. Even though the kindness article is explicitly stated to be coming from a Christian perspective, I think much of it is merely self-evident in discussing a proper way in interacting with your local human beings in a proper and civilized way. In other words, in a way that is pro-civilizational. With proper discernment charity can indeed advance civilization.

Quoting myself once more:

At the heart of the matter is the question of what is the True good and the True evil. Why do I use the adjective “true” in the previous sentence? I have come to believe that there is present in our society a deep confusion about what is good and what is evil. Things that are evil are very often dressed up as good. Pigs with oceans of lipstick. While good things are maligned as horrible evils.


In other words, positive and negative polarities exist on an axis which is most often extremely poorly perceived. The common or worldly axis of “good” and “evil” does not match the true axis very well, yet it is not fully disassociated with the original either. The deception must be plausible. The most common type of distortion is to take an act or belief which is ostensibly of the true good, then warp it in such a way as it loses its virtue from the perspective of spiritual evolution.

In the case of charity, it is warped from a personal interaction subject to proper discernment to socialistic impersonal interactions mandated and orchestrated by a government bureaucracy without any possibility of proper discernment. Since these two social processes seem so superficially similar, the unwise can confuse the true good with the worldly good (evil). I have not made an exhaustive review of all possible issues amenable to this form of analysis and understanding, but my suspicion is that a very large number of social justice and other leftist issues could be viewed in the same light. The pattern being a distortion from the true good to create worldly good which is actually evil.

The question is, then, why are so many people susceptible to this sort of confusion? Clearly they have a desire to do the right thing, but seem not to possess the knowledge, wisdom, and/or intelligence to suss out the subtleties of what is actually good, which by necessity must be based on deep understanding of truth, or how to actually bring that understanding of good into reality in a pragmatic way. I don’t think the problem is strictly a matter of intelligence, at least not in all cases. Some people aren’t smart enough to grasp it regardless, but we can set them aside as a separate class for the purposes of this article. There are plenty of genuinely intelligent people [i.e. google employees] who adhere religiously to the most obviously counter-factual beliefs, such as absolute physical and mental parity between the sexes. For these people, intelligence isn’t the problem. Knowledge might be a problem, but not one that they couldn’t resolve if they decided proper understanding of the truth was their goal. There is plenty of information available for study.

So why is this widely available information either ignored or rejected immediately by intelligent people without any real consideration and on an emotional basis? In a word, it has to do with acceptance* and acceptance is only tangentially an intellectual trait. Acceptance can seem like a deceptively easy thing to do. In some cases it is, but in many cases it is not. Furthermore, the difficulty of accepting some particular truth can vary substantially between different people and groups of people. For example, it is objectively not a nice thing that IQ differs by race. As a group, blacks aren’t as smart as whites. There aren’t as many super-intelligent women (i.e., at the far right of the bell curve) as men either. As a white male, it is easy for me to accept these truths because it does not reflect negatively on my identity. Accepting a negative, or perceived negative, aspect of another group (the other) is inherently easier than accepting something negative about oneself or one’s group. If you are a black guy, or a woman, these same truths are substantially more difficult to accept. These people don’t want to accept a statement like  “you know, maybe I have limitations.” Who does? Accepting things that sound bad or are bad about the self aren’t easy for anyone.

*Acceptance as in acknowledging truth as true, not whatever latest way leftists may have tried to misdefine this word.

More immediately than the examples above, everyone has their own personal foibles that they don’t necessarily want to face. This is what is happening to these leftists. They are coming up against realities and truths which objectively aren’t particularly nice, and they can’t manage to cultivate a state of mind that is able to accept potentially negative qualities of themselves or others in their in-group. They don’t have the mental fortitude for that level of self-acceptance of limitations; group or individual. Instead of acceptance they just go crazy and get angry then lash out. They are lashing out at other people, but what is really happening and is important is that they are rejecting truth. They do not want this truth and use anger as a method to hopefully, but futilely, try to make unfortunate realities not exist. In a very great number of cases, though not all, anger could be defined as a rejection of truth. Or at least it can be stated that the proximal cause of anger is the rejection of truth; especially truths about the self.

Given this diseased state of mind, what does the average leftist try to do? Generally, they try to promote their own degeneracy and disease of mind as if it were normal. As if it was good and true. They are not accepting their own problems, and instead of accepting them and then working to resolve them or make them better, they become angry that other people accurately understand their problems to be dysfunctional. They desire to force people to accept things that should not actually be accepted. At least, things that shouldn’t be accepted as good even if they can be accepted as undesirable but perhaps unfortunately unavoidable. On top of that, they then go on to try to spread their dysfunction such that it actually exists within everyone in society rather than just in small sub-populations. For them, mere tolerance of dysfunction is not good enough. This is why they are so angry:  They are directing their own self hatred out at others in an effort not to address their own shortcomings. They want to be drowned in a sea of dysfunction so vast that their own issues seem minor by comparison.

However, leftists and other degenerates do not see their actions or desires in the negative light they deserve. Rather, they delude themselves into seeing the success of their activism as a way to create greater harmony in society. After all, if everyone just accepted everything by ignoring the wisdom that some behaviors and beliefs are indeed dysfunctional, then everyone can be an appreciated contributor to society. Everyone would be wanted and could fit in everywhere and with everyone; even degenerate leftist activists. Well no, this would never be the end result of uncritical acceptance of dysfunction. Uncritical acceptance of dysfunction could only result in massive amounts of dysfunction everywhere and hell on earth. Thus you can see how in this case leftists once again fit into the pattern I explained in the charity article. You take something that could or would be good, like everyone getting along or charity, then use that to deceive gullible and/or vulnerable people that it is moral and just to force others to adhere to certain beliefs or actions in order to bring about that good. In the process, you shift from the axis of true good and respect for free will to that of worldly good and extensive control. This is very similar to what distorts charity from something good to something evil:

Many people have made quite correct arguments on why wealth transfers (I.E., Forced “charity”) don’t work from the pragmatic standpoint that it just isn’t affordable and provides bad incentives, which is true. However, very few have explained why the process is in fact spiritually evil as well. For one thing it is hard to do. How can any decent person believably explain why it is spiritually right and just to let anyone, anywhere starve to death? Well, the main reason is because help is not being offered willingly. An important ingredient to make an act spiritually polarizing is that it must be done voluntarily, of the person’s free will, and with sincere intent. You can not force a person to be true good, they must choose to be that for themselves. Defying the principle of free will is the main way, as far as I can tell, that is used to distort from the axis of true good to that of the axis of worldly “good,” which is actually evil.

Let’s also make a comparison between leftists and those on the right. I would say most of us on the right can see a transsexual and recognize that there is a problem, but don’t feel the need or desire to resort to extreme hatred of them for it as long as they keep themselves and their issues away from us. I know about real medical conditions which in rare cases explain problems like this. However, just because something is an unavoidable result of a genetic defect does not change that fact that it IS a defect and should be recognized as such. Many leftists can’t do that in the reverse. They look at a healthy and intact (biologically complete) Christian family and they perceive a problem. Whether it is a problem or not (its not), leftists perceive it as a problem and they can’t accept it. If they are so accepting and tolerant, why can’t they accept the people that they perceive as having a problem? Because they are not accepting, neither of themselves or of others. They don’t know what acceptance is. Their goal is a world so messed up that problems at the individual level can’t be seen with any significant resolution or clarity.

So the question is, how do you help someone resolve their diseased state of mind? Many people, for many years, have created lists of facts so complete that it has become indisputable that simple presentation of truth is nowhere near sufficient. While this sort of work is obviously a crucial component in helping others accept truth, some vital element is still missing and I would suggest it is this missing element which explains why facts are so ineffectual after a certain point (or percentage of the population). It may be a worthwhile direction of further research and effort to elucidate this missing element in exacting and practical detail in order to help the recalcitrant heal their personal wounds and thus move towards an inner state in which they can accept the truth as it actually exists. Subsequently, this could get them to work towards actual true good rather than worldly good/evil (i.e. socialism and maximizing social dysfunction).

As it turns out, religions like Christianity and Buddhism have already known about and taught the answer to this problem for a very long time. The solution turns out to require a spiritual answer rather than an intellectual or analytical one. Which makes sense if the cathedral is to a large extent a spiritual problem.

A critical step in accepting unkind truths about yourself or your group is self-forgiveness. You have problems, but you forgive yourself and learn to love yourself despite them. In other words, they must recognize their own self-worth long enough to tolerate the critical self-analysis needed for discovering truth. (Note: you don’t have to think a given individual has value in order to recognize that they need to believe as much in order to advance themselves towards greater understanding).  This allows the unkind truth to exist in full understanding without destroying the self or the ego or otherwise leading to despair. In fact, no amount of realistic self-understanding can take place without self-forgiveness because the negative truths can’t be held onto long enough without rejection to give them the proper analysis they are due. Without that analysis those truths can’t be understood, and if they are not understood then it is impossible to discern solutions and ultimate transcendence past those issues. In other words, to let those problems go and move on. Once you can recognize and accept the problems in yourself, it is easier to recognize and accept the problems in others. It becomes possible to at least entertain the possibility that negative truths exist about individuals or groups and it should no longer feel so imperative to shut down any evaluation of evidence before it even starts (like they do at google).

While it is a very good and worthwhile thing to keep the lists of facts rolling out and exposing them to as many people as possible, for the  incorrigibly fact resistant it is probably a good idea to not even bother with it. Rather, greater attention should be paid to fixing whatever underlying spiritual (or psychological, if you prefer) issues exist. Until these internal issues are cleared away, it is not going to be possible to move on to harder external topics and expect any kind of success. While I think my particular diagnosis and explanation here is indeed correct, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong in the details or even the cause. However, I do think the spending more time on learning how to resolve, and help others resolve, the spiritual configurations that lead to violently angry rejection of unwanted truths to be the more fruitful path towards curing those infected with hopeless progressivism. Metaphysical lessons on the acceptance of truth and how to do that in a spiritual way, even when it’s hard, is almost certainly going to be a lot more valuable in the long run for these people. However, such change and advancement is a deeply personal development and each individual has to make the choice to walk down that path on their own. Guideposts, like this post, can be provided but that is about it.

While I think my particular diagnosis and explanation here is indeed correct, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong in the details or even the cause. However, I do think that spending more time on learning how to resolve, and help others resolve, the spiritual configurations that lead to violently angry rejection of unwanted truths to be the more fruitful path towards curing those infected with hopeless progressivism.

In an instance of synchronicity, it seems that I am not the only one who has come to a similar conclusion recently so maybe there is something to this theme after all. Thanks to /u/freshoutofgeekistan for the timely submission to /r/darkenlightenment. I do recommend you read the whole article this is quoted from, it is quite good.

what you refuse to acknowledge controls you; what you acknowledge, you can learn to control.


Now of course doing this involves challenging some very deep-seated cultural imperatives. It’s one of the basic presuppositions of our culture that we’re supposed to become perfect, and the way to become perfect, we’re told, is to amputate whatever part of ourselves keeps us from being perfect. The last sixteen hundred years or so of moral philosophy in the Western world have been devoted to this theme: find the thing that’s causing us to be evil, find some way to chop it off, and then we’ll all behave like plaster saints. The mere fact that it never works hasn’t yet slowed down the endless profusion of attempts to try it again.


Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to try something else for a change.


How about this? In place of perfection, wholeness.


Human beings are never going to be perfect, not if perfection means the amputation of some part of human experience, whether the limb that’s being hacked off is our sexual instincts, our aggressive instincts, or any other part of who and what we are. Instead, we can be whole. We can accept our sexuality, whatever that happens to be, and weave it into the pattern of our individual lives and our relationships with other people in ways that uphold the values we cherish and yield as much joy and as little unnecessary pain for as many people as possible. That doesn’t mean always acting out our desires—in some cases, it can mean never acting them out at all. What it means is that we make the choice ourselves, rather than handing it over to some automatism or other mandated by popular culture.


In exactly the same way, we can accept our hatreds, whatever those happens to be, and weave them into the pattern of our individual lives and our relationships with other people so that its potent energy serves to defend the things and people we value. That doesn’t mean that we ought to express our hate on every occasion—here again, it can mean never expressing it at all. It means recognizing that hate is as much as part of being human as love, and finding a place for it in there with all the other emotions that we inevitably feel.


It means, ultimately, giving up on the fantasy that we can become more than human by making ourselves incomplete. By accepting our own nature in all its richness and contradictory complexity, and finding a use for everything that comes with being human, maybe we can stop making the same mistakes over and over again, and do something a little less idiotic with our time on Earth.

The word amputate is used above, but the argument is the same. Wholeness and acceptance is preferable and more healthy than rejection, anger, and incompleteness. If people are more spiritually healthy on an individual level, they most likely will be far more willing and able to understand and accept the unfortunate societal truths like sex and race differences in intelligence. I suspect that this line of effort would end up being far more productive in coaxing out the most smitten of leftists from their unrealities than our previous efforts at fact listing.



It’s Not The Optics

As the dust settles in Charlottesville, the Alt Right finds itself again wondering about its future direction. While the event was clearly a great victory in that it raised awareness of the rising Right and drove people away from the middle, it also brought a mentally disturbed person in a car driving into another vehicle, which then pulped some counter-protesters.

More importantly, it raised questions about what the Alt Right actually is. Is it, to use the words of Hunter Wallace, simply white nationalism 2.0? Or does the Alt Right have a life of its own, as posited here many times before in gory detail, as a rising conservative entity which includes the natural tribalism of conservatives alongside other elements of a more realistic Right?

Some have criticized the display of neo-Nazi symbols, salutes and regalia among the protesters. Some, adopting the rhetoric of mainstream politics, have argued that “the optics” are bad, namely that it is hurting the Alt Right to be seen as accepting neo-Nazis and White Nationalists among its ranks. Others have claimed the opposite, which is that a revitalized and unapologetic far-Right is more effective than hiding behind egalitarian sentiments as our RINO/cuckservative mainstream Right politicians have done for decades.

Another point of view may have more relevance. It is not the optics that make neo-Nazism and White Nationalism 2.0 a bad bet for the Alt Right. It is that taking that direction leads us away from where we want to go, and makes us distill our relatively complex beliefs into something else which is both simplistic and unstable.

In other words, it’s not the optics; it’s the failure. The Alt Right was formed to be an alternative to mainstream conservative politics that abandoned crucial issues like nationalism, anti-socialism, maintenance of social order and avoiding becoming tools of a globalist regime hell-bent on installing liberal democracy and consumerism worldwide.

Naturally, this put the Alt Right in a difficult place, because the only people willing to talk about nationalism and race have been underground sources which are evenly divided between the VDARE/AmRen race realists, and “ethno-Bolshevists” such as the neo-Nazi and white nationalist wing who want to make all whites equal by uniting them against other groups.

Many of us avoid mention of Nazis and the Holocaust because we see them as an attempt to fix modernity by using modern methods. Modernity is mass culture, brought about by the notion of equality, and to try to mobilize people in masses requires telling them partial truths and deceiving them. While this is effective, it also loses control of itself, as the Nazis did before winding down in a chaos of death and destruction.

For those of us who are oriented toward the future, the last thing we want is open violence, warfare and murder. We prefer the idea of reclaiming authority in our lands, repatriating the Other and then soft purging the stupid, weak, criminal and Leftist among us. They can be relocated to Brazil or Dubai and be perfectly happy in countries that are closer to their ideals.

Modernistic philosophies — including Nazism and its modern derivates in neo-Nazism and white nationalism — are utilitarian at their core. To them, people are the means to an end that is an ideology, and this ideology consists of re-shaping our human world around the type of simple concepts that motivate masses of people. That is the tail wagging the dog: instead of doing what is right, we do what is popular, and it is not surprising that this always ends poorly.

While Hitler salutes and swastika flags are highly effective, mainly because the media flocks to them in order to emphasize its agenda that anyone who deviates from diversity is a Nazi, they are also unnecessary. Being a neo-Nazi now is like flying a Vietcong flag in 1968 in that it provokes panic and notoriety, which to someone who wants to manipulate mass politics feels like winning.

The Alt Right does not need that, however. Its basic ideas — nationalism, hierarchy, order, purpose — are anathema to the modern mentality and will trigger people even more when spoken by responsible men wearing suits. We are what happens when the liberal democratic order collapses, and if we are to be the next stage in human history, we must be people who have a better plan and are balanced, sober, sane and realistic enough to put it into motion without kicking off WWIII, genocides or other unnecessary and ugly consequences.

This requires that we get rid of the somewhat adolescent fascination with neo-Nazism and white nationalism. We are nationalists but nationalism is only one facet of a more complex view. In addition, there are reasons to oppose national socialism, white supremacy and white nationalism:

  1. Too limited. Talking about race alone leaves a giant void. Our society obviously got to this failed point through some kind of internal crisis — civilizations die by suicide rather than murder — and so, it needs to be fixed. Even complete political systems like National Socialism left huge voids where action was needed, and they do not escape the problem of modernity, which is mass culture that requires manipulation to achieve even simple things. Even if these were to fix problems with modernity, those would be temporary patches and not oriented toward providing a better future outside of the nightmare that modernity has been.
  2. Too scapegoaty. When you assign blame to any group but yourselves, you do not take agency for your own complicity in allowing these events to transpire. Blaming the Jews, the rich, or even international finance misses the point: when people vote, they vote for what is popular, which is as much the opposite of what is true as quality is the opposite of quantity. These simplifications and victimhood narratives are needed to mobilize people around a simple idea, but the notion that mobilizing people around simple ideas is somehow “good” goes against common sense. We need realism, not false symbols. Scapegoating leads to our self-defeat when we fight the wrong problems and enemies, and necessarily leave the real problems intact.
  3. Too modern. Modernism is based on the idea that people are objects on a factory line. They come in equal, are stamped with knowledge of right and wrong, then give facts to operate on, and after that are interchangeable parts. In this view, they can be “perfected” through outside force, known as control, which limits the methods they can use by making them equal and therefore, putting the onus on them to demonstrate allegiance and thus rise above the herd. Modernism is mental manipulation in order to create the mass culture that allows for mobilization of the herd. It occurs because of a lack of social hierarchy, which allows those who care the least about the consequences of their actions to thrive, because it is always more efficient to not-care than to care.
  4. Too punitive. Rage, we can understand. Outrage, even. Hurt feelings, certainly. But life is not won through emotions but through their suppression. Perhaps there are many people out there who have done wrong and deserve to die. On the other hand, something went wrong that allowed them to do what they do, because their natures have never changed. The solution is to establish order that rewards the good and penalizes the bad — “good to the good, bad to the bad” as Plato wrote — and thus deprive bad people of their power. Punishing people however makes us slaves to them, in that we need their suffering to feel complete, which makes us essentially reliant upon them.
  5. Too simplified. Our crisis is that civilization is dying. This means that we need to rediscover our virtue and systematically fix every aspect of civilization and ourselves using this as a guide. Our action must be from inside to out; as in athletics or any other discipline, the mental game is a prerequisite to achievement in the physical world. At that point, we need to restore an organic civilization which does not require authoritarian leadership, secret police, censorship, or any of the other methods that modern societies use to control people. We can sort people, sending away the bad and keeping the good, and we can reward the good and punish the bad, but we cannot force the world to fit our mental model. We can only work with what is there.
  6. Too emo. Neo-Nazis and sometimes actual Nazis are disturbing for their willingness to be cruel. We want pure hearts, not twisted and darkened ones; as Nietzsche warned, if you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you, and to hate something fanatically is to become in part what you hate, just in a different form. It is like inviting it into you. We need a cold, logical and positive outlook on our world where we see its potential and develop it while beating back its pitfalls. This means that we will exclude others without mercy, but it does not mean we will make ourselves into monsters.

One of my writings from 2004, summarizing my experience during tumultuous 1990s pro-nationalist but not white nationalist activism, summarizes these views in a more informal mode.

We are in the midst of a fashwave. Samuel Huntington noted this years ago, and thinkers from Plato to de Tocqueville have noted what happens when democracy fails, and what we are seeing now is people becoming tired of tolerance, equality, diversity and democracy because these programs have trashed the West. Tolerance means that the people who are doing the right thing see whatever they do undone by social chaos; equality means that the productive become slave labor to provide for the unproductive; diversity means that no social standards or culture can be had, and endless racial, ethnic and religious tensions roil our societies; democracy guarantees that whatever is popular wins out over what is true, accurate, realistic, sensible, intelligent, long term oriented or common sense. All of these things have failed, with the combination of Barack Obama essentially gutting the American economy in a backdrop of race riots while Europe burned from uncontrolled immigration being the coda to faith in liberal democracy and its related philosophy.

This fashwave is cultural, not political. It does not mean that people want fascism or any of the belief systems that, while unfairly maligned, also failed for their own reasons during the middle of the last century. We do not want to participate in genocides, total war, complete mobilization, secret police, censorship, Kristallnacht and other stupidities of a bygone time. Those were emotional and out of control reactions to the symptoms of a deeper problem; we want to target the deeper problem, which is that no one in the West desires virtue anymore, so we are bringing it back through intolerance of lies and demands for a higher standard. That is what a fashwave looks like. It may flirt with fascist or national socialist imagery, but in reality, it has more in common with the founding of the Roman Empire or the rebirth of Germany after both its occupying forces and intermediate imperial overlords failed. We see that our civilization collapsed years if not centuries ago, and we want to rebirth it from their most fascist act that is possible, which is self-discipline and suppression of the ego so that we can be unfettered realists who see the world as it is, and find an order within that in which we can thrive, pushing the best upwards so that we have a hierarchy that administers this because we know that mass culture will not.

Stephen Clay McGehee writes of what our actual task is in all non-centrist Right wing activity through his concept of the Civil Right:

When we speak of “the Right”, we speak of cultural matters rather than strictly political matters. Politics follows culture, and there is much overlap, but culture always precedes politics. Those who try to take a shortcut by changing politics without first changing the culture are certain to fail in the long term. Our focus here is on the traditionalist culture of the Right.

Our objective is to reach “The Middle” – those who do not strongly identify with the Left or the Right. We want to reach those who simply want a better life for their families and their descendants than the degenerate culture that has become the norm.

Where did the terms Left and Right come from?

In the assemblies of pre-Revolution France, those who supported aristocracy, an orderly society, and the king sat on the right, while those who supported the revolution, republicanism, and socialism sat on the left. In general, that still holds true today.

The French Revolution that began in 1789 marked the beginning of a new era that put Western civilization on a steady downward path. Those wanting to conserve what came before then have adopted the label, “1788 Conservative”. The Civil Right is, in part, about being a 1788 Conservative.

Western civilization is broken. It doesn’t just need a little tweaking over here and something patched up over there. It needs to be rebuilt as a complete restoration project. The Right is focused on putting us back on the right path: to re-create the best of Western civilization while learning from the mistakes of the past.

We do not need the swastika; yes, it is an ancient Indo-European symbol and should not be demonized, but that is a task for the future. For now, we need to focus on reality and how to create a stable situation that can end the bad and nurture the development of the good, at the same time we achieve the inner discipline and concentration necessary to mature our fashwave into a sea change of people converting to the desire for virtue, balance, order, harmony, excellence, goodness, truthfulness and beauty.

Flags, symbols and salutes come secondary to our actual strength, which is that our ideas themselves are divisive. People either decide to cling to the decaying ruin that took the place of the West, or they accept that what we offer are timeless ideas that have been the basis of every ascendant society throughout history. If we wanted to summarize the Alt Right, we could present it in this way, knowing that our ideas speak for themselves:

  1. Nationalism. Nations consist of their founding ethnic group, and not other ethnic groups, races or even hybrids. Germany for Germans. In America, this means the founding Western European group.
  2. Realism. Politics by feelings, “rights,” altruism, compassion, empathy, herd morality or other emotions mislead us, because all that matters is the results of our actions, not our intentions or our choice of “safe” methods. Everything in life is ends-over-means because it is more important to achieve your goal than to try the right way.
  3. Hierarchy. This consists of two parts, an aristocracy of our best people who will be entrusted with money and power, and a caste system where those with greater intelligence have more social influence than whatever the prole herd is fascinated by at the moment, such as trends, panics, manias, fads or other human stampedes. This was the real lesson from the Great Depression: if you let the herd invest, they will bring you to ruin. The same is true of politics, culture, consumerism and any other area.
  4. Social order. We need culture, moral standards, values, customs, habits, calendar, faith, cuisine and heritage. Together with purpose, or a sense of our society having an ongoing and immutable role in the order of nature, these constitute our identity, and this is more important than wealth or power. We must be able to act as an organic whole before we can achieve anything.

Civil War 2.0 is here. There are those who want out of the dying system, and others who do not. By espousing the ideas above — essentially, what is considered normal in a healthy time no matter what $current_year is — we “trigger” those who oppose us because they want decay, chaos, disorder and dysfunction in order to mask their own deviant or pointless behavior. There is no compromise between these extremes. The Left, as the party of egalitarianism, will never give in and allow health to prevail. For them, this is the endgame where they destroy everything and then rule in third world disorganization forevermore.

At this point, the Leftists are already so triggered by the fact that we are dissenters that they are engaging in authoritarian and apocalyptic behavior:

At that point the police had completely lost control of the city. The State of Emergency order means that any public gathering is de facto illegal, but antifa are still allowed to roam freely bearing weapons and attacking people. This chaos ultimately led directly to the vehicular incident that killed a woman and badly injured more than a dozen others.

My conclusions are that police wanted this to happen. It’s clear that VSP had specific orders to drive us out of the park to the south, into the teeth of violent armed antifa counter-protesters.

Police could have easily separated the barricades and removed all rally participants to the north, away from antifa and into empty streets fully controlled by law enforcement. We were driven into a hostile situation intentionally. It’s impossible not to believe that the authorities issuing these orders knew exactly what would happen and that they wanted rally attendees to be harmed and possibly killed.

Even the lefty The New York Times admitted that the violence was the result of police activity, essentially agreeing with Pax Dickinson and Scott Greer of Daily Caller in their assessment that the powers that be wanted this to end as a bloodbath:

And at City Hall, a planned news conference by Jason Kessler, the white nationalist who organized Saturday’s rally, came to an abrupt end when a man wearing a plaid shirt punched him.

…But others, including Mr. Kessler and Ms. Caine-Conley, openly wondered if the violence could have been prevented.

“There was no police presence,” Ms. Caine-Conley said. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”

Right now, our governments are divided. There are a few hopeful figures like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump who are attempting to stop the bleeding and point our nations back toward sanity, but all of those who are profiting from their franchises within a bloated system, including the unionized police, are attempting to prevent the rise of that which ends their happy little Ponzi scheme based on government dollars and being elected by a clueless lumpenproletariat who wants nothing more than additional benefits. This is why Trump condemned all people participating in violence instead of blaming the Alt Right:

Speaking on Saturday from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, the president criticized groups on “many sides” for violence that occurred at a planned rally in Charlottesville, Virginia by white supremacists that led to the death of a counter-protester.

Trump’s comments sparked immediate backlash from both sides, as many congressional Republicans called on the president to issue a more forceful response denouncing white supremacy.

Since Antifa initiated the violence, his statement was correct. The police, Antifa and possibly some members of the Alt Right or those who showed up to participate in the chaos like the driver of the death car that plowed into another vehicle and injured or killed twenty people, are all parties that deserve criticism. The vast majority of the Alt Right did nothing of the sort.

As Everitt Foster and I opined some time ago, the Alt Right needs to choose a direction that is future-oriented and provides positive real-world results in parallel with more long-term goals such as nationalism, aristocracy, social order and some kind of transcendental faith.

We are surrounded not so much by enemies, but by sleeping people who are living in a dream and hoping that despite all logic, modern society will turn out to be survivable. Among them, there are some who are infected with the mental virus of egalitarianism, and they are actively toxic, but the rest are simply sleepwalking and need to only be dissuaded from believing in the Left for it to fall.

For us, Charlottesville was a success. It further put us on the map and differentiated us from being merely a pro-Trump group. At the same time, it revealed the cracks in our fragile coalition. Our goal is to restore Western Civilization, not re-live the past out of an emotional response to how bad the present is. When we stay faithful to that goal, we win.


Anton Grauel – Renowned German sculptor

Why I’m NOT Sorry About Charlottesville



We believe in live and let live, the problem is they wont allow us on the far right to live our lives free from their oppression away from them, war is the only solution.



PSA: When the Alt-Right Hits the Street, You Wanna be Ready

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
August 9, 2017


We are now at a magical point in history. All of the work we have done in these tubes is paying off, and the Alt-Right is ready to move off of the internet, into the real world (although to be clear, we won’t actually stop being on the internet).

The plan was always to build a real political movement. We now have the numbers to begin that process.

There is much to be written about this, and I plan to write much about it. Right now I just want to go over some basics.

What We are Trying to Do

We are trying to create a mass movement.

We want millions of people to agree with us. We want them to be ready to vote for us. We want them to be ready to stand on the streets next to us.

In order to do that, we have to market our ideas. If people were willing to accept these ideas without having them marketed to them, then they already would have accepted them. In fact, they never would have fell for Jewish tricks in the first place.

The core of marketing is aesthetic. We need to look appealing.

I have been somewhat successful in marketing ideas online, and I think I have a lot to offer in the way of advice to those ready to market these same ideas in real life.

Understanding the Demographic We are Targeting

The first thing we must do is understand who we are trying to appeal to.

Our target audience is white males between the ages of 10 and 30. I include children as young as ten, because an element of this is that we want to look like superheroes. We want to be something that boys fantasize about being a part of. That is a core element to this. I don’t include men over the age of 30, because after that point, you are largely fixed in your thinking. We will certainly reach some older men, but they should not be a focus.

We want kids lying to their parents and sneaking to our meetings. Then, we want parents sending kids to our meetings, because we keep them out of trouble. We keep their energies focused in a positive direction – staying off drugs, out of trouble and looking toward the future.

We want to hit the average. We want normal people. We will not get only normal people, but we want the abnormal people that we do get to be attracted to us because we can make them normal, not because they want to indulge in their own abnormality.

We do not need to market to people with high intelligence. People with high intelligence, if they are inclined to, will find us. They do not need to be marketed to.

We will not be marketing anything to women. The draw to women will be the men that we draw, because we have to be sexy.

In fact, that is priority number one, so let me say it again, italicized: we have to be sexy.

If you say, “but I don’t care about being sexy,” then I say to you: “I don’t care about what you care about, because all I care about is winning.”

We have to be hip and we have to be sexy.

This means we have to look good, we have to look dangerous, we have to have humor, we have to look powerful and we have to look like we are in control.

People who see us have to want to be us. That means you have to go to the gym.

The average white male is not rich and he isn’t poor. The average white male is severely disenfranchised, and does not feel he has a future. He is not hungry. This is not the 1930s, and we cannot market our ideas on economics. The situation today is that men are unemployed or underemployed or poorly employed, but we all have X-Boxes and smartphones.

The NEET is not far from the average. In fact, it is probably close enough to the center to be considered part of the average.

Who are We?

Many of us have student loans on degrees that are worthless.

Many of us fought in wars for Jews.

Many of us have struggled with substance abuse.

Many of us are out of shape.

We feel emasculated.

Many of us feel we have never had power.

We crave power.

We lust after power. We want to be part of a group, which will give us power. A group that will confirm our worth as men.

We do not have identities.

We want identities.

We want to be productive. All men want to be productive. We want to build, we want to create, we want to be needed.

We have problems with women. All of us do. We lie to each other and claim that we do not. But we all do.

We are a generation of throwaways, which (((those who write history before it happens))) have slated to be the last generation of Heterosexual White Men.

We are angry.

There is a atavistic rage in us, deep in us, that is ready to boil over.

There is a craving to return to an age of violence.

We want a war.

Selling Us to Ourselves

Everyone I have met personally who is a member of the Alt-Right was more or less normal. I am also connected on some level with most of the main leaders and content creators in the movement. Pretty much, they’re normal.

They have problems. I have problems.

Here’s the thing though: everyone else does to.

So we are selling ourselves to ourselves. The men who we want to join us are like us. We need nothing other than to become something that would appeal to us.

But we have to be aware that we are selling something. We cannot just expect that the power of our ideas will sell itself. If ideas sold themselves, then we wouldn’t be in this situation. The Jews sold our parents and grandparents very, very bad ideas. And they bought them because they were well packaged.

People in the Alt-Right who preach a hardcore message will often refer to those wishing to moderate the message as “PR cucks.” That is to say, people who say things like, “oh, if you talk about the Jews too much, people will shut off, so we have to keep the JQ talk to a minimum” are ostensibly more worried about PR (public relations) than they are about the message.


Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing the spread of information between an individual or an organization (such as a business, government agency, or a nonprofit organization) and the public.

I do not think the people arguing for a moderation of the message are actually PR cucks. I don’t think that is an appropriate term. I think these people are either stupid, uninformed, shills or some combination of those things.

Because the hardcore message is what sells. That is what the target demographic wants. So if you are trying to soften that message, you are not doing it for PR reasons, unless you have no ability to analyze data or have for some reason not seen the data. The only reason that people who cuck have a wider reach is that the scales are tipped against us, in the extreme.

Even with all of my funding cut off, I have managed to build a site that is larger than any other Alt-Right website. There are Alt-Right websites that cuck on the Jewish issue and other issues that can receive PayPal and credit card donations and do six-figure donation drives multiple times per year (while collecting donations all year around) who cannot get 5% of the traffic of the Daily Stormer.

Having thought about this recently, I believe that I am the biggest PR obsessive of anyone in this movement. I have obsessively examined and reexamined how best to package the information that I am attempting to spread to the public.

As the regular reader of the site is aware, much of this packaging includes humor, very often crude and/or absurd humor.

This is mixed with more serious materials.

All of it is thought through. I have also engaged in compulsive experimentation and a form of poor man’s A/B testing, writing articles on similar topics in different styles, with varying types of headlines, language, etc. to see which got the most shares, the most clicks, the most positive responses.

Beyond doing my own A/B testing, I have also factored in data from what others have done. Virtually all of this has been what not to do, save for the work of TRS, which I have learned a lot from, and borrowed memes and technique from accordingly. Red Ice also does an excellent job, for the record (though there isn’t much there for me to borrow, the slick and stylized nature of it is very much worth taking note of).

Virtually every other attempt at pro-White media that I have witnessed has taught me what not to do.

What I have ultimately been able to do is create the most read pro-White publication in history, by understanding my demographic and then figuring out how best to sell them my ideas.

White Nationalism from 1967 to 2014: Examples of the Opposite of What You Want to Do

I have written before that I did not have any background in any form of White Nationalist movement before I started my pro-White blog, Total Fascism, in 2011. In fact, at that time, I had just very recently converted myself to a White Nationalist belief system, mainly on 4chan’s /new/ (now /pol/) and through reading actual fascist and racialist literature from the 1920s and 30s. I was not influenced at all by contemporary White Nationalist materials. I only went back and listened to Pierce years later, and by that time most or all of what he was saying was stuff I had gleaned on my own.

After having started the blog, many people from the WN sphere contacted me, and I briefly tried to work with them. What I found was that there was almost no seriousness, or what I would consider to be seriousness, there at all. The only highly active person I found to be serious was David Duke. People either did not have an agenda or did not care about working toward that agenda. What I found was that people were using what was ostensibly political activism as a hobby.

Obviously not all of the people were like this, but it was clearly the dominant culture. I believe that those who were serious people either quit out of rage or were run-out of that culture. I decided to do something on my own, totally separate from this.

I don’t want to insult these people, as I am sure some were genuine and good people and many are with us now. But we do need to analyze it without trying to protect anyone’s feelings.

At some point, I am going to give a full analysis of all that we can learn from what was the White Nationalist movement between the assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell in 1967 and the beginnings of the Alt-Right in 2014. But Right now, on the real life activism front, I will just run down a few point.

Do Not Play Dress-Up

Believe it or not, many of these groups in the 90s were actually dressing up in Nazi uniforms. Non-ironically. This is absolutely absurd, and can hardly be looked at as anything other than a game being played, or some type of intelligence agency psy-op.

These people also dressed up in KKK outfits and other strange costumes.

We need to not do this at all, ever.

Don’t Form Religious Cults

One thing that stands out about the bizarre White Nationalist movements of the 80s, 90s and 00s is the amount of religious cults. It seems that everyone just assumed that in order to have a political movement, you had to have a corresponding religious cult.

I have no idea where this thinking came from, but it is a bad idea. Do not create a religious cult as a vehicle for your political ideology.

Along with not creating a religious cult, one should also not be overtly hostile toward mainstream religion. That serves zero purpose, and not only alienates all religious people, but also alienates the majority of non-religious people who do not think it is normal to attack these traditions. A policy should be in place that religion is a personal issue, for people to deal with as individuals.

Don’t be Associated with Criminality

Many of these movements were directly linked with criminal gangs. This is a bad look. It does not sell and people are afraid of it.

It is also just dumb.

Don’t Isolate Yourself from Mainstream Culture

There was a culture in the old WN which sought to completely isolate itself from the mainstream culture. I understand that they viewed it as corrupt, and it surely is corrupt, but this is bad marketing.

In order to be successful, you need to be able to connect to the culture at large, directly, and that might involve getting your hands dirty.

The only people who want to join something that is totally alien to them are weird people, as a rule. Unless they are doing it because they understand the ideology on an intellectual level, and again, those people do not need marketed to.

Offer Something to the People You are Targeting

This is fundamental: you have to be offering something to the people you are trying to market to.

Ostensibly, the old WN message was: “you have a duty to join us and sacrifice to protect your race.”

That is horrible marketing.

You have to have to have what you are offering people front and center. Every successful political movement has done this.

And we do have plenty of things to offer. What resonates the most, in my experience, is issues surrounding the displacement and disenfranchisement of the white male which has taken place as a result of feminism. That is a gateway to all of this, much more than the race issue. So anti-feminism, anti-homosexuality, and the preservation of male identity and the man’s role in society should always be a core focus of the brand.

Don’t let Women Rule Over You

At several of the various 90s rallies I’ve seen footage of, they made a point to let women get up on stage and speak. Once again, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know, but I have seen that the culture of the old movement was very pro-feminist.

That is a bad look. Men are sick of having things explained to them by women. It is a turnoff. And it is useless. What does a woman have to offer you intellectually? Motivationally? Morally?

Absolutely nothing.

We need to keep women on the sidelines. Not speaking, not leading, and with no official membership in anything.

The Good

The only good I have seen in these old movements – and I will say again, I wasn’t there, this is all analysis afterward of what I am able to glean from records – is various aspects of the skinhead movement.

I refer to the political/cultural movement, not the prison gang movement.

The skinheads adopted aspects of the popular culture of the time, rather than trying to isolate themselves from it, and also gave off a hip and sexy vibe, while also projecting strength and power. Or at least consciously tried to do that.

Obviously, what was hip and sexy in the 80s and 90s isn’t now, so I don’t think we need to explore reviving skinhead punk music, but I will say that there are things to be learned from the skinheads.

Part of the problem there was the inability to separate, in the minds of the public, the skinhead prison gangs from the skinhead political movement. This wasn’t helped by the fact that there actually was some overlap between the two.

No Resemblance

I feel very, very strongly that the Alt-Right’s real life street aesthetic should bear no resemblance, whatsoever, to that of previous WN movements.

There is so much baggage attached to all of this, it is all very stale, and it never sold in the 80s, 90s or 00s, so there is zero reason to believe that it will sell now.

There are people still trying to use this now, and you likely have never heard of them. Because they get zero traction.

However, I have a very real fear that the media will try to attach us to all of this baggage, so we need to be very aware of that, and make sure it doesn’t happen. If there are people who insist on trying to force meme this dead aesthetic, I think they should be banned from events.

Sadly, none of that stuff is cool. And we simply must be cool. The importance of that really does need to be drilled into people’s heads.

“Neo-Nazi White Supremacy” is fun on the internet, when you’re making  fun of the media and the Jews. But you can’t have an ironic real life movement. You could ironically dress-up in Nazi uniform for some event, and that could be fun, but before you get into anything like that, you want to have a good idea of who and what you are.

Real Life Isn’t the Internet

We have worked out a very good aesthetic for the interent. However, that isn’t going to translate directly to real life.

That means that Pepe banners are a non-starter. This is cringe. We do not want that.

Anything to do with trying to incorporate internet memes into a real life aesthetic – beyond funny t-shirts – is a bad idea.

The real life aesthetic needs to be complementary to the internet aesthetic, and come from the same spirit, but trying to use internet memes as a basis for a street movement is silly.

Again – and let me italicize this – you can’t have an ironic real life political movement.

Dress for Success

The clothes we wear are important.

We want to look slick and sexy.

We don’t want to go for punkish. As I said, the skinhead movement was cool at the time, but times have changed.

On the other hand, a lot of people don’t feel comfortable in a suit and tie. Even most middle class young people have only worn these at weddings and funerals. So we should not make it a regular thing to present ourselves that way. For leaders and speakers, it is natural, but scenes where entire groups are wearing suits are not going to be especially appealing to normal people. While a leader in a suit looks like a leader to the average man, a group of men in suits looks like an elitist club.

We should go for something in the middle.

I’m going to give my own uniform details to our Stormer Book Clubs in the near future.

But I’ll just give some basic recommendations and comments here.

Keep It Fitted

The worst look ever is a baggy t-shirt. Wear fitted t-shirts, where the sleeve goes to the middle of your bicep. It should not hang lower than base of your member.

White button-up should also be fitted.

(That’s a dressing room photo. Not a big selfie guy. It obviously hasn’t been ironed. But you get the point.)

Jean should also be fitted. Not tight, just fitted. In the photo those are actually shorts – I would not wear pants that loose-fitting. And that’s another thing: don’t ever wear shorts. Serious men in serious situations are not wearing shorts.

Americans have an obsession with this baggy stuff, and it always looks bad. No matter what, it looks bad. Even if everyone else is doing it.

Rallies Need Uniforms

There is going to need to be a dress code for rallies.

At some point, at these rallies, uniformity is going to be important. It just makes everything feel more serious. Different groups can wear different uniforms. This looks fine. But uniforms for participants need to be a thing, sooner rather than later. Casual attendees/supporters shouldn’t be required to wear them, of course, but if you are at a rally as a member of a group, you should look like you are a member of a group.

Golden Dawn’s black t-shirts and military fatigues look good for a certain type of rally.

Though they’ve struggled with keeping uniformity of dress.

Nordic Resistance Movement looks fantastic. Better than anyone else in the world. A very good model (though I wouldn’t copy it exactly in America; the ties and pins are general uber-cleanliness of it is very Scandinavian).

The Identity Europa look with the kakhis and white polo isn’t what I would choose, but it’s in the realm.

Personally, I think they should be encouraging people to get clothes that are more fitted. I feel strongly on this point.

Right now, when you type “Alt-Right rally” into Google Images, this is the first image.

That is not what we want.

I don’t know anything about that particular group – I’m not trying to insult them, and they can do their thing, it’s a free country – but I know that this is not the image we want for our street movement. It doesn’t represent us and it is not an aesthetic that appeals to the kind of people we are trying to appeal to, which are normal people.

Be in Good Shape

Fat people should be allowed to join groups and be involved in rallies, but we need to create a culture where we don’t necessarily shame people, but do look at them and expect them to get it together. We should help people get it together. I’m working on my biggest diet guide ever, which I think will help the overweight and skinny alike, even if they’ve minimal time for exercise.

Continued obesity should not be tolerated.

Surely, a lot of our target demographic is going to be out of shape, which is why we need a culture of fitness. People should go to the gym together. Help each other with diet.

Do not look scraggly. I won’t tell you how to cut your hair, but I do believe men’s hair looks better short, and beards look better well-trimmed.

Look good.

It is very important to look good.

We must have Chad Nationalism. That is what will make guys want to join us, that is what will make girls want to be our groupies. That will make us look like bad boys and heroes. That is what we are going for here.

I cannot stress the point hard enough – I’m hitting italics again – we need to be extremely conscious of what we look like, and how we present ourselves. That matters more than our ideas. If that is sad to you, I’m sorry, but that is just human nature. If people see a bunch of mismatched overweight slobs, they are not going to care what they are saying.

Have Fun

The most important thing is that this needs to be fun.

People need to be enjoying themselves, and they need to make it clear that they are enjoying themselves.

We are fighting a war. But what is the point of fighting it, if we can’t enjoy it?

That will be the biggest draw for people and the biggest problem for the establishment. If we make it clear that we are having a good time. That we are in control. That we are not worried. That we have already won, because victory was written in the stars before any of us were even born.

People should be excited to go to events, they should be excited to meet up with each other. It should be the highlight of their lives, not something that they feel obligated to do.

This is all deadly serious. We are facing the end of existence. And we need to take it seriously. But seriousness and fun and not mutually exclusive.

And here’s the thing: We cannot win unless it’s fun. Because we’re not going to have the energy to fight this thing until the end unless we love the fight.

Embrace  it.

Love it.

Be ready to die for it.

We are earth’s last hope.

Our ancestors – all of them – are looking down on us right now and smiling.

They are counting on us, a generation of men who were thrown away, to make sure that the Aryan race, this ancient life form that we are all a part of through our shared DNA, does not die before it has a chance to become what it was meant to be.

Hail Victory.

Dugin Gets in the Ring

Dugin Gets in the Ring

Whither the Fourth Political Theory?

Dugin Gets in the Ring “Dasein is negotiable but the beard stays”

The Fourth Political Theory is a book that is clearly not short on ambition. I haven’t actually read it, but I already know more or less what is in it from past writings by its author Professor Alexander Dugin, as well as the lengthy video presentation he gave of his ideas at the Identitarian Ideas conference held earlier this year in Stockholm.

Dugin believes there have been three great ideologies in modern history – Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism/National Socialism – and that we are now seeing the formation of the Fourth, which is still waiting to be properly christened and so is known by an ordinal. In the footsteps of Locke, Marx, and Mussolini, we now have Dugin.

I greatly respect and like Dugin. With his Tolstoyan beard and aura of an old church father, he’s a personable and reassuring presence. But I also know how the academic world works, and how it finds all sorts of clever ways to serve different masters, and Professor Dugin is certainly well-connected to a lot of people in the Russian establishment. Is it a coincidence that his ideas support the existence of the Russian Orthodox Church or the multi-ethnic imperialism that is the unavoidable basis for a strong Russian state?

But onto the Fourth Political Theory, with its Millenialist feel of being the fourth and final horseman of the ideological apocalypse. OK, the Theory straps a cushion to its forehead by claiming to be a work in progress, so that any blows landed on it will be softened, but already much of the groundwork has been clearly laid. The road isn’t finished, but we can more or less see where it is headed under the guidance of Professor Dugin.

The Theory supposedly arises from the criticism and deconstruction of the previous three theories, which history has already revealed to be full of flaws and responsible for a great deal of suffering and confusion. Dugin seems happy enough to ride along with modern Liberalism’s historical demolition of Marxism and Fascism, as this makes it a tidy knuckle-to-knuckle, winner-takes-all match between his Fourth Theory and the still undefeated champion, Liberalism.

Seconds out – Ding! Ding! Ding!

Despite past attempts by the Second and Third Theories to claim the crown of modernity, Dugin believes that Liberalism has triumphed here and has managed to irrevocably present itself as the only truly “modern” way. It has also succeeded in presenting itself as the “natural order,” rather than a mere ideology.

To destroy Liberalism, Dugin strikes as these points. But rather than trying to claim that the Fourth Theory is more modern than Liberalism, his strategy is to try to get away from the whole idea of modernity itself by appealing to pre-modern values and conceptualizing them as post-modern eternal values. There is more than a touch of his Old Believer Russian Orthodoxy here.

This is not so much a heavy punch to the ribs of Liberalism as a bit of fancy footwork to avoid Liberalism’s nasty left hook. Modernity is not so easily discarded, as Dugin seems to believe. It operates as the measure of ideological victory, without which no battle can take place. His call to discard modernity is therefore a call for a defensive ceasefire or a time out.

Another key point for Dugin to attack is the subjects or agents of the other three theories. The economic classes of Marxism are presented as outmoded; Fascism’s state as something of a bourgeois innovation; and National Socialist race as a “kind of construction” and not very useful.

Although his punches are only glancing ones here, it does not matter, as these two systems are supposedly punch-drunk losers propping up the bar, muttering “I coulda been a contender.” Where Dugin is more effective is in battering Liberalism’s all-important individual.

This is his mighty opponent’s soft spot and Dugin makes hay here and even gets into position to unleash his KO, but this is where his attack comes unstuck. While all the previous systems have strong subjects/agents that human beings can all feel passionate about – race, nation, class, and our own beloved selves – the Fourth Theory substitutes Heidegger’s flat-footed and abstruse “Dasein” concept. You couldn’t imagine the Bastille being stormed or Stalingrad being held for the sheer pleasure of “being there”!

As a philosophical phrase that says very little by saying too much, it is appropriate that it is then extrapolated into a kind of blanket multi-polarity and call for a true multiculturalism (depoliticized in the case of Russia) and even multi-chronology. Regarding this latter concept, Dugin calls for a world where societies can exist that operate on different temporal patterns, such as cyclical, linear, or more complex. He also calls for the rejection of universal values and comparisons. This is clearly heavily defensive boxing, aimed at avoiding the clever jabs and looming thump that Liberalism is aiming at Putin’s Russia.

The Ascendant Order

Dugin’s interpretation of the previous three theories has a kind of grace, regularity, and ascendant pattern to it. There is natural and elegant progression from the individual to class, and from class to the state (or race). While the other three ideologies nobly struggled in the ring of modernity, and had subjects/agents that could inspire the masses, the Fourth Political Theory has a snatch of Heidegger embroidered on its boxing shorts and seems to be climbing through the ropes with its towel flying through the air behind it.

Perhaps the problem is ideology itself. While Dugin is happy to abandon notions of modernity, he is less happy to abandon ideology. This is only to be expected from an academic who eats, sleeps, and breathes ideology. So, do we actually need it?

Ideology has a progressive nature that does not endear it to many on the Right, but progress is essential in any system that is not based on pure stagnation. Even a cyclical system needs progress to get to the point of its collapse and rebirth. Ideology creates progress through competing with the status quo, or by helping a rising system to become manifest. Therefore, in addition to each ideology having a subject or an agent, history also demonstrates that it needs some kind of enemy or rival: Liberalism’s enemy was the old order; Marxism’s was Liberalism; Fascism’s was Marxism; and Neo-Liberalism’s was Fascism and Marxism.

The problem of the Neo-Liberal world order is that there seems no longer to be any enemy, thus endless stagnation looms. Progress will only arise when Neo-Liberalism in its turn becomes the defeated enemy. On this basis, a strong case exists for the necessity of a Fourth Ideology. But after this, will we need a fifth or sixth, and so on into infinity? The chances are that our technologically enhanced world cannot handle this kind of vast, intense dialectical struggle many times more, so it is essential that the Fourth Political Theory should internalize the engine of progress that has previously come from ideological conflict.

Escaping the Dialectical

As it now stands, the Fourth Political Theory is more a reflection of Russo-centric concerns, and also seems inconsistent with the broader ideological framework that Dugin has outlined. In order for it to gain wider credibility it will have to take on board some of the following points:

Firstly, it should be entirely divorced from any agenda that reflects specific political or religious goals or interests, such as those elements of Russian political pragmatism I constantly detect in Dugin’s work.

Secondly, modernity should not be abandoned. If we are to have an ideological battle, we need winners and losers, and we need a common standard by which to judge them. Communism understood this and so did Fascism, and both were ahead of Liberalism on points for most of their bouts. “Da Sein” and multi-chronology is a form of retreatism.

Thirdly, dismissing Communism and Fascism is premature. Although both were defeated, neither was a purely ideological defeat. Fascism’s defeat was mainly military, while Communism’s was economic. To use boxing terminology one last time, you could say that both were lucky knock outs. These two contestants should be readmitted to the ideological battle until they are defeated ideologically. Neo-liberalism is not capable of doing this. Only a later political theory will be capable of this.

Fourthly, the Fourth Political Theory should be adjusted to fit more neatly into Dugin’s grand pattern of ideological evolution. Only when this is done will it be successful. History shows that Marxism opposed but also used elements of Liberalism. Fascism opposed but also used elements of Marxism and to a lesser extent Liberalism. Therefore it seems likely that the Fourth Political Theory should oppose but also include elements of Fascism and to a lesser extent Marxism.

Fifthly, the Fourth Political Theory needs to find an appropriate subject/agent, one with an existence that the masses can relate to, and one that fits into the ascendant pattern of individual, class, and state/race. The only subject that fits this bill is humanity itself.

Sixthly, to avoid the dangers of endless stagnation and further dialectical struggles resulting in Armageddon, the Fourth Political Theory will need to internalize the progressive impetus.


“And that’s exactly what you’ve got coming here…”

W.C. Varones tells of meeting a Cassandra.

H/t to the Prof, who blows it off.

We’ll know more in six months.

Tempus fugit.

Muir: Pattern

See the entire excellent ‘toon here; see also this related link.

Ask Max

AG has an “open question forum” going for soldier, author, and trainer Max Velocity.

Go and ask away!

Surrounded By Flattery Wherever You Go

…This post contains just a few paragraphs of commentary followed by the complete English translation of the letter from Der Gerade Weg. It’s a long letter, but I think it provides a valuable view into the perilous national situation in early 1930′s Germany. That situation involved the clear danger of a smitten and careless national press, ambivalence about public lies and a political party that, in Fr. Naab’s words, “promises all things to all men, even the most contradictory things.”

Thanks to 4GFC.