The crew of boys leaning against it and joshing each other were recognizable; different faces, similar stories. I was astonished at how safe the streets felt to me, once again one black body among many, no longer having to anticipate the many ways my presence might instill fear and how to offer some reassuring body language. Passing police cars were once again merely passing police cars. Jamaican police could be pretty brutal, but they didn’t notice me the way American police did. I could be invisible in Jamaica in a way I can’t be invisible in the United States.
Walking had returned to me a greater set of possibilities. And why walk, if not to create a new set of possibilities? Following serendipity, I added new routes to the mental maps I had made from constant walking in that city from childhood to young adulthood, traced variations on the old pathways. Serendipity, a mentor once told me, is a secular way of speaking of grace; it’s unearned favor. Seen theologically, then, walking is an act of faith. Walking is, after all, interrupted falling. We see, we listen, we speak, and we trust that each step we take won’t be our last, but will lead us into a richer understanding of the self and the world.
In Jamaica, I felt once again as if the only identity that mattered was my own, not the constricted one that others had constructed for me.
When among our own, identity is natural and evident. Even if the situation is less than ideal, the rules make sense and we can anticipate them. Under diversity, we are all kept in a cycle of distrust and uncertainty, which while it benefits government — which is strengthened as a result — creates existential misery in a population which over time, becomes a form of self-destruction.
The history of white people in America can be understood through this lens. Since its founding days, America has struggled with diversity, first of Amerinds and then of Africans, finally of the whole world coming through our doors. This has lessened social trust and forced white Americans into a custodial role where they serve longer and longer hours to subsidize and manage the rest.
An alternative view of this situation is that it shows a society which has lost purpose and so, is trying to make its citizens happy through increased wealth. Since that has failed, it is time for a different angle, starting with a sense of what is comfortable, natural and capable of bringing joy to our citizens. That cannot be found in diversity.
There has been a long standing warm relationship between a large portion of the alt right and the Russian government headed by president Vladimir Putin. This sentiment has been undoubtedly fueled by what the alt right perceives as more traditional and conservative Russian policies and its staunch opposition to neoconservative wars driven by the “Invade the World, Invite the World” collusion between Republicans and Democrats to further expand the American Establishment worldwide through globalism.
While Russia may be more socially conservative, and this is in itself worth defending, another reason exists for why Nationalists should oppose any destabilization of Russia: Russia serves a crucial role in the stabilization of Europe.
Russia serves as more than a geographical eastern boundary and gateway to Europe from Asia. Russia is, and always has been, a demographic barrier to entry to Europe as well. The upper classes of pre-Revolutionary Russian society instituted a harsh system of feudalism which kept large masses of Russian peasantry of various ethnic origin tied to their lands and barred from moving, and extended this to policies of mass deportations of peoples, mostly peasants, to the far eastern ends of the Empire from which they were forbidden to return. These masses of peasants would then, clear the Siberian continental mass, suppressing the more primitive local population and their customs.
Such policies not only helped curtail the rise and consolidation of lower strata of Russian society to political eminence, but displayed that great sensibility, refinement and understanding which Russian ruling class possessed in domestic and foreign affairs, which was not always met with equal understanding by competing imperial powers. These powers, at occasions often failed to understand the great part that Russian elite was playing in preserving the racial, social and political order of Europe, by not only preventing the westward expansion of large Eurasian masses of peasants, but forcing their migration to the East, where they would capture resource rich lands and suppress what were to Europeans completely foreign racial local elements. Furthermore, Russian aristocracy understood the necessity for the existence of such hierarchy and pan-European stability very well when it singlehandedly prevented the collapse of Prussian Kingdom under Frederick The Great, and Austrian Empire during Hungarian Revolution.
This perhaps crude but effective mechanism of demographic and social control led to the eventual advent of Russian culture and prominence in Europe, and the era of sharply increased scientific, cultural and artistic achievements. I believe that enough has been said on the subject of how and why Russian Empire was brought to an end, which historical and ethnic currents were driving forces behind it, and what dire consequences it brought upon Europe. That calamity was further amplified by disastrous casualties on the Western front during the same era, while any effective defensive mechanisms against demographic turbulence within Europe were brought to a definite collapse when German High Command understood that they could not win the cataclysmic war they unleashed because of nationalistic disputes with Poland, in effect handing entire Eastern Europe and parts of Finland on a silver plate to Soviet Union, a state that at the time was satisfied with so called “Socialism in one State” policy.
Fast forward to 2013, prior to the Ukrainian crisis, and we have a Russian state that has been experiencing an era of increased economic health and activity, much thanks to vast petroleum resources, as well as a fairly liberal economic policies, which although causing much plunder to state-owned companies, has at least supplied the domestic market with plenty of employment opportunities. Ever since 1991 and collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has experienced a sharp drop in its population, particularly the ethnic Russian component, while many of the educated fled abroad.
What Westerners, including Nationalists, tend to miss is that the rise of Russian wealth has attracted many who would otherwise go to Europe to settle in Russia instead, where strong cultural nationalism keeps them relegated to minor roles. Russia lies between Europe and a warland of hundreds of millions of people of non-white origins and predominately Muslim faith. The increase in Russian economic performance and its loose labor policies have attracted these people to Russia instead of Europe, borrowing not only from the Middle East but the lands of the Caucasus where Islam remains popular.
Only in light of these facts one can understand the current neoconservative and Islamic aggression towards Russia which at times seems almost irrational and excessive, but is perfectly grounded in interests of these people. Destabilizing the Russian state, and bringing about one of the colored revolutions there, would lift the gate and enable millions of rootless laborers from Central Asia and Caucasus to seek “asylum” in Europe and completely overwhelm the continent. Coincidentally, those states that are so far the most spared from Arab and African invasion of Europe, such as Poland, Baltic States or Hungary would bear the brunt of this demographic offensive. European Continent would be drowned by Africans, Asians and Arabs and for good. There would be absolutely no barrier left to defend it
Here once again, is displayed the unfortunate, tragic part that Europeans, especially its less astute populations and ideologues play in their own downfall. Apart from Liberals, cosmopolitans and Leftist Jews who have been agitating for “regime change” in Russia ever since its economic advent, even nations in the east, especially Baltic nations and Poland, have joined these ranks and are vocally supporting “regime change” in Russia, seemingly completely unaware of the consequences of the instability of their larger neighbor. Baltic states and Poland have even at certain points harbored Chechen “rebels” who fled after their defeat. Once again, petty nationalistic differences and infantile vengefulness play their part in European racial suicide. Since open war against Russia isn’t (yet) on the table, the Asian demographic barrier in the east provided by the Russian economy is under fierce and collective attack by Leftists who are unfortunately joined by useful idiots from the ranks of nationalists and jingoists.
Hopefully, those European leaders who appear to be more logical and cautious in their policies, as well as pragmatically geared toward the self interest of their nations such as Hungarian president Victor Orban, who also seem to understand the pitfalls of “regime change diplomacy”, will be able to strike a more balanced cord and soothe the impulsive policy making of their fellow-Europeans.
It became clear that America had entered the final stage of collapse during Hurricane Katrina. From my car at a stoplight, the crime being perpetrated by refugees from New Orleans was visible and constant. But on the car radio, NPR was announcing that the previously reported crime rate increase was in fact an illusion.
Official sources at first confirmed a 25% rise in the murder rate of the city, but then those figures mysteriously vanished. The press reported something else instead, and it went down in history, in the media and in Google/Wikipedia that nothing bad happened. And yet, over the course of several weeks, the bad had both been seen and reported. It was covered up.
When that sort of editing of known fact can occur, ideology has taken over your society. This is what kills every advanced civilization: the theory of the tool replaces knowledge of the task, and gets translated into a social control mechanism based on redefining what is “right” to mean what is convenient for the majority of people, who are selfish herd monkeys who do not mean ill but always make things go ill through their self-fixation.
Ideology is a reality replacement. Instead of thinking about how things work, which is a mathematical determination more than a physical one, people think about how things “should” be according to human social intent, which means excluding risk. That translates into a brew of pacifism, universal inclusion, ignoring differences and forcing everyone to behave the same way so that none feel lesser.
When ideology takes over, the path to wealth and power is determined by ideology. There is a type of “ideological market” which regulates which viewpoints are in vogue, and this influences the cultural market which is upstream from political opinion and consumer interest. By this mechanism, those who say the right things — according to the ideological narrative — achieve wealth and power.
This creates a franchise where the most efficient path to success is determined by ideology, and those who choose to avoid this path then take on an additional burden that makes them less competitive. At the same time, institutions and social standards start to work against the civilization by enforcing honesty in the context of an unrealistic narrative, forcing people to become dishonest.
Since the end of World War II, the only remaining ideology has been Leftism, but it has adapted to include capitalism in a neutered form, namely “consumerism” in which through egalitarian policies and the welfare state, all consumers have some money, which corrects capitalism not toward realistic goals, but ideological ones as people buy what they think makes them successful according to the franchise.
With the rise of what the media calls “populism,” drawing comparison to the American Nativist movement of the 1840s, the Leftist regime — driven by globalism, liberal democracy, diversity and consumerism — has collapsed as an idea. People trusted it when it seemed to lead to good results, but when given full power with the election of Barack Obama, the Left proved to be as destructive as in the USSR.
At a time of “uncertainty” we must double down on the values that made Western democracies great, and not allow the “liberal world order” to be torn apart by destructive forces.
…He warned that the reason for the pressure on the democratic order is the rise in income inequality and the hollowing out of the middle class, as the rich get richer and people in developing nations see their lives gradually improve.
Biden went on to identify Russia as the force of this change, wanting to “roll back decades of progress.” In reality, this is merely scapegoating: the Left needs someone to blame for its own failure, so it has conjured up a hybrid of King George III, Jefferson Davis and Adolf Hitler. In reality, the impulse against the “liberal world order” or “new world order” has come from within the West, and is a cultural wave against the ideas which legitimize this new world order by indicating it is our best possible future.
As history shows us, Leftist governments fail the same way wherever they are tried. They fall in the same way every time, which is to gain power, become unstable, and then launch a series of wars as they try to re-build the collective consciousness that united their people when they were in the process of achieving Leftism. The reason for this has to do with the origins of Leftism.
Since Leftism is derived from the ideological viewpoint itself, it serves to unify people by opposing a natural state. Once power occurs, and that natural state is displaced, Leftism no longer has a scapegoat. Since Leftism is based on regulating our methods so that we can change natural reality, its only objection to others occurs on the basis of their methods. This does not allow the formation of a Leftist goal in itself.
As a result, Leftism fragments when power is achieved and it has agreement on nothing but power itself, which causes its social support to waver and often, to oppose it. It is common for people to support a revolution and then turn on it once it has power because it has become the new version of the scapegoat it targeted. Re-unifying these people requires a bogeyman even bigger than Hitler.
For this reason, we must look carefully at what Leftists complain about. If inequality has occurred, it is because Leftist policies failed to remove inequality and instead accelerated it as people learned to use the ideological path to power in their favor. If the middle class is perishing, it is because Leftist wealth transfer programs penalized the most consistent sector instead of “the rich,” always an amorphous term.
As a result, early opposition to Leftism is disorganized and inept, but later opposition has widely popular support and consists of a demand to remove Leftist programs so that what was there before can exist again, because it was better:
Hedge Fund billionaire Ray Dalio warned on a panel chaired by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua that “we may be at a point where globalization is ending, and provincialization and nationalization is taking hold.”
…Davos over the decades has become synonymous with globalization and open markets, but in the background this year is the failure of business and political elites to predict any of the seismic political events that shaped 2016. That has raised questions over whether they are capable of understanding and addressing the anti-establishment forces that have roiled the U.S. and Europe over the past year.
These elites have become powerful in the years after Leftist takeover by pandering to the society it has created, and they know that with the reversal of these policies, their fortunes will also reverse. Globalization was their dream because it meant that one standardized world market would enable them to expand their empires to all corners of the globe. Now they are looking at a breakup as people pull away.
They might as well rage against cycles of the moon. The breaking away of people, especially more proficient groups, from the rest has been going on since the dawn of time and is how humans evolve. Most humans are mildly delusional and narcissistic, so those that are not move away from the others and set up a civilization based on being realistic. It then thrives until it breeds more delusional and narcissistic people.
Leftism arises through a process of rationalization of the decay. Fighting decay is socially unpopular, so unscrupulous people choose instead to say something popular that denies decay and scapegoats something else, namely the lack of Utopian or “progressive” thinking. This enables them to become kings among the ruins, even if it ultimately dooms them.
Years ago, watching science fiction magazines and newspapers of various sorts come and go, I identified a process I called “roll hard left and die.”
When a magazine or a newspaper or any news or entertainment media was in real trouble, they went hard, hard left, then died.
It took me a little while to realize this was a sane strategy. In a field completely controlled by the left, when you knew that your job was in peril be it through mismanagement or whatever, your last hope was to go incredibly hard left, so you could blame the failure on ideology. And instead of not being able to find a job, you found yourself lionized by all the “right” (left) “thinking people.” New jobs were assured.
This is how societies die: once in the grip of ideology, they can never back down or admit they are wrong, and each person in a quest for personal successful will re-affirm the ideology endlessly even as doom becomes apparent. They do this because they can claim they did the right thing, and were martyred for it, and so always have hope of personal success at the expense of the group, a usual human modus operandi.
Their only option thus is to double down on what they have said so far, and to intensify it by accusing those who deviate from the Leftist program of whatever sins according to Leftism might be made to semi-plausibly stick to them. This is why we get the constant ranting about how those who are not Leftists are Nazis, George III or Confederates:
“Certain politicians are flourishing and even gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority,” wrote Roth. “They scapegoat refugees, immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.”
One must remember the old saying that says The Leftist cries out in pain as he hits you to see what is going on here. They accuse us of racial hatred and scapegoating, which means they are motivated by racial hate — against any strong national group, as it turns out — and scapegoating. They accuse of what they are doing to deflect from their own behavior, like children caught fighting: “But he started it!”
What they are really saying here is that the groups they forced together through Leftism and Globalization are now splitting apart because there were insufficient motivations to hold them together, plus as has become obvious during the last few years, massive disadvantages to Leftist rule. This means that we are heading for first what Billy Roper calls “balkanization,” or division into separate groups, and eventually separation and a global re-sorting according to which tribe we find an identity in, as Samuel P. Huntington wrote about in his The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
The result will be a giant crack-up that starts as political separation, but accelerates to tribalism, with massive relocation of populations across the world:
The thirty-year-long Peloponnesian War did not start overnight. Greek casus belli intensified gradually over a fifty-year span as selfish agendas became acceptable through the slow creep of greed, pride and suspicion. Ironically, the very peace Athenians and Spartans secured against Persia enabled the widening of attitudes. Tragically, Greek divergence metastasized into open conflict and, ultimately, mutual ruin.
Why? A key message of Thucydidean history is that without mutual effort for unity, a people of common heritage but different perspectives will develop oppositional interests over time. This was the case with Athens and Sparta and is occurring in “blue” and “red” segments of America’s populace.
…As with Athens, “blue” populations view themselves as exemplars and vanguards for Western civilization’s progress at home and abroad. Athens’ rival was Sparta, principally an agrarian society husbanded within the countryside and without continual contact with overseas cultures. Sparta maintained a formidable army and militant ethos to protect its land’s resources against enemies.
In other words, we see two different ways of life here: the primarily agrarian and warlike red states, and the primarily mercantile and cosmopolitan blue states, but the secret is this, this division extends across the West. Thus we will see the same split in Europe and afterwards in every other first-world nation. The Leftist franchise has ended, and we are separating between those who want it and those who hate it.
With that political breakup dies the forces that held globalization together and which are forcing different groups to coexist, which these groups resent. As the false unification of the Leftist franchise loses cultural legitimacy, individuals will separate voluntarily from those who are around them but of a different political or tribal inclination.
Leftism, in other words, is failing as it always does, leaving behind shattered impoverished nations in which the populations cannot be united again. A sensible act is to leapfrog balkanization as much as possible and encourage the inevitable world tribal sorting to occur as efficiently and bloodlessly as possible. If we refuse to do that, war is our destiny.
In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.
It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.
For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.
Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.
How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.
For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?
Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.
The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.
We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.
For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.
On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.
And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.
But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.
Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.
Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:
Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.
There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.
But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.
The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.
It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.
This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:
Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.
…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”
Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”
Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?
The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.
Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.
For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.
The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.
This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.
In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.
Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.
Our leaders tell us that America is a proposition nation, or one formed of political and economic bonds but not ethnic ones, as revealed by this George W. Bush speech made from late in his presidency:
America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them; and every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.
In postwar America and Europe, the proposition nation was a principle accepted as fact. It seemed the ultimate extension of the democratic ideal: all people are equal, and therefore, it does not matter which people you have in a nation, so long as you have indoctrinated them with the right political and economic ideals. This was contrary to the founding ideas of these nations:
It’s a cliché of contemporary debate that America is a unique “Proposition Nation,” not one of those nasty ethnically-specific nation-states in Europe. Anyone can become an American by subscribing to a set of abstract principles, etc. etc. Quack quack.
In Alien Nation, I pointed out that this would have been news to the Founders, and indeed to pretty well all Americans before World War II. They were highly conscious of America`s specific ethnic and cultural heritage, i.e. national identity. And they thought it was very important—the reason, Jay said in The Federalist Papers, why the experiment of federal government could be made to work at all.
I also pointed out that, in fact, many European intellectuals had similar delusions of “Universal Nation”-hood. The most obvious example: France, where assimilating Africans and Arabs to French “culture” was actually official policy for a while. And not without some misleading signs of success, as in the American case.
When looking for the origin of an idea, it makes sense to go back to its earliest incarnation, which can be found in the idea of Leftism, or equality, itself. This is one of those notions that is so close to a basic human pathology, which is the desire to mandate inclusion of all so the individual cannot be excluded from the group, that it probably does not have a single source, but as with a fatal disease, is normally kept in check but gains strength in moribund patients.
This decay found its voice however in the French Revolution which, owing to the evangelical nature of Leftism, quickly became a war for control of Europe that would define the next two centuries. As observed by academics, the need of Leftism to expand created a type of “internationalism” that was the fore-runner of ideas such as diversity and globalism today:
In France, war initially encouraged national solidarity as the entire country mobilized. As the war persisted this solidarity broke down and a chasm developed between civilians and soldiers. The latter were increasingly motivated by a cult of honour that found its ultimate expression in Napoleon Bonaparte. He seized control of France in 1799, and then built up an empire in which the national element was increasingly diluted with each new conquest. Napoleonic imperialism in turn triggered reactions in other parts of Europe where opposition to French exploitation manifested itself amongst ordinary people. Intellectuals and some politicians sought to harness popular sentiment by preaching national hatred, and to some extent this assisted the massive mobilization effort necessary to defeat Napoleon.
The historian Julius Brauthal, in his 1967 epic History of the International (Vol. 2) noted that internationalism was a value of the French Revolution and that was the origin of its modern form. The Leftist form of internationalism consists of the idea that national borders can be erased by ideology through the cooperation of Leftists worldwide to advance a world order based on Leftism, not realism:
Liberal internationalism, cluster of ideas derived from the belief that international progress is possible, where progress is defined as movement toward increasing levels of harmonious cooperation between political communities.
Liberal internationalist theories address how best to organize and reform the international system. In general, liberal internationalists regard violence as the policy of last resort, advocate diplomacy and multilateralism as the most-appropriate strategies for states to pursue, and tend to champion supranational political structures (such as the European Union) and international organizations (especially the United Nations).
Liberal internationalism is typically contrasted with realism, and during the final decades of the 20th century the academic field of international relations came to be characterized as a clash between variants of those two traditions. Realists accuse internationalists of being naive and even dangerously utopian, and internationalists accuse realists of being overly fatalistic.
Internationalism takes the basic form of the idea that natural order is bad, and must be “corrected” by human intent, which consists of the idea that all people are equal; this arises whenever societies succeed because they lose a sense of shared purpose, which previously had existed through the need to succeed. At that point, civilization becomes more complex and requires new direction, but usually moneyed interests and peasant revolts have weakened the aristocracy to the point where they no longer have the unadulterated power required to set it on a new course.
In the case of Europe, this was compounded by two factors: first, many nations in Europe became successful at roughly the same time; second, their successes resulted in population booms which seemed at first like an appropriate way to rebuild after the losses to Mongol wars and plagues only a few centuries before. In this way, Europe entered an arms race where each population expanded in order to become powerful.
By the time of the French Revolution, Europe was already flirting with proto-Leftism as a way to keep its people together. First, the royal houses had been weakened by their dependency on moneyed interests to keep up with military expenditures, and second, the expanding population created a necessity for new ways to motivate people to work together as people increasingly took civilization for granted and wanted more personal power. When The Enlightenment™ came about, intellectuals granted this new rising herd a cerebral justification through the belief in human reason which was found equally and universally in all people.
The French Revolution left France a ruined nation. The food crisis which precipitated it but was not its cause could not have been resolved, and after that Revolution, was made worse by disorder and increasing mobility to those needed for harvests. To avoid the political destabilization of the crisis, France mobilized toward war, leading to a series of Napoleonic Wars where the new Leftist state attempted to dominate Europe, which in turn provoked the other European nations into forming defensive alliances.
These alliances in turn became a means of political competition, and so, after the Leftist revolutions of the preceding century, by the time of the First World War, Europe was dangerously unstable and in the hands of weak democratic leadership which refused to address politically sensitive policy time bombs which then detonated in that devastating war. After WWI, Leftist leadership was strengthened by the near-destruction of Germany and its defense of more traditional forms of society and values.
This led to a re-formalization of internationalism in a new form which became the modern proposition nation. As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, expanding on some of the concepts of Woodrow Wilson, the new order was based on political and economic obedience rather than national origin:
There can be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism, merely because the war is over. There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which most directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people.
Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American.
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.
In this, we see the origin of the confusion that became modern conservatism: defending the political principles of the old, but doing so by accepting the Leftist concept of world order by converting conservative methods into goals. For conservatives, the purpose was to retain all that has made civilization excellent since the dawn of time, and ideas like “liberty” and “freedom” were methods to that end. With the rise of Leftist concepts, the original goal had to be displaced, and replaced by Leftist ideas grafted on to conservative methods.
This process of “Americanization” lives on through globalism and the proposition nation. Globalism believes that since people are presumed equal, they can be indoctrinated with the American democratic ideals and will then recreate the success of America worldwide; the proposition nation consists of destroying national heritage through assembling people into political groups, echoing the sentiments of liberal internationalism.
This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years.
At that time, the term “white” applied exclusively to those of Western European heritage, excluding those from Eastern and Southern Europe, including the Iberian offshoot population in Ireland.
The idea that being a citizen of a European-descended nation is a political construct and not a racial one is one of the core beliefs of the cordycepted cucks who currently rule the Republican party, and descends from the Leftist idea of equality and a worldwide union of workers.
It reveals the primary reason for conservative failure, which is that they have adopted the fundamental assumptions of the Left, and therefore have no resistance to intensification of those beliefs, which leads to a gradual Leftward shift as we have seen during the era since Roosevelt made his speech.
The only way to resist this is to explicitly reject the proposition nation and the internationalist — or “globalist” — ideas behind it, mainly by affirming nationalism. With nationalism, civilization is a racial and ethnic construct, and instead of government, each society uses its cultural values enforced by citizens on each other to maintain order.
This alone refutes the delusional ideas of The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution that have divided Western Europeans for centuries and turned us against each other through a series of futile, fratricidal wars.
A silence fell over the West today: the silence of not noticing a great event which has been building for some time. Like the fall of the Soviet Union, it has grown first in darkness, then in offhand casual remarks, and finally as a strong will expressed through uncompromising language. And now, a wall has fallen and for the first time, we can see the world beyond the managed environment which is the politically correct West.
In Aurora, Colorado, the unthinkable occurred — an anti-white hate crime was accepted as such from the initial investigation:
Police in Aurora are investigating a sexual assault that may have been a racially-motivated crime.
…Early Friday morning, two African-American men sexually assaulted the woman outside the shopping center. Police say the victim, who is white, didn’t know the attackers. During the assault, the men yelled racial slurs at the woman before fleeing the scene.
Aurora police would not comment on whether the case is being classified as a bias-related attack.
The wall has fallen, and those who were presumed to be the enemy are recognized as human again. Much as the world wanted to punish the Germans for WWII and then, in 1989, realized that the Berlin Wall was a great injustice, and then realized in 2016 that however wrong his methods were that Hitler was right about the incompatibility of different ethnic groups, and the suicidal insanity of even microscopic amounts of Leftism, we now realize that white people are human, too, and have a right to self-interest.
Even more than that, we are seeing a recognition that equality has failed. To implement equality, one must raise the lower or demote the higher; since the lower would have risen if they could have, this means in reality that equality always indicates a need to penalize the more successful to subsidize the less successful.
This anti-moral, anti-Darwnian approach is universally popular because people, especially smarter ones, view themselves as failures and see a need to be protected against the judgment by results that is the nature of reality. People want human intent, a cross between solipsism and social approval, to regulate who is acceptable, instead of results, because often results turn out badly, frequently by chance alone. Our fear leads to an addictive and compulsive illusion through the notion of “equality,” which means “equal inclusion” in reality, or forced social acceptance.
With the backlash against egalitarianism, which is such a mentally addictive concept that it becomes an all-consuming Moby-Dick or Lord of The Rings style obsession, the West is reversing the past centuries of decline. Egalitarianism is the root of ideology, or the notion that what humans intend is more important than what has worked in reality in the past; as egalitarianism falls, it will be replaced by realism, or the study of reality.
The Big Picture
by Billy Roper
127 pages, CreateSpace, $9
Part of the new wave of Rightist movements is a desire to recapture culture from the Left, and that includes fiction, music, art and essays. Writer Billy Roper is perhaps best known for his fiction, but also has written a number of non-fiction works, including most recently The Big Picture, which is a summary of his beliefs and methods over almost three decades of pro-nationalist activism.
A former personnel director for the National Alliance, Roper writes at Divine Truth Ministries and WriterBeat, and has been interviewed by Amerika before. He is well-known to many in that intersectional land between the right wing, traditionalism, white nationalism and the Alt Right.
With The Big Picture, he writes in a conversational and congenial style as if addressing a group of neighbors or friends. The topic is the downfall of Western civilization, including demographic genocide, and how to reverse it, starting with how to bring other people into the fold and awaken them from the brain-numbing dream that is modernity. Most people live in a world of symbols and emotions, unaware of what those refer to, and therefore unable to decipher them to realize that they are toxic illusion, much like modern life is covertly miserable but no one will mention it.
Roper writes about balkanization, or the coming division of the West into tribes after the failure of diversity and the collapse of liberal democracy, which will crucify itself by trying to force globalism and backdoor socialism despite achieving Venezuela-level results. In his eyes, the balkanization has already begun, and what matter is whether Western people can rediscover or create an identity, and thus band together as a tribe instead of being divided further by elective interests.
But you know, it’s never taken a majority to lead our people, or to change history. As Samuel Adams wrote, the ones who will always make the difference will be that tireless, irate minority continually lighting brushfires in people’s minds. That time around, it only took 3%. This time, it might take a crisis event to kick things off, a economic collapse such as the credit bubble popping, a war, or maybe the Hispanics going first, declaring La Reconquista a done deal, We’ll see. None of us have a crystal ball, but I can tell you than multiracial democracy can’t fly. Nietzsche told us that what cannot fly must fall, and what is falling, we should still push, and say, “fall faster”! Balkanization is happening, right now. People are voluntarily migrating and re-segregating racially. (121)
Writing in this easily flowing style, he tackles his vision of a nationalist future: European-descended people uniting and forming a breakaway nation based on the principle that genetics are upstream of culture, which in turn informs politics and everything else we value. Because of its conversational nature, the book includes redundancies and follows a circular form of composition, where each chapter discusses another aspect of the topic and returns to a point of explaining one aspect of the forward path.
Roper is a dual-seedline Christian identity writer, but religion in this book is explained as a variant of a practical approach, such that he views reality as our responsibility and God as a distant Creator who sees but does not intervene. After the great flood, we were on our own, and the solutions that Roper advocates are based in hard practical realities, including natural selection and realistic morality. For that reason, this book is more nationalism flavored with religion and experienced common sense than a religious book.
Many of the Founding Fathers of the U.S., such as Benjamin Franklin, may have been Deists, and had a clockmaker’s view of God as the Creator who set in motion various mechanisms in the universe, but Who does not get involved in daily miracle-making. This runs counter to the idea of petitioning the Lord with prayer, or supplication, of course. Like other theological approaches, it doesn’t satisfactorily answer the question of the seeming contradiction between human free will and predestination, for some. However, if God the Creator was and is omniscient, then He knew what choices we would each make before we were ever created, so allowing for free will within the framework and context of His plan as variables is almost, from a human conceptual reference point, conceivable. What is not conceivable, is that He could not have anticipated and planned for all of our possible free will choices, simultaneously, if He is indeed God, after all. Think of the universe as His very own “choose your own adventure” book, with the last page ending the same, no matter what path we take to the ultimate, inevitable goal. God can do anything, but fail. (6)
In among the practical everyday wisdom of how to save an imploding civilization from itself, The Big Picture includes a number of philosophical and theological arguments of startling clarity. The point of the book, strategically, is to reduce the ambiguity of questions of the future to a few simple principles that represent the highest degree of reduction — not deconstruction — to form that can be achieved. As a result, its simplicity is deceptive: behind this plain talk lurks a tendency to see the crux of any issue and to flip it around into an action agenda.
Most will find something to disagree with here, including the parts where The Big Picture waxes militant or spiritual. However, its largest theme is unification, or the convergence of different threads like religion or politics into a philosophy of racial survival as a means to having a society with purpose and thus, a pleasurable experience of life that makes our people want to survive and thrive. Where at first blush it seems casual, the depths of this book emerge from its nuance, making for a thought-provoking and insightful quick read.
Leftists hate culture because it competes with Leftism for what gets to be the central goal of civilization. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in Soviet treatment of Israel, which parallels how Western Leftists treat white self-interest and Western Civilization:
The Soviets soured on Israel for three reasons. First, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, decided to side with the US against the USSR in the Cold War despite the State Department’s hostility toward Israel.
Second, Ben-Gurion moved to purge Communists from the IDF and other power centers immediately after the War of Independence.
Finally, the Soviets soured on Israel because the birth of Israel awoke the yearnings of the Jews of the Soviet Union.
Those who want nationalism recognize that Communists will always corrupt it. They do so because for them, ideology is job one, and everything is secondary. So if Israel exists, it is a means to the end of World Communism (or Democrats, or whatever they are calling themselves these days).
In this way, Nationalism (or any other strong, organic belief) and Leftism are eternal enemies. They simply cannot get along because for each to achieve any of its goals is to refute the groundwork on which the other is based.
Consider what happened to the Greens. Here is an email I sent to the Green Party today:
Subject: Why I am not a Green Party member
From: Brett Stevens
Dear Green Party,
Like many people in our world, I identify environmental damage as my biggest concern. However, when I went to the Green Party website, I saw your “four pillars”:
3. Social Justice
I find this disturbing because I am only interested in point #2 (ecology) and see no need for loading in a political agenda from one of the two major parties alongside of it.
If you advocate for ecology, that is all you must do, but you might want to think that it can co-exist with other values and lifestyles outside the Leftist agenda based one you seem to desire to impose upon us.
I feel like I am looking at the “Watermelon Party”: green on the outside, Red on the inside.
Where do I go to find a party that simply seeks ecology, without importing the two-party system through adopting the polarizing platform of one of those parties?
This is the Leftist way: for them, ideology is the path to Utopia, and so it is the ultimate good. That recognition causes them to sort everything else on earth and in the heavens into two categories: (a) that which can be means to the end of advancing ideology, and (b) that which cannot, and therefore is an enemy.
To Leftists, lying and denying reality are not just acceptable but desired because they advance the ideology and subdue reality in order to do so. That makes the individualists/solipsists who want “equality” — translation: I do whatever I want and you must still accept me and bear the cost — feel powerful, because the threat of being wrong about how reality works is no longer on the table.
The more you look into Leftist psychology, it becomes clear why the Green Party requires three Communist planks of its platform for every Green one, and why the Soviets (and modern Democrats) reject Israel. They hate anything natural, true, real and honest because it competes for attention with their ideology!
For this reason, the argument from the Right that Leftists are nihilists is not just wrong but stupid. Nihilists reject truth, but do not replace it with ideology. Leftists reject truth because they prefer ideology. This is why you cannot have nihilist Leftists, and why Leftists are not just abstaining from realism, but actively campaigning to destroy it.
Like Israel, Western Civilization is Nationalistic and organic, and cannot coexistence with Leftism. We either end it, or it ends us, and then history will judge us as weak for having been unable to throw out the reality-deniers.
Those of us who prowl the web looking for interesting reading material will inevitably come across Garvey’s Ghost, a blog of informed and intelligent analysis from an African perspective. Its proprietor, Sondjata, was kind enough to give us the time for an interview.
How did you end up thinking radically differently from the mainstream? What was your introduction to more historically-aware politics, and how did it change over time?
I have always thought differently from the mainstream (even though according to multiple ‘political leaning” tests I am apparently almost dead center in terms of left-right. However; I had earlier been attracted to more left wing and black liberal (liberational) ideologies.
I later moved into Pan-Africanism of the Garvey strain which put me on the political “right” of black left ideology (if that makes sense). Later on as I strove to maintain intellectual honesty and challenged my own beliefs by looking at data that I previously dismissed as “racist” due to adhering to the “Thou shalt not read, watch or otherwise acknowledge information from non-left sources” religion, I moved in what would be considered by most a more rightward direction. Of course as mentioned earlier, by many measures I am a centrist which means, in my opinion, being honest with the facts ought make you a centrist.
If you were in control of the world, what would civilization look like, both locally and globally?
I don’t want to control the world. I actually came to the decision that I was unfit for that level of leadership a long time ago. I have “revenge” issues. I think world control (globalism) is at the root of many problems. I have spent around 20 years simply trying to consider how to make Garveyite Pan-Africanism workable and no matter how I’ve thought it out it means upsetting (and possibly eliminating) a great deal of people.
While there may be technological means to overcome issues such as language, I don’t see how you can “control the globe” without seriously impacting local cultures and customs. Personally I’m currently leaning to nations setting up themselves as they see fit and do whatever they see fit so long as they don’t negatively impact other nations (warfare, environmental damage). People should be able to leave a nation/culture they don’t care for but upon arriving in a nation they find more inviting must adopt the norms of that society.
Do you think there is an underlying psychological condition behind Leftism, or is it an informed choice, and if so, why do people choose it?
I think we have to define “leftism.” Leftism as we see it now (I refuse to call it “progressive”) and leftism as we saw it in say Barbara Jordan’s time was very different. Old style leftism as I understand it (which could be wrong) was concerned with abuse of power by the powerful. So we had unions that definitely helped the American worker. You had the issue of slavery, Jim Crow and other abridging of rights of certain citizens. I don’t think anyone with a conscience can honestly take issue with these things.This is where I think people get into liberalism. Who’s for discrimination? So it is an obvious logical and importantly emotional decision to be attracted to liberalism.
Modern day liberalism is quite different. Through my reading and watching I am convinced that current liberalism is Marxism/socialism in American garb (or British, French what-have-you). Yes there were definitely communist influences in the early civil rights movement(s) with even communists in leadership positions but their power, in my opinion, was blunted by a sense of patriotism and cultural respect. Now those checks are all but gone. What happens now with liberals is that you take the emotional power of “are you for discrimination” and you then use that to widen your power grab or as others put it, move the goal post. It also allows those who see themselves as victims to blame an external party (which is human nature) rather than look at themselves.
Garvey’s Ghost has been high on my reading list since I found it. When did you start the blog, and why?
I started Garvey’s Ghost in Dec 2003. Generally I was upset about G.W. Bush as well as what I considered extremely weak black writings on various subjects. Being a solutions-orientated person, I decided to do something other than complain. By the way it is the longest running, continuously updated black blog that is not a news aggregator.
What do you think Marcus and Amy Garvey offered that others have not, and why are they more obscure than some other thinkers who seem to get all the press?
Well it’s a good thing I reviewed my answer to this question because I totally did not answer the question posed. The reason that I believe Garvey (Marcus and Amy) and Garveyism is and has been ignored is because it generally does not appeal to the “white people owe us everything and all we need to do is make ’em pay” ideology that is rife on the black left.
Part of this again is human nature. Imagine I came to you and gave you the following offer: I will give you a brand new car for your use right now or I’ll give you the parts to build a new car and all the tools to build it and maintain it and if you like build more. 99.9% of people would say “thanks for the keys.” Liberal ideology is taking the keys. Garveyism is taking the parts and tools. Garveyism is hard in the short term but pays in the long term. But you gotta build the car.
When The Black Star Line company was formed the NAACP went out against it. Think about that, the NAACP was against a black-run organization that would be employing black people. So this is why Garveyism isn’t accepted by left blacks. Oh they love the Red Black and Green. But symbolism is easy.
Speaking specifically about Amy Garvey I would point out that she often wrote scathing indictments of black men not being husbands, fathers and leaders. Amy Garvey wouldn’t be out here talking about how “our babies are being shot by police.” She would be out there talking about why are your babies out robbing the stores and shooting each other? She’d be asking, what kind of fathers are letting their babies out in the street like that? I found Amy’s huge contributions to Garveyism much later than discovering Garvey himself and once I discovered her huge impact on the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) I added her name to the masthead of the blog.
What do you think of white nationalists and the Alt Right? Is there any legitimacy in these belief systems, or are they compensatory pathologies?
Two different groups with some overlap. As Garveyite Pan-Africanist I cannot be opposed to White Nationalism as a principle. I cannot advocate for black people running their countries however they see fit and then turn around and say that white people cannot run their own nations as they see fit. As a matter of fact I think places like Germany, France and England need a good dose of white nationalism to get themselves back on track. That track being running the country for the benefit of its natives and citizens first! I want to make sure I point out that there is a difference between a “white nationalist” and a “white supremacist.” One can definitely be both but the two are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
That said I have to address America. Where I diverge from white nationalists or white nationalist leaning persons such as those who run Vdare is that America is not a white native country. While it was in fact founded by whites (in the collective sense) none of those whites have a “native” claim on the land as they do in England, France, etc., thus I disagree with those at Vdare that America is not a proposition nation. It most certainly is. Of course the proposition is that one accepts as the general culture that which came from the founders and particularly those of the founding documents.
So to be clear the US is a proposition republic formed on the governing principles of the English. English common law informs all US laws and are the only legitimate source for interpretation. However the US is culturally a mix of a variety of nations whose influences we can see in various states. This is unlike any of the native West European nations.
The best white nationalists can claim about America is sweat equity. This is a position you’ll see espoused by Ramzpaul. He points out (correctly) that there was no America as we know it, before Europeans got here and that since Europeans came, conquered and built, Europeans get to claim the nation (a similar argument is made about South Africa).
The problem with this idea is that Europeans were not the only group with “sweat equity” in America. The African population, property or not, was here just about as long as any founding family and given the history of slavery, no one can claim they did not work. So in reality Africans descended from the slave trade have just as much a claim (if not differently based) as whites do. I think many white nationalists have a problem processing that. Or to the extent they do, they simply don’t care.
With that said, let me be clear that I have a massive problem with the violent wing of white nationalists (as I do with violent black nationalists). Such violence in the “service” of ideology undermines rule of law be they polar bear hunts or running down a black man walking along a street.
Per the Alt-Right, this is coming to you after the Spencer “Hail Trump” thing. I look at alt-right like I did Gamergate. It’s composed of way too many types of people to be easily defined.
I believe that the MSM are using the same techniques it did on Gamergate on the Alt-Right. The way I see it, the Alt-Right is a “home” for those who are not attracted to “conservatism” or “Republicanism” but have no desire to be on the left because the left essentially lost their marbles at least eight years ago. Had the left not completely lost its mind, then the alt-right would have no need to even exist.
When it is racist to say a country should enforce its borders, you have a serious problem. When the world is never to forget the Holocaust but I’m supposed to be against a fellow citizen who watched his or her loved ones and fellow citizen jump out of a burning building because that was preferable to burning alive, and now is not “fond” of Muslims?
So as long as the left double and quadruple downs on their agenda an Alt-something is going continue to exist. There will be “unsavory” people doing unsavory things. But that’s human nature.
Can you tell us about yourself: what was your early life and family like? What do you enjoy doing? How does being opposed to most of the political and social thinking around you, and probably the behavior of most others, affect your life?
I’m a first generation American. Family is from the Caribbean. Raised Seventh Day Adventists, left Christianity for what I would call “Reform” ATR (African Traditional Religion). I’ve been on the outside of “mainstream” thought on a lot of things for a very long time so I end up not interacting with folks socially that much.
Do you write or speak beyond the blog? Where can the rest of us find these creations?
I do not write for any other publication. No one has invited me to speak and for aforementioned reasons, I don’t expect to be asked. I briefly created a YouTube series. I won’t embarrass myself by pointing anyone to it, but if you search the blog you’ll likely find it.
What, in your view, does the term “nationalist” mean? Are you influenced by any nationalists from other tribes?
As discussed previously, a nationalist is a person who wants space for their people (however defined). They want to control it in whatever way they see fit. I’ve looked at the acts of various nationalists but I’ve been mostly influenced by Garvey. A lot of the anti-colonial struggles and leaders of that era were heavily influenced by Garveyism. That said, I like to think for myself and a lot of conclusions I’ve come to have come from study.
Does your viewpoint extend to other issues, like monarchism and environmentalism, and how do those fit into your existing worldview?
I have never paid any attention to monarchism. I know it’s a current in NRx circles. As a science-based person I am concerned about the Environment but I see that a lot of countries, leaders and the like have taken to politicizing it and making money off of it. Anyone who’s familiar with earth history knows that the earth’s climate is always changing and that our journey on this rock is a speck of dust in the time the earth has been here and we have been keeping records for not even 1/10 of that time. Whenever I hear people talk about global warming and how man will be devastated by it, I remind them that homo-sapiens-sapiens lived through an ice age with nothing close to the knowledge and technology we have today.
Also, I see a lot of hand wringing about people, usually those stuck in the stone age, who will be very negatively affected by climate change. Well. Sucks to be them. This is why you adapt. This is why you move. This is why you organize into larger national units. If the left wasn’t so intent on letting primitive people remain primitive so that they can virtue signal, they’d be preparing those folks for what’s coming. Like really you are still living in a desert? Why? And I’m supposed to help you stay like that? No thanks.
Where do you see human civilizations going in the future, and do you have hope for a better outcome than the present?
I’m not really much of a futurist so I’ll leave the whole “future of humanity” thing to others. But I will say that in the short term, in the first world, there are some big problems.
Automation is going to eat labor for lunch and dinner. Too many people think the rise of AI is just like the industrial revolution. They are very wrong. There is going to be a decimation of the human labor market like never seen before. This is going to cause upheaval. Personally I think governments are going to have to get to a guaranteed income which of course means taxing companies.
Thank you for your time, and I hope our readers enjoy this informative interview!
It all started with an earthquake. Or rather, the crushing wave which came after it.
A wall of water swept into Fukushima, Japan and smashed the ruined nuclear power plants there, rushing far inland and sucking out to sea everything in its path. This deposited hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive waste into the nearby ocean where it sank.
The general feeling was a sigh of relief. But as the months went by, problems emerged. It was not just the one-eyed three-limbed babies, but the sudden rise in cancers among the young, and the disappearance of much of the wildlife. Something was afoot.
Scientists monitoring the waters around Japan had at first insisted the problem was contained, but now found themselves re-calculating. Eventually it came out that scientific grants were handed out to those willing to design studies that showed the problem was minuscule, when in fact it was huge.
A re-calculation of risk based on models including all factors, and not just those the government and industry wanted to see, showed the worst case scenario: Japanese fishing waters were entirely radioactive, and because of evaporation and landfill, the island itself was rapidly becoming so.
Japan would have to be abandoned, a monument to the foolishness of humankind in exploring nuclear energy so recklessly.
Owing to the recent rise of right-wing leaders in Europe, the UN was powerless, but in order to prevent genocide by inaction, Europe acted. Boats arrived and transported the Japanese to New Zealand.
The same boats relocated the white population of New Zealand to northern California where the high real estate costs made them feel at home. President Trump welcomed them as he prepared to relocate all Leftists to the new state, “Cow,” formed of California-Oregon-Washington.
Relocation created a cascade of effects. As the only power in the region, China surged into Southeast Asia, dominating these nations as vassal states. Taiwan was quickly overrun.
That in turn thrust India and Pakistan into conflict as they attempted to stabilize their own position. That war ended with India arming several hundred million citizens with rapidly manufactured AK-47s and overwhelming Pakistan with sheer numbers, driving those citizens and all of its own restive Muslims into Afghanistan.
Like a bowling ball in a watch shop, the political initiative careened across the globe. The destabilization of the middle east brought about by the war in Afghanistan inspired Russia to invade to calm the region.
The Russians learned from their own Afghan adventures and, this time, simply drove the people of the middle east into North Africa. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations simply ceased to exist as their people were relocated. Only Israel and Russia remained.
Europe experienced existential panic. While Russia crushed the middle east, a newly-joined Germany-Austria-Hungary axis powered into Turkey and drove those people into the Russian sector, where they disappeared. German reclaimed its lost lands, including half of Poland.
During these wars, a call was sent out for all able-bodied men to join the war effort. When it was found that fewer than one percent of all non-European-descended residents responded, popular outrage hit a fever pitch, and these were forced into boats and pushed across the Mediterranean.
Driven by necessity, nationalism in Europe hit overdrive. All who were not native to the founding people of a land were exiled. Russian-descended people found themselves driven out of France, and in Germany, all who were not solidly ethnic German found their passports confiscated as they were escorted to waiting boats, trains and planes under the steely eyes of heavily armed guards.
Emboldened by the new environment of political conquest, Brazil armed its excess population and pushed into nearby countries, essentially conquering all of South America except Chile. Its armies got as far as Mexico city.
The Americans reacted by driving south into Mexico, meeting Brazilian forces head on and driving them out of Central America. As part of the new political Machiavellianism sweeping the goal, the Americans relocated all of Central America to the Brazilian Empire and send those who were not of the American founding group after it.
American Indians, Mexicans and other groups joined the great exodus to the South. This freed these groups from the tedious and often controlling arm of the American Western European population, which had a fetish for social order, efficiency and casseroles.
Not to be outdone, Canada invaded Greenland. Americans chuckled until they realized the strategic position that Greenland served, and allied with the Danes and Germans, pushed the Canadians back from the island then conquered Canada.
Again an exodus of those who were not Western European flowed to the South.
Skirmishes broke out in Africa and, in recognition that Africans need a continent of their own, a combined Indian-American forced swept the continent of Chinese and Arab investors, and repatriated all of the white people to Texas, where they could enjoy carrying around weapons for fun instead of purely self-defense.
Mixed-race people everywhere emigrated to Libya, where the remnants of the middle east except Israel had gathered. The North African area became the official genetic punch bowl of the world, and the rest of Africa was ruled by its indigenous people.
The sheer horror of this all induced many Leftists to shoot themselves in the face, and others emigrated to Libya or Brazil, where the values of diversity and tolerance were still in full force.
A new dark age dawned in the West as people realized that equality, brotherhood and liberty were lies, and that social order (and casseroles) alone was real. Parasites, miscreants, perverts and Democrats found themselves on boats to Libya.
All people of Irish descent were repatriated to Ireland, all Italians sent to Italy, Greeks restored to their nation, and mixed-race people given a choice of one of those lands or Libya. Lena Dunham was repatriated to the Bikini Atoll.
Trees grew back on empty land, and reduced pollution and overfishing allowed the oceans and land species to regrow. Wilderness closed many areas of North America and Europe once again.
While most remained in shock from the sheer horror of events, a good number began to realize that this was not an end, but a new beginning. Order was restored, and humanity, freed from the virus of egalitarianism, could resume improving itself.