Posts Tagged ‘nationalism’

Pat Buchanan — Like Most Mainstream Conservatives — Punts On Nationalism

Friday, April 28th, 2017

It is undoubtedly wonderful to see Pat Buchanan writing about the downfall of the Leftist world order. However, he skips out on a few crucial concepts.

“My concern has been that it hasn’t really come off as smoothly as one would have hoped. Quite frankly, there’s an awful lot of forces in this city of Washington, DC, where I was born and raised, that really want to cashier and dump the populist-nationalist agenda. Excuse me, but that’s the future of the world. You take a look at countries all over the world. Populism, ethno-nationalism, economic nationalism, sovereignty concerns, identity concerns – these are what is moving mankind. With all due respect, the European Union is yesterday,” Buchanan said.

Marlow invited Buchanan to define “nationalism,” one of the most contentious terms in contemporary political discourse.

…“Also that we are a country, a unique people with its own culture, with its own identity, with its own history, its own heroes, its own holidays, its own cuisine,” he continued. “We are a separate nation, a different nation from other nations, and in looking out for this, we look out for basically what is our own national family first.”

No, Pat, that is not what “nationalism” means.

The American and English governments fought WWII against the nationalist powers, who were those who believed that nation was defined by a single founding ethnic group and not a “melting pot” as the USA was.

Naturally the idea of “nationalism” therefore offended these groups, who were trying to integrate different ethnic groups into empires of their own. Their eyes glowed with the prospects of power enabled by having millions under their control, working together toward empire.

Eighty years later, we see that the melting pot model has failed. Diverse groups do not assimilate; they create a Balkanization where society divides into many different groups, and all of those have less investment in the future of the civilization. Thus, the civilization fails.

Nationalism was demonized because it was a remnant of the old order that the French Revolution had tried to smash. They broke monarchy, but then found that national populations remained resistant to the encroachment of Leftism. Therefore, world Leftism had to destroy national populations.

This became unfortunately easy because of the overlap between these Nationalist movements and denials of the types of freedoms, civil rights and human rights praised by democracies. For that reason, democracies found it easier to ally with fellow Leftists in the Communist states than Fascists and National Socialists.

Since that time, Nationalism has been demonized, and in America we extended our natural myth of being a society of frontierspeople into the idea that we accept all people, independent of race. This denies both (1) the natural abilities and inclinations of each race, (2) the failure of mixed-race societies, and (3) the necessity of race as a basis for culture and values.

A nationalist is an anti-racist; to accept nationalism, one accepts a place for each racial and ethnic group which is preserved by racial separation.

Buchanan, like other conservatives, wants to believe that we can form a society out of surface traits, or those which are taught, such as customs, history, values and religion. This inverts the truth of these things, which is that the understanding of them is — like every other trait — genetic, and therefore, tied to a group.

In the West, we are a people united by common heritage which split into national groups over time. The groups which make the West, and selected individuals from elsewhere who are Western in traits, can easily integrate into a national group as in England or the USA where the common Western European heritage unites them.

Heritage forms a way of locking in the traits of a group, which in turn allows that group to separate itself and develop further; the fear of some groups rising above the rest, like the fear of individual excellence, drives the Crowd impulse to demand “equality” or in other words, to erase those differences and bring everyone down to a standard of comfortable mediocrity.

This shows us why nationalism is necessary; groups must be able to exclude others say that they may maintain their own standards:

In short, the three laws lead us to recognize that the whole concept of community (barring defining community as “everything in existence”) depends upon exclusion. Being a community at all requires having a unique identity that excludes other potential identities, particularly when those other identities would be contradictory or imply a degree when the reality is either/or (like a pacifist in relation to war).

This is precisely the problem with “inclusiveness” if it is defined as a community’s highest value. No matter what specific community you have in mind, a totally inclusive community—that is, a community that defines itself by the standard of inclusion—is incoherent and self-defeating.

The three laws referred to are the laws of Aristotle, which establish the principles of identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle. Identity states that a thing must be what it is; non-contradiction means it cannot be another thing that conflicts with the first; and the excluded middle refers to the need for things to branch, or be one thing to the elimination of all others.

When these are combined, we see the necessity of each group to define itself as something distinct from the rest, and with nationalism, we see that this takes the form of heritage passing along the traits that made that group distinct. In that view, diversity is a way of erasing this distinctiveness of the group and obliterating it.

Buchanan comes close to seeing this fundamental distinction, but by backing off of its core concept in biology, inverts the definition to mean shared indoctrination instead of shared heritage. He probably does this because he still must do so in our anti-nationalist times, but we benefit from reading between the lines and seeing what really must be done for Us to survive.

Reddit Resurrects /r/Nationalism After Hack Of Moderator Account

Thursday, April 13th, 2017

Sometime yesterday, it appears that the account for Reddit user SayNoToTheism was hacked by a user named MyNamesDak from, a community dedicated to smashing into online forums.

In what might be a turnaround, or possibly just the innate sense of fair play which is demonstrated by many Reddit admins, the administrators of Reddit restored ownership of the sub to its former moderators and banned the hacker account. We applaud this decency and justice in a time when most of social media is going in the other direction.

Nationalism Will Benefit From Surpassing “White Nationalism”

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

The two major threats to conservatism are religion and racialism, not because they are bad, but because they will be incorrectly implemented and thus lead us down rabbit trails to failure. These pillars are one of many, but in the hands of the emotionally incontinent, they become the sole focus, and thus the bigger point is missed.

In the current year, we face a struggle for our existence. If we continue down the path of the last few hundred years, we destroy ourselves through slow erosion of all that makes us what we are. If we leave that path, we must pick a path that is both sufficiently different and holds true to what we have learned over the past 6,000 years.

Our greatest threat in this question is that we will replace the goal of leaving that path with one of the lesser tasks that are a means-to-an-end of that goal.

For example, white nationalists want us to replace civilization renewal with racial exclusionism. There is nothing wrong with racial exclusionism, but when it becomes our sole ideal, it displaces the larger goal of resurrecting civilization, and we end up with the cuck idea that “everything is fine” so long as we exclude other races.

In other words, racism becomes a crutch for not having an answer to the problem of civilization restoration, and it becomes proportionately fanatical to how much remains undetermined in that restoration. This leads to it adopting aspects of a cult: actual solutions are ignored, symbolic solutions adopted, and only those who acknowledge this reality-replacing outlook are accepted.

This leads to utter travesties like the recent murder in New York:

Overcome by hate, police said Jackson admitted he took a bus from Maryland to Manhattan last week for one reason — to kill black men.

“It’s well over 10 years he’s been harboring these feelings of hate towards male blacks,” NYPD Chief of Manhattan South Detectives William Aubry said this past Wednesday.

…“I had been thinking about it for a long time, for the past couple of years,” he said. “I figured I would end up getting shot by police, kill myself, or end up in jail.”

White Nationalism focuses on a single attribute of the problem and turns it into a religion, which in turn leads to an unhealthy fixation on enemies who are symptoms and not causes of our decline. This can only end one way: through attrition warfare.

It is not, as the Left says, that people like James Harris Jackson are bad or stupid. In fact, they tend to be more intelligent and generous than on average. However, they have convinced themselves that the solution is race war, because through the fallacy of White Nationalism, they have come to believe that they can put a band-aid on a gaping wound.

It makes more sense to admit what has been lost. Western Civilization has collapsed again. You should burn your American flag, throw away any patriotism that is remaining, and remove the concept of identities in our modern societies. All that exists is Western Civilization, strewn across multiple nation-states and surrounded by Others who wish to destroy it. White Nationalism cannot resurrect it.

The problem is not blacks; it is us. We chose individualism, became egomanics, and chose systems like democracy so that our egos were not challenged by reality. This in turn made us weak, and in the name of protecting the least successful among us, we made weakness into a virtue. It is no surprise our society is failing; the pretense of human altruism has infested it like AIDS.

We can see a similar attack in Sweden, where again someone confuses removing a symptom for making a healthier state out of the whole of civilization:

The incident occurred in the Swedish capital of Stockholm over the weekend. The Swedish man, who has not been named by media or the police, is said to have approached the Muslim women who were wearing Islamic veils on a train while he was eating bacon and dangled the bacon in front of their faces, Swedish broadcaster SVT reports.

According to the report, the women got up to find seating elsewhere and the man followed them with his bacon. He is alleged to have called them derogatory names and made racist comments, though neither the police nor the court has specified what was said during the incident.

The prosecutors allege he then used racial epithets on another woman in the train station after getting off the train. He faces charges of incitement to racial hatred.

Obviously he should not be persecuted because any society where people cannot handle disagreement to their faces is a society dying through lack of fortitude. The ability to disagree and harass each other is part of the essential economy of ideas to any human group. While he is not wrong to do this, he also has missed the point.

The problem is not Islam; it is us. We chose individualism, and it manifested in class warfare, which led to diversity. Currently diversity is one of our enemies because it is paradoxical in logic and can never work, yet most of the voters get dewy-eyed and think it is a good idea, so they pound that button again and again. The problem is us.

Because our society is dying, groups from all over the world flock here to take advantage of the giveaway. It’s like a fire sale: we are collapsing, so have some social welfare and good feelings, because those keep the voters in happy oblivion so they keep going to working, shopping and consuming media.

We could get rid of the problem of diversity overnight by eliminating those giveaways in the form of social benefits, entitlements and civil rights programs. We would then still face the problem of having to rebirth our society, cutting away the bad and nurturing the good.

Even the best possible Other, such as the high IQ and well-behaved Japanese, is not welcome here. Do you get it, yet? Diversity is replacement with a mixed-race group, which means your culture and ideals are destroyed. In fact, you do not remain, because that which replaces you thinks differently. It is genocide.

Diversity is doom because even those “good” minorities work against you because it is in their self-interest to conquer you. Witness this “model minority” judge working in favor of low-IQ third world immigrants:

Cautioning that “the rule of law is being challenged,” California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Monday urged the state to “persevere in our values in times of upheaval” to protect equality and diversity.

“We must remember our past, both good and bad, to fight the forces of fear and prejudice,” Cantil-Sakauye said during her annual State of the Judiciary address to the Legislature. She contrasted a 2013 law allowing undocumented lawyers to practice in California with the World War II internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, including her in-laws, who were in attendance at the speech.

Will white nationalism stop this? No, it will just downgrade it from “other races” to “other ethnic groups,” replacing Western Europeans with a mixture of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, at which point the genetic root of the West, the Western Europeans, will be genocided just as surely as if we had bred them with African-Americans.

White Nationalism also compels people to step back from seeing this broader issue, and the even broader issue of the collapse of Western Civilization, and instead to offer them an easy answer like the salesman promising that his cleaning product can “erase even the stubbornest of stains.” He wants you to fixate on the symbol, and forget the real challenge before you.

We do not need a movement that concludes that our problem is limited to race, and our solution is limited to racial discrimination. Of course the other must go back to their homelands; this is not rocket science and has become flamingly apparent over the past weeks. But we need more. If we stop at race alone, we miss the real goal that stands before us, and become bigots in the process.

Nationalism presents a better principle than White Nationalism. Nationalism simply says that nations are formed of ethnic groups. This means that we can have a Western European nation, but not a mixed Western/Southern/Eastern one. Instead, we need to reserve the right to separation for ourselves by guaranteeing it for all ethnic groups.

Contrast this to White Nationalism. For WN, the other races are the enemy; for nationalists, the policy of internationalism, also called diversity and multiculturalism, is the enemy. The solution is not to harm others, but to strengthen ourselves, in part by sending everyone else home and then by asserting our own standards as iron, immutable law.

They Cannot Assimilate

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

Another terrorist attack, or three (one attempted). Another series of prayers, playing “Imagine” on out-of-tune pianos, piling up flowers and stuffed animals where the blood once pooled, and political speeches about how these terrorists will not damage our democracy and freedom. And then, nothing, except more reminders that we need to protect Muslims from racial animus in response to these attacks.

As in most times of confusion, people are focusing on what social groups reward them for instead of truth. Those who repeat the dominant ideology get ahead; those who do not, or oppose it, are pushed aside. It is thus logically correct to follow the herd. And so, all of our “facts,” news, politicians, experts, professors, scientists and writers are fake; their assumptions are lies and so all that follows must be.

This puts us in the unenviable position of having to wake up, make our way upstream against the current, and use unapproved methods — such as logic itself — to understand our world. Everything else resembles houses built on loose sand, falling down with the slightest shift, and so dedicated to stability even if it means affirming insanity as truth.

Let us apply logical fact to the question of class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism; contrary to what our wise leaders tell us, these are the same question.

Those who care for themselves will care for something greater than themselves because the individual does not exist without context. This context gives meaning: it shows that our inevitable sacrifices go toward something enduring, instead of vanishing in the moment, and by doing so, create a sense of poetry to existence, placing us in unison with our culture and world.

The context in which individuals exist could be described as a combination of civilization, nature and metaphysical or idealistic principles that guide our sense of what it is to be good, promote pleasure and beauty in life, and achieve improvement over our prior state. The opposite of this is individualism, where we take all of the above for granted as existing without our interference.

For this reason, civilization and its maintenance become important on par with our own lives. Without them, we are single creatures wandering alone, without any chance to build on what we create, and with no hope that it will have significance beyond us. At that level, everything we do is a ruin the instant it is created.

With stable civilization, we can pursue the other parts of our context — understanding nature, metaphysics and ideals — and know that we can build on what others have done and have others do the same. For this reason, our thoughts and actions endure and therefore, have a purpose. Without that endurance, they are pointless and mere fantasy beyond the basic needs for food, shelter and safety.

Civilization by that token serves as an extension of the individual that gives meaning to our striving. This then raises the question of how to make civilization last for as long as possible, such that it extends our work and gives it something approximating permanence. Possibly a civilization could become eternal, or self-renewing in perpetuity.

History shows us that most civilizations start out as nationalistic ones, or comprised of a group from similar ethnic backgrounds. By the time they collapse, these societies are beige, or of mixed ethnic background. Whether as a cause or consequence of civilization decline, the loss of nationalism heralds bad things for the future of that civilization.

In addition, nationalism makes sense because it eliminates internal conflict. A group of people of similar abilities and inclinations, sharing a culture, does not require much internal negotiation because people are all headed in roughly the same direction. There is a shared purpose and principles. Societies of this nature function more smoothly than those with high internal negotiation.

Further, having a common heritage means that not only is culture encoded in the genes of the population, but that people have a common identity which relates closely to the sense of purpose. Their civilization is not its government, money or victories, but both an end in itself and a means to an end of its purpose, which ties into itself. This seems elliptical at first but in fact reflects the ancient ideal of balance in that each part of the system works toward furthering other parts, so that none are divided from this core.

However, if nationalism is logical, then immigration — which adulterates nationalism — is not only foolish, but suicidal. It means the replacement of the civilization and its transition into the beige nation which will shortly thereafter fail, and become like all the other ruins of empires across the world.

The important thing to remember is that most people are self-destructive and groups doubly so because they avoid difficult thoughts, and therefore fail to address necessary questions, and leave themselves open to being blindsided by the reality that they deny. People view their survival as dependent on social cooperation with others, so they deny truth in favor of what pleases others to hear.

For this reason, most people will select insane ideas as a matter of course, and the more stress they feel, the more their social group will be stressed, encouraging them to retreat further from reality into a consensual hallucination of peer pressure.

Given that most people will, if not stopped, demand suicidal policies like immigration and its consequence, “diversity” or the existence of multiple ethnic groups in the same civilization, it becomes important to suppress the opinions of those who are prone to such thinking. At the upper end of human quality, in intelligence and character, are a rare few who can resist the self-destruction urge.

Class warfare arises when the rest, who are inherently self-destructive, decide that they are tired of being ruled by those who are competent. Those after all impede the will of those self-destructive people. As a result, they declare that all people are equal and none are more fit to rule than others, which then allows the self-destructive to implement their plans.

Diversity naturally arises from class warfare because importing foreign people allows the coalition of the self-destructive to have allies that they can use against the rest. Since people are equal, some system like democracy will result, and so having more warm bodies than the other side is how that coalition intends to win, and it imports those with an interest in destroying the culture.

This is the essence of diversity: despite its statements of all people being the same, it goal is to import those who are not similar to the rest of the population, so that this group can act against the interests of the majority. This is how all successful class warfare conflicts play out, even if they end in the collapse of the civilization.

In this way we can see how class warfare, diversity, immigration and nationalism comprise the same question.

Those who argue for diversity, especially conservatives, will argue that immigration is good if the groups “assimilate” or adopt the culture around them. This forgets that no group can assimilate because to do so is to self-destruct; every group has an interest in being itself, and individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to make another group beige so it can be conquered.

No group can assimilate. Each group has a self-interest which includes its identity, and assimilation requires the destruction of that. Some individuals can assimilate, but they serve as an ethnic vanguard that dilutes the ethnic similarity of the population, making it ready for conquest by others.

For a group to assimilate, it must give up on itself, and so while “take only the immigrants that assimilate” makes for a handy sound bite, it has no relation to reality. No immigrants assimilate. They merely serve to unwittingly destroy the host population. Those who do give up their culture find themselves confused about purpose and values, and tend to act destructively.

The Americans know this from the contrasting experience of Indians and African-Americans. Indians were relocated to reservations where they kept their identity; African-Americans starting in the 1960s were “assimilated,” leading to ethnic conflict in the cities and crime spurred by resentment at the loss of identity.

Diversity does not work. It can never work because it demands that people either destroy their identity to be accepted, or become permanent outsiders. It makes enemies of all the groups involved, and eventually ethnically destroys the majority through outbreeding. This is why failed empires are “beige nations” filled with only those left over after the cataclysm.

Chinese Racism As A Huge Force Multiplier

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017

Jim over at Isegoria has found yet another example of waste, fraud and abuse over in the DOD. It involves a poorly-formulated lamentation over racism in The Middle Kingdom. First and foremost, the Chinese would have to consider us legitimately Homo Sapiens before they could be any more racist against Whites like myself than I could be against somebody’s pet dog. Secondly, perhaps to our detriment one day, racism helps China immensely. Chinese Racism, like terrorism, works like Hell.

Unlike other Far-Left countries, China has a profound unifying force that allows them to even survive their own Drano-drink of Full-blown, idiotic Marxism. China can survive drinking the Molotov Cocktail of dialectical materialism because they are unified by their determined and unbreakable ¡RACISM! This, according to the OSD Office of Net Assessment has strategic consequences. I’m of the opinion that for China, ¡RACISM! is an awesome force multiplier. Here’s what the OSD-ONA has to say in service to our own ineluctable Political Correctness.

I. The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism:
Nine Major Consequences
II. A. Racism and Eugenics Heavily Inform the Chinese Worldview
II. B. Chinese Racism Informs Their View of the United States
II. C. Chinese Racism Informs Their View of International Politics
II. D. Chinese Appeals to “Racial Solidarity”
II. E. Chinese Racism Retards their Relations with the Third World
II. F. Chinese Racism Contributes to their Overconfidence
II. G. Racism Is Also a Strategic Asset that Makes China a Formidable Adversary
II. H. The Chinese Are Not Open to a Civil Rights Movement
II. I. The Treatment of Christians and Ethnic Minorities Within China

I respond to each bullet point in detail below.

  1. So racism and eugenics inform the Chinese worldview. This just means they are an intelligent people. Anyone with a brain and a sense of self-dignity makes their mating selection with an eye towards both racism and eugenics. Check out African-Americans on You-Tube and you’ll get one swirler for every five who crack jokes about “Whitey on The Woodpile” and accuse Black Females who date, sleep with or breed with Caucasoids of “Jumping the Fence” or being Bedwenches.

    Whites are equally judgemental; just way more subtle about it. For every one who flat-out ridicules “mud-sharking” or “drilling for oil;” you’ll get five who talk about (((Tolerance))) while quietly denying minorities the right to make any decisions that matter to them. George Lopez offers us a Hispanic perspective on the whole mating game. (Before he told the audience not to park their car in front of a Mexican’s house).

    When a man uses his brain in synonymy with his erectile organ, he probably practices a certain level of both racism and eugenics in his quest for just the right vessel for his seed. Oh, and don’t assume women think too differently. They sleep with the conqueror. It was Queen Victoria who advised her daughter to “Close her eyes and think of England.”

  2. Chinese racism also makes them properly leery of the Good ‘Ol US of A. Diversity plus proximity equals conflict. Diversity sows American disunity and turmoil. The United States is in metastable equilibrium on a good day. It’s Mt. Pinatubo waiting to blow off a smoking load. As American industries leave and American cities die from Pozz-poisoning, we have to export that pain somewhere. China, quite wisely, prefers not to land on that world of hurt.
  3. Chinese racism should inform their view of international politics. With the exception of the State of Israel being formed after WWII at the behest of a large plurality of the world community, rarely has the community of nations viewed the troubles of another diaspora as anything other than a marketing opportunity, a real estate play, or at worst; a veritable buffet of wealth to steal and flesh to despoil. You look after number one or number one gets flushed like a number two. In a cruel and uncaring world, it ain’t like anyone gives you a damn.
  4. China is lucky that it can appeal to racial solidarity. How did the pozz work out for Yugoslavia? Racial solidarity makes China, China and it used to make Japan, Japan. How is Japan’s population doing at self-replication lately? How is Russia’s? How is White Amerika’s? The Chinese have always historically succeeded at making more. Are France and Germany?
  5. China’s racism keeps them from getting sucked into the Third World. They buy up assets and stay away from the people. This is wise. Russian, American and Turkish military personnel die in Syria. Chinese do not. US personnel get gacked in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Chinese do not. Someone please explain to me how this is a bug as opposed to a feature.
    1. The Chinese are not involved where they have no interest.
    2. People know darn well what the real racists would throw down on their asses. The Pax Romanum was as racist as the Khymer Rouge. If you touched some dude named Julius, the Romans would take two boards and a handful of nails and gladly put you up for the night…
  6. Bullet point F is ridiculous. Show me who since Japan in WWII has totally worked a Chinese Army. Chinese racism only leads to overconfidence when you show me the army that could put them to flight, wreck their military and have its tanks and APCs doing doughnuts on the lawn at The Forbidden Palace. That guy that stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square was overconfident. The Chinese Army is pretty darn salty to describe as overconfident.
  7. This bullet point is more accurate. Real Racists have one another’s backs when they confront diversity. If you aren’t them, you won’t exactly like what they do to you. However, you will never see them doing what GOP Cucks routinely do to other Republicans. They never seem to get around to doing to each other what National Review did to Ayn Rand. They are too busy guarding one another’s backs. It’s almost as if they have an ironclad determination to see their own kind survive or something. Yes, this does make them formidable adversaries.
  8. I’m not sure what the OSD thinks having a Civil Rights Movement has to so with much of anything other than catamiting their Politically Correct masters. Civil Rights Movements often get subverted by the internal enemies of a country. Angela Merkel just let Muslims go marauding through Germany’s young women like a lawnmower through the new Spring grass because she was afraid of being called racist. If a Uighur lays one hand on a daughter of an Inner Party member, he will be short that hand and perhaps his head as well.
  9. Again, China will treat Christians, Muslims, ethnic minorities and anyone not named Wang, Chen or Chin the way other people treat their domestic animals — on a good day. That’s kind of the way they see us. When the dog craps on the rug, it gets spanked. When it gets too old to chew its bone, you take it out back and kill it with an axe. As for Christians and Muslims, the Middle Kingdom between Heaven and Earth is like an old Mississippi Golf Club. Both Jesus and Mohammad were the wrong race to apply for membership. “Tough titty.” Said the kitty.

So, in conclusion, this particular sparkling jewels of coruscating brilliance from our MI guys in The Five-Sided Puzzle Palace has several problems. The worst being that it was POMed for, included in a budget and paid for at taxpayer expense. You can’t defeat a legitimately hard-assed enemy like China if you are deliberately deceived by your own mythological propaganda.

In East Asia, everyone not you wants you to take a dirt nap. Therefore paranoia, irascibility, and racism all three become significant force multipliers as you fight to stay alive just one more generation. The Chinese have managed that feat successfully ever since Ghengis Khan got bored and rode away. There are raped, brutalized and traumatized women all over Germany and Sweden cursing their unjust fates that their own societies have failed to remain similarly ¡RACIST! The OSD isn’t helping our nation defend anything other than its own suicidal delusions with this piece of dreck analysis of China.

What Prompted The Rise Of The Alt Right?

Tuesday, March 28th, 2017

We know a movement not so much by its statements but by its aspirations. These are difficult to articulate, and group dynamics do not reward exact specificity so much as generating interest and emotional connection. As a movement groups, however — whether artistic, political, social or religious — it finds a need to clarify itself in order to avoid assimilation by entryists.

Such is the case as the Alt Right attempts to explain itself:

As the alt-right has grown, though, mainstream conservatives have loudly shot down suggestions that its rise has anything to do with them. “They are anti-Semites, they are racists, they are sexists, they hate the Constitution, they hate free markets, they hate pluralism, they despise everything we believe in,” American Conservative Union executive director Dan Schneider told Conservative Political Action Conference attendees last month. “They are not an extension of conservatism. …”

If memory serves, the Alt-Right emerged in the 2000s and defined itself against George W. Bush and “mainstream conservatism.” National Review was our foil at the time. In our eyes, it represented everything we were not: pro-immigration, pro-war, pro-free trade, politically correct, indifferent to White interests and submissive to the mainstream media.

We know the fundamental idea of the Alt Right was to serve as an alternative to existing Right-wing movements. While it is clear that it rebelled against mainstream conservatism, it also implicitly rebelled against the capture of the underground Right by National Socialist and other Leftist hybrids. This does not mean it rejected all of their ideas, only the totality of their ideas.

The Alt Right emerged from several strains of anti-egalitarian thought — social Darwinism through libertarianism, nationalism through human biodiversity, anti-democracy through Neoreaction, and a smattering of influences from the Old Right and underground Right — which came together into a simple framework: oppose equality and diversity, and strive for a society more like the West before the fall.

In this way, it unknowingly rejected modernity itself. The idea of equality gives rise to the notion of democracy and the idea of legitimized class warfare that is the basis of modern politics, as well as to the ideation behind diversity and feminism. While most Alt Righters recognize those movements as opposition, it has not yet dug deeply enough to see its anti-modern tendencies.

The Alt Right is beginning to recognize its actual mission which is to restore Western Civilization. We are starting to see that we live in a totally fallen time, and that to get back on track, we will have to reverse course and start over.

In this way, the only contribution that mainstream conservatism made was to turn itself into an ideological movement like Leftism, and thus unconsciously adopt Leftist assumptions. Conservatism is a means to an end, and that end is having a thriving and not simply utilitarian society so that we can achieve greatness again. Without that, all movements fail among the ruins.

Identity Provides A Cure For The Egomania Of Modernity

Friday, March 24th, 2017

We love to accuse strong leaders of megalomania. Stalin, Mussolini, Trump: the problem with them, we reason, is that they are driven by their egos. What we are experiencing is a classic case of projection. The gnarly fact of the modern West is that most people live in a bubble of their own megalomania.

In a society designed around equality, social status is geared toward a minimum. Demanding that everyone be equal means that all are accepted, but that any rank higher than that is delivered through popularity, much like how voting and consumerism make celebrities and billionaires. This creates constant competition for importance, which people signal through a sense of self-importance.

This pretense manifests as everyday egomania. It is not just the selfish choice to ignore the needs of others, but a total disregard for consequences in general. They act to make themselves look good, showing off what they own and their job titles and their position in a social group. This makes people hateful and negative toward one another.

Identity, on the other hand, requires one to shed that identity in favor of belonging not so much to a group but to an idea. A civilization is a tangible thing that is perpetuated by an idea. Like transcendentals, it is both immutable and ongoing, which means that people are always striving to achieve more of the idea.

However, most good things in life are this way. A novelist spends his life trying to perfect the expression of his theory of existence. An artist always tries to capture that one moment when the light was just right. A scientist discovers a process and then spends the rest of her days trying to perfect it and fully explain it. The same is true of civilization.

In contrast to this, most people choose to go further into themselves. They do not reach out to timeless, immutable and ongoing goals; instead, they focus on the tangible and immediate because it is less threatening. This separates them from the pursuits which will bring them a sense of meaning to their lives by virtue of being larger than the individual.

Identity presents itself as a transcendental in this context. One is no longer serving the individual or the group, but the idea of civilization as manifested in both. By pursuing principle, the individual is able to lose himself and gain a world. By doing that, he transcends the elements of his existence, and instead embraces something eternal.

For this reason, identity salves the question of mortality. Fragile individuality is transferred to an ongoing process, and the stronger parts of the individual are expressed as manifestations of this process as it is expressed as expressions of those inner values. The barriers between self and world erode, and a sense of unity prevails.

All of us recognize that the shallow/callow world of consumerism, celebrity and politics cannot provide a future for us. We do not even enjoy the present, and we know the future brings more of it and an intensifying form of it. The only alternate path is to start living for more than the abyss of self, and among the other transcendentals, identity provides a way.

“16 Points Of The Alt Right” That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

One of the most important experiences in life is to see how good enough is the enemy of good. Most people will settle for good enough, which results in them not only failing to address actual needs, but because they have engaged in surrogate and proxy behavior, concluding that they have fixed a problem which is now strengthened.

The good enough serves to kill off the weak of the enemy, leaving only the strong. And yet, it is more convenient, so people drift toward it like moths to flame, kids to soft drinks, voters to the early stages of Communism, and the like. Whenever you want to actually end a problem, fear the “good enough” like the plague, because it will defeat you.

Vox Day was kind enough to write back a terse reply to a recent Amerika article on the Alt Lite. He writes:

It’s an irrelevant response that completely fails to understand my position. You should try attacking my actual positions: start with the 16 Points.

So, then, let us look at the 16 points:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

While this sounds good on the surface, and in the modern time this is how writers succeed, note what it does not tell you: what the Right actually is. Instead, we have a list of things that are not Alt Right, without attacking the core: Leftism, which is like The Enlightenment™ a type of egalitarianism, and its political counterpart, democracy. Until that rubicon is crossed, the above sounds very Republican with a touch of paleoconservative.

2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

This is a misdirection. First, very few conservatives have read Russell Kirk, and most base their conservatism on the mainstream ideas pro-business, free markets, strong defense, pro-Israel, small government, and “muh freedom.” Libertarians are people who hope to hold off Leftism with freedom of association despite that having worked never throughout history. But classical liberalism (libertarianism) and mainstream conservatism both lead to Leftism, as we see in the transition to neoconservatism, because they are still based in the idea of equality. In this view, how is the Alt Right an alternative? Obviously it is not, and therefore, this definition does not fit the Alt Right.

3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

There is much to like here, but why is “cultural tradition” used instead of tradition? There is an implication of culture as separate from race, which history shows us is not the case. It also makes sense to clarify what “science” is here, since most “science” seems to have been hijacked by moneyed interests and the Left.

4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

This unfortunately misses the point on two levels. First, this “pinnacle of human achievement” is a universalist concept that leaves us open to entry by anyone else who can demonstrate some kind of relevance to this pinnacle, which has already failed (again) and left us standing among the ruins. Second, these three pillars miss the point: Western Civilization is Western People, who when they act according to their character create all the other things mentioned. Some points should be given for “the European nations,” which seems to be a refutation of white nationalism, or the idea of melting all white people together into a generic/universal white tribe.

5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

It was doing so well until that second sentence. Nationalism should be defined here: what is a nation and how does it relate to ethnic group and race? The answer can be found in The Nationalism FAQ: nationalism is the philosophy that states that a nation is defined by an ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Nigeria for Nigerians, Japan for Japanese, Israel for Jews. At least he mentions homogeneity, but then again, when defined so vaguely, this could mean anything, such as “we’re all Christian.” Instead of focusing on these “rights” to exist and be free of invasion and immigration, it might have made more sense to focus on self-determination and the ability to exclude others, including those among us who are of our tribe but defective.

6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Check! No problem here. However, since nationalism is the opposite of globalism, this one is somewhat redundant.

7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Check! But why did it not mention the founding issue of the Left, which is class warfare? If one cannot admit the differences between castes and classes, we are back in French Revolution territory.

8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

A thousand times no. The “scientific method” is deductive from material only, and misses out on both logical fact and any order beyond the material. This seems designed for the IFLScience crowd.

9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This cleverly sidesteps an issue: the Alt Right believes that race is upstream of culture and culture is upstream of politics.

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Unfortunately, this language is painfully vague. Who is native, and to what? This sounds to me like a crypto-JQ statement, which misses the point that what destroys nations is collapse from within, and scapegoating the outsider misses the culpability we have for selecting egalitarianism, as every collapsing civilization seems to do.

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

This is one of those catchphrases that sounds good but does not express the whole truth: diversity = civilization collapse, with the recognition that diversity (a synonym for “multiculturalism” or its French Revolutionary equivalent, “internationalism” as later expressed by “workers of the world, unite!”) means the mixing of different ethnic groups into one nation-state.

12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

While technically correct, this statement reeks of teenage bluster, and misses the real point: unlike demotic movements, the Alt Right affirms that what is actual and real is more important than collective opinion, and that only some can perceive with higher degrees of accuracy, so we follow them in a hierarchical order instead of trying some crowd-sourced “find the truth through our navels” type democratic event.

13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

No objections here. However, it might be wiser to take the broader approach and point out that culture is more important than commerce. What is efficient and profitable is not always good, and so while we are believers in free markets, we recognize that no free market exists without a culture and those standards come first. Pornography, drugs, and gadgets for idiots are profitable; they are not desirable, at least on a wide scale.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Point number fourteen is David Lane’s fourteen words. No objections here other than the reek of white nationalism which seeks to reduce our national identities to “white,” which only seems sensible when one lives in a mixed-ethnic state. Nationalism covers this topic well enough: we want to survive, and the only way to do that is to show up for the future through our descendants.

15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

This is roughly a summary of the Pan-Nationalism project that I and other CORRUPT/Amerika writers launched back in the early 2000s. No disagreement here.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

A smart politician, the author offers an olive branch to the Left. At first this statement seems (emotionally) appealing until one realizes that it commits us to being world peacemakers to end ethnic conflict between other groups. A saner statement is that we represent our own interests only, and the rest of the world needs to take care of itself. Altruism is dead.

He reaches a clearer statement here:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage.

In doing so, while engaging in smart politics, he creates a great error. As Evola noted, race is tripartite, consisting of body, mind and spirit. We are defined first by our genetic heritage and more importantly, genetic interests, but also our ability to uphold the tenets and purpose of Western Civilization.

We are not democrats; not everyone is acceptable and destined to be included, even if they are of the “right” heritage. Only those who can do what is necessary to rebuild Western Civilization are welcome because there are many degenerates and sociopaths among us, and there is no need to include those.

The problem with the Alt Lite is that it represents “good enough”: a series of patches to democracy to keep it afloat, when our downfall began with the idea of egalitarianism and any vestige of that which we retain will re-create the same conditions that brought us to our current state. We must get to the root of the problem and remove that or we simply repeat history, which the Alt Lite seems to favor.

Again, the Alt Lite misses the point: the Alt Right is designed as an alternative to both mainstream conservatism and blockheaded White Nationalism. If we wanted blockhead white nationalism, we would have simply joined those groups. We want a more far-reaching purpose in the restoration of Western Civilization, and the Alt Lite is another “good enough” that stands in our way.

Interview With Jonathan Stern

Saturday, March 18th, 2017

Image: Ha’aretz.

Kahanism is a realist Israeli/Jewish nationalist position. It asserts the need for the Jewish people to live by their own standards, acting toward self-determination, preserving their own methods and values against the norming and entropy that is the default of the world. We were fortunate to get in an interview with Jonathan Stern, a Kahanist thinker and political force who has spoken in the past in defense of pan-nationalism.

What is Kahanism, and how does it differ from other Zionist, pro-Jewish or pro-Israel movements?

Kahanism is a right wing Jewish nationalist movement founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. The ideology of Kahanism is known as the “Jewish Idea” and teaches that the Jewish people must form a Jewish-only ethno-national state in the Land of Israel which would be governed by Torah Law, not democracy. One obstacle to forming such a state is the presence of millions of Arab Muslim occupiers, who migrated into the land of Israel over the centuries since the Roman Dispersion in 70 AD, so Rabbi Kahane was extremely active in advocating for their deportation en masse from Israel and this is what he is most famous for. 

However Kahanism isn’t just about Israel. Kahanism also espouses a global worldview which promotes nationalism in across the world and opposes multiculturalism. Kahanism is a traditionalist ideology which opposes liberalism, drug use, rap music, tattoos, promiscuity, homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and opposes intermarriage and the cultural assimilation of Jews into gentile society. One of the core tenets of Kahanism is “every Jew a .22”, and Kahanists believe that in order to be strong and free, Jews must arm themselves.

Hence Kahanism is extremely pro-2nd amendment and you will be hard pressed to find a Kahanist that doesn’t carry (or at least own) a firearm. Rabbi Kahane fiercely supported the war in Vietnam, (even writing a book about it called The Jewish Stake in Vietnam) and was a ferocious enemy of Communism, notoriously leading a violent campaign of terror against the USSR in the 1970s and 80s. Kahane also supported Apartheid in South Africa.

In regards to the United States: we believe that America was built as a White, Judeo-Christian country and that this is what has led it to be great. We do not hate Blacks for being black, nor do we hold animosity towards members of any other race simply because of their being born into that race. However we realize that multiculturalism and “diversity” are destroying the fabric of this country, and see that this experiment of a giant ethnic melting pot made up of people sharing no ethnic identity, cultural commonality or history is a disaster and is ultimately unsustainable. Hence we feel a natural kinship with White, Christian Americans who have allowed us to flourish in this country, and to whom we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

While Kahanism is a branch of Zionism, most Zionists consider us to be racists, bigots and right-wing extremists since we oppose western democracy, and reject the idea of a secular, socialist, multicultural Israel where Arabs are given full rights as citizens. There are several different factions within Zionism, [which are] Labor Zionism (Socialist/Communist), Revisionist Zionism (Capitalist/democratic), and Religious Zionism (Religious/Statist). While Kahanism is a form of Religious Zionism, it is much less tolerant and politically correct than mainstream Religious Zionism which believes in peace with Arabs and promotes “religious and ethnic tolerance.”

Would you say it was “right wing,” as the media does, and if so, do you consider nationalism to be a right-wing view?

I would say that at least according to today’s concepts of left and right, Kahanism certainly falls well within the right-wing camp. Accordingly, nationalism in and of itself also falls within the category of “right wing” under those same notions. 

What drew you to this viewpoint, and how has it changed your life since?

I became involved in Kahanism at a very early age, as a result of the Crown Heights Riots in 1991, where blood-thirsty black mobs rampaged through the streets of that New York City Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, murdering and pillaging at will; while the NYPD (under the order of Black leftist mayor Dinkins) stood by watching and allowed it to happen.

This event taught me several things: that no matter what the liberal Jewish establishment tells us, blacks and other minorities are not our friends, and liberal politicians will allow Jews to get killed in order to pander to their votes. I understood that we can never rely on others to protect ourselves, and that Jews must arm themselves and train hard for communal defense. And it made me understand that even though we are ethnically unique and a nation unto ourselves, Jews are White and that Jews in America must live among Whites and unite with our fellow Whites in order to defend ourselves against these savages.

I became very close with Rabbi Binyamin Ze’ev Kahane, the son and heir of Rabbi Meir Kahane, (Binyamin [was] later murdered by Islamic Terrorists in the West Bank in 2000) and I have been active ever since. Kahanism has empowered me to be a strong, proud Jew, brought me to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and fight for the land of Israel, and has inspired me to advocate and pass on my ideology to others.

How much has Kahanism been revived by the victories of Trump and other right-leaning events, like Brexit and Hungary shifting right, and possible quasi-nationalist victories in the Netherlands and France?

It is impossible to even begin to quantify the degree to which Kahanism has been revived by Brexit, the victory of Trump, and the rise of the National Front in France and other populist movements in Europe. What we have in common with all these movements is that we are all Nationalists. The Torah teaches us that there are 70 nations, each with its own language, identity and culture, and that this is the way G-d intended the world to be.

Artificial and unnatural globalist entities such as the European Union destroy the boundaries between one nation and the other, and these boundaries exist in order to maintain balance in our world. People across the western world today are waking to up to how destructive multiculturalism has been to all but the globalist elite and third world savages, and are revolting against this globalist tyranny which has already caused so much damage and mayhem. These nationalist victories have given us a shot of energy not seen in decades.

Each day, more and more people are flocking to our cause and joining the ranks of our movement. After almost two decade of being practically inactive, we are now having large events and rallies where hundreds of excited young people attend and bring their friends. Our online presence has also elicited a tremendous response from supporters (both Jewish and Gentile) from across the globe, wishing to lend us support. 

Theodor Herzl wrote that the only way to escape persecution by national populations was to become a national population, effectively ending the diaspora. Do you think this is possible and, if so, what form would it take?

Herzl was correct in his assessment that the Jewish people will eventually need to become a national population, all residing in our own homeland in the land of Israel, and that this will be the only practical solution to defeat antisemitism. Now, mind you, I didn’t say, end antisemitism; I said defeat it, because antisemites will always hate the Jewish people no matter where we are, and will always attempt to annihilate us, even as a national population in our own land. However if we create a powerful ethno-national Jewish state with the right ideology, we will be able to fend off these attacks and no enemy will ever succeed in defeating us. 

The problem with this is the practical aspect. First of all we have the current state of Israel, which is frankly a disaster. It was established as a secular, socialist state, built on the Soviet model by avowed communists. Instead of adopting Torah Law as its basis, it adopted western values and a tailor-suited version of “democracy” in order to run things. The result has been where you have a state that on the one hand claims to be Jewish, yet on the other allows millions of homicidal Arabs to reside and vote there, even though they are murdering Jewish citizens every day.

The state also prides itself on its gun control, Socialism, embracing “gay rights,” and promoting every disgusting Cultural Marxist perversion under the sun. There is a large population of right-wing religious Jews there who would gladly put the state on the right course, but the Globalist leaders stymie them and go so far as to employ draconian measures such as arbitrary arrests and administrative detention (open-ended jail terms without trial or access to legal council) in order to silence them. Rabbi Kahane’s political party, Kach, was banned in Israel by left-wing socialist Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1994, and so Jewish Nationalists like us are essentially unable to advance our cause there for the time being.

We hope that eventually we will be able to replace this disgraceful entity with a true Jewish State, a State of Judea, and that at that point all the Jews of the world (left wing multiculturalists excluded) will be able to return there and fulfill this dream. We are fighting hard each and every day for that to occur. But for the time being, it seems that right wing Nationalist Jews can accomplish much more to advance our goals while living in the United States. We may have to wait a long time to all return to our homeland, but we have unbreakable faith that one day it will happen.

How must Israel deal with the problems of hostile populations within its borders, such as Palestinians, and hostile populations elsewhere in the middle east, such as many of the more fundamentalist Muslim states?

If Israel was a true Jewish state, it would round up all Muslims within its borders and expel them to any other Muslim country as Rabbi Kahane proposed. Once they are expelled, the problem of an internal security threat will cease to exist. In regards to fundamentalist Muslim States in the Middle East, there must be a policy of an iron fist. If any one of them so much as dares to lift a finger against the Jews, they must be attacked brutally and punished to the point where they will never again consider belligerence.

If that means random carpet bombing of their cities and killing large amounts of civilians (such as what the US and Britain did to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII), so be it. Aside from this iron fist policy, there is no reason for us to intervene to overthrow secular Arab dictators (such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Moamar Ghaddafi, and Hosni Mubarak) so long as those dictators keep to themselves and do not bother us in our own land. What happens between them and their people is their own business and none of our concern. We do not need to be in the business of “promoting democracy” in the Middle East.

Do you think it is reasonable, realistic and logical for the United States to ban some Muslim immigration?

I think it is reasonable, realistic and logical to ban all Muslim immigration into the US. The question is only one of if there is a will by the people. I believe a majority of Americans support banning Muslims from coming here. The only thing standing in our way is a handful of radical left wing activist judges. Just like a majority of this country rejected homosexual “marriage” yet these activist judges ignored the popular will and forced it down the everybody’s throat, and more recently with the activist San Francisco Federal Judges overturning Trumps lawful executive order banning Muslims, these judges are the real obstacle standing in our way. And the truth is that there is a very simple solution to this problem: just ignore their rulings.

There is actually precedent for this in our history. In the 1830s the Supreme Court refused to allow the removal of Indians from their lands in the South, but the President just ignored them and did it anyway. These judges only have as much power as we are willing to give them. If Trump were to completely ignore their rulings and force policy, what power would they really have to stop him? Of course this again comes down to the question of if there is a will by the American people to do this. Because if there is, nothing can stop us. But there is another elephant in the room here staring us in the face which we can not afford to ignore.

What about all the Muslims already here? Even if you banned every Muslim in the world from setting foot in America, you’d still have several million “Muslim Americans” who are already established here AND have been committing ALL of the Islamic terror attacks we have faced in recent years. Why is everyone ignoring them? Why should their piece of paper stating that they are US citizens differentiate them from a Muslim fresh off the Boat from Syria or Afghanistan? In fact, they are much likelier to commit an attack than a new comer from the Middle East. So the only answer in regards to effectively solving this problem is for all Muslims to be actively removed from the United States, including those who are American Citizens. Of course the ACLU will cry “racism!”, but at the end of the day, this is the only way to make America safe and no other proposal will ever actually work.

What do you think is the future of the “melting pot” model of the United States? If Herzl was correct, would this not lead to an internal clash of civilizations between different minority groups?

I believe that the “melting pot” model of the United States is an unworkable disaster and is bound to lead to a horrific end result. Without a doubt, this will lead to a massive clash of civilizations among different populations which is likely to descend into a full-out civil war. I am sure if Herzl were alive today, he would tell you exactly that.

You have told Haaretz newspaper that Richard Spencer is “a white nationalist who stands up for white people and there is nothing wrong with that.” Does this mean you believe in pan-nationalism, or nationalism for all ethnic groups?

I am a Jewish Nationalist first and foremost, but Jews are White, so naturally I recognize the logic behind White Nationalism. One should promote his own ethnicity first and foremost before he promotes the interests of others. Blacks do this, Muslims do this, Hispanics do this, so should Whites. So I respect Spencer for his level-headed advocacy in defense of the White Race. I definitely believe in nationalism for all ethnic groups. 

How do you reconcile the need for the principle of nationalism with the fact that this will involve supporting others who are hostile to Jews, or even derive some inspiration from National Socialism or Islam? Can nationalists “work together separately”?

Being a nationalist means putting the interests of one’s own nation above all else. If working with people who are somewhat antisemitic would advance our national goals, I would have no problem doing this. I would even work with Muslims if it helped our cause. I will give you one example where we actually did this to great effect. In 2005 an international (George Soros funded) homosexual coalition planned a massive gay festival in Jerusalem called “Inter-pride,” which was supposed to include gay parades, marches, film festivals, concerts, conferences, and numerous parties which always descend into sickening drugged-out gay orgies.

I was in Israel at the time, and we realized that in order to stop this abomination from taking place, we would need to join forces with other groups which we are unfriendly with, but share our anti-gay agenda. We reached out to the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations, Orthodox Christians, and even the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. As a result of the contacts we made, all of these leaders joined forces with the Ashkenazi and Sefardic Chief Rabbis of Israel and held a massive press conference to denounce and reject this disgusting event. In the end, the Israeli government caved under pressure and cancelled the Sodomite festival. I have never worked with Muslims (or other enemies) ever since, and I hope I never have to again. But If I have to in order to achieve an important goal, I will.

However there are limits. There is no way at any point in time and for any reason that I (or any other Kahanist for that matter) would ever work with or join forces with Nazis or anyone who believes in or promotes any form of Nazism. That would make us sell-outs to our own people. However unlike many other Jews, I do recognize that most White Nationalists are not Nazis, and I hope to build strong working relations with various WN groups and leaders.

Do you think that “Leftist Jews” create enmity that is then attributed to Jews in general, and that perhaps the problem with certain high-profile Jewish people is their Leftism, not their Jewishness?

I absolutely agree that leftist Jews cause a tremendous amount of antisemitism. For instance, several high-profile leftist Jews were very active with the ANC fighting to undermine the White Government in South Africa during the 70s and 80s. The White South Africans welcomed them into their country, gave them freedom and enabled them to become wealthy and successful, and in return they stabbed South Africa in the back in favor of a bunch of bongo-beating, machete-wielding savages who deeply hate Jews and consider us useful idiots.

I am solidly convinced that the antisemitism of Eugene Terreblanche and the AWB was a direct result of this stab in the back by these few, vocal Marxist Jews, because in general the Boers are very pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist. And to be honest with you, I can totally understand them if that was the experience they had with Jews. Same goes for the liberal Jews in America who marched to end segregation in the South in the 60’s, end the Vietnam War and those that are promoting open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, homosexuality, transsexuals, abortion, debauchery, and every perversion under the sun today. If I was a hard-working, red blooded White American and constantly saw Jews promoting this garbage which undermines the nation that my ancestors fought so hard to build and maintain, I’d probably hate Jews too!

However what these folks don’t realize is that those outspoken, liberal Jews do not represent Judaism in any way and do not speak for all Jews. They only represent the spineless, Reform and Conservative, multi-culturalist SJW Jews, whose loyalty is not to G-d or Judaism, but rather to globalism and their own perverted selves. These pathetic Ghetto-Jews make Jews like me absolutely sick, and we commit ourselves to countering them at every opportunity possible.

Despite this, there will always be a segment of the population that no matter what, would and will always hate Jews. If every Jew in the world voted republican, supported Nationalism, heterosexuality, gun rights, etc, etc, they would still want to exterminate us, because they are Amalekites and that is their nature. These types of antisemites only understand a Jewish fist, and that is exactly what we intend to give them. 

Do you think that Jewish people are more prone to Leftism than other groups, and if so, why? Do you see this as an inherent tendency, or an adaptive one related to being outsiders among national populations, or having some kind of internal conflict about being part of a religious/cultural/ethnic minority in a time when all of those things are somewhat taboo?

I think that proportionally, secular Jews in America are more likely to be liberals than members of other populations. I think the reason for this is that almost 2000 years of exile from their homeland, and living under a variety of oppressive foreign rulers has not only broken their fighting spirit, but caused them to adopt a perpetual victim identity and to always identify with the perceived underdog. Whereas, I see the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, and say that never again will my people be helpless victims of persecution.

I have learned to be strong in body and spirit and, to own firearms and prep for the day when I may have to defend my family and community. These libtard Jews on the other hand saw these same events and came to a diametrically different conclusion. They see that since this was done to us, we need to make sure that this will never again be done to any other people. So they start out by feeling compassion for poor, persecuted minority groups all across the world, and then they end up deluding themselves into believing that by advancing a “progressive” agenda, helping all the poor suffering illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, “persecuted” homosexuals and transvestites, they are actually fulfilling a divine mission to make the world a better place. It’s delusional, but they seriously believe this, and their reform and conservative quack “Rabbis” egg them on with this garbage. 

This “social justice” insanity can be broken, but it will take for these confused Jews to return to Torah and adopt an Orthodox lifestyle for their years of brainwashing to be broken and reversed. I know many people like this who grew up in convoluted Reform and Conservative leftist households, eventually saw that it was empty and fake and turned to Orthodoxy. Once they became religious and broke their ties with their former communities, they were able to see the farce that these liberal Jews believe in as what it is.

One thing to consider is that while these secular leftist Jews are quickly dying out due to a low birth rate and intermarriage with gentiles, the Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly due to a high birth rate and almost no intermarriage. Orthodox Jews are generally much more politically right wing, and solidly vote republican. In fact, most would be considered very far to the right, especially in regards to social issues. Demographics can not be ignored, and the Judaism of America’s future is Orthodox, not Reform or Conservative, so keep in mind that the politics are already changing now and will continue to change in the future.

If people want to support Kahanism, or follow your work, how can they do so and is there a way that they can donate or support you?

If people would like to follow us or get involved, we are active on Facebook. Just search for “the Kahanist Movement.” We get shut down regularly by Facebook for “promoting racism,” so don’t be surprised if that happens again. But as fast as they shut us down, we always start up again. We’re also getting active on Twitter. If anyone wants to contact or donate to the Kahanist movement, you can call us at (718) 395-7405, or email Gennadiy:

This was an amazing interview that gives all of us quite a bit to think about. Thank you, and best of luck plus our support in your quest!

White People Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.

In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.

Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.

Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.

In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.

White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.

Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.

In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.

Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.

If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:

Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.

The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.

Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.

Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.

Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.

In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.

The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.

Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.

Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.

For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.

For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.