May 1, 2015

New York Times Stumbles onto the Truth About Baltimore: Discovers Why Blacks Riot

via American Renaissance

An article from yesterday’s New York Times about the relative calm in Baltimore stumbled by accident onto something like the real reason why blacks were rioting. Near the famous burned-out CVS–the city had begged the company to “invest” in a dodgy neighborhood–the Times reporter found someone it identified as “Robert Wilson, a college student who went to high school in Baltimore.” The article concludes with Mr. Wilson’s explanation of why blacks rioted. He said nothing about Freddie Gray or police brutality. Instead, he said this:
We’re just angry at the surroundings–like this is all that is given to us?–and we’re tired of this, like nobody wants to wake up and see broken-down buildings. They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers, and now we have traffic lights that don’t work, we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.
This quote almost perfectly captures the black mentality that leads to rioting. Blacks live in neighborhoods that they, themselves, have wrecked, and then ask, “This is all that is given to us?”

Hard-working white people built the “broken-down” buildings Mr. Wilson is complaining about. Many had parquet floors, high ceilings, and fine moldings found today only in the most expensive new construction.

After the riots in Baltimore in 1968, whites panicked and sold their property at desperation prices. Now, these houses are “broken down” because blacks didn’t maintain them. This pattern of white flight and “broken down” houses was repeated in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Washington, St. Louis, Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and countless other American cities. Some of the best city housing in the world was handed over to blacks who wrecked it. Neighborhoods filled with irreplaceable architecture are now wastelands.

Mr. Wilson complains that “we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.” The remedy for crumbling houses is for the people who live in them to fix them, but instead, Mr. Wilson asks, “Is this all that is given to us?”

Like so many blacks, Mr. Wilson doesn’t realize how perverse it is even to think in terms of pleasant houses and neighborhoods being “given” to anyone. Does he imagine the white authorities “giving” nice neighborhoods to whites and cruelly handing out slums to blacks? They didn’t start out as slums. Whites saved and worked hard to build those neighborhoods. They maintained them, repaired them, and loved them.

But in today’s world of welfare, food stamps, government housing, and white guilt, Mr. Wilson doesn’t know any better than to ask for handouts. Jesse Jackson is just as self-absorbed. At the funeral for Freddie Gray he wanted to know, “Why can’t the [black] West Side get the same things downtown gets?” Jesse Jackson is asking the same question: “Is this all that is given to us?”

And who, exactly, is not giving enough? Baltimore elected its first black mayor in 1987. Today, the mayor, the police chief, the fire chief, and half the police force are black. Two thirds of the population and most of the city council are black. But when Mr. Wilson and Jesse Jackson complain about stinginess, they are not blaming Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; they are blaming white people.

Mr. Wilson says Baltimore’s blacks rioted because they are “angry at the surroundings.” Blacks make their surroundings ugly and miserable, and then make them even more ugly and miserable by burning them down. And then they ask, “Is this all that is given us?”

Mr. Wilson has more complaints: “They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers.” Mayor Rawlings-Blake cut funding for 20 of 55 city-run community centers in 2013, but private foundations and neighborhood organizations kept most of them going. Rioters burned one down on Monday.

And fathers? In 1983, Baltimore had the highest black illegitimacy rate in the country: 76 percent, at a time when the national rate for blacks was about 55 percent. Now that the national black rate is 72 percent, what is the figure likely to be for Baltimore? Ninety percent? Ninety-five percent? Whoever “they” are didn’t have to work very hard to “take away our fathers.” Black fathers were never there to begin with.

It’s no surprise that Mr. Wilson thinks blacks haven’t been “given” what they deserve, and that “they” took away his father. He’s a college student–probably on scholarship–and that’s what blacks are taught from grade school.

The New York Times invariably blames “racism” and white privilege for the plight of blacks. It assumes that if only whites could curb their bigotry, blacks would bloom and flourish. It is remarkable that it concluded this article with a quotation that so brutally undercuts its own assumptions. People who think “they” have taken away their fathers, who blame others for their “broken down buildings,” who look at misery of their own making and ask “Is this all that is given to us?”–such people will not bloom and flourish no matter what white people do. Nor do they deserve to.

Race & Conspiracy Theory

via Counter-Currents

Alex Jones
We are, though most of us don’t yet know it, near the end of a prolonged globalist plan for worldwide eugenics. At least eighty percent of the earth’s human population will be dead at the successful completion of this plan. Some experts, who have studied secret documents extensively, put the figure even higher. Alex Jones, the talk-radio personality, is among the pessimists. His thorough research has led him to conclude that the death-toll of extermination through eugenics will be well over ninety percent.

Humanity as a whole has a stake in derailing the globalist plan, since all of us are potential victims. We should, however, have particular concern for the fate of black and brown populations, who are a special target of the eugenicists. Some of them, like the late Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, are literal nazis and come by their hostility to non-Whites ideologically. Leaders of the New World Order are, in general, white supremacist in their racial thinking. They are filled with loathing for all of humankind, yet they feel a special loathing for the black and brown portions thereof.

Among experts opinions differ about the date that the eugenicist program for world government was initiated. It may have begun in pagan Babylon, the mother of harlots, far back in biblical times, witness the fact that so many of the globalist elite, like Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, are occultists and even practicing Satanists. Other experts, following traditional conspiracy research, point to the Illuminati in the late 1700s as the ongoing source of lethal eugenicist ambitions. In modern history a key moment was the assassination of John Kennedy; America has been in the grip of the conspirators ever since.

Their goal is global government led by a Caucasian elite, a small group of secretive technocrats who will rule the remainder of the world’s population, which will have been cleansed eugenically of most of its racial impurities. Some members of this supremacist elite intend to merge their minds with machines and live forever. They will have transcended humanity in their own lives, just as they will have transcended what they regard as the lower forms of humanity by eliminating most of them physically. Western aid programs in Africa are part of this plan. Far from helping Black Africans, aid programs aim to eradicate them.

Superficially it may appear, to anyone who has not delved deeply into the conspiracy, that political elites across much of the West genuinely favor non-White populations. They are, after all, inviting large numbers of them to live in historically White nations and often reward non-Whites with affirmative-action preferences in employment. In some Western jurisdictions opponents of Third World immigration face criminal charges from the same political establishments that encourage race-replacing immigration. In Greece the job description for an anti-immigration politician must include a willingness to conduct much of his campaigning from the confines of a jail cell. It therefore appears that Western elites do prefer non-White immigrants over their own native-born populations.

But appearances can be deceiving, because, if understood correctly, non-traditional immigration and preferential treatment of minorities are in fact only eugenicist tactics to incite conflict among the various racial groups, with the goal of preventing them from organizing non-racially in opposition to the program of the globalists. Racial violence could also be used as a pretext to impose martial law, which would make the objectives of the globalists easier to realize. That is why globalist eugenicists work so hard to encourage racial tensions and violence.

These globalists pay people to stir up racial animosity. They lavishly fund most of the White nationalist websites on the Internet, and they also pay individual agents to foment bigotry in online forums. If you see someone complaining about Black-on-White violence or the latest race riot, the chances are good that he is in the pay of the globalists. Even if he is innocent of conscious deception, he is guilty of allowing himself to be manipulated by eugenicist power elites.

It is crucially important that we not be ensnared by their trickery. Standing up for our own people would only benefit the globalists and further their eugenicist schemes. Destructive riots may tempt us to feel hostile to Black rioters, since they often single out members of our race for violence. But we shouldn’t succumb to the temptation. We must be firm in our resolve to ignore evidence of racial hostility directed against us and focus our attention instead on the eugenicists who are orchestrating it behind the scenes. George Soros, a former nazi collaborator, is prominent among them.

Our salvation will be a return to the old color-blind interpretation of the Constitution, which will benefit all races. Although those of us who understand the conspiracy are often misidentified as right-wingers in the mainstream media, we have rejected the Left-Right paradigm, which is merely another device to foster social division. Martin Luther King, the illustrious champion of color-blind politics, is a hero among us, though sadly few Blacks are as yet aware of the divide-and-conquer strategy and too often act out the violent roles assigned to them in the political script written by the eugenicists. We who can see behind the curtain are not fooled.

Let us now return to the real world.

Anyone who has listened to Alex Jones’ popular radio program will recognize that I have not exaggerated the imaginative idiocy of this conspiracy theory. It is unlikely that the preceding summary is entirely unfamiliar either, since the theory has spread widely. If it is a fringe set of ideas, it occupies a bigger fringe than White Nationalism.

Since I am not a conspiracy theorist, I will not suggest that this conspiracy theory is itself the result of a conspiracy. I am confident it is not. But at first glance it would be hard to conceive of a better structure for inhibiting racialism among Whites. The abundant evidence that multiracialism is dysfunctional will be interpreted by believers in the theory as evidence that globalist elites, intent on eugenics and world government, are working to make it dysfunctional and using the dysfunctions they cause as part of their scheme.

If you believe that is true, then you will refrain from talking about the manifest deficiencies of multiracial anti-nations, because that would only help set the stage for your own enslavement or physical elimination. You will also make certain that you do nothing to encourage racial division. Defense of your own group implies separation from other groups, which is allegedly the object of the globalists. Racial passivity by the White majority is a necessary response to the globalist threat as conspiracy theory presents it.

Yet a surprising feature of this influential brand of conspiracy theory is that it is possible to defend the West and the historic American nation even from within it. Alex Jones, a highly talented but deranged rabble-rouser, is the theory’s most effective promoter. He is opposed to the illegal immigration invasion from Mexico and occasionally opposes the largely legal Muslim invasion of Europe. He speaks critically of Third World immigration not because he wants to defend his own people, which would be sinfully “racist” and a repudiation of color-blind politics, but because he believes that massive non-White immigration is part of the eugenicist plan to stir up racial tension. He does, nevertheless, oppose it, even though the reasons he provides for his opposition are wildly improbable.

He also opposes globalist trade agreements and the security state’s encroachments on civil liberties. He opposes neoconservative wars and regime changes in the Middle East. He is a sincere and forceful supporter of the Second Amendment. He defends Western nation-states as bulwarks against globalism. At times he hints at a lack of enthusiasm for homosexual marriage, though he alleges that the issue itself is just another eugenicist trick to sow division. The minimalist libertarian state he advocates would have no power to design and enforce affirmative-action policies, and in any case since his restored constitutional republic of the future would be color-blind, it would have no inclination to do so. Racial minorities would sink or swim like everyone else.

On a variety of subjects many racialists would agree with Alex Jones, even though we would recognize that the theory that houses his sensible beliefs is too bizarre even for fantasy fiction, let alone serious political analysis.

That so many important subjects are addressed from within this conspiracy theory suggests that the theory is not popular on its own merits, which are non-existent, but because of the subjects themselves. In other words, the theory is drawing its followers largely from those Whites who are concerned about important racial and cultural issues. Put even more simply, conspiracy theory is stealing people who ought to be racial nationalists. Anyone who scans the comments section on will likely see this suspicion confirmed, especially if the subject is immigration or yet another Black-on-White outrage.

Kevin MacDonald has wondered why the Euro-American response to our ongoing dispossession has not been stronger. He has also predicted, in the concluding chapter of his Culture of Critique, that our collective response will eventually occur:

[A]lthough the success of the intellectual movements reviewed in this volume is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases. The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant. Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups.

I am not competent to speak about the value of social identity research, but it seems only reasonable to presume that if Whites are frequently attacked as members of a racial group, we will eventually recognize collectively that an attack on co-racialists is also an attack on all of us.

Affirmative action is perhaps the best example of a policy that should logically be interpreted as an attack on every member of our race. The more recent campaign against alleged “white privilege” is another, as is the Black-on-White knockout game. Yet significant race-based responses to such racial attacks have not occurred, or at least not in the way we would have hoped. There should, in short, be more White nationalists by now.

It seems likely that the growing body of strange and worthless conspiracy theories, along with the growing number of their adherents, accounts for some of this political lethargy.

The consumers of these theories are mostly White. Jones would never acknowledge the racial demographics of the movement he effectively leads, and he makes an effort to discover various inarticulate rap performers who share some of his conspiracist beliefs, but almost everyone who delves into arcane conspiracies while embracing color-blind politics is Caucasian and therefore a potential target of minority identity politics and minority aggression. Few conspiracy theorists are Black or Mexican. Suppressed majority discontents provide most of the fuel for the strange, unwieldy contraption that is Jonesian conspiracy theory.

In recent years the claims of anti-White activists have been aggressively escalating. Saying that you don’t see color is now proof, among advanced antiracists, of racial crime. It is not as bad as saying that you dislike racial minorities or that you wish they lived elsewhere, but it occupies the same immoral terrain. Professions of color-blindness by Whites are interpreted by cutting-edge antiracists as a dishonest defense mechanism through which white supremacy protects itself by denying the need to grant redress to its many victims, who must be seen as racialized Others in order to receive the restitution they deserve. Martin Luther King, as he is popularly misinterpreted, might be condemned as a de facto defender of white supremacy in the current sociopolitical climate, which is why many minority agitators find his famous speeches so irritating and why mainstream opponents of race-specific remedies for racial inequality quote him so often.

White supremacists and left-wing antiracists are, according to Jonesian conspiracy theory, both equally complicit in the globalist plan for world government and mass extermination, but since the former are largely nonexistent and the latter a growing force in contemporary politics, this brand of conspiracy theory is objectively an indirect attack on antiracism in the name of color-blindness. It attacks post-millennium antiracism with its own version of old-school antiracism.

It is thus understandable, though disturbing, that a significant number of the many White Americans who would prefer not to see their nation demolished, and who feel threatened and perplexed by minority aggression, would take refuge in conspiracy theory and in its color-blind ideals. A largely Caucasian political movement that, in the name of anti-globalism and altruistic resistance to eugenics, vigorously asserts the moral and tactical necessity of color-blindness should be understood both as an expression of opposition to antiracism’s postmodern form and as a timid but socially permissible way of expressing disapproval of street-level minority aggression and of anti-White identity politics.

Deluded Whites who get angry at Black violence and at unreasonable minority demands act out, conspiracists believe, the globalist script; but Black rioters and other minority malcontents are also performing their assigned roles and should be rebuked as well. Jonesian conspiracy theory allows you to condemn the antics of Al Sharpton for the altruistic purpose of saving most of humanity from mass murder, an impending eugenicist slaughter during which, unless we act now to stop it, Sharpton’s own race will be especially victimized. You, the humble consumer of conspiracy theories, become the true antiracist, and colored racial agitators become the witting or unwitting servants of nazi conspirators. Conspiracy theory sends its adherents into a political conflict with aggressive minorities armed only with color-blind altruism and moral universalism, but in the current climate they actually are weapons of a sort, although they are far from powerful.

In conspiracy theory we see the curious and troubling phenomenon of an explicitly anti-racialist expression of suppressed but distinctively White political concerns and racial anxieties, which should be expressed openly but which are instead expressed from within a highly inventive fiction. It is normal and healthy to want your race and your civilization to survive and prosper, but in a culture in which those normal desires are strongly and persistently pathologized, the desires unnaturally find their outlet in strange political constructions. Fervent belief in a non-existent eugenicist conspiracy is one unfortunate result.

The Sole 'Anti-Fascist' Thought

via MotPol

Translator’s Note: The present article is a translation of “El pensamiento único ‘antifascista’” (originally published at El Manifesto, 9 February 2015). The Spanish version was a translation of an excerpt from the French “Les méthodes de la Nouvelle Inquisition” (”The Methods of the New Inquisition”), a speech delivered at a colloquium organized by GRECE in November, 1997. The French version was later republished as “Pensée unique, nouvelles censures” in Alain de Benoist’s book Critiques – Théoriques (Lausanne & Paris: L’Age d’Homme, 2003). 

The term “pensée unique” in French or “pensamiento único” in Spanish, which is translated here as “sole thought” and “single thought,” is difficult to render in English without losing its original meaning. In French, Italian, and Spanish it refers to a form of thought which has been made obligatory or compulsory for everyone in society; so it is asserted to be the “sole thought” which is allowed.

Some time ago Jean-François Revel has spoken of “devotion” to qualify the opinion about an idea solely in terms of its conformity or its power of attraction in respect to a dominant ideology. We could add that devotion represents the zero degree of analysis and understanding. It is precisely because devotion dominates that today ideas which are denounced are not refuted, but rather that it suffices to declare them inconvenient or unbearable. Moral condemnation is exempt from an analysis of the hypotheses or of the principles under the prism of truth and falsehood. Now there are no just or false ideas, but rather appropriate ideas, in sync with the spirit of our time, and ideas which do not conform are denounced as intolerable.

This attitude appears even more reinforced by the strategic obsessions of the actors of the “right thought.” It matters little in this sphere whether an idea is just or false: what is important is to know which strategy it can serve, who draws upon it and with what purpose. A book can thus be denounced, even though its content corresponds with reality, with the only excuse that it runs the risk of converting ideas considered intolerable into “acceptable” ones or of favoring those which one wants to silence. It is the new version of the old slogan, “do not cause Billancourt to despair!” [Translator’s note: This is the exclamation with which Sartre hoped that he had camouflaged the truth, lest the workers of Renault of Billancourt would despair and falter in their revolutionary fervor]. Needless to say that with this approach, the place where we express ourselves is more relevant than that which we go to speak: There are admitted places and “unrecommended” places. All criticism presents itself, therefore, as an attempt for disqualification that is obtained by resorting to words that, in place of describing a reality, function like others as so many signs or operators for maximum delegitimization. Our singular strategists thus betray their own mental system, which only attributes value to ideas to the extent that they can be manipulated.

In the past, this work of delegitimization was carried out to the detriment of the families of more diverse thought – we think, for example, about the grotesque campaigns in the times of McCarthyism. But currently it is being done, without doubt, in a single direction. It has to do with crossing out as illegitimate all thought, all theory, all intellectual construction that contradicts the philosophy of the Enlightenment which, with all the shades that one wants, constitutes the support on which current societies are legitimized. For that, politically correct thought essentially resorts to two impostures: anti-racism and anti-fascism. We will say a few words regarding these two.

Racism is an ideology which postulates the inequality between races or which attempts to explain the whole history of humanity based solely upon the racial factor. This ideology has practically no defense nowadays, but we pretend to think that it is omnipresent, assimilating to it xenophobia, attitudes of rejection or distrust in respect to the Other, and even to a simple preference for endogamy and homofiliation. “Racism” is presented as the emblematic category of residual irrationalism, rooted in superstition and prejudice, that which would impede the emergence of a society which is transparent before itself. This criticism of “racism” as fundamental irrationality simply and plainly recycles the liberal fairytale of a pre-rational world which is the source of all social evils, as was demonstrated now more than half a century ago by Adorno and Horkheimer in saying that it reflects the ineptitude of modernity to face the Other, that is, difference and uniqueness.

Denouncing “racism” as a pure irrationality, that is, as a non-negotiable category, the New Class betrays at the same time its distance in respect to reality, but also contributes to the neutralization and the depoliticization of social problems. In effect, if “racism” is essentially a “madness” or a “criminal opinion,” then the battle against racism has much to do with courts and psychiatrists, but, however, it now has nothing to do with politics. This allows the New Class to forget that racism itself is an ideology resulting from modernity by the threefold bias of social evolutionism, scientistic positivism, and the theory of progress.

“Anti-fascism” is a completely obsolete category to the same extent as is “fascism,” to which it intends to oppose itself. The word is today a catchall term without any precise content. It is an elastic concept, applicable to anything, employed without the least descriptive rigor, which ends up being declined into “fascistic” and even into “fascistoid,” which allows itself to be adapted to all cases. Leo Strauss has already spoken of Reductio ad Hitlerum to qualify this purely polemical form of discrediting. The manner in which, nowadays, any non-conformist thought is crossed out as “fascist” on the part of censors who themselves could hardly define what they understand by that term, forms part of the same discursive strategy.

“There is a form of typically European political correctness which consists of seeing fascists everywhere,” observed Alain Finkielkraut on this point. “It has become a habitual procedure for a cohort of whistleblowing scribblers,” added Jean-François Revel, “to throw to Nazism and revisionism all individuals whose reputation they want to besmirch.” One can observe the consequences of that every day. The most trivial incident of French political life is judged today under the prism of “fascism” or the Occupation. Vichy “becomes an obsessive reference” and is converted into a phantasm which allows maintaining a permanent psychodrama, and given that they prefer the “duty of memory” to the duty of truth, this memory is regularly appealed to for justifying the most dubious comparisons or the most grotesque understandings. “This everlasting incrimination of fascism,” wrote Jean-François Revel, “whose excess is so shocking, which ridicules its authors in place of discrediting its victims, reveals the hidden motive of political correctness. This perversion serves as a substitute for the censors, for those left orphaned by the loss of that incomparable instrument of spiritual tyranny which was the Marxist gospel.”

Revealing of these effects is the outbreak of hostilities provoked by the exploitation of the Kremlin archives, which began to cause the breakdown of some statues of legendary “heroes.” Equally revealing is the result of observing in what manner the simple verification that the Communist system had ended the lives of more people than any other system in history (a hundred million dead!) today raises the virtuous indignation in milieus that “do everything to conceal the magnitude of the catastrophe” – as if this verification is equivalent to the trivialization of Nazi crimes which are by definition incomparable with anything, as if the horror of the crimes of Communism could be attenuated by the supposed purity of its original intentions, as if the two great totalitarian systems whose rivalry and complementarity characterized the 20th Century would not be inscribed into a relationship out of which one or the other would become unintelligible, as if, in the end, some dead weigh more than others.

But we must also emphasize that contemporary “anti-fascism” – which, paraphrasing Joseph de Maistre, we could qualify not as the opposite of fascism but rather as fascism in the opposite sense – has totally changed in nature. In the 1930s, the theme of “anti-fascism,” exploited by Stalin on the margins of the authentic fight against true fascism, would serve the Communist parties for questioning capitalist bourgeois society, accused of serving as the breeding ground of totalitarianism. It was then about showing that the liberal democracies and the “social traitors” were objectively potential allies of Fascism. However, currently it is exactly the opposite. Today, “anti-fascism” serves before all as an alibi for those who have vigorously joined the single thought and the system. Having abandoned all critical attitude, having succumbed to the advantages of a society which would offer them sinecures and privileges, they want, embracing the “anti-fascist” rhetoric, to give the impression (or make the illusion) of having remained loyal to themselves. In other words, the “anti-fascist” posture permits the Penitent, the central figure of our time, to forget his retractions by employing a wildcard slogan which does not cease to be a commonplace one. Yesterday’s strategic tool with which mercantilist capitalism was attacked, “anti-fascism,” has been converted into a mere discourse in its service. Thus, while the forces of potential opposition are prioritarily mobilized against a phantasmagoric fascism, the New Class which exercises the reality of power can sleep soundly. Making reference to a value which it not only no longer supposes to be a threat for current society, but rather which, on the contrary, reinforces what it is, our modern “anti-fascisms” have been converted into its watchdogs.

It is so true that for politicians, the denunciation of “fascism” is today an excellent way to remake a reputation for oneself. The most corrupt use and abuse it to minimize the importance of their malfeasances. If “fascism” is the absolute evil, and they denounce it, that means that they are not entirely bad. False accounts, unfulfilled electoral promises, grafts and corruptions of all sorts become lamentable faults but, in short, secondary ones in relation to the worst. But not only the Left or politicians need a nonexistent “fascism” that embodies absolute evil. Also, all of modernity on the decline needs a bête noire that allows it to make the social pathologies which it itself has engendered acceptable, under the pretext that however bad things go now, they would never have a point of comparison with those things that took place in the past.

Modernity is thus legitimized by means of a phantasm of which, paradoxically, we are told at the same time that it is “unique” and that it can return at any time. Confronted with its own emptiness, confronted with the tragic failure of its initial project of human liberation, confronted with the counter-productivity that it generates everywhere, confronted with the loss of references and with generalized senselessness, confronted with nihilism, confronted with the fact that man becomes increasingly more useless from the moment in which his abstract rights are proclaimed, modernity is left no other recourse than to divert attention, that is, to wield nonexistent dangers to impede the rising awareness of the truth. The recourse to the “absolute evil” functions then as a prodigious means of forcing the acceptance of the evils which our contemporaries are faced with in their daily lives, evils which, in comparison to this absolute evil, become contingent, relative, and, in the last instance, accessories. The exacerbated opposition to the totalitarianisms of yesterday, the unending tiresomeness about the past, prevents analyzing the evils of the present and the dangers of the future, at the same time that they make us enter into the 21st Century with a strong hindrance, with an eye fixed on the rearview mirror.

It would therefore be an error to believe that the current “anti-fascism” represents nothing. On the contrary, it poses a negative legitimization which is fundamental for a society that no longer has anything positive to include in its balance sheet. “Anti-fascism” creates the identity of a New Class that cannot exist without invoking the scarecrow of the worst thing so that it is not reduced to its own emptiness. In the same manner that some do not find their identity any more than in denouncing immigrants, the New Class only finds its own in the virtuous denunciation of an absolute evil, whose shadow hides its ideological vacuity, its absence of references, its intellectual indigence, in the last analysis, that it simply no longer has anything more to contribute, neither original analyses nor solutions to propose.

Therefore, it turns out to be vital for the central core of the “right-thinking” [biempensante] to prohibit all questioning of the fundamental principles which constitute their support of legitimacy. For if things were otherwise, it would be necessary that the dominant ideology accepts being questioned. But it would not consent to that, since it shares the conviction with the greater part of grand messianic ideologies that if things go badly, if the anticipated success is not attained, it is never because the principles were bad, but, on the contrary, because they had not been sufficiently applied. Yesterday they told us that if Communism had not attained paradise on earth, it was because it had not yet eliminated a sufficient number of its opponents. Today they tell us that if neoliberalism is in crisis, if the process of globalization entails social disorders, it is because there still exist too many obstacles which obstruct the proper functioning of the market.

To explain the failure of the project – or to reach the desired objective – a scapegoat is needed. There need to be nonconforming opponents, deviant or dissident elements: yesterday, the Jews, the Freemasons, the lepers, or the Jesuits; today, the supposed “fascists” or “racists.” These deviants are perceived as disturbing, bothersome elements which obstruct the advent of a rational society, so that it is necessary to purge the social body by means of an appropriate prophylactic action. If, for example, xenophobia exists in France today, it is not due to any case of a badly controlled immigration policy, but rather to the existence of “racism” in the social body. In a society whose components are increasingly more heterogeneous, it is made essential to establish a kind of civil religion designating a scapegoat. The shared execration serves then as nexus which, while fighting an enemy, even if it be only a mirage, it allows the maintenance of a semblance of unity.

But there exists, in addition, another advantage to moral denunciation, and it is that against the “absolute evil” all means valid. Demonization, indeed, has not only had the consequence of the depoliticization of conflicts, but has also caused, likewise, the criminalization of the adversary. This becomes an absolute enemy which must be eradicated by all existing means. One then enters into a kind of total war – and it is so much so that it is claimed to be carried in the name of humanity. To fight in the name of humanity leads to placing one’s adversaries outside of humanity, that is, to practice the negation of humanity. From this perspective, the apology for murder and the call to lynching are also found to be justified.

Finally, what should be noted is that the disqualifying labels manipulated today in the name of political correctness are never claimed labels, but rather attributed labels. Contrary to what happened in the 1930s, when the Communists and Fascists openly claimed their respective denominations, today nobody reclaims the qualifications of “fascist” and “racist.” Their nomination thus has no objective, informative, or descriptive value, but rather a purely subjective, strategic, or polemical value. The problem that arises is to know what the legitimacy of their attribution is. As this legitimacy is always to be tested, it is deduced that the “test” is always derived from the very possibility of attribution.

The psychoanalyst Fethi Benslama wrote that “today fascism is no longer a bloc, an easily identifiable entity embodied in a system, in a discourse, in an organization which can be demarcated,” but that it “rather assumes fragmentary and diffuse forms inside the whole of society […], a form such that no one is sheltered in a worldview, guarded from this disfiguration from the other which makes it arise as a boisterous, joyful body, secretly expanded body all over the place.” Such declarations are revealing: if fascism is “secretly expanded all over the place,” “anti-fascism” can evidently accuse anyone.

The problem is that the idea according to which evil is all over the place is the premise of all inquisition and, likewise, the premise upon which conspirationist paranoia is supported, as it had inspired in the past the witch-hunts and the justifications of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Just as the anti-Semites saw Jews everywhere, the new inquisitors see “fascists” everywhere. And as the supreme cunning of the Devil is to make people believe that he does not exist, protests are never heard. Topping it off, a popular psychoanalyst is permitted to interpret the denial or the indignant rejection to put on the uniform that they try to offer us with such complacency, just like so many other supplementary confirmations: the refusal to confess is the best proof that one is guilty.

“A man is not what he hides, but rather what he does,” said André Malraux. Believing that “fascism” is all over the place, meaning nowhere, the new inquisition affirms on the contrary that men are before all what they hide – and that it aims to uncover it. It boasts of seeing beyond the appearances and of reading in between the lines, to better “confuse” and “unmask.” It is in this way that the presumption of guilt knows no limits. What is “unsaid” is decrypted, decoded, and detected. Speaking clearly, authors are denounced, no so much for what they had written, but for what they had not written and what it is assumed they had intended to write. The content of their books is not boycotted, content which is never taken into consideration, but rather the intentions which are believed to have been divined. The police of ideas then becomes the police of ulterior motives.

Destroying the Middle Class Through Immigration: More of What We Already Know

via EGI Notes

This blog is more concerned with ultimate interests (i.e., EGI) than proximate interests such as economics; nevertheless, it is still a useful exercise to document immigration's destructive toll on the (White) American middle class, if for no other reasons than politics.

But herein we meet a problem.  Anti-immigration forces utilizing such arguments move in the direction of (economic and to some extent cultural) populism.  I'm all for that, and I agree with Greg Johnson that Right-Wing Populism is the "sweet spot" in American politics. However, we have a problem there in the American political system, given the influence of big money/big business in controlling outcomes and stifling any expression of such populism.  Economic populism is more popular among Democratic voters (and even there it is a sham, since their candidates are for the most part in the pocket of big business); however, the Democratic party, motivated by anti-White hatred, is all for more immigration. In the USA, anti-immigrant sentiment is mostly concentrated among the more conservative of GOP voters, but that party is completely and absolutely controlled by the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests, and Republican politicians are, for the most part, as radically pro-immigration as their Democratic counterparts.

Thus, the fusion of populism and immigration restriction has no place in today's mainstream American politics. And that's by design, not by accident.

Also note in this article the statement about Asian voting patterns.  Asians in America, being, on average, economically successful professionals and reasonably socially conservative, would seem to be "natural Republicans."  Yet, they gravitate toward Democrats, for reasons of race.  Even though both the Republican and Democratic wings of America's one party system are both anti-White, the perception is that the GOP is the "White man's party." Hence, any group that identifies itself by hatred toward Whites (and a certain Levantine tribe also comes to mind here) will eschew their economic self-interest and move in the direction of racial identity in opposition to Whites. Hence, Asians, motivated by an existential hatred of everything White, lean Democratic.

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

via The Occidental Observer

Can we still conceive of the revival of pagan sensibility in an age so profoundly saturated by Judeo-Christian monotheism and so ardently adhering to the tenets of liberal democracy? In popular parlance the very word “paganism” may incite some to derision and laughter. Who, after all, wants to be associated with witches and witchcraft, with sorcery and black magic? Worshiping animals or plants, or chanting hymns to Wotan or Zeus, in an epoch of cable television and “smart weapons,” does not augur well for serious intellectual and academic inquiry.

Yet, before we begin to heap scorn on paganism, we should pause for a moment. Paganism is not just witches and witches’ brew; paganism also means a mix of highly speculative theories and philosophies. Paganism is Seneca and Tacitus; it is an artistic and cultural movement that swept over Italy under the banner of the Renaissance. Paganism also means Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Charles Darwin, and a host of other thinkers associated with the Western cultural heritage. Two thousand years of Judeo-Christianity have not obscured the fact that pagan thought has not yet disappeared, even though it has often been blurred, stifled, or persecuted by monotheistic religions and their secular offshoots.

Undoubtedly, many would admit that in the realm of ethics all men and women of the world are the children of Abraham. Indeed, even the bolder ones who somewhat self-righteously claim to have rejected the Christian or Jewish theologies, and who claim to have replaced them with “secular humanism,” frequently ignore that their self-styled secular beliefs are firmly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics. Abraham and Moses may be dethroned today, but their moral edicts and spiritual ordinances are much alive. The global and disenchanted world, accompanied by the litany of human rights, ecumenical society, and the rule of law—are these not principles that can be traced directly to the Judeo-Christian messianism that resurfaces today in its secular version under the elegant garb of modern “progressive” ideologies?

And yet, we should not forget that the Western world did not begin with the birth of Christ. Neither did the religions of ancient Europeans see the first light of the day with Moses—in the desert. Nor did our much-vaunted democracy begin with the period of Enlightenment or with the proclamation of American independence. Democracy and independence—all of this existed in ancient Greece, albeit in its own unique social and religious context. Our Greco-Roman ancestors, our predecessors who roamed the woods of central and northern Europe, also believed in honor, justice, and virtue, although they attached to these notions a radically different meaning. Attempting to judge, therefore, ancient European political and religious manifestations through the lens of our ethnocentric and reductionist glasses could mean losing sight of how much we have departed from our ancient heritage, as well as forgetting that modern intellectual epistemology and methodology have been greatly influenced by the Bible.

Just because we profess historical optimism — or believe in the progress of the modem “therapeutic state” — does not necessarily mean that our society is indeed the “best of all worlds.” Who knows, with the death of communism, with the exhaustion of liberalism, with the visible depletion of the congregations in churches and synagogues, we may be witnessing the dawn of neopaganism, a new blossoming of old cultures, a return to the roots that are directly tied to our ancient European precursors. Who can dispute the fact that Athens was the homeland of Europeans before Jerusalem became their frequently painful edifice?

Great lamenting is heard from all quarters of our disenchanted and barren world today. Gods seem to have departed, as Nietzsche predicted a century ago, ideologies are dead, and liberalism hardly seems capable of providing man with enduring spiritual support. Maybe the time has come to search for other paradigms? Perhaps the moment is ripe, as Alain dc Benoist would argue, to envision another cultural and spiritual revolution—a revolution that might well embody our pre-Christian European pagan heritage?

The Death of the Internet: A Pre-Mortem

via The Archdruid Report

The mythic role assigned to progress in today’s popular culture has any number of odd effects, but one of the strangest is the blindness to the downside that clamps down on the collective imagination of our time once people become convinced that something or other is the wave of the future. It doesn’t matter in the least how many or obvious the warning signs are, or how many times the same tawdry drama has been enacted.  Once some shiny new gimmick gets accepted as the next glorious step in the invincible march of progress, most people lose the ability to imagine that the wave of the future might just do what waves generally do: that is to say, crest, break, and flow back out to sea, leaving debris scattered on the beach in its wake.

It so happens that I grew up in the middle of just such a temporary wave of the future, in the south Seattle suburbs in the 1960s, where every third breadwinner worked for Boeing. The wave in question was the supersonic transport, SST for short: a jetliner that would fly faster than sound, cutting hours off long flights. The inevitability of the SST was an article of faith locally, and not just because Boeing was building one; an Anglo-French consortium was in the lead with the Concorde, and the Soviets were working on the Tu-144, but the Boeing 2707 was expected to be the biggest and baddest of them all, a 300-seat swing-wing plane that was going to make commercial supersonic flight an everyday reality.

Long before the 2707 had even the most ghostly sort of reality, you could buy model kits of the plane, complete with Pan Am decals, at every hobby store in the greater Seattle area. For that matter, take Interstate 5 south from downtown Seattle past the sprawling Boeing plant just outside of town, and you’d see the image of the 2707 on the wall of one of the huge assembly buildings, a big delta-winged shape in white and gold winging its way through the imagined air toward the gleaming future in which so many people believed back then.

There was, as it happened, a small problem with the 2707, a problem it shared with all the other SST projects; it made no economic sense at all. It was, to be precise, what an earlier post here called  a subsidy dumpster: that is, a project that was technically feasible but economically impractical, and existed mostly as a way to pump government subsidies into Boeing’s coffers. Come 1971, the well ran dry: faced with gloomy numbers from the economists, worried calculations from environmental scientists, and a public not exactly enthusiastic about dozens of sonic booms a day rattling plates and cracking windows around major airports, Congress cut the project’s funding.

That happened right when the US economy generally, and the notoriously cyclical airplane industry in particular, were hitting downturns. Boeing was Seattle’s biggest employer in those days, and when it laid off employees en masse, the result was a local depression of legendary severity. You heard a lot of people in those days insisting that the US had missed out on the next aviation boom, and Congress would have to hang its head in shame once Concordes and Tu-144s were hauling passengers all over the globe. Of course that’s not what happened; the Tu-144 flew a handful of commercial flights and then was grounded for safety reasons, and the Concorde lingered on, a technical triumph but an economic white elephant, until the last plane retired from service in 2003.

All this has been on my mind of late as I’ve considered the future of the internet. The comparison may seem far-fetched, but then that’s what supporters of the SST would have said if anyone had compared the Boeing 2707 to, say, the zeppelin, another wave of the future that turned out to make too little economic sense to matter.

Granted, the internet isn’t a subsidy dumpster, and it’s also much more complex than the SST; if anything, it might be compared to the entire system of commercial air travel, which we still have with us or the moment. Nonetheless, a strong case can be made that the internet, like the SST, doesn’t actually make economic sense; it’s being propped up by a set of financial gimmickry with a distinct resemblance to smoke and mirrors; and when those go away—and they will—much of what makes the internet so central a part of pop culture will go away as well.

It’s probably necessary to repeat here that the reasons for this are economic, not technical. Every time I’ve discussed the hard economic realities that make the internet’s lifespan in the deindustrial age  roughly that of a snowball in Beelzebub’s back yard, I’ve gotten a flurry of responses fixating on purely  technical issues. Those issues are beside the point.  No doubt it would be possible to make something like the internet technically feasible in a society on the far side of the Long Descent, but that doesn’t matter; what matters is that the internet has to cover its operating costs, and it also has to compete with other ways of doing the things that the internet currently does.

It’s a source of wry amusement to me that so many people seem to have forgotten that the internet doesn’t actually do very much that’s new. Long before the internet, people were reading the news, publishing essays and stories, navigating through unfamiliar neighborhoods, sharing photos of kittens with their friends, ordering products from faraway stores for home delivery, looking at pictures of people with their clothes off, sending anonymous hate-filled messages to unsuspecting recipients, and doing pretty much everything else that they do on the internet today. For the moment, doing these things on the internet is cheaper and more convenient than the alternatives, and that’s what makes the internet so popular. If that changes—if the internet becomes more costly and less convenient than other options—its current popularity is unlikely to last.

Let’s start by looking at the costs. Every time I’ve mentioned the future of the internet on this blog, I’ve gotten comments and emails from readers who think that the price of their monthly internet service is a reasonable measure of the cost of the internet as a whole. For a useful corrective to this delusion, talk to people who work in data centers. You’ll hear about trucks pulling up to the loading dock every single day to offload pallet after pallet of brand new hard drives and other components, to replace those that will burn out that same day. You’ll hear about power bills that would easily cover the electricity costs of a small city. You’ll hear about many other costs as well. Data centers are not cheap to run, there are many thousands of them, and they’re only one part of the vast infrastructure we call the internet: by many measures, the most gargantuan technological project in the history of our species.

Your monthly fee for internet service covers only a small portion of what the internet costs. Where does the rest come from? That depends on which part of the net we’re discussing. The basic structure is paid for by internet service providers (ISPs), who recoup part of the costs from your monthly fee, part from the much larger fees paid by big users, and part by advertising. Content providers use some mix of advertising, pay-to-play service fees, sales of goods and services, packaging and selling your personal data to advertisers and government agencies, and new money from investors and loans to meet their costs. The ISPs routinely make a modest profit on the deal, but many of the content providers do not. Amazon may be the biggest retailer on the planet, for example, and its cash flow has soared in recent years, but its expenses have risen just as fast, and it rarely makes a profit. Many other content provider firms, including fish as big as Twitter, rack up big losses year after year.

How do they stay in business? A combination of vast amounts of investment money and ultracheap debt. That’s very common in the early decades of a new industry, though it’s been made a good deal easier by the Fed’s policy of next-to-zero interest rates. Investors who dream of buying stock in the next Microsoft provide venture capital for internet startups, banks provide lines of credit for existing firms, the stock and bond markets snap up paper of various kinds churned out by internet businesses, and all that money goes to pay the bills. It’s a reasonable gamble for the investors; they know perfectly well that a great many of the firms they’re funding will go belly up within a few years, but the few that don’t will either be bought up at inflated prices by one of the big dogs of the online world, or will figure out how to make money and then become big dogs themselves.

Notice, though, that this process has an unexpected benefit for ordinary internet users: a great many services are available for free, because venture-capital investors and lines of credit are footing the bill for the time being. Boosting the number of page views and clickthroughs is far more important for the future of an internet company these days than making a profit, and so the usual business plan is to provide plenty of free goodies to the public without worrying about the financial end of things. That’s very convenient just now for internet users, but it fosters the illusion that the internet costs nothing.

As mentioned earlier, this sort of thing is very common in the early decades of a new industry. As the industry matures, markets become saturated, startups become considerably riskier, and venture capital heads for greener pastures.  Once this happens, the companies that dominate the industry have to stay in business the old-fashioned way, by earning a profit, and that means charging as much as the market will bear, monetizing services that are currently free, and cutting service to the lowest level that customers will tolerate. That’s business as usual, and it means the end of most of the noncommercial content that gives the internet so much of its current role in popular culture.

All other things being equal, in other words, the internet can be expected to follow the usual trajectory of a maturing industry, becoming more expensive, less convenient, and more tightly focused on making a quick buck with each passing year. Governments have already begun to tax internet sales, removing one of the core “stealth subsidies” that boosted the internet at the expense of other retail sectors, and taxation of the internet will only increase as cash-starved officials contemplate the tidal waves of money sloshing back and forth online. None of these changes will kill the internet, but they’ll slap limits on the more utopian fantasies currently burbling about the web, and provide major incentives for individuals and businesses to back away from the internet and do things in the real world instead.

Then there’s the increasingly murky world of online crime, espionage, and warfare, which promises to push very hard in the same direction in the years ahead.  I think most people are starting to realize that on the internet, there’s no such thing as secure data, and the costs of conducting business online these days include a growing risk of having your credit cards stolen, your bank accounts looted, your identity borrowed for any number of dubious purposes, and the files on your computer encrypted without your knowledge, so that you can be forced to pay a ransom for their release—this latter, or so I’ve read, is the latest hot new trend in internet crime.

Online crime is one of the few fields of criminal endeavor in which raw cleverness is all you need to make out, as the saying goes, like a bandit. In the years ahead, as a result, the internet may look less like an information superhighway and more like one of those grim inner city streets where not even the muggers go alone. Trends in online espionage and warfare are harder to track, but either or both could become a serious burden on the internet as well.

Online crime, espionage, and warfare aren’t going to kill the internet, any more than the ordinary maturing of the industry will. Rather, they’ll lead to a future in which costs of being online are very often greater than the benefits, and the internet is by and large endured rather than enjoyed. They’ll also help drive the inevitable rebound away from the net. That’s one of those things that always happens and always blindsides the cheerleaders of the latest technology: a few decades into its lifespan, people start to realize that they liked the old technology better, thank you very much, and go back to it. The rebound away from the internet has already begun, and will only become more visible as time goes on, making a great many claims about the future of the internet look as absurd as those 1950s articles insisting that in the future, every restaurant would inevitably be a drive-in.

To be sure, the resurgence of live theater in the wake of the golden age of movie theaters didn’t end cinema, and the revival of bicycling in the aftermath of the automobile didn’t make cars go away. In the same way, the renewal of interest in offline practices and technologies isn’t going to make the internet go away. It’s simply going to accelerate the shift of avant-garde culture away from an increasingly bleak, bland, unsafe, and corporate- and government-controlled internet and into alternative venues. That won’t kill the internet, though once again it will put a stone marked R.I.P. atop the grave of a lot of the utopian fantasies that have clustered around today’s net culture.

All other things being equal, in fact, there’s no reason why the internet couldn’t keep on its present course for years to come. Under those circumstances, it would shed most of the features that make it popular with today’s avant-garde, and become one more centralized, regulated, vacuous mass medium, packed to the bursting point with corporate advertising and lowest-common-denominator content, with dissenting voices and alternative culture shut out or shoved into corners where nobody ever looks. That’s the normal trajectory of an information technology in today’s industrial civilization, after all; it’s what happened with radio and television in their day, as the gaudy and grandiose claims of the early years gave way to the crass commercial realities of the mature forms of each medium.

But all other things aren’t equal.

Radio and television, like most of the other familiar technologies that define life in a modern industrial society, were born and grew to maturity in an expanding economy. The internet, by contrast, was born during the last great blowoff of the petroleum age—the last decades of the twentieth century, during which the world’s industrial nations took the oil reserves that might have cushioned the transition to sustainability, and blew them instead on one last orgy of over-the-top conspicuous consumption—and it’s coming to maturity in the early years of an age of economic contraction and ecological blowback.

The rising prices, falling service quality, and relentless monetization of a maturing industry, together with the increasing burden of online crime and the inevitable rebound away from internet culture, will thus be hitting the internet in a time when the global economy no longer has the slack it once did, and the immense costs of running the internet in anything like its present form will have to be drawn from a pool of real wealth that has many other demands on it. What’s more, quite a few of those other demands will be far more urgent than the need to provide consumers with a convenient way to send pictures of kittens to their friends. That stark reality will add to the pressure to monetize internet services, and provide incentives to those who choose to send their kitten pictures by other means.

It’s crucial to remember here, as noted above, that the internet is simply a cheaper and more convenient way of doing things that people were doing long before the first website went live, and a big part of the reason why it’s cheaper and more convenient right now is that internet users are being subsidized by the investors and venture capitalists who are funding the internet industry. That’s not the only subsidy on which the internet depends, though. Along with the rest of industrial society, it’s also subsidized by half a billion years of concentrated solar energy in the form of fossil fuels.  As those deplete, the vast inputs of energy, labor, raw materials, industrial products, and other forms of wealth that sustain the internet will become increasingly expensive to provide, and ways of distributing kitten pictures that don’t require the same inputs will prosper in the resulting competition.

There are also crucial issues of scale. Most pre-internet communications and information technologies scale down extremely well. A community of relatively modest size can have its own public library, its own small press, its own newspaper, and its own radio station running local programming, and could conceivably keep all of these functioning and useful even if the rest of humanity suddenly vanished from the map. Internet technology doesn’t have that advantage. It’s orders of magnitude more complex and expensive than a radio transmitter, not to mention the 14th-century technology of printing presses and card catalogs; what’s more, on the scale of a small community, the benefits of using internet technology instead of simpler equivalents wouldn’t come close to justifying the vast additional cost.

Now of course the world of the future isn’t going to consist of a single community surrounded by desolate wasteland. That’s one of the reasons why the demise of the internet won’t happen all at once. Telecommunications companies serving some of the more impoverished parts of rural America are already letting their networks in those areas degrade, since income from customers doesn’t cover the costs of maintenance.  To my mind, that’s a harbinger of the internet’s future—a future of uneven decline punctuated by local and regional breakdowns, some of which will be fixed for a while.

That said, it’s quite possible that there will still be an internet of some sort fifty years from now. It will connect government agencies, military units, defense contractors, and the handful of universities that survive the approaching implosion of the academic industry here in the US, and it may provide email and a few other services to the very rich, but it will otherwise have a lot more in common with the original DARPAnet than with the 24/7 virtual cosmos imagined by today’s more gullible netheads.

Unless you’re one of the very rich or an employee of one of the institutions just named, furthermore, you won’t have access to the internet of 2065.  You might be able to hack into it, if you have the necessary skills and are willing to risk a long stint in a labor camp, but unless you’re a criminal or a spy working for the insurgencies flaring in the South or the mountain West, there’s not much point to the stunt. If you’re like most Americans in 2065, you live in Third World conditions without regular access to electricity or running water, and you’ve got other ways to buy things, find out what’s going on in the world, find out how to get to the next town and, yes, look at pictures of people with their clothes off. What’s more, in a deindustrializing world, those other ways of doing things will be cheaper, more resilient, and more useful than reliance on the baroque intricacies of a vast computer net.

Exactly when the last vestiges of the internet will sputter to silence is a harder question to answer. Long before that happens, though, it will have lost its current role as one of the poster children of the myth of perpetual progress, and turned back into what it really was all the time: a preposterously complex way to do things most people have always done by much simpler means, which only seemed to make sense during that very brief interval of human history when fossil fuels were abundant and cheap.

A Fate Worse than Death

via Alternative Right

Interracial rape victim: Catherine German
Alternative Right Editor's Note: You may not have been aware of it, but April has been "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" (SAAM) in the United States. The best place for White readers to acquaint themselves with this issue is our own frontier history. The following is drawn from my recent book, Rape Hate—Sex & Violence in War & Peace.

The little bottle lay on the sand. Nearby, waves lapped softly against the beach. How long the bottle had been laying there no one knows. Whether it was the tide or a storm that placed it, we do not know that either. This much we do know: At some point, someone walking along the sand spotted the bottle and instead of breaking it or hurling it back out to sea, they stooped to pick it up. We also know that when the finder uncorked the bottle he discovered that a note was folded inside. After fishing out the note and reading the words on the paper, whoever held it must have been dumb-struck. Finally, we also know that soon after the finder read the note and recovered from his shock, word quickly spread.

Thus ended one of the most remarkable journeys ever recorded.

The little bottle's story began somewhere on the high and dry plains of northwest Texas or eastern New Mexico, hundreds of miles from where it was found. Here, at a camp of the Southern Cheyenne Indians, a ragged and frightened young white woman secretly brought out her hidden treasure—a bottle, a cork, a pencil, a piece of paper—then nervously scratched out a note, a desperate plea for help. The girl quickly folded the paper into the bottle, corked the end tightly, then tossed it into the headwaters of the Brazos River. In this arid region, the Brazos during the best of times is a mere trickle of water; at worst, it is just a sandy draw. Nevertheless, this bottle and the tiny trickle that floated it were the best, and perhaps last, hope for freedom that the young woman would know.

Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters—Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively—were carried off into captivity.

The Brazos: a different "Trail of Tears"
Catherine's story is not a pretty one to relate. There are no Romance Novel endings here; no Dances With Wolves Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip.

Hence, Catherine's desperate attempt one day with her little bottle along the Brazos. Pathetic as her gesture was, it was all she had. Over the next several months, as her prayer drifted slowly down a shallow stream, this hope was the only thought that kept the young woman going. When all else had been stripped from her—her virtue, her freedom, her dignity—Catherine at least had her little star of hope.

Finally, after five months of captivity, the band holding Catherine and Sophia at last returned to their reservation and surrendered the girls. Along with the two younger children, who earlier had been rescued during a thundering cavalry charge, the two shattered girls tried to pick up the broken pieces of their lives.

Unbeknownst to Catherine, throughout her captivity, during all the rapes and beatings, during the freezing nights and terrifying days, the little bottle that she had secretly tossed into a trickle of water on the high plains had, despite snags and shoals and rocks and floods, continued its slow journey down a winding river.

Four months after Catherine's rescue, the Ellsworth Reporter (Kansas) picked up an article from a Houston, Texas, newspaper. The startled editor then informed his readers: 
"Strange to say, after having traveled eight hundred or one thousand miles along the devious windings and changing current... a bottle... was picked up on the beach of the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Brazos River, in which upon examination, was a written account of the capture of..."
Thus ended an incredible journey. After the message was uncorked and read, it can only be hoped that the reader saved the little bottle and today, passed from one generation to the next, it sits atop some bookshelf, an antique, curious and pretty...if nothing more.

Although the details surrounding Catherine’s rescue are a bit unusual, the conditions of her captivity are not. During the research for my book, I had a chance to study at random the ordeals of some dozen young women captured by Indians, including Catherine German and her sisters. With little variation, the accounts told the same sad story—rape, enslavement, brutality, beatings, abuse. For good reason I named their chapter in the book, “A Fate Worse than Death."

Rapes with Wolves
(romanticized version)
Such accounts, of course, fly in the face of all we have been told—or not told—about life among the wild Indians of North America. Despite the attempts of Jewish Hollywood and Marxist academia to convince us that the lot of a captive white woman was really not such a bad thing, perhaps a bit rough in some spots, but overall a satisfying, even pleasant experience, nothing, I repeat, nothing, could be further from the truth.

Unlike the Hollywood version of captivity and unlike the silly day-dreaming moonshine of empty-headed Romance writers, not one woman that I studied grew so enamored with her “natural” life among the Indians that, when the time came, she actually chose to remain among them. Nor, I might add, did even one woman fall madly, hopelessly in love with her red rapist. Quite the opposite. For those white females who somehow survived captivity and who were something other than “raving maniacs” upon their release, many begged to see their captors killed on the spot. When she realized that indeed her captivity was over and her cruel captor was now a prisoner, one young woman tried desperately to snatch a pistol from a white soldier’s belt to blow out the brains of the monster that had tormented her for so many months.

Based upon the accounts of the women I studied, here is a rough rule-of-thumb of what you might expect were you a young white woman captured by Indians of the High Plains:
  1. After witnessing the murder and mutilation of your loved ones, your clothes are ripped from your body; immediate and violent gang rape and sodomy commence by however many warriors are present, for however long they choose.
  2. If you have crying children, these are often instantly killed by a sharp blow from a war club or by swinging them against rocks and dashing out their brains. Little children are also commonly scalped.
  3. With a rope around your neck you are then led back to the Indian camp in your stunned condition, naked, bruised, barefoot, and bleeding from the vagina. When you fall from exhaustion, hunger or thirst, you are whipped mercilessly to your feet with rawhide or rope.
  4. Once in the village you undergo a howl of taunts from the old people; women and children ridicule you and lash you with switches. Even the hordes of dogs seem against you as they snap, snarl and bite your legs
  5. You are claimed by a powerful man, perhaps a chief, and, in addition to his own sexual demands, you become his personal prostitute; you are traded among the men of the village for valuables, including horses. Just because you are owned by one man does not shield you from the rape of others. 
  6. Beatings and back breaking work are piled upon you by increasingly cruel and jealous squaws. Grooves are worn into your shoulders from the straps of heavy loads; long lacerations from beatings refuse to heal and remain open wounds.
  7. Abuse takes its toll and you age and gray rapidly during the months, or years, of slavery. You are filthy. You are infested with fleas and lice.
  8. At night, after another day of sex-on-demand and back-breaking work, you dream of rescue...or death, whichever comes first; you dream of bugle notes sounding the charge as the U.S. Cavalry arrives to save you. Alas, little do you realize that should you hear those beautiful notes they will signal both your rescue and your death since Indians commonly kill their captives at the first sign of trouble.
  9. If somehow you do manage to survive and are eventually rescued, you have a half-breed child in tow, you are pregnant again, you are emaciated, you are broken, you are sick, you are diseased, you look twenty years older than your actual age, you are mentally unhinged, you will never be normal again.
Don’t look for Hollywood and Stephen Spielberg to depict the events described above with any degree of accuracy any time soon. Their mission, their agenda, their racial imperative these past fifty years has been the hammering home of white guilt to white audiences by pounding in the idea that the white race—and only the white race—has been the curse on the world; that in addition to all the other crimes committed against man and nature over the ages, whites were also guilty of ruthlessly destroying one of the most peaceful and pastoral cultures ever to grace the earth—that of the gentle and deeply philosophical societies of the North American Indian tribes.

Analyzing Predator: Warrior Ethos, Masculinity, and the Ubermensch

via The High Right

This has got to be my favorite action film of all time. No film tops it in terms of sheer outlandishness or outright badassery except maybe The Expendables 2. To make things even better the film is largely centered around a group of insane, mostly musclebound mercenaries who carry large, intimidating-to-liberals “assault rifles”, not often seen in this kind of variety in other actions films. The sheer diversity of personalities and weapons is enough to make you take interest in this film.

Before we dive deeper into this film, let’s review the personalities of the characters:
There is:

Blaine – Played by Jesse Ventura, Blaine is by far one of the best action movie characters ever. In one of the first scenes in the film, Blaine says, in one of the films most memorable scenes, after offering around a big bag of chewing tobacco and seeing it denied, “Buncha slack jawed faggots around here. This stuff’ll make ya a goddamn sexual Tyrannosaurus Rex… Just like me.” Blaine seems to throw down the best lines in the film. Later he lets out the iconic quote “I ain’t got time to bleed“, when Poncho informs him he’s bleeding all over. Blaine is so masculine, I don’t think he has ever in his life tried to please a woman, listen to a woman, impress a fellow man to fit in, or lost a fight. Blaine is the kind of man men used to aspire to be, before we all became wads of cookie dough. He carries a massive and intimidating minigun, but is unfortunately one of the first to die, despite having a weapon that can cut down trees like a chainsaw.

Mac – Played by Bill Duke, Mac is a bald, stoic and completely insane black guy so dark if the cops shot at him, the bullets would come back looking for flashlights. Mac prowls around carrying an old school Vietnam era belt-fed M-60, a 7.62 mm automatic rifle that was instrumental in operations during the jungle war. Mac is almost completely insane. At first in the film, he is content to just drink, obsessively shave himself over and over with a plastic razor and talk shit to to the other black guy Dillon. He threatens to “Bleed him real good“. When Mac’s buddy Blaine dies, Mac loses his shit. Not necessarily in order he: begins to shave until he bleeds, starts talking to Blaine’s dead spirit while looking at the full moon, stabs a boar, and then during the scene where he confronts the predator, he runs gasping out of breath, saying over and over “I’m gonna have me some fun“, while running after the Predator. It is clear Mac has PTSD, maybe bi-polar disorder, or even schizophrenia. He is by far the most interesting of the characters. Sadly, he does not defeat the Predator.

Hawkins – This guy is a total misfit, and mercifully he dies very early into the film. He is a nerdy, glasses-wearing tag along who obviously tries to fit in by making odd jokes about pussy. (see the helicopter scene for example). He is the obvious beta male try-hard that wants to desperately fit in. It’s clear he’s tolerated only because they need a guy who can do communications specialties properly, and since this is 1987, no one has a smart phone. He is the stereotypical kind of white guy that black comedians do voices of. This guy is by far the most likely of the team to have been a serial killer, and just looking at him makes one wonder if he is just a peeping tom, or if he stalks random women he bumps into on his way to- wherever he goes when he’s not in the jungle. He carries an uninteresting gun not worth describing.

Dillon – Played by Carl Weathers, this Uncle Tom is a straight talking pencil pusher that is reluctantly allowed to go with the team, despite everyone essentially distrusting him at best and looking down on him at worst. He is by far the most annoying character, and carries the stupidest guns;  twin mp5s, an annoying sub-machine gun that fires a craptastic pistol cut 9mm round that is really only useful for people repelling down a building and needing to shoot with one hand at a target less than 60 feet away. It is the dodge dart of machine guns. I like to think that this weapon was assigned to him to underscore how much of a bitch he is  throughout the film. Dillon is a cocky bureaucrat who does almost everything wrong, and the Predator, getting bored by the time he confronts Dillon, decides to make things interesting and shoots off his arm, then runs in for the Kill, filleting him. When he finally dies, no one even notices. He is by far the archetype of a Beta male that desperately wants to be Alpha. The problem is he epically fails every single time.

Billy – played by Sonny Landham, Billy is a tall, muscular and intimidating Native American who’s deep laugh echos through the film at certain points, always underscoring someone else’s jokes. It’s obvious that Billy is also completely insane, as one minute he is talking in a very spooky way about the Predator, making obscure but seemingly profound predictions, and the next, he is laughing heartily at some weird joke one of the guys spouts off about pussy. Maybe Billy is bipolar and has PTSD from the ‘Nam as well. He carries an intimidating AR-10 with a “masterkey” as it’s called, that is to say what looks like a 16 gauge shotgun attached to the assault rifle chambered in .380, generally used to shoot off locks. Why billy has a masterkey out in the jungle, we don’t know, but it’s clear no one is going to question him. Billy dies in one of the film’s iconic scenes where he throws down his gun and pulls out his knife to face the Predator alone. Unfortunately, the Predator ignores this challenge and shoots him dead. Cheating bastard.

Poncho – played by Richard Chaves, This petite Hispanic is the smallest and least intimidating of the crew, so he carries a massive 6 round grenade launcher that fires 40mm grenades, talks shit to everyone on the crew, and fights viciously hard. You know, like that small but bitter dude you knew in high school who will stab you to death before you get a punch in. Unfortunately, Poncho gets taken out by a mishap when the crew tries to trap the predator and he has to be carried into the jungle, where eventually he dies in Dutch’s arms. Aww. Life simply is not fair for small guys.

Dutch – Obviously the leader of the crew, Dutch is played by – if you don’t know, you should leave western civilization now. Dutch is a massive, cigar smoking, Germanic/Nordic asshole who reluctantly agrees to some of the things Dillon says, because Dillon is CIA. He is the consummate Alpha of this group, composed of mostly Alphas themselves. Dutch authoritatively tells everyone what to do, and when he isn’t doing that, he’s either saying classic one liners, some of which are pop culture staples (“Get to tha choppa!”), or he’s making those famous contortions in his face that pass for “acting” on Arney’s part. He carries an intimidating looking M-16 with attached 40mm grenade launcher. Unfortunately, this rifle only fires a .223 round, unlike the better .380 round of the Ar-10 which Billy weilds. He is of course the main character and the film’s hero, and unlike today’s action heroes, he doesn’t sit and whine and cry over some bad shit that happened to him in a previous war or something, or drink heavily because of his PTSD like Mac. In fact, Dutch probably has PTSD but is so masculine he just ignores it.

Now, if you have right wing sensibilities, you may have noticed that this film is almost like a little melting pot of different races. We have two different black guys, one is an uncle tom and another is an insane motherfucker who’s obviously from the hood, we have one native American, one Hispanic guy(who isn’t actually Hispanic, but still, diversity, right?), one kind of weak ass skinny nerdy white guy, and two massive Alpha male white guys.

Given this assortment of races and ethnicities, it would seem like the film is diversity propaganda, like other films. Except when you notice one overpowering fact: Everyone of the team dies except one of the white guys, and he is literally the closest throwback to a viking possible without the long hair and beard, as he is obviously Nordic, tall, intimidating and muscular. This may seem like some overtly inconsequential or superficial facts most likely due to nothing intentional, but a possible interpretation of this film is one that this hero as the lone survivor is the last man of the west facing a foreign onslaught and his team failing him. It is worthy to note that Dutch, as the only one to survive, is the one with the best physical conditioning, the most assertive mentality, the most honorable persona and has the least amount of mental health issues, if any at all. He is essentially an archetype of a Traditional Germanic male, embodying Prussian values. Honor, courage, discipline and vigilance serve Dutch well, and in the end, his embodiment of Traditional ideals lifts him up and propels him forward, allowing him to survive what the rest of the grab-bag of multicultural team mates could not.

The message taken in this interpretation goes further as if to suggest that the man of the west can only save his land from it’s fate if he discovers his ancient self. He must unlock the primal warrior ethos inside himself, hidden deep within his being, long forgotten in an overly civilized world. Dutch mostly fumbles at fighting the alien until he accidentally discovers that mud hides his heat signature, disguising him from the predator’s infrared vision (yes… it does seem far fetched, but come on bro, so is the whole alien landing in the Mexican jungle to hunt mercenaries). After this revelation, something inside Dutch changes. It is as if he suddenly understands that he doesn’t need technology, guns, or even a team to make a stand. It’s as if he has finally ascended to a higher state of being, in the Nietzschean sense – ironically by rediscovering his primal spirit. He has transcended his human, weaker form by drawing from within Traditional values, and applying knowledge and ingenuity. By witnessing the death of his teammates, the failure of diversity, the failure of technology, the failure of man himself, he becomes reborn into something anew. A genuine warrior. Primal, but transcendent.

He gets to work. He makes a bow, uses his grenade rounds to make explosive tips for his arrows, and makes spears and traps. The other thing about this film is it’s utilization of unique traps made from the natural world – something few action films ever have in them. Seeing this survivalist adaptation is inspiring, and even though it obviously has severe logistical issues, the message is that nature will provide for us if we use it properly, and connect ourselves to our ancient way of thinking.

In Asatru, the Nordic Neo-pagan religion based on ancient Norse mythology, it is believed that humans come from trees – that are literally a part of our natural world, hence why many adherents to the religion believe in conservation. It is also believed by many that this is why when we are “awakened”, to the esoteric path we can easily learn to adapt to the natural world, because it is a part of us. However, this message is somewhat absent in the film by the obvious abuse given back to the jungle by the men. Regardless, Dutch’s use of the jungle comes from somewhere ancient, some place hidden.

Like many who follow a transcendent path, Dutch’s will to power awakens, his sense of identity returns and he finds himself at home in the natural world. He is no longer running afraid of the Predator. The warrior inside him is awakened anew, and he realizes what he must do to fight this beast. The Predator personifies modernity and technology and foreign invasion. It uses cloaking technology, a plasma rifle that has a tracking device in it, infrared vision, and this is all in combination with immense height, strength’, speed and stamina.

Dutch realizes that by letting the warrior spirit inside him reawaken, he can defeat the greatest enemy he has ever faced. But to do it, he must leave his fear, his reliance on technology, and his comforts behind. He must do it alone, without allies or help of any kind. He can no longer hide in the bush. When Dutch realizes all this, and prepares adequately, he changes completely.

Dutch stands up, and decides to hunt the hunter . In one of the films most memorable scenes, Dutch lights a torch, stands up high in the forest, and lets out a brutal and primal scream as a declaration of war on his enemy. It is the apex of his transformation into the Ubermensch.

The alien is startled – maybe even slightly frightened for a moment. A human – a lone man was challenging him. How? They ran like mice when he picked them off. Their primitive weapons they think are so technologically advanced… they did nothing. How could one man dare to fight him? How, after all he had done to kill them off, striking terror in their hearts, could one man dare to fight him still? How brazen…

And then after the slight moment of confusion, the Predator snuffs out his surprise by answering Dutch’s call. What follows is one of the best action film confrontations of all time. Arnold eventually batters the Predator enough that he gains respect from the foreign invader, however.

Much like the foreign warriors that are attacking the western world due to our own carelessness and taking advantage of our fear and permissiveness, (Islamic Fundamentalists, the rise of China) the Predator does not respect weakness. It only knows strength, and only the most primal warrior spirit within us can save us. When battered, the Predator responds by disarming. It abandons it’s technology because Dutch has implied through his actions that his intellect and his warrior ethos are superior to the Predator’s. I beat you without advanced technology. I beat you and your fancy toys with twigs from the forest. I beat you because I am more more brutal, more fearless, More ruthless, more primal. I AM SUPERIOR. As if understanding this challenge intrinsically in his being, the Predator, in a sign of respect for his opponent and the sudden turning of the tables, disarms and accepts the challenge to fight hand to hand to prove himself. By turning the tables on his enemy – Dutch wins his respect. In the Predator’s culture, this is the only way to do so. Diplomacy will be laughed at and ignored.

Nietzsche tells us that a Master morality teaches us to respect our enemies, for they make us great. When there are great enemies facing us, we respect them… if we are wise. We still want to destroy them, crush them, beat them, but we respect their power, their might and their will. Thus, the Predator grows to respect Dutch for discovering within him the warrior ethos that makes us whole, and for presenting a serious challenge that allows him to affirm his own warrior identity. Unlike Dutch’s contemporary society, which treats the warrior instinct as something to inherently flee from, with warriors like his mercenary team ostracized  from society, the Predator’s society enthrones a warrior ethos as a crucial part of it’s culture. This is “Master” morality, contrasted with “slave” morality, which teaches us to envy  what those who challenge us have, and to hold them in contempt for doing so.

The Predator can be equated with many things – Nihilism, Modernity, Communism/the Soviet Union Technology, Inhumanity, Foreign intruders or Immigrants, intimidating foreign powers that still have a warrior ethos and so thus, they threaten us existentially (such as the USSR of that time period, or contemporary China or The Islamic State) and other existential threats the west faces. The message of the movie teaches us that to survive, we must becomes barbaric once more. We must stop relying on our technology and rely on our instinct. To beat the foreign hordes – we must rediscover the warrior inside ourselves, before it is too late.

This film was made in the late cold war era – so perhaps the Predator symbolizes the Soviet Union. Once more today we find ourselves facing a familiar enemy in a communist power once again, this time China, and this time through economic superiority on their part, and, unlike our weak, childish and “tolerance” obsessed society, the Chinese respect might, power, cunning and will. They smile at our attempts at geopolitics as they make fools out of our girly men leaders like Obama. Like the Predator, we can only gain their respect by showcasing our own will to power. However, Predator really symbolizes all our existential threats combined – and shows what we must do to defeat them.

The movie is unapologetic in it’s masculinity. It loathes weakness. It celebrates Nietzschean ideas and the will to power. It’s a shame that the message is lost in pop culture, much like 300’s message was.

The ultimate question it is asking is, When diversity proves pointless, when your multicultural team fails, when your technology and your fancy toys fail, when your preconceptions fail, what will you do? You can only discover the warrior within and reclaim your glorious heritage, or else you will perish with all the others. If the last man standing is destined to be European – the only way that will happen is discovering the ancient source of power within himself.