Jan 18, 2016

Strangers in Their Own Country

via American Renaissance

National Journal is perhaps the last place you’d expect to find a good account of the Middle Americans Radicals (MARS) who drove the political campaigns of George Wallace, Pat Buchanan and, to a lesser extent, Ross Perot. However, an article by John Judis does just that, and also helps explain the rise of Donald Trump.

The article had particular relevance to me. Over the past decade I have wondered what happened to the MARS voters. Where had they gone since the Buchanan campaigns of the 1990s? Had they died off, become discouraged, or simply been duped and absorbed into tepid National Review-style conservatism?


This was depressing to me since I came to the alternative right in the mid-1990s through the writings of Sam Francis, who popularized the idea of Middle American Radicals. Though the MARS term was invented by sociologist Donald Warren in the 1970s, it was Francis who tried to rally this group into a lasting political force. His 1982 essay “Message from MARS” (republished in his 1993 book Beautiful Losers) remains the best summary of this demographic group. It also laid out a possible plan for MARS voters to take and hold power. Francis revisited this theme in his 1997 book Revolution from the Middle. As Francis noted:
Middle American Radicals are essentially middle-income, white, often ethnic voters who see themselves as an exploited and dispossessed group, excluded from meaningful political participation, threatened by the tax and trade policies of the government, victimized by its tolerance of crime, immigration and social deviance, and ignored or ridiculed by the major cultural institutions of the media and education.
Francis explained that the real political division in the United States was therefore neither liberal vs. conservative nor North vs. South. As he wrote in Chronicles in February, 1998:
Today, the main political line of division in the United States is . . . between elite and nonelite. . . . [F]or the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultural dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard.
Mr. Judis cites Warren’s 1976 book, The Rad­ic­al Cen­ter: Middle Amer­ic­ans and the Polit­ics of Ali­en­a­tion, and notes that MARS voters in the 1970s favored Social Security, Medicare and some sort of national health insurance. As workers and taxpayers, they hoped for long-term security from programs to which they had contributed. However, they were strongly against welfare, busing, and affirmative action. They also favored strong anti-crime measures and supported the police against rioters and criminals.

Some of us wondered–briefly–whether the Tea Party might be a MARS revival, but its energy was quickly diverted into only slightly less neutered Republican politics, and its organizers were too terrified of the charge of “racism” to consider what Peter Brimelow likes to callthe national question.


Is the MARS voter staging a revival? Mr. Judis attended two Donald Trump rallies in September:
. . . one at a high school aud­it­or­i­um in Hamp­ton Falls, New Hamp­shire, where the line to get in stretched all along the side of the build­ing and in­to the park­ing lot, as if it were the first night of a box-of­fice block­buster; the oth­er at the 20,000-seat Amer­ic­an Air­lines Cen­ter in Dal­las. The Dallas rally too was packed; it was filled with rauc­ous sup­port­ers wear­ing red Trump T-shirts and ‘Make America Great Again’ caps. The crowd was over­whelm­ingly white and roughly equally male and fe­male . . . .
At both ral­lies, Trump’s rail­ing against il­leg­al im­mig­ra­tion got ap­plause. But so did his at­tacks on Chinese cur­rency ma­nip­u­la­tion and cor­por­ate ex­ec­ut­ives who ship jobs over­seas. Al­most all of the ap­prox­im­ately 30 people I in­ter­viewed at these events men­tioned Trump’s op­pos­i­tion to il­leg­al im­mig­ra­tion, his de­fi­ance of polit­ic­al-cor­rect­ness, and the strong lead­er­ship they ex­pec­ted him to bring to the pres­id­ency. Yet al­most every­one also cited his eco­nom­ic na­tion­al­ist stands.
While Mr. Judis does a good job of explaining who the MARS voters are, he has an annoying habit of confusing legitimate concerns with “racism:”
Wal­lace was the can­did­ate of right-wing ra­cists, but he also wanted to in­crease So­cial Se­cur­ity be­ne­fits and make the tax sys­tem more pro­gress­ive. . . .
Over the years, some of their is­sues have changed–il­leg­al im­mig­ra­tion has re­placed ex­pli­citly racist appeals . . . .
Francis, of course, understood the racial dynamic perfectly. The 1998 Chronicles passage quoted above, continues as follows:
Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.
Needless to say, the MARS voter rarely gets a chance to vote directly for his racial interests. Instead, like Warren, Francis viewed MARS as a demographic that was being exploited by the “New Right” as a vehicle for power. He credited Middle American Radicals with the election of Reagan in 1980 (they accounted for nearly all of the Reagan Democrats) and noted that this in itself helped distance MARS from the “Old Right” that could not elect Barry Goldwater in 1964 or even get Robert Taft on the ticket in 1952.

Reagan addressing a group of steelworkers in October 1980.
Reagan addressing a group of steelworkers in October 1980.
Unfortunately, the MARS voters could not engineer much change through government. They reappeared throughout the 1990s in the campaigns of Patrick Buchanan, Ross Perot, and David Duke, but were never strong enough to elect another president or even take over the Republican Party. Francis admitted this in Revolution from the Middle but still expected the MARS revolution someday to take shape.
The Middle American Revolution is not merely a matter of politics and elections. In the last few years, there have been definite signs of the impending collapse of what was once known as the ‘national consensus,’ the ‘vital center,’ the ‘public philosophy,’ or other labels that purported that the beliefs and worldview associated with a narrow band of elite publications, intellectuals and politicians were really representative of what most Americans think and believe.
Francis went on to say that what was happening was a “crisis of legitimacy, or a period in which the subjects of a regime no longer believe in the claims of a regime to be legitimate.” In other words, MARS voters were losing faith in government and felt contempt for its elites (who return the sentiment). Francis may have simply been 20 years too early in his diagnosis.

Every day the headlines make this clearer. In November, Reuters released a poll showing that over half of Americans feel like “strangers in their own country” and that 58 percent “don’t identify with what America has become.” Who can blame them?

Black Lives Matter hoaxes, SJW witch hunts, race riots, rising crime, mass Third-World immigration, repression on college campuses, “white privilege” indoctrination in schools, and political leaders from both parties who insist on importing thousands of Muslim “refugees” even in the wake of terrorist attacks do not inspire confidence.

It is therefore no surprise that the one candidate who defies the establishment on immigration, Muslim refugees, trade policy, and political correctness is destroying the field in the GOP primary. Unlike Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Trump has enough of his own money to finance a campaign and enough media access to retaliate immediately against the lies and distortions of the establishment.


Also unlike Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Trump has the temperament to respond in kind to his critics. He told Rick Perry to take an IQ test before entering the Republican primary debates. He blasted Rand Paul when he kept trying to interrupt him in the first debate. He routinely derides “losers” such as Jeb Bush, Lindsay Graham and George Pataki. He mocks Black Lives Matter race activists as they are kicked out of his rallies. He is the first Republican candidate in my lifetime who fights back on the same level of his attackers.

For MARS voters, the man seems to have met the moment. People who feel like strangers in their own country are unlikely to vote for yet another bland representative of the Stupid Party and Conservatism, Inc. Such specimens as Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina are stuck in the low single digits. Marco Rubio may be the last hope of National Review-style conservatism, and even he cannot get much more than 10 percent in most national polls, despite the backing of an impressive collection of billionaires.

Mr. Trump is the first American politician successfully to combine the Left-Right appeal that has driven European “extreme Right” parties to increasing prominence. He wants to strengthen middle-class entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare. He wants to raise taxes on hedge fund managers, who he says are “getting away with murder,” and lower the burden on workers. He would tax imports to protect American jobs. And most important: He would slow the process that makes Americans feel like strangers in their own country.

When Mr. Trump talks about “the silent majority” that backs his “movement” he means the same Middle Americans whose radical anger Sam Francis hoped to mobilize. And when 20 percent of Democrats say they would defect and vote for Mr. Trump it is because he has bipartisan appeal to the “non-elites” of both parties whom Francis saw as having lost faith in their rulers. GOP bosses are right to say that Mr. Trump is not “conservative” by their standards, but he is exactly what millions of ordinary white people want.

Silent Majority

Sam Francis would be very pleased to see the GOP and conservative establishments mocked and destroyed. Mr. Trump could even win the general election by rallying MARS voters, real conservatives, and a slice of black and Hispanic voters who don’t hate whites and America. Blacks, especially, should support a man who promises to keep out foreigners who take low-wage jobs.

The MARS movement has been brewing for over 40 years now. With Trump, this demographic has reemerged and seems bigger, stronger, and more alienated than ever. The “Message from MARS” seems to be that Americans are tired of dispossession, do not trust the establishments of either party, and want a future for their children. If they succeed, Sam Francis will be proven right, and MARS may be able to make America great again.

If We Forget Europe

via Cambria Will not Yield

How shall we sing the Lord’s song
in a strange land? –Psalm 137: 4
Thomas Moore wrote “Rich and Rare Were the Gems She Wore,” in honor of his beloved Ireland, but I’m sure every European at that juncture of European history (every European except the Jacobin European) felt the same way about his nation:
Rich and rare were the gems she wore,
And a bright gold ring on her wand she bore;
But, O, her beauty was far beyond
Her sparkling gems, or snow-white wand.
“Lady! dost thou not fear to stray,
So lone and lovely, through this bleak way?
Are Erin’s sons so good or so cold,
As not to be tempted by woman or gold?”
“Sir Knight! I feel not the least alarm,
No son of Erin will offer me harm;–
For though they love woman and golden store,
Sir Knight! they love honor and virtue more!”
On she went, and her maiden smile
In safety lighted her round the green isle:
And blest for ever is she who relied
Upon Erin’s honour and Erin’s pride.
An exaggeration? Yes, it was, but not by much. Christianity and the honor code that flows from our sacred faith, that which the antique Europeans called chivalry and modern liberals call sexism and racism, had entered the blood of the Europeans. Even those recreants who might have wanted to rob and violate Moore’s fair maiden would not have dared to do so, because they would have been hunted down and killed. When Burke looked through the Jacobin rhetoric he saw what liberty, equality, and fraternity really meant. It meant that “the age of chivalry was dead.” Has that been a good thing for Europeans? For the world?

The New Year’s Eve rape fest in Cologne was only a tiny microcosm of what is taking place throughout the Western world on a daily basis. And I’m not talking solely about the Moslem rapists; the black barbarians have been raping and murdering whites without so much as a whimper from the liberal establishments for the past fifty years. The aftermath of the rape of the women of Cologne, a city whose architecture speaks of a different age when European men did not permit the rape of their women, was quite telling. The liberals first denied that it was African and Moslem ‘immigrants’ who had committed the rapes. Then they blamed the women for dressing too provocatively. The feminists? They did what they always do – they ignored the rape of white women by men of color and continued to focus on white men who ogle scantily clad women in billboard ads. One female official of Cologne announced that in twenty years Cologne would be a Moslem city: “That is a good thing.” Another male official said that saying bad things about Moslem rapists on Twitter is much worse than the Moslems’ rape fest in Cologne! And then came the grazers’ response. One group of young men who resided in Cologne announced that they were going to patrol the streets of Cologne and “nonviolently” try to protect women from the Moslems. Well, at least they were trying to do something, but I ask you: can you nonviolently stop a Moslem rapist? Why are white people so afraid to respond violently against those who rape and murder their own people? In Finland some group of whites calling themselves the Sons of Odin stated that they were going to “nonviolently” patrol the streets of a town called Kemi. Doctrinaire nonviolence is not only strategically foolhardy, it is, considering the violent behavior of the enemy, a serious breach of the code of chivalry. The charity of honor demands that, “This shall not go on!”

All conquering pagan armies rape and pillage after a successful invasion. That is what the Moslems are doing throughout Europe, and that is what the blacks have been doing in the United States since the victory of the Northern liberals in the 1950s. But of course the liberals will not allow whites to use violence to defend their own against the Moslems and the blacks, because the liberals are at war with the white race. And in this war to the death, the liberals currently control all the governments in the Western world as well as all the militias and police forces in the Western world. That is something we must face squarely. If there is going to be a successful European counter-revolution, then white Europeans will have to go against the liberals’ military and the liberals’ police force. We must stop thinking of the military as ‘our troops’ and the police as ‘our protectors.’ They serve the liberals who desire the extermination of the white race. In Germany the police were quite willing to use pepper spray and water cannons on white Germans who were marching in protest of the Moslem takeover of Germany, but they were not willing to use force against the Moslem rapists. “Your police will not protect you,” the Moslems in Britain shouted after beheading a British soldier. They were correct. The police and the military work for the liberals; occasionally they will violate the code of liberalism and use force against a black or a Moslem, but that is not a frequent occurrence and is fast becoming less frequent as the liberals tighten their noose around the collective neck of the European people.

The Europeans fought for their own people when they were pagans, and they fought for their own people when they were Christian. They can’t become pagans again, because they left the pagan gods of blood and sacrifice behind when they embraced Christ. But can they become Christian again after having let go of Christ? That is the question Hamlet had to answer: “To be or not to be.” Many of our young people have decided not to be. And why shouldn’t they decide thus? There is no reason for a European to live if he doesn’t believe that Christ rose from the dead. Without that sustaining faith, there is no racial hearth fire and no people to love and fight for. Life is merely “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I hear the naysayers declaring that, “The Moslems and the colored barbarians love their people and fight for them without believing in Christ, so why can’t the Europeans do likewise?” The Europeans cannot do likewise because once taken up, the cross of Christ cannot be put down again without leaving that which is essential to the lifeblood of the European behind: The European must be the Christ-bearer or else he will be a man without a soul. He will be like unto the Undine that Friedrich de la Motte wrote about. The Moslems and the colored barbarians have souls; they are heathen and barbarian souls, but they have life in them. They cannot love, but they can fornicate. They will not fight for mercy’s sake, but they will fight for the sake of blood and sacrifice. The post-Christian liberal can only live through the blood-soaked lives of the Moslems and the colored barbarians. That official of Cologne who welcomed the Moslem hordes to her city and exulted in their rape fest did so because she, like all liberals, wants to feel connected to something alive. It doesn’t matter to her that there is only bestial savagery, not humanity, in the invaders’ souls; they have something in them that is alive and she needs that aliveness as a vampire needs blood. The liberals’ terrible mixture of rationalism and a Christ-less Christianity have made them into bloodless zombies who will do anything, including encouraging and enabling the rape and murder of their own people, if it takes them closer to what they believe is their salvation – their absorption into the pagan mass of Moslems and colored barbarians.

Try as he might, no European can ever return to paganism. Odin and Thor were fine fighting men, and when seen as precursors to the one true God they are inspiring. But it is pure fantasy to think we can invoke those pagan gods in our war with the liberals. It is Christ or oblivion. It would seem that the Europeans have chosen oblivion. However, some Europeans have come back from rationalism, the curse of the men of the West. Is there a magic potion one can take to restore the soul? The psalmist tells us that the living God restoreth the soul. But can the living God be put in a golden bowl of science and democratic utopianism? No, He cannot be put in such a bowl; all attempts to do so have ended in disaster.

Hamlet’s father enjoins him to “Remember me.” And Hamlet replies, “Remember thee! Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat, In this distracted globe.” We must first remember what we were and then love what we were as a people. Once that memory and that love are combined, we will have the will to fight for our people against all the forces of hell. And it is all the forces of hell that the Europeans are facing. It might well be that our Lord is about to come in glory to put an end to Satan’s reign here on earth. But we know neither the day nor the hour of that battle, so we must keep fighting till our Lord returns. And even then does He want us to stop fighting? I doubt it; I think He’ll want us to go with Him into battle against Satan and his minions.

However Christ decides to arrange the final battle, it is clear that we need to fight for Europe while memory holds a seat in our lives. If every European were to truly and honestly search their racial memory for the truth of existence they would discover that nothing of lasting value has ever come from any people but the European people when they formed an incorporate union with Christ. All that was good in the cultures of the heathens has come as a result of their contact with the Christian ethos of antique Europe. Whether the European people survive as a people or whether they and their culture become a memory that the heathens and the colored barbarians choose to eradicate will be determined by how many Europeans love enough; and true love includes the charity that never faileth, to fight with all their heart, mind, and soul for the people of their own racial hearth fire. If they love enough they will fight, and in the midst of the battle they will see that the Son of God is with them.

Towards the end of The Brother Karamazov, Alyosha gathers his small band of little children about him and tells them that they must hold to some sacred memory from their childhood so they can keep their childlike faith in the Savior throughout their adult lives. We have some rights of memory in the Europe where a pure childlike faith in Christ was valued. Even if only a few Europeans of old Europe managed to completely realize a childlike faith in the Savior, it was still not a little thing that the quest for a childlike faith was considered the main purpose of a man’s pilgrimage here on earth. Such a faith, as of a child, believeth all things and hopeth all things. The rape of Europe will only be halted by Europeans with hearts that remember the ancient hearth fire of the European people, where Christian men were meek and gentle as lambs toward the child, the maiden, and the mother, and fiercer than any pagan in defense of the people of their own racial hearth fire.

It was by the rivers of Babylon that the exile sat down to weep and remember Zion. That is the first step back to spiritual health. We must remember Christian Europe and weep. Then we must dry our tears and fight to the knife in defense of our people and our sacred homeland. If I forget thee, O Europe…

Why American Ninja Warrior Will End

via TradYouth

American Ninja Warrior is in it’s eighth season right now and qualifications start in another two months, but we don’t need wait until this Fall to see the regulars being professional ninjas.  On Jan. 19 we get to see a new competition: Team Ninja Warrior.  I am very excited to see the regular competition’s eighth season, but I am bracing myself for what might be a terrible change in the sport: Team Ninja competition. This a perversion of the original event’s function and design.  The Team Ninja competition pits two athletes against each other running the same course side-by-side on identical courses.  The show’s producers just Americanized ANW: it is now a ham-handed overly aggressive direct competition between two athletes.  This is a total inversion of what the sport is all about.  Think American Gladiator, but without a defender firing a tennis ball launcher at the athletes.

Ninja Warrior competition is about beating yourself, not your opponent.  The big-money prize for completing all four stages is an incentive to compete, not the reason to compete and people would compete whether or not there were prizes involved.  For the true athlete, a cash money prize is icing on the cake.  The true athlete competes for honor, glory and the title of being a Ninja Warrior.  Ninja competition has always been about an athlete’s struggle against him or herself and the camaraderie and brotherhood of shared competition against a common foe is what made ANW so incredible.  The entire competition was about each athlete’s fight against themselves, and the greatest enemy that each of us will ever face is none other than ourselves.  That’s what Ninja Warrior competition was about and what made the fans so uniquely excited:  We had a glimpse into the souls of Heroes.  And this is why ANW will die.  In an egalitarian and anti-hierarchical society there is nothing more forbidden than showing the Common Man that there is another who is his greater.

American Ninja Warrior competition will die.  The series will lose its fans, the athletes will gain corporate sponsorship and then the entire program will turn into an extended commercial to hock gym-wear, training supplements and other associated lifestyle attire.  The more likely scenario is that the franchise will devolve into a strained series of obstacles designed to give equal equity to male and female competitors.  The Team Ninja competition is a start of this: the male athletes will become necessary to “win it all” for the team and female failures on the course will be seen as a team failure and not a female failure.  Only one woman in season seven, Michelle Warnky, qualified for Mt. Midoriyama and every other woman failed in semi-finals or finals.  NBC advanced all of the failed women to Stage One at Mt. Midoriyama as “wild cards.”  That’s some impressive female privilege: fail at city finals but still advance to Mt. Midoriyama to compete against everyone who made their way honestly.

Again, ANW will die because it confirms the inequality and inequity between men and women.  That the series has done so for more than seven years now has amazed me, but I don’t expect it to last like this.  The show is becoming more and more mainstream and more and more women are becoming involved.  This means that more and more women will demand that ANW’s competitions begin to respect female limitations.  American Ninja Warrior has affirmed the Traditional value of exclusivity in victory.  Heroes are not, by their nature, equal to anyone else and it also would be absurd to think of Heroes as being equal even among other Heroes.  The men who have made themselves a household name by their acrobatic feats and physical exploits have demonstrated that the Hall of Heroes is an exclusive club for White men.  And that’s another reason ANW will die: too many White people are winning.  I also secretly suspect this was the same reason that Top Shot was ended after only five seasons: It turned into a winners circle for White men (the women couldn’t compete there either…).

Women can’t compete at the level of men.  This is not to demean or devalue what they are as women or what they offer to society, but they quite simply aren’t men and can’t be expected to perform like men.  Women are also largely absent from our Hall of Heroes.  It’s not the case that there aren’t any women there, but it is the case that I can’t think of a single one right now.  Oh, wait– maybe Kacy Catanzaro.  She’s all of 4’11”, 90lbs.  She was the first woman to make it over the Warped Wall in qualifying and also the first woman to finish a qualifying course (2014 Dallas finals).  Her performance there was incredible and she’s positively full of electricity.  Go watch her 2014 and 2015 performances and I think you’ll agree.  In spite of all this she didn’t make it past the second obstacle at Mt. Midoriyama Stage One in season seven.  Her short height and light body weight made it incredibly hard for her to get a good jump off of the springboards and mini-trampolines.  But, let’s not get too distracted by the top female competitor in Ninja sport.

The point is that even in this Kali Yuga-stage of our civilization and world life-cycle, there are still ways for men and women to prove themselves in the public eye as Heroes.  We can expect these sorts of opportunities to be troubled and perverted by those who wish to see Western Civilization destroyed, and you must be able to recognize and enjoy these opportunities while they last.  As steel sharpens steel, Heroes awaken Heroes and that is the reason why we should be specifically invested in raising up Heroes and properly recognizing them when they are in our midst.

Poland Rearms in the Demographic & Cultural War (as EU and Germany Impotently Protest)

via The Occidental Observer

Sign unfurled by Polish fans at a recent
volleyball match between Germany and Poland
Last November, I was tentatively optimistic that conservative populists, particularly in Central Europe, could have a leading role in ending German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s catastrophic mismanagement of the migrant crisis.[1] In fact, developments are even more positive than we might have hoped, with the new conservative government in Poland opposing the reception of “refugees,” pushing to increase the Polish birth rate, and fighting to eliminate leftist bias in state media.

Poland has long a long and proud history of resistance to communism inspired by Polish nationalism, and the November 11 National Independence Day celebrations in Warsaw typically feature Europe’s largest nationalist demonstrations, most recently featuring over 10,000 protesters with slogans such as “Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!” and “Poland, free of Islam!”

While Jarosław Kaczyński’s Law and Justice party (PiS) won an outright majority of seats in parliamentary elections last October, not a single left-wing party was able to enter parliament, despite there being only an 8% electoral threshold to do so.

PiS are largely Cold War conservatives raised in a patriotic and Catholic counter-culture which existed in opposition to communism. Support for PiS is based in part on a widespread feeling that Poland’s liberal elites have created an economic model indifferent to poverty and destitution for many Poles. PiS’s populism is then ostensibly concerned with both patriotism and economic social justice, with moves to increases taxes on big businesses and banks.

What’s more, and very encouragingly, opposition to immigration appears to not only be popular among the elderly, who could not even have imagined Afro-Islamic settlement of their lands, but even more so among Polish youth: “Young people are decidedly more likely to be against Poland accepting refugees than the older generations, and they are often attracted to the ideology and parties of extreme nationalism.”[2]

PiS’s heritage and temperament can be problematic, with its politicians often pushing for increasing the American presence in Europe or engaging in anti-Russian conspiracy theories. For the most part however, the new PiS government has proven more positive and more radical than we might have expected. In particular, the government appears to be perfectly conscious that demography is destiny and that culture is an integral part of the struggle for national existence.

One of the first actions of the new government was, following the Paris Islamic terrorist attacks, to reject the migrant relocation scheme that was agreed on between the previous liberal government and the European Union. Poland then effectively joined the other members of the Visegrád bloc — Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania in rejecting the scheme. The European Union had initially  pushed for Poland to accept 12,000 rape- and terrorism-prone “refugees,” while today it looks like very few if any will actually arrive.

A second move is a major new program to boost fertility. Poland is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in Europe. Unfortunately, her birth rate is catastrophically low, having fallen to 1.3, one of the lowest levels in the world. Such a low birth rate, combined with substantial Polish emigration to Western Europe in search of higher wages, is disastrous for Poles’ medium and long-term power and influence in a dangerous world. The government at least sees this as a problem and is searching for solutions, notably by proposing a 500 złoty ($125) monthly universal child benefit for every child beyond the first. This represents a handsome sum in a country where the average net wage is around $850.

Thirdly, the new Polish government recognizes that mainstream Western culture has become hostile to the continued existence of European nations and indeed to traditional values in general. In particular, the government has passed a new law to eliminate leftist bias in state media and to promote patriotic programming. Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski was quite explicit in an interview with Bild, the popular German tabloid:
The previous government carried out a leftist program [in the public media]. . . . It was as if the world was set up according to a Marxist model which has to automatically develop in one direction only—a new mixture of cultures and races, a world made up of cyclists and vegetarians, who only use renewable energy and fight all forms of religion. . . . These policies have nothing to do with traditional Polish values [which are] traditions, awareness of history, patriotism, faith in God, in a normal family life between husband and wife.[3]
There is no doubt that Western elite culture has, for many decades, been sliding towards the anti-national far-left, with top intellectuals including figures such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Eric Hobsbawm, to name only a few.

Incidentally, perhaps the most prominent and vociferous critic of the new PiS government has been Adam Michnik, the Jewish editor of the leading liberal newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza and a leading “public intellectual.”

But perhaps Poland’s top “intellectual” is none other than Zygmunt Bauman, an elderly Jewish Marxist sociologist and prophet of globalization, who lulls his subjects into an awe-filled daze using phrases like “liquid modernity” and “irreversibly globalized” (the latter expression, when I first came across it, struck me quite obviously as a euphemism for the end of nations and ethnic Balkanization throughout the West, and, in the end, outright White genocide).

Bauman is, naturally, pro-immigration. In a recent article, chock-full of pseudo-moralistic and pseudo-intellectual spiel, he writes:
[O]ne conclusion needs to be equally clear: the sole way out of current discomforts and future woes leads through rejecting the treacherous temptations of separation; indeed, making such separation unfeasible by dismantling the fences of “asylum-seekers camps” and bringing the annoying differences, dissimilarities, and self-imposed estrangements into a close, daily and increasingly intimate contact — hopefully resulting in a fusion of horizons instead of their induced yet self-exacerbating fission.[4]
That is surely one of the most obtuse rationalizations for the Afro-Islamization and Balkanization of Europe that I have ever read. I would move that we test these multiculturalist theories forthwith by deporting both their promoters and the “refugees” to Israel. I would be very curious to see the results. (Speaking of “separation,” Bauman has been mildly critical of the Jewish ethno-state of Israel, but in the end has lectured there and is opposed to any boycott of the country.)

Despite the efforts of Michnik, Bauman, and their ilk, the Polish government is moving towards, at least in principle, policies for European survival: Halting of non-European migrant flows, increasing of the birth rate, and self-consciously engaging in the cultural struggle against globalization and the left. Let us hope they are successful.

Poland’s moves have naturally sparked a certain amount of hysterical kvetching in liberal media, both at home and abroad. German and EU politicians in particular have been eager to condemn the Poles. Martin Schulz, a German Social Democrat and the President of the European Parliament, went so far as to accuse recent constitutional reforms undertaken by the PiS government of having “the characteristics of a coup.” Polish football fans artfully retorted following the Night of Rape committed by Muslim migrants in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe on New Year’s Eve: “PROTECT YOUR WOMEN, NOT OUR DEMOCRACY!”

Schulz is incidentally exactly the kind of brainwashed, self-hater typical of the German ruling class. According to Haaretz, he last year told center-left Israeli politician Avraham Burg: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”[5] Schulz thus apparently believes the German state exists primarily to protect Jews and Jewish concerns (such as spreading multiculturalism in the West), the protection of German women and girls from rapist invaders being of relatively little importance. A self-enslaving European, you might say.

The European Commission in Brussels has gone further, initiating legal proceedings to supposedly protect democracy and the rule of law in Poland, which could lead to Warsaw having its voting rights as an EU member suspended. Fortunately, there is little chance that EU pressure against Poland will be successful. First, such measures would require a unanimous vote of the other 27 EU countries, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has already said he would veto any such move.

Secondly, there is every likelihood that moves against Poland taken by unelected anti-nationalist bureaucrats in Brussels would only play into the hands of the Polish government. As Pawel Swidlicki writes for the London-based think-tank Open Europe:
[M]any will argue — with some justification — that given the number of similar disputes across the EU which the Commission could have involved itself in if applying the rule of law principle dogmatically, Law and Justice has been singled out. [. . .]
[T]his is likely to be counter-productive by undermining the credibility of the [liberal] opposition by linking it to “foreign interests”. Supporters of Law and Justice will also link these developments to the increasingly bitter dispute about how the EU ought to deal with the refugee crisis to argue that Poland is being “punished” for wanting to protect its own citizens.
Despite the dubious nature of the changes introduced by Law and Justice, ultimately, it has a direct democratic mandate and the Commission does not. Law and Justice is therefore well placed to win any argument based on legitimacy, and the EU’s intervention therefore risks undermining its support even among Poles who do not support Law and Justice, as well as further afield.[6]
Already, senior German and EU officials are being portrayed in some Polish media as Nazis plotting to take over Poland again. This is clearly over the top, but I believe shows how nationalist feelings can be easily triggered by foreign meddling, and these can in turn be constructively used by the national government.

The EU and Western governments of course have tools to browbeat and bribe Central Europeans into submission. However, as Orbán or Russian President Vladimir Putin have shown, a popular, ostensibly patriotic leader can often successfully resist such pressure. Critically, Poland is already an EU member and the Polish conservatives caucus at EU level with the same mainstream group as the British Conservatives. Thus, I suspect it will be very difficult to marginalize Poland, just as Hungary has successfully held firm for years. This is in contrast to the situation in 2000, when the EU voted sanctions against Austria for allowing the democratically-elected anti-immigration party of Jörg Haider to participate in the government.

EU elites have succeeded in coercing or even eliminating national governments in the past — notably in Italy and Greece as part of the euro crisis. But this has only been possible among Eurozone members, who by membership in the “club” formally make themselves slaves to financial markets and the European Central Bank. Poland, like Hungary, still has a national currency and a central bank which can protect her from such pressure.

I am therefire quite optimistic that Poland’s conservative populists will remain securely in office, at least for a number of years. Already, even mainstream liberal media are reporting that Orbán’s hardline approach to the migrant crisis is being vindicated, while Merkel is being attacked as an incompetent boob (or worse), incapable of even protecting German women and girls from sexual assault at the hands of foreign invaders. Let us hope the Poles are successful in fighting for the cultural and demographic renewal of their nation, and that their example inspires other patriots across Europe.

[1]Guillaume Durocher, “Orbán vs. Merkel; Can Europe’s Conservative Populists End the Migrant Crisis?,” November 1, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/11/orban-vs-merkel-can-europes-conservative-populists-end-the-migrant-crisis/
[2]Gavin Rae, “Understanding the Liberals Roots of Polish Conservatism,” Social Europe Journal, January 5, 2016. http://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/01/the-liberal-roots-of-polish-conservatism/
[3]“Polish Govt. to Crush Marxists in State Media,” The New Observer,  January 4, 2016. http://newobserveronline.com/polish-govt-to-crush-marxists-in-state-media/
[4]Zygmunt Bauman, “The Migration Panic and Its (Mis)uses,” Social Europe Journal, December 17, 2015. http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/12/migration-panic-misuses/
[5]Avraham Burg, “Say a Big ‘Thank You’ to Martin Schulz,” Haaretz, February 14, 2014. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.574332
[6]Pawel Swidlicki, “Commission raised the stakes in its legal dispute with Poland — what happens next?,” Open Europe, January 14, 2016. http://openeurope.org.uk/blog/4168/

Israel Bribed Senator Tom Cotton with $1 Million to Sabotage Iran Accord

via DavidDuke.com

A Republican lawmaker at the US Senate was bribed one million dollars by Israel to try sabotaging negotiations between Tehran and the world powers, including the United States.

The name of Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) emerged on news outlets on Wednesday after a report revealed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had bribed the choosy lawmakers of the Republican Party so as to kill the accord.

Cotton received $960,250 from the Emergency Committee for Israel, a right-wing political advocacy organization based in the United States, for his senatorial campaign.

As the negotiations were continuing in March 2015, the freshman senator spearheaded an open letter, signed by 47 Republican lawmakers, to warn Iran that a GOP president would not remain committed to any agreement with Tehran.

“I’m pretty sure Bill Kristol (the owner of the Emergency Committee for Israel) did write this letter,” American geopolitical commentator Dean Henderson told Press TV at the time.

Kristol has been notorious for backing Israel and as a leading proponent of US military intervention in Muslim countries, including the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to further the Zionist interests.

Last July, Cotton likened the nuclear agreement to crucifixion of Jesus Christ and US top negotiator Secretary of State John Kerry to Pontius Pilate who let it happen.
“I will stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and work with my colleagues in Congress to stop this deal,” Cotton said during a visit to Israel later.
Despite such attempts, Iran and the world powers, which also included the UK, Germany, Russia, China, and France, reached a nuclear accord in June 2014, dubbed the Join Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Wiretaps uncovered by the Wall Street Journal recently revealed that the Israeli premier had asked the Republicans what they wanted in exchange for opposition against the JCPOA.

“Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the US-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts,” read a WSJ report.

Culture Jamming

via Radix

Stop the presses! Or should I say, hold that Pepe! They’re on to us. They know about our plans to fill the Internet with dank memes and commandeer the Overton window to our glorious identitarian century using only our power levels. And they're really upset that they're such boring losers.

Who is they you ask? None other than the reactionary commissars over at the Southern Poverty Law Center. They are “reactionary” in the sense that all they can do is “react” to what we do. They watch and wait, defending the post-modern liberal hegemony of our age, all the while raking in record donations!

They represent a rearguard action, defending gains made by a liberalism in the middle of last century that seems to have finally have run its course. Their milquetoast liberalisms, and that of their allies, act(ed) as a managerialist ideology designed to administer a mass multi culti/multi market society. And now even these idiots are starting to understand that their universalist strip mall scheme is coming apart at the seams.

Even when groups like the SPLC try to stay “relevant,” they do nothing more than trot out what will be every cuckservative’s talking points in five years. From listing “black separatist” groups ("See! We don’t see race.") to pleading direct mail pitches to aging Aquarii, the SPLC might as well be the Liberalism, Inc. to the even more ineffectual “conservative” groups in the Beltway.

They are nothing but a lame-as-hell opening act for the decidedly unchic flyover dupes that turn up for a Huckabee jamfest. Neurotic cultural geriatrics brunching over derivative peans to keep the masses submissive and in tune with the program. Glorified propaganda peddlers. Boring, bland, and utterly incapable of countering our growing forces that they cannot control. Wholly ripe for constant memetic subversion. We racist revolutionaries here at Radix take trolling such pencil-necked apologists for the disgusting and bourgeois status quo to be both a duty and a joy.

In articles like these, one sees that the “defenders” of our liberal hegemony are operating on the Schmittian friend/enemy distinction, though they’re too dull to realize it. They need to publicly trot out and shame some “extremist,” some “racist,” some “evil” group as an enemy in order to rally the flag to their cause (and more shekels to their donation coffers).

Groups such as the SPLC are the dying gasps of yesterday’s “vital center.” Its “hatemap” and other such tools are outward symbols of liberalism’s decay. It must constantly be 1965 in Selma, Alabama. They are living in the past as much as any attendee of “Reaganpalooza.” The era of identity politics is here and the cultural superstructure which has undergirded American-style liberalism for so long is showing stress. And, to our great mirth and entertainment, they know it. It's a great time to be a shitlord. It's almost like the lifeless stooges at the increasingly irrelevant SPLC are envious of our fashy fun.

The lame SPLC accuses us of “culture jamming,” which as the rather ponderous (and probable gender studies major) intern over there informs us:
is a tactic normally associated with anti-consumerist movements, and typically uses satire and irony to discredit commercial or political messages and claims. In that context, it has sometimes been referred to as “subvertising” or “guerrilla communication.”
I don’t know about most readers of Radix, but I always considered us at the cutting edge of anti-consumerist thought. Whether it’s my own brief musings on Black Friday and pop culture or Richard's admission to having more in common with the “left” than the “right” on these issue, we have always seen radical identitarianism as an enemy of the mass culture peddled by major corporations.

After all, what is more dangerous to a soulless, global megacorp than a people with an identity and values greater than a dollar sign? In fact, what being a good identitarian means is to put those primordial facts of existence first and in opposition to the twin abstractions of commercial man in the marketplace and the SPLC’s hollow men of "equality" in society.

Worst of all, however, was this line: “Radix and its publisher Richard Spencer claim to be the bourgeois thought catalog of the ‘new right.’”

Bourgeois!? Bohemian faux-aristocrats, please. (Being ‘Mis-Classed’ triggers us, it makes our health deductions go up!)

Of course, these leftists for whom “radical” thought is supposed to be the norm cannot grasp true radicalism. What is radical is edgy, and we are some of the edgiest goys in the game. What is radical is nimble and multi-faceted in thought, which we are. What is radical gets to the root of who we are. Radical, after all, comes to us from the Latin Radix, or root.

I can assure you dear readers, you will find no thoughts more radical than those from your friendly racist hipsters here at Radix!

A Quote from Ezra Pound on the Nature of World War II

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Ezra Pound  (1885-1972) was an American who lived
out his life inEurope; a poet, writer, and teacher, he
supported Mussolini andHitler, and was a
 bitter opponent of World War II
"This war is not due to a whim of Hitler or Mussolini. This war forms part of the millennial war between usurer and peasant, between the usurocracy and whoever wants to do an honest day's work with hand or mind." - Ezra Pound

Alternative White

via Alternative Right

Someone doesn't quite fit into Nazi Barbie's gang
Unlike people, culture is never entirely black or white, but it does move around a lot between these theoretical poles. As the Obama administration has progressed (by happy coincidence), the aesthetic of youth pop culture has increasingly turned towards the “black.” Judging by the recent lifespan of these swings, we may be at “Peak Black;” but this is not an exact science. I do however think—and I base this opinion on historical precedent and what I think is commonsense—that these things go in cycles. Eventually, one or several of the various reactions against the “black aesthetic” will develop into a mass phenomenon—an alternative pop cultural aesthetic will emerge, and my hope is that the Alternative Right will play some role in creating it (as opposed to merely latching on to it).

First, I should explain my terminology. Trends in popular music, fashion, and beauty ideals are my focus here. “Pop culture aesthetics” is greater than these three parts, but it is in these areas that the black and white shifts are most obvious, at least to me. My aesthetic designations of “black” and “white” are, very loosely, derived from certain stereotypes about relative differences between the white and black races. (And beyond race, the symbolic darkness vs. light dichotomy, which we all understand, is appropriate here.)

"of the earth" (possibly a euphemism)
The black aesthetic is physical, flashy and superficial; it is self-involved and nonintellectual, sexual and naturalistic. In short, you might call it “of the earth.”

The white pop cultural aesthetic is more difficult to pin down, even in a general sense, because in practice it manifests as an alternative to some aspect of the black aesthetic. I think this is because while everyone has both “white” and “black” inclinations, on the whole, most people are “black.” Obviously, though, this is a relative judgment based on where I choose to draw the line.

It is easy enough to define the abstract characteristics that have long set white civilizations apart from the rest—more contemplative, a greater tenderness, and a striving for something transcendent. But the subject of this paper is something much smaller and more immediate.

The white pop cultural aesthetic—which, by the way, is not necessarily the creation of whites, just as black pop cultural aesthetics are not necessarily creations of blacks—is, as I have said, an alternative, or a reaction, to the generally dominant black aesthetic. This white alternative might be more restrained and somber, and sometimes it is more contemplative and transcendent, but the best way that I can think to describe it is that it is less “of the earth,” and even this vague description is not comprehensive. You simply know it when you see it.

In the early 90s, alternative rock became mainstream. Sex is always a focal point for rock and pop music. But, compared with what came before it, this was less true for alternative rock. Its outlook was much less exuberant and more melancholy, and, yes, more contemplative. At the same time, the outlandish fashion styles of the 80s gave way, and the cool kids started dressing like disheveled hikers from the Pacific Northwest. This represented a white shift. Shortly thereafter, the “waif look” replaced the bombshell physical ideal of the 80s.

The antechamber to nihilism.
By the turn of the millennium, pop culture began to turn black again, although it did not go as far in this direction as was the case in the 80s. Eminem emerged as Hip-Hop’s Elvis at the same time that alternative rock was petering-out. Rock music became more aggressive, and actually tried to incorporate rapping vocals. Alternative rock stations (at least in Chicago) even began to play Kanye West songs. Wiggers increased in number, and a greater share of white-signaling whites took to country music—which quality- and content-wise, is rap music for white people. Pure pop music enjoyed a resurgence. I do not remember any significant change in the physical ideal (perhaps more boyish men? or was that a 90s holdover?), but I think the ‘curvy is beautiful’ campaign might have started around this time.

After the dramatic swings of the 80s and 90s, the pendulum seemed to oscillate nearer its equilibrium during the first decade of the twenty-first century. And so the minor black reorientation early in the decade was followed by a minor white reorientation, sometime around the middle of the decade. Rock staged a mini-comeback, and folkish music gained in popularity.

In other times, folk music might qualify as relatively black. It is a close call. But here it was relatively white because it was (partially) displacing pop music. Alternative rock DJs joked about the dark days when they had played Kanye West songs. The wigger population declined. The trend in sports team logos and uniforms was towards simplicity and restraint. Young men stopped dying their hair platinum blond. And of course, there was the rise the hipster.

The implicit Whiteness of beards n' tats.
“Hip” young people colonizing urban areas was nothing new, but this time, the group had an unprecedented influence on the styles and sensibilities of young adults. If you were a twenty-something white American living in a city circa 2010, you were probably a hipster. And many more members of this tribe could be found in every corner of the country. Hipsterdom is a massive movement that moves in many directions, and many within it tend toward a slovenly and lazy route. On the whole though, their fashions and manners are more elegant than the youth culture that preceded it. Its particular manifestations may be hamfisted, but at the core of the hipster is a desire to be, and to have, something authentic.

But now we are back into the black, guys. The metrosexual of the early twenty-first century is back, only this time it is blacker because there is more of an emphasis on being buff (within the metrosexual community and without). The preferred body-type for hipster men (and women) was a sort of lissome medieval ideal. The intuition behind this was that excessive devotion to ones physical body was unworthy of their time, and at the same time, to encourage the perception that they were thin without working at it. Thinness always signals that one is less “of the earth,” but all the more so if it comes to the person naturally. Conversely, the buff metrosexual of today wants you to know that he is working for ‘them gains.’ His social media accounts are full of progress pics and photos taken at the gym. (The shameless narcissism on social media is probably the blackest development of all.)

The change has been even more dramatic among women. A decade ago, having a big ass was a big problem. Jennifer Lopez’s butt looked like it was from a cartoon; now we see similar asses everyday without batting an eye. It is not that guys ten years ago expressed a preference for small asses, it is just that we (aside from country boys and blacks) did not really pay it much notice. Now, today’s young women do not want fat asses, they just want bigger asses. They work-out to increase the size of their asses. Indeed, they want to be thicker in general, but fit-thick, not fat-thick. The ideal female body-type now is basically a gymnast-look, but with a more of a sexy twist. Instead of exercising to perform a sport, the aim of young women is to exaggerate their feminine curves.

Kardashian upping the ass stakes.
Wiggers remain irrelevant, but all these new black bodies need black clothes, and the market is meeting this demand. Hipster stores have adjusted, selling more neon wares, pants with elastic at the ankles, and such. Most interesting (to me) though, has been the resurgence of the Eurotrash style (and the Eurotrash aesthetic is fairly black). Department stores are carrying even more clothes of this type, and authentic Eurotrash stores are expanding their North American presence: Zaras have started popping-up, and H&M, a Hipster-Eurotrash amalgam, is now tacking more to the Eurotrash side.

• • • • •

My point is not that the white pop cultural aesthetic is better, though I generally lean that way. And, using recent history as a gauge, the prominence of a white pop cultural aesthetic does little to foster white racial identity. I just think that (1) we are due for a white aesthetic revival and (2) it may as well be led by people interested in affecting an actual white revival.

Aesthetic taste is a judgement of what is attractive. Most people are “black,” but the people who matter, who guide the course of history, are “white.” We want to be attractive to the people who matter. How do we do this? I am not the person to penetrate that mystery. I think in words, not images. If you are interested in an aesthetic prescription for intellectual literature, I think I have something to offer, but as for the how and why of pop culture aesthetics, I am lost. There are certain aesthetic trends on the Alternative Right that I would like to see discontinued (lets save that for later), but any positive recommendations must come from elsewhere. Hopefully, the sketch I have provided will inspire someone in this direction.

Ultimately, the future success of our side depends on us developing an intellectual argument that flows from a compelling first principle. Cultural and political gains by other means are not sustainable without a philosophical core. Even the most masterful pop cultural aesthetics die within a generation. Still, like all ideological movements, our goal is to make the world more beautiful, and aesthetics, even the pop culture sort, must be part of that. And while most people are black, they want to be white.

Three Ways to Become a Better Woman

via Right On

If you are a woman reading this, you are truly part of a small, exclusive group, and I want to express my deepest appreciation for your interest and dedication. You also belong to that half of the population which has been most thoroughly subjected to the malicious and fanciful Cultural Marxist propaganda.

It has, amongst other things, convinced you that the male role is the norm for everyone, and that it is something you should aspire to. It has put the idea into your head that you should always put education and career before family, and that ‘sexual liberation’, in the sense of imitating the worst aspects of male sexuality and the pursuit of multiple partners, is something that strengthens you — rather than something that damages you, as massive empirical evidence suggests it does. You are also the primary targets of the propaganda which abuses and takes advantage of emotions (empathy in particular), and promotes ‘multiculturalism’, ‘White guilt’, and ‘equality’, which has led to the sad fact that today, Swedish and European women more generally tend to be far more Leftist than the men in those countries. Women constitute an integral component in the maintaining of the politically correct order, since they assume the role of the thought police in their daily lives much more often than men do, and do their best to hinder and punish people in their surroundings who have dared to deviate from the politically correct, Cultural Marxist norm.

If you are reading this you have probably seen through the politically correct factory of lies, and perhaps you are also aware of the facts mentioned above. Nonetheless, to make your efforts for normalising Europe as effective as possible, follow this simple advice:

1) Get your priorities straight. In your autumn years, having a successful career behind you will be nothing compared to having a large family, with grandchildren and everything else that comes with it. This is also the best and most natural method for ensuring your retirement benefits — a few decades from now, your children and grandchildren will be far more inclined to take care of you than the rapidly crumbling European welfare states will. Besides, passing your genes on is a far worthier goal in life than slaving for some multinational corporation, which will forget all about you the second you retire. Furthermore, the plummeting birth rates of Europe must be reversed. Make sure to have at least three children, and raise them well. In this regard, the future of Europe rests squarely in your hands.

2) Recognise the value of your personal honour. Forget everything contemporary society and the Left tried to make you believe in relation to the ‘sexual revolution’. If you are lucky, you had good parents who raised you well and taught you the fundamental truths, such as the fact that your long-term interests are not served by having sexual relations with a man the first time you meet. Rather, restraint on the part of women facilitates the process of ‘falling in love’, and creates better conditions for lasting, sound relationships. Even if men try to get you into bed the first time you meet, you should view this as a test, a test which you will fail miserably if you succumb. Most men will have a lot more respect for you if you refuse, and it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what they try to tell you or themselves about the matter.

3) Nurture your femininity. Realise that your feminine qualities are your greatest assets. Nurture and develop them. They are also your main weapon in the rather brutal competition which constitutes natural selection, and it is your primary strength in your interactions with men. Do not be fooled into believing that adopting male behavioural patterns are to your advantage. The sooner in life you realise this, the more successful and happy you will be. Developing intellectually and acquiring skills are things you can always do, but imitating male patterns of behaviour and competing with men is hard enough for men. You have nothing to gain by doing so.

Always strive to improve yourself within the framework of your naturally given gender role, and thus your natural role in society and the community. You may live in a depraved, undignified age, and a certain degree of adaptation may be necessary, but it is you who are reading this and people like you who will form the vanguard in the reformation of European society, and the restoration of our ancient, traditional ideals. These ideals once built the great civilisation of Europe, and they will rebuild it when this age of darkness ends.

Capitalism, Socialism, & Dysgenics

via Counter-Currents

Evgenii Vuchetich, We Shall Beat Our
Swords Into Plowshares, 1957
Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: The following text is Jack London’s essay “Wanted: A New Law of Development,” from his book The War of the Classes (1905). The subject of this essay is eugenics and dysgenics, although London does not use those words. So one can better follow his argument, I have edited out passages where he adduces example after example from the news of the day.

Evolution is no longer a mere tentative hypothesis. One by one, step by step, each division and subdivision of science has contributed its evidence, until now the case is complete and the verdict rendered. While there is still discussion as to the method of evolution, none the less, as a process sufficient to explain all biological phenomena, all differentiations of life into widely diverse species, families, and even kingdoms, evolution is flatly accepted. Likewise has been accepted its law of development: THAT, IN THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE, THE STRONG AND FIT AND THE PROGENY OF THE STRONG AND FIT HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR SURVIVAL THAN THE WEAK AND LESS FIT AND THE PROGENY OF THE WEAK AND LESS FIT.

It is in the struggle of the species with other species and against all other hostile forces in the environment, that this law operates; also in the struggle between the individuals of the same species. In this struggle, which is for food and shelter, the weak individuals must obviously win less food and shelter than the strong. Because of this, their hold on life relaxes and they are eliminated. And for the same reason that they may not win for themselves adequate food and shelter, the weak cannot give to their progeny the chance for survival that the strong give. And thus, since the weak are prone to beget weakness, the species is constantly purged of its inefficient members.

Because of this, a premium is placed upon strength, and so long as the struggle for food and shelter obtains, just so long will the average strength of each generation increase. On the other hand, should conditions so change that all, and the progeny of all, the weak as well as the strong, have an equal chance for survival, then, at once, the average strength of each generation will begin to diminish. Never yet, however, in animal life, has there been such a state of affairs. Natural selection has always obtained. The strong and their progeny, at the expense of the weak, have always survived. This law of development has operated down all the past upon all life; it so operates today, and it is not rash to say that it will continue to operate in the future — at least upon all life existing in a state of nature.

Man, preeminent though he is in the animal kingdom, capable of reacting upon and making suitable an unsuitable environment, nevertheless remains the creature of this same law of development. The social selection to which he is subject is merely another form of natural selection. True, within certain narrow limits he modifies the struggle for existence and renders less precarious the tenure of life for the weak. The extremely weak, diseased, and inefficient are housed in hospitals and asylums. The strength of the viciously strong, when inimical to society, is tempered by penal institutions and by the gallows. The short-sighted are provided with spectacles, and the sickly (when they can pay for it) with sanitariums. Pestilential marshes are drained, plagues are checked, and disasters averted. Yet, for all that, the strong and the progeny of the strong survive, and the weak are crushed out. The men strong of brain are masters as of yore. They dominate society and gather to themselves the wealth of society. With this wealth they maintain themselves and equip their progeny for the struggle. They build their homes in healthful places, purchase the best fruits, meats, and vegetables the market affords, and buy themselves the ministrations of the most brilliant and learned of the professional classes. The weak man, as of yore, is the servant, the doer of things at the master’s call. The weaker and less efficient he is, the poorer is his reward. The weakest work for a living wage (when they can get work), live in unsanitary slums, on vile and insufficient food, at the lowest depths of human degradation. Their grasp on life is indeed precarious, their mortality excessive, their infant death-rate appalling.

That some should be born to preferment and others to ignominy in order that the race may progress, is cruel and sad; but none the less they are so born. The weeding out of human souls, some for fatness and smiles, some for leanness and tears, is surely a heartless selective process — as heartless as it is natural. And the human family, for all its wonderful record of adventure and achievement, has not yet succeeded in avoiding this process. That it is incapable of doing this is not to be hazarded. Not only is it capable, but the whole trend of society is in that direction. All the social forces are driving man on to a time when the old selective law will be annulled. There is no escaping it, save by the intervention of catastrophes and cataclysms quite unthinkable. It is inexorable. It is inexorable because the common man demands it. The twentieth century, the common man says, is his day; the common man’s day, or, rather, the dawning of the common man’s day.

Nor can it be denied. The evidence is with him. The previous centuries, and more notably the nineteenth, have marked the rise of the common man. From chattel slavery to serfdom, and from serfdom to what he bitterly terms “wage slavery,” he has risen. Never was he so strong as he is today, and never so menacing. He does the work of the world, and he is beginning to know it. The world cannot get along without him, and this also he is beginning to know. All the human knowledge of the past, all the scientific discovery, governmental experiment, and invention of machinery, have tended to his advancement. His standard of living is higher. His common school education would shame princes ten centuries past. His civil and religious liberty makes him a free man, and his ballot the peer of his betters. And all this has tended to make him conscious, conscious of himself, conscious of his class. He looks about him and questions that ancient law of development. It is cruel and wrong, he is beginning to declare. It is an anachronism. Let it be abolished. Why should there be one empty belly in all the world, when the work of ten men can feed a hundred? What if my brother be not so strong as I? He has not sinned. Wherefore should he hunger — he and his sinless little ones? Away with the old law. There is food and shelter for all, therefore let all receive food and shelter.

As fast as labor has become conscious it has organized. The ambition of these class-conscious men is that the movement shall become general, that all labor shall become conscious of itself and its class interests. And the day that witnesses the solidarity of labor, they triumphantly affirm, will be a day when labor dominates the world. This growing consciousness has led to the organization of two movements, both separate and distinct, but both converging toward a common goal — one, the labor movement, known as Trade Unionism; the other, the political movement, known as Socialism. Both are grim and silent forces, unheralded and virtually unknown to the general public save in moments of stress. The sleeping labor giant receives little notice from the capitalistic press, and when he stirs uneasily, a column of surprise, indignation, and horror suffices.

It is only now and then, after long periods of silence, that the labor movement puts in its claim for notice. All is quiet. The kind old world spins on, and the bourgeois masters clip their coupons in smug complacency. But the grim and silent forces are at work.

Suddenly, like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, comes a disruption of industry. From ocean to ocean the wheels of a great chain of railroads cease to run. A quarter of a million miners throw down pick and shovel and outrage the sun with their pale, bleached faces. The street railways of a swarming metropolis stand idle, or the rumble of machinery in vast manufactories dies away to silence. There is alarm and panic. Arson and homicide stalk forth. There is a cry in the night, and quick anger and sudden death. Peaceful cities are affrighted by the crack of rifles and the snarl of machine-guns, and the hearts of the shuddering are shaken by the roar of dynamite. There is hurrying and skurrying. The wires are kept hot between the centre of government and the seat of trouble. The chiefs of state ponder gravely and advise, and governors of states implore. There is assembling of militia and massing of troops, and the streets resound to the tramp of armed men. There are separate and joint conferences between the captains of industry and the captains of labor. And then, finally, all is quiet again, and the memory of it is like the memory of a bad dream.

But these strikes become olympiads, things to date from; and common on the lips of men become such phrases as “The Great Dock Strike,” “The Great Coal Strike,” “The Great Railroad Strike.” Never before did labor do these things. After the Great Plague in England, labor, finding itself in demand and innocently obeying the economic law, asked higher wages. But the masters set a maximum wage, restrained workingmen from moving about from place to place, refused to tolerate idlers, and by most barbarous legal methods punished those who disobeyed. But labor is accorded greater respect today. Such a policy, put into effect in this the first decade of the twentieth century, would sweep the masters from their seats in one mighty crash. And the masters know it and are respectful.

[ . . . ]

The political movement known as Socialism is, perhaps, even less realized by the general public. The great strides it has taken and the portentous front it today exhibits are not comprehended; and, fastened though it is in every land, it is given little space by the capitalistic press. For all its plea and passion and warmth, it wells upward like a great, cold tidal wave, irresistible, inexorable, ingulfing present-day society level by level. By its own preachment it is inexorable. Just as societies have sprung into existence, fulfilled their function, and passed away, it claims, just as surely is present society hastening on to its dissolution. This is a transition period — and destined to be a very short one. Barely a century old, capitalism is ripening so rapidly that it can never live to see a second birthday. There is no hope for it, the Socialists say. It is doomed.

The cardinal tenet of Socialism is that forbidding doctrine, the materialistic conception of history. Men are not the masters of their souls. They are the puppets of great, blind forces. The lives they live and the deaths they die are compulsory. All social codes are but the reflexes of existing economic conditions, plus certain survivals of past economic conditions. The institutions men build they are compelled to build. Economic laws determine at any given time what these institutions shall be, how long they shall operate, and by what they shall be replaced. And so, through the economic process, the Socialist preaches the ripening of the capitalistic society and the coming of the new cooperative society.

The second great tenet of Socialism, itself a phase of the materialistic conception of history, is the class struggle. In the social struggle for existence, men are forced into classes. “The history of all society thus far is the history of class strife.” In existing society the capitalist class exploits the working class, the proletariat. The interests of the exploiter are not the interests of the exploited. “Profits are legitimate,” says the one. “Profits are unpaid wages,” replies the other, when he has become conscious of his class, “therefore profits are robbery.” The capitalist enforces his profits because he is the legal owner of all the means of production. He is the legal owner because he controls the political machinery of society. The Socialist sets to work to capture the political machinery, so that he may make illegal the capitalist’s ownership of the means of production, and make legal his own ownership of the means of production. And it is this struggle, between these two classes, upon which the world has at last entered.

Scientific Socialism is very young. Only yesterday it was in swaddling clothes. But today it is a vigorous young giant, well braced to battle for what it wants, and knowing precisely what it wants.

[ . . . ]

[T]he Socialist and labor movements have recently entered upon a new phase. There has been a remarkable change in attitude on both sides. For a long time the labor unions refrained from going in for political action. On the other hand, the Socialists claimed that without political action labor was powerless. And because of this there was much ill feeling between them, even open hostilities, and no concerted action. But now the Socialists grant that the labor movement has held up wages and decreased the hours of labor, and the labor unions find that political action is necessary. Today both parties have drawn closely together in the common fight. In the United States this friendly feeling grows. The Socialist papers espouse the cause of labor, and the unions have opened their ears once more to the wiles of the Socialists. They are all leavened with Socialist workmen, “boring from within,” and many of their leaders have already succumbed. In England, where class consciousness is more developed, the name “Unionism” has been replaced by “The New Unionism,” the main object of which is “to capture existing social structures in the interests of the wage-earners.” [ . . . ]

For centuries the world has been preparing for the coming of the common man. And the period of preparation virtually past, labor, conscious of itself and its desires, has begun a definite movement toward solidarity. It believes the time is not far distant when the historian will speak not only of the dark ages of feudalism, but of the dark ages of capitalism. And labor sincerely believes itself justified in this by the terrible indictment it brings against capitalistic society. In the face of its enormous wealth, capitalistic society forfeits its right to existence when it permits widespread, bestial poverty. The philosophy of the survival of the fittest does not soothe the class-conscious worker when he learns through his class literature that among the Italian pants-finishers of Chicago the average weekly wage is $1.31, and the average number of weeks employed in the year is 27.85.[1] Likewise when he reads: “Every room in these reeking tenements houses a family or two. In one room a missionary found a man ill with small-pox, his wife just recovering from her confinement, and the children running about half naked and covered with dirt. Here are seven people living in one underground kitchen, and a little dead child lying in the same room. Here live a widow and her six children, two of whom are ill with scarlet fever. In another, nine brothers and sisters, from twenty-nine years of age downward, live, eat, and sleep together.”[10] And likewise, when he reads: “When one man, fifty years old, who has worked all his life, is compelled to beg a little money to bury his dead baby, and another man, fifty years old, can give ten million dollars to enable his daughter to live in luxury and bolster up a decaying foreign aristocracy, do you see nothing amiss?”[3]

And on the other hand, the class-conscious worker reads the statistics of the wealthy classes, knows what their incomes are, and how they get them. True, down all the past he has known his own material misery and the material comfort of the dominant classes, and often has this knowledge led him to intemperate acts and unwise rebellion. But today, and for the first time, because both society and he have evolved, he is beginning to see a possible way out. His ears are opening to the propaganda of Socialism, the passionate gospel of the dispossessed. But it does not inculcate a turning back. The way through is the way out, he understands, and with this in mind he draws up the programme.

It is quite simple, this programme. Everything is moving in his direction, toward the day when he will take charge. The trust? Ah, no. Unlike the trembling middle-class man and the small capitalist, he sees nothing at which to be frightened. He likes the trust. He exults in the trust, for it is largely doing the task for him. It socializes production; this done, there remains nothing for him to do but socialize distribution, and all is accomplished. The trust? “It organizes industry on an enormous, labor-saving scale, and abolishes childish, wasteful competition.” It is a gigantic object lesson, and it preaches his political economy far more potently than he can preach it. He points to the trust, laughing scornfully in the face of the orthodox economists. “You told me this thing could not be,”[4] he thunders. “Behold, the thing is!”

He sees competition in the realm of production passing away. When the captains of industry have thoroughly organized production, and got everything running smoothly, it will be very easy for him to eliminate the profits by stepping in and having the thing run for himself. And the captain of industry, if he be good, may be given the privilege of continuing the management on a fair salary. The sixty millions of dividends which the Standard Oil Company annually declares will be distributed among the workers. The same with the great United States Steel Corporation. The president of that corporation knows his business. Very good. Let him become Secretary of the Department of Iron and Steel of the United States. But, since the chief executive of a nation of seventy-odd millions works for $50,000 a year, the Secretary of the Department of Iron and Steel must expect to have his salary cut accordingly. And not only will the workers take to themselves the profits of national and municipal monopolies, but also the immense revenues which the dominant classes today draw from rents, and mines, and factories, and all manner of enterprises.

All this would seem very like a dream, even to the worker, if it were not for the fact that like things have been done before. He points triumphantly to the aristocrat of the eighteenth century, who fought, legislated, governed, and dominated society, but who was shorn of power and displaced by the rising bourgeoisie. Ay, the thing was done, he holds. And it shall be done again, but this time it is the proletariat who does the shearing. Sociology has taught him that m-i-g-h-t spells “right.” Every society has been ruled by classes, and the classes have ruled by sheer strength, and have been overthrown by sheer strength. The bourgeoisie, because it was the stronger, dragged down the nobility of the sword; and the proletariat, because it is the strongest of all, can and will drag down the bourgeoisie.

And in that day, for better or worse, the common man becomes the master — for better, he believes. It is his intention to make the sum of human happiness far greater. No man shall work for a bare living wage, which is degradation. Every man shall have work to do, and shall be paid exceedingly well for doing it. There shall be no slum classes, no beggars. Nor shall there be hundreds of thousands of men and women condemned, for economic reasons, to lives of celibacy or sexual infertility. Every man shall be able to marry, to live in healthy, comfortable quarters, and to have all he wants to eat as many times a day as he wishes. There shall no longer be a life-and-death struggle for food and shelter. The old heartless law of development shall be annulled.

All of which is very good and very fine. And when these things have come to pass, what then? Of old, by virtue of their weakness and inefficiency in the struggle for food and shelter, the race was purged of its weak and inefficient members. But this will no longer obtain. Under the new order the weak and the progeny of the weak will have a chance for survival equal to that of the strong and the progeny of the strong. This being so, the premium upon strength will have been withdrawn, and on the face of it the average strength of each generation, instead of continuing to rise, will begin to decline.

When the common man’s day shall have arrived, the new social institutions of that day will prevent the weeding out of weakness and inefficiency. All, the weak and the strong, will have an equal chance for procreation. And the progeny of all, of the weak as well as the strong, will have an equal chance for survival. This being so, and if no new effective law of development be put into operation, then progress must cease. And not only progress, for deterioration would at once set in. It is a pregnant problem. What will be the nature of this new and most necessary law of development? Can the common man pause long enough from his undermining labors to answer? Since he is bent upon dragging down the bourgeoisie and reconstructing society, can he so reconstruct that a premium, in some unguessed way or other, will still be laid upon the strong and efficient so that the human type will continue to develop? Can the common man, or the uncommon men who are allied with him, devise such a law? Or have they already devised one? And if so, what is it?

1. From figures presented by Miss Nellie Mason Auten in the American Journal of Sociology, and copied extensively by the trade-union and Socialist press.
2. “The Bitter Cry of Outcast London.”
3. An item from the Social Democratic Herald. Hundreds of these items, culled from current happenings, are published weekly in the papers of the workers.
4. Karl Marx, the great Socialist, worked out the trust development forty years ago, for which he was laughed at by the orthodox economists.