Jan 27, 2016

National Review’s Failed Conservatism of Values, Ideas, and Principles

via The Occidental Observer

The National Review assault on Donald Trump brings up the issue of basing one’s political views on values, ideas, and principles. The problem is simply that these abstractions may or may not reflect fundamental interests, and the Trump candidacy is bringing this to the fore. The NR commentary is essentially a brief for the priority of principles, ideas, and values over interests. NR editor Rich Lowry sums up the theme:
If you truly are conservative, you believe in ideas and in principles, … It’s not just attitudes. It’s not just who you dislike. It’s limited government. It’s the Constitution. It’s liberty. Those are the things that truly make this country special. And they are basically afterthoughts to Donald Trump. He almost never talks about them.
For Lowry, the contrast is between ideas and principles versus not liking someone (?!). Concerns about “limited government” and respect for the Constitution are the main themes running through the comments. Trump just hasn’t been mouthing adherence to either of them, and his critics point to instances, mainly in the past, where he has strayed from these abstractions. (Yes, the Constitution is an abstraction, because as Joe Sobran said (and quoted by Gregory Hood), “the Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.” It follows from this, and it is certainly true, that the Constitution does not pose any serious threat to the eclipse of White America.)

In all of this, there is no mention of fundamental interests that might  be compromised by adhering to the principles they espouse. As I noted in a recent article on the response to Trump, “Conservatism Inc. may argue that Trump is not a ‘conservative.’ But the reality is that Trump voters are focusing on his big issues—immigration first and foremost. Unless we win the immigration battle, none of the other battles can possibly be won.”

Immigration, more than any other issue, reflects fundamental interests in the ethnic composition of the United States. As an obvious example, limited government is not going to repatriate millions of illegal immigrants, or keep them out in the future. It is an enduring Utopian ideal that limited, constitutional government and individual freedom can survive importing millions of people from radically different cultures—cultures with no history of limited, constitutional government or individual freedom, and often with hatred toward the peoples and cultures of the West. Only the most reality-detached ideologue could believe that it’s all going to work out and something resembling traditional American institutions will be around in a few decades time if current trends continue. As Jared Taylor points out, “Do they really believe that Mexicans and Haitians and Guatemalans and Vietnamese and Bangladeshis and Chinese are ever going to be made to care about the Second Amendment or Madisonian democracy or limited government?”

This mindset among NR conservatives reflects a common defect among liberal Protestants that surfaced originally in the nineteenth century — the idea that the very different people crowding the shores of the U.S. would become “just like us.” These immigrants would eventually become good Protestants. What we are seeing now is how important segments of non-White immigrants, most obviously Muslims, are in fact unassimilable. They are never going to “become like us” and be concerned about the principles and values so near and dear to conservatives. It was the realization that so many of the post-1890 immigrants were infected with radical political beliefs that finally made Americans realize that immigrants don’t automatically turn into patriotic Americans. This realization was an important impetus for the 1924 immigration law.

It’s obvious that importing millions of non-Whites has resulted in increasing pressures directed squarely at some of the sacred principles conservatives claim to value, in particular pressure for controls on speech and thought resulting from the need to knuckle under to aggressive minorities that don’t take criticism kindly, no matter how factually based. This is especially the case in universities and the media, where violators of multicultural decorum are routinely harassed and fired. But intellectual rationales for curtailing speech critical of the multicultural ideal are already common in the legal community in the U.S., while in Europe, police-state controls on thought and  behavior intended to buttress the the multicultural revolution are firmly ensconced. For Germany reeling under the migrant onslaught, the first priority is to manage nativist anger, not restricting migration or repatriating migrants. And throughout the Western world, there is increased surveillance because of terrorism threats resulting ultimately from immigration.

Although the San Bernardino shootings and the long list of terrorist incidents prior to that certainly focus the public’s attention one of the costs of massive unselected immigration, the far greater problem is that massive immigration leads to a loss of a sense of national identity as bound up with a particular people and culture. There is an elite consensus that citizenship  is simply a matter of accepting basic principles of democracy and individual freedom — the “proposition nation” concept of citizenship — rather than protecting the interests of a particular people. The ideology of the proposition nation is now a consensus among political and intellectual elites throughout the West, and certainly “conservatives” are no exception.

We have to understand that this way of thinking is the result of the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, the intellectual basis for which is discussed in The Culture of Critique. In CofC I discuss a paper by Roger Smith, who shows that until the triumph of the cultural pluralist model with the countercultural revolution of the 1960s, there were three competing models of American identity: the “liberal” individualist legacy of the Enlightenment based on “natural rights”; the “republican” ideal of a cohesive, socially homogeneous society; and the “ethnocultural” strand emphasizing the importance of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in the development and preservation of American cultural forms.[1]  These three strands are compatible with each other, but only if the US had retained its traditional homogeneous White underpinnings. Recall that the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, with its built-in sense of White identity politics (i.e., biasing immigration to people from Northwest Europe), was essentially upheld over presidential veto not that long ago, in 1952. Yet these principled conservatives act as if their ideals have always been the guiding principles of the Republic. Fundamentally, they have plugged into the leftist zeitgeist in order to make themselves palatable to the powers that be — or, in the case of the rather large percentage of Jewish neocons among the NR essayists, they have simply passed off their leftist impulses and ethnic interests in a non-White America as the true conservatism.

The problem is that these self-described conservatives have thrown out all of this except the Enlightenment ideals. By denigrating and religiously avoiding the traditional ethnocultural strand of American identity as well as the republican ideal of a cohesive and socially homogeneous society, these “conservatives” have wholeheartedly gone along with this revolution. It is a revolution that amounts to the suicide of the West. In the end, it is anything but conservative.

The outcome of the present policies is utterly predictable decline in social cohesion, with far-ranging costs in terms of increased conflict and crime, and a lessened willingness and ability to contribute to public goods such as welfare and health care. It’s well known that ethnic diversity is correlated with a host of undesirable outcomes. People in ethnically diverse societies invest less in social capital, they cooperate less, are less prone to engage in volunteer work, and there is less trust among citizens.

Given all that, how can any rational person suppose that a set of principles, ideas, and values that result in all of these costs to the White population of the U.S. could be anything other than a suicide wish in the present political context? Immigration is the bedrock issue. Nothing else matters. The lack of concern about immigration in favor of principles and  values is a deadly flaw in conservatism as promoted by Lowry et al. If the NR conservatives would have their way, immigration would not even be an issue in the campaign. If nothing else, we all have to thank Donald Trump for putting it front and center in the public consciousness.

Several of the comments reflect a concern that, far from being a small-government conservative, Trump represents a kind of veiled fascism:
  • In a comment that assumes that Trump wants absolute power, Yuval Levin: “American conservatism is an inherently skeptical political outlook. It assumes that no one can be fully trusted with public power and that self-government in a free society demands that we reject the siren song of politics-as-management.”
  • William Kristol: “Isn’t Trumpism a two-bit Caesarism of a kind that American conservatives have always disdained?”
  • Ben Domenech: Trump advocates “a rejection of our Madisonian inheritance and an embrace of Barack Obama’s authoritarianism.” (Elsewhere Domenech writes that Trump “would throw the Constitution and the rule of law to the winds in pursuit of an aggressive promise of unilateral change – and [his supporters] are fine with that.”)
  • R. R. Reno: Trump “presents himself as a Strong Man who promises to knock heads and make things right again. In this, he has a lot more in common with South American populist demagogues than with our tradition of political leaders.”
  • David Boaz: “Trump’s greatest offenses against American tradition and our founding principles are his nativism and his promise of one-man rule. … He’s effectively vowing to be an American Mussolini, concentrating power in the Trump White House and governing by fiat.”
  • David McIntosh: Trump’s policy ideas are “the ramblings of a liberal wannabe strongman who will use and abuse the power of the federal government to impose his ideas on the country.”
There is essentially zero evidence for any of this. But underneath such sentiments is a guilty conscience—the realization that establishment conservatives have done nothing to stem the actions of our hostile elite in running roughshod over the interests of White America in maintaining its political and demographic hegemony. Indeed, in many ways, despite their rhetoric, they are a major part of our hostile elite. Several of the essayists acknowledge that there are very real grievances underlying the anger so many White Americans feel, including the failure of Republicans to do anything to stem the anger and frustration of its base (see especially Domenech and Reno). But their prescription is that these extremely frustrated, angry (White) voters reject Trump and pledge allegiance to principles of individual freedom, limited government, the free market, etc., and hope for the best, even though they can’t explain how these principles would do anything to assuage their deeper concerns. Indeed, these principles are sometimes used as a rationale for the immigration onslaught, as with David McIntosh of the very pro-immigration, philosophically libertarian, free trade-obsessed Club for Growth.

It’s like they are saying, “Okay, we haven’t done anything to help you out and we can’t explain how subscribing to principles of freedom and limited government would really address your concerns over how immigration has transformed the U.S. But please don’t vote for the only person who is even discussing these concerns.”

Nobody’s listening, apart from the Beltway conservatives who are plugged into the Conservatism, Inc. gravy train.

If we are in fact seeing the beginning of a politics of more-or-less explicit White identity,  the irrelevant cuckservatives at the dying NR must receive a great deal of the credit. And for that we can be thankful.

[1] Smith, R. M. (1988). The “American creed” and American identity: The limits of liberal citizenship in the United States. Western Political Science Quarterly 41:225–252.

The Orthodox-Shia Alliance

via Soul of the East

Earlier this month, a peaceful cleric of Shia Islam, the Arab ayatollah Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, was put unjustly to death by the odious extremist Saudi regime, for making the statement that the Shi’ites under their rule deserved the bare basics of human respect – and that if they didn’t get it from the government, then they should appeal to authorities elsewhere. But, contrary to the claims of the government which killed him, he never appealed to violence: he insisted that protesters use ‘the roar of the word’ rather than the blade of the sword. Naturally, the only way to deal with a troublemaker like Sheikh al-Nimr is to prove him right and to further his cause by making him a martyr, and that, the Saudis have accomplished with remarkable effectiveness.

The unjust shedding of the blood of the righteous ayatollah has led to something of a chill in Saudi-Iranian relations, naturally. But what is truly interesting about al-Nimr’s case is how it has highlighted the common plight of Christians and Shi’ite Muslims in the Middle East, particularly in areas and under regimes where the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam holds its strongest sway. It is this shared plight that has brought together Shia and Christian first in Iraq, then in Lebanon, then in Syria. But is this shared plight merely the basis of an alliance of convenience, as Lebanese Christian Rony Khoury, interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor, claims? Or is there some deeper and theological reason that Shia Muslims and Christians are making common cause throughout the Levant and the Fertile Crescent, and look set to do so even in repressive Saudi Arabia?

It certainly hasn’t always been the case, and it is never wise to look at the history of relations between Christianity and Islam without a good cold dose of realism. Both Sunni regimes and Shi’ite ones have historically repressed Christians – and these usually belonging to the Assyrian, Armenian or Georgian nations. Modern revolutionary Iran, though Armenian and Assyrian Christians are for the most part left to themselves and even guaranteed representation on the Majlis, still does not legally allow any ethnic Persian to become a Christian. But it does seem fair to say, in the same spirit of realism, that the Sunni regimes have always treated us more barbarically than the Shi’ite ones, and very often, the nation of Iran has been the sole convenient refuge for Christians facing worse repression elsewhere. I think it may be warranted to look at the philosophical, if not theological, reasons why Shia Islam is often closer to Christianity – and not just the political reason of the convenience of two minorities banding together against a violent and murderous majority.

Hezbollah Salute Church
Hezbollah soldiers honor Our Lord and the Mother of God at this church in Syria. Many have died defending Christian communities there

From the first, in the Shia-Sunni split, there have been interesting parallels with Christendom amongst the followers of Ali. Martyrdom is treated very seriously by the Shi’ites on account of the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala, which, in particular, is of a Christian type. The seventy-two followers of Husayn, who were hopelessly outnumbered in the fight against an army of five thousand, behaved chivalrously, riding out one at a time to draw the fighting away from their main camp, in order to protect the women and children who were with them; Husayn himself did the same thing, and fought in personal combat against the armies of Yazid, and was killed. His body and those of his followers were mutilated outrageously. But in that battle, they laid down their lives for their friends in the same way many military saints of our Church have done. This is not to say, naturally, that the Islamic theology they held to, with its Arian presuppositions, is correct or justified, or that Husayn (or Sheikh al-Nimr) should be treated as a saint by Christians. Only, rather, that the Shia Muslims have for their own prominent spiritual model, a type which (whether consciously or not) recalls the self-sacrifice of Christ.

Khameini Visits Christian Mother
Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini visits the mother of a Armenian Christian soldier who died fighting in the Iran-Iraq War, Christmas 2015

Shia Islam, particularly that of Iran, has been for understandable cultural reasons highly receptive to the ideals of righteous kingship and social justice that pervaded the convictions of the Zoroastrians who preceded them. Zoroaster, the pre-Islamic Persian prophet, was among the first prophets outside of Israel to proclaim a single God, transcendent, without form and not contingent upon history or culture; and thus also to proclaim truth, beauty and goodness as transcendent ideals, outside of historical or cultural constraints.  He was also among the first of the world’s prophets to preach what was then, and apparently is again now, the radical social doctrine that it is not the absolute and untrammeled private right of the wealthy and the powerful to dominate the poor and the weak. He preached, indeed, that the treatment of the poor and weak, whether good or ill, would have eternal consequences, correspondingly good or ill. He preached a divine right of kings that is dependent on the righteous behaviour of the king, as measured by how he treats the least and most vulnerable in his kingdom. He held additionally that it is not wrong to overthrow an unjust ruler, a ruler without farr a Persian word meaning the divine ‘glory’ that accrues to a just and compassionate king. Indeed, he was among the first people to hold that each person is responsible for her own actions (and only her own actions) in her own lifetime. He was also – remarkably for a man outside of Israel – among the first of the Gentiles to foresee a Saviour (saošiyaņs) of the world, born of a virgin, who would come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead.

The dual emphasis in Shia Islam on the need for a monarchical, hereditary succession to Muhammad, as well as on the ideal of just, courageous and compassionate leadership exhibited by Husayn ibn Ali, filled an intellectual and moral vacuum in post-Sasanian Persia, after the last of the Zoroastrian rulers had been overthrown. As journalist Stephen Kinzer notes briefly in his excellent book, All the Shah’s Men, Shi’ism was an organic answer to the latent and unfulfilled promises of social justice, of a ‘glorious’ kingship in the Zoroastrian sense: it was, in the words of Iranian social critic Jalal al-e-Ahmad, ‘an answer to the call of Mani and Mazdak three centuries earlier’. Another famous Iranian social critic, Dr. Ali Shariati, also wrote on these themes with his famous essay ‘Red Shi’ism versus Black Shi’ism’. Kinzer does wax somewhat romantic with regard to Shia Islam’s populist potentials and its model of justice favouring the poor and powerless; the ecstatic, self-sacrificing ethos of martyrdom in the tradition of Ali and his son Husayn; and the scholarly penchant of Shi’ism for preserving and re-appropriating pre-Islamic Iranian traditions. He is also keen to present these tendencies as key shapers of the Iranian reaction to the British colonial presence in the country, and to the subsequent reaction in Iran to Mohammed Mosaddegh’s clandestine removal from power in a CIA-backed coup.

St. Thaddeus Monastery Iran
St. Thaddeus Monastery in Iran

This same dual emphasis – on righteous hereditary kingship and on martyrdom – therefore also gives Shia Islam some strong overlap with Christianity in the realm of ethics. We can identify particularly strongly with the ‘red Shi’ism’ of Dr. Ali Shariati, which the late Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr reflected so strongly in his own life and work. As is shown herein, there certainly is a creative foundation besides convenience on which the Shia-Christian friendship can stand, and on which further work in making the Middle East safe again for both minorities can be done.

Chinese Reflections on Europe

via American Renaissance

Why have Europeans lost their racial consciousness?

It has been five years since I moved to France from China for my studies. During that time, I have witnessed how this great European country has lost her traditional values and gradually become a shelter for Third-World immigrants. This article is about my personal experiences as a non-European foreigner.

I was born in 1986 and grew up in a middle-class family in China. I believed that I was living in a beautiful era, in which people did not have to suffer from disease, wars, or racism. I was happy to see how this old Asian country had finally opened her arms and welcomed people from all horizons. We were so eager to be part of the free, modern world that it had become almost “an honor” to speak English with foreign people. In Shijiazhuang, my hometown about 190 miles southwest of Beijing, there were many students from Cameroon and South Korea. I met some of them in the downtown bars and soon became friends with them. I quite enjoyed this exotic experience. I truly hoped that people from all over the world would come and live in China. However, I never wondered what it would be like if they decided to stay there and try to become Chinese.

Shijiazhuang Skyline
Shijiazhuang Skyline

Five years ago, I came to France on an engineering scholarship. I was attracted to Europe because of the beauty of European civilization. However, I am not European and can never be European.

French society tolerates only anti-white and, to a lesser degree, anti-Asian racism. I have learned that being an Asian foreigner can be a double negative. Many French people consider us annoying tourists or business competitors. I have generally been treated very well, but I once had a confrontation with a Frenchman.

I was waiting for a bus around midnight. Two young men–obviously drunk–were walking towards me along the deserted street. They stopped, and one asked in English where I came from and I answered, also in English, that I was Chinese. The other one got in my face and asked if I was tourist. I didn’t answer. He started slapping me, saying “you like this?” I lifted my arm to protect myself, and the other guy stopped him, saying this wasn’t funny. They went away just before the bus came.

I still don’t understand that encounter. I could have told them in fluent French that I was studying and living here, but I don’t talk to drunk strangers, and I don’t know if it would have made a difference. In any case, that was an exceptional experience, and I didn’t generalize this sad encounter to the entire French people. They were both drunk and bad-tempered. But if that could happen to me, I suppose it sometimes happens to blacks and Arabs.

This said, my guess is that Asians, especially tourists, are probably picked on more than anyone else, though not by the French. Arab and Gypsy thieves seem to concentrate on Asians, and blacks like to rob us. Each group has its own specialty. It is well known that Asian tourists like to pay cash, even for expensive products, and that since they don’t speak French, many of them don’t call the police.

Chinese tourists in line for Hermès, a French luxury store.
Chinese tourists in line for Hermès, a French luxury store.

Even Chinese who live in Paris are often victims. One, a hard-working and gifted engineer, decided to go back to China, telling me he was extremely disappointed that France allowed massive immigration from Africa. He is not the only one I know who left for that reason, and I know what they are talking about. Once in Geneva, in a dimly lit restroom at the bus station, an Arab-looking man came up to me and started talking about China and Chinese dancing. He tried to take me in his arms and dance a few steps, and I quickly pushed him away. It was only after I had gone out of the restroom that I realized that he and another man with him had picked my pocket!

Immigration means constant racial friction. One evening I went home by tram. When I got off at the station, a middle-aged Arab-looking man stopped me and began to insult me because he thought I had been laughing at him in the tram. I told him he had the wrong person. He then began to complain that people treat him badly every day. I was angry about his rudeness but I still felt sorry for him. Why didn’t he go back to his country, where nobody would mistreat him because of his appearance?

Again, though, it is hard to know what to make of this incident. He looked like a tramp, and people sometimes make fun of tramps. Native-born French tramps don’t get the red carpet treatment, either. The fact that he got angry at a fellow “foreigner” for laughing at him got me thinking. Maybe he thought that all immigrants should stand shoulder to shoulder against French “racism.” And, in fact, Africans and Arabs sometimes open up with me about what they think of Europeans.

One day, I met a schoolmate in a dining hall, and we decided to eat together. He was from Cameroon, and told me angrily about how his country had been exploited by white colonizers and how mean whites are to Africans. I told him all that was in the past and that now everyone wanted to live in peace, and that he was lucky to be able to come and study in France. He told me that this was the least the French people could do for Africans, and that he wanted to kill all white people. I was frightened by his anger–he seemed like such a peaceful person.

Africans and even some Arabs and Chinese have unloaded on me this way. I try to stay away from people like that.

I have talked about race and immigration with French roommates. I sensed that they were very worried about how blacks and Arabs have changed the face of France but they are afraid that if the National Front took power, France would be pulled towards Nazism. They tend to blame the government for segregating blacks and Arabs instead of treating them equally. It is certainly true that, whether or not it was conscious government policy, immigrants have clustered in low-cost housing in suburbs that have become bywords for violence and poverty.

"Germany triumphs on all fronts." Eiffel Tower under German occupation, 1940.
“Germany triumphs on all fronts.” Eiffel Tower under German occupation, 1940

When I talk to the French, every time I use the word “race” to try to explain that different groups have different natures, they get frightened and tell me that “race” does not exist. They insist that we are all part of the human race.
Of course, occasionally someone speaks frankly–and is punished for it. Last September, a UMP Euro-deputy and former cabinet member, Nadine Morano, said that “France is a Jewish-Christian country of the white race that welcomes foreigners.” This remark, which would have made absolute sense in every African and Asian country, resulted in her being ostracized within her own party, and she was forced off the list of candidates in the regional elections. In France, any discussion of race and religion must be banned because it evokes the Third Reich or the war in Algeria. The French government has even tried to eliminate the concept of race in all government records and activity–yet still tries very hard to fight racism.
I began to wonder why Arabs and black Africans were so hostile to Western people, yet so eager to come and live in Western countries. I first heard about race differences in intelligence in a critical account of Richard Lynn’s work in the Chinese media. I then found both Chinese and French translations of Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior. I also read The Bell Curve. It has not been translated into French, so I had to order it from Amazon and read it in English. I also read some books by the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, some of whose books have been translated into Chinese and are on the Internet. I therefore learned that many people believe there is a genetic component to lower black performance, but I still felt it might be because African people, on average, live in more miserable conditions.

At the end of my course of study, every student was supposed to participate in a complex academic project with a real-world application. I was assigned to lead a group with two other members, a student from China and a student from Cameroon. The Chinese did not speak French very well. At first, I was afraid he would be confused by the difficulty of the language and the complexity of the project and give up. What actually happened surprised me very much. The African student quickly grasped the main issues of the project. But every time he ran into a difficulty, he complained, and worked on something else instead. I tutored him and gave him papers in which similar solutions were clearly outlined, but he was unwilling to read them because they were too long. It took the Chinese student a long time to figure out the problems, but instead of complaining or taking shortcuts, he concentrated and worked hard until the problems were solved. It was the African student who gave up, and the Chinese student who succeeded.

This story sounds like a fable for children but it set me thinking about the problem of Africa. I have come to believe that the chaos and lack of economic progress in Africa are the result of their lack of motivation when faced with complex problems. I also think they tend to be satisfied with little and therefore do not work very hard to get ahead. The French welfare system also makes them apathetic. They survive on a small income rather than strive for a better life.


Racial preferences are now practiced in France–even though they should be an insult to anyone who works hard to get ahead. This, combined with a generous welfare system is what, in my view, explains why so many Africans come to France. The idea that they were colonized and suffered from discrimination is just an excuse. Muslims enslaved black Africans for thousands of years, but not very many blacks want to live in Algeria. African people also choose Europe because of its cultural influence. They see the Western lifestyle as the gateway to success.

The West has promoted “democracy” and “universal values” in Africa, but the result has been military dictatorship, corruption, and violence. Western values are clearly not suited to Africa. Western values, without the absolute authority of white rulers, appear to destroy African societies.

Different races should live under the different political structures that suit them. Asians have also come under the influence of Western culture and politics, but have not adopted them completely. In Asia, absolute political authority, strict social/family hierarchy, and hard work are what make a country run correctly. This is why Singapore and, now, China have been so successful. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are more similar to the Western political model but they, too, are distinctly Asian in their respect for authority, hierarchy, and family.

As for race, most Chinese people are taught from childhood to be proud of being Asian. The idea that the races are equal is unimaginable. It is almost impossible to find any discussion in China about the idea that Asians and blacks even could be equal. Most Chinese simply have no interest in Africans. In Mao’s time, “Afro-Asian-Latin American” was an alternative for “Third World.” Africans were supposed to be our faraway brothers in the struggle against capitalism and imperialism, but no one really cared about them.

In Africa, the Chinese government finances countless infrastructure, energy, and construction projects every year. Thousands of Chinese engineers and technical workers are sent to help develop Africa, and they send back natural resources in return. This has not improved our impression of Africans. The news from Africa is always about extreme poverty and social instability. Also, the Chinese who return from projects in Africa have many stories about incompetent black workers who nevertheless always want higher pay. That is why sometimes we take over Chinese workers to Africa rather than hiring workers locally.


Still, I truly hope that Africa’s economic takeoff will be achieved with China’s help, and Africans will finally stay on their own continent.

Why have Asians kept their sense of race while whites have not? Perhaps there is a genetic difference that protects Asians. The explanation may also lie in what is, for me, an important difference between whites and Asians, and that is the European scientific mind. Europeans showed their superiority to other races by their brilliant manipulation of abstractions–abstractions that have led to a better world through science and philosophy. Let me remind you that it was Europeans who invented the concept of race–but it is also Europeans who try to prove through science that race does not exist and that humanity is universal. Alas, errare humanum est. The white man, the master of abstraction, has gone on to invent an abstraction that may yet annihilate him: multiculturalism.

For Asians, there is no artificial separation between man and nature. In that sense, what is human does not end with human beings but includes everything with which we interact: animals, the earth, water, air, and the sun. One finds these ideas in Asian religions. However, this does not mean that Asians do not distinguish between a Turk and a Japanese. Cultural differences are manifestations of racial differences. At the same time, Chinese do not care very much about what happens outside their own circle–whether cultural or biological–and that leaves them with the strong sense of cultural and family identity common to Asians. We are not so easily misled by abstractions.

Despite the general acceptance among race scholars in the West that East Asians are more intelligent than whites, very few Chinese consider themselves superior to Europeans. The huge success of Europeans in modern times and the darker coloring of Asians easily lead Chinese people to think that they are situated between Europeans and Africans in terms of intelligence and social capacities.

From Human Accomplishment, by Charles Murray.
From Human Accomplishment, by Charles Murray.

At the same time, China wants to have more influence on the modern world. The sense of having lived in the “Celestial Kingdom” for thousands of years has pushed China into a kind of intellectual competition with Europeans. This desire to catch up with the West has contributed to the economic boom of the last 30 years. Without the heavy burden of liberal ideology and a history of colonization, China could play a leading role in the developing world and become the new hegemon while maintaining a majority-Asian population.

Whatever role China plays in the world, I am deeply pessimistic about the future. Conditions are evolving and will continue to evolve but it is not easy for me to imagine a realistic solution.

Without the constant socialist and human-rights propaganda directed at whites and their children, whites would not face today’s cruel reality. The ideology of multiculturalism and the hatred of European culture are two sides of the same coin and come from the same sources. And they are found everywhere.

In France, the Left and the far Left are behind the daily blasts of hatred directed against the state of Israel. Israel is the favorite target of those who hate colonialism, racism, European culture, and, ultimately, whites. It always boils down to the same arguments. To attack Israel is to attack a Western country that has an identity it chooses to defend. In attacking Israel, the French lose the capacity to defend their identity as Europeans and Frenchmen–while the bosses get cheap labor and the Left gets more voters and clients. All this, despite the fact that just one of the many riots and disturbances on both sides of the Atlantic should have been enough to prove that the concept of multiculturalism, invented in Leftist laboratories, is a fraud.
In this context, I note Eastern European countries, even those in the Schengen free-travel zone, have very few non-whites. Ironically, it may be that for whites, poverty is the only guarantor of separation and homogeneity.

In the richer West, whites do not understand the seriousness of the threat, but as Mao Tse-Tung used to say, “a single spark can start a prairie fire.” With information today so easily available on the Internet it is possible for today’s young whites to learn the truths the media always try to hide.

In France, the Paris attacks of last November prove once again the failure of multiculturalism. These attacks, together with the onslaught of Syrian refugees, will no doubt push the French towards greater resistance against Islam. This will encourage more Muslim immigrants to engage with the Islamic State. A race war in Europe is not out of the question. For those who wonder whether today’s feminized Europeans still have the backbone to fight for their civilization, I note that the rooster is the symbol of France, and the French often say that “he crows even with both feet in shit.” One must never underestimate the potential of an awakened people.

A Gallic rooster and a French flag at half-mast for the victims of the recent Muslim terror attack in Paris.
A Gallic rooster and a French flag at half-mast for the victims of the recent Muslim terror attack in Paris

Changing America, Part 3

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Part 1
Part 2

KAS Editor's Note: What are our goals? That is a fundamental question that must be answered by any people, any nation that intends to continue to exist on this planet. Without an answer to that question, even if we are the strongest and most intelligent and noblest life form ever to exist in the Universe, we will flounder, directionless, and drift to our doom, like an ocean liner without a crew and with all the passengers asleep, swept by winds and currents among the icebergs and rocky shores of the North Atlantic. Actually, our position as a people is very much worse than my metaphor suggests: We do drift, unaware, amidst dangers — but our metaphorical ocean liner is not crewless: It is manned by our implacable enemies, who are determined to send us to the bottom of the sea.

So — what are our goals? Today we are going to hear the clear and necessary answer to that question as I present to you Dr. William Pierce, the founder of the National Alliance in Changing America, part 3.

There’s one thing we know that we must have, and that is a White society, a society without other races present. We must have a racially clean area of the Earth for the further development of our people. We must have White schools, White residential neighborhoods and recreational areas, White workplaces, White farms and countryside. We must have no non-Whites in our living space, and we must have open space around us for expansion.

Among other things that means that we cut out all our dependence on non-White labor and we learn to depend entirely on ourselves: We pick our own cotton, we wash our own dishes, collect our own garbage, drive our own taxis, staff our restaurants with our own people. We may have to pay Whites more to do some things that are being done by Blacks or Mestizos now, and we may end up paying more for some products or services or even do without, but this is something on which we cannot compromise.

The Whites of South Africa became so dependent on cheap Black labor, on Black gardeners and drivers and cooks and cleaning women and mine laborers, that they couldn’t face the economic adjustments involved in changing to a White economy. They tried to compromise, to keep the Blacks happy so that they could continue using Black labor instead of disengaging altogether from dependence on Black labor and becoming self-reliant — and in the end they lost their whole country. The White South Africans who didn’t emigrate are now enduring a living hell under Black rule.

After our civil war a hundred and thirty-five years ago when keeping Black slaves became illegal, we should have shipped all former slaves back to Africa where they came from. That was too much trouble for us, and so we just turned them loose in our society. Look at the trouble they have made for us ever since!

To be sure, the importing of non-Whites, slave or free, into the American colonies and then into the American Republic should have been banned from the time of Columbus; racial considerations should have prevailed over economic considerations, but we were too short-sighted.

We don’t want segregation again — we want total geographical separation. More than 3,000 years ago some of our people conquered the Indian subcontinent. We ruled as a White elite, and for centuries strict caste laws kept us from mixing with the non-White natives. But over the millennia those caste laws broke down and our people gradually were absorbed into the dark masses.

Much more recently our people conquered and settled the Western Hemisphere. In North America we killed off the non-White natives. In Central America our people blended with the Indians producing the Mestizos who are swarming across our southern border now.

We must have total geographical separation for our people regardless of what we must do to achieve that. I know that this is a sticking point with many White people. They look at the racially mixed mess we have around us in America today with hundreds of thousands of interracial couples and mongrel children, they look at the results of two generations of large-scale miscegenation in America which has produced millions of mixed-race people — and they throw up their hands. They can’t deal with it. It seems too difficult, too messy, too cruel to try to do anything about it. And of course, the people who have been pushing the racial mixing programs have made it that way deliberately; they’ve been rushing to mix things so badly that they think we can’t un-mix them.

But I tell you: we can and we must, regardless of the difficulties and the unpleasantness. The alternative is racial death, extinction. We want our world to be not only genetically White, but also culturally White, morally White, spiritually White. For a century we have let our culture, our values, our standards, and our morality become corrupted by aliens who infiltrated and took over our mass media.

Our task is not only to regain control of our mass media and halt the flood of Jewish filth pouring into our homes through television, it also is to do a thorough cleansing job. It is to give our people back the values they brought here from Europe three hundred years ago. It is to reconnect our people with their roots, to give them back their sense of racial identity and racial pride and personal honor. Our task is to restore White standards of behavior and performance, to re-establish a society in which our people respect themselves and others, in which we learn self-discipline and personal responsibility and the meaning of work from the earliest age.

Our task is to re-establish continuity with the cultural traditions that our people have been developing for thousands of years. It is to undo the alienation and the spiritual and moral confusion caused by the media-promoted and government-enforced multiculturalism of the past 50 years, and to instill into our people again a feeling of racial community and racial responsibility, so that each man and each woman understands that his or her highest responsibility is to work together with the other members of the racial community for the welfare and progress of the race.

We want a world where White children are born into White families, families with both a mother and a father, where they are nurtured at home by their mothers instead of being handed over to day-care centers and are protected and supported by their fathers; where White children grow up in White neighborhoods with White playmates, go to White schools and are trained to be strong, moral, and productive citizens.

We want a society in which the education and training of children and young people have the utmost importance; the schools from kindergarten through the universities must have as their goal the development of each student to his maximum potential. The schools must aim at three things: first, at imbuing the student with a sense of racial and cultural identity, at giving him a sense of history and of appreciation for the traditions and culture of our people, and a sense of responsibility to preserve and enhance the civilization he has inherited.

Second, the schools must aim at teaching the practical knowledge and skills that each young person will need in order to take a productive and self-supporting place in society. For some students this will be carpentry or shopwork, for others it will be mathematics or chemistry. The schools must recognize that students differ vastly in interests and aptitudes, and educators must take these individual interests and aptitudes into account and provide separate curricula to fit different students rather than attempting to force everyone into the same mold. In the same way the schools must recognize that men and women are fundamentally different from each other and that their natural roles in society are complementary rather than identical. Thus, boys and girls need to specialize in different directions during their schooling.

The third aim of the schools must be the development of character, the building of willpower and self-discipline and a sense of self-worth. The schools must challenge and test and condition; they must teach the child to endure discomfort and hardship without complaint or self-pity, to make plans and carry them out despite the need to surmount obstacles, to overcome fears; to accept personal responsibility and not to make excuses for failure; to be truthful; and generally to develop and strengthen those character traits traditionally valued by our people.

The schools must train the bodies of our young people as well as their minds. The schools must build boys into strong, capable, and self-confident young men worthy of becoming the fathers of the next generation; and they must build girls into strong, capable, and self-confident young women worthy of becoming the mothers of the next generation.

We want an economic system that is designed and structured to serve the race rather than any individuals or any social class. That means a system that neither permits the accumulation of all or most of the society’s wealth into the hands of the few, nor discourages individual initiative and thrift. Creativity and hard work and efficiency should be able to earn their own reward without hindrance, and sloth and ineptitude and failure should not be rewarded at all. We should have neither a welfare class, nor a class of super-rich plutocrats able to use their wealth to corrupt or control the society for their own selfish advantage. People who will not or cannot support themselves should not be supported at public expense and should not be permitted to reproduce.

At the other extreme, curbs should be put on the accumulation of wealth through speculation and other non-productive activities, so that wealth is earned and the earner has produced some benefit for society in earning it.

In general, all economic activity — whether by individuals or businesses or private institutions or the government — must be governed by the consideration of whether it is beneficial or whether it is harmful to the society as a whole. We want a free economy where people can succeed or fail without interference, but at the same time there must be safeguards for the public.

For example, a company may not manufacture cigarettes or import and sell heroin because the economic benefit and providing work and the income for the company’s employees or owners would be outweighed by the harm its product does to the health of the public. Today cigarette companies are permitted to make and sell their products despite the enormous harm they do to the public simply because they have accumulated enough money to corrupt the system and manipulate governmental processes.

There’s another example: Even in an all-White country a manufacturer might decide that he can increase his profits by moving his factory to a non-White area where wages are much lower. This could have the effect of driving his competitors who use White employees out of business and that whole industry would then be dependent on non-Whites. When imports damage a nation’s autonomy, then they must not be permitted. That of course is contrary to the economic policy of the government today, which is intent on globalizing America’s economy and is actually hostile to the idea of national autonomy.

As for the government, we must have a government for which the only consideration — just like for the economy — is what’s good for our people, for our race, in the long term. We must never again have a government based on party politics with politicians gaining the power to make laws and set public policy by appealing for votes to the ignorance or greed or fear of the lowest elements of society, with politicians telling whatever lies will get them a place at the public trough, with politicians who have no loyalty or sense of responsibility for the race but only to themselves or their party making our laws. That must never happen again.

We must understand that in an age of mass media when television has such a strong influence on the opinions of the majority of the population, the old concept of village democracy based on a consensus determined by free discussion and debate among responsible citizens in a forum open to all has become meaningless. That may have worked in the villages of two hundred years ago, but it doesn’t and can’t work that way at a national level today.

We don’t want government by faceless media masters, not even by non-Jewish media masters responsible only to themselves or their group, shaping public opinion to promote their interests rather than the interests of our race. The men who make our laws and set the policies for our society must be able to stand up before the people and be held responsible for their actions; but more than that — they must be men who attain their positions on the basis of ability, character, and commitment rather than through some backroom bargaining or through charming the largest number of voters, Bill Clinton style.

Instead of being the object of contempt that it is today, government should be a respected institution, almost a sacred institution administered by the best and most able men in our society instead of by the worst.

Again, the most fundamental principle underlying a government for our people must be that a purpose of government is to serve the needs of the race, to defend the race from its enemies, and to make the race healthy and strong again — and that’s all.

The purpose of government is not to protect individuals from their own foolishness or weakness, or to support those who will not or cannot support themselves. The government we want will provide overall protection for the race and overall guidance for the race by formulating and administering the policies to keep the race moving forward and upward, and it will do these things with the minimum possible degree of encroachment on the individual’s freedom.

Well, as I said, these things are all in the future. We don’t have the means at this time to build a new society or even to halt the ongoing destruction of our present society. We can’t begin building a new race-based educational system or a new race-based economy or a new race-based government now.

But we can think about these tasks now, plan for these tasks now, and get others to think about these things too. That’s what the National Alliance is all about — getting others to think about the future of our people, begin assuming responsibility for it, and working with us to bring it about.

What we actually do at this time is communicate, educate, and inspire. We catch people’s attention, give them information they wouldn’t have otherwise and inspire them to do something about it, either to spread to others what they have gotten from us or to join with us in helping us do our work more effectively.

And really, that’s what you should do: become a member of the National Alliance, support us, work with us, help us continue to grow stronger and more effective so that eventually the day will come when we will be able to begin implementing our plans for a new society, a new world for our people. Everything depends on that — everything. Don’t let your people down. Don’t let yourself down. Make your life count.

4th Generation Warfare for the 4th Position

via TradYouth

White Americans need a warrior for their cause more now than ever before, and you, the humble reader, are at least as well qualified to make make war on their behalf as any other person. But, don’t set off on your Lesser Crusade before understanding how you might go about fighting for it.

War does not always demand violence but it does imply violence in most of its large-scale applications. War on a lesser or non-conventional scale could get along quite well without or with very little violence at all.  This is an entirely reasonable proposition once you understand the manner in which we on the alt-right are predisposed towards.  We are more than activists and shit-posters– we are an intricate network prime for conducting Fourth Generation Warfare and it’s time we started acting like it.

War is a sacred institution, an honor-bound practice that we must treat as a prerequisite for living in the Modern World.  No, I’m not recommending you enlist in one or another armed services (either here or abroad) but rather I’m recommending that you make war for the very Soul of your kin and racial family.

The kinds of technology and manner of fighting that we are now using to wage war have all but relegated our Army and Marine Corps to an over-armed police force. Theirs is no longer the war to fight, but the police-state to maintain. Very soon now warfare will be reduced to a team of neckbeard-fedoras sipping Code Red while drone-bombing Iraqi and Afghani children from a cushioned seat in California.  Modern Warfare is for cowards.

But, fear not… Warfare as an institution demands men of virile character and indomitable Spirit. When our existing institutions for making war become fully unable to permit our men to be men they will seek validation and expression elsewhere. Just as the Knights used the Crusades to validate and prove their manhood, so too will our present man (in whatever sad state he happens to be) find alternative venues to validate his own manhood.

Enter Fourth Generation Warfare.  Whether you like it or know it, the more active parts of the alt-right are perfectly positioned to be the locus of this Happening.  We happen to enjoy that sweet spot wherein we are privileged with political, social and religious dispossession, professional alienation and are universally maligned by Main Stream Media, Hollywood and the education system at large.  There is nowhere for White men to go within the current system and we are done asking for a seat at the multiculturalism table.  Militias will return, the soldier-citizen will return and we will see virile manhood re-emerge from our now placid and docile or broken half-men who call themselves our saviors at arms.

Fourth-generation warfare is defined as conflicts which involve the following elements:
  • Are complex and long term
    • /pol/ and other Aryan Spergnet actors have orchestrated some of the most elaborate and hysterically comedic anti-liberal counter-culture campaigns ever seen.  These people have been organizing and acting against the Left for years now.  Remember the free-bleeding campaign?…  4Chan.  Remember the #PissForEquality?… 4Chan.  I’m really looking forward to their next elaborate game that will trick the Left into more self-induced public embarrassment.
  • Terrorism (tactic)
    • I use this term loosely.  By today’s standards people are “terrorized” by the simple act of accidentally or even purposefully seeing a Confederate battle flag (even fake and historically inaccurate flags).  Feminists feel like they’ve been raped (as opposed to rape-rape…) if a man stares at them for too long or too hard.  Liberal shabs are claiming PTSD because they wandered onto the internet and were shocked to find that somebody disagreed with their opinion and (gasp!) ridiculed them for it.  Our simple, plain and brazen act of daring to resist the SCJ (Shab-Cuck-Jew) “Will to Degeneracy” is called a veritable violence against society.
  • A non-national or transnational base – highly decentralized
    • 4Chan, 8Chan, and various anti-Degeneracy or anti-Pleb Facebook pages have highly decentralized support bases.  Traditionalist Youth Network’s Facebook page has over 9,000 likes and our Facebook fans are from every state of the Union and dozens of other countries.  And that’s only accounting for our own page.  The chan-boards, Stormfront, VK, Facebook (at least for now), Reddit, Tumblr and other social networks facilitate and enable an impressively high level of organization and communication in spite of their pro-Liberal positions and programs.
  • A direct attack on the enemy’s culture, including genocidal acts against civilians.
    • To be a White Nationalist or to be a Traditionalist of European descent specifically entails a rejection of cultural standards, values, norms and religious practices that are alien to our own people and extended kinship family.  Being an American White Nationalist seems to make us anti-Jew by default because of how deeply Jewish actors and shills have become enmeshed and inter-tangled with our various government bodies and religious institutions.  Additionally, daring to say that you desire a future for White people wherein their politics, social policies and entertainment are not dictated to us by Jews is accused of being an invocation of Hitler and a call for “SIX MILLION MORE!”.  Well, maybe it’s for the best that we let our opposition mistakenly believe that we’ll gas another six million (((Chosenites))).  Their terror (even if mistaken and self-inflicted) is to our advantage.   The alt-right isn’t planning a genocide, we’re planning a future in which we can live with our own people and attend to our own matters with our own laws.
  • Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare
    • Propaganda is not a single speech-act, but is rather defined by a condition that was achieved after a long string of deliberate, methodical and long-term speech-acts.  Blogging, raiding comments sections on news sites, establishing our own news sites (to include humor and satire) are part of a holistic approach to presenting our desired image to the public at large and teaching or re-educating the public about what it means to be pro-White or a White Nationalist.  Remember the “Animus Curiae” that was submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by Attorney Kyle Bristow?  It proved to be a pivotal argument in defense of Traditional marriage and successfully re-instated the ban against same-sex marriage in Michigan. Kyle Bristow of Bristow Law, PLLC has done some impressive work on behalf of Traditionalist Youth Network and I wish him the best of success in his legal career.
  • All available pressures are used – political, economic, social and military
    • Speaking for myself and those with whom I work, we have worked to take control of every tool at our disposal and to bend yet others for the same.  I mentioned this previously, but an aggressive ground campaign for activism and outreach is technically a military action when we must consider the potential for a violent response from our opposition.  The fact that we do not have a military presence in the conventional sense of uniforms, established military hierarchy and officers or other such entailments does not lessen the fundamental fact of what we are: warriors in a sovereign army for our people.
  • Occurs in low intensity conflict, involving actors from all networks
    • The most successful demonstrations and activism or outreach campaigns by the larger White Nationalist and alt-right movement have all involved teams or groups of activists from different groups.  All matters seem to be much easier when a campaign is started and completed in its entirety by a single entity, but there is a certain magic synergy that happens when multiple organizations participate in a campaign.  Traditionalist Youth Network’s most successful demonstration to date involved more than six White Nationalist groups and all of it was organized through Stormfront, Daily Stormer, Facebook and other online communication networks.  Our continued success in the future, for all groups, depends on such cooperation becoming the norm and not the exception.
  • Non-combatants are tactical dilemmas
    • One key differentiation between alt-right activism and Liberal activism is that we do our best to keep “non-combatants” out of the “line of fire.”  This is a very real concern that we must account for when planning our street activism and outreach.  We at TradYouth take our event attendees’ safety very seriously.  Our contemporary opposition, on the other hand, doesn’t mind putting the public at risk.  This is the definition of thuggery and at least so far back as the RNC Welcoming Committee riots in St. Paul we can easily see that the Left relishes the opportunity to put the public at risk “for the cause.”  The Left has always been willing to sacrifice for their cause, but they’re only ever willing to sacrifice somebody else.  That’s a sacrifice they’re willing to make on your behalf!
  • Lack of hierarchy
    • Despite all of our talk about submitting to lawful authority and authentic Traditional hierarchy, the alt-right and fellow travelers lack a visible hierarchy of authority and control.  You will find certain established and notable leaders in the movement with varying amounts of influence, but we are the definition of grassroots organizing and leadership.  We hope that you will choose to embrace and follow this ambitious project here at TradYouth and over at TradWorker, but for the love of all– get involved with something if you identify as a White Nationalist, even if it’s not us.
  • Small in size, spread out network of communication and financial support
    • Our donors, supporters, sympathizers and dedicated network of activists are not from a single region.  We receive letters of support and financial donations from a wide range of people and our audience grows by the day.  We have chapter leaders across three continents and professional contacts from the West Coast, to New York, St. Petersburg and beyond.
  • Use of insurgency and guerrilla tactics
    • We are the insurgency, we do employ guerrilla tactics and we are waging war.  Warfare need not be violent, but you are categorically not waging a war until you must begin to fear for your safety as a consequence of your chosen course of defiance.  The level or intensity associated with our insurgency does not put it outside the scope of warfare.
Still not convinced that we on the alt-right are well positioned for an aggressive and winnable Fourth Generation Warfare campaign in defense of our Faith, Family and Folk?  You should be convinced, but even if you are a true believer by this point it won’t matter if you don’t get involved with something.  You don’t have to support us, but you should support somebody.  Ready to get off the bench and get into the game?  Here are some suggestions to get started: Start a TradYouth Chapter or reach out to one nearby and network with like-minded folks.  Join Traditionalist Worker Party.  If you’re inclined to write, please consider writing something for the blog.  Financially support a group with whose vision you agree.  The game is “on” and you’re playing for the losing team if you can’t muster the courage to get off the bench and get in the game.

An Exploration of the Link between Language and Genetics

via Majority Rights

A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PDF), has illustrated the relationship between between geography, linguistics, and genetic data. By comparing geographic data for phonemes and alleles, they have come to the conclusion that in most parts of the world, languages and genes exist in the same locations and often appear to have travelled along the same migration routes.

PNAS-2015-Creanza figures A - E

Their abstract reads:
A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations, PNAS 2015 112 (5) 1265-1272; published ahead of print January 20, 2015, doi:10.1073/pnas.1424033112:
Linguistic data are often combined with genetic data to frame inferences about human population history. However, little is known about whether human demographic history generates patterns in linguistic data that are similar to those found in genetic data at a global scale. Here, we analyze the largest available datasets of both phonemes and genotyped populations. Similar axes of human geographic differentiation can be inferred from genetic data and phoneme inventories; however, geographic isolation does not necessarily lead to the loss of phonemes. Our results show that migration within geographic regions shapes phoneme evolution, although human expansion out of Africa has not left a strong signature on phonemes.
Worldwide patterns of genetic variation are driven by human demographic history. Here, we test whether this demographic history has left similar signatures on phonemes—sound units that distinguish meaning between words in languages—to those it has left on genes. We analyze, jointly and in parallel, phoneme inventories from 2,082 worldwide languages and microsatellite polymorphisms from 246 worldwide populations. On a global scale, both genetic distance and phonemic distance between populations are significantly correlated with geographic distance. Geographically close language pairs share significantly more phonemes than distant language pairs, whether or not the languages are closely related. The regional geographic axes of greatest phonemic differentiation correspond to axes of genetic differentiation, suggesting that there is a relationship between human dispersal and linguistic variation. However, the geographic distribution of phoneme inventory sizes does not follow the predictions of a serial founder effect during human expansion out of Africa. Furthermore, although geographically isolated populations lose genetic diversity via genetic drift, phonemes are not subject to drift in the same way: within a given geographic radius, languages that are relatively isolated exhibit more variance in number of phonemes than languages with many neighbors. This finding suggests that relatively isolated languages are more susceptible to phonemic change than languages with many neighbors. Within a language family, phoneme evolution along genetic, geographic, or cognate-based linguistic trees predicts similar ancestral phoneme states to those predicted from ancient sources. More genetic sampling could further elucidate the relative roles of vertical and horizontal transmission in phoneme evolution.
The overall result seems to be that language and ethnicity do share common geographic boundaries, if the effects of recent colonial history are ignored.

As Others See Us: A Response to Aaron Wolf

via Radix

Aaron Wolf, Managing Editor of Chronicles, has written a critique of identitarianism for the February issue of the magazine. He alludes to the National Policy Institute’s 2015 conference "Become Who We Are" as representative of this current of thought. Chronicles, as many readers probably know, describes itself as a conservative or paleoconservative publication. Mr. Wolf’s article seems to be an attempt at line-drawing between the conservatism represented by Chronicles and identitarianism (or whatever one wishes to call the current of thought on display at NPI’s conference). 

Mr. Wolf is to be commended, first of all, for explicitly refusing to identify the position he is criticizing with biological determinism, something advocated by no person I have ever met. Race informs culture, as our mutual friend Sam Francis put it, but virtually no one has ever claimed it determines culture in every detail. The findings of modern science are that behavioral traits correlate to some extent with genetic relatedness, but none correlate perfectly.

Mr. Wolf associates identitarianism with the view that:
the white American must begin to see himself as white, to elevate his own “white racial consciousness,” which practically speaking means to identify with the achievements of every white European who has ever existed, to favor white people over otherly colored people, and to promote the interests of white people and European culture.  For identitarians, these interests include the eventual disintegration of the United States and the formation of a separate and separatist white state.
Let us begin with the first assertion: identitarians want white Americans to “identify with the achievements of every white European who has ever existed,” in other words, to “see all of these men and their achievements as belonging to him.” Mr. Wolf offers the example of Bach, saying it would be as absurd for white people to love Bach because he is white as it is for the anti-white left to hate Bach for the same reason.

It is obvious that Bach is admired as a composer rather than as an instance of the class “white man,” a class containing many individuals of no special achievement. But is it wrong for whites to feel that Bach is a significant part of our European heritage in particular? Germans used to put his image on their banknotes, and this must have had something to do with his having been a German; foreign composers, however great, were never depicted on the national currency. Was it wrong for Germans to feel a special affinity with Bach because of their shared nationality? Or is such identification acceptable at the national level but not at the racial level? Or is it rather musicians, or Lutherans, or those who share some other trait with Bach, who have the right to identify with him and claim him as their own? Most importantly, is there a “correct” paleoconservative position on such matters which Mr. Wolf would care to make explicit and contrast with the allegedly illicit racial identification he claims is especially characteristic of identitarians? Until he tells us, it is impossible to assess the validity of his criticism.

Secondly, Mr. Wolf claims that identitarians want to “favor white people over otherly colored people.” But there are countless senses in which one might “prefer” one group over another. Identitarians may well believe white people should, as a general rule, be preferred over non-whites for immigration to the United States or for purposes of marriage by other whites. Outside of those cases, the matter is not so clear. Hiring preferences for whites? Siding with a white man in the wrong against a non-white in the right? Affirming that white poets or thinkers or men of science must be better than their non-white counterparts for no other reason than that they are white? Mr. Wolf will have to provide examples of identitarians saying such things if he wishes to ascribe such views to them. And, once again, how exactly is the position of Mr. Wolf and his colleagues different from NPI’s “identitarian” position? Do the editors of Chronicles believe Mexican mestizos are as prudent a choice for immigration to the United States as white Europeans? I do not think so. Nor do paleoconservatives commonly join forces with liberals in their endless crusades against “discrimination.” So precisely what forms of racial preference favored by identitarians does Mr. Wolf reject? He has yet to tell us.

Mr. Wolf also attributes to identitarians a wish to “promote the interests of white people and European culture.” I doubt he objects to the promotion of European culture, but he may feel different about the promotion of white interests as such. Many whites continue to find this notion distasteful, despite their recognition that every other racial group engages enthusiastically in such behavior. Whites want to be fair to everyone, and the single-minded pursuit of our group interests may seem to be inconsistent with such fairness (although, once again, this does not seem to be a matter for concern to any other ethnic group). Yet anyone can see the probable fate of a group that refuses to promote its own interests in the face of other groups ruthlessly promoting theirs: first, to be taken advantage of; in the long run, probably, to be entirely destroyed. Even a disinterested concern for fairness would suggest that whites ought to begin considering the interests of their own group, and the sooner the better.

Finally, Mr. Wolf attributes to identitarians the view that white interests “include the eventual disintegration of the United States and the formation of a separate and separatist white state.” Some persons associated with identitarianism have indeed advocated this while others reject it. What identitarians mainly think is in the interest of whites is to avoid being ruled by elites hostile to us or cherishing historical grudges against us. Secondarily, it would also be in whites’ interest not to have to support armies of parasites, whether in the form of the black and brown underclasses or of useless bureaucrats. Would Mr. Wolf disagree? If he knows any way of achieving these goals without breaking up the United States, I’m sure many identitarians would be interested in hearing it. No white American considers the breakup of the US a good per se; those who advocate it consider it a lesser evil than being ruled by vengeful enemies. Conservative horror at the thought of breaking up the United States can probably be attributed to their identification of the nation with its earlier history; identitarians are more concerned about the future, specifically with preventing Eric Holder’s America from emerging in full fury once whites lose the last remnants of their influence.

In the remainder of his article, Mr. Wolf tries to explain why “white nationalism is a very specific form of rootlessness, an ideology of alienation.” He believes that:
the average temptee of identitarianism... is in search of a form of therapy, a kind of topical salve for the muscle aches and sore joints that result from running in the rat race that is modern America.  He is seeking a kind of comfort, a sense of belonging and a place to belong, and he finds it, thinly, ephemerally, fleetingly in the lists of black crime statistics, the praise of past European accomplishment, the bare scientific facts about the comparative sizes of brains and genitals among the races, and the ability to post controversial, career-ending comments pseudonymously.
Mr. Wolf holds that such a “modern search for identity is really an attempt to purge the mind of what already is there, in the imagination.”

I confess to finding the author’s line of reasoning difficult to follow. I attended NPI’s "Become Who We Are" conference, and am at a loss to understand how I and the other attendees might have been trying to purge our imaginations. What I do know is that modern egalitarian liberalism has evolved into a regime of lies maintained in power through intimidation, analogous in many ways to the late Soviet Union. Mindful of Solzhenitsyn’s injunction to “live not by lies,” some of us are determined to stand up and challenge the regime and its hollow ideology. Black crime statistics and comparative brain size data are not therapy but bits of truth thrown out to defy the regime of lies. The crime statistics may even save the lives of certain naive young people left vulnerable by the egalitarian ideology in which they have been marinated since birth, lives to which the regime is clearly indifferent.

Eventually, we would like to replace today’s corrupt and mendacious elites with something more honest and humane. It’s called the circulation of elites; I refer you to the writings of our late mutual colleague Sam Francis. We honor our history, but we want to make a little history ourselves rather than merely gathering to meditate upon “living a full life in a dying age,” as the editors of Chronicles did some years back. Now that was therapy (not that there was anything wrong with your holding such a gathering).

Mr. Wolf also plays fast and loose with the term ideology. I have referred to egalitarian liberalism as an ideology because it is spun from the abstract idea of human equality rather than grounded in observation of real people. The crime and brain size data Mr. Wolf believes we collect to make ourselves feel better is, in fact, an attempt to base our ideas on observable reality, i.e., precisely to avoid descending into ideology as I have used the term. If Mr. Wolf can tell us what he means by ideology, we might be able to decide whether he is correct in applying the term to identitarianism (and not applying it, presumably, to his favored form of conservatism).

Altogether, Mr. Wolf’s treatment of identitarians resembles an old-fashioned Marxist’s accusation that his opponents have succumbed to false consciousness, whereas the Marxist himself is in possession of unsurpassable scientific truth, understands his opponents and their motivations better than they understand themselves, and sees everything just as it is in reality. Would it not be more realistic, as well as more modest, for Mr. Wolf to acknowledge that identitarians, like the editors of Chronicles themselves, are attempting, within the limitations of human frailty, to understand the world around them and respond effectively to its challenges? Many identitarians find Chronicles’ cultural conservatism congenial and are doing their best to combat the same evils (e.g., alienation) and the same set of enemies. Why, then, when Mr. Wolf turns his attention to us, does he seem principally concerned with boundary-drawing and excommunication? Are there not dozens of more fitting subjects for this sort of analysis?