Jul 31, 2015

The Cuckservative Phenomenon

via The Occidental Observer

The cuckservative meme is suddenly everywhere. It’s brash, it’s witty, and it’s often embedded in visually appealing graphics — a new art form really (see collection here). It’s effective partly because its messages are short and simple. The SPLC, NYTimes, ADL et al. have been using this strategy for decades. Terms like “White supremacist,” “racist,” “anti-Semite” “Nazi” have been devastatingly effective, but they are only effective because they are disseminated by our hostile elites. It’s no accident that, Jeet Heer, writing in The New Republic, says that the  cuckservative meme originated in “the white supremacist movement.”

When someone makes such a claim, it’s supposed to be the end of the argument. These labels have zero intellectual content, and yet they have been extraordinarily effective in making a great many Whites think that it’s a moral imperative that they become a minority in societies they have dominated for hundreds or thousands of years. You’re not supposed to think when you hear them — just cringe at the thought of  being egregiously immoral as defined by people who have radically different ethnic interests than you do. They are intended to shut off debate before it can start by automatically tarring one side as evil. Yes, I do think that Whites, like Koreans in Korea and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, should do their best to remain in control of the countries their ancestors fought and died for. I do think races are different, that Whites have interests because they are White, and that if things don’t change dramatically, the entire institutional structure built by Whites will eventually be destroyed and Whites victimized. And, yes, Jews, like any group and especially an elite group with enormous power in the media, politics, and the academic world, should be subjected to rational criticism. These are profoundly moral points of view.


But now this same strategy has been bubbling up from the bottom due ultimately to the internet. And it combines  intellectual power with simplicity. Bob Whitaker, who is the presidential candidate for the American Freedom Party, pioneered this strategy with his  mantras — simple statements that, unlike the mantras of the establishment, make devastatingly accurate, intellectually unanswerable points: “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everybody!”  “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.” I recall during my email debates on the CSU-LB faculty listserv that several times I made versions of the “Asia is for Asians…” argument. Not one response from these SJW’s who populate our departments of social sciences and humanities.

Just move on as if the argument didn’t exist. Unlike the labels cooked up by our hostile elites that succeed only through power and relentless propaganda, the argument is compelling because it’s obviously reflects a basic truth. But, as usual, when the left can’t answer an argument, they ignore it and do their best to get those making it fired. It will be the same with cuckservative.


It’s not just the cuckservative label, but the witty, mantra-like statements that it is typically paired with, many of which ridicule cuckservatives. Ridicule is a very effective tactic — routinely used in Hollywood anti-White fare, from bumbling Neo-Nazis in Blues Brothers to snooty WASPs in Caddyshack.


Cuckley is the godfather of cuckservatism who thought that being invited to a cocktail party by Barbra Streisand was his ultimate social accomplishment (“When Streisand invited Buckley and his wife to a cocktail party at her penthouse in Manhattan, the whole Buckleyite empire went into Second Coming hysteria.”) And of course, he expunged Joe Sobran from the National Review and allowed the neocons to take over. I don’t know much about  Kevin D. Williamson, but the idea of “celebrating diversity by prepping my wife’s bull” at the top of the graphic is hilarious. And I figure that if Williamson writes for National Review, the statement is not far-fetched at all as a devastating image of what cuckservatives have to do to be part of the Cuckservatism Inc. Cuckservatives who are part of the neocon foreign policy establishment like John Bolton and Frank Gaffney come to mind.

Pointing out hypocrisy and inconsistency is also an effective tactic, and Williamson gets skewered for that as well:


This obvious hypocrisy in the service of their masters would also apply to cuckservatives like Jeb Bush who love immigrants of all stripes, legal and illegal, but would never think of suggesting that Israel should be similarly blessed with diversity or condemned for keeping out African illegals. Indeed, cuckservatives are sure bets to loudly proclaim that Israel is a Jewish state and anyone who denies that is an “anti-Semite.”

However, the champion  hypocrites are the Jewish neocons with their all-out support for the ethnostate of Israel and open borders for the U.S. (except they’re not really cuckservatives; see below).

adelson cuck

The cuckservative label is so devastatingly effective because it connotes sexual humiliation. In our hypersexualized culture, there are few things worse than being called a cuckold. It’s deeply rooted in our evolved psychology. Men laugh at a cuckold, women have no respect for them. They are the butt of jokes, the supreme object of ridicule. A cuckold takes care of another man’s children and does it with a smile on his face — like the goofball writing in NewYorkMag who tries his best to accept the fact that his wife is having sex with other men. (I’d love to see an MRI of his brain showing how his lower brain centers are hyper-activated with sexual jealousy while his higher brain centers are doing their best to shut them down, perhaps by repeatedly telling himself “the faculty of the Harvard Dept. of Gender and Sexuality Studies and the New York Times editorial board will soon be expressing their admiration for me for being the ideal heterosexual male — next to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, of course.” Cuckservatives are adept at doing the same, except instead of sexual jealousy, they suppress their natural ethnocentrism with the same mantra.)

The following graphic is great because it gets at the cuckoldry of the ultimate cuckservative, Jeb Bush, complete with a line from the NewYorkMag article:


The cuckservative label gets under their skin because it gets at a basic truth. Cucks want to be seen as nice and tolerant. They are horrified at the thought of saying things that depart too much from what the NYTimes editorial board and the Harvard social science faculty would approve as a mark of their intelligence and fundamental moral decency. This is because of the success of our hostile elites in seizing the moral high ground and pathologizing absolutely everything about the traditional White majority and its culture. Whites who want to defend White interests are routinely portrayed as mean-spirited and psychiatrically deficient. The cuckservatives have totally and completely bought it. It’s this knuckling under to the culture of Western suicide — the culture that is dispossessing their children and will certainly dispossess their grandchildren — that makes them cuckolds.

Calling them cucks turns around all the cultural tropes we’ve been hearing for decades. Hannity and O’Reilly and the rest of the talking heads who love legal immigration and even amnesty for illegals (in the case of O’Reilly) are like the guy who is so nice and so unwilling to offend anyone that he can’t even scream at the guy who’s screwing his wife, much less grab a gun. And of course cuckservatives would never think that the organized Jewish community, Jews in the media, and the Jews who are an indispensable source of funds for both political parties have anything but the warmest feelings for all peoples. Jews are moral paragons and the ultimate victims, a light unto the nations, leading humanity out of darkness. So it’s not surprising that the undercurrent of criticism of Jews massively irritates cuckservatives.

Which brings up the point that in general Jews are not cuckservatives because I have yet to see any substantial body of Jews do anything apart from pursuing Jewish ethnic interests as they see them. Nobody is cuckolding them, but, given their role as a central component of our hostile elite, they have cuckolded a huge proportion of Whites. The Jewish left focuses their energies on pursuing strategies to make Western societies as user-friendly to Jews as possible — displacing previous White elites and overwhelming White societies with non-Whites to prevent any mass movement of Whites against Jews and to provide a counterbalance and eventual antidote to White political power. They have created the dominant culture of the left that cuckservatives bow down to.

On the other hand, Neocon Jews entrenched in the Republican Party mainly focus their ethnic activism on Israel. They are completely on board with all the essentials of the culture of the left (especially displacement-level non-White immigration) and have cleansed the conservative movement of all but the cuckservatives. But they have the added bonus of being even more hypocritical than their leftist co-ethnics: even more than Jews on the left, they are vocal supporters of the Israeli right which is overtly ethnonationalist to the core.

Except that Joe Lieberman is not a cuck. He's cucking John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
Joe Lieberman is not a cuck. He is using cuckservatives John McCain and Lindsey Graham to make it seem like White Americans share his ethnic interests

Of course, it’s not just White “conservatives” who are properly labeled cucks. The concept of White cuckoldry in the face of this onslaught spans the mainstream ideological spectrum and of course it includes droves of women. All White Hollywood celebrities and all Whites with visibility in the mainstream media are cucks because they know exactly what they can and can’t say to stay in the good graces of their masters to keep the paychecks rolling in. Pretty much every White politician with a shot at real power— Republican and Democrat — is a cuck, probably including Donald Trump given his recent statements on immigration. The CEOs of the major corporations are cucks. They are actively participating in the culture of Western suicide, most of them because of the massive incentives available for those who participate in the culture of Western suicide.


cuck line

But it must be said that it is particularly gratifying to make a special target of the cucks who call themselves conservatives. There is something supremely repulsive about self-styled conservative politicians and media figures who eagerly sell out the birthright of their people while mouthing principles like “the constitution,” “limited government,” and “meritocracy” while encouraging massive immigration of non-Whites who care nothing for these principles. I just heard cuckservative Sean Hannity list his criteria for the Republican presidential candidate; it went something like this: someone who will balance the budget, enact school choice, secure the border (nothing against legal immigration, as usual), act against “radical Islam,” repeal Obamacare, oppose the treaty with Iran, and erect a permanent shrine to Benjamin Netanyahu on the Washington Mall.



Cuckservatives and the cucks of the left (lib-cucks?) are the ultimate examples of White pathology — especially the ones who actually believe in what they are saying and doing rather than just picking up a paycheck and furthering their careers. No other people or culture would engage in this suicidal guilt.

Liberal Cucks marching
Lib-cucks marching. They believe everything they were taught in school.

The cuckservative phenomenon can be seen as a new movement in the graphic arts. We can look forward to a whole new generation of politically engaged graphic artists who produce material like that reproduced here. Witty, visually appealing, and right on the money politically. I couldn’t help but laugh hysterically at quite a few of these. There will competition and ultimately there will be careers.



It’s also a great example of the new intellectual and moral confidence among White advocates. We’re shouting it loud and clear, and the only response the cucks have is to fall back on tired labels like “White supremacists” and “Nazis.” The old “right-wing crank” label is an obvious misfit with all the super-intelligent, witty, internet-savvy and socially adept Whites—especially young Whites — who are now being attracted to the cause. I haven’t done a survey but the cuckservative phenomenon seems obviously to be a movement whose inspiration comes from young people — the people who will suffer the most from the insanity they are pillaring. Cuckservative is irreverent and in-your-face — just the way young people should be. (The most pathetic creatures in the world are the young antifas who think they are “sticking it to the man” when they are pillars of the establishment and would proudly feature their antifa involvement on their application to law school.) It’s sexy, it’s stylish, and it’s manly. No one respects a weakling — the key to Trump’s success is that, if nothing else, he is not seen as weak. The people ridiculing the cuckservatives reject everything they heard in school and everything they saw on TV growing up. It’s a huge harbinger of better times ahead. The geezers will continue to trot out the old and reliable “White supremacist,” “racist,” and “Nazi” labels. But there’s a whole lot of White people who aren’t listening any more.



It’s no wonder that the left, spearheaded by the organized Jewish community, is doing everything it can to rein in free speech. Like the other principles that cuckservatives hold so dear, it too will be a casualty of their complicity in the suicide of the West.

Thanks to all of the White patriots who have invented and contributed to this meme. It’s a very big step forward.

In conclusion:


The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 5

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Carolyn reads chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9, "The Bureau and War Crimes Trials," describes what went into the decisions to hold trials against prisoners of war in German custody. It's divided into sections for Polish, French, British & American, and Russian POW's.

Chapter 10 discusses reprisal actions by the Wehrmacht troops, many of which were threatened but never carried out. De Zayas continues to show his moderate bias for the Allied side and against Adolf Hitler's N-S regime. 1h4m

Rudolf Lehmann was a respectable German jurist who was Judge Advocate General of the Wehrmacht in WWII. He joined the NSDAP in 1935, was arrested by the Americans in 1945, found guilty of war crimes at the Nuremberg High Command trial in 1947. Sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, he was released in 1950, as was typical.

The Conscience of a Cuckservative

via Counter-Currents

In the United States, the center-Left Democratic Party is a coalition of white liberals, non-whites, sexual minorities, religious dissenters, and environmentalists, in which the organized Jewish community is the senior partner.

All of these groups want a larger, more intrusive, more profligate government to insure the inclusion and upward mobility of previously marginalized groups: women, non-whites, homosexuals, trannies, snail darters, etc.

The center-Right Republican Party is far less diverse: 90% of its votes come from white people — disproportionately male, conservative, straight, family-oriented, and Christian white people. The Democrats are increasingly the party of the underclass and the super-rich. The Republicans are increasingly the party of the middle class. Republican voters typically want a smaller, less-intrusive, fiscally responsible government that leaves them the freedom to raise their families, produce wealth, and carry forward a nation and way of life that their ancestors created and that suits them just fine.

The Republicans are the party of the people who built and sustain America. If every Democratic voter dropped dead, we would lose 10% of our most creative people and 90% of our craziest, crookedest, and most destructive. The result would be a slightly boring but highly productive, orderly, and happy society — Switzerland on a continental scale. If every Republican voter dropped dead, however, the country would be finished in short order, for the dirty secret of the Left is that they are parasitic on the Right. Consumption is parasitic on production; vice is parasitic on virtue; the sick are parasitic on the healthy; evil is parasitic on good. We can live without them, but they cannot live without us.

The Democratic Party has no qualms about representing the interests of its constituencies. It offers upward mobility to the marginalized, and to its white constituents, especially the refractory straight male ones (especially those who happen to marry white women and reproduce themselves), it offers the promise of absolution from collective guilt for an ever-growing litany of isms and phobias by taking active part in their political dispossession and cultural degradation.

The rules of Democratic politics are simple: every group can appeal to its particular interests except whites, particularly straight white males. Whites have no collective interests, only collective guilt for the sufferings of the rest of humanity. Any hint of positive white self-awareness, much less organized white-interest politics, is stigmatized as racism, nativism, even National Socialism — and we know where that leads.

To exist, the Republican Party needs to get middle class white people’s votes. Astonishingly, though, Republicans will not appeal to the ethnic interests of white voters. But they will appeal nakedly to the crassest ethnic interests of blacks, mestizos (including outright invaders), and Jews — groups that persist in giving most of their votes to Democrats.

Republicans will occasionally “dog whistle” — i.e., make vague, coded references — to the racial interests and anxieties of whites, albeit merely to fleece them of votes, without any intention of lowering themselves by actually doing anything. The best that white Republicans can hope for is to be the indirect beneficiaries of “implicitly” white policies framed in universalist terms.

By treating appeals to white ethnic interests as simply immoral, Republicans are, in short, playing by rules dictated by the Democrats. And of course the Democrats have rigged the rules in their favor.

Imagine American politics as a poker game. Each ethnic group has a place at the table and a certain number of chips, representing its collective wealth and power. Whites have the largest stack. But every group gets to play a wild card, “the race card,” except for whites. No matter how big our initial advantage might be, if we play by those rules, we will lose hand after hand, until we have surrendered our wealth, our power, our country, and any control we might have over our destiny — or we kick over the table and refuse to play a game rigged against us.

Because Republicans insist on playing a game that they, and white Americans, can only lose, the alt-Right slur “cuckservative” has struck a chord and gone viral. “Cuckservative” is a combination of “cuckold” and “conservative.

Tiny reed warbler feeds enormous cuckoo chick
Tiny reed warbler feeds enormous cuckoo chick

Republicans and the Left are decrying the term for being inherently “racist” and sexual, and they are right. It is also inherently anti-Semitic.

The core of cuckoldry is a violation of one’s genetic interests. When the cuckoo lays its eggs in another bird’s nest, tricking them into incubating and feeding its young, it is advancing its genetic interests at the expense of the cuckolded birds. (The first act of a cuckoo chick is to murder the birds’ real offspring.) When a man is cuckolded, he is tricked into caring for another man’s children instead of his own. The male horror of cuckoldry is older than the human race itself. If a widowed lioness has small cubs, a male lion will kill her cubs before he mates with her, rather than provide resources for another lion’s offspring.

Republicans are cuckservatives, because they are more interested in pursuing the interests of non-whites than of their own white constituents. This implies that only white Republicans are cuckservatives. Jewish Republicans are quite successful at pursuing their own ethnic interests, as are other non-white Republicans.

Male lions kill the cubs fathered by other lions rather than take care of them
Male lions kill the cubs fathered by other lions rather than take care of them.

There are three main reasons why Republicans have consented to playing by the Left’s rules.

The most superficial reason is that they fear bad press, social shunning, or a face-to-face encounter with a foul-mouthed, finger-jabbing, hyper-aggressive Jew. (For instance, the infamous Michael Hart incident at the 2006 American Renaissance Conference.)

Another superficial reason is simple corruption. Republicans have been bought by Jewish donors who wish to secure Israeli interests at American expense. Republicans have been bought by agribusiness lobbies to keep the borders open to Mexican invaders. This is just outright betrayal of white interests, nothing more.

A third and deeper reason that Republicans refuse to play the white race card is they think that their ideals of liberty and limited government are universal rather than tribal anyway. So there’s just no upside to tribal appeals (beyond a little dog-whistling in a tight race). Yes, Republicans are aware that forswearing white identity politics puts them at a disadvantage, at least in the short run. But since they believe in the universality of their principles, they believe that non-whites can eventually come to embrace them too. Republicans think they just need to show sufficient openness — and suppress all manifestations of white ethnocentrism — to bring them around. Until then, they are willing to pander to non-white ethnic interests, but merely as a means of converting them, not as an admission that ethnic politics and unassimilable minorities are here to stay.

But liberty, capitalism, and constitutional government are not universal. They are tribal values of whites. If they were valued in Asia, surely they would have been practiced there. If they were valued in Latin America, they would have been practiced there. If they were valued in the Middle East, they would have been practiced there. If they were valued in Africa, they would have been practiced there. And white countries would not then be swamped by immigrants from these countries.

The rest of the human race does not aspire to be like white people. The immigrants coming here do not wish to assimilate our values and contribute to our civilization. We are not even trying to assimilate them anyway. Instead, they are just coming here to take the fruits of our civilization. They don’t want to be us, or be part of us. They just want to dispossess us.

For nearly 1,000 years, the Chinese practiced a horrific form of torture called lingchi, the death of a thousand cuts, in which a victim was tied to a wooden frame and then slowly cut to pieces. The full torture took three days and involved 3,600 cuts. (Lingchi was abolished only in 1905. The Chinese skin animals alive to this day.) To prolong the agony, the victims were given opium so the pain did not cause them to lose consciousness or die too quickly.

The grandiose notion that white tribal values are actually universal, and that the rest of the world will become part of our community — without them or us even trying — is nothing but an intellectual opiate that numbs white Americans as we lose our wealth, our power, our homelands, and our futures to non-whites slice by bloody slice.

The cuckservatism controversy is an important opportunity for White Nationalists. The concept has caught the eyes of the mainstream. It perfectly encapsulates our critique of the Republican Party. Wherever the term is being discussed, we need to be there, and we need to follow the lead of Michael Enoch and Hateful Heretic of The Right Stuff, who are stating our case in simple, sincere, moderate language.

This is an opportunity to awaken white Americans to four facts.
  • First, whites are being demographically displaced because of political policies, but this can be reversed with different policies.
  • Second, white political values are tribal, not universal. Thus they will perish if our tribe perishes.
  • Third, the Republican Party is playing by rules that are designed to destroy the white electorate and the party itself. Thus we need an alternative.
  • Fourth, no matter how much Republicans try to placate the Left, they will still be called racists. They are already doing the time, so they might as well do the crime.
So far, the Republican response has been standard stupid party. The true believers are reiterating their faith in universalism and stigmatizing the term as racist. The prigs are also claiming it is anti-Christian and pornographic, so don’t go there. The tinfoil hat crowd are accusing us of being Democratic infiltrators.

Still, it is slowly dawning on Republicans that they are in a deep hole. We are leading the best of them toward the light. But some of them will die in that hole. Let’s make sure our race does not die with them.

Hey, Rednecks! All Experts Agree That . . .

via BUGS

I have been through about a hundred phases of “The experts have agreed that…”

In 1989 it was absolutely agreed by experts that men and women, outside of sex, were EXACTLY THE SAME. I remember this because it was a credo with the licensed “Counsellors.”

This Expert Agreement was absolutely forgotten when “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” became a best seller.

I went to an exercise club in the 1990s. The regular at the desk there was a former Mister South Carolina. He had a photograph right there of himself when he was Mr. SC, sporting muscles Schwarzenneger in his prime would have been jealous of.

 photo mm.jpgI remember THAT because the Absolute of 1993 there an Ideal Healthy Weight for each man of a given height and for each woman of a given height.

Like everyone else, this gentleman repeated the current doctrine of the bureaucracy that chose him, in his case the Physical Fitness bureaucracy.

He declared the doctrine that the ideal healthful weight did not vary, regardless of one’s frame.

If I pointed at his photo and asked if his weight as Mr. SC, which was about forty pounds up from his current size, was an exercise in ill health, his reply would have been very familiar to a BUGSER. He would have insisted he was very healthy then but the Ideal Healthful Weight was, as his Experts said, always the same.

What the experts agree means less than nothing.

Mommy Professor agrees that all races are equal, or his thugs will “Whup yo’ ass!”


As Watson and Crick, Nobel Prize-winning discoverers of DNA, discovered, the minute you stop agreeing is the minute you cease to be an Expert.

Order and Progress

via Gornahoor

Yes, when the mind is missing, a soul will do. ~ Jean Raspail

Disturbed by the chaos following the French Revolution, which overthrew the order imposed by Throne and Altar, Auguste Comte sought to locate a sounder foundation for the order of society. He created a new science of man, sociology, that he hoped would support that foundation. The fundamental basis of his system is the idea of three stages of social development. One of the defects of that idea is that the three stages do not follow each other so neatly historically, but all exist at any time. The other defect is the restriction of positivism to the knowledge of all things visible. Hence, a metaphysical positivism, that also includes all tings invisible, includes Comte’s insights in a larger system. Given that, the three stages can be redefined this way:
The mythological stage is symbolic, pre-thematic, and pre-reflective, similar to what Eric Voegelin called “compact consciousness”. As pre-reflective, it exists fully at the level of being.
The ideological stage regards the mythological stage as something primitive to be overcome. Thus, it attacks the foundations of the mythological society in the pursuit of “progress”, replacing the world of Being with an artificially constructed world of Thought.
The metaphysical stage is a differentiated recapitulation of the mythological stage. Hence, it unites Being and Thought, unlike the ideological consciousness which separates them.
In Comte’s view, the final, or Positivistic, stage understands Progress as the evolution of Order. Evolution here is understood in its etymological sense as the “unfolding” of what already is. In our times “evolution” has come to mean the opposite: it means the rejection of the established order of things in order, while appealing to some ideological system that represents an allegedly higher order of being.

Now one of the appeals of ideology is its role as a status marker. It takes a certain degree of literacy and education to be initiated into an ideology. Since the mythological consciousness is pre-rational, its defenders come across as inarticulate, thus reinforcing the impressions held by ideology.

The metaphysical stage, however, is much more difficult since it requires not just a new way of thinking, but also a change in one’s level of being. Anyone can adhere to an ideology: moral development or self-knowledge are not necessary to understand an ideology. Moreover, the mythological consciousness is often suspicious of the metaphysical consciousness, so it cannot usually recognize it as an ally.

We have provided several examples of the last stage. For example, they mythological and metaphysical stages roughly correspond to Guenon’s distinction between the exoteric and esoteric traditions; for him, the esoteric does not reject the exoteric, but rather brings out the deeper understanding of its symbols, myths, and rites. Another example is Valentin Tomberg. Despite his deep understanding of the inner meaning of dogmas and spirituality, he regards himself as no higher than the simple believer with a symbolic, compact consciousness.

Roots of Order

I have attempted here to list the roots of order of the compact society, at least of one of Solar beings. I expect the list to be modified over time. To qualify, a quality would have to be essential or innate, not something acquired over time. Hence, this is not an empirical list culled from the external behavior of several societies. As pre-rational, these beliefs are simply assumed although they are embodied in the customs, myths, institutions, etc., of the society.

Besides the natural moral law against murder, stealing, etc., there are several other properly basic qualities that are natural, without necessarily having the force of a moral law. I applied a simple test to determine the items on the list. The questions to ask are:
  1. Is it absurd to offer an argument in support of any of the qualities?
  2. Do ideologies offer arguments opposing or attacking any of these qualities?
For example, for Gornahoor to post a translation of an Evola essay in support of a heterosexual nuclear family would be ludicrous. Hence, we can presume it is the default position. On the other hand, promoting some other notion of family or sexual orientation is an indication of an ideology, since it does not “evolve” out of one of the basic positions. Here is the list of basic sources of social order, subject, of course, to comments and revision.
  • Family as fundamental social unit
  • Spiritual orientation and public worship
  • Patriarchal rule
  • Functional stratification into spiritual authority, political power, and economic activity
  • Veneration of ancestors
  • Preference for one’s own
  • The common good supersedes the individual
  • Children considered a blessing rather than a burden
  • Incest taboo
  • Assortative mating
  • Hypergamy
  • Heteronormative

Addendum on Dialectic and Rhetoric

As I was getting ready to publish this, I came across this essay by Richard Weaver: The Cultural Role of Rhetoric. In that essay, Mr. Weaver addresses the same point in a more sophisticated way. He opposes dialectic, or “rational and soulless discourse”, to rhetoric:
  • Dialectic: abstract reasoning upon the basis of propositions.
  • Rhetoric: the relation of these terms to the existential world in which facts are regarded with sympathy and are treated with that kind of historical understanding and appreciation which lie outside the dialectical process.
Hence, in this view, dialectic is not integrated into the historical life of a community. Weaver warns us:
Too exclusive reliance upon dialectic is a mistake of the most serious consequence because .
He writes that a society cannot live without rhetoric, wince there are some things in which the group needs to believe which cannot be demonstrated to everyone rationally. To keep questioning them (i.e., the “roots of order”) is to destroy the basis of belief in them and to weaken the cohesiveness of society. The essay concludes with an appeal, in retrospect, much too sanguine, for rhetoric and dialectic to once again join hands.


An enthymeme is a syllogism with one of the propositions missing. Rhetoric uses enthymeme in Aristotle’s sense that
in conversing with the multitudes you do not aim at fresh scientific instruction; you rest your arguments upon generally accepted principles and beliefs, or broadly speaking, on things received.
Hence, the roots of order were simply assumed in public discourse with no justification needed. Weaver apparently did not foresee the extent to which those formerly generally accepted principles and beliefs have now become “extremist”. The West has not replaced rhetoric with coldly intellectual dialectic, but has instead replaced the rhetoric of being with a new, emotionally charged, neo-rhetoric. This neo-rhetoric lacks both the societal cohesiveness of rhetoric as well as scientifically derived dialectic.

Rhetoric used to serve the needs of a community with its common customs, beliefs, and historical development. Neo-rhetoric disrupts the community since it takes the view of the “other”, the outsider to the community. Neo-rhetoric has its own enthymemes which cannot be publicly disputed.

Order & Right versus The Cathedral

via Gornahoor

It’s interesting that the title of Evola’s work is almost a prescriptive piece of advice, or a command -“Revolt!”, & that he advocates here a proper understanding of what a revolt would look like if it were legitimate: this is how a kshatriya would act to maintain purity as he overthrew what was false. Yet there are several stringent preconditions. First, any half measures are rejected: one cannot revolt using revolutionary principles of any kind, which are doomed. Thus, the “conservative” option is stillborn and simply not an option – one cannot build on that which is already sliding into the abyss. Secondly, the revolt is first of all as witness – that is, one is impassive and immovable, standing still as all else goes over the cliff.

Thirdly, any revolt would have to include self-knowledge, as acting outside one’s natural caste would be bound to cause inevitable complications which would compromise the outcome – a peasant trying to lead kings would not come to any good end. This explains much of the Church’s problem in resisting modernism : even spiritual brahmins are not authorized to assume the emperor’s post. Since the West is engaged in a kind of global revolutionary enterprise, we are looking for the emperor’s post, rather than a king who can re-establish centrality under an already recognized holy empire. It also explains the nature of anti-American sentiment that is brewing abroad – even other decaying civilizations sense that resistance to the global trends somehow involve answering and ending American pre-eminence, rather than merely establishing some kind of vacuum.

What Moldbug has called The Cathedral can rightly be viewed as a Demetrian impulse; the liberal order in fact represents precisely what one could term a gynocratic drive towards the Nanny Church-State.
The Cathedral, with its informal union of church and state, is positioned perfectly. It has all the advantages of being a formal arm of government, and none of the disadvantages. Because it formulates public policy, it is best considered our ultimate governing organ, but it certainly bears no responsibility for the success or failure of said policy. Moreover, it gets to program the little worm that is inserted in everyone’s head, beginning at the age of five and going all the way through grad school.
Instead of regal legitimacy, the moral-sentimental impulses of a substitute order (bereft of real authority) lead by degenerate brahmins and warriors (mlecchas) will impose an alternate scheme which does not correspond to Cosmic Law.

The choice by Moldbug of the term “Cathedral” to describe this entity is particularly felicitous: about the time of the rise of the Romanesque/Gothic, according to Evola, the Papacy was in the process of humiliating the Empire in the investiture controversy – Gregory made Henry IV stand in the snow at Canossa. Henry, true to the Evolian formula & claim, had made his case in no uncertain terms: His letter ends, “Henry, king not through usurpation but through the holy ordination of God, to Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk…I, Henry, king by the grace of God, with all of my Bishops, say to you, come down, come down, and be damned throughout the ages.” In other words, contrary to the Cathedral, either of the Middle Ages, or of the Puritan era, or of our own era of secular hyper-Calvinism, the ordination of the holy Emperor flows, truly, from God directly, with neither people nor pope intervening. Evola speaks of the warrior-priest almost as if it was a fourth caste. It was to this order or class that the Templars belonged, who tellingly owed allegiance, not to the Ekklesia but to a Temple.

The cooperation of the American Church in endorsing and legitimizing the split between secular/sacred has been crucial, as American Christianity is not merely predominantly exoteric, but also (now) maternal and this-worldly: all transcendent proclivities have been curtailed, castrated, or exorcised. Thus, what really matters today for most church goers is excising the very elements which remain and remind them of what has been abandoned or lost. The alternative to revolution (transcendent hierarchy) has been rendered literally inconceivable. As Phillip Rieff would put it, any truly therapeutic reaction would be rendered still-born by instant attention and dissection by the existing organs of The Cathedral, including the media, the churches, and the government agencies. In privileging the “spiritual” over the profane, the original intention of transcendence has been lost, & what has followed has been either the marginalizing of the Church in the face of secular Revolution, or, the trivializing of the secular and the spiritual in a false dichotomy that emasculates the transcendence of either. Moldbug makes clear how the political process functions under the secular-spiritual Cathedral:
Without separation of church and state, it is easy be for a democracy to indulge itself in arbitrarily irresponsible misgovernment, simply by telling its bishops to inform their congregations that black is white and white is black. Thus misdirected, they are easily persuaded to support counterproductive policies which they wrongly consider productive. Union of church and state can foster stable iatrogenic misgovernment as follows. First, the church fosters and maintains a popular misconception that the problem exists, and the solution solves it. Secondly, the state responds by extruding an arm, agency, or other pseudopod in order to apply the solution. Agency and church are thus cooperating in the creation of unproductive or counterproductive jobs, as “doctors.” (my note: this is Phillip Rieff’s “Therapeutic Culture”) Presumably they can find a way to split the take. The root problem with a state church in a democratic state is that, to believe in democracy, one must believe that the levers of power terminate with the voters. But if your democracy has an effective state church, the actual levers of power pass through the voters, and go back to the church. The church teaches the voters what to think; the voters tell the politicians what to do. Naturally, it is easy for the politicians to short-circuit this process and just listen to the bishops. Thus the government has a closed power loop. With the church at its apex, of course.
Those of this Church who come to their senses (in some respect) have a difficult time getting their footing under them. For example, Oriana Fallaci, in her confrontation with radical Islam, appealed, not to the traditional order of the West, but to the liberated serfs:
Well, in my view America frees the plebes. Everyone is a plebe there. White, black, yellow, brown, purple, stupid, intelligent, poor, rich. Actually the rich are the most plebeian of all. Most of the time they’re such boors! Crude, ill-mannered. You can tell immediately that they’ve never read Galateo, that they’ve never had anything to do with refinement and good taste and sophistication. In spite of the money they waste on clothes, for example, they’re so inelegant as to make the Queen of England look chic by comparison. But they are freed, by God. And in this world there is nothing stronger or more powerful than freed plebes. You will always get your skull cracked when you go up against the Freed Plebe. And they all got their skulls cracked by America: English, Germans, Mexicans, Russians, Nazis, Fascists, Communists. Even the Vietnamese got theirs cracked in the end, when they had to come to terms after their victory so that now when a former president of the United States goes there to visit they’re in seventh heaven. “Bienvenu, Monsieur le President, bienvenu!” The problem is that the Vietnamese don’t pray to Allah. It’s going to be much harder to deal with the sons of Allah. Much longer and much harder. Unless the rest of the Western world stops peeing its pants. And starts reasoning a little and gives them a hand.
And it is disconcerting, and confusing at first, to see that “what is left” in the West seems to have attached itself to the symbols and ideals of the American Revolution, with all of its concomitant ideology. This is what the Kali Yuga looks like, & it is why Evola is so prescient and precise in dealing with the possibilities offered to us in this time.

Ms. Fallaci alludes to something here important to Evola’s case:
The Italians have become such little lords. They vacation in Seychelles, come to New York to buy sheets at Bloomingdale’s. They’re ashamed to be laborers and farmers, and won’t be associated with the proletariat. But those of whom I speak (immigrants/Muslims), what kind of laborers are they? What work do they do? In what way do they satisfy the demand for manual labor that the Italian ex-proletariat no longer supplies?
She had courage, culture, and breeding, but these qualities are not enough to do more than to notice the external processes of decay and to fight rear-guard, temporizing actions. At least she was paying attention. In the global West, technology and wealth has caused the abandonment of the castes, with the result that hordes of immigrants are required as virtual slave laborers. Additionally, liberals like the engendered chaos. Moldbug offers further confirmation that Liberalism thrives and wins because of the libido dominandi which Dante also argued was filling up Hell:
One of the key reasons that intellectuals are fascinated by disorder, in my opinion, is the fact that disorder is an extreme case of complexity. And as you make the structure of authority in an organization more complex, more informal, or both – as you fragment it, eliminating hierarchical execution structures under which one individual decides and is responsible for the result, and replacing them with highly fragmented, highly consensual, and highly process-oriented structures in which ten, twenty or a hundred people can truthfully claim to have contributed to the outcome, you increase the amount of power, status, patronage, and employment produced. Of course, you also make the organization less efficient and effective, and you make working in it a lot less fun for everyone – you have gone from startup to Dilbert. This is Brezhnevian sclerosis, the fatal disease of organizations in a highly regulated environment. All work is guided by some systematic process, in which each rule was contributed by someone whose importance was a function of how many rules he added. In the future, we will all work for the government. Individually, this is the last thing your average intellectual wants to do, but it is the direction in which his collective acts are pushing us. In short: intellectuals cluster to the left, generally adopting as a social norm the principle of pas d’ennemis a gauche, pas d’amis a droit, because like everyone else they are drawn to power. The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders. The same asymmetry is why corporations and the military, whose system of hierarchical executive authority is inherently orderly, cluster to the right.
In other words, it is nothing other than a desire to usurp the higher spiritual castes that produces the strangely synchronized & seemingly invincible movement of Leftism. The same desire on the economic level has created the political vacuum being filled by immigration. In all cases, it is the abandonment of individual ius and collective fides (Evola) which opens the door to chaos. No one knows who the Emperor is, or (worse) would recognize him if he were to appear. The Cathedral denies that there is such a thing: the only Emperor (for them) is the hyper-individual, whose creation is ongoing and perversely polymorphous (Herbert Marcuse). It is doubtful if The Cathedral will be able to totally control the forces which they are playing around with. In fact, they are comfortable with using the chaos against their enemies, deploying it, so to speak, tactically.

It is highly interesting that in fact we are witnessing the investiture folly worked out all over again, yet with even more dire consequences. For another good historical analysis of this trend (but one with ideological problems) one should consult Rosenstock-Huessy’s Out of Revolution, which connects the dots between the various revolutions. We are now in an accelerated phase of this process, & understanding the “cloak of maliciousness” which Liberalism covers its bare parts with will allow discernment of the ways Res Publica is becoming Res Pubica, and what seems likely to happen next. Moldbug’s analysis concretely demonstrates how a false elite can benefit from “power-sharing” and revolution at the expense of the common good, & at the same time get long term results they say they eschew. But it is Evola who touches the point with a needle. The good news is, as twilight sets in, that many who are latently able have not yet begun to fight, & that there is a deeper law at work, capable of being discerned and connected with at the metaphysical level.

African Traditionalists against the Globalist Homosexual Agenda

via TradYouth

While I often spend my time discussing issues of morality and Identity within the Western world, we cannot forget the struggle for Faith, family and folk is a global one. While the West has fallen into degeneracy and has fallen nearly hook, line, and sinker for the radical homosexual agenda, the African people and many of their leaders are standing strong for Traditional values.

As European nationalists, we must understand that the globalist System is working to undermine both families and nations around the world. The agenda that began in the Western world is now spreading like a cancer to nations which have thus far resisted the siren song of Modernity. The global elites use controlled politicians and the media to promote their toxic values to every people and culture on this planet and for this reason the battle over Traditional values in Africa is important to all Traditionalists. Each country that falls to the modernist worldview is another domino falling on the path to total global victory for organized Judeo-Masonic power. Nationalists from Europe to Asia to America to Africa are all fighting for the same thing, a healthy future for their descendants and a morally upright world. As I always like to say: same enemy, same barricades.

President Obama has recently visited the African continent to promote a message of globalism and moral decadence to the African people. In Kenya, he told the Kenyan President and the Kenyan people that “discriminating against gays was like treating people differently because of race.

Of course President Obama’s meaning behind “discriminating” against homosexuals means that African nations are standing behind the universal principle of marriage being defined as being between a man and a woman and homosexual activity is against the laws of both God and nature.

Polls across Africa have shown that regardless of the Western governments and Jewish media moguls attempt to bribe and influence the African people to accept the abnormal behavior of homosexuality have failed. The Christian Science Monitor reported thatA 2013 study by the Pew Research Center found only 3 percent of Ghanaians and Senegalese, 4 percent of Ugandans, and 8 percent of Kenyans said their societies should accept homosexuality. In Nigeria, 98 percent said it should not accept homosexuality, the highest ratio in the world.”

In Africa, 33 sub-Saharan African nations consider homosexual behavior to be a criminal act and it is punished by fines and jail time. In some areas it is even considered to be a capital crime. The Leftist website the Daily Beast whined about this statistic when they saidanti-gay leaders—politicians, clergy, journalists—in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia and Sierra Leone have all, within the last month, called gay rights, and homosexuality itself, a ‘Western’ innovation that must be resisted in order to preserve ‘traditional African values.'”

To most African nationalists the degeneracy of the homosexual movement is found to be entirely an innovation of the post World War II West. After the Second World War the radical Leftist agenda of the 68′ generation took hold in both Europe and America to begin promoting “free love”, drug use, globalism and homosexuality. Not content with merely working to undermine and destroy the West morally and spiritually, the globalist elites have taken it upon itself in a new twisted version of the “White Man’s Burden” to use cultural imperialism to bring the Leftist worldview to the ends of the Earth.

African leaders have been tremendously outspoken in both word and deed in standing for Traditional marriage and against the attempted normalizing of homosexual behavior. A strong stance against homosexuality was taken by Sierra Leone’s President Ernest Koroma, who gave a passionate and extremely Traditionalist speech when he said thatwe have to take into consideration our culture, tradition, religious beliefs and all that…  I think the country should be led by what it believes is right for the country and not what is necessarily right for the international community because of the variations in our traditions.’’

Each nation and people should be allowed to govern themselves according to the values and Identity of their Faith, family and folk without other nations or alien peoples imposing values upon them. One thing that must be understood however is that it is not the White European people who began the homosexual movement or are trying to spread it throughout the world. The organized Jewish “intellectuals”, politicians and media outlets were the ones to push this agenda in the West and now to the rest of the world.

This about sums it up if you have any questions about who is behind the homosexual movement
This about sums it up if you have any
questions about who is behind
the homosexual movement
From the grassroots activist level to the highest positions of international finance and elite universities the Jewish role in promoting homosexuality cannot be understated. A brief look over the homosexual movement in the West shows that it is a certifiably kosher affair.

If you don’t believe me, just ask Vice President Joe Biden who told a Jewish audience that when it came to the homosexual movement “It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace gay marriage.. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.” The organized Jewish media and control over politics and academia pushes the homosexual agenda here at home and around the globe.

College professor and leading homosexual activist Arnie Kantrowitz has been pushing this agenda since the 1970’s through his writing, his position as an educator, and as an activist. He is one of the founding members of The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation or GLAAD and has actively used his position to attack Traditional Christians, conservatives and those who believe in the “one man, one man” definition of marriage.

Former United States House of Representatives member Bella Abzug, a graduate of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and active member of the Zionist organization Hashomer Hatzair, was a jack of all trades for promoting Leftist ideas. She began her work attacking State’s Rights in the South before graduating to be an outspoken radical feminist and eventual proponent of the homosexual movement. Abzug introduced the first gay rights bill in Congress and paved the way for the radical homosexual agenda in United States politics.

Jewish activist Winnie Stachelberg is the current Executive Vice President for External Affairs at American Progress. She spent 11 years with the pro-homosexual group the Human Rights Campaign and now is an active proponent to push “anti-discrimination” laws in America and to the international community.

Allan Ginsburg was a Jewish writer, poet and activist who described himself as having “mountains of homosexuality” inside himself in the 1940’s and began pushing the homosexual movement through his writings to a global audience. A member of the pedophile organization NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, that wants to legalize sex between grown men and underage male children, Ginsburg went on to write in 1957 a poem named “Howl” that graphically promoted and described homosexual sex.

Ginsburg used Jewish lawyers to challenge anti-obscenity laws on the books in several States and used the controversy to sell his books and poems around the world. This man was a public defender of raping children but in the eyes of the Jewish run System he was a hero and was given awards throughout his career including the National Book Award for Poetry and the National Arts Club gold medal.

The list goes on and on of Jewish boots, shekels, groups and corporations behind the advance of the homosexual movement in America, Canada and Europe. Now that the Jewish lobby has firmly gained control over Western politics, they have turned their eyes towards new territories to spread their disease ridden filth.

The globalists have primarily used money to bribe African leaders to override their peoples views on homosexuality. The BBC reported howWestern leaders have suggested they could cut aid to countries which did not recognize gay rights.” When Uganda passed laws against homosexuality the Western nations decided to economically punish Uganda for their stand for Traditional values. Bloomberg reported thatSwedish Finance Minister Anders Borg said on a visit to Kampala on Feb. 25 that the country is considering changes to its aid program in Uganda. Denmark announced two days ago it has withdrawn 50 million kroner ($9.2 million) in aid to the government and it’s shifting funds to non-governmental organizations. Norway is also halting aid worth 50 million kroner ($8.3 million) over the anti-gay law.” LikewiseU.S President Barack Obama is threatening to cut off foreign aid to Nigeria if a recent anti-gay bill is passed.” The West is using economic terrorism on African nations who stand by their principles, a modern form of colonialism and imperialism.

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh is one of my favorite world leaders currently due to his strong nationalist stance, position of protecting Christians right to worship even though he is a devout Muslim and his strong views on homosexuality. I don’t often say something is “based” but President Yahya Jammeh truly is the definition of the word “based.” 

 Gambian President Yahya Jammeh is based.
Gambian President Yahya Jammeh is based

Jammeh told homosexuals in The Gambia”If you are a man and want to marry another man in this country and we catch you, no one will ever set eyes on you again, and no white person can do anything about it.”He has said publicly he doesn’t care what the West or any media says about him because he will stand for his people, for his Faith and for the principles of African nationalism. Leaders like President Yahya Jammeh will fight for their principles and their people and should keep on the look-out for a U.S led “regime change” to bring “human rights” to The Gambia.

Today an increasing amount of African leaders are taking a stand against Jewish global imperialism by implementing laws that forbid homosexuality and promoting Traditional views on marriage. We as Traditionalists must understand that the Jewish war against African values is the same battle being waged against us here at home. The same activists, the same media hacks and the same rich elites are coordinating a full court press against Identity and Tradition and that is why Traditionalists must all stand against them. While maintaining our separate unique ethnic, religious and cultural differences we must unite as nationalists and Traditionalists to struggle against the common foe to secure a world in which Faith, family and folk are safe from globalism and modernity.

I stand with African nationalists, Arab nationalists, Asian nationalists, Hispanic nationalists, and all of my White nationalist brothers and sisters to unite as a worldwide fasces. The radical homosexual agenda just like all the other failed Leftist experiments to change the laws of God and nature is an anomaly in human history and they will not survive to the 22nd century. We will unite, we will fight and we will win.

Another Deluded Condemnation of Violence

via Age of Treason

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Politically Motivated Mass Murder in the US, by Patrick Le Brun at Counter-Currents, is a broad condemnation of White violence disguised as pro-White analysis. Le Brun makes his foregone conclusion plain from the start:
I see no use for violence in our movement. I am not a pacifist, nor do I believe that the current ruling class does not deserve it. But a brief comparison of the use of violence for political purposes throughout the last 100 years should make it clear why this is not the right choice for us, and such acts and their perpetrators should be expressly condemned. Since potential mass killers are probably not swayed by moral considerations, my argument against such violence is purely pragmatic.
Unlike many other pro-Whites who babble about “moral considerations” without giving much consideration to the meaning of such terms, Le Brun boldly announces that he will simply not even consider White political violence in such terms. Instead he chooses to see the “potential mass killers” he addresses as either amoral or immoral, i.e., that what drives them has nothing to do with morality, at least not of any sort he regards as valid.

I could go on at length here about morality and its importance, but I already have. Those who are interested in what I think morality has to do with White identity can consult Stupid/Crazy/Evil, Pathologization and Demonization, Morals, Morality and Moralizing, Universalism and Particularism, and Morality and Identity.

It will suffice here to note that morality, in the most general terms, is nothing more than a definition of good and bad, and at root it springs from a concern for some set of people. Any distortion in the distinction between this set of people and another, between us and them, creates moral confusion. Self-professed pro-Whites taking special pains to specifically condemn interracial violence perpetrated by fellow Whites is an especially perverse consequence of such confusion.

The result of Le Brun’s own failure to consider morality is clearest in the most recent example he examines, the case of Dylann Roof. Le Brun takes Roof’s verbal justification, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country”, quite literally. And because he has settled on a purely pragmatic view, he is confused about its meaning:
These are probably Blacks who are the least linked with whatever grievance about crime Roof has with the Black community. They were rather exemplary members of their community who exhibit a self-discipline that surpasses that of so many Hollywood Nazis and keyboard warriors. We must remember that while The Bell Curve proves our racial incompatibility as a whole, the curves also overlap.
does anyone really believe that there will be fewer Black-on-White rapes because the potential perpetrators would not want to provoke another massacre in a Black Church? Also, Counter-Currents readers are too smart to believe his premise that “Blacks are taking over.”
An honest attempt to understand Roof’s thinking would include reading his purported manifesto. Roof’s insightfullness and race-based sense of moral outrage is clear throughout. In the last section, labelled “An Explanation”, Roof offers a rationale for his choice of target based on both symbolism and pragmatism.

Based on the manifesto it appears Roof sees race in somewhat coarse black versus White terms. Like many racialists, including even those who write at Counter-Currents, Roof seems not to fully appreciate the nature and influence of the jews. However, the manifesto does mention the “jewish agitation of the black race”, notes the bias and poisonous influence of the (thoroughly jewed) anti-White media, recognizes differences in race consciousness, and draws distinctions between various non-White races. In short, the manifesto indicates that Roof’s understanding runs far deeper than “blacks are taking over”. Thus Le Brun’s attempt to paint Roof as stupid is itself stupid.

Le Brun’s finding of fault with Roof or any of the other men whose cases he examines is literally beside the point. His main point is to condemn and thus disassociate himself from them. Early on he asserts his belief that such violence has been used “to hurt our cause through guilt by association”. At the end he reiterates and elaborates on this belief:
To conclude, I believe that White Nationalism has been harmed rather than helped by killers like Roof, Page, Breivik, Miller, etc. Indeed, some of their acts have been so catastrophically counter-productive, one must question whether they were really trying to advance political aims at all, as opposed to simply indulging in nihilistic destruction. (In which case, perhaps they should have begun by killing themselves.) Thus such shooters and shootings must be condemned in the strongest language possible. I hope that anyone reading this who is actually contemplating such a killing spree will think this through carefully, then either change his mind — or find some other website to read.
Le Brun deludes himself and is encouraging his readers do so as well. He reckons he can simply verbally disown those Whites he deems unworthy – whether less knowledgable, disciplined, or more militant than himself – and that this will somehow advance the broader White interests he so unselfconsciously conflates with and constrains to his personal beliefs.

I believe genocide is the larger catastrophy Whites face, and that it grinds on despite the relatively minor acts of retaliatory violence and condemnations Le Brun and others are so determined to deliver, not because of them. The stated aims of Roof and Breivik, the two cases with which I am most familiar, were two-fold: to call attention to the plight of their people and to inspire further action. I think they did advance these aims. I think if anything deserves be called out as counter-productive (not to mention ineffective) it is the condemnations of actors by conceited thinkers. Like Fjordman, Le Brun imagines that words can protect him from the consequences of his ideas.

Cuckservative in WaPO

via Radix

Dave Weigel is one of the best, and certainly most entertaining, political journalists in the Beltway. He’s written an excellent rundown on the #Cuckservative phenomenon and included some choice quotes from me.
“#Cuckservative” is a full-scale revolt, by Identitarians and what I’ve called the 'alt Right,' against the Republican Party and conservative movement," Spencer explained in an e-mail. "The 'cuck' slur is vulgar, yes, but then piercingly accurate. It is the cuckold who, whether knowingly or unknowingly, loses control of his future. This is an apt psychological portrait of white 'conservatives,' whose only identity is comprised of vague, abstract 'values,' and who are participating in the displacement of European Americans — their own children.
According to Spencer, "Trump is a major part of the 'cuckservative' phenomenon — but not because he himself is an Identitarian or traditionalist. His campaign is, in many ways, a backward-looking movement: 'Let’s make America great again!' Why Trump is attractive to Identitarians and the alt Right is: a) he is a tougher, superior man than 'conservatives' (which isn’t saying much), and b) he seems to grasp the demographic displacement of European-Americans on a visceral level. We see some hope there."
"Just look at them!" said Spencer. "Glenn Beck, Erik [sic] Erickson, Mike Huckabee. They’re mediocrities, or sub-mediocrities. They’re grinning, obese doofuses. No person with a deep soul — no person who wants to take part in a moment that’s idealistic, that’s going to change the world — would want to be a part of 'conservatism.' In a way, the current 'cucks' are the residue of the Bush era. They were the 'conservative' and 'Religious Right' allies of the neoconservatives. They’re still around, for no apparent reason."
If you're asking how many people might agree with the underlying argument -- that the conservative movement has accommodated the cultural left for too long -- the answer might be millions. As many as 45 percent of self-identified "conservative Republicans" oppose any legal status for undocumented immigrants -- i.e., they oppose the establishment Republican position, as represented by Jeb Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I think this hashtag has legs.

The View from Olympus: Chattanooga

via traditionalRIGHT

Fourth Generation war visited Chattanooga last week at the cost of four Marines and one sailor dead. It was not the first instance of 4GW on American soil, and it will not be the last.

The killer was, again, Islamic. Islam is by no means the only non-state entity to which people may give their primary loyalty, but it is one of the more dangerous.

To diminish the risk of 4GW posed by Islam, we need to take two actions. The first is to stop Islamic immigration into this country, and not only Islamic immigration, but immigration by anyone who is likely to refuse to acculturate. All immigrants who refuse to become culturally American provide a base for 4GW.

The culturally Marxist Establishment insists on keeping the border open to such people because they help it attain its two main goals, first set by Gramsci in Italy and Lukacs in Hungary in l9l9, destroying Western culture and the Christian religion. Protecting ourselves from imported 4GW is “discrimination” in cultural Marxism’s vocabulary. In a 4GW world, any state that wants to survive will discriminate very carefully in terms of who it lets in.

The second action we need to take is to stop messing around in other peoples’ parts of the globe. So ong as we keep hitting them with drone and air strikes, they will try to hit us back on our own soil. What else should we expect? That war is waged only by one side? Here, the problem is not the cultural Marxists but people who call themselves “conservatives”. They are not. Desires to rule the world and cram Brave New World down everyone else’s throat are anti-conservative. At root they are nationalist, and nationalism arose on the left, not on the right. Russell Kirk was no friend of nationalism.

Most interesting to me was our response to the Chattanooga killings. As in previous such cases, from the president on down we responded with anguish, with weeping, with great sorrow for this terrible tragedy.

That is the response of a womanized culture. A masculine culture responds by getting mad and hitting back, hard.

Of course the deaths of five servicemen were tragic for their families, friends and communities. But the pathetic spectacle of President Obama again mourning a “national tragedy” but doing nothing is not how a state that wants to live would act. (Note that few if any of the Republican candidates would behave differently.)

A womanized culture is soft. Its reaction to anything bad is to weep, hold hands, put up memorials of flowers and teddy bears and generally dissolve in a puddle of tears. The world is seen as a boudoir, and the manners of the boudoir are carried into the real world. The real world chews them up and spits them out. As any student of history knows, softness is a society’s last condition before it is swept away.

An America with a masculine culture would have replied to this and other incidents with what 4GW theory calls the “Hama model”. The President would have gone on television within a matter of hours to say to the nation, “As I am speaking, hundreds of American bombers are wiping the city of Raqqa off the map and killing every living thing in it. I warn all civilians in any other territory under the control of ISIS to flee. The same thing can happen to you.” Not only would this have hit ISIS hard physically, it would have deprived it of its base, a much more serious injury. If no civilians would remain in any area controlled by ISIS, ISIS could not function.

But presented with this alternative, our womanized culture again wrings its hands and weeps. “Oh, oh, women and children would be killed, so would poor, innocent animals. We would become war criminals. Oh, oh. Blub, blub.”

The Hama model does not contradict what I said earlier about our war of endless pinpricks. On the contrary, not doing “precise” air and drone strikes is part of the Hama model. It says, in effect, “Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. If you hit us, we will annihilate you. The Hama model is over fast.

Instead, we will continue to wage a losing war of little, indecisive actions, the kind of war women wage on each other in their offices and clubs. Not content merely to womanize the general culture, Washington is now womanizing the military itself. I don’t know which is laughing louder, Heaven or Hell.