May 20, 2015

Nationalist Movements in the Baltic Republics

via American Renaissance

Konstantins Pupurs speaks to the 2015 American Renaissance conference about his fight for Latvian freedom—both from Soviet domination and from the multicultural ideology of the West. As a leading figure in the All for Latvia! Party, he describes the cultural/patriotic traditions that have taken root in his newly independent homeland, and plays an inspiring video of the torchlight independence parade that is now an annual celebration.

Mad Max: Fury Road

via Counter-Currents

Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth — and the best — Mad Max movie directed by George Miller. Miller was born George Miliotis — the son of Greek refugees from Turkish ethnic cleansing in Anatolia — and is also the creator of two other, and very different, film franchises, the Babe the talking pig movies and the Happy Feet animated penguin movies.

In Fury Road, the title character, which heretofore has been played by Mel Gibson, is played by Tom Hardy (Bane — with another grill thing on his face, no less). Charlize Theron is the female lead as Imperator Furiosa, who has a prosthetic Terminator arm attached to an amputated stump.

Theron’s character is the focus of a media kerfuffle about her allegedly “badass” superfeminist character, but it is entirely baseless and manufactured to sell tickets.

James Bond movies have a formula, and so does their advertising. Every few Bond films, we are told that this time Bond will be paired up with a “strong woman” — presumably unlike all the other Bond women. Bond aficionados laugh because of course few Bond women ever match Ursula Andress’ formidable heroine in the very first Bond movie, Dr. No. 

Of course Bond movies appeal overwhelmingly to men, so the publicity people probably concoct the “strong woman” pitch to persuade potential female ticket buyers that it will not be too much of a sausage fest. And they figure that a strong woman won’t deter male viewers, as long as she is hot. Of course, this is a risky proposition, because there is a well-documented tendency for men to abandon social spaces and activities once they have become too feminized.

I think that pretty much the same reasoning was behind promoting Theron as the strong woman in Fury Road — unlike the shrinking violet Tina Turner in Beyond Thunderdome, I suppose. But these are the days of Peak Feminism, and this time, there has been a backlash, with many young men swearing off Fury Road in disgust.

They’ll come round, though, because the feminist elements of this movie, such as they are, would only offend Oriental advocates of purdah and footbinding. Indeed, the society they rebel against is profoundly un-white and un-Western, despite the fact that it is ruled by and predominantly populated by whites.

The Citadel — a set of towering rock formations — is the headquarters of cult leader Immortan Joe. Joe, like the despots of neighboring Gas Town and Bullet Farm, is hideously malformed and debauched. His government is a form of oriental hydraulic despotism — literally, for he hoards water and food and releases them in dribs and drabs to the starving wretches below.

Joe also uses brute force to maintain power, filling the citadel with War Boys, who look like skinheads on chemo. To control the war boys and motivate them to sacrifice themselves, Joe has manufactured a religion which promises Valhalla to the War Boys and some sort of redemption to the rest of his people.

Aside from Joe, everyone is basically a slave. Huge fat women are milked like cows, and the milk seems to be consumed as food and even exported. When Max is captured, he is turned into a “blood bag” to offer transfusions to a sickly War Boy, Nux. (Radiation has made many people sickly. Their abbreviated existence is ironically called a Half Life.)

Another oriental trait of the Citadel is Joe’s harem. Healthy and fertile young women are in short supply, so naturally Joe monopolizes them.

The Citadel’s combination of polygamy, slavery, militarism, religion, and rule by a prophet/priest/despot actually brings to mind one of history’s greatest practitioners of the gangsta/pimp lifestyle, namely the Prophet of Islam.

At this point, I will “spoil” the story by giving away a few plot elements. Furiosa is a trusted driver of one of Joe’s armored War Rigs, a tanker that appears to be loaded with water and mother’s milk, which Furiosa will drive to Gas Town to barter for gasoline.

At a certain point, however, she turns off road into the desert. Furiosa, it seems, is defecting. Joe discovers that his harem has disappeared. They want something better than being the brood slaves of a bloated tyrant, so Furiosa has promised to deliver them to the Green Place, where she was born and from which she had been kidnapped 20 years before by Joe’s people.

Joe sends his army to recover them, and Max is brought along as a blood bag. Max escapes, teams up with Furiosa, and they battle their way across the desert, to discover that all that remains of her people are a few old crones wandering the desert, one of whom carries a treasure: seeds. If only she can find water and soil for them.

The crones team up with Furiosa, Max, and Nux, who has changed sides. Their mission is to preserve life. To find a suitable home for the fertile young women, so the race can live on, and to find fertile ground for the seeds. It is a mission important enough to kill and die for, and they do. But life triumphs in the end.

Feminism has created a false consciousness in women. They imagine that women never exercised agency, never protected themselves against abusers, and never exercised political power until feminism came along and started white, Western women bitching as if they were in purdah. Of course if they really had been in purdah, all the complaining in the world would not have made any difference.

It does not take feminism or Marxism to make white people rebel against the oriental despotism of the Citadel. Such government has never sat well with us. It is not in our nature.

Real feminism is neurotic man-hatred, anti-life nihilism, and sexual separatism. Real feminism is ball-busting posturing and pointless oneupmanship. None are present in Fury Road. After overcoming mutual distrust (which is reasonable in the circumstances), Max and Nux team up well with Furiosa, the brides, and the crones because that is the natural way.

There is no sense that the crones in the desert are a viable society, only the remnants of one, and the crones are willing to sacrifice their lives to find safety for the brides and fertile ground for the seeds. As the crones charge into battle, one says to another, “One man, one bullet,” but this does not apply to all men, of course, and it delightfully tweaks “One man, one vote.”

The primary role of women in this movie is nurturers, and it is only because the world has been turned upside down that women are forced to kill to further life. In the end though, they could not have done it without Max and Nux. But the women also provided them something real to fight for.

When our race awakens and begins to fight for its survival, it is not pre-Raphaelite damsels and oriental lotus foots who will be our helpmeets, but women like Furiosa.

I found the opening few minutes of Fury Road distasteful, and I almost walked out. I am glad I stayed, though, because it is an excellent movie. Yes, there are lots of chases and fights — thrilling and spectacular ones — but Miller understands pacing, so there are meditative and poetic moments as well, and a number of deeply touching ones.

The world Miller creates is a remarkable work of the imagination, with a stunning steampunk/biker mag aesthetic, and scenes of desolation and horror worthy of Bruegel, Bosch, and Dalí. (I made the mistake of seeing the movie in 3-D, but after a few minutes I went next door to a conventional screening, and I am glad I did. One simply sees more detail.) Thank God there was no symbolism.

The performances of Hardy and Theron are excellent. They have real chemistry. You can feel that they complete one another: she has found a protector, and he has found a purpose. But for me, Miller’s artistry was best displayed when I realized that plot and character, tension and respite, words and silences, had been orchestrated into a deeply moving climax, created with the simplest of means. Hardy simply says, “Max, my name is Max.”

I loved this movie.

The War on Human Nature

via Radix

Enormous strides have been made in recent years in unraveling the evolutionary basis of human nature. Among other thing, this work totally undermines the Behaviorist view that everything human is environmentally determined. Behaviorism, for decades, hindered serious progress in the social sciences; it is well that it be put to rest.
Unfortunately the pervasive influence of Cultural Marxism and the tactics of its adherents have prevented evolutionary approaches from spreading widely in the human sciences. This is apparent in the persistent rejection of any discussion of the biological basis of human racial differences, nowhere more so than in issues relating to IQ. This rejection in unfazed by the fact that there are few, if any, constructs in the social sciences more powerful than IQ. It correlates with and predicts an extremely wide range of social phenomena including, but not limited to, school and economic performance, criminal behavior, differences in wealth between nations, and demographic groups within nations. Among research psychologists this is well known and not particularly controversial. Equally well-known is that, based on decades of research, IQ is, in large measure, genetically determined. 

Among elite opinion makers, however, the importance and predictive power of IQ is denied, as is the idea that it is genetically based. This denial is completely at variance with 100 years of research on IQ and the consensus opinion among research scientists. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA), in response to the controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, created a task force to examine the questions raised, and in 1996 acknowledged the validity and reliability of IQ tests. In addition, the task force also endorsed the idea that IQ is, to a significant extent, heritable, though it remained agnostic on the issue of genetically determined racial differences.[1]

The practical value of IQ is indicated by the reliance in recruitment by two of the nation’s most important institutions upon measures that are, for all intents and purposes, IQ tests. Colleges make extensive use of SAT and ACT scores in the admission process. Both of these tests correlate very highly with IQ tests. Likewise, the United States armed forces use the AFQT (Armed Forces Qualifying Test) in selecting recruits. The test is based on performance on four subtests—Word Knowledge (WK), Paragraph Comprehension (PC), Arithmetic Reasoning (AR), and Mathematics Knowledge (MK). Given the similarity of the abilities measured by the AFQT and standard IQ tests, it is hardly surprising that the two are highly correlated. Both college admissions tests and the AFQT are regularly used by researchers as reliable proxies for IQ tests.

Nevertheless, most intellectuals eschew the idea that important human characteristics and abilities are genetically determined. The reasons are plain, since for at least from the late 1960s, the social sciences and humanities have been dominated by self-conscious egalitarians. The journalist John Derbyshire has called one of the central beliefs of such academics the Dogma of Zero Group Differences, or DZGD; it holds that there there are no inherent human characteristics; human nature is a social construct. In this view, human behavior is culturally determined and the product of social and class conditioning. It follows that, barring certain inconvenient social distinctions, all people must be equal in their abilities and temperament; at the very least, they possess equal human potential. Therefore, any differences in economic or social status are the result of the social conditioning, and more often than not, attributed to the exploitation of the powerless by ruling elites. The powerless are, in this view, induced to accept their oppression because they have been indoctrinated by the ruling class into thinking that their inferior status is the necessary result of their inferior abilities. Put another way the working class is induced to accept the false understanding (false consciousness) that modern societies are meritocratic rather than organized and manipulated to benefit those in power.[2]
Evolutionary explanations undercut this view since, from the evolutionary perspective, a substantial number of human characteristics must be determined by genes shaped by thousands of years of natural selection. Given the demonstrable reality of natural selection and the resultant evolution that it creates, the notion that the human mind is a “blank slate” is simply untenable.[3] Nevertheless this conclusion is rejected by most all of the left-right spectrum, including many of those who claim to believe in evolution. 

The dogmatic rejection of any genetic explanations for human difference was glaringly revealed in the left’s response to the publication in 1975 of Sociobiology by the eminent Harvard entomologist Edward O. Wilson.[4] Wilson argued that the nature of animal social behavior, including human social behavior, was governed by the same rules of evolution that shaped all the other features of living things; that human behavior is not immune to natural law and that, in effect, there is a human nature that cannot be easily modified by social conditioning. From this view, boys like guns and girls like dolls, because that is the way they are and no amount of conditioning can erase that difference. 

Wilson came under attack by the aptly named Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, an attack vigorously supported by the well-known left-wing scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. The Study Group did not simply claim that Wilson was mistaken in his science, but that his position was morally tainted and a barely hidden assertion of the inferiority of various non-White racial groups. The fact that Wilson never discussed racial differences in his book (race does not appear anywhere in the index) did not exonerate him from the charge of malicious intent. Wilson’s critics argued that evolutionary explanations survive because “they consistently provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race or sex.” His book betrayed “the personal and social class prejudice of the author.” And he joins a “long parade “ of those “whose work has served to buttress the institutions of their society by exonerating them from responsibility for social problems.” [5] Wilson was hounded for many years by student demonstrators and was often prevented from speaking before university audiences. In one well-known incident at a 1978 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ”antagonists commandeered the podium as Wilson was scheduled to speak, delivered a five-minute diatribe against him and his works, and concluded by pouring a pitcher of water over him. . . .” [6]

It should be stressed that that this was an extreme reaction against any claim for the biological basis for human differences. Many social scientists accepted the reality of human biological differences at the level of the individual. However, no such explanations were acceptable for differences between groups. If groups differ, on average, in income or school performance or rates of crime or illegitimacy, these must be due to differential treatment by society and, in particular, to the ethnocentrism, racism and sexism of the majority White population. This view on racial differences emerged in the 1960s and had, by the 1970s, become an unchallengeable orthodoxy, even in supposedly conservative circles and remains so to this day, now under the guise of political correctness.

The fate of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s book, The Bell Curve, which came out about 20 years after Wilson’s book, is instructive.[7] The main thesis of the book was that group differences in social and economic success could be based, in large measure, on genetic causes. That book, which spent 15 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list in 1994-95, has dropped down the memory hole in elite academic circles, even though at the time it was a major focus of controversy. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal published a statement by noted educational researcher Linda Gottfredson, and endorsed by a large number of individuals readily recognized as the most illustrious researchers in psychology and related fields. Quoting Gottfredson:
Since the publication of The Bell Curve, many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate current scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are actually firmly supported. The following conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. . . . Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well.[8]
In the 20 years since The Bell Curve was published, the suppression of the fundamental truths in that book grows even more outrageous. Charles Murray is hardly exaggerating when he argues that in academia, “assistant professors know that their chances of getting tenure will be close to zero if they publish politically incorrect findings on climate change, homosexuality, race differences, gender differences, or renewable energy.”[9] Simply adopting incorrect views is, in academia, to be ostracized and shunned by colleagues.

Unfortunately, this kind of suppression of dissent has infiltrated all walks of life and has had a poisonous effect on the onetime valued ideal of a free exchange of ideas. For instance, in addressing Black-White gaps in education one must claim to believe that such differences are always attributable to social causes and never to any inherent characteristics of individuals. For instance, if Black children are disciplined more frequently in school, it can only be attributed to teachers’ biases. It can never be due to the fact that Black children are many times more likely to engage in criminal acts on the streets when not in school, and do not drop their propensities simply by walking through the schoolhouse door.

To argue that group differences have their basis in genetics is to jeopardize one’s career. The case of the otherwise impeccably leftist Lawrence Summers teaches us a great deal. This economist was forced to resign as president of Harvard University in 2006 for suggesting a possible genetic explanation for differences in scientific achievement between the sexes. His suggestion is hardly exceptional, and, in fact, is based on well-established research that has been well-known for years, namely that most characteristics are more widely distributed among men than among women; i.e., there are more males than females at the extreme tails, top and bottom, of the bell curve. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to argue that among those scientists who have made extraordinary contributions, there are likely to be more men than women.[10] Before assuming the presidency at Harvard, Summers had been a major economic advisor in the Clinton administration, and after leaving Harvard served in the Obama administration and was the key economic decision-maker in President Obama’s response to the recession of 2007-2008. The fact that he was a respected economist, and one who had served in a liberal Democratic administration, provided him no immunity from the wrath of those who deny the reality of human biological differences. 

Nobel laureate geneticist James Watson, one of the most celebrated scientists of our time, came under virulent attack for expressing a forbidden opinion on race. In a long interview published in the London Sunday Times, Watson commented on Western policies with respect to Africa that “are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” Further,
[T]here is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of people geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to preserve equal powers of reason as some universal human heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.
He suggested that new approaches were probably needed to help Africans escape their unfortunate circumstances. For these perfectly defensible statements, he was widely vilified and relieved of his duties at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He had been its director for 35 years and under his leadership it became a world-leading center for basic research in cancer and molecular biology.[11] In late 2014, Watson revealed that he was selling his Nobel Prize because he was short of cash and “no-one really wants to admit I exist.”[12]
The fate of lesser-known individuals who deviate from egalitarian orthodoxy is not so widely publicized. Christopher Brand, a highly respected British scholar published a book on group IQ differences that produced such uproar among his critics that his publishers cancelled his contract and went so far as to recall all the books it had already distributed to bookstores. He was subsequently dismissed from his position at Edinburg University, although the university eventually settled with him for unlawful dismissal.[13]

In the United States, deviating from accepted opinion about universal natural equality and biological sameness results in ostracism or loss of employment. In countries that lack free-speech protections, dissenting from the accepted views is criminalized. J. Philippe Rushton was investigated by the Ontario police for possible prosecution for a paper he presented on racial differences at an academic conference in 1989. According to Jonathan Rauch, writing in Reason magazine, the police “launched a six-month investigation of Rushton under Canada's hate-speech prohibition. They questioned his colleagues, demanded tapes of his debates and media appearances, and so on." If prosecuted and convicted, Rushton might have been imprisoned for two year for “using questionable source data.” Rauch explains, ”In the end, the attorney general decided not to prosecute and settled for denouncing Rushton’s ideas as ‘loony.’”[14]

All of these sanctions serve to intimidate those who question the prevalent egalitarian dogma and they appear to be working as planned. To quote Murray “We will never know what scientific work was avoided by scientists who wish to avoid the scorn, harassment and ostracism that will result if they discover something that contradicts the prevailing view.”(Murray, “In Defense of Jason Richwine.) For those academics without tenure, the penalty for dissenting views or research that reveals uncomfortable findings will result in the denial of tenure and very likely in the denial of positions elsewhere. They are, in fact, driven from positions they have devoted years to obtain and deprived of their very livelihood. For young instructors supporting or helping to support families such risks are unacceptably high. 

Until now, physical scientists have not had to contend with political correctness, but that is changing. The completion of the mapping of the human genome and very recent advances in the ability to decode individual genes has led many scientists to explore genetic components of disease, including racial differences in disease patterns. This research has not always been welcomed, even though it promises to lead to better diagnosis of diseases, which are more common in some races, and in better treatments, some of which are more effective in some races than in others.

University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn came under fire for publishing an important finding that two genes implicated in brain size (and perhaps intelligence) were more common among people from Asia and Europe but uncommon among people from Africa. One of the genes seems to have arisen about 40,000 years ago, roughly at the time when the first modern humans are thought to have appeared in Europe. The other gene was found mainly in people from Europe and the Middle East and was thought to have arisen about 6,000 years ago. Lahn speculated that the first may have been selected for conditions in northern latitudes and the second may have been the product of, or the explanation for, large-scale agriculture and the rise of early civilizations. The clear implication of Lahn’s research is that these may be among those many genes thought to influence the various differences between the three large racial groups found in Africa, Asia, and Europe.[15] Offering biological evidence for racial differences is, under the current regime, “racist” by definition. This point was not lost on Lahn’s colleagues, whose personal attacks led Lahn to abandon the study of brain differences.

This sort of ostracism is by no means practiced only on the left. Kevin Lamb was summarily fired from his job as managing editor of the conservative newsweekly Human Events when it was discovered that, in his free time, he was writing for and editing The Occidental Quarterly, a journal “that specializes in research and analysis on issues involving race, ethnicity, politics and culture.” The journal in question has been denounced as “white supremacist” since it promotes the idea that Western Civilization is a product of the unique nature of European peoples.[16]

Jason Richwine was fired from his job as senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation in 2013. This occurred two days after the Washington Post reported that his Ph.D. dissertation argued that Hispanics have lower average intelligence than White Americans and questioned current immigration policy. The unseemly haste with which the Heritage Foundation acted, without even allowing Richwine to explain the context of his argument, underscores what is now obvious. A leading conservative think-tank ran to fire someone who questioned the orthodox leftist position on racial differences.[17]

Well-known commentator and Contributing Editor at National Review, John Derbyshire was also fired in 2012 because of a satirical piece he published in the wake of the brouhaha over the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin. The piece was a direct response to a highly publicized “talk” that required black mothers to warn their teenage sons about the dangers posed by White police. In his piece Derbyshire pointed to the hypocrisy of Blacks in their prejudicial view of White police, when contrasted with the real threat of Black crime. In his hypothetical talk with his children, he recited the dangers to Whites posed by black thugs. Instead of taking this for what it was, i.e., a serious rebuke to Black parents who instill fear of endemic White racism in their children, Derbyshire was summarily fired for unacceptable thoughts. Of course, the only people who should find this unacceptable are those who would deny the staggering reality of Black crime.[18]

In explaining the hostility to evolutionary thinking in liberal academic circles, Harvard evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker notes that findings of a genetic basis for racial differences would put into question “the assumption that all group-wide social differences (e.g., in crime, poverty, and health) are caused by discrimination or a rigged economic system. It would be an enormous challenge to the unspoken consensus of mainstream left-of-center politics during the past fifty years. . . .”[19] In a similar vein, Charles Murray, in a review of Nicolas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance, maintains that the book will not likely be welcome since it challenges the orthodox position that genes play no role in racial differences. Quoting Murray, “true believers in the orthodoxy still dominate the social science departments of the nation’s universities. I expect their resistance to “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be fanatical, because accepting its account will be seen, correctly, as a cataclysmic surrender on some of the core premises of political correctness.”[20] It is obvious why the left would object to evolutionary theories of human behavior that explain national, racial, and class differences, since the rejection of the particularities of human beings have been a motivating force of the Left since the French Revolution. The Right has generally been comfortable with the idea that there is a natural hierarchy of talents among men, and a spectrum of diverse abilities and temperaments. From this perspective, nations reflect the particular nature of distinct historic peoples. For the Left, any national or local attachments are but a retrograde tribalism that undermines the ideal of a universal human solidarity. Certainly one of the most powerful conservative argument against communist regimes, and leftism in general, is that, in their attempt to abolish natural hierarchies and national loyalties, they crush the diversity and uniquenesses within the human species. After all, if one views difference as inherently unjust, how can one deny the need to abolish these inequities and eliminate physically or marginalize those who promote them. Leftism can be viewed, in this way, as a centuries-long revolt against human nature. 

On a more mundane level, the reality of human differences is, as James Watson suggested, the most powerful argument against the varied wasteful and generally unpopular policies pursued in the name of “fighting inequality.” For instance, the government has continued to spend enormous sums in the attempt to eliminate racial disparities in educational attainment on the false premise that any such differences are the result of bias, rather than the result of obvious differences in ability. Fifty years of this effort have produced no reduction in racial differences in academic performance. Currently, major efforts are underway to expand the efforts of the Head Start program into universal pre-schooling, which all research has shown to be of no value in improving performance.[21]

A recognition of natural group differences would allow for a serious challenge to programs of racial preferences in the form of Affirmative Action, minority set-asides, and disparate impact rulings, all of which are premised on the assumption that racial differences in ability and temperament do not exist. An acknowledgment of fundamental differences between the sexes would allow for a principled stand against the disturbing policy of placing women in combat roles in the military and rules that require ignoring sexual differences in hiring decisions. Similarly, rules that require equal expenditures on high-school athletic programs for males and females only make sense if there are no sexual differences in athletic interests and abilities. The reader can add his own examples to the list of foolish rulings based on the absurd assumption that the only differences between boys and girls are secondary sexual characteristics. Disparate impact rulings that fail to acknowledge racial and sexual differences often undermine public safety. How could it be otherwise when the recognition of group differences are made illegal in the recruitment of policemen, firemen, soldiers and sailors?

Affirmative-action is profoundly contrary to the traditional American principles of individual autonomy and responsibility, and totally inconsistent with the bedrock American value of self-reliance. Such a policy is built on the hateful idea of group guilt, of visiting the sins of the father on the son. Even if one accepts the dubious assertion that Black difficulties are the result of slavery and Jim Crow, that hardly requires the remedy of handicapping individuals born generations later, whose ancestors, in almost all cases, had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow. On what basis, furthermore, can a claim be made that recent Asian and Hispanic immigrants are entitled to special consideration? Such a claim rests on the patently false assertion that most Whites cannot be trusted to treat people of different races fairly. 

Differences in ability between groups have obvious social implications, but so too do differences in temperament. The refusal to accept the reality of such differences obfuscates the reasons for the great racial and sexual disparities in criminal conduct. For instance, recent research indicates that certain variants of the MAO gene are very much implicated in criminal behavior, and are much more common in some racial groups than in others.[22] Likewise, the huge disparities in violent criminal behavior between men and women are inexplicable, absent an understanding of important temperamental differences between the sexes. Denial of such differences hinders effective measures of crime control. For example, the proactive crime prevention “stop and frisk” policies of the New York City Police department necessarily leads to a racially disparate impact in the people questioned by police. That practice, which obviously must be partially based on racial and sexual profiling, is falsely claimed to be evidence of racial discrimination. Of course, nobody questions why more men than women are stopped and frisked by police. Why not? The answer, in the case of sexual differences is obvious, but so is the answer in the case of racial differences. Proactive policing in New York City dramatically reduced violent crime, but that seemed to be of no consequence in a judge’s decision, rightly set aside, that forbade the New York City police from continuing the use of this highly effective tactic. In other words, public safety had to be compromised on the dubious grounds that effective policing is racially motivated, no matter that most perpetrators of violent crime, and most of its victims, are members of racial minorities.[23]

An admission of important group differences would allow for a serious examination of an immigration policy, opposed by most Americans, based on the flawed multicultural notion that human beings are everywhere the same and can be moved about the world without serious, and often negative, consequences. For instance, the denial of differences between the human capital of North and Central Americans results in the unquestioned support for family unification in immigration policy and for continued support for birthright citizenship. The entirely foreseeable consequence of this denial has been the flooding of America with disproportionate numbers of Hispanic immigrants, who have educational and economic difficulties. 

One would think that the left, which makes so much of rising income inequality, would be champions for curtailing mass immigration, which drives down wages and employment, especially for those with limited academic skills. Surely massive immigration is a major contributor to the wage stagnation afflicting American workers. The Left’s attachment to open borders is plain and clearly reflects the Left’s universalist multicultural ideology, but also reflects their venal desire for boosting the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. Poorly educated Hispanic immigrants are ready-made recruits for the Democratic Party and represent a vast source of clientele for those employed at all levels in an ever-growing welfare state bureaucracy. Here, as in so many cases, the interests of labor and industry converge.[24] Those immigrants, many of whom serve as clients in the welfare state, are also an abundant source of labor, which, in depressing wages, bolsters the bottom line of industrial and farm enterprises. It is important to emphasize that it is not merely cheap manual labor that explains the eagerness of the United States Chamber of Commerce to expand immigration. The leaders of technology firms are among the most vociferous in claiming the need for increased immigration quotas (and H1B visas) for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) employees, on the false argument that such technically trained people cannot be found among Americans. But this is a chicken-and-egg problem of the industry’s making. The easy availability of less expensive foreign technology workers drives down wages and serves to discourage American students from pursuing difficult and expensive educations. How can they be expected to compete with foreigners for whom even low wages by American standards are much better than anything they could have gotten at home.[25]
One of the most tragic consequences of the denial of human diversity has been the decline of cities and the access to urban amenities for people of modest means. Everyone is familiar with the depressing fact that large stretches of major American cities are dysfunctional, ugly, and dangerous places, barely tolerable by those who, for any number of reasons, are unable to leave. Not so well publicized, but obvious to the observant traveler, has been the havoc visited upon the urban enclaves of the American heartland. Just about every mid-size American city has seen its downtown hollowed out and its middle-class population relocated to the suburbs. The term relocated is not used arbitrarily, but is chosen to highlight the fact that this migration out of cities was not the result of some spontaneous impulse, but rather the direct result of government policies that made those cities uninviting and in many cases unlivable for middle-class individuals. What good is it to live in a place where your child can walk to school, if the school is all but useless academically, and if the walk to school is through neighborhoods that are both aesthetically disfigured and unsafe. From Richmond, Virginia, to Florence, South Carolina, in the south, to Buffalo, New York, and Camden, New Jersey in the north, the pattern is sad and undeniable. The heroic efforts of civic minded, usually older, individuals to revitalize their downtowns are often to no avail. Their children and grandchildren, who were carried to the suburbs, do not even know what has been lost. 

Civil-rights advocates and bureaucrats who are unaware or ideologically blind to the reality of human differences are, under Section 8 guidelines and anti-discrimination edicts, requiring the relocation of dysfunctional minority families into the suburban enclaves to which many less-than-wealthy middle-class people retreated in an attempt to escape the depredations that beset many urban neighborhoods. This effort is being pursued under the false assumption that it is chaotic neighborhoods that create dysfunctional families. But research clearly shows that it is the other way around: Dysfunctional people are simply incapable of creating healthy communities.(ft: Hanna Rosen, American Murder Mystery, The Atlantic, July/August 2008.) Common decency requires a concern for, and need to assist, people who have difficulty in creating well-functioning communities. It is sheer folly, however, to imagine that seriously maladjusted people can be magically transformed by a ride down the road in a moving van. This is, of course, the same mentality that imagines that a native of Somalia can be metamorphosed into a blue-eyed Scandinavian by moving him to Minnesota.
It is not only the unfairness of Affirmative Action and other leveling policies that should be of concern to thoughtful people. More important is that these policies tend to obscure the far more serious problem of how to deal with the problems technological progress present for people with limited intellectual resources. In the past, such people could support themselves with menial jobs on farms and in factories, and in a host of semi-skilled trades. But these sorts of jobs are becoming increasingly rare. Lower and middle-class Americans with IQs below the White average are caught in the pincers of labor-saving technologies, off-shoring, outsourcing and the massive importation of labor. One result is a growing underclass described so clearly by Charles Murray in his book Coming Apart.[26] It has also led to a stagnation of wages for the middle-class and growing income inequality. A serious conservative movement would wish to confront this problem directly and attempt to find ways to deal with it. This is so because a concern for the problems of one’s less talented countrymen is rightly seen as a patriotic duty. The myth of equality serves to free elites from any real obligation to those who have been less lucky in life’s genetic lottery. In this view, people lacking marketable skills need only avail themselves of the unlimited educational opportunities that America provides. It is facilely asserted that people who used to assemble automobiles and television sets should be able to advance, through education, to more technical remunerative occupations. But this supposes that there will be many high-skilled jobs that can’t be outsourced or off-shored, and that almost all Americans have the capacity to be trained for such jobs. The first supposition is highly unlikely; the second is patently absurd. 

A problem of enormous human difficulty for modern societies is thus confounded with what is a transient problem of race relations. The absurdities of Affirmative Action can only be defended by a denial of the unfairness of life’s lottery. Imagine anyone claiming that placing a short player on a professional basketball team would enable him to overcome his disadvantage in height. That is hardly different from claiming that a Black person’s academic weakness can be overcome by admission to an elite college. In both cases, the remedy is absurd because the premise is absurd. Playing basketball with superior players will not make the short man tall, nor will going to school with superior intellects make the dumb student smart. Placing people in positions on artificial grounds merely postpones the need to find practical means to address the base cause of differential performance, and find ways to help people with lesser ability lead self-sufficient and gratifying lives. This is a problem for all advanced societies and not one unique to mixed race societies.

A serious attempt to assist less-capable Americans would require addressing the sources of their difficulties, a primary source of which is American industry’s attachment to the doctrine of free trade, facilitated by the breakdown of national borders. This allows for the location of production to low-wage countries and increases corporate profits, the benefits of which accrue to investors and industrial managers. Free trade, therefore, requires American workers to compete with workers in countries with much lower standards of living, resulting in lower wages and reduced employment opportunities. This well-known phenomenon is treated as a natural and inevitable outcome of the laws of economics. Recently, however, respected economists, such as Ian Fletcher, have provided strong arguments that the theory of free trade is deeply flawed and some form of protection is necessary to keep industries in America, where they can provide decent salaries for American workers.[27] 

Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage, upon which the doctrine of free trade is based, claims that every country’s prosperity can be maximized by doing what each does best. Fletcher argues that Ricardo’s theory was based on a set of highly restricted assumptions that are rarely satisfied today. Moreover, whatever the basis for a country’s prosperity, there is no assurance that all individuals within a prosperous country will prosper. In a global economy, just the opposite may be true; the world’s most talented will prosper, while others will fall by the wayside. It little matters to those unable to compete in a world market if they live in a prosperous country but are impoverished nonetheless. It is hard to deny that an American worker has a difficult time competing with workers who can live comfortably on one-half to one-tenth the wage a reasonable living would require in America. 

It bears repeating that our open-borders policy exacerbates the problem by flooding the United States with low-skilled workers from Mexico and Central America, who compete directly with similarly skilled Americans. The same is true, as mentioned earlier, for middle-class Americans, who are squeezed by competition from talented immigrants from almost every continent in the world. The result, as Edwin Rubenstein has amply documented, is the erosion of wages and employment opportunities for native-born Americans.[28] The argument that a more populated America is a more prosperous America for all workers was true so long as American enterprise dominated the world and the American market was, in large measure, insulated from world competition; a rising GNP could almost guarantee a rising per capita GNP. A bigger pie provides bigger slices for everyone involved, but only so long as the population grows more slowly than the size of the pie. However, if the number of people wishing to sup grows, while the pie does not, many people must leave the table hungry, and economic activity comes to resemble a zero-sum competition. In recent years, the American share of world industry has been shrinking, but the number of people seeking employment in American industry is rising. 

A primary responsibility of a nation’s leaders is to forward the interests of all citizens. A concern with the nation’s industrial competitiveness is certainly legitimate, but must be tempered by a moral imperative to provide opportunities for less talented individuals. No constitutional republic can remain healthy without a citizenship made up of of self-sufficient and self-respecting individuals. A citizenship that depends on government largess must inevitably descend into a debased democracy and finally into tyranny. Too often such concerns are dismissed by both the Left and the Right as relics of discredited theories of protectionism, and of xenophobia, racism, sexism and all the other bogymen of political correctness. 

Most of the policies that frustrate significant majorities of Americans could be resolved by the simple admission that racial groups differ in important ways and that such differences are as fixed as are differences in physiognomy; they are simply not amenable to elimination by government edict. No amount of government intervention can possibly eliminate group disparities in educational, economic and social attainment. Any and all attempts to do so are not only fraught with dangers to a free society but are bound to fail. Denying this reality is to invite a heavy-handed totalitarianism that imposes a superficial and false equality at the cost of human freedom and well-being. The history of the 20th century bears undeniable evidence for this assertion: The leveling impulse, taken to its ultimate conclusion. has not produced human equality; instead it has destroyed society’s decency and the dignity of its people. 

Given the unpopularity of so many multicultural and other left-wing policies it is difficult to understand why the conservative establishment is reluctant to challenge the bases of these policies. Why, for instance, have mainstream conservatives not endorsed the growing consensus that real and important differences exist between the races? Acknowledgement of these differences would allow for a principled stand against the left-wing drift in American social policy. Why not forcefully reject the doctrine of multiculturalism? That doctrine is not only ahistorical and utterly incompatible with conservative philosophy but corrosive of national unity. How are we to understand the refusal of conservatives to forthrightly argue for a natural diversity of abilities and temperaments and for the preservation of the historic American nation, rooted in European custom and ancestry? 

Why does the Republican Party refuse to take such a principled position? One obvious reason is that those who object to the leftward drift in American society are overwhelmingly White and of European descent. Most Whites have little to gain, and much to lose, by the continuation of current trends. Most non-Whites, on the other hand, have no difficulty with leftist policies, since a considerable proportion benefit from them. There is no doubt that, should the Republican Party champion the interests of the majority White Americans, the dominant media would demonize the Republican Party and paint them as endorsing a divisive and ugly racist strategy. But it is foolish to worry over this since the Republican Party is already so characterized in the media. Indeed, the Democratic Party claims to represent the interests of all minorities and the other casualties of oppressive “White privilege” and have clearly defined themselves a vehicle for the aggrieved, whatever their class, race, or sex. How would it do Republicans any harm to accept the left’s characterization as the defenders of the historic (European) nation? It takes a curiously benighted vision to imagine that standing by the historic America is somehow “un-American”! Without belaboring an argument made so cogently by Steve Sailer, it only takes a modest majority of White Americans to win most elections.[29] The reason is simple; the overwhelming majority of the electorate is White and will be so for some decades to come. Minorities are, after all, in the minority, especially among those who are active participants in electoral politics. Pursuing a chimerical attempt to garner more minority votes by supporting policies opposed by most Republican core voters is, quite simply, self-defeating.

It is difficult not to conclude that those who carry the mantle of conservatism are, in fact, not conservative at all, but are closer to apolitical apparatchiks of what has become an oligarchic social order. They include members of a professional governing class that thrives so long as they forward the interests of those who pay the exorbitant bills for their reelection. They are the educators and media elites whose generous salaries and outsized prestige are preserved so long as they support the existing order that rests on the doctrines of multiculturalism and unfettered free trade. It is an order that richly rewards those who throw in their lot with multinational corporations or the ever widening reach of the bureaucratic state. Such people are an internationalist vanguard, as it were, heralding a new world order of supranational organizations such as the European Union. Theirs is a vision conditioned by the economic benefits of ever widening and interwoven markets, while ignoring the social and political disruptions such developments must necessarily entail. In such a vision, a North American Union composed of Canada, the United States and Mexico, in time joined by the nations of Central America and the Caribbean, has much to recommend it. That such a program would undermine the historic European heritage of the United States is of small consequence. How could it be otherwise for those who have worked so assiduously to render the United States a borderless nation, in fact, if not yet in law.

According to Francis Fukayama “postmodern elites . . . feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place.”[30] British philosopher Roger Scruton observed that such thinking explains “the acceptance of subsidized immigration, and for attacks on customs and institutions associated with traditional and native forms of life.” A typical member of this elite, according to Scruton, “repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation. . . .” He sees himself “as a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism.” It follows then that such a person defines “his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.” [31]
Getting on today in the elite circles of academia, the media, politics, and corporate America requires allegiance to this deracinated vision and a disdain for the concerns of the benighted and recalcitrant Americans, who cleave to their bibles and their nation and their other assorted superstitions. This explains the vicious attacks on those who believe human differences are real and express reservations about the benefits of multiculturalism, unfettered immigration, and the internationalist agenda. Those that do so challenge the essential underpinnings for the privileges, both honorary and pecuniary, of statist bureaucrats and managerial elites and their enablers in academia and the media.

The dissolution of the historic American nation is well underway, and there is little on the horizon to give hope that it would be otherwise. One must remain in the dark as to what comes after, but perhaps it will be less bleak than reason, at present, dictates.

  1. Ulric Neisser, et. al., “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” American Psychologist, 31:2, (1996), 77-101.
  2. A different version of this belief system, which is broadly popular among self-described conservatives and libertarians, holds that human potential varies greatly between individuals; however, there are no significant differences between races.
  3. See Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking, 2002)
  4. Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge MA:. Belknap Press, 1975).
  5. Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, “Sociobiology–Another Biological Determinism,” BioScience, 26:3 (March 1976), reprinted in Arthur L. Caplan, ed., The sSociobiology Debate (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 280-281.
  6. Arthur Fisher, “Sociobiology: Science or Ideology?” Society, 29:5, 74.
  7. Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994).
  8. Linda Gottfredson, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994. Reprinted in Intelligence: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24:11 (1997), 13-23.
  9. Charles Murray, “In Defense of Jason Richwine,” National Review Online, May 15, 2013.
  10. Jacob Sullum, “Brain Storm: Can we Talk About Sex Differences in Math and Science Aptitude Without Yelling?” Reason Online, January 21, 2005
  11. Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, The Elementary DNA of Dr. Watson, The Sunday Times, October 14, 2007.
  12. Keith Perry, “James Watson selling Nobel prize ‘because no-one wants to admit I exist,’” The Telegraph, November 28, 2014; accessed January 15, 2015,
  13. Ruth Bell and Ehsan Masood, “Race and IQ Psychologist in Inquiry over Teaching Conduct.” Nature, 381, 6578, (1996), 105.
  14. Jonathan Rauch, “The Truth Hurts: The Humanitarian Threat to Free Speech,” Reason, April 1993.
  15. Rosenberg, et. al., “Genetic Structure of Human Populations”; Voight, et. al., “A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome”; Wade, Before the Dawn, 2006, 185-88; Williamson, et. al., “Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Genome.”
  16. Kevin Lamb, Forced Out: The Price of Speaking Freely in Multicultural America, Middle American News, June 2005.
  17. Michael Barone, “In defense of Jason Richwine and Charles Murray,” Washington Examiner, May 16, 2013; Murray, “In Defense of Jason Richwine,” op cit.; Jason Richwine, “Why Can’t We Talk About IQ?” Politico, August 9, 2013, accessed January 15, 2015,
  18. John Derbyshire, The Talk: Nonblack Version, Taki’s Magazine, April 5, 2012; The Daily Caller, John Derbyshire: ‘National Review Race-Whipped” Controversial Anti-Black Column ‘Just Common Sense’, April 11, 2012; Joseph Kay, “The Rationality of Firing John Derbyshire: Excess Truth-Telling must be Stamped Out,” American Renaissance, April 9, 2012.
  19. Darth Quixote, 10 Questions for Steven Pinker, 8.
  20. Charles Murray, “The Diversity of Life,” review of Nicholas Wade,A Troublesome Inheritance, Wall Street Journal, May 3-4, 2014. Emphasis added.
  21. Teachers’ unions would obviously benefit by such an expansion, but so would American industry in that it would free more women for entry into the labor force and put added pressure on the wages of working men. As is true of so many current policies, there is a growing convergence of interests between labor (natural constituents of the Left) and big businesses (natural constituents of the Right).
  22. Lewis, P., The World Today, ABC Radio (Transcript) August 9, 2006; New Zealand Herald, Maori Crime Rate Concerns Government. October 28, 2005; TVNZ, Police Tackling Maori Crime Rates. November 10, 2005.
  23. Joseph Goldstein, Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy, New York Times, August 12, 2013; Joseph Goldstein, Court Blacks Stop-and Frisk Changes for New York, New York Times, October 31, 2013.
  24. See Peter Brimelow, “Immigration is the Viagra of the State,”, June 4, 2008,
  25. Norman Matloff, “On the Need For Reform Of the H-1B Non-Immigrant Work Visa in Computer-Related Occupations (Invited Paper),” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Fall 2003, Vol. 36, Issue 4, 815-914, 19-31; Patrick Thibodeau, “Norman Matloff Tells What’s Wrong with the H-1B Visa program,” Computer World, September 8, 2008; Ron Hira, “Do we Need Foreign Technology Workers?” The New York Times, April 8, 2009; William Branigan, “Visa Program, High-Tech Workers Exploited Critics Say, Visa Program Brings Charges of Exploitation,” Washington Post, July 26, 1998; National Academy, “Brain Mobility,” Issues In Science and Technology, Winter 2006; Ralph E. Gomory and Harold T. Shapiro, “Globalization: Causes and Effects,” Issues In Science and Technology, Summer 2003.
  26. Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (New York: Crown Forum, 2012).
  27. Ian Fletcher, Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why (Washington: U.S. Business and Industry Council, 2010).
  28. Edward S. Rubenstein, “National Data: September Data Shows Immigrants Displacing American Workers—Especially Blacks,”, October 5, 2008.
  29. See Steve Sailer, “Election 2010 and the Unmentionable Sailer Strategy: White Vote Still Key,”, November 4, 2010, accessed March 15, 2015,; Sailer, “The Sailer Strategy Updated: Three Steps to Save America,”, October 9, 2011, accessed March 15, 2015,; Richard Spencer, “The Majority Strategy,” The National Policy Institute, accessed January 15, 2015,
  30. Francis Fukuyama, “Identity and Migration,” Prospect Magazine, Vol. 131, February 2007, 7.
  31. Speech by Roger Scruton, Antwerp, 23 June, 2006; Scruton, “Roger Scruton on immigration, multiculturalism and the need to defend the nation state,” Brussels Journal, July 8, 2007,

Restructuring Foundations for Understanding Fascism, Part I: Persisting Confusions and Distortions

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Hegel's ideas on the state are central to
Italian Fascism, but do not underlie all forms
of fascism
Ur-Fascist Analytics Editor's Note: The aim of this article is to clarify the nature of fascism; a prominent view, grounded in Gentile's reliance on Hegel, conceives of fascism as radical statism. Hegel is relevant to Italian Fascism, but does not comprise the basis of all forms of fascism. Fascism at its core is the authoritarian appropriation of life, the mobilization of inequality and hierarchy to preserve and enliven community, and the violent rejection of decline. In addressing the nature of fascism, I also clarify its relationship to nationalism and National-Socialism.

A prominent conception of fascism holds that it is the radical elevation of "the state" over all aspects of life; a form of statist-nationalism. This view is often derived from the first part of the "Doctrine of Fascism". Because the Doctrine is taken to be Mussolini's work, and as Mussolini was the founder of the world's first fascist state, Gentile's neo-Hegelian conclusions are in turn taken to be the foundation of fascism in its essential form. While several parts of the "Doctrine" have been quoted extensively to justify this view, the most commonly quoted part to this effect is the following set of statements:
Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.
On this view, the state embodies the highest reality, and within the state alone lies the entire rationale for the existence of any society, people, or nation. What Eco calls "eternal fascism," or fascism in its most fundamental and essential form, is thus taken to be a radical statist form of nationalism. One consequence of this view, potentially among others, is that "fascism" can then be seen to manifest in virtually any society in which there is a manifestation of state authority that has dispensed with any democratic process; for example, Fascist Italy, Stalinist Russia, Hussein's Iraq, or Pinochet's Italy.(1)

If fascism is radical form of statist-nationalism, it can be found almost anywhere. A different, but equally promiscuous, view comes from Totsky. Trotsky established a precedent for using "fascism" to describe any system that uses state authority to perpetuate inequality. Neoconservatives also perpetuate a promiscuous conception of fascism, conjuring up all sorts of specters in their rhetoric: "feminazis," "Islamofascists," and others.

The quote above, as with the entire first part of the "Doctrine of Fascism," was written by Giovanni Gentile, and not Mussolini. Gentile was a trained Hegelian, and imported those views into his writings on fascism. The Hegelian view of the state conceives of it as embodying the highest ethical reality, and within it, the individual human being and society as a whole only finds authentic meaning in relation to it. This is why the first part of the Doctrine of Fascism so stronly emphasizes the state. Hegelianism is the lens through which the historical reality of Italian Fascism is construed and conveyed by Gentile.

However, there remains a tension between Gentile's neo-Hegelian interpretation of Italian Fascism on the one hand, which conceives of the Italian state under Fascism as a top-down realization of the state's own propensities, and on the other hand, the organic realities of Italian Fascism's historical emergence as the consequence of Mussolini's bottom-up revolution against a liberal social order and a decadent democracy. The first part of the Doctrine of Fascism is at odds with this organic reality. It is especially noteworthy that in the part written by Mussolini, there are no neo-Hegelian ideas or formulations.(2)

This is not to say that Mussolini lacked a conception of the state, nor do I intend to imply that Italian Fascism did not produce a state that embodied a genuine neo-Hegelian notion of the ideal state. It is simply that fascism in general, in different nations, and Italian Fascism in particular did not emerge historically so that a state could realize its own propensities. Rather, fascism emerged historically from concrete, physical action, driven by instincts in individuals who were motivated by visions of their community and nation to produce an order that could reverse the decline that had come to threaten their nations.

This is a principal reason why Gentile's neo-Hegelian conception of the state and his own interpretation of Italian Fascism should not be taken as expressing the essential nature of fascism in general, or what Eco calls ur-fascism or "eternal fascism." Fascism in Italy, Germany, Britain, and elsewhere arose from instinct, intution, and a yearning to save a people and a nation, not to allow a state to come to objectify certain qualities.

There is one sense in which Gentile's neo-Hegelian view of the state is relevant in drawing conclusions about fascism in general: It provides a useful starting point to contrast views of the state with Marxism and liberalism. Marxism views the state under capitalism as the means by which capitalist interests are sustained, and the state under socialism as merely a transitory instrument to bring about genuine communism. Liberalism views the state as a passive instrument for dispensing economic, social, and legal rights. Under fascism, the state becomes intertwined with the objective interests of a people or nation.

There were many distinct fascist movements, historically. Neo-Hegelian statism is not their common point of intersection. What different historical fascist movements have in common, at their core, is a concern with decline and the surgence of a nativist urge to oppose internal and external threats to their communities. Fascism, in its essence, is a local, nativist phenomenon that springs from within a community, or else is imposed upon it because of the threat of actual or potential decline. Fascism's justification derives from the interests of a community, not from the coherence of ideas or the interests of a state.

This view of fascism accounts for why neither Islamization of Europe nor so-called "corporate fascism" are genuinely fascist phenomena. A fascist opposes loss of national autonomy, and opposes its loss to transnational religious movements just as surely as to supranational corporate entities; he elevates his community over all other interests.

A remark must be made on the relationship of fascism and National-Socialism. Fascism may arise at any level, and as such it is not merely, or inwardly even primarily, a political variant of "nationalism." Rather, it is appropriate to speak of fascism at the national level. As such, National-Socialism is not a variant of fascism, but of fascism at the national level. National-Socialism is a form of fascism at this level, including class reconciliation, but it is coupled with explicit racial domestic and foreign policies. It is not appropriate to speak of "differences"; the former is a particular political amplification of the latter.(3)

To conclude, Gentile's view of Italian Fascism must not be understood as the basis of all forms of fascism, nor even an exhaustive description of Italian Fascism. Fascism is not statism or the deification of the state. Fascism is the political realization of the interests of a community. Fascism, in its inner essence, is the authoritarian appropriation of life, which struggles to reconcile divergent interests and classes, harnessing the productive energies that are embedded in unequal talents and interests, binding particular communities and opposing ethnic, social, familial, and environmental decline within it.(4)

(1) Leftists have viewed Bush Jr.'s America as "fascist"; but he subordinated American to Israeli interests and waged wars while doing little to reverse illegal immigration.
(2) Gentile's own views of Italian Fascism should be seen as part of the historical experience and reality of Italian Fascism, even if they do not completely explain it.
(3) This is not to say that National-Socialism cannot be contrasted with Italian Fascism, or any other fascist movement; such a contrast is legitimate, because the contrast is between two fascist worldviews. The contrast could be multiplied and amplified.
(4) I intend this article to supplement my prior views; the views presented here are confluent and congruent with what I have previously written. Ur-fascism, or "eternal fascism," is the primordial wellspring of all actual or potential fascistic movements.

Flinging Poo at South Africa’s Past

via American Renaissance

South Africa has not become the multi-racial paradise we were promised when white rule came to an end in 1994. Songezo Zibi, the black editor of the Johannesburg Business Day, our equivalent of the Wall Street Journal, recently wrote a column with a title that says it all: “Race Relations at a Low Ebb.” While blacks habitually blame whites for their failures and shortcomings, whites now openly roll their eyes at the incompetence in banks or government offices staffed by blacks. The blackouts caused by our government-run energy utility Eskom are the butt of many jokes. On websites and social media, the tone is acrimonious, ethnic, and openly racial. Even the liberal Mr. Zibi had to concede that:
Whether one listens to the radio, reads comments below articles on websites, reads newspaper readers’ letters to the editor, or listens to conversation in queues, there is a palpable anger and bitterness towards one or other group of South Africans.
Strong race preferences and the quasi-Hollywood lifestyle of black politicians have done nothing to appease the anger of blacks. They are as convinced as ever that they have been perpetual victims ever since the first white set foot in the Cape. In fact, the president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, stated in February:
You must remember that a man called Jan van Riebeeck arrived here on 6 April 1652, and that was the start of the trouble in this country . . . . What followed were numerous struggles and wars and deaths and the seizure of land and the deprivation of the indigenous peoples’ political and economic power.
Jan van Riebeeck was immediately rescued from the relative obscurity to which he had sunk under ANC rule. On Twitter and Facebook, hundreds of whites adopted Van Riebeeck’s portrait as their profile picture, and pretended to have the surname “Van Riebeeck.” The slogan “Je suis Jan” became popular, and various complaints were laid with the South African Human Rights Commission, alleging that Zuma’s statement was “hate speech” against whites and Afrikaners.

Jan van Riebeeck
Jan van Riebeeck
The hullabaloo over Van Riebeeck had hardly died down when a bizarre culture war erupted on the very liberal campus of the University of Cape Town. Black students complained that bronze statues representing the country’s past “caused them pain.” A black student, Chumani Maxwele, invited photographers and cameramen to watch while he and his friends threw “human excrement” at the statue of Cecil John Rhodes, the famous British imperialist. The headline of The Cape Argus was “Protesters Throw Poo on Rhodes Statue.”

Besides funding the famous scholarships, Rhodes bequeathed a huge amount of money to the university, but for roughly a month, black students occupied a building, demanding the statue be removed from its position overlooking the sports grounds. The mainly white liberal professors of UCT, as it is known in South Africa, were caught in the rest rooms, so to speak. For years they had preached liberalism, Marxism, and anti-colonialism, and now finally black students were acting on it.

The principal of the university, Max Price, did some hand-wringing, but eventually he and his entire senate caved in to the demands of the excrement throwers. Not a single white professor voted against the proposal to banish Rhodes’s statue. The actual removal by truck and crane was a considerable victory for the anti-white side, as it was broadcast on national television, with pictures in all the newspapers. Excited young blacks climbed onto the statue as it was being lifted, throwing paint on the old imperialist, as if vicariously attacking the entire white population and everything it has done for four centuries.

The removal of the Rhodes statue. Note commentary at base of pedestal

A few people mentioned that the hasty removal contravened various statutes regulating the country’s historical and artistic heritage, but no one dared challenge Mr. Maxwele and his bucket of feces. Academic historian Rodney Warwick explained why English-speaking whites would not defend Rhodes:
Rhodes’s statue was obviously never going to be physically defended. The white English South African community feel no passionate claim to Rhodes as ‘theirs’–and neither should they. Rhodes is simply part of the country’s collective history to be debated ad infinitum. Although Rhodes is inextricably part of South Africa’s colonial (and of course UCT’s) heritage, any ‘tribal-type’ loyalty to him by the once ‘British South Africans’ faded away decades ago.
The Rhodes controversy is part of a “permanent revolution.” As liberal columnist and radio announcer Stephen Grootes wrote:
This protest has brought to our (my) attention how desperately important it is as a South African population to constantly reassess our standard of reformation, and a warning that we cannot ever feel ‘comfortable’ with the progress made so far. We must never stop refreshing our opinions and moving forward as a country.
Given this kind of encouragement, the movement to vandalize statues quickly spread, and someone smeared green paint on the Paul Kruger statue complex in Pretoria’s Church Square. Afrikaners are not like the English-speaking whites in Cape Town. There was an immediate and irate protest on the square, and singers Sunette Bridges and Steve Hofmeyr chained themselves to the statue. Many people threatened retaliatory vandalism of statues of Mandela and others erected by the ANC.


The government actually pledged to protect public statues, and for a while Paul Kruger was surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by police. However, during the ensuing debate, the government suggested that all statues of whites should perhaps be removed from public view to a “Boerassic Park,” where they would not be vandalized but “contextualized” as representations of historical white racists.

I wrote a letter to UNESCO requesting intervention to save our statues and also to have all of Pretoria’s Church Square declared a World Heritage Site. South Africa is a signatory to UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, so our government is bound to protect even the heritage of whites, however much it may hate it. UNESCO took a month to reply, but we are now starting the process that may protect our heritage from black vandalism.

Of course, the Rhodes-statue debacle is a symptom of a wider black objective, and that is to take complete control of formerly white universities. South African Marxists have long used the word “transformation” to mean revolution, but since the ANC takeover it increasingly means “replacing whites with blacks.” The ultimate goal appears to be to get rid of all whites at universities and schools, government service, business, and sports. As long as white sportsmen represent South Africa, our national teams are still considered racially deficient. Every day, blacks clamor for “more transformation” at all levels.

With all the “soft disciplines” and politically correct fields such as Women’s Studies, Whiteness Studies, African Literature, African Philosophy, Bantu languages, etc., our universities should be teeming with black professors and lecturers. The entire country was therefore shocked to learn that even at the hyper-leftist University of Cape Town, where “transformation” is about as mandatory as Islam in Saudi Arabia, there are only five black professors out of a total of 200. A black lecturer, Xolela Mangcu, complained to the Cape Times that if Harvard, Yale, and Columbia could have black professors we could too, adding that “the students want to be taught by black professors and they want management to get rid of racist lecturers.”

The idea of “racist lecturers” at UCT is, of course, outlandish. Whites are routinely subjected to witch-hunts for even the mildest statements in private emails or even text messages. Every white lecturer at UCT must be careful not to voice any opinion that is not 100-percent politically correct.

One of the demands of the Rhodes-statue protestors was that the university immediately fire at least 50 percent of the faculty and hire blacks instead. The administration responded with vague promises of “faster transformation,” but nothing of the kind has happened yet.

On May 10, I watched a talk show on South African television in which irate black students went on to demand that courses also be changed so blacks can get better grades. Instead of “Eurocentric” instruction in commerce, with its smattering of math, they wanted economic history that would emphasize the exploitation of the Third World.

Of course, the big problem with “transformation” is standards. For what such rankings are worth, the University of Cape Town is number 124 in the world, and is supposed to be South Africa’s top university, followed by the Universities of the Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch, and Pretoria, which are all in the top 500.

The only university that really embraced “transformation” was the University of Kwazulu-Natal, which has slipped out of the top 500. A liberal academic, R. W. Johnson, has described what happened to the university during the reign of its fundamentalist black principal, Malegapuru Makgoba, who once claimed that blacks had surpassed whites on the evolutionary scale. He says Africanization has been “calamitous:”
The cumulative effect of these factors is to make ‘university transformation’ a completely unrealizable ideal unless one is willing to take several more generations about it. To force through the Africanisation of posts in the short term can only result in a catastrophic lowering of standards.
University of Kwazulu-Natal
University of Kwazulu-Natal

Mr. Makgoba left the university in a mess, with about $200 million of debt. It is now up to the new principal, a white Afrikaner, to sort out the chaos. In the meantime, Mr. Makgoba has been appointed as the Minister of Higher Education’s “transformation chief,” with the task of getting whites out of all the universities. On May 13, the minister himself, Blade Nzimande, who also happens to be the leader of the South African Communist Party, stated that:
Despite the significance of symbols such as names and statues, we must not conflate these with more fundamental matters of transformation. . . . There remains an urgent need to radically change the demographics of our professoriate; transform the curriculums and research agendas; . . . .
“Demographics” is a euphemism for race, so he is merely repeating the injunction that whites be replaced by blacks. A few years ago, a white university administrator told me confidentially that up to 96 percent of South African academic publications in peer-reviewed journals are written by whites. One effect of getting rid of white professors would be our disappearance from the academic press.

One reason young blacks and politicians are increasingly vehement is that despite all the anti-white measures and laws, whites still outperform blacks in education, business, and even in sports. South Africa’s all-black soccer team is something of a joke, and loses to any of the better international teams, while in “white sports,” such as rugby, cricket, and swimming, we produce world champions.

Olympic gold for South Africa's 4 x 100 swim team.
Olympic gold for South Africa’s 4 x 100 swim team

The minister of sport, Fikele Mbalula, recently imposed racial quotas on cricket and rugby teams at the club, provincial and national levels. The South African cricket team must now have six “players of color” out of 11, while the Springbok rugby team must field at least seven non-whites out of 15. Political interference was blamed for South Africa losing the cricket world cup this year when key white players were excluded at critical moments during the tournament.

To return to the Rhodes debacle at UCT, it gained enormous attention, in part, because the more liberal, English-language universities usually manage to stay out of the spotlight and avoid the racial spats that are more common at Afrikaans universities. Some years ago, the infamous “Reitz Four” scandal erupted at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein–long considered a bastion of Afrikanerdom. Four white male students persuaded some chubby black female cleaners to go through the traditional initiation ceremony for students who want to live at the Reitz residence. This included drinking tainted beer, and playing a mock game of rugby.

Someone leaked a video of the proceedings, and this prompted weeks of liberal hysteria and even resulted in criminal convictions and fines for the four students for “humiliating” the cleaning women. The Reitz residence, named after a 19th-century Boer leader, was permanently closed and turned into a kind of re-education camp where students get compulsory “diversity training.” The university also appointed a coloured (mixed-race) principal, Jonathan Jansen–coloureds often speak Afrikaans–who immediately started an intense “transformation” program. Many white parents deserted the University of the Free State and started sending their children to the Potchefstroom campus of North West University as a kind of last outpost of white, Afrikaans culture.

Unfortunately, our Communist minister, Blade Nzimande, is intensely aware of the Potchefstroom campus and finds it intolerable. It is the only one of the “historically Afrikaans” universities where lectures are still 100 percent in Afrikaans. The government has forced all the other campuses to appoint blacks and accept English-speaking students, including whites.

Potchefstroom is now in the crosshairs, with a new black principal, Dan Kgwadi, who was appointed after a fabricated scandal. The liberal Afrikaans daily Beeld had sent four journalists to the campus to look for dirt, and they came home with a photograph of some female first-year students giving a “Nazi salute” during an initiation ceremony. In fact, there was no Nazi salute. As a later video showed, the girls were raising and lowering their arms, but the moment frozen in the picture made it look like a mass seig heil.


The minister of higher education frenziedly demanded the “immediate racial transformation of Potchefstroom.” The newly appointed Principal Kgwadi was in his office only a few days before he went on record complaining about “the lack of diversity on campus.”

Potchefstroom is reputedly 80 percent white. Blacks who do not understand Afrikaans are accommodated through simultaneous English interpretation through headsets, a service offered at considerable expense to the university. However, even this highly “inclusive” measure is interpreted as a form of “racial exclusion.” At a recent mass meeting held by Principal Kgwadi, a black student called the headsets “a symbol of the black man’s oppression on campus that must be thrown away by July first.” To their credit, the mass of white students laughed derisively.

This is all part of the ongoing culture war against the Afrikaans language and the Afrikaner people. For black activists and other leftists, the mere existence of Afrikaans lectures, even on an officially bilingual campus, is segregation, since most Afrikaner students prefer to go to the Afrikaans lecture which will in practice be all white. Mixed groups attend lectures in English. What Principals Jansen and Kgwadi really want is to ban all Afrikaans lectures.

The University of Pretoria, where lectures in different languages give rise to the same de facto segregation, has used several methods to evade government scrutiny. First, it has banned political parties on campus, which has taken some of the edge off of black-white relations. It has kept standards high, so most blacks study education. It has also appointed a coloured principal, Cheryl de la Rey, as a sop to “transformation,” but she maintains a low profile and does not go in for the kind of wholesale engineering practiced on some other campuses.

However, no university, no matter how carefully policed, is immune to racial furor. In August 2014, two white female students at University of Pretoria who blacked their faces and dressed up as domestic servants for a privately-held fancy dress party were expelled from their residence. They were allowed to continue their studies, however, so most newspaper commentators found the punishment “too lenient.”

Black Face

There have been years of grinding destruction of the Afrikaner academic tradition at most of our universities, but especially at the University of Stellenbosch, considered by some to be the “Afrikaans Harvard.” Its pristine white buildings in the Cape Dutch style nestle among the mountains of the Stellenbosch wine country. To the university’s pride–but now considered a great source of shame–all our prime ministers during the 20th century studied at Stellenbosch, including the “architect of apartheid,” Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd. Not only did he study there and at universities in Germany, he lectured at Stellenbosch in sociology, and wrote a textbook that was used for decades. He grew up in a missionary home, so his parents knew a lot about black education and culture. This doubtless influenced his politics.

Only a few days ago a liberal journalist, Allister Sparks, committed social suicide by including Verwoerd among the “clever politicians” he had had the good fortune to interview. No one now dares remember that the hated Dr. Verwoerd was a man of superior intelligence, a cultivated Afrikaner and European, who was not only a university professor but the top student at his competitive high school. So vociferous was the reaction that Sparks publicly apologized, ascribing his lapse to “senility.”

Vorwoerd: How Americans saw him.
Verwoerd: Jewish media elites wanted us to see him

The coloured theologian Russel Botman, who ran Stellenbosch from 2007 to 2014, was a typical wrecker. He supported white-guilt indoctrination, and created an ideological bureaucracy called the Centre for Inclusivity, whose purpose was to exclude whites. When Botman died of natural causes in July 2014, his fellow coloured university head, Jonathan Jansen, more or less blamed white racism. In a newspaper column called “Who Killed Russel Botman?” he answered his own question:
They killed him . . . . The more he pushed for transformation, the more he was mercilessly vilified by right-wing alumni, aided and abetted by the Afrikaans press, in blogger postings, in alumni associations, and in formal gatherings of the institution.
Botman’s successor, Wim de Villiers, is an Afrikaner liberal medical professor who spent a lot of time in the United States, and is therefore deemed politically correct enough to manage the university, despite being white.

Although to most observers Stellenbosch looks decidedly liberal and even radical–like most Western universities–the black group “Open Stellenbosch” says the university is “a hostile environment that privileges White Afrikaans culture.” Its members discourage other blacks from enrolling in order “to spare them the pain and humiliation of being silently subjugated by a passively hostile culture of White Afrikanerdom.”

University of Stellenbosch
University of Stellenbosch

So South Africa lurches from one racial incident to the next, whether it is Rhodes’s statue radiating “pain” to black students in Cape Town or other blacks a thousand miles away being oppressed by headsets in rural Potchefstroom. The race-mad media in Johannesburg and Cape Town are always on the lookout for the next racial scandal and glory in shaming some hapless white who says the wrong thing. This will all be drearily familiar to anyone who follows events n the United States.

The rest of the Western world forced this crazy black Marxist government on us and cast us into their diversity blender. We suffer intensely from the American-made political correctness that now dominates the West–and diversity doesn’t work any better here than it does anywhere else.