Decline of Whites

Decline of the economic position of Whites: Implications for Republican Strategy


In his series of articles on the future of the Republican Party, Sean Trende proposed that one explanation for increasing numbers of Whites voting Republican was simply that they were continuing to get wealthier—that it had nothing to do with race. I argued against this on a number of grounds, including the generally difficult economic times for Whites.

Now a new report emphasizes that the economy has gotten worse for all races, but in particular for Whites  (“Signs of declining economic security“).

Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream. …

Hardship is particularly on the rise among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families’ economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy “poor.” … Read more

Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future: Excerpts from “Nuremberg or the Promised Land”

Excerpts from Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land, translated by George F. Held

The appearances of justice [at the Nuremburg Trial] were maintained perfectly. The defense had few rights, but these rights were respected. … Several defendants were discharged. In the end the forms were perfectly well observed, and never was a more debatable justice rendered with more propriety.

For this modern machinery, as one knows, had the result of resurrecting a jurisprudence like that of Negro tribes. The victorious king is set on his throne and has his witchdoctors called in: then, in the presence of warriors sitting on their heels, someone cuts the throats of the vanquished chiefs. We start to suspect that all the rest is a bit of comedy, and the public, after eighteen months, is no longer taken in by this kind of play-acting. The chiefs have their throats cut because they were vanquished; the atrocities with which one reproaches them, well, no just man can avoid saying to himself that the commanders of the Allied armies could be reproached with atrocities just as serious: the phosphorus bombs well counterbalance the concentration camps. An American court which condemns Göring to death has no more authority, in the eyes of men, than would a German court which presumed to condemn Roosevelt. A court which creates the law after being seated on its bench brings us back to the beginning of history. One did not dare to judge so at the time of Chilperic.[1] The law of the strongest is a more honest way. When the Gaul shouts Vae victis,[2] at least he does not take himself for Solomon. But this court succeeded in being an assembly of Negroes in starched collars: this is the plan for our future civilization. It is a masquerade, a nightmare: they are dressed as judges, they are serious, they are capped with ear-phones, they have the heads of patriarchs, they read papers with a saccharine voice in four languages at the same time, but in reality they are Negro kings, it is a costume party for Negro kings, and in the icy and staid room one can almost hear in the background the war drums of the tribes. They are very clean Negroes and perfectly modernized. And they have obtained without knowing it, in their Negro naiveté and in their Negro unconsciousness, a result that none of them undoubtedly had envisaged: they have rehabilitated by their bad faith even those whose defense was almost impossible, and they have given to millions of destitute German refugees, ennobled by defeat and their condition as the vanquished, the right to scorn them. Göring mocked them, for he well knew that they were rendering him right in everything, since they, with their panoply of judges, were paying homage to the law of the strongest, on which he had based his own law. Göring laughed to see Göring disguised as a judge judge Göring disguised as a convict (p. 14). Read more

Maurice Bardèche’s Vision of the Future, Part I


Translator’s Preface to Maurice  Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land, edited for TOO

Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg or the Promised Land was the first extended critique of the Nuremberg Trial. For a Frenchman to criticize that trial and especially the French role in it in 1948 took great courage: the book was banned in France, copies of it were seized, and Bardèche in 1952 was sentenced to a year in prison, although he spent only a few weeks there before being pardoned. His criticisms of the Nuremberg Trial have since been repeated by many others. In fact, just two years later in a subsequent work, Nuremberg II ou les Faux Monnayeurs (Nuremberg II or the Counterfeiters), Bardèche was able to cite a long list of others who had likewise criticized the fairness of that trial. Nuremberg or the Promised Land may with some justice be viewed as a polemic. Bardèche himself in effect admits it: “I needed to write it: that is my only excuse for this indiscretion.”

But if it is a polemic, it is also very far from being a mere rant. Most of the book is in fact a painstakingly logical “criticism of testimony,” specifically of the testimony produced by the French delegation at Nuremberg in support of the charge that during the occupation the Germans had tried to exterminate the French or, more exactly, had had a “will to exterminate.” The charge is absurd and Bardèche easily demonstrates its absurdity. But its absurdity is what makes him so upset: he cannot forgive the French delegation that it will allow a future “German historian” to show that “France lied.” Bardèche concentrates upon this part of the trial, however, not because the French were responsible for it and he is French but because it deals with events that he and his readers know firsthand and hence can judge whether the treatment of them at the trial was fair or not.

Bardèche’s book is a classic. It is of interest today primarily because of what it says about the future. Throughout the first three quarters of the book the discussion of the trial is interlaced with somber warnings and ominous admonitions to the reader: “One is proposing a future to us, one does so by condemning the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already foresee that these new ethics refer to a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things.” Read more

Christmas Symbols And The Confederate Battle Flag: Display To Be Equally Forbidden?

Merry Christmas

Being marched into history – or Siberia


Over at Peter Brimelow has published WAR AGAINST CHRISTMAS 2012: The Eight Stages Of Christophobia. On the Facebook posting of it he summarizes

This is my definitive assessment of the state of War Against Christmas in 2012. It’s basically an index of the displacement of the historic American nation, which is why I think any resistance to it is about to be banned has War Against Christmas archives going back to 1999 with dozens of examples; decisive refutation of the default MSM line that there is no Christmas eradication effort. Brimelow’s own interest goes back further:

Wikipedia currently dates my involvement…to the “early 2000s.” But in fact I got John O’Sullivan, then Editor of National Review, to start a War Against Christmas Competition in 1995…The last NR competition ran in 1997, at which time William F. Buckley for his own discreditable reasons had already fired O’Sullivan… The War Against Christmas Competition was promptly dropped, along with the cause of immigration reform—not coincidentally.

In 2000, NR itself actually published a “Holiday Edition.” Read more

Disenfranchised White Males: Time for Secession

My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans (at TOO, we’ve been on it). This time around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008, the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites. Read more

Vanishing Anglo-Saxons: Jared Taylor’s White Identity and the Crisis “We” Face, Part 2

The Sin of Americanism

From birth, the American Adam was stained by the original sin of the American Republic.  Loyalist writers, many of whom were royal officials or Anglican clergymen, warned that the colonial rebellion was spawning an embryonic system of anarcho-tyranny.  They saw clearly that the revolutionary republic undermined “deference for established leaders and institutions.”  By playing upon popular passions, radical leaders reduced the colonies to anarchy, ripe for a novel “democratic tyranny” controlled, behind the scenes, by an ambitious, avaricious, and utterly self-interested elite of so-called Patriots.

The Loyalists knew that such a regime was bound, sooner or later, to end in tears.  Unfortunately, American White nationalists still invest their hopes for the future in the Patriot tradition of Constitutional Republicanism.  Racial realists such as Jared Taylor also struggle to endow the cult of the Constitution with an explicitly White identity.

Indeed, almost all of the many WASPs on the alternative Right—for example, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, and Greg Johnson—hope “to salvage as much as possible from the shipwreck of their great republic.”  But they owe it to their Anglo-Saxon ancestors to recognize at long last that the Loyalists were right to oppose rebel colonists while defending the unity of the British race.  Read more

Vanishing Anglo-Saxons: Jared Taylor’s White Identity and the Crisis “We” Face, Part 1


Jared Taylor is a racial realist.  He believes that racial differences are real and not merely a social construct.  He has spent decades defending the White race, as distinct from the Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians who share his American citizenship.

But Taylor is not just a generic White man.  He is also an Anglo-Saxon Protestant whose English ancestors arrived in America in the seventeenth century.  Indeed, having married an Englishwoman, his children, too, are pure-bred WASPs, to use the snide acronym favoured if not invented by American Jews.  Curiously, however, Taylor suffers from the pandemic WASP disease that I call Anglo-Saxon Anglophobia.  Like most WASPs, he refuses to recognize his own people as a race with its own distinctive bioculture.  Indeed, his recent book, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, contains not a single reference to WASPs.  Instead, he reduces America’s founding race to the lowest common denominator of Whiteness allegedly shared with sundry ethno-religious groups as disparate as Germans, Italians, Lebanese, Armenians, and Jews.

The higgledy-piggledy category of Whiteness sits oddly alongside Steve Sailer’s more finely-tuned definition of race as “a large, partly-inbred extended family.”  Sailer’s approach is more sensitive to the socially-constructed element of racial identity.  Accordingly, it is not just major, continental population groups such as Blacks, Whites, and Asians that count as “races;” even the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda or Loyalists and Republicans in Northern Ireland fit into Sailer’s concept of race. Read more