There has been much joy in liberaldom over the recent findings that for the first time in American history the number of Whites declined, and that Whites now make up only 57.8%. of the U.S. population A good example is Jennifer Rubin, a neocon Israel-firster who decamped from the GOP in 2016 with the rise of Trump, because of Trump’s populist rhetoric on immigration and other issues related to their campaign for a non-White America. As she said at the time, “Trump’s nativism and xenophobia make him toxic with a good deal of the American Jewish community for whom such sentiments have invariably been associated with governments hostile to Jews.” For Jews like Rubin, opposition to nativism and xenophobia by Whites in Western countries really comes down to hating Whites.

Back in her neocon days, @JRubinBlogger used to call herself a conservative of the neo variety. At least that charade is over. No White person should be celebrating this if they had any brains at all. https://t.co/jh9jJQ1lnk

— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) August 12, 2021

It’s been obvious for a long time that the neocons not only wanted to make the GOP safe for Israel (it is now more pro-Israel than the Democrats), but also that they sought to move the party to the left on social issues, and immigration in particular. From “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” (2004):

Samuel Francis witnessed much of the early infighting among conservatives, won eventually by the neocons. Francis recounts the “catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted.”

There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.… Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear  evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes.… What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.

Most notably, neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century—massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965—“this notion of a Christian civilization.”105 As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The nonEuropeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” The only exception—thus far without any influence—is that since 9/11 some Jewish activists, including neoconservative Daniel Pipes, head of the MEF, and Stephen Steinlight, senior fellow of the American Jewish Committee, have opposed Muslim—and only Muslim—immigration because of possible effects on pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S.

Neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest. It is revealing that as the war in Iraq has become an expensive
quagmire in both lives and money, Bill Kristol has become willing to abandon the neoconservatives’ alliance with traditional conservatives by allying with John Kerry and the Democratic Party. This is because Kerry has promised to increase troop strength and retain the commitment to Iraq, and because Kerry has declared that he has “a 100 percent record—not a 99, a 100 percent record—of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel.” As Pat Buchanan notes, the fact that John Kerry “backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy” is less important than his stand on the fundamental issue of a foreign policy that is in the interest of Israel.

The Ben Wattenberg quote is classic and worth repeating. “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Clearly the Jewish commitment to a non-White America has powerful emotional overtones.

It was noted above that neocons have a pattern of supporting an interventionist foreign policy. The debacle in Afghanistan won’t change that.

Maybe: If U.S. ramped up training 2002-06 “when Taliban was weak and disorganized, things may have been different. Instead, we went to Iraq. If we committed money deliberately and sooner, we could have a different outcome"… Or maybe always imposs https://t.co/V2QpkMdD36

— Jennifer 'pro-voting' Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) August 13, 2021

For neocons like Rubin, the 20-year disaster in Afghanistan, which cost thousands of dead and maimed and trillions of dollars, was a great idea that fell short because of tactical mistakes. Sort of like the Marxists who claim that real communism has never been tried. Neocon interventionist ideology dominates the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They’ll do another Afghanistan in a heartbeat, complete with wall-to-wall propaganda that this particular war (Iran is on the top of their list) is a moral imperative. I suppose Rubin also thinks it’s fabulous that 85 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan (82.6 percent in Iraq) were White, almost all White males.

It’s useful to recall the hysteria among neocons about the impending Trump presidency in 2016. Rubin was far from alone, and it shows that besides Israel, neocons had typically Jewish attitudes on White identity and interests. Bret Stephens, who moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times in 2017 and is routinely described as a “conservative” wrote:

[Trumpism] is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes. [Hillary, the Conservative Hope, May 9, 2016]

Or Robert Kagan, who jumped ship to be part of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team:

[Trump’s] public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

Contra Stephens, the neocons never respected tradition and gave only lip service to faith. Their only outreach was recruiting Evangelical Christians to the cause of a rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy.

Stephens is correct in that there was an older tradition of conservatism based on the ethno-national interests of the traditional American majority. This was purged by the neocons. In 2016, they were deathly afraid that the older conservatism was returning, perhaps in the form of the Alt Right—the only recognizable intellectual constituency that supported Trump.

*   *   *

Tucker Carlson emphasized Rubin’s recent tweet on his August 13 show in a segment emphasizing the left’s rejoicing at the news that there are fewer White people in the U.S. He clearly framed it as indicating hatred for White people—”gloat[ing] over the decline of a race.” Indeed, he infers that Rubin’s joy at the decline of the White population implies that she is happy for the hundreds of thousands of mostly rural White people who have died in the opioid epidemic.

The segment includes an interview with Pedro Gonzalez, Associate Editor of Chronicles, who notes that anyone noticing that White people are being marginalized can expect to be called a racist. And he notes that White life expectancy has declined—people like Rubin “spit on their graves”—and that Whites are disadvantaged in the job market and education—achieved by lowering standards for “everyone else.”  A good example is that standardized tests are being removed from  college admissions as “racist,” and recently Oregon passed a law saying that it is illegal to require reading and math proficiency to graduate high school. I don’t envy employers looking for competent employees. Degrees, whether from high school or from college, mean nothing.

Gonzalez states “The ruling class [which, as he notes, is a “uniparty”] in the country has deconstructed the nation it was entrusted to govern. It invited millions of people into the country and told them that any disparity in outcome—you just point to a white person and say ‘it’s your fault.'”

Quite right. But of course, what is inevitably missing from Carlson’s show is any serious attempt to describe the ruling class and its ethnic commitments, as personified by Rubin with her perch in the elite mainstream media.

Carson and Gonzalez agree that Rubin et al. are unleashing racial hatred and that this could have cataclysmic effects that would destroy the country. I suspect that the left understands this but are confident that by purging the military and controlling the national security apparatus—control that would be beyond the ability of even a true populist or explicitly White nationalist president to easily reverse at this point—they could win  such a war. On the other hand, the good news is that it is likely true that a great many White people—certainly including Carlson’s audience given his repeated emphasis on this theme—are indeed becoming aware of the very hostile and dangerous society that they now live in. By being explicit that this power is directed against White America, Carlson is certainly performing an important service. Perhaps the above video is his most explicit assertion that what the elites are doing is fundamentally anti-White.

I realize that many people reading this site view Carlson as controlled opposition, but he is clearly the only mainstream media figure who is framing immigration and the demographic transformation of America as fundamentally anti-White, although he often sometimes says that it’s against the interests of all current citizens because it dilutes their voting power. This latter is a specious argument, at least as it applies to Asians and Latinos, because these groups stand to increase their power. And, despite the well-known fact that immigration hurts Blacks the most (because it increases competition for low-end jobs), the Black leadership is entirely on board with the anti-White revolution because it results in greater power for themselves (as noted in the clip by the Black representative in the above video), and many are eager to avenge the perceived injustices of the past. Hatred of Whites is entirely mainstream these days, emanating from the elite media and the academic world, and by many in the political class.

We’re reminded once again that the demographic revolution is not motivated by love of humanity or empathy for the downtrodden, but by lust for power and hatred toward Whites. The hatred toward Whites won’t stop when Whites become a minority, and it’s a utopian delusion to think otherwise. Jewish hatred toward Whites is fueled by their perceptions of the past, from the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. to the holocaust. The hatred that fueled the slaughter in the early decades of the Soviet Union, based on Jewish perceptions of Orthodox Christianity and their perceptions of persecution by the Czars and by Russian peasants, didn’t end after they had achieved power. Indeed, the main motive for Jewish activism in influencing U.S. immigration law was to change the ethnic balance of the country so that Whites would not be a majority, as argued in Culture of Critique (Ch. 7) and noted more recently by Otis Graham: the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” No wonder Jewish activists like Rubin and Wattenberg have such a strong emotional attachment to the idea that America not have a White majority.

White liberals (obviously, as an intensely ethnocentric Jew, Rubin is not in that category) will be cursed by their children and grandchildren for being complicit in this transformation. But they’ll likely go to their graves thinking themselves morally superior—even as the revolution turns on them.

Let’s begin by saying that “The Other is not my brother,” in spite of the basic tenets of our Christian society which is founded on the concept:  “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”  When we examine the evolution of social interactions, we find that the reason we do not love our neighbor (not necessarily the one who lives next to us but humans at large) is because we tend intuitively to hold unfamiliar individuals at arms’ length both emotionally and physically.  To be blunt, strangers are initially considered “hostile” or untrustworthy unless proven otherwise.

This exclusionary attitude (or “otherization” as we say) is not an anti-social or malevolent choice on our part.  It is firmly embedded in our cultural ethos and our DNA, given that strangers’ reputations, such as for honesty, would likely be less well known and hence interacting with them would be risky. It goes back many, many millennia to a time when we wandered in tribes or extended families across the Eurasian plains.

In the beginning, we were “hunter-gatherers” whose days were devoted to acquiring food off the land.  To survive, homo sapiens or Cro-Magnons needed a cooperative and close-knit bond of familial unity. The hunt for prey and food was the focal point of each day’s activities. Women, if social paleontology is correct, did not stray far from home—whether a cave, a hut or some other form of habitat. They were presumably “keepers of the hearth.”  They bore and raised children, searched for edible vegetation, and cared for the elderly or infirm.  The familial unit within the tribe was a protective shield against a mysterious and dangerous world.  When another humanoid or family group appeared unexpectedly, the entire unit’s stability and safety were threatened.

The “stranger-danger” motif was and continues to be wired into the individual psyche: without this defense mechanism, each member of the tribe was put in jeopardy.  For the most part, the intruder was either expelled or killed.  Throughout the animal kingdom, the rejection of the “other,” e.g., among chimpanzees—our closest relatives, is a basic survival instinct.  Our bodies are programmed to “fight or flee.”

In the earliest days of humankind, the species was protected by the exclusion of unknown others.  From a modern-day perspective, this hostility toward the “outsider” is a leitmotif that is woven into the fabric of literature and especially the western movie.  A number of films portray this theme, notably Alan Ladd’s Shane and Clint Eastwood’s rebellious Pale Rider, who both challenge the forces of evil in a remote cattle ranch or mining encampment where only the steely-eyed gunfighter can impose law and order.  This dichotomy is an integral part of the conquest of the Far West:  the transitory “hero” or vigilante who symbolizes society’s need for justice and public safety in opposition to the antagonist who seeks to rule by brutal domination for “nefarious” reasons.  Law-abiding citizens were at the mercy of amoral predators who roamed unchecked throughout the region. Fear and self-defense were triggered by challenges to familial and community stability. Under these conditions settlers were forced to choose either certain subjugation to a lawless invader or an orderly life under the protection of a hired gun and vigilantism.

Today, if we accept contemporary propaganda, the stranger or the interloper is a person who should be welcomed into the household or family unit.  In America, the innate goodness of all people is a foundational principle of “our way of life.”  And as a result, we highlight bits and pieces of our cultural history if it fits this narrative. In a pioneer society, a helping hand is extended to strangers in need. The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan resonates even today.  We sometimes see examples of strangers performing potentially sacrificial acts to help others.  For example, the donation of kidneys, portions of livers, or bone marrow transplants to unknown victims of disease isn’t all that surprising.  Such gestures, of course, are not without considerable risk. The loss of a kidney can have lethal consequences for donors in case of renal failure.

Of course, altruism does exist, so we find ourselves asking: what drives this (actually quite rare) spontaneous altruism? Some putative acts of altruism actually may reflect ordinary self-interest. First responders are paid to have a professional obligation to put their lives at risk for the benefit of others who face danger. They are courageous but not altruistic. In a similar manner, people will give to needy individuals on “Go Fund Me” pages without the slightest proof of authenticity.  Self-sacrifice for the public good competes with the preservation of those closest to us regardless of outside commitments.

But there are examples of real altruism, and we can ask, whether they are acts of pure generosity—a social obligation—or do they respond to a need in the individual for self-fulfillment and public admiration?  Are Western elites being altruistic when they promote mass immigration of ethnically heterogeneous peoples? It is notable that such acts of compassion toward complete strangers tend not to be practiced by those in positions of authority or extreme wealth outside the family unit. Here’s an example of elite attitudes toward immigration posing as altruism by David Goodhart, a liberal journalist based in the UK, on migration to the UK:

There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. … [The political class] failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens.

One can only marvel at the completely unhinged—pathological—altruism on display here, given that the speakers are themselves native White British. Countries whose policies ignore the good of their own people are surely headed for disaster. Such altruism is nothing but a recipe for evolutionary extinction.

It is well-known that massive non-White immigration has negative effects most of all on the traditional, White working class of Western societies, while wealthier Whites can escape the problems brought about by immigration by moving to better neighborhoods.  They also tend to have jobs that have not been impacted by immigration, although visas for workers in technical areas are increasingly common. However, contemporary liberal-minded elites throughout the West are indifferent or even dismissive of the negative effects of immigration on the White working class in terms of lowered wages,[1] lessened community cohesion and involvement,[2] and deteriorating public schools. Like Charles Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby’s (i.e., the character from Bleak House), this included neglecting her own children—also characteristic of contemporary liberals who typically fail to think seriously about the effects of mass non-White migration on the long-term prospects of their own children as a minority in a majority non-White society.

Is it possible to absorb large numbers of ethnically heterogeneous migrants and maintain a stable and productive society?  It’s at least doubtful. The outside world demands a different set of values from the dynamics of the home place.  At first encounter all mammals are motivated by instinct to defend their “turf” against intruders.  Suspicion of the “other” runs deep in our genetic code. The exclusion of strangers is a primordial means of survival.

In today’s highly politicized world, the criticism of the other’s motives and way of life is labeled a sign of bigotry, racism, or xenophobia, among other epithets. We are constantly reminded of this humanistic dimension of our social contract.  This openness is often claimed to be more than an attitude; it is a duty.  However, very few restrictions are placed on the outsider by the welcoming community—even obeying laws is waived given how illegal immigrants are simply waved in these days by a Biden administration intent on ending White America as quickly as possible.  The supposed demands of being kind to the stranger (actually, a way of getting votes for Democrats—unrestricted immigration has become a demographic weapon in the hands of the progressives) and the availability of cheap labor supersede the application of the law.

In the woke philosophy of today, illegal migrants are being classified as “protected” groups.  By virtue of their physical presence in America, they are endowed with a privileged status according to the current administration.  Only casually vetted for disease and criminal activity—if at all, they are packed into buses and airplanes and sent to undisclosed sites in our country without notifying local authorities.  Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are swarming across our borders and not being deported. Border guards wave them onto American soil and offer assistance to everyone in need before processing.

Homogeneity initially builds trust among strangers.  It is much easier to incorporate an unknown person into a neighborhood when people have similar backgrounds.  The “stranger-danger” reflex is activated when a community loses control over its values and relationships.  Diverse families living in urban high-rise projects do not willingly socialize on a large scale.  They are either suspicious of each other or realize they have very little in common.  They are not in sync or, as we say, not on the same page in many aspects of daily life.

For many centuries the Jewish people have lived in ghettoes or closed ethnic communities.  Hebrew and Yiddish are not languages that non-Jews typically learn.  By adhering to a life apart, living in an insular community with overt religious symbols, the Jewish people became the other in the eyes of homogeneous societies. And because homogeneous Christian societies have sometimes risen up against them, Jews have been vigorous champions of multiculturalism. As Otis Graham noted (2004, 80), the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.”

Even though contemporary rates of intermarriage are high, the Jewish community continues to take steps to ensure its homogeneity. There are dating sites for Jewish couples.  Jewish social gatherings for singles are organized by synagogues, and Jewish teenagers are given trips to Israel to solidify Jewish identity and promote marriage to other Jews.

To outsiders, Judaism has a cultish appearance: Orthodox Jews typically wear distinguishing clothing, and there are rites of passage (bar and bat mitzvahs) and multiple customs that set them apart from the Christian population.  Religious holidays play a significant role in the life of the average Jew.  In the Christian world, only Christmas and Easter have any true importance.  The rest are listed on the calendar but rarely observed. Devout Jews (e.g., Hassidic) lead a parallel life of religious observance.  In a sense, one is first and foremost a Jew and only secondarily an inhabitant of a specific country—even in Israel.

We cannot unlearn the defensive strategies of our cultural and genetic heritage.  At the very heart of our social dynamic is the need for survival and perpetuation of our genes, and that in turn is tied to the fate of those with whom we share the most genetic similarity—our race. But the reality is that wealthy and politically stable Western countries are being assaulted by hordes of desperately poor migrants as depicted in the French dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail (1973).  As world economies worsen, vast numbers of Third World discontents will continue to seek refuge and a new life in wealthier countries—essentially a death sentence for the peoples who created the West.

As the adage tells us: “Birds of a feather flock together.”  You are compelled by nature (or a powerful survival instinct) to associate with people who look like you and with whom you have a lot in common. As we have learned over the years, diversity is not a “strength” but a source of stress and division throughout the world.  Highly diversified neighborhoods are more insular and less civic-minded than those with more homogeneous residents.  If we are left alone and not counseled or threatened with punishment, we tend to select associates who are similar in many respects.  Comfort level or quality of life is a determining criterion in our choice of friends and acquaintances.  Social clubs, such as sororities and fraternities, are based on a selective process of similarity and congeniality.  We are, in every respect, what nature made us to be: selective and protective.

In conclusion, we inherited profound tendencies that link us to the survival instincts of our earliest years.  They served us well millennia ago and will continue to give us alternatives to the artificiality of enforced social relationships.  The stability and longevity of our society depend on recognizing the legitimacy of these inbred tendencies that govern our ethnic behavior. Forcing us to live otherwise will bring about nothing but social disorder and internal conflict.

---

[1] George J. Borjas, “The Analytics of the Wage Effect of Immigration,” Working Paper 14796 (March, 2009), National Bureau of Economic Research.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14796.pdf

[2] Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” Scandinavian Political Studies 3 (2007): 137–174; Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also Frank K. Salter, “Germany’s Jeopardy,” You Tube (January 5, 2016).

Liberals and leftists are absolutely apoplectic about Tucker Carlson’s week-long visit to Hungary. His shows featured views of the border as well-fenced (built after the 2015 attempted invasion) and peaceful, with migrants from Serbia being turned back—a far cry from Biden’s unofficial policy of welcoming migrants and putting them on planes and buses to be sent around the country to dilute any remaining places that are seen as too White, with the assumption that they will eventually vote Democrat when they get amnestied or they change the voting laws. (The NYTimes recently published an op-ed arguing there is no good reason why illegals can’t vote, so it’s definitely on the left’s wish list.)

On Monday Carlson opened his show with this:

If you care about Western civilization and democracy and families, and the ferocious assault on all three of those things by the leaders of our global institutions, you should know what is happening here right now.

That quote appeared in an article in The Daily Beast where the author, Jared Yates Sexton, couldn’t resist referring to “so-called ‘Western Civilization.'” You definitely know where that train of thought is going.

Here’s most of the show from last night.

At the beginning there is a clip from an interview with Victor Orbán who reasserts the right of Hungary to decide who comes into their country, and that they have a right to decide on their culture. If they want a family-friendly culture and oppose LGBT+ propaganda and Critical Race Theory in their schools, they should be able to do that. If they would rather not have a post-Christian society or a Muslim counter-culture, it’s their right. Their culture is up to them, not globalist elites residing in Brussels or Washington dictating what they must do. And that’s what they have done.

Mr. Orban’s party recently adopted a law restricting depictions of homosexuality; critics said it was being used to target the country’s L.G.B.T.Q. community. And the government-aligned media regularly rails against the destabilizing effect that Western “woke” culture has on traditional society. (Benjamin Novak & Michael M. Grynbaum in the NYTimes)

One can only imagine the horror at such things among our ruling class. “Authoritarian!” they’ll say—while happily mandating their own totalitarian ideology in America.

As Orbán notes, the globalists basically want to force other societies to be multicultural—to admit Muslim communities, for example—in the belief that these disparate groups will get along just fine. But, he says, it’s “obviously risky.” So true. Multiculturalism is a utopian ideology, and what evidence we have thus far is not encouraging—even apart from the argument from ethnic genetic interests. As Orbán says, Germany has gotten what it deserved for bringing in millions of Muslims. Now Europe has no-go zones and organized crime by family-based cartels. You can import people out from of the Middle East, but the magic dirt of Europe doesn’t obliterate their clannishness or their criminal tendencies. And minimally, the multicultural United States has never been more polarized, with the polarization essentially along racial lines.

Carlson’s comment on the effect of immigration on crime infuriated Salon. All they had to do was quote him commenting on a case where an illegal beheaded a woman in broad daylight in Minnesota after authorities did not deport him:

The Biden administration did this on purpose, and they’re still doing it. And that is exactly why Democrats become hysterical when you mention the obvious successes that are on display here in Hungary on the immigration question. They don’t want you to know that there is an option to the chaos and filth and crime growing all around us.

“Chaos, filth, and crime.” But the idea that there are globalist elites seeking to impose multiculturalism and massive non-White, crime-prone (and low-IQ) immigration on European societies is a complete fantasy in the eyes of the Daily Beast writer:

Using fellow Hungarian [???] George Soros as a catch-all bogeyman, Orbán prides himself as a champion against a massive global conspiracy that involves wealthy and powerful liberals, and international organizations determined to undermine the authority of the state and break the back of nationalistic thought.

The idea that there is no globalist, wealthy, liberal elite that opposes nationalism is absurd. But this elite doesn’t generally undermine the authority of the state. Only if the state is trying to enforce nationalism.

The left loves authoritarianism. It’s a recurrent theme that globalists want to force conformity and obedience on any dissenting entity to produce a homogeneous culture of the left. Later in the show he interviews the always interesting Michael Anton, who notes the same thing about the U.S.: Blue states want to impose their values and way of life on the red states, but the red states just want to be left alone to decide on their own culture, whether it’s energy policy, mask mandates for schoolchildren, abortion on demand, or teaching White students to hate themselves (here).

But as I said, the left is apoplectic about seeing such ideas in the conservative mainstream. A recurrent theme is that Hungary under Orbán is authoritarian—that he has dismantled democracy so that there are only sham elections. Here’s Zach Beauchamp at Vox:

Fidesz justified its power grabs by demonizing a series of outgroups and external enemies. If you read the state-aligned press, you’ll learn that only Viktor Orbán can save Hungarian civilization from the threat posed by Muslim immigrants, liberals in the European Union, the LGBT community, and the Jewish billionaire George Soros.

Orbán won reelection in 2015 and 2018, in votes that were formally free but in no sense fair. Fidesz benefitted from massive resource advantages, backing from government-aligned media, and rules designed to tilt the playing field. Though Orbán’s party won less than 50 percent of the vote in the 2018 election, it still won a two-thirds majority in parliament — thanks in part due to gerrymandering.

Today, political scientists see Hungary as a textbook example of something called “competitive authoritarianism”: a kind of autocratic system where elections happen and aren’t formally rigged but are so heavily stacked in the incumbent party’s favor that the people don’t have real agency over who rules them.

One thing that’s obvious about the left these days is that they are not self-aware. They routinely project what they are doing throughout the West onto their enemies. It’s quite reasonable to argue that the left stole the 2020 U.S. election, certainly via biased media coverage, and at least partly by changing the voting laws under cover of the Covid crisis. And quite possibly much worse. Now the left is going all out to continue those laws, rejecting voter ID laws and other election security laws as Jim Crow 2.0. And, despite several of the articles cited here condemning Orbán for imposing a gerrymandering regime favorable to his party, they don’t seem to notice that it’s very mainstream among them to want to get rid of the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court with leftist judges, and get rid of two senators per state. Their entire program is aimed at creating permanent hegemony: promoting maximum levels of legal immigration, amnestying illegals, allowing illegals to vote, disbanding the border patrol, distributing migrants to red states, and pathologizing criticism by Whites that they are being replaced. They want hegemony over the entire country that they already have in blue states. Yes, the left loves authoritarianism.

But here’s Vox: “Competitive authoritarian regimes survive, in part, by tricking their citizens — convincing enough of them that democracy is still alive to avoid an uprising.” Exactly what’s happening here. We still have the flag (although even that is in jeopardy) and we have the illusion of free elections. In fact, the vast majority of the media in 2020 was propagandizing for one candidate, demonizing the other, and ignoring anything unsavory about the one they like—Hunter’s notorious laptop.

The left loves authoritarianism, but only when they have power. When they were out of power during the 1950s, they were all about the civil liberties of communist professors and how evil Joe McCarthy was. There developed a whole literature on the evils of suppressing free speech, such as Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials. But now that they have power, they have used their power to basically end free speech at universities and for anyone in the private sector who they might be able to get fired from their job by calling him a racist or anti-Semite. As this recent article by Glen Allen of the Free Expression Foundation shows, there is already a double standard of justice where the system throws the book at right-wing protesters, including solitary confinement for January 6 protesters awaiting trial, while leftist rioters from last summer who burned and pillaged a great many American cities and attacked police have gotten off scot-free. But here’s Sexton in The Daily Beast complaining that Hungary now is hostile to free speech, impartial law, and representative government:

Within this system [i.e., the former regime], certain rights were considered inalienable and automatic. Expression. The press. The right to representative government and the rule of theoretically impartial law.

The left is now firmly in charge of the entire federal bureaucracy, including the FBI and other national security organs. Dissidents are being purged from the military. It’s gotten to the point that even if, by some miracle, a real populist was elected, he or she would have to direct a massive purge of the federal bureaucracy, from top to bottom, to get their policies implemented and to prevent these agencies from actively working against the administration—as certainly occurred at the FBI with Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

And the media. Vox complains that 90 per cent of the media is in government hands, and The Daily Beast complains about lack of press freedom in Hungary. From the perspective of the dissident right, it’s more like 99.9 percent of the media in the U.S. is in hostile hands, and for mainstream conservatives, 90 percent is probably a good estimate. Here the left benefits from the wokeness of the corporate media, including social media. But the result is the same. A façade of democracy in which most people are simply unaware of what’s really going on. And dissenters from the left, such as Carlson, who have a significant media following, are subjected to activist campaigns against their advertisers.

And The Daily Beast complains that the government is pushing its nationalist ideology in schools, completely ignoring the left’s push for everything from holocaust education to Critical Race Theory and LGBT+ propaganda in public schools. Same outcome, slightly different way of obtaining it in the U.S., all the while paying lip service to liberal democracy.

But for The Daily Beast, in order to make their argument, all they have to do is claim that Orbán, Carlson, et al. are nothing more than lunatic conspiracy theorists.

There is importance in western civilization, they maintain, that must be protected at any and all costs, particularly from evil, criminal traitors determined to undermine it. They are in league with foreigners and constantly manipulating people of color. Behind the scenes lies a shadowy threat pulling the strings. They control the media. They control culture. And liberal democracy, with its freedoms, its espoused equality, with its acceptance of diverse identities and ideas, brings with it the contagion of the very populations and creeds that will dilute the country and undoubtedly destroy it.

If you are on the left, there’s no need to really make an argument that liberal elites are not in control of the media or culture, or that they are not really interested in bringing in in people of color in order to further their agenda. The fact that non-Whites vote Democrat is complete happenstance. And the people who run the media are of no discernable ethnic group, and they are nothing but truth seekers. When you have the kind of power the left has today, all you have to do is just accuse those evildoers of believing in conspiracy theories.

Vox quotes Rod Dreher, Senior Editor at The American Conservative:

The unhappy truth is that liberalism as we Americans have known it is probably dead. Our future is almost certainly going to be left-illiberal or right-illiberal. The right-of-center thought leaders who want to figure out how to resist effectively will be coming to Budapest to observe, to talk, and to learn.”

Vox condemns this because Dreher sees a role for the state in creating a right-wing regime, but, as usual, the author seems blissfully unaware of the obvious authoritarian trends on the left—trends they are doing their best to enshrine with state power. I’m afraid Dreher is right. It’s going to be an authoritarianism of the left or of the right, take your pick. The old conservative values of limited government are non-viable. The old America is dead. And right now, I certainly wouldn’t want to bet on the right eventually winning. While the left is pretty much united around a program of authoritarian control—they love censorship, whether by government or corporations, and would embrace prison terms for thought crimes, as they already do in Europe—the right remains fractionated between idiotic libertarians, traditional country club, business-friendly conservatives (even though corporate America hates them), and religious fundamentalists.

However, it’s somewhat encouraging that 23 percent of Republican men have a favorable view of White nationalists, and actually shocking that 17 percent of Democrat men have a favorable view. And discouraging that only 7 percent of the  electorate have a favorable view of White nationalists—again  highlighting the problem of White women, especially unmarried White women, being more likely to buy into the contemporary zeitgeist of White guilt and the left generally. I’d be interested in a poll where they also asked about attitudes toward Carlson. I suspect that Republican men with favorable views of White nationalists overlap to a large extent with those who are fans of Carlson.

I realize Carlson is not ideal. But there’s no one else even close to him in continuing to hit on the issues that vitally affect White America. It’s no surprise that his trip to Hungary set off a firestorm on the left,  or that the ADL was furious when he referred to White replacement. I think he’s waking up a lot of people, and that terrifies the left.