Featured Articles

Setting the Record Straight on Another Churchill Myth

Churchill’s Headmaster: The ‘Sadist’ who Nearly Saved the British Empire
By Edward Dutton
Melbourne: Manticore Press, 2019

There will never be enough men of outstanding virtue to satisfy the human need for heroes, and one fertile source of the counterfeits necessary to make up the difference, as Ed Dutton points out, is wartime leaders:

There is a tendency to make sense of a devastated world by hero-worshipping the leader and also by finding some means of justifying all of the suffering, meaning that it was essential that the prosecutor of the war was beyond reproach. It has been found that the more people invest in something, the more they need to convince themselves that they have done the right thing. This is why people can react in such an irrational way if it is demonstrated to them that someone whom they admire — who is central, to some degree, to the way in which they structure the world — is simply not who they thought they were. They cannot cope with the fact that they have been duped.

In my youth, Winston Churchill regularly alternated with Jesus Christ as winner of an annual poll concerning the ‘greatest man who ever lived.’ We had a bust of him in our home. He is England’s national hero, and as Ed Dutton writes, many of the countless biographies of him ‘are nothing more than hagiographies that rehash and exaggerate the adulation for him in earlier hagiographies.’

Yet for those willing to listen, it is not hard to collect damning evidence against Churchill. As First Lord of the Admiralty during World War I, he was in charge of the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign, which led to 140,000 unnecessary allied deaths. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he kept Britain on the Gold Standard, making industry uncompetitive and prolonging the Depression. Most seriously, he did not ‘stand up to Nazi aggression’ in 1940 as the usual story goes, but did all he could to force Hitler into a war with Britain that Hitler wished to avoid. It was Churchill who ordered the bombing of nonmilitary targets in Germany—including Dresden—merely to kill as many German civilians as possible and demoralize the survivors. At war’s end, he agreed not only to hand Eastern Europe over to Stalin but also to the forcible repatriation of all Soviet citizens who managed to escape to the West: the shameful episode known as ‘Operation Keelhaul.’

Much of Churchill’s voluminous writing amounted to attempts to justify or downplay his mistakes, something he acknowledged himself with the famous quip: ‘History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.’ His personal shortcomings were also considerable, including alcoholism, chronic gambling and a constant tendency to live beyond his means and scrounge off others. Dutton writes of Churchill as having

a fantastic sense of entitlement, dishonesty, untrustworthiness, and not caring about the suffering of others. [He] took his country into an avoidable war, bankrupted it, and so lost that country its Empire and left it too exhausted to defend itself. This commenced the process of mass immigration from developing countries which … led to many difficulties, such as rising distrust, Islamic terrorism, and the destruction of other traditions vital to holding the country together.

In the present work, Dutton focuses on one relatively minor biographical myth about Churchill, but the result is a useful illustration of how such myths begin, spread, and are gradually embellished until they entirely overwhelm the historical reality. Read more

Rosemary’s Baby: A Valuable Rosetta Stone

In some important cases, contemporary JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) appears in an especially concise and comprehensive form providing for us, as it were, a “Rosetta stone” more rich in insight than a larger body of JEM. The 1968 film Rosemary’s Baby and the 1967 book from which it was adapted are such works.

The Plot of Rosemary’s Baby runs as follows. Rosemary (Mia Farrow) is a woman living in New York City with her actor husband, Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes). Her husband, Guy Woodhouse, a Protestant, is by degrees more sophisticated. In the end, though, he’s your typical oblivious, vain, career-oriented actor. The two are interested in living in an upscale apartment building called the Bramford. Though a swanky setting, the building has a past shrouded in mystery and occult bloodshed.

Indeed, during the early 20th century it is said to have been the base of operations for a notorious coven of witches headed by the Arch-Warlock Adrian Marcato. Among these witches are included the Trench Sisters who “cooked and ate several young children.”  Also, the building is a bit out of their price range.

Nevertheless, despite the caveats of their concerned friend “Hutch” (Maurice Evans), they move in.  Shortly thereafter they meet the Castevets, an eccentric older couple living in the adjacent unit. Odd happenings steadily occur from there. As the film reveals, the Castevets, Minnie (Ruth Gordon) and Roman (Sidney Blackmer), are ostensibly “Satanists,” the heirs of the Marcato Cult. Their interest in the young couple is with Rosemary’s womb.

Eventually Rosemary finds herself drugged and raped by a serpentine humanoid during what appears to be a “Satanic” ritual. It is clear she’s been sold out by her careerist husband Guy Woodhouse who effectively bartered her off to the Castevets in exchange for valuable contacts in the theater world. On the other hand, it was Rosemary’s desire for social status that pushed Guy to live in the otherwise unaffordable Bramford.

Finally, at the end of the film, Rosemary gives birth to a devil child who is given the name “Adrian” doubtlessly in honor of Adrian Marcato. Readers should understand that this film depicts the Semitic Bride Gathering Cult of Judaism, particularly as it is aided by the assisting intermediary cult of Christianity. Here youthful Aryan stock is used to continue and maintain a more racially aged Jewry. Below is the evidence.

Esoterically, the setting of the Bramford is the Catholic Church. In fact, in Ira Levin’s book, it is even indicated that the building is owned by the Catholic Church. Yet the clues are multiple. Read more

From Stolen Cakes to Swinging Machetes: The Sick Joke of Third-World Enrichment

George Orwell wasn’t a saint and wasn’t infallible. But he got some big things right. Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) are classics of political satire, analysis and prophecy. Orwell also got some small things right. For example, in his pioneering essay on “Boys’ Weeklies,” he said that a magazine called The Magnet had “a really first-rate character in the fat boy, Billy Bunter.”

Myopic and mocked

Billy Bunter is indeed one of the great comic characters of English literature. He was launched in 1908 by an astonishingly prolific author called Charles Hamilton (1876-1961) (writing as Frank Richards), but today his stories have something that his creator and early readers could never have foreseen: a thrill of the forbidden. The stories are very politically incorrect. Bunter is a myopic, morbidly obese schoolboy who is mocked for his greed, dishonesty, selfishness, stupidity and sloth. And worse than mocked: as Orwell said, “boots and canes are constantly thudding” against “his tight trousers.” Here is a typical encounter between Bunter and his fellow schoolboys:

[A]t that moment Nugent opened the cupboard to lift out the cake. There was no cake to be lifted out. Nugent stared at the spot where a cake had been, and where now only a sea of crumbs met the view. …

“Bunter, you podgy pirate!” exclaimed Harry Wharton. … “Where’s that cake?”

“How should I know? I never even looked into the cupboard, and I never saw any cake when I looked in, either—”

“Scrag him!”

“Boot him!”

“I-I-I say, you fellows, it wasn’t me,” yelled Bunter. “I-I expect you put it somewhere else. It wasn’t there when I ate it—I mean, when I didn’t eat it—If you think I scoffed that cake, I can jolly well say—whoooop! Whoooop! Yarooooh!” (Bunter Comes for Christmas, 1959)

Frank Richards’ “first rate character” Billy Bunter

It’s not sophisticated humour, but Charles Hamilton was a skilful writer and entertained millions of readers for many decades. I particularly like Bunter’s self-refuting denials: “The cake wasn’t there when I ate it.” Bunter is stupid, so he exposes himself even as he indignantly exculpates himself.

A newspaper that refutes itself

But you don’t need to go to old children’s literature to find self-refuting denials and self-exposing exculpators. The British newspaper known as the Guardian supposedly exists on a far higher intellectual and literary plane than the Magnet, but its pages are full of Bunteresque self-exposure. For example, in May 2019 it ran an indignant story about Black criminals being deported to Jamaica. I think the headline was Bunteresque: “‘Things are so bad even the police are scared’: deportees live in fear in Jamaica.”

The Guardian knows that its good-thinking readers will not draw any heretical conclusions from that self-accusing headline. Instead, they will feel angry and dismayed that vulnerable Blacks are being deported from the magic dirt of Britain to the tragic dirt of Jamaica. However, I’m a bad-thinker, so I’ll point out the obvious. If Jamaica is such a violent and lawless country, how can immigration from Jamaica be good for Britain? It can’t be, and it’s inevitable that Jamaican immigrants and their descendants will be over-represented as violent criminals in Britain. That story in the Guardian is full of Black criminals complaining about being deported to live among their own kind in a nation governed by their own culture. Read more

Balzac and the Jews

Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850) was an incredibly prolific French novelist of the first half of the nineteenth century. A pioneer of realism, he wrote 85 novels in twenty years, many comprising parts of his multifaceted examination of French society, which, invoking Dante, he dubbed La Comédie Humaine—The Human Comedy. Through carefully observing every social actor, profession, institution, and condition of French life, Balzac aimed to analyze the forces underlying the economic and social changes wrought by an emerging capitalist society—a society he believed was excessively motivated by money at the expense of traditional values.

His most famous works include Eugenie Grandet (1833), Pere Goriot (1934), Lost Illusions (1837), and Cousin Bette (1846). In developing the novels that would comprise La Comédie Humaine, Balzac hit upon the (then revolutionary) idea of using recurring characters. He wrote with great attention to detail to depict and explain their lives, and strived to present them as real people with real triumphs and frequent failures. Never fully good nor fully evil — his characters are entirely human in their desires and their behaviors. Balzac’s attention to detail and unfiltered depiction of people in society had never been seen before in literary writing. In addition to his remarkable powers of observation and prodigious memory, he had an intuitive understanding of people and their motivations which, borrowing the term from Sir Walter Scott, he called “second sight.” The French poet Baudelaire, an ardent admirer of Balzac, noted how “All his characters are endowed with the same vital flame which was burning within himself.”[1]

After working for three years as a lawyer’s apprentice, the young Balzac turned his back on the profession, finding it inhumane and tedious in its working schedule. His experiences in the law did, however, provide the basis for many plotlines in his novels which often center on legal disputes, wills and contested legacies. Turning his attention to writing, his early attempts to forge a literary career proved unsuccessful, as did later attempts to achieve success as a publisher, printer, businessman, critic, and politician. Despite experiencing dire poverty and constant rejection, Balzac continued to write, and his breakthrough came with The Chouans (1829), a novel set in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Its success encouraged him to devote himself wholeheartedly to a literary career. From this point, his life’s purpose was to achieve glory as the historian of his time, as the “secretary” of French society. In this endeavor he developed what many would regard as insane work habits.

Balzac’s energy was unbounded and his productivity astounding. His phenomenal work ethic was necessitated by a penchant for luxurious living—a tendency that constantly plunged him into debt, and led to his being hounded by creditors for most of his adult life. To evade them, he registered under pseudonyms and frequently changed his lodgings. While Balzac eventually earned decent money from his literature, his reckless spending always ensnared him in further debts: bills exist for his order of fifty-eight pairs of gloves at one time, and for similarly extravagant purchases from his fashionable tailor and jeweler in Paris. Balzac was famous for his bejeweled walking sticks, red leather upholstered library, busts of Napoleon (whom he loved), and other things of a luxurious and superfluous nature. In a letter from 1828, his publisher and friend Latouche wrote:

You haven’t changed at all. You pick out the [expensive] rue Cassini to live in and you are never there. Your heart clings to carpets, mahogany chests, sumptuously bound books, superfluous clothes and copper engravings. You chase through the whole of Paris in search of candelabra that will never shed their light on you, and yet you haven’t even got a few sous in your pockets that would enable you to visit a sick friend. Selling yourself to a carpet-maker for two years! You deserve to be put in Charenton lunatic asylum.[2] 

Read more

Chile’s Immigration Crossroads, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

The Return of Sebastián Piñera

Another enormous sign of hope was the result of the 2017 presidential election, during which center-right candidate and former president Sebastián Piñera made law and order a central issue of his campaign. In debates and interviews, he regularly toted around a graph that neatly showed the issue of rising crime:

Mr. Piñera with his Nixonian bar charts.

Many members of the media mocked Mr. Piñera’s graph, and attempted to deconstruct it throughout his campaign.

Mr. Piñera promised to crack down not only on crime in general, but on illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, and human smugglers as well. Clearly aping President Trump, in 2016 Mr. Piñera said, “Chile should be open to receiving immigrants who contribute to our nation’s prosperity, but should absolutely close its borders to drug trafficking, crime, contraband, organized crime, and illegal immigration.” Doubling down, he went on to say, “Many of the criminal gangs in Chile today, such as those that specialize in identity theft, are made up of foreigners. This is a particularly grave situation for the areas [of Chile] where immigrants are a large percentage of the population.”

Chile’s presidential elections work like they do in France: if no candidate wins over 50 percent of the vote in the first round, there is a second runoff vote with only the top two vote-getters of the first round. In the first round of 2017, while there were only two right-wing candidates, there were six left-wing ones. This had the effect of forcing most of them to try and “out-left” the others. Two of the acid tests in this regard were the questions, asked by journalists and activists alike, “Is Venezuela today a dictatorship or a democracy?” and “Does what’s happening in the Araucania [where Amerindians have taken to destroying property owned by Whites, and sometimes even killing them] today constitute terrorism?” That last question was not just for the soundbite either—if labeled as terrorism, much sterner measures can be taken by the government to squelch it than they would be able to otherwise.

On the question regarding Venezuela, the leading left-wing candidate, Senator Alejandro Guillier (a former TV journalist), equivocated pathetically, saying “It is a regime that is no longer democratic,” but refusing to explicitly call it a dictatorship, and refusing say what Chilean-Venezuelan relations would look like under his Presidency. When asked about terrorism during a televised debate, he cucked. In a rambling response he conceded that the situation included “grave violence,” but not terrorism. He asked Chileans to think of the plight of the Araucanos as well, and suggested that the solution to the problem lies in more economic development targeted at Araucanos, along with more respect and understanding. Mr. Piñera, meanwhile, declared the violence and property destruction in Araucania terrorism, and condemned Venezuela’s current government unapologetically, even meeting with exiled Venezuelan officials publicly.

Alejandro Guillier and Sebastián Piñera

With so many candidates, nobody won over 50 percent of the vote in the first round, and both Mr. Piñera and Sen. Guillier went on to the second round—though Sen. Guillier was nearly bested by an opponent to his Left who made many promises about free college and student loan forgiveness. On election day, Mr. Piñera won by nearly ten points.

The regions most affected by immigration are the Metropolitana (“Metropolitan,” which is essentially just the massive capital city of Santiago), its two neighboring regions, and the regions that compose the northern third of Chile—especially Antofagasta. President Piñera carried all of these regions in the second round of voting, and all but one by a large margin. The Araucania went to President Piñera by the biggest margin of any region, with Sen. Guillier carrying only 37.6 percent of the vote there—only a bit higher than the percentage of the population that is Araucano. The two regions that neighbor Araucania went for Mr. Piñera by comfortable margins as well. Meanwhile, Sen. Guillier carried only the Whitest southern regions, all but untouched by immigration and Araucano violence terrorism, and the absentee vote, which is dominated by Leftists who fled Gen. Pinochet’s regime and never returned. (Source)

This all represents a marked change from the Sebastián Piñera of 2009–2014, during his first term as president. Back then, President Piñera was much more like Mitt Romney, and much less like Donald Trump. His talking points were all of a center-right “economism” bent, and he won the presidency in 2009 only narrowly, by three points, largely because the Left’s candidate was the decidedly uninspiring and mediocre former President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle. Mr. Piñera’s first time in office was in many ways a “lame duck” term from start to finish. He opposed the very popular social movement to make college more affordable, and his approval rating were regularly in the 20s and 30s—lower than Gen. Pinochet’s ever were. The Economist, which largely approved of his policies, even called him “inept” and noted that this opinion was “not confined to the opposition.” I lived in Chile for part of President Piñera’s first term, and it certainly felt like the entire country hated him. I myself always thought of him as something of a doofus, a Monopoly man without any sense of social grace or political tactics.

Yet only a few years later, after another scandal-ridden Leftist president, a wave of immigration, crime, and unrest in the Araucania, President Piñera returned to politics more as a Trumpian nationalist than a Romney-like Davos man. The results in his electoral fortunes and general popularity speak for themselves—and should serve as a lesson to the Right across the West. Having taken office only in March of this year, it is too early to tell if President Piñera will dedicate the necessary state resources, political capital, and moral courage needed to curb the immigration that candidate Piñera deplored. No matter what, he will certainly be better than Sen. Guillier, or any other Leftist, would have been. Again, like President Trump, President Piñera even shows little signs of racial consciousness here and there. During his first term as President of Chile, he once said, on camera, to the father of a small blonde child, “Congratulations, you’ve done a great thing, you’re bettering the race.”

Signs of Hope and Action Items

  • The north and northeastern border should be militarized. More walls, more patrols, more checkpoints, and more soldiers would all do well. On top of illegal immigrants, plenty of illegal drugs pour through the northern border—so more security there hits two birds with one stone—just as with increased security on America’s southern border. From east to west, Chile is a very small country, so securing the borders that do not run alongside Argentina should be no great trouble—especially given Chile’s wealth and military prowess.
  • Haitian immigration must be stopped, and recent Haitian arrivals should be incentivized to repatriate. Though still only superficially investigated, one of the main sources of the explosion of Haitian immigration is quite criminal. Haitians in Haiti are being sold, for a few hundred American dollars, fake letters from churches and charities promising housing and jobs. The Haitians then board flights for Chile, without knowing any Spanish, show these letters to customs agents, register as visitors, and disappear. The foremost company behind this is Latin American Wings, which for a time was bringing 100 Haitians to Chile a day. President Piñera should try and make things for this company as difficult as possible, while also investigating them and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

Though he been in office for less than a year, Mr. Piñera is already making good on his campaign’s tough talk. His administration has taken a number of different measures to make it harder for Haitians to come to—and then stay in—Chile. While I have no evidence for it, I also get the sense that there is someone in the new government who is effectively using backchannels and technicalities to slow immigration applications generally—much like what Stephen Miller is doing in the Trump White House. Regardless, President Piñera took office in April of 2018, and every month since then has seen more Haitians in Chile leave than arrive. [Argentina next best bet for Haitians as Chile tightens immigration controlsby Frances Jenner, Argentina Reports, September 4, 2018]

  • Immigration from White and whitish countries should be given preferential treatment, under one guise or another.
  • At present, Piñera is facilitating Venezuelan immigration. While Venezuelans may not be a good enthno-linguistic fit for the United States, they are a good fit for Chile. Importantly, though not as White as Chileans, they are much Whiter than most every other large source of migration to Chile in the last few years: Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia. A 2011 census (p. 15) broke the country down racially like this: 51.6 percent “dark,” (effectively: mestizos) 43.6 percent White, 2.9 percent Black, 1.2 percent “other,” and 0.7 percent mixed Black. In a separate question, the Amerindian population was put at 2.6 percent (p. 28)—presumably encompassing a majority of the other and mixed Black responses from the first breakdown, and a small part of the “dark” as well. My instincts tell me that of the Whites, perhaps a quarter are pure or nearly pure, and the rest are high yellow castizos; the “darks” I would estimate are about half castizo and half mestizo. On the whole, it is reasonable to assume Venezuelans represent an assimilable people. Especially since those fleeing today are largely composed of the upper, Whiter, professional classes. Their already increasing number have caused no noticeable problems. All the Venezuelans I have met in Chile have been polite, hard-working, and grateful to have left a nation committing suicide-by-Marxism. Solidarity with their struggle against that ideology should also be taken into account. Communism has brought more death and poverty to Latin America than any European imperial power, and Latin Americans should help one another in escaping and defeating it wherever it sneaks into power. Moreover, Venezuelan immigrants and their descendants will be sure to vote against Socialist and Communist candidates for decades to come—which will in turn limit future Leftist attempts to make Chile swarthier. There is also an element of fairness in allowing large numbers of Venezuelans to come: During Chile’s own chaotic period from 1970 until 1990, Venezuela took in an estimated 80,000 Chileans—including literary titan Isabel Allende. In fact, so many Chileans reached Venezuela that there is now a whole community of Venezuelan-Chileans there, including the beautiful actress Ana Karina Casanova.
  • Argentina, though not as White as it used to be, is still much Whiter than Bolivia and Peru. Like Venezuela, there are economic pretenses for giving Argentina preferential immigration status that can serve as a mask for the racial reasons they should receive preferential status. Argentina and Chile, despite having a brotherly rivalry since their foundings that does occasionally heat up, also have much in common, and have traded waves of immigrants back and forth since the nineteenth century.
  • Spain, the motherland, has also been in a considerable economic rut for a decade now—which is the reason why the flow of Spanish immigrants is already steady. Spain is also inarguably Whiter than Chile, so a large stream of immigrants from there would be a demographic and genetic plus for Chile, not just roughly neutral as with Venezuela and Argentina. Of great importance is that Venezuela, Argentina, and Spain have all had lengthy periods of great prosperity and cultural excellence. Their current hard times, which Chile has certainly had its fair share of (it was the country hardest hit by the Great Depression on the planet), are almost certainly temporary. They have the necessary genetic makeup to build and sustain modern and comfortable societies. There is no evidence this is the case for Peru, Bolivia, or Haiti.
  • The current trickle of Chinese immigration should also be halted, largely for security reasons. China has designs on becoming a puppet master in Latin America to nearly the same extent as they do in Africa. The last thing Chile needs is a bright Asian fifth column in its military and intelligence agencies—as the US is steadily developing. Nor should Chile seek to set itself up with an alien Asian elite, as Peru accidentally did to itself.

Alberto Fujimori, President from 1990 until 2000… of Peru.

Just as cigarette packs in some countries include an obligatory picture of organs ravaged by cancer, every time presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood or Jeb Bush says that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues” there ought to be an obligatory video of a welfare office filled with crying non-White babies. Even the dullest Cuckservative would be rattled out of his self-congratulatory moral signaling by that image and sound.

There is no reason to believe the demographic trends of abortion in America would not be largely the same in Chile. And since in Chile the lower classes are uniformly less White than the upper classes, the fact that poor women get abortions at substantially higher rates than wealthy women would make an even bigger eugenic impact in Chile than it does in large swathes of the United States. Moreover, although it sounds backwards, I suspect legalized abortion would increase the country’s birth rate. I have met dozens upon dozens of Chilean women who got knocked up in their teens or early twenties, and dropped all their life plans in order to abley raise their one child. At that age, doing so is such a drain on time and resources, and it makes it so much harder to find a serious romantic partner, that many of them never end up having another child. If instead they could get an abortion and move on with their lives, I suspect many of them would then go on to get married and have several children. High rates of teen pregnancy have plagued Chile for decades—as recently as 2009, 15 percent of new mothers were under the age of 19. Politicians are constantly coming up with silly plans to lessen this social problem (in 2014 one neighborhood in Santiago displayed a fake, 40 foot green condom to encourage teens to use contraception), but the most effective and obvious way would be to legalize abortion. President Piñera is certainly not going to make any attempt at doing this. But, if he halts immigration substantially, this will give Chile breathing room until a leftist President comes along and manages to greatly expand its legalization.

In Sum

From a strict purist Anglo-Nordic perspective, Chile is not an especially White nation. If you lumped together all the pure Amerindians, Asians, Middle Easterners, and Gypsies, the non-White population would be around 20 percent. Another ten percent are very dark mestizos. Perhaps ten percent is 95 percent White or more. The remaining 60 percent is castizo or mestizo. However, by the standards of Latin America, it is considered White—and objectively it is much Whiter than almost every other country in the region, which is evident in its many fine qualities. Chile is a great country. Though small and isolated, it has produced titans in the fields of literature, poetry, film, music, athletics, and economics. It has fought heroic wars and conquered and tamed some of the most difficult terrain on the planet: from the polar south, to the driest desert in the world in the north, to the Andes mountain range. Its historic people are physically beautiful, warm, well cultured, and impeccably literate. As with other international outposts of Europeans, from the Boers of South Africa, to the Anglos of Australia and New Zealand, to the confederados of Brazil, to the remnants of America’s historic majority still in the United States, they deserve to continue on, for themselves and their prosperity. The policy choices of the Piñera Presidency, and how vigorously those policies are enforced, may well determine their fate for the next century—let us pray they make the right choice.

Chile’s Immigration Crossroads, Part 1

The most defining trend of our era is the movement of non-Whites, jealous of the prosperous and stable societies created by Whites that they are incapable of building for themselves, flooding and fundamentally transforming White societies—it is the century of Camp of the Saints. The small Latin American nation of Chile, a very White place by Latin American standards, is in no way immune from this trend. In the last 20 years, and especially the last five, non-White immigration to Chile has increased dramatically. “Dramatically” is perhaps an understatement. As of 2017, 1,119,267 people living in Chile were foreign-born. Chile is not a big nation, and this number represents 6.1 percent of the total population. The most common countries of origin are: Peru (23.8 percent), Colombia (13 percent), Venezuela (12 percent), Bolivia (11 percent), Haiti (10 percent), Argentina (7.9 percent), and Ecuador (3.5 percent). Just as with the United States, only in the 1970s did non-European immigration eclipse European immigration in Chile:

Year Total Population Immigrant Population
Total Percent of Total Population Percent from Europe Percent from the Western Hemisphere Percent from Elsewhere
1865 1,819,223 21,982 1.21 53.7 41.4 4.9
1875 2,075,971 25,199 1.21 62.3 33.0 4.7
1885 2,057,005 87,077 4.23 30.1 67.2 2.7
1907 3,249,279 134,524 4.50 53.3 42.7 4.0
1920 3,731,593 114,114 3.06 60.0 31.2 8.9
1930 4,287,445 105,463 2.46 60.0 24.6 15.4
1940 5,023,539 107,273 2.14 67.2 21.7 11.1
1952 5,932,995 103,878 1.75 55.9 23.4 20.7
1960 7,374,115 104,853 1.42 60.9 26.1 13.0
1970 8,884,768 90,441 1.02 53.3 34.4 12.3
1982 11,275,440 84,345 0.75 31.8 54.5 13.7
1992 13,348,401 114,597 0.86 20.1 65.1 14.8
2002 15,116,435 184,464 1.22 17.2 71.8 11.0
2012 16,634,603 339,536 2.04 10.5 85.6 3.8
2017 17,574,003 1,119,267 6.1 12.4 83.8 3.8

As the above chart shows, in addition to immigrants becoming less White in the last few decades, the sheer number of them has increased enormously. In 2012, the immigrant population relative to 2002 increased by a factor of 1.84. In 2017, the immigrant population relative to 2012 increased by a factor of 3.29—and in just half the time. On top of these official figures, there are an estimated 300,000 “irregular” (i.e. illegal) immigrants in Chile today—mostly Peruvians and Bolivians who successfully crossed across the border illegally, and Haitians who have overstayed their visas. Government statistics and tallies are not as precise in Chile as they are in the United States, so everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Regardless, the general trend is obvious.

From the data available across a wide array of sources, I have put together the below table showing the number of foreign-born Chileans by country over the years.

1960 1982 1990 1992 2002 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
Peruvians 3,583 4,308 ~ 7,649 37,860 103,624 117,925 130,361 266,244
Bolivians ~ ~ 7,277 ~ 10,919 25,121 33,623 37,554 122,773
Colombians 645 1,069 ~ 1,666 4,095 27,411 48,894 63,481 145,139
Haitians ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 2,428 ~ 48,783 112,414
Argentines 11,876 19,733 34,415 48,176 57,019 53,192 55,185 87,926
Ecuadorians 9,393 16,357 39,556

Other smaller, but not insignificant foreign national populations, as of 2017, include: Spanish (26,177), Brazilian (20,707), American (19,900), Chinese (17,021), and Dominican (9,270). The total number of foreign nationals for 2017 not listed in this paragraph or the chart above was a whopping 117,750.

The biggest blind spot in seriously determining the racial makeup of Chile is that while the foreign/immigrant population is monitored by the government, aside from Amerindians, the same cannot be said of race in and of itself. The broad and imprecise nature of Whiteness in Chile has led to the government, when collecting population statistics, not distinguishing between the historically typical Chilean castizo and the notably darker mestizos of its northern neighbors. Up until recently, this has not been a very big issue because mestizo immigration was minimal. But with the widening streams of Peruvians, Bolivians, etc., coming into the country, it is time for Chile to adopt more particular racial categories. Until then, the demographic data will remain quite incomplete. We know how many people born in Peru are now in Chile, but we do not have good numbers on their specific birth rates, their rates of intermarriage with castizo Chileans, and so on and so forth.

What is certain, however, is that Chile is darkening. With the enormous increases in non-White immigration, as shown in the above tables, it could not be any other way. To make matters worse, Chile’s national birth rate is nearly as bad as the notoriously infertile West: about 13 per 1,000 citizens. By comparison: Belgium, Denmark, and Norway are 11; Germany, Spain, and Greece are 9; Peru and Bangladesh are 19; Bolivia and Cambodia are 23; Nigeria and Mozambique are 39. There has been considerable discussion at American Renaissance, and other dissident websites, about the “world’s most important graph,” that shows the UN’s demographic projections for the globe over the course of the next century.

What is not appreciated, however, is that these projections will be just as devastating to the “off White” parts of the world as the White ones. The Arab and Turkic nations of north Africa and Asia may be overwhelmed by sub-Saharan Blacks. Meanwhile, Latin America’s whitish “Southern Cone,” consisting of Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, will be flooded with mestizos, Amerindians, and not-insignificant numbers of Blacks and Asians as well, if nothing is done. The limited data on group birthrates that is available suggests, as with nearly every country in the West, that immigrants are producing offspring at a much higher rate than the natives, particularly Colombians, Chinese, and Venezuelans; while this could obviously be better (Spaniards, Argentines), we should also be grateful it is not worse (Haitians, Bolivians).

Troublesome Trends

So far, the worst result of this trend is that for the first time in its history Chile has a large Black minority, composed mostly of Haitians, but of Black Colombians and a few Black Peruvians and Bolivians as well. According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Chile has an average IQ of 90. To put that in context, consider these data points:

  • Latin America’s two other Whitish nations (which are, admittedly, Whiter than Chile), Uruguay and Argentina, are 96 and 93, respectively.
  • The average IQs of Spain and Portugal are 98 and 95, respectively.
  • Two other countries with an average IQ of 90 are also what might be considered “off White”—albeit of a very different variety—Turkey and Kyrgyzstan.
  • Remember too that Chile’s upper class is very White, composed of descendants from European nations with very high IQs. Some of the most common ancestral nations for the elite include: the United Kingdom, the Basque nation, Germany, and Italy—with average IQs of 99, 99, 100, and 102, respectively.

Haiti, meanwhile, has an average IQ of 67. This gap is even larger than the gap between American Whites, who average a score of 100, and American Blacks, who average a score of 85. (The difference in intelligence between Haitian Blacks and American Blacks is largely accounted for by the aforementioned considerable White admixture American Blacks have and the superior nutrition of the diet of Americans, relative to Haitians.) Moreover, somebody with an IQ of 85 is capable of carrying out basic jobs competently, such as running a cash register. Somebody with an IQ of 67 cannot do much of anything aside from pushing a broom or swinging an axe. This does not bode well for the prospects of Haitians, who speak a version of French, have of learning Spanish.

Along with Uruguay and Costa Rica, Chile regularly earns the distinction of the most peaceful country in all of Latin America—and it is always among the top five most peaceful. Haiti, meanwhile, is such a shithole that good numbers on crime are unavailable. Bolivia is the same way, while Colombia has a murder rate of 27 per 100,000 inhabitants per year—the eighth highest recorded in the world. Chile’s murder rate, in stark contrast, is 3 per 100,000 inhabitants per year. America’s, at 5, is technically higher, but if one were to exclude “certain” neighborhoods in all the major cities, it would be lower than Chile’s.

The Blacks from Haiti and Colombia now in Chile behave just like all Blacks do everywhere—that is to say, criminally. For the reasons already explained, there are no explicit numbers on race and crime in Chile. We can infer, however, the impact made by these new arrivals by comparing absolute crime numbers before and after the immigrant population explosion. The American State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security regularly puts out “crime and safety reports” for foreign nations to advise American tourists and expatriates. In 2014, their report on Chile opened with:

The security environment is generally safe, and there is comparatively less serious violent crime experienced in Chile than in other Latin American countries. Pickpocketing, telephonic scams, vehicular theft, and residential burglaries are far more common than violent crimes like express kidnappings, kidnapping for ransom, and random shootings, which rarely occur. Residents and tourists in Santiago are frequently victims of non-violent pickpocketing. Purse snatching and pickpocketing are most prevalent in crowded, tourist locations and pedestrian shopping areas in Santiago and in subway stations, bus terminals, and on crowded buses and metros.

The same report in 2016 opened with:

The security environment in Chile is moderately safe, with comparatively less violent crime than in other Latin American countries. Pickpocketing, telephonic scams, vehicle thefts, and residential break-ins are the most common crimes against tourists and resident Americans. Violent crime also occurs, most often in the form of carjackings, home invasions, and muggings; express and traditional kidnappings and random shootings are almost non-existent.

Petty crime and residential burglaries (home invasions) dramatically increased in the metropolitan Santiago area in 2015. The largest increases occurred in the eastern sector of the city. According to Carabinero (local police) statistics reported in a January 2016 news story, the affluent community of Lo Barnechea, where many expatriates live due to the proximity to the international schools, “robbery with violence” (assaults) rose 52 percent. Home invasions rose 10.5 percent. Two other communities where many expatriates live and tourists stay are Vitacura and Las Condes. These communities saw a rise in “robbery with intimidation” of 38 percent and 32.5 percent, respectively. The use of violence in residential break-ins also increased in 2015. When residents are home, bats, homemade knives, and increasingly firearms are being used by burglars to intimidate. One tactic involves binding the feet and hands of residents and placing them in a closet while the burglars take valuables.

The difference between 2014 and 2016 is one of a few hundred thousand mestizos and Blacks—there was no policy change or economic crash to explain it away.

As with so many other things, in Chile just as in the United States, mestizos, while not equivalent to the historic stock, are still vastly preferable to Blacks. Bolivia and Peru both have national average IQs on par with American Blacks, 87 and 85, respectively. There is, however, still historical resentment of Chileans over their victory in the War of the Pacific (1879-1884), in which Chile annexed what is today the northern third of its territory from those two nations. Just as many Hispanics in the United States dream of regaining the territory they lost in the Mexican-American War, so do Peruvians and Bolivians covet their long-lost borders. The social and political problems caused by this are exactly what you would expect.

A memorial to the War of the Pacific in Bolivia. The text above the soldiers reads, “What was once ours, will be once again.”
Beneath the soldiers it reads, “Hold on Chileans, here come the redcoats of Bolivia.”

A memorial to the War of the Pacific in Peru. The text reads: “It was here that six comrades were executed—and history cannot be changed.
Eternal glory to the heroes and martyrs of Quequeña.”

These new waves of immigrants are also bringing diseases with them. By and large, Chile avoided the “AIDS crisis” of the 1980s and has always had very low rates of infection. That is starting to change now, as some estimate that the number of new HIV cases has doubled in the last the decade. More conservative estimates put the increase at 79 percent since 2010. Gonorrhea rates are soaring too. From 2010 to 2015, confirmed cases went up by 208 percent. Cases of syphilis, after years of holding steading, and the various kinds of hepatitis are all going up as well.

The fashionable explanation for this sudden jump is that because Chile is such a conservative society, its citizens lack proper education about condom use, and are too embarrassed to seek treatment for any kind of sexually transmitted infections. But if that is the reason for it, why haven’t STI rates always been high? As with crime, the sudden spike correlates chronologically with the sudden arrival of high numbers of Blacks and mestizos. And as with crime, the sudden spike of infections is most apparent in regions with high numbers of immigrants: Santiago, Santiago-adjacent areas, and the northernmost third of the country, especially the city of Antofagasta.

Latin America is no exception to the global trend of Blacks having enormously higher rates of sexually transmitted infections of all kinds than any other race. The Latin American nations with the highest rates of AIDS are Haiti and the Bahamas, both of which are over 90 percent Black. About two percent of adults in Haiti have AIDS—that’s one in 50 Haitians. After two centuries of having no Haitians, Chile now has at least 100,000 of them. Statistically speaking, that translates to about 2,000 new AIDS carriers. I suspect, however, that many of the new infections are coming from Black Colombians. Haitian immigrants are overwhelmingly male—the most reliable statistic putting it at 68 percent. While I cannot find a similar breakdown for Colombian immigrants, I am confident it is much more balanced. And while Colombian men specialize in drug dealing, the women specialize in prostitution. I cannot find hard numbers on this either, but in walking around Santiago, it is quite apparent that Colombian women—especially Black ones—are over represented in the city’s “red light” areas. (The different Black populations in Chile, while not always easily distinguishable at first glance, are easily distinguishable by their accents—the same is true, though less pronouncedly, with the mestizos.) In the northern mining city of Antofagasta, second only to Santiago in number of recent immigrants received, a local politician made headlines in 2014 for commenting that the city’s recent rise in gonorrhea, syphilis, and AIDS was obviously caused by Colombian prostitutes (no race specified), “who, by the way, are very beautiful maidens.” (Spanish language video here.)

Racial Consciousness in Chile

These are all troubling trends, to be sure. But Chile is not without points of light either. Chileans have a strong sense of race lurking just beneath the surface. The connection between race and class, with Whites dominating the upper classes and mestizos dominating the lower classes, is understood and largely accepted by nearly every Chilean. The best evidence of this comes from egalitarian whining about the situation. One blogger has a neat summary of the typical conversation Americans and Chileans have when race comes up:

Chilean person: There are real race issues in the [United] [S]tates.
Me: Yes, there are huge problems. But I think race is a problem here.
Chilean: No, we don’t have race issues here. We do have issues with class.
Me: What do you mean?
Chilean: Well, people of lower class are really looked down upon.
Me: How can you tell who these people are?
Chilean: You just can.
Me: (finding a darker skinned Chilean in the crowd) What about that person… over there… what class are they?
Chilean: They are lower class.

The Whiter the Chilean, the prouder and more protective they are of their Whiteness. Marriages between different economic classes are very uncommon, and this protects the European blood of the upper classes from being diluted. Demonstrating this empirically with objective facts and statistics is difficult, but the signs are all there for anyone who cares to look. Another leftist blogger noted in 2015 that:

A few years ago, there was a study in Chile that consisted on [sic] presenting ten images of people with different skin colors and asking people to identify the subjects as Chileans or not. There was a tendency on [sic] identifying light skinned subjects as Chileans and darker skinned ones as Mapuches (a Chilean indigenous group), Peruvians, or “foreigners”.

In Chile’s domestic media, stories and studies about the terrible discrimination Peruvians in Chile face make the rounds every few years. While these sort of “human interest” pieces are always presented in an obnoxious breathless liberal tone, they are, by and large, true. Chileans are now, and always have been, very aware of race—even if not explicitly so. The recent arrival of Haitians has intensified this consciousness. While they have served as an excuse for academics and journalists to decry racism, the not-quite-silent majority is less than impressed. Just as elsewhere in the West, the comments threads of online articles do a lot to show the common sense of most readers. One article from 2016 I came across, titled, “The Arrival of Haitian Immigrants in Chile has Lit Racism’s Fuse,” shows this perfectly. One commenter wrote, “Haitians first invade and then want to be accepted. Deport them all. The world doesn’t want them.” Another comment reads, in part, “they’re rejected because they are culturally different; as we all know, not every rejection of Blacks is because of racism. If they were White and had the same customs, culture, religion, and manner of invading and devastating places, they would be rejected. Give them time and they will eat every animal and bird, and deforest entire areas.” Another commenter concludes that “the natural idea of the basis of a country and society is to accept immigration that steadily adopts the values of the country, not immigration that in one fell swoop upsets the national identity… Are not visas inherently discriminatory? Some get them, some don’t. Do you not have a right to decide what visitors you receive in your own home?”

Chileans are also very proud of their country’s many European cultural touches and historical figures. Chile’s two foremost Founding Fathers were very White, Bernardo O’Higgins (Irish) and José Miguel Carrera (Basque). As were all of the major political figures of the twentieth century, whether of the Left or Right,: the Alessandri family (Italian), Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (Irish and Spanish) Pedro Aguirre Cerda (Basque), Salvador Allende (Belgian and Basque), Patricio Aylwin (Irish and Basque), and Augusto Pinochet (French and Basque). The post-independence immigrant group to have the greatest impact in Chile are far and away the Germans. Throughout Chile (and especially in the mid-south), one sees very obviously German architecture and civic groups. The below photo of a German-style opera house and Lutheran church in the city of Frutillar is a beautiful example of this:

Chile also has more citizens of British ancestry than any other Latin American nation, estimated to be around 420,000 today, or about 2.25 percent of the population. As such, typical Anglo surnames are more common than one might think, some examples would be Andrés Chadwick, the right-wing politician; Jorge Edwards, the esteemed novelist; and Juan Williams Rebolledo, the commander of the Chilean Navy during the War of the Pacific.

When polled, at least a third of Chileans have openly race realist views, and all polls about racial matters under-represent how many people hold “racist” opinions because of many people’s unwillingness to admit as much, even to a pollster—commonly called the “Bradley effect” in America. Here are some results from a 2003 poll of Chileans about Peruvians, the largest and most historically contiguous non-White immigration group:

  • Chile is more developed than its neighboring countries because it has less indigenous population. (agree 34.1 percent, disagree 65.9 percent)
  • The problem of opening up to Latin American immigration is that many Latin American immigrants are indigenous. (agree 35.8 percent, disagree 64.2 percent)
  • Some races are better than others” (agree 32.9 percent disagree 67.1 percent)
  • It is true that Peruvians need employment but Chilean entrepreneurs should always prefer Chileans (agree 69.4 percent, disagree 30.6 percent)
  • If Peruvians get too mixed with Chileans the quality of our people will worsen (agree 33.4 percent, disagree 66.6 percent)
  • Peruvian immigrants that come to our country are more likely to commit crimes (agree 43.8 percent, disagree 56.2 percent)

Chile now has its own identitarian movement, called Identitarian Action Chile, clearly modeled after those in Western Europe and the United States. Their symbol is El Torreón, is an eighteenth-century fort built to defend the southern city of Valdivia (named for Pedro de Valdivia, the conquistador) against the Araucanos. Though still small, they appear to be growing, and have regular marches, actions, and pamphletting campaigns against immigration, and for a Chile-first economy. Just as America’s Identity Evorpa seeks to raise awareness about the murders of women such as Kate Steinle and Justine Damond, Identitarian Action Chile raises awareness of murders committed by immigrants in their own country, such as Margarita Ancacoy, who was beaten to death by a gang of Ecuadorians.

Antofagasta is rapidly developing the politics of a nativist backlash as well. In late 2013, when Colombia defeated Chile in a soccer match for the World Cup, Colombians in the city celebrated in the streets, and several fights between them and native Chileans broke out. Since then, the group Antofa Seguro (“Secure Antofagasta”) was founded to pressure politicians to do something about the rising crime rates, drug trafficking, and flooded public schools caused by immigrants. Much like the “Remembrance Project” in the United States, they lead marches and demonstrations highlighting the deaths of citizens caused by immigrants. Antofagasta has long been a bastion of Chile’s Leftist labor movement, but because of immigration, this is starting to change. Consider that in 2012, Karen Rojo, a leftist, won the mayoral election with 47.9 percent of the vote. Marcela Hernando came in second with a distant 29.1 percent of the vote—and she was a leftist as well, and had been the prior mayor of the city. In 2016, Mayor Rojo narrowly won reelection with just 28.1 percent of the vote. In second place, with 22.2 percent of the vote, was Manuel Rojas, an immigration restrictionist and member of Chile’s rightmost mainstream party, the pinochetista Independent Democratic Union. The change was entirely caused by the wedge issue of immigration, which Mayor Rojo refuses to deal with seriously, simply issuing platitudes such as, “The city of Antofagasta was formed by immigrants and nobody can deny that. There is work that Chileans no longer want to do.”

Jobs Chileans in Antofagasta won’t do, but immigrants are all too happy to do, include setting up Brazilian favela-like shanty towns, dealing drugs, prostitution, and expressing hatred for the city’s historic population. Illustrative photos can be found here]

More than one Chilean has advised me to stay away from Antofagasta, saying that the city has been transformed into a den of criminals, and that the only difference between it and Africa is the lack of elephants. In the last several years Antofagasta has become a key layover for drug smugglers bringing cocaine and marijuana in from Chile’s northern neighbors. Though a lot of these drugs are destined for the rest of Chile, plenty are simply headed for Chilean ports where they will embark on a lengthy Pacific journey to America’s west coast. Whenever Mexico and the United States intensify their largely jointed drug war, this drug passage picks up the slack. Drug busts in this part of the country are constant and large.

Racial Politics in Latin America: What Race in Another America Tells Us About Our Destiny, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Racial Politics

What should we make of this history? Given a chance, the left did eventually rise to power as expected, riding a wave of support from impoverished Brown and Black voters in nations where Whites were usually a minority. But just a few years later, many of these same nations voted the left out of power again. How could this happen? Are race and demography less important than the Dissident Right imagines?

The answer is no, race matters enormously, but election results are the product of several different forces that are pushing in different directions simultaneously. The first of these is the one that is most apparent from this history — pendulum effects that swing elections back and forth depending on the public’s view of the government’s performance. In Latin America’s case, just about every government has struggled with persistent poverty, crime, and corruption, so these pendulum effects tend to work against whoever is in power. The effect is so strong that, unlike the United States, major political parties often come and go, exiting the stage once their brand has become too tarnished.

Beneath these pendulum swings, however, there are strong structural forces at work that continue from election to election. Race-based voting is one of the most important. A close examination of elections held across the region repeatedly shows that leftists rely heavily on support from Browner and Blacker voters who are usually poor, while conservatives rely heavily on Whites and Whiter mestizos (who are typically over half European genetically).

One illustrative example is the 2018 election of Jair Bolsonaro, the new right-wing Brazilian president dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics.” Bolsonaro drew his support from the Whiter southern part of the nation and the socially conservative rural heartland. His leftist opponent did better in the northeast, which is mostly Black and mulatto, and the northwest, which is substantially Indigenous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bolsonaro also did better among Whites who live closer to the crime-ridden areas of major cities and a bit worse among Whites who live further south, a safe distance from the mayhem.

These racial patterns repeat themselves throughout the region. Argentina’s conservative president Mauricio Macri won his 2015 election by winning the Whiter heart of Buenos Aires and most of Whiter central Argentina. The conservative Sebastián Piñera won in the Whiter parts of central Chile and Santiago. The conservative Iván Duque Márquez won in Colombia in the Whiter sections of Bogotá and the center of the country.

The leftist Nicolás Maduro won his last competitive election in Venezuela in 2013 in heavily Brown and Black areas of the country, while losing the Whiter areas of the east and west. The leftist Evo Morales consistently wins reelection in Bolivia with the support of his Indigenous base in the Western highlands.

The exception that proves the rule is Uruguay, the Whitest nation on the continent. It has continued to support the Broad Front, a leftist coalition that includes socialists and communists and touts legalized pot, abortion, and same-sex marriage among its policy achievements. Such leftist politics are typical of Whiter nations that have yet to experience the full benefits of diversity.

In most other Latin American nations, these racial voting patterns persist despite the presence of an important moderating influence — a large mixed-race population that seems resistant to explicitly race-based political appeals. Leftist academics bemoan this resistance, usually attributing it to a lack of social awareness and widespread acceptance of the theories of mestizaje and racial democracy, which argue that mixed-race societies do not suffer the same levels of racism and discrimination as other places like the United States.

Surveys of Latin America’s poor do not support this notion. Latin America’s mixed-race populations are well aware of existing racial disparities, they just do not strongly identify with them. This points to a different explanation that is less favored by leftists: genetic similarity theory, which says that people are more altruistic and less hostile to those who are genetically similar. This explanation is borne out by interviews with mixed-race voters.

“Do I value my Blackness? Of course! I take pride in it,” said one Brazilian mulatto in an interview. “But am I only Black? No!  I also am descended from Indians and from Europeans. Should I disdain these heritages? Why shouldn’t I value all my heritages? Why should I pretend I only have one heritage when this is just not true?” Read more