White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

House majority whip speaks to David Duke conference

/40 Comments/in , /by
It happened in 2002, but it’s the biggest political news story in America this week. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) has now confirmed that he spoke to a conference organized by former Representative David Duke (R-LA). The Washington Post:
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at a gathering hosted by white-supremacist leaders while serving as a state representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers.
 
Scalise, 49, who ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post this year, confirmed through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, or EURO. But the adviser said the congressman didn’t know at the time about the group’s affiliation with racists and neo-Nazi activists.
 
“For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous,” Scalise told the Times-Picayune on Monday night. The organization, founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, has been called a hate group by several civil rights organizations.
The news could complicate Republican efforts to project the sense of a fresh start for a resurgent, diversifying party as the new session of Congress opens next week. In the time since voters handed control of Congress to Republicans, top GOP leaders have been eagerly trumpeting their revamped image and management team on Capitol Hill.
Monday night, some Democrats were already raising questions about whether Scalise should remain in a leadership post.
“It’s hard to believe, given David Duke’s reputation in Louisiana, that somebody in politics in Louisiana wasn’t aware of Duke’s associations with the group and what they stand for,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (Tex.), a rising star in the Democratic Party who is considered among the most prominent Hispanics in Congress. “If that’s the case and he agreed to join them for their event, then I think it’s a real test for Speaker Boehner as to whether congressman Scalise should remain in Republican leadership,” Castro said in a phone interview.

Read more

Avoiding Nationalist-on-Nationalist violence: Electoral Politics vs. Cultural Metapolitics

/23 Comments/in , /by

White Nationalist websites appear to be abuzz with conflict these days. Occidental Dissent has a list, amusing or depressing depending on your mindset, of “beefs” between White Nationalists. The movement seems so fractious and sectarian at times it rather recalls the far-leftists inimitably parodied by Monty Python.

I am now involved in this as Ted Sallis has written a critical article that, while not explicitly mentioning me, I am quite sure is referring to my comments on the French National Front (FN). Personally, I welcome frank debate and criticism, and in any case I’m relatively new to the nationalist scene so I don’t claim to lecture anyone.

But these apparently obscure debates and petty conflicts on websites with, let’s face it, limited reach raise an important issue: What should be the relationship between White Nationalists, which for now are largely limited to at best metapolitical groupuscules, and necessarily more moderate nationalist parties with mass voter appeal or which are even in power?

The issue is of the distinction between the political and the metapolitical in a particular régime. That régime today is characterized by two things: absolute liberal/antinational cultural hegemony and mass electoral politics. That means every nationalist party has a choice: either to contest the culture (in which case it will be boycotted/demonized by media) in the hopes of changing that culture or to respect the culture’s taboos (by engaging in self-censorship and crypsis) in the hopes of gaining political power. Read more

Why I Write

/11 Comments/in , /by

Deep within the glorious maze of lost time that the archives of Counter Currents represents, I recently found the tag, “Why We Write.”  The essays under this umbrella, some of which originally appeared in The Occidental Quarterly, are a treat in no small part because they show a personal and human side to many authors who normally eschew touching on the personal for the sake of anonymity. It is also a lovely topic for the authors themselves, as it allows a certain egotistical indulgence that all self-described writers covet, openly or not. And with that being admitted, I will tackle the question myself.

The first thing I ever had published was a mere letter-of-the-day on Vdare — and a crummy one at that. I was absolutely elated when it happened, and even sent the link to my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents. In my eyes, I had struck back. It was the first fortnight of my freshman year in college and I had learned that we were not even called “freshman” because the word lacked gender-neutrality. My roommate was an insufferable “bisexual” Jew who boasted of having met President Obama and been active in the Occupy Wall Street movement (not a contradiction in his eyes; regardless, I suspect both were lies).

The sob story goes on and on, so I will cut to the chase. I decided the best way to strike back was to write. It was a way of telling myself that these people had no control over me, that even if it was pointless to argue in class, I could do better than just fuming in silence. So I kept writing, and I kept annoying editors, and I kept getting curt rejection letters. But by that summer vacation I got paid for something I wrote for the first time. By the end of that summer I had been paid multiple times, and was beginning to think quite highly of myself. I was a writer against time, a man among the ruins, etc. Liberals could tell me I was a stupid redneck, but I could just think to myself, “Oh yeah? How many articles have you been paid to write? I’m a regular right-wing Hunter S. Thompson.” It was immensely satisfying, and even my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents were impressed that I had found a way to turn time spent on my MacBook into money. Read more

Norway vs. Sweden on immigration: The importance of becoming part of the mainstream

/45 Comments/in , /by

In his article on the Africanization of France, Guillaume Durocher notes that

no doubt North American White Nationalists can be critical of the FN’s [National Front’s] positioning [i.e., their  public stance that they are unconcerned whether the ethnic French become a minority in France]. I would note however that, as of today, this position is necessary for the FN to be a media-acceptable and potentially electable political party (in contrast for example with the British National Party, which nonetheless does important counter-cultural and metapolitical work). If Marine Le Pen becomes President of the Republic, as a recent poll suggests she could if she faces François Hollande in the second round in 2017, then no doubt freedom of speech on this topic would be much greater in France. For example, already Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary has been able to argue with other European leaders that “[t]he goal is to cease immigration whatsoever” and that “the ethnic basis of the Nation-State” should not be broken.

Another case where moderating the message can result in important influence on issues such as immigration policy is illustrated in the contrast between Norway and Sweden, as discussed in a New York Times article by Hugh Eakin (“Scandinavians Split over Syrian Influx“).

AFTER eight years of center-right rule, the narrow victory of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party in Sweden’s national elections last Sunday marked a broad shift in the country’s politics. But the new coalition government the party hopes to form is unlikely to reconsider one of the country’s most challenging policies: its response to a war being fought some 2,000 miles away. The country has taken an open-door approach to people fleeing the conflict in Syria, which is bringing more Syrians to Sweden than to any other European country.

Never mind that Sweden has double-digit youth unemployment. That there have been riots in immigrant neighborhoods in Stockholm. That there is a severe housing shortage for new arrivals. Or that the Swedish Migration Board, which handles asylum seekers, needs a drastic budget increase — almost $7 billion — to cover soaring costs over the next few years.

And never mind that the far-right, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats won 13 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election, their best showing ever. They more than doubled their seats in Parliament — from 20 to 49 — and are now the third-biggest party in the country.

“We are the moral guardians of the world,” Magnus Ranstorp, a specialist in counterterrorism at the Swedish National Defense College, told me a few days before the election, referring to Swedes. “We haven’t fought a war in 200 years. We are righteous. But sometimes the righteousness doesn’t meet reality.”

Read more

Natural Selection against Europeans: Why the Silence?

/37 Comments/in , /by

At his blog West Hunter, Greg Cochran writes 

Natural selection is not an odd, unusual, poorly understood phenomenon like ball lighting. It is not something that last occurred 50 million years ago, like a kimberlite pipe eruption. And, of course, it applies to human behavioral traits, which are significantly heritable. Unless you think that the optimum mental phenotype (considering costs and payoffs) was the same in tropical hunter-gatherers, arctic hunter-gatherers, neolithic peasants, and medieval moneylenders (which would strongly suggest that you are an idiot), natural selection must have generated significant differences between populations. Differences whose consequences we see every day, and that have been copiously documented by psychometricians.

This notion that ongoing natural selection is not the default – that it only happens on national holidays or whatever – is fairly common among biologists. Obviously untrue, because you can’t even have things stay the same without ongoing selection – otherwise mutations and drift would gradually ruin everything. Only selection lets horseshoe crabs outlast mountain ranges.

Sure, some of this is because the topic of human psychological differences makes biologists upset, or threatens to impose unemployment and/or celibacy – but it also shows up in topics that don’t seem to have much emotional or political charge.

He’s right, of course. Natural selection is ongoing. But a foundational dogma of evolutionary psychology was that natural selection stopped in the Pleistocene somewhere, resulting in the set of adaptations possessed by all humans, the only differences being between genders. This view allowed them to safely ignore group differences in traits because for all practical (and scientific) purposes humans are identical — a view that is tailor made to fit into the left/multicultural academic milieu. Read more

Review of ‘Reuben’ by Tito Perdue

/15 Comments/in , , /by

Reuben-Cover-Web

Reuben
By Tito Perdue
Washington Summit Publishers, 2014
290 Pages; $24.95

Reuben, Tito Perdue’s eighth published novel, is by far the 75-year-old author’s most subversive, incendiary, and defiantly reactionary work yet. It is bound to offend. It is sure to provoke. It is an apt and needful epic for our times and for our kind.

The story begins in present-day rural north-central Alabama. Reuben-a young, “uplander” bumpkin with a poorly-forged prosthetic metal foot-stumbles upon the humble estate of the excessively eccentric Leland (Lee) Pefley and his kind-hearted entomologist wife, Judy Pefley (a recurring and prominent personage in Perdue’s oeuvre). Lee is bitter and world-weary, curmudgeonly, and a bit transgressive. Situated atop a high ridge, he spends many an hour at “the Edge,” peering through his telescope down at the city of Birmingham, cursing the hideousness of the city itself and the ignorance and vulgarity of its inhabitants.

Lee Pefley, however, is also a brilliant visionary with a boundless love of knowledge and an inordinately profound understanding of the nature of beauty. Read more

Obama’s Emancipation Proclamation: Immigration by Executive Fiat

/23 Comments/in , , , /by

A day that will live in infamy.

A day of greater importance than Yorktown, Plymouth Rock, Gettysburg, Appomattox and Pearl Harbor all put together.

It gives me little pleasure to pat myself on the back and remind people that years ago I predicted that if Congress did not take down the borders, the Executive Branch would do so by an Emancipation Proclamation.

And that’s what happened today.

I was in the Atlanta Airport waiting to pick up my brother’s guitar from the luggage carousel when Obama came on television. Liberal journalists had been ooohing and aaahing for several minutes.

Obama was angry! He pursed his lips, lowered his eyes. His voice shook with rage and indignation as he related how his efforts had been thwarted despite the fact that the whole country — including the Republicans — knew he was right, that the illegals had to be given citizenship, that his proposal would “protect the borders,” would improve our economy….

Well…the list of the boons for us all just kept spilling off his angry pursed lips. Read more