Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues.

/105 Comments/in , /by

The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:

Not clear how replacement theory is “anti-Semitic,” but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt’s tweet, The Hill noted that “the ADL head explained that the “Great Replacement” theory “is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,” linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a “racist lie.” But how much of a “racist lie” is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?

Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing “Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.” This assertion that Carlson is making a “full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory” is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days—witness Biden’s lie about the new Georgia voting laws as “Jim Crow on steroids.” A full-on embrace of “white supremacist replacement theory” would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology (“every time they import a new voter…”). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.

Officially, Carlson’s heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious—at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it’s fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.

And it’s not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.

Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn’t make much sense to say that America’s non-White voters are being replaced when they are being “replaced” by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain’t White, and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants—as noted in my comments on the January 6 “insurrection,” The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony.”  Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court, in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals.

Biden’s immigration plan calls for an increase in “diversity” visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification—a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.

Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!

Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson’s mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.

I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot’s Twitter feed. Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, he is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson “the top-rated host on Fox “News” Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he’s reached a new low.”

As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled, Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said that Afghanistan is “never going to be a civilized country because the people aren’t civilized.” He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants “makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” He has repeatedly described immigration as an “invasion,” and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a “hoax” and “a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power.”

And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: “Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum …. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?”

On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto was literally headlined “The Great Replacement,” and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

The Long History of Jewish Efforts to Replace the White population of America

The lack of concern on the part of Boot and Greenblatt for White Americans is entirely typical of the organized Jewish community. The following is based on Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique along with some more recent research—the point being that the organized Jewish community has long had the aim of diluting the White population of the U.S., motivated by fear and loathing of the White population. The culture of critique is the erection of an adversarial culture that is hostile to the traditional White population of the U.S.

Jewish activists on immigration rejected the ethnic status quo put in place by the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws. Otis Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration was not only the most effective force in enacting the 1965 law, their activism “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.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Stuar Svonkin ( 1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). Similarly, Elliott Abrams (1999, 190) noted, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

In 1952 President Truman’s President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system, because there were already high levels of nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas. Rather, the report noted that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was the total number of immigrants.

The [PCIN] thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42). As Bennett (1963, 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator Pat McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in Bennett 1963, 185)—a result that has indeed come to pass. (The Culture of Critique, 1998/2002: 281)

The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman, and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director); its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Rep. Emanuel Celler and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).

The American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[i] During this period the Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955: 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953: 3). Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a, 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that “The national origins formula “is outrageous now . . . when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein 1952b, 5), thus presaging the current mantra promulgated by American media and politicians that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

Prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Harvard historian and public intellectual Oscar Handlin, published pro-immigration books (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]) and articles. Handlin’s (1952) article, “The immigration fight has only begun,” was published in Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) shortly after the Democrat-controlled Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the restrictionist 1952 law. In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces, Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly uses the term “we”—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (p. 4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years mentioned by Graham (2003) as part of the context of the 1965 law and noted by Cofnas.

Handlin clearly rejected an ethnic status quo, arguing that it was “illusory [to expect] that the composition of American population will remain as it is” (Handlin, 1947, 6). And he never addressed the stated justification used by restrictionists in the 1924 debates, describing their attitudes as follows: “The hordes of inferior breeds, even then freely pouring into the country in complete disregard for the precepts of the new racial learning, would mix promiscuously with the Anglo-Saxon and inevitably produce a deterioration of the species” (1951/1973: 257).  Handlin thus ignored the actual argument used by restrictionists during the Congressional debates of 1924—that the national origins formula was fair to all ethnic groups in the country because it created an ethnic status quo (MacDonald, 1998/202: 263) with its implicit and entirely defensible assumption from an evolutionary perspective that different ethnic groups have conflicts of interest on immigration (e.g., conflicts between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).

Handlin was a critical figure in the decades leading up to the passage of the 1965 law:

Handlin’s thinking on immigration policy both reflected and shaped the course of reform in the postwar period. He may be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history—one that conceptualized immigration at the heart of American economic and democratic development. In creating this framework for immediate political reform, he founded a normative theory of immigration history—one we popularly known as “a nation of immigrants” (Ngai, 2013, 62).

[i]. Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816, March 6–April 9, 1951, 410.

Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America.

Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of American’s immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America’s future. Commentary 3: 1–6.

Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2nd ed. Little Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July), 1–7.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ngai, M.M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953). Whom we shall welcome. De Capo Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fight for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.

Ethnofuturism? A Review of “Rebirth of Europe”

/46 Comments/in , /by

Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister
Rebirth of Europe: The Ethnofuturist Manifesto
Arktos, 2020

There are many ways I could describe the times we currently live in, and none of them are remotely optimistic. I therefore regard it as no small achievement that Ruuben Kaalep and August Meister, two young ethnonationalists from the Baltic states, have managed to craft an overwhelmingly positive, and even celebratory, manifesto out of the stinking refuse and imbecilic infatuations of the present age. H.L. Mencken once suggested that “all government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man.” Modern government in the West is a conspiracy against the White man alone, and the question of how to overturn this conspiracy is the single greatest challenge of our time. It has resulted in a proliferation of manifestos and ways of describing our politics, all with the aim of turning the political tide and bringing the majority of Europeans, wherever they may live in the world, to their senses.

This proliferation of ideas and methods has, however, probably added to our woes rather than alleviated them. Today we have a confusion of self-descriptions which only seem to exacerbate factionalism. And we have developed a veritable stew of manifestos that contradict each other or suggest different points of emphasis. Underpinning much of what now passes for contemporary ethnonationalist philosophy, particularly in the Anglosphere, is a kind of apathetic paralysis, and an expectancy of something undefined but nevertheless earnestly yearned for. I believe that the thing we yearn for most is clarity and confidence. Clarity of where we stand. Clarity of what’s happening to us. Clarity of our options. And the confidence to see these options through. Kaalep and Meister succeed where others fail because Rebirth of Europe is a masterwork of confidence and clarity.

Ruuben Kaalep is an Estonian nationalist and self-described ethnofuturist. He is a founder of the youth movement Blue Awakening (Sinine Äratus) and of the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE). He’s also been a member of the Parliament of Estonia since 2019, where he belongs to the Committee of Foreign Affairs and chairs the Freedom of Speech Group. Other than this, I don’t know much at all about him, which says more about my ignorance of the affairs of Eastern European nationalism than it does about the scope of his activity. Images of the man depict a cheerful young fellow exuding the air of an eccentric artist, a sensibility that is carried through into this book in the form of a quirky and irrepressible rhetorical confidence. Kaalep wrote Rebirth of Europe with August Meister, who appears to be a pseudonymous Baltic writer with expertise in history and politics, between 2015 and 2017. Both are clearly talented, cultured, and well-educated. Although we are now almost four years on from completion of the text, it hasn’t aged at all since it refrains from discussion of the minutiae of contemporary politics (there are only one or two fleeting references to Trump, for example) in favor of a much grander and broader vision of the global political scene.

Rebirth of Europe is a short but incredibly subtle text of one hundred pages, divided into three chapters. The first chapter, “The Struggle of Our Time,” is a succinct description of the fundamental causes and manifestations of European decline. The second chapter, “Ethnofuturism,” is an appeal for an ethnonationalist politics prepared to embrace technology and move forward in history. The third chapter, “The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism,” offers a wide-ranging view of the future prospects for European ethnonationalism on the international stage.

The book opens in a grand philosophical style that, in its appeal to “the organic principle,” reminded me somewhat of the opening of Yockey’s Imperium. What the first chapter essentially enunciates is the spiritual and cultural-political state of a civilization in crisis. The European crisis, as we are only too aware, unfolds on multiple levels, with Europeans confronted by runaway technology, by renegade concepts of individualism, by mass migration, by calculated subversion, by internal treason and corruption, and by loss of connection with the past. The last of these is a foremost concern of Kaalep and Meister, with the proposed solution being an attempt to embrace the future while simultaneously integrating elements of the past, avoiding mere nostalgic lapses.

In a broad sense, this is an unoriginal idea, and I mean that by way of complimenting the authors rather than disparaging them. What I am stressing is that such a proposal should not be regarded as quackery, or even niche thinking emanating from the political fringe. One of the most impressive and profound exponents of such an approach is Keiji Nishitani (1900–1990), a Japanese student of Martin Heidegger and one of the foremost twentieth-century philosophers of religion[1], who embraced and deeply respected European philosophy while questioning what Western modernism and technology would ultimately mean for his own civilization. This questioning ultimately led Nishitani into fierce opposition to nihilistic trends in European/Western modernity (see, for example, his The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism), and his proposal of something that sounds remarkably similar to the Archeofuturism later advocated by the late Guillaume Faye and, indeed, by Kaalep and Meister in the volume presently under discussion. In a series of lectures delivered to the Shin Buddhist Association in Kyoto between 1971 and 1974, Nishitani elaborated on the meaning of the confrontation between Japanese culture and those elements of Western modernism that we would now describe simply as globalism.[2] Nishitani rejected extreme individualism, which regards the Self as both singular and self-standing—as opposed to singular yet integrated into a community and heritage. Combined with science and technology, and rampant materialism, the extreme individualist view of the Self would, Nishitani insisted, lead to the eventual breakdown of all meaningful interpersonal human relationships. Materialistic atheism, unable to place the individual in the wider context of the universe as a divine place and creative source, would lead to the wholesale atrophy of culture and the regression of humanity. Professor Robert Carter, a Nishitani scholar, points out that

[Nishitani’s] strategy is not to advocate a return to the past, for he is adamant that the past is forever frozen and out of reach. Nevertheless, as human beings we carry the past with us in so many ways, and it is our task to breathe new life and significance into tradition, as it is shaped and reshaped by science, technology, and the cultures of the West. He is an advocate of change, but of a change that does not forget to carry its past into the future as an ingredient in the “mix of meaning” that quality living always demands. The authentic person is one who lives in the present with one eye on the past and the other on the future, on hope and possibility. Nishitani believes that what is required of us in the modern and postmodern world is that we simultaneously destroy and rebuild our traditional way of life in the light of the changes brought about by the secular age in which we find ourselves. Yet we must not simply join the secularists who have abandoned religion and much of tradition. They live blindly, being buffeted by the trends and fads of the moment. Moreover, they have accepted an ever-present nihilism as the preferred and rational understanding of the truth of the human condition, and in doing so have lost all awareness of a sustaining metaphysical and spiritual background to our impoverished materialistic and nihilistic foreground.

Nishitami with Heidegger

Nishitani, who today draws extreme caution from contemporary scholars due to his frequent use of the German for ‘Blood and Soil’ and his claim that only the European and East Asian civilizations can be regarded as globally pre-eminent,[3] elaborates a kind of ethnofuturism in poetic form, using the analogy of the kite:

It concretises what has just been said about the importance of tradition in moving forward into a new future, and encountering new circumstances, and yet remaining true to the past. … Like a kite, Japan has been able to steer a stable course, because of the ‘tail’ of tradition that has served to stabilise her flight into the winds of change, while being rooted or anchored by the ‘string’ of its deep culture. A kite without the weight of tradition and rootedness simply dances wildly, becoming entangled in tree branches, or is dashed to the ground, or breaks away altogether and loses its distinctive past. What here made Japan a country able to adapt to its own high-level modernisation are its deep-rooted traditions. The result has been a more balanced and stable form of progress [compared with that seen in the West]. When a strong wind blows, the power of tradition must be put to work. But … we cannot fly a kite if its tail is too heavy. It is of the utmost importance to strike a balance between these two inclinations; toward modernisation and change, and toward tradition.

The Struggle of Our Time

In Rebirth of Europe, Kaalep and Meister echo Nishitani’s sentiments almost exactly, and begin their text by advancing the argument that the European ‘kite’ has had its string and tail cut off, leaving it spiraling into chaos. This chaos is being cultivated by globalist elements who want to sever the ties of all nations to their histories and traditions and attempt to overwhelm the unique genetic heritages of different peoples by papering them over with a common totalitarian culture of conformity. Kaalep and Meister insist that “in the 21st century the fundamental conflict is between globalism and nationalism. … The struggle of our time does not so much manifest itself as a war with rows of poppies and cavalry charges, but as a cultural struggle. The world is either to become one, led by a totalitarian mass culture, or regrow into many—a diversity of unique ethnostates.” The pair claim that “the true ethnonationalist cares for all nations, and the principle of ethnonationalism seeks to provide every nation with a homeland. Therefore ours is a rebellion against the principles of liberalism, which see every country as belonging to everyone—and thus to no one. Nationalism seeks to save the world.”

Central to their manifesto is something Kaalep and Meister call “the Organic Principle,” which involves—once more echoing the East Asian philosophies of Nishitani and the Kyoto school of philosophy with which he was associated (though with Nietzschean and pre-modern European inflections), “a non-dual basic principle of existence—the highest possible unity, beyond good and evil, that integrates both spiritual and physical reality.” While some of this rhetoric is a bit head-in-the-clouds for my own taste, it is interspersed with enough clear language to enable to reader unfamiliar with some of the philosophy under discussion to take away the major message. In brief, Kaalep and Meister are arguing that

Ours is a world of constant battle between spiritual and physical forces, between identities, religions, cultures, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ As life expands, it overcomes resistance, it becomes more complex and unequal, therefore conflict and struggle are counterparts of life itself. … This dialectic could very well be called the ‘circle of life.’ Life exists in movement, in differentiation, and inequality. … Universal inequality is a factor that allows the world to be dynamic and to evolve, giving everyone a chance to find his place in the organic whole. This is the non-discrimination principle of the organic state, and it is opposed to mechanistic humanism, according to which the individual is considered ‘a cog in the machine,’ replaceable according to the needs of some project of a superstate or the needs of the market.

Kaalep and Meister have an interesting section on hierarchy within historical European societies, reflecting on the fact that, while older caste systems are now much maligned, they were in fact transparent and socially satisfying. By contrast, our elites today thrive on the fact that,

The modern mechanistic hierarchies are secretive and based on a purely material ‘merit.’ … They are not accountable to anyone, but the influence of the upper levels towards the lower levels are totalitarian and without any sense of ethical responsibility. A vertical hierarchy of power is established; horizontal ties are made weaker by internal conflicts and an ideology of mutual hate, competition and individualism, which strengthens the power of the upper levels. The paradox today is this: in the conditions of the ideology of total ‘equality,’ a historically unprecedented amount of power belongs to those ‘above’ in relation to those ‘below.’ The historical uniqueness of this fact is related to the fact that today modern technologies and means of mass communication allow a maximum degree of manipulation of the cosmopolitan masses of men.

Kaalep and Meister, however, reject pessimism or despair, seeing in the acceleration of globalist liberalism merely the necessary hastening of civilizational collapse—a prerequisite of rebirth. For the authors, “the rebirth of civilization is an ever-present possibility that has to be comprehended and realised.” They insist that “the metaphysical core of our civilization and its integral tradition, which is profoundly ethnic, lies beneath, waiting for the right time to break through the artificial structures of postmodern civilization.” This rebirth will not be characterized by a wholesale rejection of modernity, but by subjugating its mechanistic elements to the organic principle: “the task of the future is to tame these awakened forces and to make them serve a higher purpose—the creation of a new culture and a new man with his roots still deep in the European soil and his eyes once again focused on the sky.” The book proceeds to a detailed examination of liberalism as a mechanistic ideology. We are told that “liberalism as a theory is inseparable from globalism as a power,” and that it is characterized by ‘permanent revolution’ against traditions, cultural norms and life itself. The text then moves to a thorough, and quite excellent, denunciation of conservatism, while incorporating and critiquing the ideas of Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, and Nietzsche. The stress that mere conservatism is a losing strategy since its final demand of keeping things ‘as they are’ will always lead back to decadence and nihilism. The only true, natural path forward is to engage in a counter-revolution that synthesizes “the best elements of modernity and tradition.”

It goes without saying that Kaalep and Meister are very much pro-technology, which runs against the grain for those in our circles who tend more towards the kind of thinking laid out by Ted Kaczynski and Pentti Linkola, or the critiques of technological thinking that can be found in the writings of Martin Heidegger or Jacques Ellul. I count myself among those who could be described, at minimum, as being suspicious of technological progress, or at least doubtful of its prospects for unceasing progress given the eventual limitation of natural resources and the increasing environmental and social cost of technological expansion, particularly in the hands of a globalist elite intent on imposing a surveillance state and enforcing mass conformity. Even aside from certain ethical questions arising from, for example, the genetic editing of human beings, the mass contamination of our water supplies from toxic industrial chemicals, which has in turn led to decreasing fertility and mutations worldwide, should provide any reasonable person with enough reason to think carefully about the issues at hand.

That being said, geopolitical considerations demand that Europe/the West remain at least competitive in the technological sphere, meaning we are probably, for the foreseeable future, locked into the technological arms race. Since we cannot extricate ourselves from it, we may as well attempt to take the lead in it. In that case, the problem that presents itself is the potential impact on the nature of our civilization. Here, Kaalep and Meister suggest that we explore ways to “connect modern technology with the ancient way of being most inherent to man.” This certainly sounds like an ideal, but what does it look like in practical terms? Our authors don’t offer any answers, but I suppose the important thing is that they push the issue into the spotlight.

The book’s first chapter closes with a look at “New Left Totalitarianism and the Decline of the West.” None of the ‘meat’ in this chapter will be especially novel to readers of The Occidental Observer, but there are some memorable turns of phrase that encapsulate very well the situation we find ourselves in:

For this new totalitarianism, nations and peoples are considered obstacles that have to be removed and replaced with a new global order. … The most advantageous world for the global elite is one where the highest value is the individual, but the individual himself is freed with the help of postmodernism from any meaning, significance and wider context, and finds himself isolated and vulnerable.

After World War II, the Western populations were “fooled by the promises of economic prosperity and countless freedoms, rarely noticing that the freedom to remain who you are was not on the table.” Masterfully, our authors write

Governments and businesses have become gigantic and inhuman, but democracy in the essential questions just does not work. Indeed, where it is attempted, this sort of democracy only serves to alienate man further. The overall consequence is a universal sense of emptiness and stress for humans who have already lost any connection to nature and control over the technological process. Humans who now fill only the role of workers-employers are searching for their identities in the one-day fashion trends offered by consumer culture. This culture creates humans that are unable to react to each other as mature personalities. An illusion of constant ‘youthful revolution’ is created, while the youth just passively recreate models of behavior that are offered by the globalist elites; they, in turn, are part of the overall trends of the system.

Further,

We have even lost track of who we are, as no true identities can exist in a consumer society. On the surface, anyone can be special, free from all shackles of tradition; everyone can identify as whomever he likes. Thus, one is not born with any particular identity. If anyone can be a Frenchman, then no one is really a Frenchman. Where liberalism talks of diversity, it really aims at erasing all distinctions. Where it talks of multiculturalism, it aims are creating a global melting pot where no cultures survive.

In its last attack on the culture of Europe, liberalism is arranging the physical replacement of Europeans with people from other cultures. “It is mass immigration in catastrophic numbers.” But with this gambit, liberalism “is close to its grand finale.” Our authors insist that liberalism will consume itself in the process, and is “about to become an absurd notion, where even the values it itself has held begin to be reconstructed by its shape-shifter ideology.” At that moment, we will find “our chance to start a new European cultural cycle that shapes its history for many centuries to come. The liberals will be powerless to stop it. Then they will become conservatives, stubbornly refusing to accept the new reality that the nationalists will embark on.” This nationalism will have to be of a completely new type—Ethnofuturism.

Ethnofuturism

Ethnofuturism is a kind of nationalism that transcends national egoism. It does not seek merely to ‘conserve,’ because that entails a static defense while “life exists only in movement.” It has its roots, however, in the Conservative Revolution proposed in early twentieth-century Germany, and seeks to promote a rebirth of “the archetypes of Western civilization and forgotten forms of life that formed our civilization in the first place.” Disastrous immigration policies, which have become a unifying element for all European nationalists, mean that Europe as a whole will “be forced to return to traditional values and nationalism to survive.” America will be increasingly burdened by ethnic conflict, bringing to an end the “American Dream” of building a society in which ancestral heritage plays no role—“but this is inevitable, as a civilization that denies those fundamental truths will always be doomed to collapse.” Kaalep and Meister continue,

The fundamental basis for a new Europe must be ethnic nationalism. This means the importance of a nation as an organic whole has to be maintained. … In addition, the nature and landscapes of Europe have to be preserved, as those are vital to the cultural heritage and differences between people. The demographic survival of every nation has to be secured by governmental policies.

With Western Europe potentially catastrophically damaged by mass immigration and civil war, “this new Europe—and the new West—might have the centers of its culture in Budapest, Warsaw, and Tallinn. Mastering its demographic processes and not leaving them in the hands of liberalism, the new Europe will actually be able to economically and culturally compete with the rest of the world … After securing its ethnē, Europe’s fate in the 21st century will be decided by national eugenics, and presently only China seems to have an appropriate mindset.” Hungary is praised for its recent program of building a network of narrow-gauge railways that emphasize life in the countryside, and from which no multinational corporation has anything to gain. Our authors highlight this as “a sign of one of the most Ethnofuturistic tasks ever developed by a country in the 21st century. Modern technology and speed allow the combination of the advantages of the city and the countryside.”

Kaalep and Meister concur with my contention that we are more or less locked into a technological arms race. They point out that advancements in biotechnology and nano materials have “the potential to change economics and warfare by the end of this century beyond all recognition. … To fight against such technology would be self-defeating and even dangerous. The first government, corporation or group that masters biotechnology will inevitably have a huge advantage over all its rivals.” European nationalists must work together because, by the end of the century, “control over technology has to be in the hands of ethnonationalists, and not the globalists, supposing they have survived so long.”

From here, the text moves to elaborating upon reasons for rejecting any alliance with the Buckley-style economic conservativism dominant in the United States among Republicans, and for rejecting the New Right associated with Alain de Benoist that formed in 1960s’ France. The authors critique the latter for advancing “abstract ideas about organic communes and the rights of people to maintain their identity” because this “can lead to the approval of multiculturalism.” The New Right is also attacked for spending “much of its energy on fighting against Christianity,” thus alienating significant parts of its support base. The New Right is also criticized heavily for its support for the USSR and its strident anti-Americanism, and for neglecting to develop a clear political theory and corresponding practice. Kaalep and Meister reject the idea that we can focus our efforts on gaining cultural hegemony without bringing any practical results, producing only endless publications and conferences that contribute rich intellectual material without bringing about real changes in the lives of Europeans.

What Kaalep and Meister propose is a strategy that is both metapolitical and political, with radical and moderate wings. Of primary importance is the attack on, or infiltration of, anthropology, which has been in the “hands of liberals and Marxists” since the early twentieth century, and from which they marched through the institutions of the social sciences and the media. There are lengthy and very interesting statements of what should be demonstrated by activists and leaders, the most memorable of which are those relating to the need to cultivate the notion of a hierarchical and self-sacrificial elite: “The leader of the highest grade … must also be ready to be condemned for his activity and to take the risk of being slandered and accused by smaller men, because this is part of the price for his [spiritually] high lifestyle.”

Like some of the other writings contained in the book, this reminded me of Japanese parallels, notably some reminiscences relating to the Kyoto school founder Kitaro Nishida, who came under sustained attack from Marxists for his appeal to tradition, and steeled himself with the attitude of the samurai. Nishida once crafted a piece of calligraphy with the motto: “To risk everything, win or lose,” and a poem:

Let others do as they will,
I am who I am,
At any rate I will walk the way,
That I make my own.

Nishitani remarks that he once observed Nishida pick up a leftist magazine that contained an essay attacking Nishida and his philosophy. Nishitani recalls “I sat quietly nearby, watching with a mixture of curiosity and apprehension. Turning the pages, he came to the essay in question, read a little of it and threw it aside. His face showed no expression whatsoever.” This is surely the attitude called for by Kaalep and Meister.

The text then moves to fascinating proposals for the future State, the most important of which concern measures to raise birth rates and control the ethnic composition of the population. Following this, there is a substantial discussion of “Nationalism and Nature,” in which environmental protections are outlined.

The Geopolitical Aspects of Ethnofuturism

My favourite section of Rebirth of Europe is the final chapter, which offers a fascinating outline of informed speculation about our unfolding future. The section opens with the claim that

we are returning to the situation preceding the Industrial Revolution, in which economic strength will be determined by natural and demographical resources, because technological development will be basically the same for all of the nations of the world. This implies the inevitability of multipolarity and the return to superpower status for civilizations like China and India.

Kaalep and Meister see, in the end of American hegemony, an end to the Western mechanistic materialism it has come to symbolize. Similarly, they denounce the Eurasianist idea of Alexander Dugin because it “cannot function.” Russia is only capable to fighting Cultural Marxism in slogans, but not in practice. Russia “surpasses Western decadence, with impressive rates of abortions, alcoholism and drug addiction, which its political regime has not been able, or has not wanted, to stop. … Children of Russian politicians are living in the West, and the culture of Russia itself is overloaded with reality TV shows and vulgar mass culture.”

Kaalep and Meister add,

It will be neither Russia nor the US that will lead the future; rather we can expect a new Pacific era with China and India regaining their influence. These countries at least will not be liberal, pacifistic, or humanistic—they will use the scientific breakthroughs in service of their political greatness. Therefore, the European peoples will have to change their worldview in order to survive in this new competition, where are losing with each moment that we remain part of a liberal, self-hating and self-defeating system.

There is a very interesting section concerning the nationalist experience in the Baltic states, which is highlighted by a very strong sense of European brotherhood. When Kaalep and Meister claim the Baltic nationalists will do their utmost if called upon to defend Europe’s southern borders, or the demographic integrity of the Western European nations, one detects the deepest sincerity.

The book’s rather moving closing remarks concern duty and death, the conclusion of all spiritual journeys. “In the end, waging a struggle that seems already lost from the start is the only thing to do, precisely because nothing else matters. Nothing matters more than this.” Our authors finish by arguing that,

In the present situation of Western civilization, which appears to be going through an irreversible downfall, halting is not an option. This is more than just a matter of political ideologies; this is the inner logic of a culture. The only thing remaining to our nations is to survive this downfall. Most importantly, our genes and the traditions that carry our full potential have to survive. For the death and destruction of the West, brought about by liberalism, is ever approaching its singularity. When it reaches a certain point, this will be our opportunity. This will be the moment of a true returning to our roots, a returning without ever turning. When the Western world was celebrating diversity and multiculturalism, we foresaw its catastrophic destruction at its own hand. Moreover, when it begins to panic in the catastrophe that it was unable to avoid, then it will be our time to build a new European civilization. The circle will be complete.

Concluding Remarks

Rebirth of Europe is a refreshing and optimistic document that punches well above its weight for a book of such modest length. It has a depth, breadth, and clarity of philosophical understanding that is often rare in texts of this nature, and it is thought-provoking to say the least. The issues that it raises demand attention, and further action, by anyone concerned with the ethnonationalist cause.

Whether ethnofuturism is a reliable path in the longer term, however, remains to be seen. Other than China perhaps, do we really see any examples in the world today of a country that has managed to maintain significant elements of traditional culture while plunging headlong into technological development? For my part, I am sure that had Keiji Nishitani delivered his lectures today, some 50 years after he addressed the Shin Buddhist Association, he may have been more cautious in his advocacy for letting the national ‘kite’ take flight in the winds of change. The Japan of today may be superficially stable and technologically advanced, but has been plagued for decades by low fertility and high suicide rates, as well as the increasing marginalization of its traditions and religions.

Can the runaway train of industrial modernity ever be truly tamed enough to be marshalled by tradition? This remains to be seen. In addition to this problem, of course, is the question of those foreign elements embedded in the West who are dedicated to ensuring both that the ‘string and tail’ of the European ‘kite’ remain forever severed. How does a national movement reconnect a people with their history and traditions while harboring factions that want these same traditions and histories to disappear forever or to be permanently tarnished with shame? Perhaps the only comfort we can draw is, as Kaalep and Meister point out, the fact that even in catastrophe there may lie opportunity.

[1] See, for example, his monumental Religion and Nothingness.

[2] For the complete lectures, see K. Nishitani, On Buddhism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2006), 18.

[3] G. Parkes, “The Putative Fascism of the Kyoto School and the Political Correctness of the Modern Academy,” Philosophy East and West 47, no. 3 (1997): 305–36. For a more biographical exploration of anti-Marxism and Traditionalism within the Kyoto school see K. Nishitani, Nishida Kitaro: The Man and His Thought (Nagoya: Chisokudo Publications, 2016).

Lack of Self-Awareness (Self-Deception?) at The Tablet

/18 Comments/in , , /by

Tablet came out with an article relating level of education to attitudes toward Jewish issues. As they note, it’s long been a bedrock belief among Jews that higher levels of education are linked to lower levels of anti-Jewish attitudes—think decades of Jewish-owned media portraying people with anti-Jewish attitudes as illiterate hillbilly types with some missing teeth. But, as the authors note, the problem for doing this kind of research is that educated people are much less likely to agree with classic anti-Jewish statements like “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” or “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” (although there’s more than a grain of truth in them).   And this could well be because educated people are more aware that such statements are simply not the sort of thing one says in polite society and if it’s one thing educated people want, it’s to feel that they are good people.

But this study shows or at least suggests that in some areas educated people are more “anti-Semitic” based on asking people with different education levels similar questions but with one set of subjects given questions related to a Jewish example, another set of subjects given questions related to a non-Jewish example. For example, one set of subjects  was asked a question such as “a person’s attachment to another country creates a conflict of interest when advocating in support of certain U.S. foreign policy positions.” One set of subjects got Israel as an example, while the other got Mexico. More subjects thought loyalty created a conflict of interest when Israel was the example than with Mexico.  Their theory was that even though particular individuals will have different opinions on the different questions, on average the responses should be the same for the two groups.

The report only includes three more examples: whether the government should set minimum requirements for what is taught in private schools,” with Orthodox Jewish or Montessori schools given as the illustrating example; whether “the U.S. military should be allowed to forbid the wearing of religious headgear as part of the uniform,” with a Jewish yarmulke or Sikh turban offered as illustrating examples; and whether public gatherings during the pandemic “posed a threat to public health and should have been prevented,” with Orthodox Jewish funerals or Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests offered as illustrating examples.

The Orthodox Jewish/Montessori example showed no difference, but the other three showed differences with the educated responding in a more Jewish-critical way, although, as you might expect given that more educated people trend to the left, more educated people wanted more government control over education.

The question on wearing religious symbols in the military seems clean and suggests a distaste for religious Jews—interesting, but that may not translate to distaste for the many very powerful and influential Jews who don’t wear outward signs of Jewish identity.

The largest effect of education was the Orthodox funeral/BLM item for people with more than a four-year degree (a difference of 36 percentage points). I suspect that more educated people are generally way more enthusiastic about BLM, so that the item doesn’t really get at being critical of Jews. And again it’s Orthodox Jews, so it may not apply to the people who run Hollywood, etc.

Re the loyalty issue, I suspect that more highly educated people are more aware of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy, despite such news being confined to the fringes of  political discourse. In other words, they are simply more aware of the reality of U.S. subservience to the Israel Lobby and the incredibly costly wars that has resulted in, not to mention the $3.8 billion/year, and high-profile spying cases like the recently repatriated Jonathan Pollard—not to mention support for Pollard in the Jewish mainstream. Israeli oppression of the Palestinians may also be a factor, even though it’s not directly relevant to the loyalty issue. More educated people then to be more liberal and are likely more aware of the oppression. It’s well known that support for Israel is dwindling on the left. As is often the case, being anti-Jewish is simply about knowing more of what’s going on.

Of this bunch, the loyalty question is by far the most interesting because it gets at a central feature of Jewish activism. And it suggests that more educated people are aware of what should be obvious to the non-braindead—that America has indeed suffered greatly because of the subservience to Israel and that this is entirely due to the activism of American Jews.

But of course, for a very Jewish magazine like the Tablet, any hint that educated people are not completely enthusiastic about Jews is cause of alarm and activism. After all, educated people have more power, and it certainly behooves any community to understand where the real threat lies (same goes for White activism, which is why we stress Jewish issues at TOO). But what really bothers the authors is that “educating” the public may not be the answer. Jews have always relied on their very large influence on the mass media and academic opinion to provide positive images of Jews and completely omit anything that might suggest conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews. Since the authors are so confident that there could never be any serious criticism of the Jewish activist community, they suggest that providing facts is not enough to rectify the situation:

Strategies for addressing intolerance in general, and anti-Semitism in particular, tend to revolve around the belief that group-hatred is caused by ignorance, and that the solution is more education. Yet if more-highly educated people are more hostile with respect to Jews, higher educational levels and more courses and training could increase prejudice, rather than diminish it.

This of course leaves out the very strong possibility that more educated Americans are more aware of Jewish power and in particular how Jewish power has been focused on Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Such information is leaking out despite their best efforts (to date) to shut down negative information about Israel in the mainstream media and even make criticism of Israel illegal, as with the recent spate of anti-BDS laws in several states.

So what to do?

At the very least, it seems that an education that simply provides information about historical events, civil liberties, and other cultural groups is insufficient. Addressing anti-Semitism and prejudice more generally may require the cultivation of virtue. Specifically, it requires the formation of a kind of character that is not only familiar with other outgroups and democratic norms, but also has the integrity to behave in ways that demonstrate consideration of their interests and restraint in the use of political power in the pursuit of personal interests.

This shows an amazing lack of self-awareness, even self-deception. Anyone with the slightest understanding of where the power of the Jewish community has been directed realizes that Jewish power has fundamentally been arrayed against the interests of the traditional White majority.

In fact, the activist Jewish community clearly has not had the integrity to respect the legitimate interests of White Americans, nor have they used restraint in their pursuit of their interests. They have not done unto the White majority as they would like the White majority to do unto them. In their long history of conflict with surrounding peoples, Jews have never been treated better than they have throughout the West, at least since World War II.

In the contemporary U.S., besides the conflict between Israeli and U.S. interests, Jewish activism is strongly focused on curtailing free speech, especially on diversity issues and most especially on assertions of White identity and White interests. And it is strongly focused on supporting replacement-level immigration which is lessening the power of Whites and will ultimately result in Whites being unable to achieve their interests in a democratic manner. And much worse if Whites become a relatively powerless minority.

Immigration is indeed Exhibit A in the Jewish disregard of White interests—the topic of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique where I show that the activist Jewish community rejected the ethnic status which was the aim of the 1924 immigration law—a status quo that was obviously in the legitimate interests of White America as the founding population of the country—and that the main Jewish motivation was fear that a relatively homogeneous White America would inevitably turn on the Jews. Some examples:

Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

The AJCongress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”

Recently I became aware of Otis Graham’s 2004 book Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis. Graham notes that, besides being the most effective force of liberalized immigration, 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” (80).

I firmly believe that if Jews had had respect for the legitimate interests of White Americans rather than consistently engaging in ethnic hardball against the interests of White America (especially in the post-World War II era when anti-Semitism had been completely marginalized), we and the entire West would be in a very different situation.

The authors conclude:

As Harvard professor and Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has argued, anti-Semitism has not thrived because of ignorance, but because it “forms part of a political movement and serves a political purpose.” Those political causes making use of anti-Semitism are increasingly favored by the well-educated in this country. Countering the anti-Semitism of the well-educated will be a political and moral struggle, not one that can be addressed by conventional approaches and conceptions of education.

I agree with Wisse. If indeed there is an anti-Jewish movement in America, it will be aimed at a political purpose for the Whites involved: rectifying historic wrongs inflicted on White America.

Look Who’s Back

/41 Comments/in /by

Look Who’s Back is the English title for a German movie released in October of 2015. Dealing with the hypothetical return of Adolf Hitler in contemporary Germany, the film, based on a 2012 novel, was quite successful. While the movie reached the number one rank in Germany in the third week after its release, the book has sold over 1.4 million copies and has been translated into at least 41 languages.

After being mysteriously transported to the former site of his bunker in modern-day Germany, the Führer is taken for a comedian, quickly attracting a television role and many admirers. He expresses contempt for much of contemporary German society, including television and most political parties, although he sympathizes with the Green party out of a typical German love of the natural world.

Watching this film, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is not so bad to think or do something that Hitler would approve of. Not only nationalism and world domination, but also courage, nature, and Wikipedia are relevant to his interests. After embarrassing himself by shooting a small dog, Hitler even makes a donation to the cause of animal protection, another interest of the historical National Socialists. All this helps circumvent the modern fad of relating everything not politically correct to Hitler in an attempt to end discussion.

The author seems to agree that having something in common with Hitler is no cause for panic. In an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald he makes it clear that he believes existing depictions of Hitler are unrealistic. Hitler is portrayed elsewhere as either a monster or “the funny Hitler,” but “Most people wouldn’t think it possible that if they would have lived back then, they would have thought he was in some way attractive too.” One reviewer agreed that historical facts might be obscured by considering Hitler “either as a comic figure or as the incarnation of evil.”

Timur Vermes, the author of both the book and the script for the film, apparently had a sense of humor in that he priced the book at €19.33, a reference to the year of Hitler’s ascent to power. This was a response to his publisher’s suggestion of €19.45; he preferred to grant the work a lighter tone by referring a point in history when, as he put it, “you have some hint that maybe it could have ended better.”

The secretary Krömeier instructs Hitler in the use of computers.

While most Germans believe or at least hope that they would have been strongly opposed to Hitler had they been alive at the time, the film suggests otherwise. Not only are normal people impressed with him, but the people most hostile to Hitler are not exactly cast in a positive light. These include not only the conniving TV executive Sensebrink, at least initially, but also an old Jewish woman with dementia, as well as a freelance journalist with a severe case of cuckface. The latter, one Sawatzki, is the first to discover Hitler and initially sees him as a great opportunity.

Hitler is not impressed by what passes for “neo-Nazism” in modern-day Germany, including street protesters, vegan cooks, and officers of an unsuccessful nationalist party called the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany). Far from being able to construct the Fourth Reich, he remarks, “they can’t even build an Ikea shelf.”

Contemporary “Nazis” do not all think highly of the new Hitler either, although many express sympathy; two thugs ultimately assault and severely beat the Führer, not realizing his identity. In a reference to the National Socialist explanation for the loss of World War I, they accuse him of stabbing Germany in the back.

Krömeier’s grandmother makes reference to family killed in the Holocaust and screams at Hitler.

The newer and more prominent nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is depicted, but not to tar them as pro-Hitler. The Führer is interested enough to meet with them, and their representative is portrayed complaining about the media characterizing the party as right-wing while Hitler himself is resting his head on his shoulder. However, rather than approving of them, he is sleeping because he finds their platform so boring.

Some scenes may have been attempts to make those who share Hitler’s concerns about immigration look ignorant. One man believes that the average IQ of African immigrants to Germany is between 40 and 50 and that the overall average IQ of his country has already dropped below 80. The actual average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at between 67 and 82, although this is of course still far below the German average of about 102.

A video on YouTube features a song made from Hitler’s televised speeches.

For the most part, though, it is easy to agree with what Hitler and his new fans say about politics and society. Is being concerned about unemployment, cultural degeneration and a declining population objectionable or even unusual? His comments denouncing various social ills resonate with viewers, inspiring YouTube videos including “songified” speeches and dancing Hitlers.

Much of this movie is actually unscripted; the actor playing Hitler is interacting with typical Germans on the street. Many are happy to be associated with him, and some even give Roman salutes.

Miss Krömeier is excited when the Führer demands a proper greeting rather than being called “mister.”

Many women in the film obviously find Hitler exciting, including several of the non-actors as well as the scripted characters. Both the television executive Bellini and the young secretary Krömeier clearly demonstrate this. Upon first encountering Hitler, the younger woman is overjoyed at the opportunity to play a role and gives an enthusiastic Roman salute, complete with shouting. In contrast with Krömeier’s “good morning, my Führer,” one girl on the street greets Hitler with “may I hug you?”

The Führer is of course depicted as having flaws. He is quick to anger, and he even shoots an attacking dog which is too small to pose a real threat. After touching an electric fence as part of a courage-building effort with Sawatzki, he tries to deny that it hurts despite his obvious physical reaction to the shock. A similar hint of dishonesty is shown when Hitler tells Bellini that he inflated the numbers of an organization he founded, starting the count of German Worker’s Party members at 500 rather than one.

Hitler’s hatred for the Jews would of course be considered a more serious flaw by most contemporary Germans, and the matter is not omitted, but it is a relief that it is far from the focus of the film. He even tries to restrain it somewhat, speculating that although Miss Krömeier’s grandmother is Jewish, she herself may not be a pureblood Judin. This brings us the interesting phrase “the body can handle a certain amount of Jewishness.”

Hitler uses a slain dog as a prop for a joke to lighten up the drive.

Hitler also has a sense of humor, at times more so than Sawatzki. After Sawatzki tries to convince him that the word “nigga” blaring from his car stereo now means “friend,” Hitler decides to practice this new meaning of the word. He picks up the carcass of the dog he has just killed, holds it toward the journalist, and says “hey, nigga!” He even has the dog kiss Sawatzki, which despite being a lonely single man he does not appreciate.

There is an interesting statement here on the absurdity of the fantasy of going back in time and assassinating Hitler before his rise to power. In a sequence near the end of the film, Adolf is brought at gunpoint to a rooftop by a crazed Sawatzki, who has discovered that the “comedian” is the dictator himself.

Hitler is permitted to make a point here in response to Sawatzki’s accusation that “you are fooling people with your propaganda.” The Germans who voted for Hitler were not simply fooled by clever rhetoric, he explains. Instead they knowingly chose a leader who reflected their values.

In a movie based on his latest book, Hitler faces death at the hands of Sawatzki.

On the rooftop, the Führer responds to being called a monster by calmly uttering words to the effect of “if you condemn me as a monster, do you condemn all those who voted for me? They were ordinary people.”

What seems to be the end of the Führer, with a shaking “Sawatzki” shooting him in the face, turns out to be only a scene played by an actor in a silicone mask. Hitler has written a wildly popular new book, inspiring a movie in which he plays himself. This is the only point at which he seems to be defeated. He is confident that he will not be shot and displays a comical surprise when he is, as if to fulfill a fantasy of finally humiliating someone who seems untouchable.

However, Adolf inexplicably returns after his fallen body disappears, informing Sawatzki that Germans will never be rid of him. He represented something much greater than himself; as he puts it, he was “a part of all of you.”

Sawatzki is kept in a padded cell after an outburst concerning “comedian” Hitler’s true identity.

A further condemnation of the idea of assassinating Hitler is that the man who “kills” him is deemed insane. Attempting to convey the new celebrity’s true identity to Bellini in a violent outburst, the real Sawatzki attracts the attention of hospital staff and ends up in a mental asylum.

Near the end of the film Bellini is riding in a Mercedes with the Führer and a journalist asks her if she fears the rise of another Hitler. “Our whole history has been fixated on that for 70 years,” she responds. “Students are sick of hearing about the Third Reich. We should have a little faith.”

Out of context this would seem to be a variation on the theme of an old Allied propaganda poster: when you ride without Nazi guilt, you ride with Hitler. More likely the intended message was that rather than simply deceiving the population during his historical rise to power, Hitler rode with Germany and Germany rode with him.

Hitler surveys the political scene in Europe, including the migrant crisis and rising nationalism.

The film ends with footage of contemporary rallies and audio clips of more or less nationalist statements from Germany and other European nations, all of which Hitler seems to approve. In another film, this is could be taken as an attempt to smear all nationalism as the reincarnation of Hitler and thus evil. But even here, the viewer cannot be certain that the creators did not honestly worry about the rise of a new Führer. Hitler observes all of this nationalist activity and says, “I can work with this;” the current situation is one which a new Führer would be able to take advantage of.

Considering the film overall, though, it could not have been meant as simply a crude condemnation of nationalism or populism. It is hard to imagine any self-respecting White man disagreeing with statements like “People who come to Sweden should adapt to our lifestyle.”

The type of people who would support such a charismatic leader today would not be only fringe figures making outlandish claims. They would be normal people expressing patriotic views that large numbers of Germans already agree with.

Further, no modern-day leader has been magicked into the present from the time of the Third Reich. We have no guarantee that the new nationalism will end in a lost World War and a suicide in a bunker. Considering the ongoing issues discussed in the film, Germans today have reason to hope for something very different.

 Academic Hysteria, Part II

/15 Comments/in /by

In my previous essay, I discussed my experiences as a faculty member at an American academic institution that has a far-left radical administration, faculty, and students, and how the social justice hysteria was affecting what was going on in the school. Having finished the first round of months-long “sensitivity trainings” and webinars, I’d like to briefly comment on that and summarize and conclude with respect to where things are going at my institution on these topics, which is reflective of academia in general.

The curriculum of my institution is to be changed to prioritize “social justice” over all else; indeed, we have been told that we need to de-emphasize actual scholarship, the teaching of objective facts, and providing a truly enlightened liberal arts education in favor of politicized far-left talking points. The entire curriculum is to be subordinated to radical anti-White propaganda. Please note that this trend in American academia is not restricted only to undergraduate education, but also extends into post-graduate education of all sorts: graduate school, law school, medical school, etc. With respect to the latter, the scientifically illiterate and hyper-politicized hysterics of the AMA are used to justify curriculum changes at the level of medical education; one set of political hacks justifies the lies and distortions of another group, and vice versa. All of these academic and professional organizations are completely dominated by the Left. Therefore, as a result, the doctors of tomorrow’s America may not know how to conduct a physical exam, diagnose or treat a disorder, and they may have no idea about the anatomical or molecular underpinnings of disease, but, have no fear, they will be well versed in “social justice” and they will be activists in “promoting racial justice and social change.” Be prepared to have to travel overseas to be a “medical tourist” in order to obtain effective medical care in the not-too-distant future.

“Training” about Title IX typically involves either feminist harridans, or blubbery White “men” constantly apologizing for their “privilege” and groveling to others, and making absurd distinctions between equality (bad), equity (good), and justice (best). You see, treating people equally is no good because “systemic discrimination” (designed to benefit “dudes who look like me,” cries the flabby White “man”) holds the oppressed down, and so they must be given special advantages to rise to the same level as their privileged oppressors, and that is termed “equity.” But, optimally, we all must tear down the systemic discrimination, and this would be “justice.” Note that this all makes three fundamental assumptions — that absolute equity is desirable and would not completely abrogate freedom (assuming that they care about freedom), that differences in outcomes must be due to discrimination and not influenced by innate differences in ability and behavior, and that we must ignore the previous half-century of endless efforts to achieve equity, efforts that have discriminated against Whites, particularly White men, and have failed to achieve that ever-elusive equity.

One must be amused at the crude cartoons they use to illustrate the distinction between “equality” and “equity.” One involves people standing on boxes to peer over a fence to watch a ballgame (if ballgame attendance requires the purchase of tickets, then one can question the ethics of their behavior, but never mind). All have boxes to stand on, but, alas, the shortest individual cannot see over the fence even with his box; he requires a bigger box, you see.  Giving everyone the same size box — equality — “harms” the person who requires a bigger box. Thus, to ensure equal outcomes — equity — people must be treated unequally, and some must be given special advantages.

This is all very interesting. First, as alluded to above, this analogy completely ignores the decades of special advantages given to some groups in order to reach equity, advantages that have failed to achieve their objectives. Redrawing that “standing-on-boxes” cartoon to be historically accurate would entail having the shortest person given a box so tall that they are higher than the ballpark’s upper deck, but, being too stupid and lazy to be able to climb to the top, they still fail to see the ballgame. Second, and more fundamentally, note that they are using an innate characteristic like height to illustrate the point. Is it the fault of the taller person that another person is shorter?  Does society have an obligation to bolster the efforts of those lacking the prerequisites to achieve?  Should dwarves be fitted with spring-loaded stilts so as to compete in the NBA? Should small and thin men be fitted with atomic-powered exoskeletons to win “strongman” competitions?  More directly, should individuals and races that are cognitively and behaviorally deficient be artificially boosted?  Why not apply this to individual student grades? If Joe gets a 100 on an exam, and Jim gets a 60, equality means that Joe gets an A and Jim gets a D. But I suppose that equity means that Jim is given 40 free points to bring his grade up to 100, so as to get an A as well. And I suppose that “justice” means eliminating the exam altogether, or making it pass/fail, or dumbing it down to the extent that even roadkill would be capable of getting an A. Can any advanced civilization survive such a process?  Can any nation that prioritizes such misguided efforts compete with nations that are meritocracies?

Getting back to Title IX, interestingly but not surprisingly, some students, particularly female students “of color,” object to the Trump administration’s changes in Title IX law to give the accused the same rights as the accuser; for example — gasp! — the accused should actually be told what they are charged with and who has accused them and have the right to face their accuser (and have their representative question the accuser or their representative) at the hearing.

But, alas, treating people equally violates equity and is not consistent with justice, according to these students, since the accused (always assumed to be a White man) is coming from a place of privilege and hence giving the accused the same rights as the accuser (assumed to be a woman, typically assumed to be one of “color”) disadvantages the accuser. Therefore, this equal treatment of accuser and accused is not equity and therefore violates justice; according to students, justice means enforcing equity by treatment that is intentionally unequal, harming the accused (and other such “privileged” people) and granting special status to the accuser. Thus, the alleged “privilege” of the accused manifests in being treated unfairly and denied equal rights, and the alleged “disadvantaged” status of the accuser manifests in being given special privileges and better-than-equal treatment. This illogical nonsense is, according to the Left, reflective of justice leading to equity.

I believe that this newest leftist paradigm of “equity over equality” needs to be taken seriously by the Right. This is the current intellectual justification for setting up a caste system privileging “oppressed” groups like non-Whites, women, and homosexuals over “dominant” groups like Whites, men, and heterosexuals. We are told that “equal treatment is not equality” because “it doesn’t lead to equity” and is therefore “not consistent with justice.” The Right may scoff at the absurd and Orwellian nature of this nonsense, but scoffing does not make it go away, or become any less dangerous. It is time for the Right to focus on and vigorously oppose this now, instead of just doing nothing (as usual) and seeing this newest meme become part of normal societal discourse (and, no doubt, one day championed and defended by the Mainstream Right as “conservative values”).

“Racial sensitivity” training typically continues to be handled by obnoxious, intellectually vacuous, and physically unattractive (but with the self-esteem to call themselves “beautiful” to a captive audience that attempts to ignore the evidence of their lying eyes) Black women, who spew the vilest anti-White nonsense imaginable. Interesting, these Black women claim that their captive White audiences are the ones with “privilege and power,” while the Black women running the sessions are “powerless” “women of color.” So, the person who is running a mandatory meeting, getting paid well for doing so, and is subjecting the audience to abuse, is “powerless”; while the captive audience, being forced against their will to listen to offensive and humiliating racial abuse, are the ones with “power.” Does that make sense to you?

In these brainwashing sessions, we then learn that trauma is not about White people, only people of color experience trauma, Whites are trauma-free, and of course only non-Whites experience racism (with Whites being the ones who dish out the racism and the trauma to the poor, persecuted non-Whites). So, dear reader, if you are White and you think you have experienced trauma in your life, you are, of course, wrong. Have you experienced racism? Impossible!

And then we are told that saintly non-Whites don’t want to hear White apologies, but want Whites to move heaven and earth to sacrifice themselves for non-White interests. And if anyone objects, then that is not consistent with employment at any academic institution. How that totalitarian dogma is consistent with the institution’s academic freedom policy and with federal law concerning employee rights is unclear.

We also learn about the dreaded malady of “Black Fatigue” — the horrendous cost to Black well-being because Blacks have to put up with constant White racism. What is unclear to me is why non-Whites want to live with Whites if the latter are so horribly racist toward the former. For example, if some person was abusive to me, I would want to get as far away from them as possible. I would not be constantly clamoring to live with them, I would not use the government to force myself upon them, I would not chase after them like a deranged stalker if they move away from me.

Non-Whites complain about how they are being, literally, killed by White racism, they are being traumatized on a daily basis and their mental and physical health therefore impaired, they are discriminated against and tormented by Whites in innumerable ways, and yet they consider access to Whites as some sort of fundamental human right. White nations are horribly racist, yet countless of millions of non-Whites immigrate, legally and illegally, to those nations. Whites are racist and abusive, yet non-Whites use the coercive power of the federal government to enforce racial integration with Whites, using “fair housing” laws to obtain access to White neighborhoods, constantly chasing after Whites when Whites flee in so-called “White flight.”

It’s almost as if — who knows? — non-Whites really don’t believe their own nonsense and simply use it as a cudgel to bludgeon Whites with.  In addition non-Whites are likely aware that without Whites and White largesse, non-White standards of living would be, at best, at Third World levels (due to White racism of course). The only people being abused in this relationship are Whites, who are constantly being told how horrible they are, while being forced to support those attacking them, and being unable to flee from those who claim that Whites are persecuting them. When the alleged persecuted attach themselves to the alleged persecutors with all the tenacity of an intestinal tapeworm, one must wonder who really is the persecuted and who the persecutor really is. One could of course propose the existence of White Fatigue — aka Diversity Fatigue — the very real and wearisome harm to White well-being imposed by mandatory multiculturalism and the ever-present resultant “vibrancy” that all rational Whites loathe (whether or not they are honest enough to admit it).

In these sessions, we were also told that we have a personal obligation to be “change agents” for “social justice.” I wasn’t aware that it is the place of an academic institution to tell its employees what their personal obligations are, what to believe in with respect to the personal lives and beliefs, and what kind of activism they should or should not engage in on their own private time. But that’s the definition of totalitarianism — the ideology is total, it affects all aspects of society, including the private lives of citizens. Indeed, having a track record of social justice has been proposed as a criterion for hiring, retention, and promotion at some universities.

(Editor’s note: having a track record of social justice has been proposed as a criterion for retention tenure, and promotion in the College of Liberal Arts at California State University-Long Beach: “Increase the College’s Community Impact in Social Justice — review and revise the [retention, tenure & promotion] document to better define service that has local, regional, national, and international impact on social justice as well as to provide clearer criteria for evaluating community engagement as [counting toward retention, tenure, and promotion].” Can anyone doubt that social justice activism (not just assertions of approval) will be required for hiring as well?)

I would like to make one other point about these training sessions, particularly those hosted by Blacks (typically, Black women). Not only is the ideological content objectionable, but the actual quality of the presentations are (predictably) terrible. You have people who don’t know how to use a computer, whose presentations run overtime (sometimes suddenly ending components of the presentations mid-way because of time over-runs), whose slides are formatted inconsistently, and who cannot even correctly read and interpret the data on their own slides (assuming they actually put together their own flawed slide presentations). Some of these people apparently are incapable of counting, e.g., saying that “this is the third presentation of the series” while it is actually the second, etc. Thus, even within the confines of their specialized (and useless) social justice activities, Blacks are utterly incompetent.

Liberal Whites respond to these displays of monumental ineptness by smiling benignly and stating how “wonderful the presentation is.” It’s comical.  To any honest person, these sessions, ironically enough, actually undermine and delegitimize their ostensible purpose. To any objective observer, the comical ineptitude of the presenters demonstrates that, e.g., Blacks contribute nothing positive to society and simply manifest as an endless series of problems, issues, grievances, etc., with demands for “equity” that do not in any way correlate to any qualifications or merits other than their race itself. The only meaning to these individuals is their Blackness, they have nothing else to offer other than their monumental obsession with their own racial identities.

That student performances tend to mimic that of these presenters goes without saying. Exams and quizzes must continuously be dumbed down so as to allow certain groups achieve a passing level of “achievement.” Administration turns a blind eye to student cheating if the students happen to be of the “right” demography — allowing cheating may fit in to the special advantages given to some to achieve. Cheating is equity! Justice! Any more subjective evaluation — essays and essay questions, student presentations, etc. — have to be graded on a racial curve, so that low-achieving groups are graded more leniently than others. Otherwise, the grades would be consistently correlated to race and equity would be more elusive than ever.

Of course, this erodes standards for everyone. A century ago, high school students were learning Latin and Greek; today, college students are functionally illiterate and need to take remedial English (and here I refer to students for whom English is their native language). One of the most unpleasant aspects of the current hysteria is the behavior of White employees, including people who really should know better. People who, in private, will whisper agreement that political correctness has gone too far, and who will admit in private the facts about differences between racial groups, speak completely differently in public. It is testament to the power of the mob to enforce group-think on cowards who believe that their personal interests lie in betraying the truth and, ultimately, betraying themselves.

The Whites who actually openly comment in these sessions — those who feel free to comment — openly agonize about how to talk to bad Whites who deny “the truth” (similar to a religious cult these types equate their bizarre beliefs with objective “truth”) about “systemic racism” and “social justice.” Not surprisingly, these hysterical leftist Whites are invariably individuals born and raised in predominantly White areas, individuals whose only real contact with Blacks and other non-Whites is with students or other institutional employees. Whites opposed to the “social justice” agenda are, instead, invariably those born and raised in “diverse” and “vibrant” areas. It is almost as if exposure to “diversity” immunizes Whites against the “social justice” hysteria, while those not previously exposed to all of the “vibrancy” are vulnerable to leftist memetic infection.

One other comment needs to be made about the reactions of faculty to all of this. The lack of critical thinking among well-educated PhDs is astonishing, and that includes science/STEM PhDs who you would think should know better. You may argue that the blind acceptance of the social justice dogma by the faculty is due to political reasons; they are either “true believers” or they are being coerced by fear of retaliation and fear of “cancel culture.” While that no doubt contributes to part of the problem, I believe that something deeper is going on here, since the same absolute lack of critical thinking and the same blind acceptance of nonsense manifests for non-political issues as well. For example, faculty may get “training” on various components of their education and research efforts, typically from presenters who look like founding members of Seattle’s CHOP/CHAZ autonomous zone, and whose presentations are incredibly illogical, inconsistent, non-factual, and disjointed. And yet, no matter how bad the presentations are, no matter how obviously wrong the information provided is, and no matter how transparently illogical and inconsistent it all is, I note that my colleagues, with few exceptions, accept it all without question and parrot the most astonishing nonsense without the slightest hesitation or question.

I note as well a strong correlation between those who blindly accept non-political nonsense without question and those who swallow the political social justice nonsense also without question.  Amusingly, all of these dogmatic and conformist leftists, without the slightest shred of irony or self-awareness, decry the “closeminded” and “rigid” and “unthinking” attitudes of all those dastardly (White, of course) people out there (all living in trailer parks, no doubt) who oppose the social justice agenda. Less amusing is the enthusiastic willingness of these leftist Whites to publicly denounce their own family members for not sharing in the great “awokening,” oozing with contempt at the alleged crudity and “lack of empathy” of their ‘racist” parents and siblings.  All of these leftist Whites are budding Pavliks, no doubt.

It is indeed a very serious error to over-estimate the independent thinking and critical reasoning abilities of academics; they are at least as naively accepting and rigidly conformist as anyone else (if not more so). As noted above, that there is a correlation between comic naiveté and blind acceptance of the most outrageous non-political nonsense on the one hand, and acceptance of social justice insanity on the other, will come as no surprise to us; and the converse is true — those who shake their heads sadly at the non-political nonsense and see through the incompetence of the presenters are, not surprisingly, the same people whose adherence to facts and whose ability to exhibit critical reasoning allows them to reject social justice indoctrination. Unfortunately, this latter group is a decided minority in academia.

Indeed, it is always instructive to go to the Federal Election Commission individual contribution database and look up the ideological spectrum of contributions from any academic institution. I have done so for mine and the results were as expected. Exactly how an academic institution has a healthy diversity of opinion when, say, 98-100% of political contributions go to the Left is an open question.  Related to this are the constant 501C3 violations coming from alleged “non-partisan” “not-for-profit” institutions and the constant political commentary from school administration, as well as the training sessions, including remarks about the pro-Trump Washington DC protest of this past January, which, we are told, was characterized as “brutal examples of hatred” and a “lack of proper conflict resolution” (apparently, the preceding months of Left protests, including attempted mass murder in Portland, demonstrate peaceful and loving effective conflict resolution). The administration are typically hard Left and retaliate against any employees who do not toe the line.

Of related interest are the videos of Jodi Shaw, a progressive, liberal, White woman previously employed at Smith College who, despite being of the Left, opposes the anti-White Critical Race Theory garbage foisted on employees at her institution and, of course, virtually all other academic institutions in America. Shaw had to resign from Smith College due to what seems to be an anti-White hostile working environment (more on the Smith college fiasco can be read here.) Then we have the persecution of Dr. Aaron Kindsvatter at The University of Vermont.  The leftist hysteria and hypocritical double-think is well summarized by: “The freedom of free thought is not what is being restricted here, it’s the fact that Aaron Kindsvatter is using his position of power and authority as a platform for spewing these ideologies.”  So, on the one hand, they are not restricting “the freedom of free thought” — but only insofar as Kindsvatter’s “free thought” perfectly coincides with their own “free thought” and he spews his ideologies in his closet so that others aren’t infected by them. Otherwise, he is “spewing” negative ideologies and must be censored and must resign.

The similarity with free speech censors the world over is obvious, European “hate speech” laws being a prime example. First, they state their “commitment to free speech, free thought, and free expression,” before immediately following that by stating that any speech, thought, or expression of which they disapprove is outlawed. It is not clear if these people understand what the word “free” means or whether they understand that in this context “free” is normally expected to include everyone, not just those who happen to agree with the particular ideologies that the censors themselves “spew.” Orwell’s Big Brother is alive and well—and becoming ever more pervasive in the culture of the West: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

It is because of such outrages that groups like the Academic Freedom Alliance have come into being.  See more here. Imagine that — it is now necessary for reasonable academics, including some from the Left, to band together to fight a desperate rearguard action to attempt to stem to the tide of the devastating “woke” tidal wave, fully realized that they will be ostracized or worse for their efforts. Will a Part III of my essay be necessary? Who knows? As the academic madness continues to unfold, I may well have more to report, which will undoubtedly be more bad news.

Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad

/14 Comments/in , , /by

As Francis Carr-Begbie pointed out long ago at the Occidental Observer, one cultural phenomenon is guaranteed to cause bafflement among liberals, libertarians and cuckservatives. It is the extraordinary spectacle of Muslims behaving like Muslims. Again and again members of Britain’s intellectual elite have been disturbed and dismayed to learn that Muslims don’t behave like Buddhists, Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses. No, Muslims behave like Muslims.

Ho-ho Mo-Show No-No

Who could have seen that one coming? And while libtards wail about Muslim pathologies, Muslims calmly wait for mass immigration and high birth-rates to bring them political and cultural victory. Now we have a new example of libtard uproar at Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. A teacher at Batley Grammar School in the heavily enriched English county of Yorkshire showed his pupils some satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Did Muslim activists in the area respond like fans of Voltaire and warmly support the free speech of the teacher? No, they responded like Muslims and resolutely opposed his free speech. They demonstrated intimidatingly at the school and issued death-threats against the teacher, who has been driven into hiding with his wife and four children.

Muslims behaving like Muslims outside Batley Grammar School

The school itself and local Labour politicians have, of course, immediately capitulated to Muslim intimidation. The headmaster Gary Kibble grovelled like this: “The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a religious studies lesson. It should not have been used. … We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course, and we are revising how we go forward with the support of all communities represented in our school. … The member of staff has been suspended pending an independent formal investigation.”

But it’s hard to blame the headmaster for grovelling or the teacher for going into hiding. After all, look at what happened in France in October 2020. A teacher called Samuel Paty was literally beheaded by an angry Muslim teenager after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of Muhammad.

Something rotten in the county of Yorkshire

I wrote about the murder of Samuel Paty in “Headchopping for Muhammad” and discussed the dishonesty and reality-evasion of the supposed libertarians at Spiked Online, which is the latest incarnation of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a “weird [Trotskyist] sect” founded in the 1970s by the Hungarian-Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. The libtards at Spiked loudly condemned Samuel Paty’s murder, but they had ignored the very similar murder of Asad Shah on British soil in 2016. Shah, a gentle, tolerant Ahmadi Muslim living in Glasgow, was stabbed to death by a free-speech-hating Sunni Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed, who travelled hundreds of miles from Yorkshire to defend the honour of the Prophet against Ahmadi blasphemies. If Spiked hadn’t ignored Shah’s murder, they could have made an important point in their current noisy condemnation of the “shameful capitulation” at Batley Grammar School, namely, that something is rotten in the county of Yorkshire.

But spotting patterns is not something that libertarians are interested in. Instead, Spiked proved once again the truth of Francis Carr-Begbie’s observation about the blindness of libtards, or liberals and libertarians who support open borders for Third-World people, then bewail the inevitable consequences. According to Paul Stott at Spiked, “Video footage from outside the school is disquieting.” Yes, when Muslims behave like Muslims it’s “disquieting” rather than wholly predictable. Stott went on to claim that “schoolkids” should be free to see satirical cartoons of Muhammad, because “Batley Grammar is a secondary school in a liberal democratic society.”

“What most of the country undoubtedly wanted”

He’s wrong. If Britain were a “democratic society,” mass immigration would never have taken place here against the clearly expressed wishes of the White majority. The treacherous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” If repatriation had taken place then — or, far better, mass immigration had never begun in the first place — Britain would have avoided all the Third-world pathologies we see flourishing here in 2021, from attacks on free speech to rape-gangs and acid-throwing.

And if Britain were a “liberal society,” it would not have passed so many laws (at Jewish instigation) to stifle the entirely legitimate opposition of British Whites to their dispossession. For example, the British state would not have twice attempted to jail Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party (BNP), for speaking the truth about Muslim rape-gangs in Yorkshire. In 2004 Griffin had made a highly accurate prediction about Islamic terrorism in Britain. He said it was inevitable and that the “terrorists will turn out to be either asylum-seekers or second-generation Pakistanis, probably from somewhere like Bradford.” Whatever you think about Griffin, it’s clear that he isn’t a libtard. He wasn’t “disquieted” by Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Instead, he observed their behaviour, analysed it, and understood exactly how and why it would worsen.

Ancient wisdom for modern libtards

But even if Paul Stott at Spiked were correct to call Britain a “liberal democratic society,” he would still have to admit that large parts of Britain have seceded from liberalism. Surprisingly enough, when Pakistanis emigrate to the liberal West, they bring illiberal Pakistani culture with them. Well, it’s surprising to libtards, but the Roman poet Horace did even better than Nick Griffin in predicting the consequences of mass immigration. More than 2000 years ago, Horace said this: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their sky, not their soul, who rush across the sea.”

Horace and other great classical writers would once have been central to lessons at the scene of the current uproar about Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Batley Grammar School was “founded in 1612 by the Rev. William Lee” and provided early education for Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), one of the creators of modern chemistry. Priestley “strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas” and “advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters.” But it’s unlikely that Batley Grammar will be producing any more great scientists and supporters of free speech. As the BBC points out, “According to a 2015 Ofsted report Batley Grammar had 689 pupils of which almost three-quarters were from a minority ethnic background [i.e., were Pakistani Muslims].”

More and more pressure against free speech

Have many libtards noticed the irony of pupils who form “almost three-quarters” of a school being described as “from a minority”? I doubt it. I also doubt that Paul Stott at Spiked will celebrate democracy-in-action at Batley Grammar School. If the majority of the parents are Muslim and they don’t want their children exposed to anti-Muslim satire, why shouldn’t they get what they want? As the Muslim population of Britain and other Western nations continues to grow, there will be more and more pressure against free speech and other archaic Western customs. The libtards at Spiked want to pretend that this is the fault of Whites for refusing to stand up for “Enlightenment values.”

It isn’t. When Tanveer Ahmed murdered Asad Shah on British soil in 2016, he was consciously imitating two Muslim hero-martyrs: Ilm Ud-Deen, who murdered a Hindu publisher under the British Raj in 1929, and Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered a politician in Pakistan in 2011. Both men were defending the honour of the Prophet, both were executed by the state, and both are celebrated today in Pakistan as ghazi and shahid — “hero” and “martyr.” And in 1938, Muslims in London “ceremoniously” burned a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World “because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive.” Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad and hate free speech not because they’ve been led astray by any Western ideology, but because they are Muslims. How difficult is that to understand?

No limits on Muslim immigration

Very difficult for the libtards at Spiked, it appears. Their chief propagandist, Brendan O’Neill, has announced that “Britain is not an Islamic country. We do not live under Sharia law. It might be a punishable offence in Islamic nations to make or display an image of Muhammad, but it isn’t here.” In fact, “Sharia law” does operate in large parts of Britain that are de facto “Islamic” because — guess what — they have Muslim majorities after relentless Muslim immigration and on-site population growth. And what do the libtards at Spiked think about Muslim immigration? They want all limits on it removed. In 2015 Brendan O’Neill called for open borders under the stirring headline of “Let them in”:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (Let Them In, Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

In 2021 O’Neill is condemning “religious extremists” and “religious intolerance” in Batley. But Muslims there are displaying precisely the “gumption and perseverance” he celebrated in 2015. O’Neill is also condemning the “slippery way” in which the term “Islamophobia” is used to “conflat[e] discussion of Islam with racism.” That is, he doesn’t like Muslims using “guile,” which he thought was such a positive thing in the aspiring migrants of 2015. What’s happening in Batley is the inevitable consequence of the mass immigration O’Neill has so strongly supported for so many years.

Dedicated to narcissistic self-indulgence

He has also strongly supported unrestricted abortion. And here again we see the stupidity of libertarian support for Third-World immigration. Muslims are not merely entering the West in large numbers: they are being subsidized to have large numbers of children here. In my article “Narcissism and Nihilism,” I contrasted Yetto Souiriy, a Muslim woman in France who had had five children, with Julie Burchill, a liberal woman in Britain who had had five abortions. Indeed, Burchill positively celebrated them: “I’m so glad I had all those abortions. … I’d as soon weep over my taken tonsils or my absent appendix as snivel over those abortions. I had a choice, and I chose life — mine.” The fervent philosemite Burchill writes regularly for Spiked and other libtard outlets in praise of Jews and condemnation of Muslims. She’s an excellent example of libtardism in action. Her choice of “life” was actually a choice of narcissistic self-indulgence. And while she was having abortions, snorting cocaine and experimenting with lesbianism, Muslims were having lots of little Muslims and steadily strengthening their political and cultural power.

Sex, drugs and five abortions(!!): the fervent philosemite Julie Burchill

So here’s a question for Julie and her fellow libtards at Spiked: Who’s going to win a demographic battle between those who believe in lots of abortions and those who believe in lots of children? You won’t need many guesses. But let’s be fair: Burchill’s self-indulgence hasn’t just lost her the war of wombs with Muslims. It’s also lost her the war of words. In December 2020, Burchill defended her fellow philosemite Rod Liddle against a Bangladeshi Muslim woman called Ash Sarkar, who had criticized Liddle for making a joke about having sex with schoolgirls. Burchill tried to exploit the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad first had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. But Burchill’s choice of words was so crude, intemperate and ignorant, and the behaviour of the supporters she enlisted so unpleasant, that Sarkar was able to bring a successful action for defamation.

“Muslims and Jews are natural allies”

Burchill had to pay “substantial damages,” cover Sarkar’s legal costs, and make a grovelling public apology. Sarkar’s lawyer Zillur Rahman triumphantly announced: “I am delighted for Ash, it really is a resounding victory. As a Muslim myself, this case meant more because of the grossly offensive comment made concerning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who is dear to all Muslims.” If all their enemies were like Julie Burchill, Muslims would have much less need of their good friends in the Jewish community. And they certainly have many good friends in the Jewish community, from Dr Richard Stone, the prominent anti-racist who proclaimed that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies” in 2001, to Richard Benson, the former head of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) who began helping Muslims “battle Islamophobia” in 2014. Here are a few more examples of the warm support given by Jews to Muslims:

But the fervent philosemites Julie Burchill and Rod Liddle have never discussed — let alone condemned — the central Jewish role in fomenting the Muslim pathologies now so prominent in the West. It’s yet another example of libtard blindness. So is the claim made by Tom Slater at Spiked that the Muslim protestors in Batley are “dickheads.” In fact, Muslims aren’t foolish or misguided to oppose free speech, because they know it is bad for Muslim interests. As a former Trotskyist, Slater may recall that Josef Stalin used censorship very successfully to maintain his own power and defeat his enemies. History teaches us that censorship works very well to defend authoritarian systems, while free speech is a very rare and fragile phenomenon. History also teaches us that free speech was created by stale pale males like John Stuart Mill in Britain and the Founding Fathers in America. In other words, it’s a White thing — Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites neither created it nor want it.

The “libertarians” at Spiked believe in protecting the rare and fragile phenomenon of free speech by opening the borders of White nations to unlimited numbers of highly illiberal tribalists from the Third World. So here’s another question for Tom, Brendan, Julie and the other libtards at Spiked: If you support free speech and open borders for Muslims, while Muslims support censorship and open borders for Muslims, who exactly are the dickheads?

“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 2 of 2

/20 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.

Johnson’s Suggestions

Johnson has been very involved with the European scene, making many trips there to address conferences (two of the essays in this compilation are from lectures he made in Sweden and Lithuania and another is one he was prevented from delivering in Norway) and meet with European identitarian activists, perhaps more than any other prominent figure in the American White identitarian movement. It would not surprise me if he has more contacts in Europe than in the U.S. This provides an international perspective on our racial situation that is of critical importance for our movement but is too often ignored.

In the essay “Uppity White Folks & How to Reach Them,” originally a lecture delivered in Sweden, Johnson makes the important observation about democracy that “[t]he far-sighted few are outvoted by the short-sighted many. … So one of the problems for us is how to explain White Nationalism to short-sighted people. People who only think a year of two ahead.” (p. 104)

The project that I want to work on now is how to connect present-day political concerns with radical, fundamental, and long-term thinking about white extinction, white genocide, and how to create white homelands. The problems that we fear and the solutions we propose will happen in the far future. How do we relate to people as they are right now, especially short-sighted people who only think a couple of years down the road? (p. 106)

The most revolutionary thing that Donald Trump did in 2015 … is that he broke … [the] gentlemen’s agreement not to compete on immigration and globalization. … He chose to compete on those issues, and therefore he had to fight a two-front war against the Democratic Party and his own party, to get the presidency. That was revolutionary, because it showed that there are large numbers of people—sixty-plus million people in the United States—who really would vote for a nationalist candidate, a candidate who had an America-first foreign policy, was anti-globalization, and was anti-immigration. That was terrifying to the establishment. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement. He broke the political cartel that’s been in place since the Second World War. (pp. 111–112)

I would add that the 2015 revelation of broad White support for implicitly pro-White positions, especially on immigration, was as pleasant a surprise for me as it was a terrifying surprise for the establishment. This was not only revealed by the response of the Republican party’s base to the Trump candidacy, but also by a study released that year showing 55 percent of White survey respondents (38.2 percent of the total sample) supported stopping illegal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, and greatly reducing or halting legal immigration.[1] Such a response is as radically pro-White as the questions on any survey ever allow, and only a very few allow this much. These were among a number of indicators of a wave of White popular sentiment that the Trump campaign rode to victory but did not create.

Johnson defines his “uppity white folks” as

a large and growing category in the middle. This is the category of people that the Republican Party doesn’t want to touch explicitly. But again, between 84% and 77% of white Americans believe that it would be okay for whites to organize to protect their group interests. They’re not necessarily envisioning White Nationalism, a white ethnostate, or an end to multiculturalism. But as long as there is multiculturalism, they’re damn certain that whites have to take their own side in the ethnic conflicts that exist in multicultural societies. A very large number of people believe that. But the Republican Party will not appeal to them. They simply will not appeal explicitly to white interests, but very large numbers of whites believe that it would be perfectly legitimate if they did so. … They’re not ready to be White Nationalists, and yet they are ready for white identity politics within the context of a multiracial, multicultural society. That’s a huge number of people. That is where our movement can expect its growth. Thus the great task that faces us is to get inside the heads of those people. (pp. 116–117)

I agree that this is the constituency where our movement can expect the greatest numerical growth, but we should not surrender the primary purpose of our movement to do so by abandoning its raison d’être to accommodate the presently ill-informed ideas, beliefs and preferences of the majority of our people. Our primary task, as Johnson says, is to “get inside the heads” of these people, to educate and inform them and thus move them over to our position—the position of their racial interests, the position advocating the continued existence of their race and its control of its own existence, and not for us to win them by moving over to or compromising with their racially incoherent, insufficient, and ultimately even harmful positions. That would be a possibly fatal defeat for our race, not a victory.

 

In a subsequent essay, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” the only one written specifically for this volume, Johnson again steps forward on the path to victory, but then he again takes some steps backward.

White people are ready for white identity politics. This is clear from the rise of populist and nationalist politicians and parties around the white world. … [S]ignificant numbers of white Americans have positive racial identities, believe the current system is anti-white, reject white guilt, and think it is appropriate for whites to politically organize to protect their collective interests.

This … means that the metapolitical conditions for white identity politics are crystallizing. Center-Right parties, however, refuse to cross the line into explicit white identity politics because they are part of a globalist elite that regards white nationalism and populism as the top threats to their hegemony. But that is also encouraging news, for it is an opportunity for genuine white identitarians to establish themselves as a political force. … But the vast majority of people who are ready for white identity politics are not ready for full-on White Nationalism. … I use the phrase “uppity white folks” for the people who are ready for white identity politics but not (yet) ready for White Nationalism. … If you don’t aim at a white ethnostate, then you are committed to some form of multiculturalism. So you need to make it work for you. (pp. 137–138)

This backstepping to accommodate what he perceives as the limit to which Whites are now willing to go was heralded in this passage in the Introduction

“The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” … outlines a policy agenda to appeal to the vast constituency of what I call “uppity white folks” who think that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral, but who are not quite ready for full white ethnonationalism. (p. 5)

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

He describes his “uppity white folks,” as “not quite ready” or “not yet ready for White Nationalism.” (p. 5 and p. 138 quotes above) The “yet” and “not quite” are important. They imply Johnson believes that in time, when they are better educated and informed on the racial situation and alternatives, they would be ready for 100% White Nationalism, as they appear to already be at least borderline ready for the 90% variety. In other words, their preferences are a moving target, based on levels of consciousness and situational awareness that are subject to modification and change with additional education and information. Providing that education and information, based on facts, a powerful sense of morality, and ideas, is our basic task—the winning of the hearts and minds of our people that is the essence of metapolitics. Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism. He does not consider that a little more information and education on the vitally important differences between these two options might move most, or enough, of these folks over to the preservationally-sufficient position. Sometimes holding out a little longer for a little more makes a huge difference.

To make multiculturalism work for the founding population, they need to assert their special privileges as the founding stock and resist the demographic and cultural erosion of their status. … An American identitarian movement should make three basic demands.

First, the American state must halt and reverse the demographic decline of Americans in America. And by “Americans” we all understand white Americans, the founding stock of the country. In 1965, when America opened its doors to non-white immigration, it was 90% white. Today, the white population is barely over 60%. Because of non-white immigration, low white American fertility, and high non-white fertility, with each passing year, those numbers get worse for white Americans.

American identitarians should demand that, each year, the white American percentage of the American population be a bit larger than the year before. This would entail social and political programs directed specifically to the demographic benefit of white Americans and not other groups.

For instance, the American state would reduce the immigration of non-whites and increase their emigration (for instance by repatriating refugees and reunifying immigrant families in their homelands). It would also reduce incentives for white Americans to emigrate. If white American birthrates are below those of non-white populations, the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates.

Once such policies are in place, the creeping decline of America will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make America into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Americans can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction. (pp. 140–141)

How credible is this half-century program of “creeping renewal?” Can we have enough confidence in it to stake the future survival of our race on it? It raises many questions that need credible answers. First, how will the demographic decline of Whites be halted and reversed? As the plan outlined here involves the gradual demographic replacement of non-Whites by Whites rather than some form of separation or “divorce,” as Johnson has advocated elsewhere, halting and reversing this decline is obviously required for the plan to work. It’s one thing to say “the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates” but in actual practice birthrates have proved to be remarkably unresponsive to government action, even when the means used involved a degree of regimentation and compulsion far beyond what White Americans would tolerate. Second, how will the demographic increase of non-Whites be halted and reversed? It would not be enough to “reduce the immigration of non-whites,” nor even to totally halt their immigration, as projections consistently show very substantial non-white increases even with zero immigration. There is no mention of programs to specifically decrease non-white birthrates, which, to be effective, would have to be truly draconian. Third, how will racial intermixture, which decreases the number of whites while increasing the number of non-whites, be prevented. There is no mention of a program to do this, which, to be effective, would have to involve a degree of racial segregation far stricter than that of the “Jim Crow” era, or the apartheid system in South Africa, again requiring severe social regimentation. Even then, it would seem any measures short of mass non-White sterilization could not accomplish a restoration of the 1965 racial status quo ante in “half a century.”

Such measures, of course, would qualify as genocidal under the United Nations’ definition. Also, in order for such measures to be implemented, explicitly pro-White forces would first have to be in total, even totalitarian, control, as their effectiveness would require near zero noncompliance. And if pro-Whites were in such total control, they could implement any solution they wished, including a total racial separation by partition of the national territory into separate White and non-White nations that could be completed in less than a decade without genocidal measures (e.g., restricting non-White reproduction). It would not require programs to decrease the numbers of non-Whites, just their movement or relocation to the territory allotted to their new country by the partition.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?

Leaving room for non-White “mail-order” brides in the supposedly 90% White nation would logically also include all non-White spouses or partners of Whites, and all of their half-White children, which could number as many as 15 million born in the last fifty years, unless there is some persuasive reason for including foreign non-White spouses and their children but not American ones. Including “the descendants of slaves” would add over 40 million Blacks. “Hard-luck groups like refugees” would also number many millions of  non-Whites. Sounds like the goal of even 90% White Nationalism has already been abandoned with just the turn of a page as the circa 200 million Whites are now still tied to somewhere over 60 million non-Whites. Just like with Tar-Baby, it’s hard to break free.

Second, leaving some space for all existing outsider groups would reduce resistance among such populations.

Intelligent non-whites … would resist white identity politics if no provision were made for their kind in the future. (p. 142)

Johnson seems to be trying to attract non-White support at the expense of alienating White support, by accommodating less-than-vital non-White interests at the cost of vital White interests. Wasn’t that one of Trump’s bad moves with his “platinum plan?” To achieve pro-White ends, it would seem advisable to focus on maximizing White support—the only support we can rely on when there is a conflict of racial interests, which there will be in abundance, as Johnson has amply shown. Pandering to non-Whites for their support is self-defeating for it will come at too high a price, sacrificing White interests, and even endangering our racial existence, in an attempt to accommodate and curry favor with non-Whites to reduce their opposition. To paraphrase Johnson’s own words from page 67 quoted above, “There is no moral imperative to destroy our race to accommodate other races.” It should be accepted as a given that non-Whites of all types will totally oppose a partition of the country into a White nation and one or more non-White nations as they want all of the homelands that were once ours, not just a part of them. To hope non-Whites might be allies in a partition is to chase a mirage. We cannot serve two masters. We cannot save the White race and restore its possession of its homelands and also give non-Whites what they want—possession and control of those same homelands. Our one and only natural constituency is Whites. Winning their support is the decisive battle, starting with those who already possess a fair degree of situational awareness and want their race to be saved. The others will need varying degrees of “consciousness raising,” and that is our task. The non-Whites will not help us. They are and will remain our most determined opponents for the simple reason that our goals of racial preservation and independence are contrary to their racial group interests of subjugating us and dispossessing us of our country and our existence.

Multiculturalism is just the white majority being gaslighted into a long, drawn-out suicide. (p. 143)

Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?

This kind of policy seems fair to all parties. Majorities get their homelands back … and historically established minority groups have a place as well.  (p. 143)

Would somehow reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population, or in the U.S. from 130 million to circa 20 million, really give us back our homelands? Did the English still have their homeland in 1968 when non-Whites were still less than 5% of the population and Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech to warn their presence was fraught with danger? Did White Americans have a racial homeland when Wilmot Robertson was writing The Dispossessed Majority in Johnson’s supposed racial halcyon age of the 1960s? If not, as my own teenage-self believed at the time, then reducing the non-White presence to 1960s U.S. levels, or even to the less than 5% of 1968 Britain, would not constitute getting our homelands back.

Johnson does not define who the “historically established minority groups” are, and does not say what their “place” would be, but even if they only include “the descendants of slaves” referred to above, then 90% or even 80% White Nationalism would already be a lost goal.

I admit to some confusion about how Johnson proposes to reach his goal of a 90% White country. The quotes from pages 140–141 propose reversing demographic trends to gradually increase the White population and decrease the non-White population over fifty years or more. Is this his method to achieve 90% White Nationalism, to reduce the current non-White population of 130 million plus to circa 20 million? The only credible way to do this in anything close to fifty years would require the draconian and even genocidal measure of mass non-White sterilization. But in the quotes from pages 142–144 he seems to indicate his 90% White goal would be achieved by a territorial racial separation or partition of the nation’s territory, which would involve the removal, presumably into the territory allotted to their own non-White country or countries, of ~110 million of the 130 million non-Whites.

Ninety-percent White Nationalism can even deliver a reasonable facsimile of 100% White Nationalism. The ethnostate is the idea of a racially and culturally homogeneous homeland for a particular people. But how homogeneous is homogeneity? … I distinguish three senses of the term: 

Strict homogeneity—meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity—meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity—meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the dominant group. (p. 144)

Wilmot Robertson, who coined the term ethnostate, stated that “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity.”[2] He did not divide homogeneity into different senses, but clearly meant it in the standard sense of “having a uniform structure or composition throughout,” corresponding to Johnson’s “strict” sense, as did Rudyard Kipling’s references to being of “one sheaf” and “one vine” in his poem “The Stranger.” Johnson seems to be stretching, and so diluting, the standard definition and concept of homogeneity to include two additional “senses” or types that allow him to claim his suggestion is a form of homogeneity. But in the biological and genetic terms of racial preservationism racial homogeneity is synonymous with monoracialism, and any degree of multiracialism recognizable as such would not qualify.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. (p. 144)

This last assertion turns the assumption already made on page 5 and pages 137–138 (quoted above), that his targeted “uppity white folks” constituency is “not yet ready” or “not quite ready” for full White ethnonationalism, or a totally White country, into an absolute and permanent rejection of it. This is important because Johnson bases his proposed solution of 90% White Nationalism on this assumption, which I have not previously encountered, causing me to wonder what its source might be, or if it is original to him. But is this assumption correct? Is there a vast constituency of the White electorate, whose will we cannot alter and thus must be accommodated as determinative, who would support reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population but not less than that, and if so, why? Is it because they have been so indoctrinated with anti-White ideology, values and morality that they believe an all-White society is immoral and evil? That the racially creative and preserving condition our ancestors evolved in and lived in for uncounted millennia until modern times and in their European homelands until the last century is immoral and evil? Must we accept that a society has to be at least 10% non-White as the minimal standard for the threshold of multiracialism in order to be morally acceptable? To acquiesce to this is to recognize this level of multiracialism as morally acceptable when our most important metapolitical task is to instill in Whites the conviction that any kind or degree of multiracialism is contrary to the fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, therefore anti-White, and thus immoral and evil. Those Whites who support multiracialism in any degree that qualifies as such are denying the independence of their race and endangering its continued existence. It is our job to make them see this.

Actually, we do not really know what the great majority of populist or Trump-supporting Whites think on this subject, and therefore whether Johnson’s assumption is anywhere near correct. Polls and surveys do not ask anything like the questions that would provide an answer. This is probably just as well because the general public, and even many White Identitarians, are very poorly informed about both the realities of the racial problem and the possible alternatives or solutions to it, with the most common solutions advanced by pro-Whites advocating giving up on America, surrendering the greater part of it and its White population to the non-Whites, and putting their White ethnostate and its residents in very desperate circumstances. This is like the English giving up on England and surrendering it to the non-Whites, or the French, Germans and Swedes giving up on France, Germany and Sweden and surrendering them to the non-Whites. Fortunately, European Identitarians are not yet ready to surrender their countries. I wish the same could be said for the White identitarians in America.

I think this all comes down to a matter of moral and intellectual leadership. The primary task of racial metapolitics should be to provide that leadership, not abdicate it. Our people have been misled and taught wrong. They have essentially followed the path of error since 1619. Our task is to teach them right and lead them on the correct path. It would be a failure of leadership to accept and accommodate their erroneous beliefs rather than correct them.

Some of the most vocal opponents of 90% White Nationalism will be advocates of the 100% variety. The poison pill for them is the Jewish question, for Jews are long- established minorities in practically every white society. Jews are the leading proponents of multiculturalism and race-replacement immigration. If these policies are rejected, most Jews will feel uncomfortable. Many might even emigrate. But some might remain among the 10%. That possibility might reduce Jewish opposition to 90% White Nationalism, but it will guarantee the opposition of hard-core anti-Semites. Such opposition might, however, improve the overall political prospects of 90% White Nationalism. (p. 145)

The rather offhand remarks in this paragraph are the only mention of Jews and anti-Semitism in the book, and as an “advocate of the 100% variety” of White preservation, separation and independence, or the 100% White solution to our racial problem, which I would regard as essential to qualify as “hard-core” pro-White, I think they should be examined. First, is anti-Semitism, as defined and used in the mainstream culture, a valid concept, or is it merely a ploy to advantage Jews and shield them from criticism? Johnson doesn’t define what he means by “hard-core anti-Semites,” but the context indicates he means those who want to be totally separate and free from Jewish control and power, which as a practical matter requires effective separation from Jews themselves. Second, Jews have been the primary causative agents of multiracialism, non-White immigration, and our ongoing subjugation, dispossession, and replacement. All the evidence of history, and especially of the last century as Jews have ascended to hegemony and played the leading role in promoting, guiding and enforcing the causes of our racial destruction, as Johnson himself admits in this paragraph, proves that White independence, or control of its own existence, requires that Jews be removed beyond the reach of power or influence, just as racial preservation requires that Blacks and other non-Whites, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” Simply put, Jews and other non-Whites (i.e., non-Europeans) are in an adversarial relationship with the White “Founding Stock” population. So why advocate a solution that would keep millions of such racial adversaries in our country?

If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it. To assume the proportion of non-Whites could be kept at 10% and intermixture prevented is to assume the racial situation could be held in a stable and permanent state of stasis, which many thought was the racial situation in the U.S. through the 1950s. But the racial revolution of the 1960s made it clear that the true racial situation was an unstable state of suspension, a temporary prevention or delay of a major change in the situation that can never be permanent. A similar transformation occurred in South Africa after the assassination of Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd in 1966, when his “purist” vision of “Grand Apartheid,” in which “vertical” or total racial separation would be accomplished by the division of South Africa into multiple ethnostates, was effectively scuttled by the delaying and temporizing tactics of the usual anti-White elements, whose supposedly permanent policies of “petty apartheid” stasis proved to be only a temporary suspension when they were undone by the revolutionary election of 1994.

Our proposed solutions are a very important matter which should be given careful consideration for at least three reasons. First, our solution, the alternative we offer, along with our goal and our motive, is what defines us. If we do not define it ourselves then we fail to define ourselves, and by our default we allow our opponents to define us without challenge—most probably to our detriment. Second, our solution, if successfully presented as necessary, effective and moral, and certainly much preferable to our present situation, should help attract support which would be lost if potential supporters were only offered a leap into the unseen and unknown. Third, if we do succeed in gaining control and implementing our solution, it will have a major effect on our racial situation for many, perhaps all, the generations to come. So we should be careful what we wish for, and be sure to get it right, for it could be permanent, meaning we should only advocate solutions that we want to be permanent, which would exclude solutions that create a racial situation that is in a state of suspension.

In my view a well-considered solution should be sufficient, credible and acceptable. The first condition means sufficient to achieve its purpose and motive. My purpose and motive is White racial preservation, independence and security, and I judge or measure the effectiveness of solution proposals by this triple standard. Preservation means the continued existence of the whole of our race, complete in all of its diverse parts, types and nations, and not only a small fraction of it. Independence means control of its own existence and freedom to serve its own interests, not subjugated to the will or subservient to the interests of another race. Security means the credible ability to defend the existence, independence and interests of our race against any threat or danger, whether near or far, in all of its homelands in every part of the globe. As in every age, this requires resources, population size, and military and economic power on a scale able to withstand and overcome the most powerful potential adversary.

In the final subsection titled “Medicare for All Plus Slurs” Johnson considers how to “put together a winning political coalition” to achieve the goals he has set out. (p. 145) For this he suggests that the White identitarian movement align itself with the populist agenda as a way to gain political support by “giving the people what they already want.” (p. 145) It also helps that the constituency that supports populist issues largely coincides with the constituency that is more supportive of implicitly white policies, such as opposition to non-white immigration. (p. 148) I believe that Johnson himself favors these policies, as do I, except I don’t share his enthusiasm for a welfare state so massive that it would consume all resources and incapacitate the military, and I have reservations about Medicare for all, as I have doubts about socialized medicine’s efficiency and its ability to sustain medical progress. I would, however, strongly advise against making any prior commitments for our future ethnostate to any ideological or political agendas or movements other than the racial agenda of preservation and independence, which we should focus on as its primary and singularly essential purpose—in short, an ideologically minimalist approach, to go in clean with as little baggage as possible. This would limit our pre-ethnostate determinations to the bare necessities, including the demarcation of the ethnostate’s racial and territorial boundaries, and guidelines for the methods and means of conducting the separation, but not much else. Once the ethnostate is achieved the newly all-White citizenry should not be bound by prior commitments that would limit their sovereign prerogative to choose their own social, economic and political policies. Whether they choose a largely populist agenda, or something else, the essential point is the choice should be theirs to make.

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

[1] Richard McCulloch, “White Racial Interests and the Trump Candidacy,” The Occidental Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 21–54, 41.

[2] Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1992), 16.