American New Right

Leave It To Romney

2012-01-17T11:09:00.000-08:00

As per their need to legitimize themselves through a pretense at intellectual superiority, the Left enjoys upbraiding supposed paranoia in their opponents; everything from McCarthyism to the militia movement to Ron Paul’s views on the Federal Reserve. One wonders if this is a case of psychological projectionism, or attributing one’s own ailment to others, as the Left is certainly not exempt from imaginary persecutors of its own. Only for them, these come not in the form of Hollywood reds, bankers, or black helicopters, but from America’s irksome remaining majority.

A recent article by Lee Siegel, in the (no surprise) New York Times, bears this out. Brought to my attention by Richard Spencer, the piece is worth reading, if only for illustrating its author and his readership’s disconnect from reality. Let me clarify that I am no fan of the article’s subject. At best, Romney is a carbon copy movement conservative, committed more to empire and Israel than to Americans; more to the abstract notion of the “free market” than to the concrete needs of the citizenry. Predictably, crony capitalists and globalists have nothing to fear from him. The Left does, however, find his aesthetic sufficiently shiver-worthy.

Sigel’s assessment of Romney is accurate, his interpretation of him laughable. It’s true that he, with his blandly unthreatening attire and wholesome image, recall the lost America of Leave It to Beaver, or given the cultural climate surrounding him, Seventh Heaven. Where he errs is his seeing this as an escape valve for a racially conscious white electorate. He adheres to the familiar trope of Tea Party as racist front, extending it to conflate the movement with general white opinion. Wrong on both counts; the Tea Party, a movement I’m no fan of, are an extension of the venerable Republican hand wringing over “Big Government”, with rhetoric borrowed from the nascent Paul movement. That Obama, as a welfare statist, exemplifies this as well as any other, does not make opposition to him “racist.” Moreover, are they, with their borrowed quasi Libertarianism, emblematic of white opinion? The answer is obvious, even if one ignores Romney’s lack of Libertarianism.

This is all assuming that white voters think in racial terms, which anyone on the Alt. Right knows they don’t. For years, the Left has dismissed any expression of white self interest as “racism” with the simplistic logic of a child. Opposition to affirmative action and minority set-asides was obviously racist because such programs were intended to assist minorities; therefore the only reason one could have to oppose them would be that you dislike minorities and seek to thwart their social advancement. The reality is that whites would naturally oppose AA as a form of legally sanctioned discrimination against them, and that such conflict is inevitable within a multi-racial society. The Left has to suppress this, as it suggests a weakness inherent to their multicultural vision.

So white voters sense of self interest is reflexive rather than ideological; the latter category is occupied by conservatism as expressed by contrived narratives (the “constitution”, the “free market” etc.) This exists within the largely deracinated world of abstraction. The simple truth is that white Americans are not racially conscious, and certainly not in the sense Siegel believes them to be. Would a consumer society driven by mass opinion, with a “racist” white majority, turn hip hop and “r&b” into the top selling music genres? Turned Will Smith into a top actor, and so forth? Empirical evidence does nothing to curtail the self satisfying convictions of Siegel and his ilk, especially when they threaten his posture a solemn moral crusader.

Ultimately, the attraction of some white voters to Romney is too mundane for Siegel’s tastes; he’s a movement conservative who repeats the pieties and platitudes they like to hear. His delusion doesn’t bother me; what does is his assumption that there is something wrong about white voters being attracted to white candidates who look and speak like them. I don’t expect ”people of colour” to feel drawn to a WASP or good ol’ boy politician, and wouldn’t expect him to receive any of their votes. By the same token, I don’t see why I need embrace one of theirs.

Ron Paul And The Liberal Playbook

2012-01-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

Having spent years observing liberals in their own natural habitat, I consider myself qualified to analyze their rhetorical tricks. One of which is to delegitimize right wing perspectives by portraying them as a mental affliction capable only of inflicting the uninformed. This has the dual effect of implying liberalism as an intellectually superior consequence of reasoned analysis. The application of this to race and immigration is a serviceable example. Differing from the liberal line on these issues is “prejudice” grown as a result of “ignorance” to be vanquished through “education.” As is typical of those who seek to define themselves through a pretense at intellectual superiority, this cliché is easily deconstructed. An opinion is not prejudicial if it is supported by empirical evidence, the possession of which makes one informed, not ignorant, so any attempt at changing the dissenter’s views will not be “education” but behavior modification. And predictably, this is what it is, in the form of “sensitivity” training, “anti- racist” seminars, and classroom propaganda supplied directly by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In this, we can see how the unearned hubris of elites creates deterioration both linguistic and instutional. Within public discourse, terms devolve into double speak….observation becomes “prejudice”, statistics “ignorance”, and social engineering “education.” Schools and universities become ideological training camps, and all of this is doctored rather than presented by an increasingly ineffectual mass media. Ron Paul is a wrench in this ointment, not for what he represents but for what he doesn’t. Matt Parrot, in his recent article lays this bare without trying….

“The notion that thus year’s election is a choice between freedom (in the form of Paul) and tyranny (in the form of any other candidate) encapsulates Paul’s grant appeal to men in their late teens and 20s: He traffics in absolutes. Political scientists point out that age and newness to politics predispose young voters to a less nuanced view of the political world. They’re less likely to take the long view, less likely to have patience, less likely to spin the implications of their political theories.”

Here he quotes Slate wench Libby Copeland, dismissing as usual Paul’s popularity as a carefully marketed appeal to immaturity. The hypocrisy is immediately obvious: for as much as the Left portrays themselves as “nuanced” thinkers, always in tune with “gray area”, they adhere to binary worldview as black and white as the Hebraic religion they ceaselessly denigrate. Paul’s dichotomy of liberty and statism could easily be “racist” vs. “anti-racist” or “equality” vs. “hierarchy.” The only difference would be that Paul actually carries his pieties to their concrete, and logical, results.

As is often the case, the Left does not state their underlying assumption, but it is implied nonetheless, and this is where things truly become laughable. Am I to believe that managerial liberalism, emerging as it did as a rubber-band on the ruin age of its classical forebear, is a rational and well assembled worldview? And that the motley crew of college students, rappers, and pompous celebrities that rallied around Obama are seasoned and mature political thinkers? While I disagree with his rationalist outlook, Paul can at least be commended for inspiring his disciples to read; Obama has only driven his to purchase merchandise.

It is clear, then, the waves of liberal hand wringing over Paul is due to the alleged insolvency of his worldview, but that is merely a cover; it is insolvent only in that it illiberal. He presents a narrative diametrically opposite his critics; that of an America that lost its way and needs to return to it, not an America that just recently found its way and needs to keep running. His proposed return to roots, grounded in Lockean principles, would be the death knell for the mountain of socially uplifting legislation the Left has piled upon us for the last seventy years. And with it goes the army of beauracrats and ideologues whose livelihood depend upon the misappropriated dollars of those whose extinction they’re engineering.

The Left sees in Paul what his supporters fail to. The latter are in large part deracinated rationalists, whose support stems from economic concerns, and who approach issues as a matter of abstract principles. To them, Paul is a restorationist messiah. The former are highly racialized irrationalists who see nothing but their own utopian theocracy. To them, Paul is a dangerous subversive. We’ve observed how liberalism’s lack of empirical support explains it’s increasingly totalitarian nature; Paul demonstrates to us this totalitarianism’s method of implementation.

On Buchannan

2012-01-12T13:34:00.000-08:00

I’ve been aware of the Left’s intellectual shortcomings since I first turned my attention to such things, an awareness hardly unique to me individually. I, like others on the Alt. Right, have been equally aware of its increasingly totalitarian nature. One observation I have not seen advanced in this milieu is that of the connection between the two; the Left’s growing inclination towards repression as the direct end result of its socially driven and anti-intellectual nature. The recent dismissal of Pat Buchannan from MSNBC programming, in my view, exemplifies this.

Prior to addressing the issue, I would like to outline the current status of public expression and the Left’s role therein. While persistent in their portrayal of the “Right” (i.e. movement conservatives) as would be moral regulators, it’s worth noting the actual absence of such intentions within that milieu. In this regard, the Left appears to still be living in the 1950’s, where “obscenity laws” and “decency standards” (whose abolition I retroactively support) were the law of the land, and comedians were martyred for using four letter words. In 2012, this is not the case; conservatives have seen speech regulation for the waste it is, and have passed the baton to its former victims, who’ve turned it on them with a pious moralism just as nauseating as the Moral Majority before them.

As this milieu is painfully aware, speech repression, all of it leftist in imposition, is the norm throughout the contemporary West, with the same set of laws (“hate speech” “Holocaust denial”) present in Oceana, Europe, and Canada. By virtue of the first amendment to its constitution, the U.S. has been graciously spared these legal transgressions; the impermanence of this grace period is woefully obvious, as the American Left salivates over the legal accomplishments of its overseas brethren with a lust unseen outside an 18 yr olds’ first visit to the local strip club. To their dismay, their ability to dictate expression is limited to “speech codes” at public universities. This will change, however, with the increasing consolidation of their institutional power, and with the state’s already negligent attitude towards the constitution.

Predictably, the rationale for such legislation is weakly fortified and easily destroyed. “Hate speech” laws are routinely packaged with the subtitle “incitement to violence”, the logic being that racially inflammatory speech will awaken the inner Manchurian candidates of its recipients, who will proceed to march directly to the nearest racial minority and carry out his pre-programmed assault mission. This argument ignores the fact that purveyors of “hate speech” preach exclusively to their own choir, with attempts at community outreach nonexistent. It ignores also the fact that the average adult human being is not immediately going to take up arms and commit an act of violence because of something they recently read. The Left’s oblivious to common rationality is eerily reminiscent of that of social conservatives who just knew one listen to Judas Priest’s Stained Class was sufficient to today’s normal adolescent into tomorrow’s suicide headline.

The second argument (if thy ideological nemesis hath two unrelated arguments for the same position, ye need worry little about defeat) is even weaker, and yet from that derives its insidiousness. This second defense asserts that the right to free expression needs to be limited lest it “harm” others. This here would be laughable if it weren’t dangerous; only a child would consider emotional equal to physical harm, the potential of the latter considered. Unlike the other argument, which is the hand wringing of a hysteric, this view is a manifestation of cultural decay. That there are many who nod approvingly in its direction cannot be explained otherwise. Regardless of origin, both defenses end with a caveat differentiating “hate speech” and “free speech”, the former, as we’re always reminded, is “not a part of” the latter. This line is a curious sleight of hand, as it allows them to pay lip service to a concept while subverting it, but it too is easily smote: if speech is at all restricted, then “free” is redefined as only what is publicly permitted, undermining the original concept in the first place.

The application to Buchannan is an intricate one. This being the U.S., Buchannan’s penalty for his digression from socially sanctioned opinion is bearable; exile from a glorified entertainment network, where his sole purpose was to provide ammunition for its liberal overlords, is no loss. One could contend that we lost an outlet for disseminating our views, but MSNBC’s viewership is most infertile ground for this, as they mainly either muted or changed the channel the moment of his appearance. Being an antagonist within the mass media is a pleasurable hobby, not a position exploitable for serious purposes. It does, however, clarify our modus operandi for us: the mainstream is to be avoided until we have amassed ground level support sufficient to force their attention, regardless of how unsavory our views are perceived. Not to pander to populism, but the old adage regarding power in numbers is not only correct but useful in rendering irrelevant established dogma.

Said dogma is what drives the liberal response to Buchannan, and to his firing, and, it must be said….nothing else. The messages attached by signers of the online petition are well worth reading. As has become characteristic of the Left, the usual barrage of isms and phobias were unleashed, each epiphet repeated to a degree of ad nausaum. The endless repetition of the same terms, and the complete dearth of originals, turns the message board into a virtual echo chamber. The posters are unbothered by the fact that they’re merely restating the previous comment, and that this does not stimulate a real discussion. This is fine, however, as such is not their goal, which is self satisfaction through the shared pointing of fingers of an approved target. Mob psychology at its lowest ebb, easily destructible if not for the sheer numbers it appears in. The recurring assertion that Buchannan’s views are invalidated by their age, and the claim to have changed the channel upon Buchannan’s MSNBC appearances, bear this out; my views are superior to his so I need not confront and debate them on rational grounds. I shall instead relax and feel validated knowing the number of others who share my views.

This, in essence, explains the growing fondness for repression on the Left….it’s not what they feel obligated to do, but entitled not to.

Yule: The Germanic Celebration of the Cycle of Time, Of the Turning of the Grand Hjul from One Year to the Next

2010-12-31T15:32:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

Yule is the holiest time in the Germanic tradition. Its name comes from the Old Norse hjul, which means wheel, or cycle. In the Germanic tradition, the single most important theme are the hjuls, the cycles, and the turning of the various cycles that exist in our universe.

One of these cycles that I've already discussed is the cycle of love and hate. In our current Judeo-Christian and political correctness obsessed society*, which has its basis not in Europe but in the Asiatic Middle East, love is simply viewed as "good", hate is simply viewed as "evil", and both are viewed as disconnected opposites. However in pre-Judeo-Christian Germanic society as well as the other pre-Judeo-Christian European societies, hate, far from being viewed as "evil", was viewed as a part of a wheel, a cycle, a dualism not aloof from but interconnected with love, just as the top part of a wheel is opposite from, but also interconnected with, the bottom part of that same wheel.

The cycle that Yule celebrates is the most important cycle of all, the cycle of Time. The turning of the grand Hjul from one year to the next. It is a celebration that takes place over 12 days and 12 nights, starting from the morning of what we today call "December 20th" and ending on the night of what we today call "December 31st".

The holiest night of Yule is the 12th night, which is when the Grand Hjul finally completes its turn from the Old Year to the New Year. It is worth noting that even Germanics that do not follow the ancestral Germanic tradition still to this very day celebrate "New Year's Eve", hugely, which is essentially the same thing as the 12th Night of Yule. Despite the Judeo-Christian suppression of the Germanic celebrations after the Judeo-Christian conquest of Europe, and the changing of the celebrations into Christianity-themed celebrations when they could not be totally suppressed**, the 12th Night of Yule was so embedded into the psyche of Germanics as our holiest night of the year that it persists, to this very day, as an unchanged, non-Christianity-themed celebration, despite all attempts at changing and suppression.

_______________________

*By the way, modern political correctness, both the defunct USSR Bolshevik version (which contained concepts such as "deviationism", "formalism", etc.) and the version that currently exists in Western society (which contains concepts such as "racism", "sexism", etc.), is little more than a modern continuation of medieval Judeo-Christianity (which contained concepts such as "heresy", "blasphemy", etc.)

**e.g., the Germanic 6th night of Yule was transformed into the Christian "Christmas", the Germanic Ostara was transformed into the Christian "Easter", the Germanic Lenting was transformed into the Christian "Lent", which is now no longer even a celebration, but a 40-day time of mourning over the death of the Judeo-Christian Jesus of Nazareth. (The Germanic Lenting was originally the overall festival that led up to the Germanic Ostara. It was in no way a time of mourning, as the Christian Lent is. So essentially the Christians, after conquering Germania, turned one of our celebrations into the opposite of what it originally was.

Leftist Psychology: Delusions In Disguise

2010-10-08T12:31:00.000-07:00

                                         By Michael Parish

  I've blogged on here before about the psychological inadequacies plaguing the modern Left, but I've never systematically analyzed them and presented a full conclusion. So, to cop a line from Lenny Bruce, I, as a "surgeon with a scalpal for false values" will dedicate this blog post to doing just that. So kick back, relax, and crack a beer as I shine a flashlight through the mothballed corridors of liberal consciousness...

The liberal mind cognizes deductively, albeit having internalized its own strawman reasoning. Expressed abstractly it goes something like this-

1.Policy A is intended to advance the interests of group B.
2.Person C opposes Policy A.
3.Therefore, Person C opposes the societal advancement of group B.
4. Person C is therefore an "ist" or "phobe" regarding group B.

This line of thinking is applied to all objects of discourse.Opposing-

1. Affirmative action = "racist"
2. Abortion = "sexist"
3. Gay marriage and/or adoption = "homophobe"
4. Mass immigration = "xenophobe."

These are then added together and deduced to the following equation-

1. Conservative and/or non-left thought opposes affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration.
2. Affirmative action, abortion, gay marriage and adoption, and mass immigration are neccessary for the societal advancement of their corresponding groups.
3. Therefore, conservatives and non-leftists oppose the societal advancement of those groups.
4. Therefore, conservativism and non-leftism are not ideologies but discursive covers for straight white males seeking to mantain their own supposed privelege while suppressing others.

This serves a dual function for the leftism, which likewise is deduced from a starting point-

1. Conservative and non-leftist views are not an actual ideology but covers for bigotry.
2. Therefore, the leftist is exempt from having to engage in actual debate with conservatives and non-leftist.

And-

1. Conservative and non-leftist arguments against liberal positions are actually arguments in favor of restoring past bigotries and inequalities.
2. Therefore, the leftist's positions are exempt from conservative and non-leftist criticism.

From this reductionist deflation of conservative claims is deducted the leftist's own self-image-

1. Conservatives are societal deviants seeking to perpetuate bigotry and inequality.
2. Leftists oppose conservatives and their agenda.
3. Therefore, leftists are societal heros fighting against societal deviants and their bigotry and inequality.

And from this we derive the leftist conception of the socio-political realm-

1. All politics is a good versus evil struggle between left-wing heros and right-wing villains.
2. As the heroes, the Left and its policies are exempt from criticism and need not engage in actual debate.
3. As the villains, the Right and its policies deserve nothing but criticism and need not be actually debated.

   It becomes obvious, then, that-

   1. The modern Leftist adheres to a false paradigm constructed through the use of deductive   logic that starts with false premises and ignores all actual facts and information.
   2. Adhering to a false paradigm constructed using this method is a delusion.
   3. Therefore, modern Leftism is not a real ideology but a delusion, or mental illness.

   It's plain to be seen who the truly irrational, unreasoned, and bigoted folks are in this place.

Further Penetrating Of The Liberal Mindset

2010-08-21T13:39:00.001-07:00

By Michael Parish

As we've discussed previously on this blog, the Left, those impeccable purveyors of Enlightenment rationality and objectivity, suffer from a striking epistimological paradox: while claiming a monopoly on the overwrought ideals of 1789, it is impossible for them to rationally comprehend and acknowledge any views that deviate even slightly from their own.This brings to them to a second, even stranger paradox, that being the immediate dismissal of those views to the bleachers of irrationality (which these days is called bigotry). In the process, those modernist notions become increasingly exposed for the hollow rhetoric they are. A recent example of this....

Michael O' Powell, in the leftist rag Gonzo Times, had this to say of my Bay Area comrade Andrew Yeoman...

"In Bay Area, Hate Has Its Spokesman"

Uh oh...a turd in their silver punchbowl...

"Ethno-Nationalism By The Bay"

Already ethno-nationalism is conflated without explanation with "hate."

"The Bay Area is known throughout the world as being a beacon of tolerance, liberalism, and multiculturalism. Known for producing the likes of Harvey Milk and Rachel Maddow or for Vietnam protests and the Berkely Free Epeech movement, it's known far less for its speakers of far right hatred. However, that does not mean they're not there."

Yes, we all know what San Fransisco is known for. Notice how the meaningless cliche "tolerance" and the misguided experiment "multiculturalism" are situated right next to the vague term "liberalism" which you are intended to accept as a synonym for rationally progressive social structures? Notice how they refer favorably to the Berkely Free Speech Movement (a repeat of which would serve that institution well by the way) while alluding forebodingly to a supposed "speaker of far right hatred"?

"On August 11th, in the wake of Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling repealing Proposition 8, Andrew Yoeman took to the website of Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) and wrote, "Irrespective of what one thinks about the phenomenon of gay marriage, we are bothered by a federal judge who has ruled something approved by the people of California is unconstitutional without providing any rational basis for which that assertion is true. This is judicial tyranny against the people, and should be recognized as such by everyone, wherever they reside on the politcal spectrum."

It's not as if Walker is calling for the mobilization of federal troops to intervene and massacre Californians, so I would relegate Yeoman's assesment of this as "federal tyranny" to the exageration file. But it is a significant event, in that it's an instance of a liberal violating liberal principles in the pursuit of liberal ends. That he has not furnished a "rational basis" for his assesment of the ruling matters only scarcely-political ideology is largely a matter of emotion and aesthetic preference, with "reason" but convenient window dressing. His decision will not be recognized that way by those on the Left side of the political spectrum, who are more than willing to weight the dice when it yields the wrong (for them) numbers.

"It takes significant digging to find the ideology that lay underneath his talk of democracy standing up against tyranny, but if you talk to him long enough, it does manifest. Elaborating on his opposition ot the desicion of Judge Walker, Yeoman argued "The regulation of marriage in the accepted in the legal domain as a state level issue that the people of California have decided should be between a man and a woman. This really has nothing to do with the militant minority that want to radically change the legally and socially accepted basis of a family but everything to do with what the people of California believe is fair and just."

Actually it takes no significant digging at all...his defense of desicions made at the state level is based on the legal concept of states rights, one of the basic tenants of American paleoconservatism. It bears more than passing familarity to most. That is the dangerously subversive ideology you oh so ominously referred to? Notice how the second half of Yoeman's argument was based on a defense of majority preference a.k.a. democracy, which the Left exalts in the abstract, but casts pejoratively as a sinister "ideology" when it fails to yeild their desired results.

"Yeoman alluded further that the redefinition of marriage amounts to an affront on the cultural

history of Western Civilization." "I have been called a hateful bigot for believing that a family should consist of a gender pairing that has defined not just this country but western civilization for as long as there is documentation for. That does not give militants on this issue the right to attack me and others that believe the same as me with the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of."

Notice how he explains in clear detail his position on this issue and refers specifically to the ideology adhered to by the author of this article...and he is still branded with the "bigot" label. And also how he his comment about "the hateful hysteria they are accusing us of" is embodied by the article itself. This author can't even tell when his own self (or kind, in this case) is being referred to.

Poor Andrew can't even defend himself from the accusation of "bigotry" without being condemned in an article by a clueless author who reaffirms the same.

The article then drifts on to some background information on Andrew that is largley irrelevant here. But the warped (mis)perception of the world is clear-holding views that deviate even slightly from the egalitarian-interchangability paradigm instantly makes you a bigot. And a radical bigot at that. That Andrew implicitly believes in separate societal roles for straights and queers (and separate rules for both) is sufficient to warrant his classification as a "speaker of hatred." And as a speaker of "far right" hatred no less...even though his view is indistinguishable from that of most mainstream conservatives, and apparently, most mainstream Californians.

More Dishing On White Nationalism

2010-08-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Those who have read my previous article on the topic will know that I am no friend to the so called "white nationalist" movement as it exists in the United States. My dismal assessment of this movement stems not from a dislike of whites on racial grounds, nor from a pc-induced horror at the thought of whites organizing for their own self-interest. In short, I do not reject the movement for the same reasons cultural Marxists would condemn it. Rather, I attack it from a different (my own) perspective, and one that I think I left generally unclear in my first rant on the subject. So, to tread the waters some more...

One thing about White Nationalism is that it is not, as common sense would dictate, a fundamentally conservative movement. Conservativism generally maintains a belief in a historically existant and naturally occuring state of (social) affiars, and dedicates itself to preserving those that. White Nationalism, on the other hand, is a form of quasi-leftism. It centers around a group-based view of society, with one group oppressed and the other doing the oppressing. The former needs to develop a group consciousness and organize for its own interests to overthrow the latter. In short, it is a form of victimological identity politics, one that has more in common with the New Left cultural movements it opposes than it would like to admit.

The only difference is one of content, not of structure. For Marxist labor unions, it was workers who had it rough and "capitalism" was the reason for it being rough. For feminism, it was women and "patriarchy." For minority nationalists, it was their respective group and "whites." For White Nationalists, it is whites and the modern liberal state. Leftists may recoil in horror at the suggestion of similarities between the dreaded "WN" and their own sacred cows (and vice versa) but it's the same play performed under a different mask. And, much like their left-wing counterparts, WNs make the mistake of ignoring economic class.

In the leftist mind, every member of every one of their favored victim groups is automatically "oppressed", simply because of their membership in one of those groups. (The flipside to this, of course, is that every member of their despised "oppressor" groups is priveleged for precisely the same reason.) Class differences within those groups are ignored. For instance, all blacks are assumed to be victims of "The Man"; the difference between a Cosbeyite negrosie and a ghetto dweller is never considered. All women are supposedly victims of "the patriarchy", with no distinction to be drawn between single mothers on welfare and the well to do daughters of middle class professionals (i.e. feminists.)

White Nationalists do the same in regards to whites. In their drive to paint White America with a brush of quasi-universalism, they remain clueless as to crucially important class differences within the white demographic. American whites are not a homogenous group facing the same problems. The white underclass in the trailer parks and rural areas, the white working class in urban and industrial zones, and the white middle class in the suburbs are three distinctly different groups, each with their own historical and socio-economic circumstances. To subsume all of them under the same banner and advocate on their behalf as if they were a homogenous group with the same concerns and vulnerabilities would be an error.

They also repat another mistake of leftist acedemic movements: misidentifying the enemy. For them, all is to be blamed on the liberal managerial state and its attendant multicultural ideology. This is partially true. But, like every other group of victomologists to point the figure at the Other and some abstract ideology, they remain blind to their true enemy, that being globalist capitalism. Nationalists will wail perpetually about the minority of white middle class professionals who statistically might have a small chance of losing a job due to affirmative action, but never about the thousands of white workers displaced by offshoring. They wail also about the evils of multicultural ideology in fostering open borders, but never about the underlying economic incentive of corporate America in funding this multicultural expriment.

And the wailing continues, all of it misdirected. They complain about their incomes being taxed and redistributed to lower class blacks, but the majority of those on welfare in America are white. This reinforces my belief that White Nationalism is inherently a bourgeoise movement, falsely portraying middle class whites as victims the same way vulgar libertarianism does for big business interests. What they fail to realize is that white America is not one big happy family with the same interests, subject to the same historical circumstances. The truth is far from this. The white working and ownership classes have been in tension since the country's founding, with the white middle class languishing in petty luxury in between.

Most economic exploitation in America is of working class whites, at the hands of their richer racial bretheren. Most cultural scapegoating here is of working class whites ("white trash") and by rich whites ("giving back to the community by donating to the local multicultural center"). Most fucking over in general, including the offshoring of jobs and the hiring of immigrants, happens between these two same groups. The entire liberal ethos of collective blame for all the world's evils on the white proletariat ("The Authoritarian Personality") originated among and is perpetuated by well to do whites against their less fortunate cousins. This should be enough to pop the White Nationalist bubble. The WNs are too busy trying to detect the pernicious influence of the heeb to realize the complicity of the white upper class in creating this current state of affiars.

So it has been established rather firmly that White America is not a unified group or people but a collection of different economic interests engaged in historically perpetual struggle with each other. That has two crucial implications for us. It means the WN vision of American whites coming together out of a nonexistent "common interest" is just that: a vision. The same goes for the New Left vision of the pantheon of the oppressed coming together to overthrow the straight white male phallocracy. The real class struggle is, and has always been, between the trailer park and the country club.

Reality As Legal Construction

2010-08-16T13:46:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

A thorough understanding of our reality requires a conscious distinction between what is organic and what is constructed; what exists organically and what is the product of human creation. A great many in our society, and a great many in others, fail to do this and therefore live under a flawed misunderstanding of reality. It is my intent in this essay to correct this misunderstanding and provide a clarified understanding of the world we live in. So, with my self-important pomposity in full swing, let's get started.It is crucially important to distinguish between the world as it actually exists and the artificial constructs humans impose on it; between what John Searle distinguishes as natural and social facts. One artificial construction is law. The entire legal realm is man-made. Laws do not exist in nature, outside of human construction; they are fictions that humans originate in their minds and then write down on paper, and the paper they are written on is the only place they truly exist. Not up in the sky. Not on a magic grimoire in the astral plane.

One example is the legal classification of the stages of human development. American lawmakers at one time selected the age of 18 as being the significant cut-off point. Those over 18 are classified by law as "adults" and those under "minors." These terms are mere constructs, as are the written rules that apply to both groups. Those over 18, so say our lawmakers, can "legally" make decisions regarding contract (the rental and ownership of property, insurance, marriage), their bodies ( the purchase and consumption of alcohol and tobacco) and their sexuality (consenting to sex, purchasing and appearing in pornography.) Those who have yet to reach this age are forbidden from making such decisions, and in fact may incur penalties for behaving otherwise.There is no rule or classification, independent of human invention, that says it is wrong for people under 18 to make any of these decisions or partake in any of these activities simply because they are under 18. Conversely, there is nothing that says it is okay for people over 18 to do such simply because they are over 18. There is only written law, concieved mentally by humans and transposed by them onto paper.

Other examples abound. Marriage is merely an agreement made privately by two individuals to live together in a relationship and exclude all others from their romantic and sexual lives. This type of relationship (and its attendant living arrangement) does and has existed independently of written law. However, our written law treats it in legal terms. There is no fundamental difference between a married couple and a pair of long-term life partners; the only difference is the former went through the legally defined marriage process and the latter didn't. The distinction between the two exists only on (again...) paper. That the former recieves benefits, hospital visitation rights and other perks and the latter doesn't is rooted not in any divine or transcent decision but by artifical legal distinction.

This has a crucial impact for our understanding of human political life, and in particular, power. This is because power relations are, like my previous examples, legally constructed. They are not inherent. The "rights" indicated in the Bill Of Such do not exist on their own and as such you would not posess them if that document was never written. The "rights" claimed by the State are equally fictitious. There is no unwritten law stating that any group of people has the right to extract wealth from another group, and to then use it to finance the imposition of arbitrary rules on them. The military, law enforcement, and other arms of the state have no sacred or transcendent right to decide what you can and cannot do and then to use coercion to ensure compliance with their desicions. They only do because they (and we) think we do, and we've drafted documents making it official.

In the words of George Carlin "We made the whole fuckin' thing up!"

Why do Europeans Need Advocates?

2010-08-12T10:24:00.000-07:00

by Ian Huyett

If you’re asking this question, you only need to look in the mirror to answer it.

You wouldn’t question the NAACP, La Raza, or the ADL for promoting the interests of African, Latino, or Jewish Americans, even if they did so at the expense of others. The double standard against European Americans is so glaring that political movements are attacked as racist simply for having high concentrations of ethnic Europeans.

Scholars who advocate the bloody genocide of European Americans are applauded at university panels. Professors and authors who teach that all females of European descent deserve to be raped receive prestigious awards and rave New York Times reviews, even though they make no exceptions for their own fans and supporters. Rappers who advocate racial violence against European Americans receive major movie contracts and become spokespeople for soft drinks.

It’s no secret that white people overwhelmingly face discrimination in hiring, scholarships, college admissions, and promotions, but we’re told to accept this mistreatment simply because a mere 5% of our ancestors owned slaves centuries ago. Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against whites then vice versa. Black rapists target white women with revoltingly staggering disproportion. Sickening hate crimes against white people are ignored and silenced by a media that would turn them into global scandals if the races were reversed.

Meanwhile, the now aimless NAACP has resorted to deliberately misinterpreting Hallmark greeting cards. Increasingly, it’s people of European descent who are facing racist violence and discrimination. It’s time for us to have our NAACP.

Originally posted at Fourteen Percent.

The Early American Experience And Its Implications For Social Organization

2010-08-11T13:50:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Over the years much debate has transpired regarding the Founding Fathers, their inspiration, and how this forms America's identity. Given the institutional dominance of the Left, the only view deemed acceptable on this issue is that of America as a propisition nation, consciously designed on the basis of universal truth. Any conception that deviates even slightly from this is to be disregarded immediately as a product of backwarness, bigotry, or both. I have always taken issue with this state of affiars, as I feel the dominant view is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of human sociology, and that it's perpetuation has required the suppression of a number of noteworthy arguments.

It is worth noting that America was not "founded" as a deliberate act. The American colonies had been in existence for quite some time prior to July 4th, 1776, and during that time had developed a regional culture and identity all their own. A crucial (and inevitable) part of this was the development of a rising regional consciousness in the minds of the colonies' inhabitants. Even before the summer of '76 rolled around, America had already been its own nation and its designation as an offshoot of England existed only on paper. In other words, America as a political entity arose out of an organic process, not through purely legal construction. An understanding of this is crucial to an understanding of its founders and their ideology.

America was not, as stated previously, founded on purportedly universal tenants. The "Founding Fathers" were of near exclusive Anglo-Protestant stock, and the Enlightenment liberalism that informed their constitution was a distinctly English ideology, having existed in no other part of the World. That they chose it as their philosophical foundation was natural and instinctive on their part, as it was the intellectual heritage it they were raised with. In short, America was not borne of geographically and historically transcendent truths arrived at through the instrumental use of reason. Rather, it grew organically out of the sensibilities of a particular people with a particular heritage, and its founding tenants were all philosophical particulars specific to a certain place and time.

The (at the time revolutionary, today novel) practice of founding a nation on the basis of a written constitution, rather than letting its laws and governmental structures grow spontanously out of history and experience, does not change this. This is because even the features of the constitution were a dialectical response to recent history and experience. The emphasis on individual liberties and restricted government that characterizes the document are taken for granted in today's era...but emerging immediately after seccession from a regime diametrically opposed to such principles they make perfect sense. Indeed, it is the only context within which they make sense. The Second Ammendment illustrates this like no other.

To further this example, let us suppose hypothetically that the Constitution had never been implemented. Instead, the rights belonging to citizens and the laws governing them would have arose spontaneously out of cultural preference and historical experience. It would likely be the case that the same provisions officially spelled out in the Constitution would have come into existence on their own, without being encoded into a founding document. This is because the Constitution was informed by accumulated experience and its attendant, resulting sensibilities; these facors would still exist on their own without being objectified into written law. You don't need a piece of paper proclaiming the right to bear arms to a people who just used arms to win a revolutionary war.

This reinforces my belief that political entities should be based organically on a common culture and heritage shared by all its members, that the laws there should reflect that culture and heritage, and that sovereignty can only be accomplished through mutual recognition among each organically constitued politcal entity. Successful social organization and action can be based only on concrete factors and analysis thereof, not on abstract theories and external imposition thereof. A solid application of this, which I consider axiomic, is the correct basis for an anti-state movement. In fetishizing the universalizing and increasingly abstract ideology of liberal rationalism, American anarchism has failed to offer a functioning alternative to the political mainstream.

The Reason For Our Discontent

2010-08-08T19:08:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

One chronic tendency in our public discourse, and one that I'm gravely ill of, is that of referring to politicians as "leaders." This is a misnomer, as these individuals are not "leading " towards anything. Having the power to enact policies that affect the lives of a populace is not "leading " them. It's merely controlling them. This obvious fact can easily be concealed with allusions to the country's future (typically trumped up with favorable historical references) as if 21st century America possessed some sort of grand telelogical destiny. But those future glories are mere illusions devised to sell campaign commercials. In reality, all that's left is a nation of sheep dogged by a tiny pack of predatory wolves, unsure of the future but sure it will be an ugly one.

In this morass, politicians may not be "leading" their subjects directly, but they certainly influence their political behavior. A well-off Harvard boy with no experience but moneyed connections and a fashionable image can inspire millions to cast their votes for him. All it takes is a miasmic media blur of inspirational sloganeering-"Hope" (hope for what?) and "Change" (change to what?). People won't demand greater specifics than these. And elected "leaders" aren't the only ones...this description applies just as easily to media figures and ideologues.

If the Magic Negro can manipulate the minds of morons on one side, then the talking (air)heads over at Faux News can do the same to those on the other. This leaves us with a tug of war between two blindfolded teams, amusing to watch but going nowhere fast.

Coaching the competitors on the right is Glenn Beck. Beck is a prominent peddler of the kind of capitalist cultural mythology his viewers gobble up with glee. And well he should be as he's the archetypical American success story. Where else but in America could a recovering boozehound and adult convert to Mormonism get not only his own T.V. and radio shows, but shows that people actually listen to and take seriously? And they do take him seriously-in fact, the entire Tea Party "movement" is a byproduct of his on-air clownery. He cries and they mobilize. This examplifies two things-the poorly run condition of our opinion-molding institutions and the dead on arrival social activism they inspire.

In a society where people are conditioned to the role of passive recpients, they don't venture forth in search of knowledge with which to base their actions. Nor, in our high tech hive of worker bees, do they have time to. Instead, they recieve their political impetus the same way they recieve everything else...sequestered on the Lazy Boy, remote in one hand, bag of Doritos in the other, passively absorbing their information the same way they recieve everything else...in the smallest, most accessibly tailored bites. In this anesthesized condition, any brand of snake oil can be sold successfully, with the customers oblivious to the worthlessness of their purchase.

And so thousands of Americans take to the streets in protest of ghosts. Middle and upper middle class suburbanites have been conned into thinking they're victims, that the poor are oppressors. That the "free market capitalism" which, as well know, "is what made America great" is under attack from an undercover Marxist president. That an expanded welfare state and government mandated corporate patronage qualify as "socailism." Like all delusionals, they are intensely driven by their beliefs. This manifests itself in such heroic displays as shouting down pinhead politicians at Townhall meetings and yelling through bullhorns at rallies.

The lesson here is the need for a Vanguard or elite to rally the troops and assume leadership roles in resistance movements. Contrary to the populist view of the Left, genuine radical movements originate at the top and then slowly work their way down to the bottom, through the siezure of opinion-molding institutions. Trickle down revolution. That Beck and his cohorts have been the ones at the helm of those institutions is the reason hy this has not yet happened. In order to whip the disenfranchised into purposeful action, it is our responsibility to throw these charlatans out on their asses. Until that happens, the American Right, as Yockey so succiently put it, will remain "the dumbest in the world."

Penetrating The Liberal Mindset

2010-08-08T14:11:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

James Kalb, in his indispensable The Tyranny Of Liberalism, exposes the inner workings of public discourse in liberal societies. All arguments have to constructed along rational lines and presented in equally rational terminology. All others are neccessarily excluded from debate. It goes unmentioned, however, that this discourse occurs in a liberal controlled public arena. Therefore, "rational" is merely a synonym for liberal, with illiberal views conflated with whatever is deemed groundless at the time and dismissed as such. In our current cultural climate, that amounts to a an ad hominem dismissal of everything but officially approved "progressive" thought as the product of "racism, sexism, and homophobia." A slightly belated, yet still relevant, case in point, from the saints over at MediaMatters...

"Yesterday, John Stossel took to the air on Fox News to defend the right to discriminate based on race. Yes, you read that correctly. "

Actually, no one has ever presented a specific right to disriminate, but the right of freedom of association as embedded in private property rights, which includes the right to discriminate. Notice how they're already portraying this illiberal position as suggestive of a loose screw, in spite of its long history as part of the classical liberal tradition. Yes, I did read that correctly...and what's more I understood it!

"On Megyn Kelly's Fox News show, Fox employee John Stossel said: "Private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I will speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist."

Okay...an unpopular opinion in this day and age, but certainly a legitimate one, and one that makes perfect sense. The writer disagrees, of course...

"Stossel is the only the latest in a long line of news personalities to divide America along racial lines, and it needs to stop. We need to send a message loud and clear, first to Fox, and if it's unwilling to listen, to the sponsors who support it: Enough is enough: stop promoting racism on your network."

Ooh! A guy argues for a different approach to discrimination and suddenly he's "diving America along racial lines." All multicultural societies are inherently divided along racial lines as part of their nature, and this has nothing to with T.V. journalists sporting 70's gay porn 'staches. Notice how rejecting the liberal line on this issue immediately equates to "promoting racism." Just like CNN does everytime they have Tim Wise on as a guest commentator...

"But Stossel didn't just argue for the right to discriminate. He went a step further, suggesting the "public accomodations" section of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, thus allowing private businesses to practice racial discrimination. This is the section of the law that prohibits a lunch counter from refusing to serve African-Americans...a practice which was commonplace when the law was passed. "

Yes, the practice was commonplace when the law was passed. In 1964. But now the same people who agitated for that bill are running the country, and the values disseminated in its institutions have changed accordingly. Anyone attempting to violate the now-ultimate taboo would be protested out of their livelihood overnight. This is why Stossel's argument has merit to it, dumbass.

"The government, Stossel says, should be protecting the rights of businesses that want to discriminate, not the rights of minorities facing pervasive discrimination. "

Whoa Whoa back up for a second. Freedom of association is a negative right that exists in the absence of state intervention, not a positive right that exists only as a statist construct. Get your political philosophy straight before commenting. Also, there is no such thing as a "right" to enter someone else's property without their approval, as I assume that's what you're implying.

"Enough is enough: stop promoting racism on your network."

That fuckin' red herring agin....

"This isn't the first time a Fox personality has treaded the line on race. Fox News operates under the direction of President Roger Ailes, a longtime political operative with a history of race-baiting and racially inflammatory campagin tactics. Glenn Beck, one of Fox's top-rated hosts, has repeatedly called both Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor "racists" who dislike white people and white culture., and Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly have also stoked racial insensitivity with on-air comments. "

I realize I am now in the awkward position of defending a television network, and talking (air)heads, I despise. I can't vouch for Aile's history, but I fail to see the sin in Glenn Beck's criticisms of the Magic Negro and the Wise Latina. So now it's "racist" to accuse members of ethnic minories of harboring resentment against whites while simultaneously acceptable to immediately assume all whites are racist because they're white? The advanced logic at play here is fascinating.

"It's not just the hosts: in just the past week, Fox has also presented a platform for the extremist anti-immigrant group Americans For Immigration Control, which has been linked to white nationalist groups and has drawn fire from the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center for their anti-Latino rhetoric."

Ah yes. Raising concerns about the economic and cultural consequences of unconditional open borders automatically brands you an "extremist." And keeping note of immigrant's criminal proclivities is "anti-Latino rhetoric." That this earns you dissaproval from a pair of shyster organizations makes you dangerous. The bar for being a threat to civil society keeps getting reset lower and lower.

For no apparent reason the article repeats the phrase "Enough is enough: stop promoting racism on your network" two more times.

"Now Stossel is adding to Fox's questionable record of rhetoric on race. At some point this stops being a question about individual hosts or guests...and starts to be a question about the whole network. It's time for Fox News to be held accountable for the racially charged statements and racially insensitive statements it allows on the air."

It feels odd defending a guy whose sub-Reason pop-libertarianism I loathe. Notice in addition to the ludicrous leaps in logic the subtle authoritarianism at play here: Faux News has to be "held accountable" for the illiberal racial views it "allows" on the air. In a country where freedom of speech is a constitutional right, can't a network allow on the air any views it wants? This evidently does not occur to the morality police over at MediaMatters as they go about their self-appointed task of keeping others "accountable."

See what I mean?

The Descent Into The Cultural Marxist Twilight Zone Continues...

2010-08-08T13:02:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

As I've complained before on this blog, our society values hurt feelings on the same level as hurt bodies, and views emotional security as worthy as protection as physical. This is all part of the feminization process currently dry-rotting what remains of Western Civilization. This most recent example I feel is worth sharing, as it is especially ripe for ridicicule. Sher Zieve on RenewAmerica.com writes...

"As they are highly offensive to Muslims, it appears that our politically correct leftist-run middle school system will no longer allow pork products on school property."

Ooh. So now "zero tolerance" policy extends to students diets? Are we going to have a special team of inspectors check each student's lunch bag? And will school lunch providers be required to completely overhaul their menus? The answer is likely yes, but the increased costs and loss of student privacy will be worth it to ensure no one suffer "emotional damages."

"At Lewiston, ME Middle School placing pork in the mere prescence of Muslims is currently being called a hate crime."

Why of course it's a "hate crime" (I can't type that term without inserting those contemptous scare quotes.) It's the greatest possible evil to indue any degree of emotional distress in someone, particularly if that someone happens to be of non-Western ethic and/or religious origin. Their emotional sacredness has just been extended to include their immediate surroundings as well.

"Note: Jews also believe pork is unclean but there has never been any effort by the public school system to remove their religious beliefs. That is reserved solely for Muslims. For that matter, celebrations of Christian holidays are being summarily removed from the public school system, while Muslim holidays are commemorated-and Muslim foot washing basins and prayer rooms are being built. All manner of Islamic demands are being met and Islam is quickly and clearly being established as the "superior" religion in the USA-now in the public school systems and, no doubt, soon in the enitre country."

Yes, this is one of the very few instances where the Jews have not demanded compulsory sensitivity towards their particulars. But, in their absence, another group of whiners was bound to fill the role and Muslims just happened to be up at bat. Because Christianity is historically associated with the West, its adherents lack the immense cultural significance of a precious Third World import like Islam. The ceaseless demands of these Muslims have to be because A) they're non-European and B) they're non-European. It has to become dominant in America, because, as we're constantly reminded "We need to be more like Europe."

"The latest incident of "Muslim outrage" involves a middle school student purportedly placing a ham sandwich wrapped in a baggie on a lunchtable where Somali Muslim students sit."

Uh oh...

"One unnamed 14 yr old Somail student is reported to have said: "At the school the nest day, I didn't feel safe. I felt like everyone was against me. Before I felt like I fit in, and everything was normal."

What about sticks and stones may break my bones but ham will never hurt me? That's far more sensibile a social strategy than feeling unsafe in the presence of a sandwich, no matter how intimdating that sandwich may be.

"The ham-placing "offending student" has been suspended, the Maine middle school is calling the placing of the ham a "hate crime", and the local police are investigating the child."

He won't be allowed back until he's taken a "sensitivity" course where he'll "gain awareness" of the richness of Muslim culture. The police are digging through his room in search of anti-Muslim literature, and will interogate him on anything they find.

"More charges against the child may be forthcoming."

Can you imagine the "victim" in all this repeating his lament from earlier in this paragraph to prosecutors at a court trial?

"School superitendent Leon Levesque said: "The school incident is being treated seriously as a hate incident!"

So the age old childhood practice of taunting and berating your peers is now to be classified as "hate" if it is directed against a member of one of the official state-designated victim groups?

"Then, in the true and remarkable spirit of the Kumbaya for Islam set, Levesque added: "We've got some work to do to turn this around and bring the school community back together again."

Ah, the nonexistent "school community", bonded together by enriching diversity, that exists only in the minds of shitheaded educrats...

"Even the Portland, ME based Center For The Prevention Of Hate Violence has become involved. Its Executive Director Stephen Wessler immediately went off the deep end and commented: "It's extraordinarily hurtful and degrading to Muslims, whose religion prohibits them from being around ham. It is important to respond swiftly."

Yes we must respond swiftly by informing the sainted Somali that it was a mere joke perpetrated by a child who doesn't know aany better. And then tell him to get used to it becaue that's life, kid.

"Wessler then added warningly: Incidents like this that involve degrading language or conduct that is said by the perpetrator as a joke. I know that conduct is never static. It is part of a process of escalation!"

Yes an evil storm is slowly and quietly gathering at this middle school, and this ham sandwich is only the beggining. Soon it will be a two ham sandwiches, and then a Holiday Ham, and then finally a whole pig.

The article eventually drifts off into a stretch of neocon fear-mongering, but I think you get my point. America going the way of a British-style PC police state, despite having twice the constitutional provisions and half the Muslims.

Bowling For Common Sense

2010-08-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Having grown up in a Middle American backwater, I'm no stranger to guns and the guys who fetishize them, which I think qualifies me to discuss the issue with a greater degree of clarity than their side is currently capable of. Seeing as the gun issue is one of the most roundly misunderstood and misrepresented in our public discourse, I find it imperative that I do so. So, with my egotistic over-appraisal of my own analytic capabilities, let us enjoy another rant shall we? Gun control is yet another issue where I find both sides lacking, one because they've got no clue what they're yapping about and the other because they've got no cluse how to refute the clueless yapping. Hence, my mission to grab both by the hair and club their hands together with a resounding "Shutup the botha ya's." Hopefully, we'll be able to divine a bit of sense from the resulting cranial friction.

As is typically the case, we can uncover the reasoning of a position or argument by closely examining its adherents and by doing the same with those whose lives the policy will affect. In this particular example, the average would be gun grabber. This creature is typically from a middle or upper middle class background, typically lives in an artifically pleasent suburb, and typically has no exerience with guns (or crime) whatsoever. Now, let's shift our attention to the average would be gun grabee. He likely hails from a blue collar background, in an authentically unpleasent neighborhood, and has no experience with the 'burbs (or the brand of liberalism they produce) whatsoever. So, by a simple process of social deduction, what is presented as a crime issue is actually a class issue...

And a cultural one also. It's not insignificant that gun culture is a staple of working class life in the central and lower regions of the country, a pastime rightly associated with uncosmopolitan social envieronments. It's equally important to remember that those outside these envieronments regard them with the utmost horror, seeing in the Field & Stream mailing list the end of the open society. So there you have it-a double shot of bourgeos elitism and paranoia, manifesting itself in a mad drive to strip "those people" of what makes them happy. The great paradox in all this is the inherent authoritarianism of those who buy into The Authoritarian Personality...especially when it comes to things they find aesthetically displeasing.

That their "arguments" always involve vulgar caricaturizations of gun enthusiasts shoud come as no surprise. In the liberal mind, merely expressing interest (any interst) in those wicked weapons automatically brands you a "redneck", an illiterate idiot, which of course, relegates you the bleachers of rational debate. That the safe maintainence and use of a real firearm is an careful and intricate process, knowledge of which the supposed "rednecks" possess but would be impossible for the "non-violent" liberal...this does not play into the debate whatsoever, because merely calling yourself "liberal" autmotically grants you the intellectual high ground.

This debate could be over (and the left side of it neatly exposed) if it weren't for the equally false pretenses of those on the "right." Movement conservatives professing a support for gun rights typically ground their position in the Constitution, using it as a springboard for "Founding Fathers" emulation. This falls flat, as it demonstrates a greater adherence to liberal-legal ideology than to actual gun ownsership. If you support gun rights because it's "in the constitution"...then what if it's wasn't in the Constitution? And, what if gun rights could be tied to issues other than self-defense and deer hunting, the two points the right's arguments always hinge on?

Because those two concerns are infertile ground for planting a dedication to an armed America. As a child of Wisconsin's Fox Valley region, I'm more than familiar with the deer hunting subculture, which my attitude toward is summed up by this quote from the late Edward Abbey: "Whenever I see a photograph of some sportsman grinning over his kill, I am always impressed by the striking moral and esthetic superiority of the dead animal over the live one." Deer hunters tend to be social conservatives who balance a belief in our supposedly God-given right to kill animals with an attitude of preciousness about humans, embodying to me the most lunkheaded excesses of "Judeo-Christian Vlues." They've accordingly transformed their hobby into a "family tradition" i.e. father and son bond over a buck corpse, to be taken home to mom for food preparation. This nauseating combination is why I feel next to no sympathy when I hear about lethal hunting accidents. I don't see "our right to hunt" as something worth defending, as guns have far better applications that killing inconsequential animals.

Nor does private crime, that perrenial hobby horse of the law and order Right, really send me reaching for my revolver. It would be preferable if Americans would arm themselves and take repsonsibility for their own safety. It really would. An armed populace I can at least respect, rather than the defenseless weaklings, crimes against which are invariably the fault of the police for "not being there." For a people that prattles incessantly on about "personal responsibility", this one area seems to be their blindspot. But that's not in the cards, and neither is building a worthy pro-gun argument with self-defense as its basis.

Unless its self-defense against those who are nominally there to protect you. It's interesting that neither side of this debate mentions the police and surveillance states in their positions, despite those institutions posing a far greater threat to our well-being than private crooks. Oh, the libs came out (admirably for once) against the Patriot Act, but since their man has taken the helm of Homeland Security, they've mysteriosuly made peace with it. Because the threat now is not Islamofascists but...well, those hapless hicks from the beginning of this article. Meanwhile, Faux News followers cling to their guns (and, yes, their religion) but lack the logic to see the two plus two connection between them and the "anti-terrorist" activities of the guy they voted twice into office. The "Right" remains as docile as the Left.

"White Nationalism?" Bah Humbug!

2010-08-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Contrary to the delusions of left-victomologists, American history is not an uphill battle between black and white. As Jim Goad aptly chronicles in his indeispensable The Redneck Manifesto, the earliest Europeans to populate the American South were indentured servants culled from the lowest tire of English society, who occupied a social status comparable to that of the slaves. Even at its most obscene, slavery was an institution enjoyed only by a tiny moneyed elite, with the majority of whites toiling fruitlessly in poverty. The notion of collective Southern guilt is easily dispelled. Since then, whites have comprised a majority of the American working class, and the majority of those displaced by corporate offshoring. Sorry, Fanton-being white does not automatically assign you bourgeoise status, nor does it make you an appropriate target of ethnic cleansing. And, despite the teary-eyed bleating over inner city living conditions, a full half of those in poverty here are white. If you want to experience desperate living, the trailer park and the farmstead are every bit as recommended, if not more so, than the tenament and the ghetto. The inahbitants of the former comprise the majority of welfare recipients, the revelation of which causes the liberal to undergo a sudden change of heart regarding the program, mimicking the "leeches who need to get a job" mantra of the right.

Given the predominance of liberal guilt and minority exaltation in our institutions, these realities have been predictably glossed over. Indeed, to the average American, white is a mere synonym for "priveleged" and black (or brown) for "got it bad and it's all our fault." This leaves the peculiar oddity of white trash to suffer as the sole bearer of blame for their unfortunate existence, when their existence is mentioned at all. Given capitalism's chronic mistreatment of these hapless fucks (and the left's chronic failure to attend to it) it would seem that these people deserve an identity crusade of their own, complete with a list of grievances and corresponding demands, and a pompous, overly sensitive spokesman. So when I first discovered the existence of a movement calling itself "white nationalism" my penis grew erect and blew a mollasses thick load with excitement. Closer examination of this tendency revealed that I would be wiping my tum tum clean for nothing.

Foucault famously remarked that "power begits its own resistance" and took a hesitant position toward supposedly subversive movements, seeing them as unavoidably structured by (and therefore echoing) the very institutions they claim to oppose. To the extent that this is true it would explain the historical impotence of the Left, but the same flaw is also instantly detectable on the radical right. "White Nationalism", having developed as a reaction to percieved excesses within the academic and managerial regimes, predictably inverses those institution's ideology without affecting any substantive change to their discourse. This renders it a striking example of the futility of developing oppositional tendencies within the same theoretical framework they ostensibly react to.

As such, "white nationalism" presents not a genuine break from victomological consensus, but a mere Euro-centric restatement of it. The claims of this milieu are a limp wristed role reversal of New Left cultural politics. Now it is whites, we are told, who are the oppressed, and ethnic minorities the oppressors. Only the victimization comes not slavery but from left social engineering, not from colonialism but cultural Marxism. This, of course, is to be contrasted with the undue and irrational priveleged status afforded non-whites by our current ruling class. Facing this dire set of circumstances, whites must first take pride in the achievements of their ancestors (remember..."you're white!") and then organize to fight for rights supposedly lost in the social upheavals of the 60's. Remove the word "white" from this paragraph and you have any pathetic purveyor of left-wing identity politics. And, true to victimological form, most WNs (like their counterparts from across the Parliament) are from the upper economic echelons.

To be blunt, WN does nothing to advance the interests of the outcasts whose misforune I lamented in my introduction. If anything, it takes the same stance of elitist dismissal on them that the Left does. Instead, it casts the white middle class in a victim role, bellyaching for the 'burbs the way the Left does for the inner city. While academia and popular culture are admittedly full of anti-white animus, the cultural hypocrises and double standards present there are a mere irritant. Gnats at a picnic. They in no way constitute any form of systemic oppression or persecution. But...au contraire...the white middle class is suffering systemic oppression and persecution!

You see, thanks to affirmative action policies in hiring and college admissions, it's nigh impossible for whites to gain employment and or an education. The flipside to this is that it defers an unfair privelege on blacks, those favorite pets of our liberal elite. Never mind that whites comprise over four times the percentage of the population as blacks, and the two continue to live and work in largely separate neighborhoods, so the actual numerical chance of a white losing an opportunity to black is an incredibly low one. Or that, since the program's implementation in 1969, white economic fortunes have not decreased substantially. Nor have blacks circumstances increased substantially, other than cultivating an irritating and entitled negrogeoise cronying for the system. While I dismiss AA as a load of liberal bullshit, I don't view it as a detriment to my well-being.

Similarly, the white middle class is being disenfranchised by mass Mexican immigration, which is also eroding and replacing our rich Western heritage and culture. Horrifically, the Holy Trinity of Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and Netflix is under attack from pinto beans and prayer beads! White Americans, proudly declaring themselves "mutts" (i.e. they're part everything and all nothing) have no organic identity or culture worth preserving. "American" is a legal term denoting citizenship that exists only on paper, not tied to any specific line of descent. Without the latter, there is no real value system or means of expression. Consequently, America's existence as a coast to coast commerical cesspool can largely be attributed to the rootlessness and individualistic emptiness of the more privelged segment of its Euro-descended population. I see nothing worthy of preservation in this morass.

Evidently, neither do the pale-skinned petit bourgeoise I'm railing against, as the main source of whitey-hatred in this country comes not from minorities but from whites themselves. I have never had a nonwhite preach to me about how "diversity is our strength" and how I must "celebrate" it as such. I've never had a minority tell me I need to "experience and "appreciate other cultures."Nor have I ever heard one pontificate aabout the moral neccessity of Europe opening it's borders unconditionally to the Third World, on the grounds that it's "enriching." Moreover, the myriad of insipid anti-Western propaganda disseminated in our universities is the provence of upper class whites (and white males, no less!). As are cultural double standards and hypocrisies evident in the media and in the entertainment industry. And what do whites have to say about all this? Nothing. Nada. They're too busy condemning long abolished institutions and deifying long dead "civil rights" leaders. If a group does not see itself and its culture as an objective of value worth preserving (that is if it even has consciousness of itself as a group), then it is not worth being preserved.

While my unpopular defense of the redneck remains, my condemnation of the soccer mom is just as sincere. I'll leave you with a brilliant assessment from Paul Gottfried-"The descent of white Americans into a self-despising and self-indulgent minority would certainly suggest that there are problems for us ahead, but these are problems that the majority-while it remains a majority-should be able to address before they occur. If whites ignore them, then whatever suffering will ensue is fully and richly deserved." Amen.

Liberty For Who? : A Rebuttal To Darian Worden

2010-08-04T09:05:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Regular followers of this blog will know that I am unyielding in my contempt for the left-liberarian tendency, whose proponents I and others have engaged in debate to no effect. Hence the disproportionate amount of space I dedicate to sliming them here. As of late, the main point of contention between us has been the immigration cesspool, and its attendant implications vis a vis political philsosophy. I recently came across this slice of bleeding heart bullshit at the C4SS blog, courtesy of site regular (and ALL auxiliary member) Darien Worden. Analyze this...

"Liberty For All Means Immigrants Too"

But of course. We can't forget the precious immigrants.

"It is dissapointing to see people express concern for liberty while advocating government restrictions on the liberty of immigrants. Immigrants should not be seen as a threat to liberty, but as potential allies in the fight for liberty."

You can only buy into this if your understanding of our social-democratic system is seriously lacking. As they emerge as a demographic in this country, the immigrants and their children will likely evolve into another whining interest group, thumping a list of grievances and corresponding demands...and, in the name of "inclusiveness", the managerial regime will expand to accomodate them. This is another foot deeper into the same quicksand we're already mired in, not a rope to assist in our escape.

"Liberty means nothing if the freedom of any group is placed above individual liberty. And people do not stop being individuals if they are born in a different country. All individuals have the right to claim the fullest liberty to do as they will, as long as they do not violate the liberty of others. Moving to a different part of the world and trying to improve one's life-with or without permission from a government-does not violate anyone's liberty."

And....here comes the Jacobin universalism. Suddenly, everyone everywhere possesses the inaliable right to live wherever they fancy...because this guy says so. Might I inquire as to where this right originates and why it is universally applicable? Given that liberty is a relativist concept, possessing no quantitative or qualitative property, it would be far more sensible to view rights as concieved through the particulars of cultures...of which each individual is a part. That someone uproots from their place of origin and moves elsewhere is of relevance not to states, but to the peoples already established in their immigration destination.

"National borders are invasive of liberty. Most, including the U.S.-Mexico border, were drawn by conquest at the orders of elitists in capitols. Borders designate which politicians are to control which people. They invade the lives of individuals who want to interact with people on the other side or to escape the conditions that governments have inflicted on people within certain boundaries.

No one has the "right" to move wherever they choose irrespective of the wishes of those native to the place they'll be moving. As such, national borders are hardly "invasive of liberty." Borders are drawn by cultural groups to represent where one regional identity ends and the next begins. That the dominant group on side doesn't care to interact with the next does not constitute a rights violation. If governments have inflicted undesirable conditions on their citizens then the optimal course of action would be to remain and fight said government, not escape from their troubles in a foreign land. I am weary of this sort of legal-material reductionism.

"The reality of border enforcement is brutal and draconian. Patrols at the safest crossings send immigrants into the most dangerous desert areas. Many die slowly, and others tresspass desperately. A series of secret prisons, some in warehouses not designed for long term confinement, form a modern American gulag system. New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee has documented much of evidence of widespread, pervasive abuse of immigration detainees. One of the many who died in Immigration and Customs Detention was Jason Ng. A father of two who was arrested for immigration paperwork violations compounded by by beauracratic error, Ng died after being refused medical treatment. "

I'm the very last person to wave pom poms for the American police state, but I must point out that for every illegal that suffers in detention a great many more make it into the country, resulting in deleterious effects on the well-being of those already here. In order to prevent abuses of the sort he (rightly) deplores here, I would advocate dissolving the police state and restoring control over immigration at the state and local level, where the issue can be handled on a human scale.

"Studies suggest that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives. But whatever the case, punishing people for crimes other individuals have committed is fundamentally unjust. And crime is incentivized by any form of prohibition, including The War On Drugs, and by locking people out of the mainstream by assigning them the status of "illegal" humans.

He's correct in pointing out the dubiousness of prohibition, but the notion that lawbreaking on the part of immigrants can be blamed on alienation over their legal status is laughable. Also, the title "human", when devoid of any concrete particulars, is as meaningless as a blank slate.

"Immigrants do not generally take advantage of the U.S. welfare system anymore than natives do. In the article "Immigration: An Open Or Closed Door", The International Society For Individual Rights notes that immigrants pay much in taxes and recieve little benefits from services. And if they did pay less in taxes, that just means the monster state gets less to use to harm people."

Oh I beg to differ, as the exorbitant cost of immigration to native inhabitants has been well documented, by Peter Brimelow and others. Given their undocumented status they do not pay income taxes, which is the largest of them all, and the state's main source of revenue. "And if they did pay less in taxes" that would just mean U.S. citizens are getting fucked over.

"Immigrants do not take jobs from natives. Soceity does not contain a fixes number of jobs or a fixed amount of wealth. Jobs are created when there is a demand that needs to be filled, and value is created by production and trade-by the interactions of numerous individuals. Politicians, not workers, make the economy more rigid and less productive. They stunt economic growth through land use regulations, restrictions that hamper starting businesses,corporate welfare, inflation, and military-industrial complex waste.

Actually by agreeing to work for lower wages immigrants do take jobs from natives, which those doing the hiring are more than happy to give them. Oh, and we're all familar with free market basics and the workings of the U.S. corporate state, buddy.

"And no one has a higher claim to a job because of national or ethnic status. Supporting nationalist ideas of privelege means standing with the politicians who are making things worse, instead of with people trying to get by. Those concerned about job loss or wage reduction should stand with immigrants for higher wages and better conditions instead of deepening the divisions that can be used against workers."

In an organically constituted society the economy exists to serve pre-existing social relations, rather than serve as the basis for social relations (which is all left-libertarianism is, aside from rationalized abstractions.) This naturally leads to preferential hiring for the native-born. This is not "privelege", it's common sense. Supporting open borders means standing with the Reagan, Bush, and Bush The Second, all of whom supported mass immigration and amnesty, and with the industrialists who bak-roll the entire pro-immigration agenda in this country...instead of the majority of the native population who hold dim views on this mass exodus. Those concerned about job loss and wage reduction should consciously reject the multiculti mantra of "diversity" that's used to Trojan Horse these sagging economic fortunes.

"An aspect of culture that cannot survive without being enforced by government agencies is unfit to exist. English has been around long enough and is spoken in enough places that it can easily continue to be an language of communication between multiple ethnic groups. And there is nothing wrong with teaching English to immigrants or knowing other languages. What business is it of anyone else's is some people want to talk to each other differently. Culture is enhanced by interaction. If it is locked in place by isolation it is more likely to stagnte than strengthen."

Agreed wholeheartedly. This is why bilingual voting cards, multiple language instructions, and other accomodations for Spanish speakers need to be abandoned.

"Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have good reason to be against the government and for true liberty. Wide-spread cooperation among immigrant and native born freedom lovers will make our would-be masters tremble at the sound of advancing liberty."

This is true, but immigrants generally are not "freedom lovers" (is this a return of Bush-speak?!)...they're just here into integrate themsleves into the system as it currently exists, not fundamentally realter it in ways that extend beyond language. Oh, and I highly doubt a handful of Mexicans posting on the C4SS message board will induce any trembling in our masters.

Critique Of Market Society...Well, More Of A Rant...

2010-08-02T13:48:00.000-07:00

By Michael Parish

Since its emergence in early modernity, the capitalist market has been trumpeted as the natural collorary to liberal governance, and understandably so. If the state assumes the atomized individual as its theoretical basis, and the natural rights of that individual as its chief (protective) function, then the economic system it presides over should be structured within a corresponding paradigm. What this produces is an economic order based on the free interactions of atomized individuals, its chief function the satisfaction of individual desires. The exponents of this paradigm have historically portrayed it as a shining example of "spontaneous order", of an optimally functioning whole arising randomly out of self-interested interaction, or what Hayek gushingly christened the "Grand Society."

Over time, as the market and its functions grew increasingly entrenched, two schools of thought emerged regarding what direction the state should function in regards to it. The first, falsely calling itself "conservative", cheerleads for lassiez-faire, bolstering its demands with allusions to "protestant work ethic" and Ellis Island cultural mythology. Their opponents, social democrats, foresee all manner of disaster in this vision, insisting to the contrary on a protective regulatory role for the state. That both views retain the same belief in material transaction as the optimal method of social organization, and differ only in regards to the value of central planning, is itself indicitave of the nature of market society. For while the market is typically draped in rhetoric suggestive of spontaniety, its actual history reveals a far different reality.

By taking the abstract individual as its starting point, and constructing itself around the material desires of that individual, market society effectively erodes organic and pre-rational social relations. Families, communities, and hobbyist clubs commit two grave errors...the first being their inclusion of more than one person, and the second being their failure to produce profits. It is only necessary, then, that the individual subject be split from these relations during their insertion as a cog into the capitalist machinery. The non-productive values held by these eroded instutions commit the same sin, so the explicitly materialist market phases them out accordingly, to be usurped by a rational dogma of efficiency, predictability, and convenience.

During the early development of the system, as those at the helm were busy swallowing public subsidies and land grants, those displaced by these developments bore understandable grievances, and ideologies emerged to legitimize those grievances. Capitalism, functioning as it does with ice-cold rationality, ensured its future survival by commissioning the state to assume caretaking roles, ones previously belonging to the organic ties it had severed. This moderate reform also serves the dual purpose of softening the conditions of those on the economic bottom, thereby limiting the neccessity of (and excluding from debate) alternative, non-market economic options. This is the true origin of the modern welfare state.

We can see at this point how the market, despite its supporters claims, is totalitarian in impact. Having already replaced organic social relations with state beauracracy, it has also begun to reshape state-craft in accordance with its aims. As this article continues, it will become crystal clear that our object of inquiry here is an all-encompassing entity that absorbs and recasts all of society in its own image. We'll explore more of this as we continue...

It is impossible to understand this transformative process without first understanding its political collorary, liberal mass democracy. The definitive feature of the liberal state is its self-legitimation through popular approval, configured along egalitarian lines i.e. one vote granted as a basic right to each citizen. In contrast to the monarchist regimes displaced by Enlightenment upheaval, liberal states justify their rule not by appeals to the transcendent ("the divine right of kings") but to the populist, in ways that echo market functions. If a business enterprise markets a useful product, it is rewarded with sufficient profits and remains in competition. If not, the product is recalled, and the enterprise vanishes. Similarly, political parties remain in power by attracting votes via appealing offers. If these are successful, their status remains untouched. If not, they find themselves out of office.

Similarly, political parties are structured identically to business enterprises, built heierarchally around bosses (politicians), beauracracies (campaign management), and labor (street level activists). The democratic process in liberal political envieronments mirrors precisely the functions of the capitalist marketplace. Political parties, like private businesses, engage in competition with one another in pursuit of voters (customers) by offering different products (politicians and legislation presented as favorable to the interests of prospective voters).Conventions hosted by parties are strikingly similar in aspect to corporate product inveilments. Political campaigns gather voters with the use of stylized "campaign commercials" that are fundamentally indistinguishable from corporate product advertisements.

Modern politicians may not be royalty defined by blood as in bygone eras, but they nonetheless constitute a definite elite type of their own. The emergence of the mass media and the public's subsequent dependence on it for their political information, as well as the neccessity of long distance transportation, has rendered running for political office a possibility only to those who can afford the cast of utilizing such apparatus. This has effectively made political campaigning the sole preserve of the already welathy. It is no coincidence, then, that those at the top of the political latter are culled from the same class as those at the top of the economic ladder. The egalitarian proposition of a political process open to everyone is revealed to be a most dubious sham.

The electoral process in liberal democracies is largely a continuation of market actions. Parties cynically accrue support by offering programs and services purportedly beneficial to the social segments they seek to attract; in turn, these segments (voting in line with their status within the market and/or its complementary welfare state) align themselves accordingly. Over time, the state itself transforms into a redistributive agency, ever expanding to allocate scarce resources to whomever can afford them. All political activity, more or less, devolves into regularly scheduled meetings on how best to preserve the status quo.

This dour state of affairs is perpetuated by the empty mentality of a public absorbed in commodity fetishism. As organic and pre-rational values dissappear and are replaced by commercial ones, citizens see themselves less as agents within a developing whole and more as passive recipients of services and stimuli. Material needs are replaced by desires, which the market continually expands to satisfy, as they can never be measured and defined in accordance with sensible standards. Consequently, political involvement is relegated from social duty to entertainment option, one of many equally valid hobbies or interests to choose from on our pop-culture smorgasboard. "I'm just not interested in politics" (as if it is no different from sports or rock music or any other consumer choice of little impact) becomes the mantra. That political advertisements are strikingly successful at inducing uninformed votes in the public by displaying an artificial image and witholding any pertinent information (similar to how product advertisements manipulate consumers) should come as no surprise.

Nor should it this mindset's effect on the natural world. With the rationalization that has restructured the incomplete American mindset, subjective value has all but dissapeared as a means of evaluating objects. If it can't be assigned a set material quality it ceases to bear weight as an item of value. Hence, a sufficient reason cannot be thought of to explain the existence of forests and wetlands, so they are to be stripped, dried and replaced with yet more cracker jack homes and commercial centers. Natural landscapes' historic status as part of a nation's and it's people's identity is of no significance, another instance of market society's incompatability with conservatism.

What effect the market has on the natural is bested only slightly by its effect on the cultural world. If it is taken as an article of faith that the world exists for commercial co-optation, then what starts with naturally occuring substances (lovingly rebaptized as "natural resources") will eventually happen to the arts. With the absence of a real cultural elite (which existed previously in the form of the landed aristocracy) culture exists for mass consumption rather than intellectual reflection. Though it does produce jarring inequalities in wealth, the market does have a built-in egalitarian mechanism-act of purchasing. Some may have more dollars in their pocket than others, but each individual dolor is worth the same, irrepsective of the intellect or intentions of he who spends it.

This effectively reduces art to "entertainment", from an object of creative analysis to one of passive absorption. Epic dramas and plays become Hollywood movies, the classics become three-minute "pop-rock" jingles, and street performances are replaced by half-hour sitcoms and soap operas. Difference, variety, and creativity dissapear to have their positions usurped by repetetive formulas and genre exercises. Morever, their status as creations of the market reduce them even further, from socially encouraged rites of passage to mere consumer options, to be taken in, enjoyed, and disposed of at will. Consequently, given the rigors of work and social obligations, people look to such things as a means of temporary escape and nothing more.

The dissolution of organic culture caused by the market goes hand in hand with the dissolution of its sources, that being organic communities. As capitalism is an exclusively materialist system that prioritizes the accumulation of profit and dismisses all other concerns, it retains no loyalty to any of the particulars that traditionally constituted societies. Market pressures uproot members of historic communities and cast them out in pursuit of satisfactory economic conditions. Hence, societies become geographically re-arranged not according to ancestral roots but to material factors. This is the chief culprit behind the proliferation of suburbs and subdivisions populated by atomized materialists i.e. "Well, we wanted something with more bedrooms and a bigger garage...and David can finally have his mini-theatre in the basement."

What it does on the communal scale it also carries out on the national scale, producing even greater societal distortion. As corporations go multinational and shed any pretense at loyalty to the soil that spawned them, the resulting globalization spurs the economically-motivated mass movements of peoples and products. This brave new world calls to be overseen by specially appointed global institutions, sapping independent nations of control over their own economies, and effectively of their own destiny. As cheap labor becomes a greater neccessity for the continued existence of top market players, immigration reaches mass proportions and borders grow increasingly irrelevant. Ultimately, what were once homogenous organic nations devolve into multicultural incoherency, their once readily identifiable national characters replaced by postmodern smorgasboards of disparate and unrelated colors and creeds.

Within this latter stage of capitalist development, individuals find themselves in a state of existential peril. Removed irrevocably from the traditional particulars that gave meaning to the lives of previous generations, they exist in a semi-comatose state, so mindlessly happy as to be blind to their own subconsious search for meaning. Devoid of any real roots, they are therefore devoid of any real identity...so they cultivate artificial ones for themselves by picking and choosing from superficial market options. Suddenly, people are defined (and define themselves) by the movies they view, the music they listen to, and the clothing they wear...in other words, their actions as a consumer become their identity. When Sartre affirmed the metaphysical significance of acting over mere being, this is not what he was referring to.

For generations now, the mainstream of the American right has been steadfast and uncritical in their embrace of what Evola rightly deplored as "the Age Of The Machine." This is why, more than anything else, they have not "conserved" a damn thing.

Anarchism Revised

2010-07-26T13:50:00.000-07:00

by Quagmire

As Preston and his comrades are busily outlining a functional anti-state strategy (and as a functional anti-state movement is busily coalescing around them) they have grown into a lightning rod for thunderstorms of left-wing hysterics. These have predictably emanated from those echo chambers of our institutions of lower learning known officially as the left-libertarian message boards.While I dedicated a past entry to defending his honor, I've neglected to pair my defense with a sturdy offense. My contempt for these over-protected mocha sippers is apparent from even the most cursory glance at this blog. My rationale for such a low evaluation, however, is not. So, while avoiding a backslide into rhetorical strawmen and ad hominem assaults, I have prepared this expanatory eviscreation.

A defining factor in the left-libertarian mindset is a decisive split from reality, one that renders them incapable of understanding, much less opposing, our current state of affairs. This is not unique to this faction, but likewise plagues the broader left of which they are an obvious subset. Specifically, they all but base their approach on the Marcusean identity politics inherited from the now graying New Left. This should not shock us in the least, given their origins as products of our academic idiot factories where those remnants have long held sway. Like their youthful disciples, these stale leftovers hail not from the underclass hordes whose interests they've appointed themselves to speak for, but from the very same strata they (correctly) attribute their misery to.

Somewhere between washing the mud off their legs and swapping cocaine for rogaine they found themselves at the helm of the very establishment they once told us we could never trust (a helm inherited, no doubt, from their bourgeoise folks.) With this dubious ascension the hollow nature of their rebellion became apparent so they started singing a different song. The establishment is your friend, the caring mama bear who will shelter you from white hoods, shaved heads, and tanned necks... and all the other nefarious nasties lurking under every bed and in every closet. Such scares are but a figment of the alzheimer's encroached imagination of this mama bear. This time it's the parents who are seeing and hearing things. And, another historic first, this time the kids actually listen to their parents. And...no break with tradition here...the kids repeat what they hear.

This effectively traps us in a cultural way back machine, with university engineered and approved TAPS teams chasing after ghosts that stopped hauntin' these parts long ago, blind to their own status we should pull our covers over our heads for. When the well-off (and well-financed) anti-establishment agitators stormed the castle, they didn't take a wrecking ball to it. They walzed on into the throne room of the new ousted monarch, assumed the throne, and unleashed a terror over the kingdom all their own. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The aging W.A.S.P. feudal lords were thrown out, but the feudal system itself was not...their positions were merely assumed by those cut from a more colorful cloth.

So, if you'll allow me to transition from medeaval conquest back to modern hauntings, we arrive at an unsettling conclusion. Not only do the young false exorcists of the modern Left lack the theological know-how to properly expel spirits, they themselves are the spirits that need exorcising. So, if you'll allow me me to time-warp yet again back to the middle-ages, we find that it is in fact the former lords and ladies of our cultural kingdom that need to take up arms. For those taking up arms with thems, the strategic implications are clear...and which I will share in common English.

In this world of "hate speech" legislation and "sensitivity training", is it really that radical a move to wail about "institutionalized racism"...or to defend free speech and open inquiry for the insensitive? Is it that bold to crusade in favor of "women's rights" in this era of family courts and university-mandated feminist studies...or to act on behalf of father's rights? Is railing against "homosphobia" that radical a cause in a country where the lifestly is mostly viewed as an amusing novelty...or to agitate for freedom of speech and association for bible thumpers who find it a bit over the top? Is it that courageous to prattle on about "peace" and "non-violence"...or to snag a position on your local NRA chapter's leadership board? I find these truths self evident. It's indeed an odd paradox where conservatism has become radical and leftism reactionary.

The liberal-capitalist status quo takes as its basis the atomized individual, and its reason de' etre that individual's whims and wants. In this societal conception, these faceless particles construct their own mini-realities through an impersonal web of economic interaction and exchange. Preffered social relations are those concieved materially, with those that aren't submerged under pavement. This process, starting at the dawn of modernity and within recent decades shifting into high gear, is effectively dissolving traditional ethnic groups, national boundaires, and cultures. How can effective ressistance, then, be found among those who dismiss such things as archaic abstractions (to be disposed of, naturally, so we can finally discover our universal "humanity")?

For all the shrieking over alt.anarchism's supposed "collectivism", I fail to detect any flaw in a social system hardwired for organically constituted communities. If living and working with those you share commonalities with is such cardinal sin, why not just have the nanny state intervene for reprogramming purposes? Because a liberal universalist agenda doesn't fit all, but a state enforcing it does, the answer to the debate over which side is more prone to authoritarian slipups is clear.

In his televised 1971 debate with Noam Chomsky, no less a leftist icon as Michel Foucault dismissed then contemporary radical movements on the grounds that their underlying philosophy was often wholly in line with that of the prevailing regime. His AIDS-related passing in 1984 was unfortunate, as he never got to see the realization of this observation among the inanities posted on the LL messageboards.

The Petulant Fallacies Of Anti-Racist Action

2010-03-27T11:50:00.000-07:00

"Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman, or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not evenbelong to an "oppressed" group but come from priveleged strata of society."-Theodore Kaczysnki, Industrial Society And Its Future

By Qaugmire

Those who regularly follow this blog will no doubt be familiar with my fellow writer Dustin Stanley's incisive polemics against leftist race huckster Tim Wise. Dustin does an excellent job refuting the erroneous claims put forth by Wise, but the battle extends far beyond the man himself. You see, Wise reproduces at an rabbit-like rate, and his mutant offspring, upon sliding out of his fetid womb, begin carrying on his work prior to their eyes even opening. It is these vermin who shall bear the brunt of my wrath today. The faction referring haughtily to itself as "Anti-Racist Action" is the litter of puppies Wise had after getting pounded by Morris Dees. Like Wise, their membership is exclusively white. Like Wise, these scabs were raised in the comfort of middle-to upper-middle class backgrounds. And, like Wise, the self-hatred they bear over this leads them to embrace not only an utterly warped view of our society, but also an utterly warped way of combating it. Let us take a look at what they're saying, shall we?

Points Of Unity

1. We go where they go: Whenever fascists are organizing or active in public, we're there. We don't believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let the nazis have the street!

It should be pointed out that there exist only a small handful of "fascist" organizations in America, and these are tiny membership-wise with virtually no influence on, or recognition within, the broader society. This is why most ignore and stay away from them-because that's the only logical thing to do with such groups. May I point out that antagonizing them is precisely what they want, because it shifts attention to them and makes them appear a larger threat than they actually are? As far as "letting them have the street" is concerned, legally they have the same right to organize and demonstrate publicly as other interest groups, and this trumps your youthful self-righteousness.

2. We don't rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us: This doesn't mean we never go to court. But we must rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop the fascists.

The reason you don't rely on the law to do your "work" for you is because there's nothing illegal about most the activities of most of the groups you object to. The only danger you have to protect yourselves from is that which you actively invite from groups you seek to antagonize. If you left them alone in the first place, perhaps you wouldn't have to be looking over your shoulder for club-weilding skinheads. For instance, you can cease in your attempts to "stop the fascists" from exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

3. Non-sectarian defense of other anti- fascists: In ARA, we have lots of different groups and individuals. We don't agree about everything and we have a right to differ openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an attack on us all. We stand behind each other.

The only ideological diversity to be found in this sorry lot is different strains of the same PC Leftardation. I'm sure a gaggle of shrill poseurs standing in unity together is an intimidating sight.

4. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. ARA intends to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homohpobia, discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We want a classless free society! WE INTEND TO WIN!

I don't see what maintaining a pro-choice stance has to do with "fighting racism." It's actually worth mentioning that legalized abortion has already wiped out what would be a third of this group's beloved "people of color." Ialso don't see what dragging out the usual laundry list of isms and phobias has to do with a "classless free society", as such a world will likely only have freedom for those who agree with this ideology, and class is an economic factor distinct from race, gender, sexual orientation and the other PC pressure points this group puts on a pedestal.

Have Fun...Stay Young...Smash The Fash

Sooner or later, you'll get older, your life will cease being fun, and you'll replace "smasging the fash" with working a real job and tending to a dwindling hairline.

The fun continues on their FAQ page.

Q: What is Anti-Racist Action?

A: Anti-Racist Action is an international network of people from all walks of life dedicated to eliminating racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination from their communities. Since then, we've expanded into dozens of communities in five countries and three continents, making us one of the world's largest and extensive anti-racist youth movements.

Anti-racist action is a human morass of middle-and upper middle class white kids whose microscopic minds have been molded by the publik edukashun establishment, and hence live under the delusion that we're still living in Jackson, Mississippi circa 1958. This delusion is the flipside to their other, more prominent delusion, that carrying on about "racism, sexism, and homophobia" somehow makes them rebels raging against the machine. And yes, they have spread like a minor virus, but nothing a trip to the doctor won't fix.

You get the picture. The group's website contains a veritable treasure trove of gems like this, and I scarcely have time to share all of it with you. That I must unfortunately save for our next installment.

In Defense Of Keith Preston: A Rebuttal To Charles Johnson

2010-03-22T12:08:00.001-07:00

"But with only five percent of the world's population, is there some reason besides drippy universal brotherhood that we're still recieving more immigrants than the rest of the world combined? Is it possible that behind all these multicolored baloons and heartwarming interracial photo-op handshakes lies the desire for a suplus pool of tractable laborers?"-Jim Goad, The Redneck Manifesto

By Quagmire

Keith Preston, the self-described "pan-secessionist" who mans the attackthesystem blog, has come under a degree of unfounded criticism recently, which I feel I must respond to. Keith has been subject to attack before, but never from worthy sources, and never for worthy reasons. This criticism has predictably come from cultural marxists, who insult him with vulgar strawmen for not kowtowing to their social agenda. It is the most recent example of this that I will be dissecting here. This steaming load of tripe comes from one Charles Johnson, who posts under the pseudonym "Rad Geek", a name that is only half-accurate as he is most certainly a geek, but most certainly not a radical. Charles is a figurehead of the so-called "left-libertarian" aggregation, a relatively small group who attempt to meld populist libertarianism with cultural leftism and, in doing so, end up with something that reads like an exaggerated satire of left-anarchism. This is the problem with Keith and his strategy, from his (and their) perspective-

...my problem with Keith's approach is not that he suggests allying with criminalized, marginalized, or lumpen people.

We all agree with this. There is no need to point it out.

My problem is, first, that he has what I consider to be a disastrously selective view of whose criminalization and marginalization counts as legitamate libertarian concern.

And...it begins.

And, secondly, that he has the wrong idea about what the process of building such an alliance, and the terms on which allies might ally themselves with each other, looks like.

Keith wishes not to associate with the politically correct, as he feels that they are useless in this struggle. Given the collective failure of that crowd to accomplish anything during their four decades of existence, it appears his hostility is vindicated.

Hence, for example, his bizarre efforts to coddle pseudo-populist right-wingers who support the immigration police state and the mass criminalization of people without papers.

Let us deconstruct this statement. There is nothing at all "bizarre" about attempting to forge an alliance with the populist right, as they share the same decentralist vision that we do. Notice how he uses the word "coddle", as if conservatives are intellectual children, and the term "pseudo-populist" as if embracing a leftist cultural agenda was a necessary requirement to be a crusader for the little guy. Also, there is no "immigration police state", only open borders, and no "mass criminalization", only amnesty and full access to a welfare state subsidized by the american taxpayer. I also adore the term "people without papers." Softening the language to take the sting out of reality, Charles?

Whereas, in my view, if you're concerned about identifying with the most criminalized, marginalized, exploited, and oppressed, it would be harder to find a better place to start than standing up for the rights of "illegal alein" workers confronting the border Stasi without government papers.

Why not side for the American poor and working class whose already sagging fortunes are worsened even further by this influx of immigrants ? "Rights" are legal constructs that have no existence indepent of human invention. The closest thing you have to "rights" are concessions granted to you by the regime you toil under. As such, these immigrants have no "rights" per se to stand up for. Finally, the term "illegal aleins" should not be subject to scare quotes because that is precisely what they are: aleins to our culture who tresspass in our country against the will of the majority of the population.

It is this breed of drivel that poisons and debilitates liberatory struggles. Understand that I point not one finger of blame on the mehicans themselves, as I understand their reasons for coming here. Contrary to the delusions of liberal multiculturalists, immigration is not a natural and inevitable fact, as no one uproots and leaves their home without good reason. It is only caused when dire economic circumstances render that home an unbearable place to live, which is precisely what capitalist globalization has done to Mexico. Our efforts should, then, be focused squarely on combating globalization in all its institutional manifestations: NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, as well as the state apparatus that allows its industrial beneficiaries to thrive. It is these same corporate bigwigs that are not coincidentally the foremost supporters of open borders, out of their endless lust for cheap labor and even cheaper production costs. You can't fight an enemy whose interests you unkowingly agitate for.

Noam Chomsky: False Moses Of The Controlled Opposition

2010-03-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

by Quagmire

Since 1955, American linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky has produced a prolific number of works exposing the unsavory proclivities of the U.S. regime and its moneyed masters. For this, he has enjoyed a kingly status within the American left, with generations of young activists and radicals hailing him as their brightest beacon. This has even spilled over into popular culture, with everyone from rockers U2 and Rage Against The Machine to funnyman Bill Hicks citing him as an inspiration. However, that appreciation is not universal, as the same antiestablishment screeds that earned him his iconic status on the left have embittered him to the american right, who have marked him a "traitor" and dismissed his criticism of our foreign policy as "anti-american." Either way, he has dedciated his life to combating the American imperial regime, and it is in this capacity that I find him somewhat useless. Despite his claiming the title "anarcho-syndicalist" and his publicly stated commitment to anti-authoritarianism, his actual legislative postions belie this. Such as...

(on Ron Paul's isolationism) "He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the U.N., rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example)etc. Aside from being next to meaningless, this idea is morally unaccpetable, in my view."

I've grown weary of leftists cheerleading for the United Nations, as it demonstrates their profound ignorance when it comes to foreign policy. The U.N. is no check on American military aggression; rather it enables it through a sort of good cop-bad cop partnership with our regime. It's main purpose will be to serve as a front for the American empire, when it finally attains global dominance.

(on gun control) "It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the second amendment does not permit people to own guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or Constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interperets them as permitting." (from Secrets, Lies, And Democracy)

Why does this self-proclaimed "anarchist" take the same postion here as a mainstream liberal would? Whether the constitution allows citizens to possess firearms is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the encroaching police state our fearless leaders are imposing upon us, the only bulwark against which is an armed and well trained populace. Incidentally, it's this sort of mental inconsistency that causes young birkenstockers to champion gun control while simultanously denouncing the PATRIOT act as an egregious violation of civil liberites.

The gems continue...

(on federal power)"I'd like to see the power of the federal government increased."

If the power of the federal government was increased any more, it would explode. It's been rapidly increasing in size since it was first instituted, and during this time so has the corporate system, the police state, and the foreign empire. Such developments prove it neccessary that anarchism be a decentralist affiar. Or is Chomsky still an anarchist?

on the draft) "So I was very much involved in the resistance (to the Vietnam War) but I was never against the draft." (

What?

(on the welfare state) "It (classical anarhist thinking) leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, for provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc."

Actually, classical anarchist thought leads to the realization that such things are minor concessions intended to co-opt and pacify those to whom radicalism has the most appeal. Bakunin predicted this during anarchism's infancy, and, over a century later, he has been proven correct. It has been well-documented by Gabriel Kolko and others that the welfare state he was referring to was initially conceived as a power consolidation mechanism for corporate interests. The health and regulatory agencies he refers favorably to are staffed by a revolving door of lobbyists and insiders, representing businesses for whom the added cost of regulation can be passed effortlessly on to the consumer. Meanwhile, the same costs cause increased difficulty for working people attempting to develop alternative economic systems outside the state-connected and stae-priveleged corproate framework.

It is obvious that Chomsky has been duped into swallowing the managerial-liberal line, somehow failing to realize that the liberal-progressive system he favors is merely the latest front for capitalist class rule. Unfortunately, the budding leftists who take their marching orders from him are drawn through the same trick door, entering the shapeless void of an increasingly wrongheaded and irrelevant left.

"Tolerance": The Ongoing Pussification Of American Culture

2010-03-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

by Quagmire

The now unavoidable dogma of "tolerance" and "sensitivity" is, when stripped of the utopian and idealist visions it is intended to provoke, a form of cultural regression. In the same way consumerism reduces what would otherwise be functioning adults to the the intellectual status of children, political correctness reduces these same hapless victims to the same low status emotionally. What would in cultures untained by this contagion be accepted as inevitable and dismissed as non-events in the "tolerant" culture becomes elevated to the level of a natural disaster or similar catastrophe. The heavy-hand of the law is summoned as the only remedy where that law is uneeded and where its prescence is undesirable. Case in point:

Police: Boy, 16, made racial comment a N.J. Wal-Mart

A 16-yr old boy, someone fairly low on our societal food chain, made a "racial comment" at a New Jersey Wal Mart, someplace farily low on our societal food chain-and the police get involved? Is there not legitamate criminal behavior occuring in the area for them to be involved with?

WASHINTON TOWNSHIP, N.J.-A 16 yr old boy who police said made an announcement at Wal-Mart ordering all black people in the southern New Jersey store to leave was charged with intimidation and bias harrassment, authorities said Saturday.

Blacks have already successfully survived slavery and Jim Crow, I highly doubt they would feel "intimidated" and "harrassed" by a scrawny, crater-faced adolescent yowling through an intercom. Notice how he is being "charged" with hurting people's feelings the same way one would be charged with hurting someone's body. Any nation that considers emtional and physical wounds to be morally equivalent is a nation of infants.

The boy, whose name is not being released because he is a juvenile, grabbed one of the courtesy phones at Walmart's Washington Township Square sunday evening and calmly announced: "Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now" police said.

This sounds more like a juvenile prank than anything else. A prank in poor taste, but a prank nonetheless. May I point out that certain individuals possess an innate tendency to embrace cultural taboos, and that the hypermoralism of political correctness grants these things a humorous appeal they would not otherwise have?

The teen was arrested friday and released to the custody of his parents; police did not know whether he had a lawyer.

So the police actually spent a full workweek tracking this idiot down and arresting him...five days after the fact? And if he was immediately released into his parent's custody, what was the point of arresting him in the first place? Ooooh now he needs a lawyer to defend him because he said bad wowds that huwt peopw's pweshus feewings. Again, only in a nation of infants.

"This was an extremely disturbing event on many levels" Glouchester County Prosecutor Sean Dalton said at a news conference. "Any statements like these that can cause harm or great concern must be addressed as quickly as we possibly can."

Some teenager pulling a dumb prank-and it was a dumb prank-is "an extremely disturbing event on many levels." Any juvenile antics like these that can cause crying and bedwetting in a community of pussified liberals must be laughed at as loudly as we possibly can.

Dalton said the case would be handled in juvenile court in neighboring Atlantic County, where the boy lives. He would not say whether the boy has a criminal record, citing the teen's age, and would not disclose the teen's race, saying that did not factor into the equation.

Ooh now the New Jersey taxpayer is getting bilked to pay for it, and lawyers and judges are being sapped of their valuable time to handle it. Are there not legitimate cases these resources could be allocated to? Given the dystepic situation of young people in our decaying world, i'm sure the juvenile court system has plenty.

Authorities would not say if the announcement was planned or had been made impulsively. Police said they were also investigating a teenage boy who had accompanied the suspect to the store, but the other boy has not been charged.

Again, they're talking about this as if it was a legitimate crime. Were the huwtfuw comments unplanned or premeditated? And how exactly are they "investigating" his buddy? Are they going to question him with things like "Did you help him come up with this idea?" or, better yet "Is he working for you?". And if he does end up geeting charged, what will those charges be?" Accomplice to first degree insult"?

Officials for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores inc. said the announcement was "unacceptable", and Dalton praised the company for its strong cooperation in the investigation.

Damn, I can't think of a smartass comment to throw in here. So we move on...

"We're pleased this matter is resolved" Wal-Mart spokesperson Dave Tovar said in a statement issued after the news conference. We have updated our intercom system at this store to prevent this from ever happening again. We again apologize to all of our customers and associates who had to listen to something so offensive."

Well, I'm glad they're taking that first step to recovery. Perhaps Hillary Clinton can now show up and "help the healing begin." Dave, man, your customers and associates aren't entitled to an apology. Everyone at some point has to listen to something offensive-it's a law of nature and inevitable fact of life. Instead of apologizing, you should educate them on the emotional benefits of growing a pair of balls and getting the fuck over it.

Although a manager quickly went to the intercom and apologized for the remark, many customers expressed their anger to store management. Some community members said Saturday that they've heard reports of similar incidents happening that were not reported to the police.

I'm sure he did, and I'm sure they did. The reason those incidents were not reported to the police was because it's not their job to take care of everything that is offensive to you. I have no idea precisely what type of community this is, but its members seem to have an entitlement mentality.

"We are concerned about that, and we're looking into these incidents. We want to work with the community to make sure these types of incidents don't happen," said Loretta Winters, president of the Gloucester County chapter of the NAACP.

And how exactly is that to be accomplished? With surveillance cameras and voice recorders posted everywhere? With Tolerance Police patrolling the streets? I'm onto you fucks.

Winters said she hopes the boy will get counseling and be educated about sensitivity so he can understand the consequences of his actions.

Read: She will demand that the boy be coerced into attending a mandatory sensitivity training course where he will be stripped of his individuality and he reporgrammed as another mindless drone within the hive of the multicult. Personally, I hope someone introduces him to Tom Sunic so he'll understand why he is right and they are wrong.

"I'm assuming this person didn't realize how hurtful his comments were" she said.

Again with the infantile bellyaching about hurt feelings. Let me make this crystal clear: nothing in the united states constitution gives you a right not to have your feelings hurt, no matter how hard you want to believe otherwise.

The incident is the latest in a series of problems the retailer has had in its dealings with minorities and women.

Oh, I bet.

There have been several past instances of black customers claiming they were treated unfairly at Wal Mart stores, and the company faced lawsuits that women were passed over in favor of men for pay raises and promotions.

If you're shopping at Wal-Mart, then life is treating you unfairly in the first place. Yes, and if man were passed over in favor of women for those advancements it would be positive discrimination, a neccessary step in the struggle for social justice.

In February 2009, the retailer paid $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of truck drivers.

Ooh I wanted a job and you didn't give me it so now you owe me money.

And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company in May 2009, claiming some Hispanic employees at a Sam's Club subsidiary in California were subjected to a hostile work envieronment. That suit alleges managers failed to stop repeated verbal harrassment, including the use of derogatory words, against employees of Mexican descent.

The purpose of this dreadful buraucracy is to ensure you have equal opportunity, not to protect your precious little ears once that opportunity arrives. Perhaps those Mexicans should have stood up for themselves and told their harrasser's to fuck off, which I would respect far more than trying to enlist their bosses to fight their battles for them. This is the adult world equivalent of tugging on mommy's dress and pointing to the kid who called you a bad name. Well, when you get to a certain age mommy is going to stop caring, and you're well past that age.

However, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has said the company has worked hard in recent years to show it cares about diversity.

Diversity=a broad range of skin colors, genders, sexual orientations, and other superficialities, all processed through the same social engineering mechanisms and subordinated to the same secular theocracy.

Dear reader, this bullshit can only last a limited period of time before it self-destructs. Upon that glorious day, we can dance the tango on its charred remains.

Progressivism: Capitalism With A Human Face

2010-03-13T19:20:00.000-08:00

by Quagmire

The foremost requirement for vanquishing a foe is a thorough understanding of the foe and how it came into and maintains its existence. If you understand how existence is maintained, then you know how it is destroyed. Without this understanding, your foe is impervious to your attacks and will continue to successfully reconstitute himself. The capitalist system was borne a child of modernity, and as such is to blame for the erosion of the institutions we as Radical Traditionalists seek to defend. Was it not capitalist individualism that first atomized the individual and destroyed communal and familial ties? Was it not capitalist industrialization which severed humankind's relationship with nature? Was it not capitalist globalization that produced the internationalist structures that are currently destorying the sovergnity of all nations? Is it also not that same system which is opening occidental borders and allowing in the current tidal wave of third world colonists? Was it not capitalism that destroyed genuine arts and literature and produced the shallow consumerism we live with today? I believe that the identity of our enemy is self-evident. Our guns must be set for the capitalist system and its plutocratic overlords, but first we must gain an understanding of its functions, without which we are merely firing blanks.

Capitalism is a most monstrous system, one that suboridantes and extracts wealth from the vast majority for the sake of the tiny few. It is not "individualism", as its supporters claim, but a strictly regimented, class-based collectivism. It is not a "free market", for its foundation is a thick ground of state intervention. The only "freedom of choice" it affords its victims is the choice between labor and starvation, and the only "upward mobility" it allows for is an ever expanding toyshelf of consumer goodies. It is an economic sociopath. In order to prosper without their true nature exposed, sociopaths need an appealing face, a non-threatening mask behind which to hide. For sociopathic persons, that mask is a respected position in the local economy or community, or within a family. For capitalism, that mask is progressivism, the ideology of managerial liberalism and social control that first hold in this country with the Wilson Administration. While movement conservatives attack it with great frequency, those attacks are always entirely innaccurate. Progressivism is not marxism, nor is it even a form of socialism; it is not a kinder, gentler way of transforming us into the Soviet States of America. It is a kinder, gentler way of dominating and exploiting the majority of the population. It is capitalism with a human face.

Movement conservatives are correct to demonize progressivism, even though they are doing it for completely incorrect reasons. The American welfare state is not an attempt by crypto-marxists to subvert and destroy a non-existent "free market". It is an attempt by technocratic elites to subvert and destroy genuinely liberatory movements for the sake of what is most definitely not a free market. The statist institutions it has spawned exist for the purpose of subverting radical movements by placing those who would be drawn to them under the auspices of specially trained technocrats (the so-called "New Class") and pacifying them through state dependance. The publik edukashun system, as exposed by writer and researcher John Taylor Gotto, is a thinly veiled instrument of social control; deliberately neglecting to instill in its young victims the tool of critical thought, it does its job of preparing "our future" (i.e. the next forgettable wave of competent workers, satisfied consumers, and law-abiding citizens.) The New Deal welfare state, imposed on us by Franklin Roosevelt, serves the same purpose with the poor; by herding them into the urban plantation of public housing and handing them a small check every month, they are effectively pacified and genuine class warfare is prevented from erupting.

The left has continually failed in its long-running crusade against the American industrial establishment. This is because they have bought into the myth of progressivism, viewing these distortions as "gains" and "reforms" and believing mistakenly that they were "fought for from below" rather than imposed from above. So instead of working to undermine the facade that legitimizes their foe, they have embraced it and allowed it. In doing so, they have become useful idiots for the very enemy they ostensibly oppose. (They have also embraced wholeheartedly the liberal-capitalist system's cultural component, cultural marxism, further eroding their relevance and dooming them to failure, which I am dedicating my next post to elaborating on.) However, we among the revolutionary right will not repeat that mistake and in doing so, will beat the left at their own game.

Understanding Social Dynamics As They Apply To The New Right

2010-03-13T15:09:00.000-08:00

by Quagmire

In society every action has a reaction, and every action is itself a reaction to a previous action. Every action possesses a semiotic quality, and those semitoic qualties exist only in contrast to those of the action that produced it. The hotly debated issue of gun control will provide us with a useful example of these principles in action. There are three actors involved in this issue, and all three have a function within it: the state, its subjects, and the weapons themselves. The first is an establishment of power, and as such regulates the lives of its subjects through the use of physical force. The second are those being controlled, who lack such power and thus have no choice but to agree to the state's edicts. The third are tools of force, increasing the power of those who hold them and facilitating greater resistance to other's aggression. A man with a gun can either use it to control others or to prevent others from controlling him. With gun control, those in power have expanded their control over those without, by restricting their access to instruments of said power. The subjects will instinctively view this as a power grab, and will accumulate more weapons and begin hiding them. They will organize and agitate to maintain their access to these tools. In light of the new restrictions, purhcasing a gun and obtaining membership in a pro-gun organization become acts of rebellion, which they would not be had the state decided not to enact such policies. Knowledge of guns and their use becomes subversive knowledge, which again it would not be had guns not be controlled by the state. These are all examples of the action-reaction dynamic (and the semiotic rule of contrast) at play. It should be obvious that all these actions, and the symbolic signifacance they possess, are all inherently linked in a process comparable to the domino efffect.

Understanding this is of great importance to those acting in politics, as one must gauge all potential reactions prior to acting. If one does not do this, they then run the risk of negative reactions. This (and these) will ultimately prove their undoing. It is of great convenience to us, then, that our foremost antagonists-the cultural marxists-fail so abysmally at this simple task. Every tenant of their diseased ideology-and every legislative manifestation of it-in addition to being grounded the faultiest premises, are guaranteed to produce negative reactions. If one is to single out entire races and genders as recipients of undue "privelege" (when in fact no such privelege exists) is bound to produce a negative reaction. If, on top of this, one accuses these targets of responsibility for past injustices they had no part in, that is als obound to produce a negative reaction. If these targets are also to subjected to legally mandated discrimination on such grounds, then it will yet again yield negative results. If they are required to attend seminars that inform them of what their thoughts should be. and if their speech is subject to public restriction and censure, it will yield negative results. If open immigration is imposed on an indigenous population to their economic and social detriement (while they are simultaneously told that "diversity is our striength" and to "celebrate" it) then that population will respond with resentment. Over time, a wave of "reactionaries" will be emerge as the inevitable by-product of this, and the hegemony of the ideology being rejected will fall into decline. The multiculti left will dig its own grave, and will have no one to blame for their fall but themselves.

Part of this can be blamed on the left's complete lack of understanding regarding human nature. No sane person desires to be subject to a guilt trip, or to have dictated to them what is all right for them to think and to say, or to come up short when favorites are being played. And they certainly will not tolerate those who attempt to do so. It has been said that "power is fluid and dynamic and not static"; what this means is that ideas that were once considered radical will with time become reactionary . The flipside to this is that ideas once considered reactionary will with time become radical. As the hegmony of cosmopilitan liberalism continues to wane, we will continue to rise. We must seize this chronological advantage and strategize accordingly. Because establishment conservatism of the Republican variety has failed the American people, we must tailor our critique of cultural marxism in a different fashion from theirs. Rather than attacking it from the perspective of outmoded Judeo-Christain moralism, we must attack it specifically as a form of outmoded Judeo-Christian moralism. It must be attacked in Nietzschean terms: as a slave morality that cripples and decays both its devoted adherents and the broader society they insist on sebjecting to it. We must also appeal to the innate anti-authoritarian instincts in people that this ideological enforcement so offends. We will, to that end, advocate freedom of association over anti-discrimination statues; meritocratic individualism over hiring quotas; freedom of speech over speech codes; and the right to personal opinion over sensitivity training and social engineering. In addition, we must assert Americans and other Westerners that their needs and desires are of top priority, not those of foreign interlopers with colonial ambitions.

I mentioned in my opening statement that every action is a reaction to a previous action, and that is where we come in. We are reacting to a cultural agenda that is one the wane. Because of this, we must position ourselves as its polar opposite; only as a diametrically opposed alternative will we find success. However, we must refrain from making the same mistake as the left-by failing to gauge potential reactions to our action. To this end, we can prevent negative reactions by demonstrating the futility of what we are acting against. We must demonstrate how left-social engineering has accomplished next to nothing for the victim groups it is supposedly designed to advance, and how our vision of a decentralized network of free associations would would yield far superior results for all Americans. I will be outlining the specifics of how this would work in a future article. Until then, remember that our finest hour has just begun, and with a proper understanding of social and cultural dynamics we are unstoppable.

US National Debt Will Exceed GDP by 2012

2010-03-12T15:23:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

In my last piece regarding the US financial situation, "Obama-Bernanke 'Economic Recovery' is Actually Dangerous Bubble", I gave a rather dire, non-sugarcoated forecast of what the future holds for the US economy if the nation's leaders don't change direction extremely soon in a variety of areas (which they are still showing absolutely no intention of doing). One of the very worst consequences of US leaders' fiscal recklessness is that soon the US national debt will exceed the nation's GDP, imperiling its ability to continue receiving foreign loans at low interest rates, which is something that it has come to depend on. While I warned that it would be "only a matter of time" before this happened, I was unfortunately unable to say exactly how long this "matter of time" would be. That was because President Barack Obama had not yet released his fiscal year 2011 budget[1], including his advisors' projections of the nation's financial situation for this year and years to come. Now that he has, it is very clear from perusing it that the situation is, to put it bluntly, even worse than I feared. Obama's FY 2011 budget is projected to leave a record-breaking deficit of $1.56 trillion, $0.15 trillion greater than his prior FY 2010 budget which itself is projected to leave a record-breaking deficit of $1.41 trillion. Furthermore, the budget for the fiscal year thereafter, FY 2012, is projected to leave a deficit of $1.27 trillion. These deficits together, combined with prior high debt and the ongoing global recession, will according to the projections of the President's own economic advisors, push the national debt past 100% of GDP in FY 2012.

Once again, this has not happened to the United States in any other time in its history besides World War II. Even back then, the debt-to-GDP ratio remained above 100% for only 3 fiscal years before coming back down below 100% in FY 1948, whereas now it is projected that the debt-to-GDP ratio will stay above 100% for 8 fiscal years after reaching that level in FY 2012, and will stay above 100% indefinitely as projections end in FY 2020 with debt-to-GDP ratio at nearly 107% and climbing.[2] Back in the immediate post-WWII era, it was possible to get the debt back down to less than 100% of GDP in 3 fiscal years because it was really only a matter of paying off a war debt, and the government's size and scope were much smaller then than they are now, thus the cost was much less per year than it is today. Some people, most notably libertarians and "Ron Paulians" indeed do posit drastically cutting down the current size of the government as the solution to our present predicament, but this is not as easy as it seems. For example, Greece (whose national debt is forecast to reach 120% of GDP by the end of this year) has already been forced to do that, but this has led to much civil unrest as so many of the numerous interest groups that expect their share of the pie each year are now coming up empty-handed. Now, Greece is indeed infamous for the sheer number of interest groups there tugging the government this-way-and-that for what they want, and this has certainly compounded the problem, but then again so is the United States, and it is very likely that our own interest groups, when they begin to be denied their share of the pie, will start acting in the same way as the Greek interest groups, including staging massive general strikes and other such events, and it may even unfortunately lead to more serious civil unrest as is happening currently in Greece.[3][4]

Material Consequences of Fiscal Recklessness

A recent study done by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (link here)[5] indicates that when nations reach a level of 90% debt-to-GDP ratio, they really start to lose their ability to grow their way out of debt, and instead have to rely upon more extreme measures, such as hyperinflation or currency devaluation, in order to solve their debt problems.[6][7] When the ratio climbs from 90% to over 100% and beyond, the problems can only get worse, both from a psychological standpoint and a reality standpoint, and the devaluation or hyperinflation that will eventually have to happen will only be all the more extreme, and the ensuing civil strife discussed in the preceding paragraph will be all the worse. So the option is clearly between a lot of pain now, and catastrophic disaster later. It is quite regrettable that America's leaders are fecklessly sending it hurtling toward the second option.[8]

[1]The US Government's fiscal years start on October 1st and end on September 30th. For example, FY 2009 started on October 1st, 2008 and ended on September 30th, 2009.

[2]These numbers could (and probably will) become even worse as there is a strong aftershock to this financial crisis waiting in the wings in commercial real estate. A February report by the Congressional Oversight Panel states that about $1.4 trillion worth of commercial real estate loans are due in the 2011-2014 period (a significant portion of these are loans for real estate that was built up during the aformentioned 2005-2007 housing bubble height) and nearly half of this money is wrapped up in loans that are currently "underwater", meaning that the lendee owes more than the property is worth. It is estimated that this situation will result in about $300 billion worth of losses, which sounds relatively modest on its own compared to the numbers we've seen, but the problem is that these losses will not occur in a vacuum. Much of this money was loaned out by smaller and medium size banks which were not given the "stress tests" (to measure their ability to withstand another crisis) like the bigger banks were in the aftermath of the Lehman collapse. While this situation is not likely to (by itself) cause another Lehman-style collapse, it will nontheless wipe out many of these smaller and medium size banks, adding to the crisis that we are already in much more than simply having $300 billion disappear.

[3]It should be noted additionally that in Greece, which is in an even worse financial situation than the United States, even the big austerity cuts that are already causing all these strikes and civil unrest are only able to reduce the deficit a paltry amount from 12.7% of GDP in calendar year 2009 to a projected 8.7% of GDP in CY 2010. This isn't enough to stop Greece, which was already at a 112.6% debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of CY 2009, from reaching a whopping estimated 120% debt-to-GDP ratio by the end of CY 2010. But the problem is that if Greece were to cut significantly more off of its government budget, because it's come to rely so much on its public sector, it could throw the country into a depression and cause so much financial chaos (not to mention civil unrest) that it would defeat the purpose of any cuts in the first place. Greece is in a truly terrible situation, and it seems the only real way out is either an EU bailout or an IMF (International Monetary Fund) bailout, since devaluation or hyperinflation are not options as it uses the Euro. If an IMF bailout happens, it will be extremely embarrassing for the EU in many ways, so most EU elites seem to be gravitating toward the first option, which is going to anger a lot of EU voters who don't want to be held responsible for Greece's problems. But this leaves open the question of Spain and Italy, which seem also to be headed in Greece's direction with regards to their finances. These countries have much larger economies than Greece, so it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, for the EU to bail them out if they end up in Greece's position. Even worse, bailing out Greece will send a message to these countries' leaders that they don't need to get their financial houses in order now while they still can, so they'll keep heading in Greece's direction rather than cleaning up their act, so there'll be an even bigger problem only a few years down the road. If that ends up happening, the EU will have to bail them out, as the IMF doesn't have the assets to bail them out, and that will be a big strain on the EU as many other major EU nations, in other words the ones that would be expected to foot the bill such as Germany, are starting to develop debt problems of their own.

[4]A critic might accuse me here of "comparing the current financial situation in the United States to the one in Greece." Rest assured that I am doing no such thing, and I am well aware that the United States is the world's largest economy, and can print its own money (the US dollar), which is also the world's reserve currency, none of which is true in the case of Greece which is a smaller economy, and uses the Euro which it cannot print. But what people often miss is that once things start getting really bad here in the USA with the debt (and with other things), to the point where even our size and the fact that we hold the world's reserve currency cannot save us, there is simply no safety net. Greece, as well as numerous other countries which have had weak or failing economies in this crisis such as Iceland and Ukraine, all have had either EU or IMF bailouts available to them should they need it, and some of them have indeed used that option. However, if US national debt were to somehow become unmanagable, to the point where we couldn't tax our way out, couldn't export our way out, there is no bailout machine in the entire world large enough to save us. None. Not the IMF, as it only carries $500 billion on hand, which is enough to bail out Greece, Iceland, or Ukraine, but is peanuts when it comes to US debt numbers. Not even China or the EU. China's economy, even though that nation gets a lot of press as the "emerging superpower", is simply not large enough as it is less than a third the size of ours. As for the EU, its economy is about 20% larger than ours, but the EU has its own debt problems, so if the EU attempted to bail out the US, it would simply transfer the problem over from the US to the EU. So the only option for the US at that point would be a "stealth default" (either that or an outright default, but a "stealth default" is much more likely to be what actually happens), which means having the Federal Reserve simply print whatever number of dollars is necessary to bring the debt back down to a managable level. The problem here is that this will not only seriously devalue dollars held by citizens here, but also the dollar assets of many nations all around the world who hold the dollar on account of it being the world's reserve currency. This will cause problems all around the world, and may even push nations which were already on the brink totally over the edge.

[5]For those interested, investment columnist Jim Jubak has written an article on the Reinhart-Rogoff study that makes it and its real-world ramifications easier to understand for the layman. His article can be found here: http://www.moneyshow.com/investing/Jubak_Blog.asp?aid=Jubak_blog-18642

[6]The United States will cross the crucial 90% debt-to-GDP mark at the end of this fiscal year, FY 2010, which ends on September 30th of this year, reaching an estimated 94.1% debt-to-GDP ratio.

[7]Once again, an important exception to this rule is the case of the United States in the immediate post-WWII era. This was an exception because back then, the fact that the national debt rose above 90% of GDP (and indeed above 100% of GDP shortly thereafter) was caused almost solely by a war debt, rather than a much more fundamental set of problems with the system as is the case today.

[8]Again, rest assured that I am not simply a "doomsayer" that is preaching that "economic collapse" is going to happen tomorrow. What I am saying though is that even the United States, the world's most powerful economy, has its limits, and governments controlled by both major parties (as well as the Federal Reserve controlled by various chairmen) have been pushing us farther and farther towards those limits for a long time now, and given our current situation, if nothing changes, it will eventually hit the wall, not tomorrow, not even next year, but in ten years, or fifteen years at the most, if this path does not change it will hit the wall. Right now we are seeing but the opening stages. (Perhaps the early-2000's tech bubble burst, given that the loose Fed monetary policy that was meant to "repair" the burst created a fake bull market and helped build up the housing bubble, was the opening stages to the opening stages.) There is still time to turn things around and prevent the "closing stages" from happening, but if nothing is done, then they will happen given our current course, and it's going to be a lot worse than this current crisis. That's not a "doomsayer" prediction. That's just common sense.

[9]Here are the numerical values for the US debt-vs-GDP chart.

Fiscal Year--GDP--National Debt--Debt to GDP ratio--as a %

2009	14237	11850	0.832338	83.23383
2010	14624	13760	0.940919	94.0919
2011	15299	15117	0.988	98.81
2012	16203	16308	1.00648	100.648
2013	17182	17426	1.014201	101.4201
2014	18193	18505	1.017149	101.7149
2015	19190	19656	1.024283	102.4283
2016	20163	20809	1.032039	103.2039
2017	21136	21984	1.040121	104.0121
2018	22087	23171	1.049079	104.9079
2019	23065	24424	1.05892	105.892
2020	24067	25751	1.069971	106.9971

Note: National debt and GDP numbers are in billions of dollars.
Again, these numbers are all from the President's FY 2011 budget except for the debt-to-GDP ratios which I calculated myself based on the numbers calculated by the President's economic advisors.

The Leftist Invention of "White Privilege"

2010-02-19T12:10:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

Much of the "anti-racist" establishment has, in recent decades, latched onto a theory which they call "white privilege" that they use to explain why non-whites in America have a generally lower socioeconomic status, among other things, than whites. The claim is that whites in this country have an unearned "privilege" which causes them to have a generally higher socioeconomic status, among other things, than non-whites. The claim is usually then followed by demands for some sort of compensation from whites to non-whites for having "white privilege".

Now, I do not not profess to know whether or not "white privilege" actually exists, any more than I profess to know whether or not God exists. But I do maintain that no "anti-racist" has ever proven that "white privilege" exists. This is because those arguing that it exists commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Their arguments always go something like this: "White privilege causes whites to have a better socioeconomic status on average than their non-white counterparts, whites have a better socioeconomic status than their non-white counterparts, therefore white privilege exists." This of course does not logically work, unless you are a college student who never learned logic and instead are busy fawning over the "white guilt" fest that goes on at colleges and universities all across this country courtesy of people like Tim Wise and the bottom-feeding faculty and administrators that invite people like him over and over again to the universities to poison the minds of their students. To be sure, sometimes they will toss in a few more red herrings such as "whites are X times more likely to receive a loan than non-whites", or "whites are Y times more likely to be called back for a job interview than non-whites" to argue for the existence of "white privilege". (Many "anti-racists" have created quite lengthy lists of these red herrings.) However, even these red herrings affirm the consequent, as "anti-racists" claim that "white privilege" causes these effects, but yet they point to nothing but the supposed effects, and then they affirm these effects in order to "prove" the "white privilege" that supposedly caused them. Again, this does not work from a logical standpoint.

When all else falls through, they invariably bring out the old guilt trip of slavery and Jim Crow in the South. But this fails as well, as the South is only a small fraction of the nation as a whole. Now, as back then, most Americans are not Southerners. Yet "anti-racists" want to claim that "white privilege" is everywhere, both in the North and in the South. Again, this does not work. Sometimes they will try one last "Hail Mary" by saying that slavery in the South provided the capital that built up the entire country, including the North, so thus "white privilege" is everywhere in America, including the North. (Sometimes right-wing Southern nationalists will too claim that the South's money built up the North's industry.) Both the Southern nationalists and the "anti-racists" are wrong, however. The North was always much wealthier than the South, and the capital that built up the North in fact came from industrialization and mechanization there, which was used to create even more industrialization and mechanization, which itself was used to create even more industrialization and mechanization, until the North became a shining example of an industrial powerhouse that rivaled even its much more established counterparts in Europe.

"White privilege" is a slippery eel invented by leftist academia that not only have they failed to prove, it may be by its nature impossible to either prove or disprove, for much the same reason that it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, or the existence of invisible men the size of atoms living inside your ear. This is indeed is a big part of the reason why it's so slippery and why they've tossed it out there. But again, as they haven't proven it, they need to stop misinforming the American public, and they need to stop asking for compensation, especially from naive and impressionable children and college students who don't know any better. If they continue to ask for compensation from people, especially the most vulnerable and naive, without proof or with the pseudo-arguments that they always present as "proof", then they have shown themselves to be no better than snake-oil salesmen and other con-men.

Tim Wise's Self-Contradictory "Anti-Racist" Philosophy

2010-01-31T23:08:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

Tim Wise is a man seen by many as one of today's premier figures in the (so-called) anti-racist movement in America. He has spoken at literally hundreds of college and university campuses all across the nation, and is the author of four books and numerous smaller essays. Wise is an honorable man in the sense that he has always been very willing to come to the debate table with the other side, something that the overwhelming majority of people in the so-called "anti-racist movement" simply will not do, ever. He has even debated neo-Nazis and hard core "white power" advocates, something even I myself am not particularly willing to do (for a number of reasons), as far to the Right as I am. He is dishonorable however in that rarely will you ever see so much self-contradictory philosophy, masked with layer after layer of sheer sophistry, packed into one single man. Most damagingly, Wise's self-contradictions are not located on the peripheries of his philosophy, but at its very heart.

Take, for instance, his claim during the 2005 radio debate between himself and Jared Taylor, that "black" and "white" are not actual biological categories, contrasted with his statements that blacks need affirmative action programs to help them because American society is racist[1] against them and denies them equal opportunities[2].

Wise claims numerous times in the radio debate that he cannot know himself where the biological line is between black and white, and that neither his debate opponent Jared Taylor nor a scientist nor anyone else can draw a proper biological line between the two. But when it comes to affirmative action, he suddenly trusts a bureaucrat in an affirmative action program that he approves of to draw that line for him and to say to all on the black side of that line, "Yes, you qualify for affirmative action," and to say to all on the white side of that line, "Sorry, you don't qualify for affirmative action." This is enough to show Wise's position a self-contradiction, because even though he says he himself can't draw that line, he can find an expert who can draw that line for him, which contradicts his statements in the radio debate that no-one: not Taylor, not himself, not a bureaucrat, can draw a proper line between black and white.

Wise may try to slip away by saying that he was referring in the radio debate to a "biological" line, whereas his bureaucrat is drawing a "social" line between "socially constructed" blacks and "socially constructed" whites for the purposes of administering affirmative action benefits to "socially constructed" blacks. But this fails when we consider the question of what did society construct these categories out of? Thin air? Obviously not: there was a biological basis for the "social constructions". Leftists such as Wise deny a biological basis when people like Taylor (or often even impartial scientists) are drawing the line for their purposes, yet they affirm a biological basis when it is their own bureaucrats that are drawing the line for their own purposes, even if they feel they must draw it in the guise of what are ostensibly other people's social constructions. So they're still stuck at a self-contradiction.[3][4]

The second self-contradiction in Wise's philosophy is even more damaging, and in fact shows the whole thing to be a self-refuting philosophy. It was again exposed during the radio debate[5], and is that, according to Wise and many other leftists, Europeans (i.e., whites) are the cause (or at least the primary cause) of racism and racial discrimination, yet at the same time Europeans must integrate themselves with the very people whom they are supposedly racist and discriminatory against. In fact, Wise is even more contradictory than most "anti-racists", since Wise actually believes that Europeans are racist and discriminatory without even realizing it or thinking about it, yet still insists that they integrate themselves with non-Europeans, i.e. those that they are supposedly racist and discriminatory against. Here is the relevant paragraph from the debate:

"I don't happen to think that white people are evil. I don't happen to think that white people are all inveterate racists. I don't happen to think that most white people in fact even give a second thought to discriminating against people of color or even think very much about the issue until it's brought up to them in a conversation like this or whatnot. But what I do believe is that the institutions of our society have been set up in such a way as to generate and replicate, from generation to generation, inequality. Many of the people I meet, who in fact I think perpetuate racism in the institutional sense, in the sense of inequality between people within an institutional setting, are people who themselves I would not call racist in the sense of being ideologically predisposed to racism. So for example, I'm talking about people in the business world, about 85% of all the jobs in the United States, according to the National Center for Career Strategies, are never advertised. They're mainly filled by word of mouth and networks. Now, that doesn't mean that the people in those networks who principally know other white people, because they themselves are white, are intentionally and deliberately, with malice in their heart, keeping blacks and Latinos and Asians and indigenous people out of those particular jobs. It means that those networks have been racially constructed, their neighborhoods historically have been racially constructed, and so even if they aren't bigots, even if they are not bigots, they will continue to perpetuate racism in the sense of exclusion. I don't think that it's a matter of individual, hardcore prejudice. I think it's a matter of institutional patterns and practices and policies which bring about racially inequitable results."

Notice immediately that Wise's third sentence, "I don't happen to think that most white people in fact even give a second thought to discriminating against people of color or even think very much about the issue until it's brought up to them in a conversation like this or whatnot." totally refutes his preceding sentence, "I don't happen to think that white people are all inveterate racists." If most Europeans according to Wise do not give a second thought to discriminating against non-Europeans, then that means that they are indeed "inveterate racists", by the very definitions of the those two words. Racists because they discriminate against non-Europeans, and inveterate racists because they are able to do it without giving it a second thought.

When Taylor pointed out the inherent futility[6] of a pro-diversity, pro-integration "anti-racist" movement championing the integration of Europeans who supposedly propagate racism without even thinking about it with those that they are supposedly racist against, Wise responds[7] with the claim that by changing laws and dismantling "racist" institutions, he can make Europeans' attitudes better, and "bring people individually much faster than trying to change the individual hearts and minds first". The problem with this claim is that if Wise believes that changes in laws really did "bring people individually along much faster than trying to change the individual hearts and minds first", then why did Wise say a paragraph ago, "I don't happen to think that most white people in fact even give a second thought to discriminating against people of color?" So what good was it to bring Europeans along, and put better attitudes in their heads, if still to this day they discriminate against non-Europeans without even knowing they are doing it, and regardless of the attitudes that are now instilled in their heads? None, and in fact he is intentionally creating racial discrimination by subjecting those non-Europeans to an environment where they will undoubtedly face racial discrimination from Europeans who, according to him, discriminate against them without giving it a second thought. So in order to achieve its goal of stopping racial discrimination against non-Europeans by Europeans, Tim Wise's philosophy creates racial discrimination against non-Europeans by Europeans, and is thus a self-refuting philosophy.[8]

[1]Every reader should know that the word "racist", used by Tim Wise almost incessantly in his essays, was invented by none other than Soviet Red Army mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, for the purpose of attacking traditionalists and his political opponents. It is for this reason and others that I view the word more as a communist propaganda tool than a legitimate descriptor of a concept. I only use it myself here in this article to paraphrase Tim Wise's positions.

[2](Quoted from one of Wise's other debates as to why he favors affirmative action for blacks): "We do not claim that it is needed to give blacks a leg up, because absent such policies they would be incapable on their own; rather, the argument (and one is free to disagree with it, to be sure) is that absent AA, black folks would continue to be locked out of opportunity, irrespective of ability and qualifications thanks to racial bias--both overt and more subtle. Though I'd be willing to get into a discussion about AA with folks, I think the proof of what I just said is demonstrated by the very attitudes towards black folks held by people like John. Are we really to believe that such people could fairly evaluate a job applicant, and actually make a valid judgment of merit, while holding such admittedly anti-black views? Of course not. To even suggest such a thing would be absurd on the face of it. It is for that reason that AA is necessary--or at least this is our argument, so please represent it accurately--not to compensate for inferiority." (Link: http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/debatebryant.html)

[3]If my reader is confused, let me provide a story example that illustrates what I mean here: I apply for affirmative action, calling myself a black person, in Tim Wise's ideal world. Wise's bureaucrat would look at my blue eyes and my light skin (and potentially other features as well such as lip structure, nose structure, etc.) and say "Sorry, you are obviously white, you're not black, you don't qualify." So Wise has, through his appointed bureaucrat, drawn a biological line and put me on the "white" side of that line based on certain biological characteristics that I have, while at the same time claiming in the radio debate that no-one can draw any biological line between black and white. That's a self-contradiction.

[4]Jared Taylor also pointed out the self-contradiction here during the radio debate, saying "The United States has no difficulty when it comes to affirmative action in determining who is black and who is not," although he didn't hammer on it as much as he should have, and he didn't point out that Wise himself is an ardent advocate of affirmative action, thus Wise was able to slip away during the radio debate from having this self-contradiction in his philosophy exposed on air.

[5]Taylor partly exposed the self-contradiction, to be more precise. Again, Taylor did not go nearly as far as he should have to expose Wise's second self-contradiction.

[6]Relevant paragraph from Taylor:
"Well see, you are now describing something that would be even more difficult to change. You're saying people don't even have to have any kind of racial consciousness, they don't have to have any racial ill will, they just have to be cruising along without even thinking about race, blindly perpetuating racism. You're talking about a situation which you are trying to change a society in which individuals aren't even guilty. You want to blow up the institutions of the society despite the fact that the individuals in it have done no wrong. [...] That is an even greater Sisyphean [the labors of Sisyphus, a legendary king of Corinth condemned eternally to repeat the cycle of rolling a heavy rock up a hill in Hades only to have it roll down again as it nears the top] impossible task, than trying to change individual minds. You might as well give up."

[7]Relevant paragraph from Wise:
"It's actually quite a bit easier. In the South, where I've lived all of my life, you'll notice that [...] integration in the South for example was imposed on the region at a time when it's very clear that the vast majority of white Southerners did not want it. And yet what you'll find is that despite the fact that the attitudes were quite rigid against it on the part of white Southerners, that after twenty, twenty-five, thirty years, and even today, after roughly thirty-four years of actual desegregation in the South, that the attitudes toward integrated schooling among whites in the South are actually better than the attitude toward integrated schooling elsewhere. Meaning that when you do change laws, when you do change institutions, even if the hearts and minds have not changed, that often times, the institutional change, the policy change does in fact bring people individually along much faster than trying to change the individual hearts and minds first, hoping that that will change the institutions. So indeed I don't think that it's more difficult to change institutional structures. In some ways it's easier because if I go to a corporation or if I go to a police department, or if I go to a school and I talk to the people there about the structural things that they do which perpetuate inequality, every single time I do it the folks in that room are amazed, they never thought about it, they never gave it any thought, and they are usually more than willing to correct those things because they didn't even realize they were doing them. Had they actually done it intentionally, it would have been very hard for me to make them care because they would have said "well to hell with that, I don't care, I don't like black people," and that isn't what they were saying. They were often unaware that the policies, practices and procedures that they were enforcing were creating inequality. And once they learned it, they're often horrified by it."

[8]I can almost hear a critic right now saying, "Stanley seems to be criticizing Wise over his commitment to racial integration, so does this mean Stanley favors some sort of re-institution of segregation or apartheid like existed in the US South before the 60's or in South Africa before the 90's?" Due to the touchiness of the issues that this article deals with, I'm going to shoot that down right now and say that the answer is no. Other than that, I'm going to say that the rest of my personal opinions on the subject are beyond the scope of this article (although I may get to them at some future time), and that I criticized Wise's commitment to racial integration here not out of opposition to it as a concept myself, but because, as I explained at length in the article, it contradicts his prior statements that most Europeans propagate racism without a second thought when combined with his stated goal of ending European racism against non-Europeans. Perhaps I'll leave off by saying that personally I am in favor of neither forced segregation nor forced integration, and I'll leave it at that for now.

"Racist" -- A Word Invented by USSR's Leon Trotsky

2010-01-06T18:37:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

The word "racist" has for a long time been the single most effective fear-word in the leftist and neoconservative arsenal. For decades, they have successfully used it in the political arena to slander traditionalists, shut down debate, and leave opponents running for cover. In the social arena, they have caused even more damage by using it to brainwash impressionable children and young college students, and to teach people to hate their nation, their cultural traditions, and worst of all, themselves.

What surprisingly remains almost totally undiscussed, even on the hard core traditionalist Right, is the word's origin. Did it come from a liberal sociologist? A 60's Marxist college professor? Perhaps a politician in the Democratic Party? No. It turns out that the word was invented by none other than one of the principal architects of the 74-year Soviet nightmare, the founder and first leader of the infamous Red Army, Leon Trotsky.

Take a look at this document if you would, dear reader.

Славянофильство, мессианизм отсталости, строило свою философию на том, что русский народ и его церковь насквозь демократичны, а официальная Россия -- это немецкая бюрократия, насажденная Петром. Маркс заметил по этому поводу: "Ведь точно так же и тевтонские ослы сваливают деспотизм Фридриха II и т. д. на французов, как будто отсталые рабы не нуждаются всегда в цивилизованных рабах, чтобы пройти нужную выучку". Это краткое замечание исчерпывает до дна не только старую философию славянофилов, но и новейшие откровения "расистов".

This is Leon Trotsky's 1930 work, "The History of the Russian Revolution", from which shown above is a passage. The last word in that passage is "расистов", whose Latin transliteration is "racistov", i.e., "racists". This work here is the first time in history one will ever find that word.

My more doubtful readers may check the internet, the microfiche and microfilm at the local library, as well as the numerous books arrayed along the shelves there, but they shall never find an earlier usage of the word "racist" than Trotsky's coinage of the word here.

So the next logical question is what was Leon Trotsky's purpose in inventing this word? To find out, let us look at a full English translation of the paragraph we looked at before.

"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: "In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them." This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the 'racists.'"

The Slavophiles which Trotsky alluded to were historically a group of traditionalist Slavs who valued greatly their native culture and way of life, and wanted to protect it. Trotsky on the other hand saw them and others like them as an impedement to his internationalist communist plans for the world. This man didn't care one iota about the Slavic Russians whom he supposedly served. To him, Slavophiles, i.e. Slavs that committed the "crime" of loving their own people and trying to protect their traditional ways were simply "backward", and others like them were simply "racists".

The reality of the word's origin is indeed quite a far cry from the left-liberal version of the story: that the word was coined in bona fides to identify people who were just plain bigoted against certain racial groups, and as a rallying cry for good liberals to protect the racial minorities from the bigots. On the contrary, the actual concept behind the word (even though he hadn't invented it quite yet) -- that ethnocentric "backwardness" must take a back seat to "enlightened" internationalism -- was often used by Army-Navy Commissar Trotsky as a rallying cry for good Red Army communists to embark upon murderous rampages against peoples who resisted having their traditional way of life paved over and replaced with an alien system.[1]

Fast-forwarding to today in 2010, the only changes to the word and its underlying concept from 1930 (besides Marxists having perfected the art of achieving the same thing with less blood but no less misery) are that the word's targets have expanded from just Slavs who won't submit to the Marxist internationalist plan to uproot and destroy their culture and traditional way of life, to all white people, Slavic or otherwise, who won't submit to that same vile Marxist plan. Also, those who arm themselves with the word have expanded from a handful of communists to the entire liberal and neoconservative establishment in nations all across the world.

Leon Trotsky, after helping Lenin to create the Soviet murder machine in which he and Trotsky killed 1 to 4 million[2] people, was removed from power and expelled from the Soviet Union in the year 1929 after losing a power struggle to become Lenin's successor to Josef Stalin. However, before fading into the pages of history, Leon Trotsky would do one last thing in 1930 that would arguably cause more damage to the West than Stalin and his successors' entire Soviet nuclear arsenal could ever have done. He would invent a word that would empower literally the most rotten, traitorous weasels within the West to redefine those loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and way of life as the worst evil, and to send the government, the education system, and the mass media on an absolute royal crusade until they themselves and virtually everyone else around them actually believe it. And this unholy creation would be repeated over and over again, bolstered by revisionist history fabricated by more of the same rotten weasels falsely portraying the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery and genocide in the world, and this would go on and on until the West would submit via demoralization to the entire Trotskyist internationalist agenda without a single shot being fired. We can see the final stages of this playing out right now, with racial double standards having been created here in America (at the expense of American whites, of course), with the creation of "racism" and "hate speech" offenses in Europe (only targeting the indigineous population, of course), with the Canadian and Australian governments having implemented "multiculturalism" as official state policy (at the expense of the pre-existing Canadian and Australian cultures), and most of all, with the huge wave of third-world immigration into the West, supported by all Western governments (otherwise it wouldn't be happening), which is radically changing the makeup and culture of those countries, and is threatening their original populations with becoming a minority in their own countries within just a few decades.

Due especially to Trotsky's hand in the murder of millions of people under the Lenin regime, as well as the ongoing global recession causing many fence sitters to take a side in these affairs, Rightists have a real opportunity to shut the lid on this word once and for all, simply by telling the truth about who invented the word and what its purpose was (and is). It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. One can hardly imagine a true Euro-nationalist movement where most of the people in it believe they are "racists" for daring to embark on such a project, as today's reigning system would have us believe.

[1]There is an appalling lack of good material available on the internet about the additional tragedy of the repression of regional sovereignty and self-determination movements after the Czar's collapse in Russia by Trotsky's Red Army. One of the best things you'll find on the web about it is the Nina Turmarkin interview which is the last thing I linked on the paragraph demarcated by this footnote, and is located here:
(http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/interviews_tumarkin.html). Ms. Turmarkin discusses the optimism that existed after the February Revolution which overthrew the Czar, about villages that declared their independence from the regime and sewed their own flags, etc. She doesn't go on to say what happened to those villages and such, but if you know the history, you know of course that they were forced back into the fold, an even worse fold than the Czar's for that matter, at the point of a Red Army bayonet held by a soldier commanded by Trotsky, and those who would not go back into that worse fold were of course killed. Anyhow, I truly would suggest that the interested reader on this subject get hold of book sources for further reading, because unfortunately what is out there on the web is the bottom of the barrel.

[2]The higher estimate of state murder (4 million) under the Lenin/Trotsky regime is that of political scientist R.J. Rummel in his book Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, found here: (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM). I myself was taught a lower estimate of 1-2 million during my school years. The main factors in the deaths were executions of dissidents, brutal suppressions of the self-determination movements that arose after the fall of the Czar and in reaction to the early Soviet police state, and the Russian famine of 1921. The new Soviet government was certainly responsible for the first two. They were at least somewhat responsible for the third, but exactly how responsible is a matter of debate that is beyond the scope of this article. Either way, 1-2 million, 4 million, or somewhere in between, it is absolutely atrocious what happened under that regime.

Obama-Bernanke "Economic Recovery" is Actually Dangerous Bubble

2010-01-03T15:47:00.000-08:00

by Dustin Stanley

Most of us on the Right have been dismayed for a long time about the unremitting growth of the culture-destroying leviathan that the US federal government has become. It and the corporatocracy that funds the politicians' campaign coffers seemed to have an endless supply of bread and circuses to distract the populace from the damage that 50+ years and counting of leftist social engineering have done to the nation, and from the fact that no matter who is voted in, Republican or Democrat, the overall political program remains the same.

However, in September 2008, the political and corporate machine hit a huge log in the road that caught much of it completely by surprise -- the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which set off an economic shockwave many years in the making -- a shockwave so big that it still to this day has the potential to blow apart every last piece of the aforementioned leftist social engineering, no matter how many Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, or amnesty-granted illegal alien voters might still support it.

No matter how many times supporters of the much-touted recovery plan spearheaded by President Barack Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke claim that the crisis is ending, or has ended, the fact remains that most of the so-called "recovery" has not been created by genuine growth, but by bailouts, giant government stimulus packages, federal programs such as "Cash for Clunkers", and most of all -- the continuous deluge of nearly worthless dollars into the economy from Bernanke's Federal Reserve, which has been literally throwing these dollars at banks at the unprecedentedly low interest rates of 0%-0.25% for almost a year, and stated again just last month that they have no intention of stopping this policy anytime soon.

Bernanke and Obama, while ostensibly creating a "recovery", are in actuality blowing up a gigantic bubble, which will either burst when Bernanke's Federal Reserve finally raises interest rates, thus contracting the money supply, or will inflate indefinitely as the Fed simply refuses to raise rates, resulting in hyper-stagflation as the recession-hit economy eventually becomes unable to cope with the flood of Bernanke's 0%-0.25% interest dollars.

To illustrate this, in the months before the October 2008 crash, the price of one ounce of gold was hovering between $800-$900. Today, it's almost $1,100 an ounce, showing how much the dollar's value has deteriorated.

So either they cut off the easy 0%-0.25% interest dollars, thus sending the value of the dollar back up again, but the stock market crashing back down, or they let the stock market keep climbing, but continue to throw dollars at banks at basement rates of 0%-0.25%, eventually making the dollar almost worthless.

There is only one card the government can play to stave off these two outcomes, which is its usual trick of borrowing vast sums of money from creditors and then throwing that into the pot, and this it certainly has been doing, but it can continue this only temporarily. At the close of fiscal year 2009, the government's budget deficit was a record $1.4 trillion, and at the close of calendar year 2009, the national debt was a record $12.14 trillion. If borrowing continues at this rate, it will be only a matter of time before US national debt exceeds 100% of GDP, which hasn't happened at any other time in US history except during World War II. (The national debt was at about 81% of GDP at the end of the third quarter of FY 2009.)

When it reaches that point, creditors will begin to seriously question the United States' ability to repay its debts (since the US won't have the excuse of WWII this time around), and international credit rating agencies (e.g. Fitch's, Moody's, S&P), will threaten, and will eventually carry through with the threat, to downgrade the US's credit rating, just as they did with Greece when the same thing happened to it in 2009. This will probably be even worse for the US than for Greece, since the US relies so much on having a top sovereign rating. In any event, it will mark the beginning of the end of low-interest foreign loans flowing like water into the national treasury, undoubtedly a dire blow to a US economy that has become so dependent upon them. Should the government pig-headedly continue at this point to borrow no matter what the interest rate and ignoring whatever warnings and sovereign downgrades come their way, eventually the interest will pile up so high that the United States will be forced to default on its debt, and at that point it's game over.

All of these outcomes sound like "gloom and doom", and indeed they are for Marxist social engineers, corporations that peddle meaningless junk and then go begging for bailouts and "corporate welfare", and other such ilk that were and are the main beneficiaries of the current American system in its dying, decaying phases. For the rest of us, however, it should not be seen as "gloom and doom", but rather as an opportunity to rebuild our society, rejecting the pathological values of childishness, low impulse control, herd mentality, and other such rot that have long been pushed on Americans through the media, Hollywood, the government, and the schools under the previous system. This is what we truly must do if there is to be a new American era after the collapse of the old.

Blue in the Face? Take a Breath.

2009-12-23T13:29:00.000-08:00

Why right-wingers should enjoy James Cameron's new anti-industrialist movie.
by Ian Huyett

Before the public had even laid eyes on Avatar’s trailer, this mind-blowing and visually stunning sci-fi epic was almost universally dismissed as an anti-American, anti-White propaganda piece by many people who I otherwise agree with. In truth, the movie had about as much to do with “white guilt” as did Titanic.

Am I alone in my ability to simultaneously hold right-wing views and enjoy science fiction, or has being under constant political siege made us overly cautious and too quick to judge?

Recently, I saw an episode of the show “Criminal Minds” where a woman murdered her husband in cold blood while he slept. The police decided that the woman was “the real victim” because, although her husband never hit her, he verbally abused her. In the end, the police did “the right thing” and let her completely off the hook.

The moral of the story was, more or less, that women who blow their husbands away with shotguns are fighting patriarchy and are therefore never in the wrong. I thought I was going to be sick.

When a crime is committed on TV or the big screen, white actors are always selected to commit it, even when a black perpetrator would’ve been a statistical near-certainty in reality. Hollywood universally portrays black suspects and convicts as either blameless victims of racism or products of a racist system.

In short, I’m the first person to complain about political correctness in the field of entertainment. It’s hard to miss; when liberal, Hollywood directors want to make a white guilt film nowadays, they’re direct. They don’t need to construct elaborate metaphors. And we have enough real white guilt propaganda to deal with without suffering from paranoid delusions that everything under the sun is out to get us.

The arguments I’ve heard made against Avatar (largely by people who’ve refused to see it) are as follows:

1) It’s clearly about Native American suffering at the hands of white colonialism. The blue people follow a tribal, pagan, religious system and wear ceremonial attire, just like the Native Americans did.

If this is the reason you’re refusing to see Avatar, you need a history lesson. Ancient Europeans, from whom both I and Avatar’s paranoid critics claim descent, practiced a tribal, pagan religious system that involved ceremonial attire, including war paint.

Since Avatar’s Na’vi language was constructed from scratch by a linguist, and neither Native Americans nor Pagan Europeans had blue skin, the Na’vi could just as easily be a metaphor for the latter civilization (not to mention countless other tribal pagan societies around the world and throughout history). In fact, many European tribal warriors actually painted themselves blue, while Native Americans more often used dark, earthy colors.

Maybe the movie is a metaphor for the struggle of European Pagans against Christianization. That’d make more sense then it being about colonialism, since the antagonizing force in the movie is a multinational corporation motivated by a desire for material wealth, not lebensraum or manifest destiny.

2) But the bad guy is white!

So what, idiot? Is The Dark Knight a liberal propaganda piece because it positively portrays a black supporting character while casting a blonde Aryan to the play the part of a greedy, power-crazed villain?

The Occidental Quarterly (an otherwise very resourceful and well-oriented publication) made a disgusting oversimplification in it’s review of Avatar when it asserted that “Basically, the white characters are portrayed as brutal, greedy and insensitive beasts”. Avatar had a single white villain, Colonel Quatrich, who commands a diverse legion of thugs. On the other hand, the “good humans” are almost all white.

The author of the Occidental’s review is entirely correct in his criticism of liberalism’s racial double-standard. But it has absolutely nothing to do with this movie.

Of course, if you’re determined to light up with righteous indignation at the forces of liberalism every time you walk into a movie theater, then liberalism is exactly what you’re going to see. Just ask the evangelicals who manage to find elaborate Satanic messages in children’s TV show.

3) The whole premise of the story is that the hero betrays his people and sides with an opposing people.

Avatar’s protagonist, Jake Sully, is both human and Na’vi. He has one mind that moves back and forth between two bodies. He falls in love with a Na’vi as a Na’vi, and when he defends their culture and heritage, he’s defending his own culture and heritage.

All people have the right to preserve their heritage in their own land, don’t they? Or are we going to take the position of the black civil rights industry and adopt a complete double standard whereby only our own survival is permissible?

In his decision to stay in his Na’vi body, Sully does not betray a race, a kin, or a civilization. His initial loyalty, the film’s corporate monopoly, is the product of an industrialized and integrated Earth. Jake himself tells us that “there is no green there”; the natural environment has presumably been wiped away by this monopoly’s desire for material wealth. Employment is the only thing uniting the film’s latino, white, and black mercenary hodge-podge. Sully does not leave “a people” in any sense of the term.

As a politically incorrect white person whose heritage is attacked on a regular basis, I identified more with the folkish Na’vi than the rather multicultural, centralized economic-military power oppressing them. If I were going to draw a parallel between this movie and a real world event, European colonialism would be my last choice. More likely, I’d choose the displacement and senseless destruction wrought on the Palestinians by Zionists, who are inarguably more anti-White and anti-Western then James Cameron could possibly be.

The controversy over this film reflects a deeper problem in the growing current of Americans who justly oppose our society’s institutionalized anti-White racism. Fortunately, it’s a problem that we can easily rectify.

All it takes it a willingness to bear in mind that conservative values are not an excuse to spend every waking moment in anger, and they certainly should not prevent you from enjoying life. If a movie strikes you as being overt propaganda, then by all means, speak up. But don’t walk into a movie theater looking for something to be angry about.

If you must, at least see it in IMAX 3D.

The Double Standard on Race

2009-12-22T20:29:00.000-08:00

by John Smith

"There's just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other. Had Barrack Obama had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him." - Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City.

"Would we question when a Jewish person wants to marry other Jewish people?" she said in an interview. "It's not racist. It's not bigotry. It's cultural pride." - Sheryl Underwood

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Even to the most liberal reader, the blatant double standard of race that exist in today’s society is on full display in this article. God forbid a WHITE person say something like this! And yet it is TOTALLY acceptable for every other race.
This begs the question- “How is this possible?”

The answer is political correctness- the evil doctrine that preaches anything that is good for Western Civilization and the people who created it (Whites) is bad, and anything that destroys it is good. Anything that is in the interests of Whites is demonized, while anything that is in the interests of non-whites is celebrated and encouraged. Let’s imagine if Mr. Cooper was a white male and said “There’s just this preservation thing we have among one another. In fact, due to catastrophically low white birthrates, I plan on having as many white children as possible so my people will forever walk the earth and not become extinct.” And “If Sarah Palin was married to a black man, I would think twice about voting for her.”

Make no mistake, if a white male were to come out and say this he would be dismissed as a “racist”, a “bigot”, “Nazi” and whatever else haters could come up with to drive him into silence. He would risk losing his job, his friends, his family, and his reputation forever. What bothers me most- and what I see all too often- is the white man not fighting back! To refute these arguments and dismiss the adherents of political correctness is not difficult. Anyone who calls you a "racist" for wanting to preserve your own heritage are the biggest hypocrites there are. As Jared Taylor reminds us: "If it's 'racist' to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually everyone of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.” Mass miscegenation (race-mixing) destroys race. Therefore any race – whether it be Whites, Blacks, or Asians - who promotes this is advocating genocide [the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group].

In order for there to be a plurality there must be some degree of separation. Blood lines at the very least, historically and Biblically the lines were drawn by national boundaries- with the “nation” representing homogeneity in race, culture, and language. As a Christian I will refer to the famous theologian and reformer John Calvin, who called the crossing of these national boundaries that God ordained in Acts 17:26 “wicked lust… an assault on heaven… [an attempt at the] overthrow of God’s province.” Yet in today’s churches and Christian schools we see preachers openly promoting their congregations to participate in this destructive act. What would Calvin, or any Christian prior to the liberal takeover of the church in the 1960s say about this?? That’s another point people fail to realize all too often: Miscegenation was never accepted by society in the history of man or West up until the last three or four decades! Shall we dismiss every one of our forefathers up until 50 years ago as “racists” and/or “flawed products of their time”? I guess nobody had it figured out until the self-righteous liberals of modern day times came along. I find this viewpoint very audacious and naive. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Those who will not fight for the graves of their ancestors are beyond redemption." Further, if you were to go to any other part of the world and tell any other race to import in millions of foreigners to their homelands as a “cultural enrichment” ,and tell them to give their sons and daughters away to produce mulatto children, they would look at you like you were nuts! Whites are the only people who have this deranged mindset that we owe our children and lands to the rest of the world.

Literally, white people are being ethnically cleansed through political correctness and they say NOTHING. Instead of standing up for their right to existence they are bowing to Marxist liberals who wish to see them wiped off the face of the Earth. This is cowardly and pathetic. The time to stand up and say something isn’t 40 years from now when we become a minority in our own countries, quotas on children we’re allowed to have, our jobs given away to non-whites via affirmative action, our right to free speech taken away, No- the time is NOW.

Obama Destroyed the Peace Scene

2009-12-18T20:52:00.000-08:00

by Ian Huyett

A week after consigning 30,000 American soldiers to shed their blood in a futile occupation of Afghanistan while he sits comfortably in the White House, President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.

In a nation frustrated by 8 years of Neoconservative foreign policy, Obama elegantly conned his way into the Oval Office with vague promises of change. Now that the reigns of power are in his hands, however, it’s clear to all but the hardest kool-aid drinkers that he has no intention of following through.

Obama has not shut down Guantanamo Bay. He has not reduced military aid to Israel or any of the various other repressive regimes propped up by American tax dollars. He hasn’t set a date for withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq, instead laying out plans for indefinite occupation, eclipsing even McCain’s “100 years” promise. In fact, Obama has not ended any of America’s 135 expensive military occupations around the world.

In his time as president, Obama has shown us that he never cared about lofty notions of hope and change (hope and change for him, maybe, but not the rest of us). He cares about the financial contributions of Goldman Sachs. By marking the acceptance of this peace prize with an unashamed defense of imperialist war and liberal internationalism, Obama is telling us that he’s no longer trying to pretend otherwise. Occasionally raking his “fat cats” financers over the coals to appease public outcry is no exception; the President has come out of the closet.

In an optimistic future, activists across the political spectrum, from Paleoconservatives to leftists, would form an alliance of convenience to expose Obama’s betrayal on his single substantial campaign promise, and rock the country with a wave of protests to rival the anti-war demonstrations of the Vietnam and early Iraq eras. The unfortunate reality, however, is that the leftists who comprised the bulk of the early Iraq protest movement have no interest in standing up against imperialist war while Obama, an economic centralist and corporate-welfare statist, is calling the shots.

While there are those on the left with the integrity to continue combating imperialism, they’re far outnumbered by the garden-variety leftoids, who at best have discarded anti-imperialism in favor of supporting Obama’s state socialism (or state capitalism, if you prefer), and at worst have made an about-face and changed their thinking to compensate for their savior’s new policies (if you live outside America, you’d be surprised at the sheer number of these idiots).

If anything good has come of Obama’s newfound openness in his desire to completely maintain the status quo, it’s that consistent non-interventionists are now clearly separated from the fake peace trendsters who are inexplicably sticking by Obama through the same imperialist policies that they protested under Bush.

With his liberal supporters now trying in vain to prove that Afghanistan is not, in fact, the graveyard of empires, it’s clear that Obama has already dug the grave of the liberal anti-war movement.

More from Edward Abbey

2009-11-30T11:47:00.000-08:00

posted by Luke SD

From Wikipedia:

* On absurdities: "As for the "solitary confinement of the mind," my theory is that solipsism, like other absurdities of the professional philosopher, is a product of too much time wasted in library stacks between the covers of a book, in smoke-filled coffeehouses (bad for brains) and conversation-clogged seminars. To refute the solipsist or the metaphysical idealist all that you have to do is take him out and throw a rock at his head: if he ducks he's a liar. His logic may be airtight but his argument, far from revealing the delusions of living experience, only exposes the limitations of logic." (Desert Solitaire, pp. 121–122).

* On industry: "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time."

* On Anarchism: "Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners."

* On terrorism: "The most common form of terrorism in the U.S.A. is that carried on by bulldozers and chain saws."

* On off-road vehicles: "The fat pink slobs who go roaring over the landscape in these over-sized over-priced over-advertised mechanical mastodons are people too lazy to walk, too ignorant to saddle a horse, too cheap and clumsy to paddle a canoe. Like cattle or sheep, they travel in herds, scared to death of going anywhere alone, and they leave their sign and spoor all over the back country: Coors beer cans, Styrofoam cups, plastic spoons, balls of Kleenex, wads of toilet paper, spent cartridge shells, crushed gopher snakes, smashed sagebrush, broken trees, dead chipmunks, wounded deer, eroded trails, bullet-riddled petroglyphs, spray-painted signatures, vandalized Indian ruins, fouled-up waterholes, polluted springs and smoldering campfires piled with incombustible tinfoil, filter tips, broken bottles. Etc." (Postcards from Ed, pp. 66–67).

* On sport hunting: "Whenever I see a photograph of some sportsman grinning over his kill, I am always impressed by the striking moral and aesthetic superiority of the dead animal to the live one."

* On firearms: "The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed—but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." (Abbey's Road)

* On reason: "Reason has seldom failed us because it has seldom been tried."

* On the Bible: "A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. "

* On the wisdom of crowds: One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork." (Seldom Seen Smith, in The Monkey Wrench Gang)

* On war: "The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other—instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals."

* On patriotism: "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

* On highways: "Of course I litter the public highway. Every chance I get. After all, it's not the beer cans that are ugly; it's the highway that is ugly." ("The Second Rape of the West," The Journey Home, 1977)

* On growth: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." (The Journey Home, 1977)

* On government: "Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top."

* On civilization and culture: "To make the distinction unmistakably clear: Civilization is the vital force in human history; culture is that inert mass of institutions and organizations which accumulate around and tend to drag down the advance of life; Civilization is Giordano Bruno facing death by fire; culture is the Cardinal Bellarmino, after ten years of inquisition, sending Bruno to the stake in the Campo di Fiori; Civilization is Sartre; culture Cocteau; Civilization is mutual aid and self-defense; culture is the judge, the lawbook and the forces of Law & Ordure (sic); Civilization is uprising, insurrection, revolution; culture is the war of state against state, or of machines against people, as in Hungary and Vietnam; Civilization is tolerance, detachment and humor, or passion, anger, revenge; culture is the entrance examination, the gas chamber, the doctoral dissertation and the electric chair; Civilization is the Ukrainian peasant Nestor Makhno fighting the Germans, then the Reds, then the Whites, then the Reds again; culture is Stalin and the Fatherland; Civilization is Jesus turning water into wine; culture is Christ walking on the waves; Civilization is a youth with a Molotov cocktail in his hand; culture is the Soviet tank or the L.A. cop that guns him down; Civilization is the wild river; culture, 592,000 tons of cement; Civilization flows; culture thickens and coagulates, like tired, sick, stifled blood." (Desert Solitaire, p. 246)

Edward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist

2009-11-15T14:24:00.000-08:00

By Bill Croke

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/edward-abbey-conservative-anar

Cactus Ed (a nickname he liked) is dead, lo these twenty years (March 14, 1989). He was a less controversial figure in his time than he is today, and certainly has more readers. I recently attended a lecture/book discussion on the author's Desert Solitaire at my local public library, and wasn't surprised by what I heard. Small town book clubs tend to be the pet projects of liberals bent on "promoting literacy," and attract likeminded people. The discussion was moderated by a local Abbey fan, a woman of some academic credentials, and roughly twenty people took part. I've read Desert Solitaire twice, but went to the lecture on a whim, only flipping through my paperback copy shortly beforehand, intending to just listen. The group chewed over the book for 90 minutes, and the takeaway for me was that most people there thought Abbey to be a larger-than-life iconic character, the life transcending the work. And they mostly agreed with his severe critique of the management of the public lands, his ambiguous views on the national parks, and his anarchic thoughts concerning humankind's history and place on the planet, in general. An amusing evening.

Edward Abbey's posthumous fame lies mostly with the Green Left, especially in the West. He's attained that iconic cult status as a man who embodied equal parts Henry David Thoreau (Larry McMurtry once called him "The Thoreau of the American West") and John Muir, with an added dash of Mikhail Bakunin. Somebody who thought and wrote, but also acted, and influenced others to act, however indirectly. All this begs an old question: Does a writer pushing an agenda in his work compromise the artistic integrity of that work? In Abbey's case the answer is both yes and no, because he was much more a polemicist than an artist.

Edward Paul Abbey was born on January 29, 1927, in Indiana, Pennsylvania, the son of a farmer and logger. After a 1944 hitchhiking trip west at 17, he served in the U.S. Army late in World War II and afterwards, then enrolled at the University of New Mexico in 1948 on the G.I. Bill, eventually earning a Master's Degree in philosophy. During this time Abbey started to write as he began concurrently to explore the backcountry of the Southwest in his spare time, specifically the Four Corners area (where Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico meet), otherwise known as the Colorado Plateau because it's drained by that great river.

It was among the last of Western regions to be surveyed and mapped. In 1869, John Wesley Powell was its primary explorer when he led a party in dories down the rapids-ravaged canyons of the Green and Colorado Rivers from Green River, Wyoming, all the way through the Grand Canyon. It's an unforgiving region of deserts and mountains, much of it federal land, and home to a half dozen national parks. Here Abbey found the subject that was the focus of his four decades as a writer.

Abbey started as a novelist with a run into the 1960s with series of competently executed but forgettable books such as Jonathan Troy (1954), The Brave Cowboy (1956), and Fire on the Mountain (1962). The Brave Cowboy was made into Lonely Are the Brave (1962), a film starring Kirk Douglas, thus earning Abbey some much-needed Hollywood money. During this time he also churned out essays and journalism about his wanderings in "the back of beyond."

Money was tight, though, and Abbey also worked odd jobs through the 1950s and '60s. His most noteworthy employment was as a seasonal ranger at Arches National Monument (now Arches National Park) near Moab, Utah, in 1959. This experience (along with others) culminated in the 1968 publication of Desert Solitaire, the book that made his reputation. After that, Cactus Ed became the Thoreau of the West.

The book is in some ways an episodic pastiche. Abbey alternates vividly written chapters describing the multi-hued landscapes of Arches and elsewhere with others featuring cranky polemics about Bureau of Reclamation river dams and "Industrial Tourism." But those sharp landscape renderings are some of the finest writing extant about the desert Southwest. Here he is in Glen Canyon before the eponymous dam was built (1963) that created Lake Powell:

The sandstone walls rise higher than ever before, rounding off on top as half-domes and capitols, golden and glowing in the sunlight, a deep radiant red in the shade.

And this from the same trip:

Beyond the side canyon the walls rise again, slick and monolithic, in color a blend of pink, buff, yellow, orange, overlaid in part with a glaze of "desert varnish" (iron oxide) or streaked in certain places with vertical draperies of black organic stains, the residue from plant life beyond the rim and from the hanging gardens that flourish in the deep grottoes high on the walls. Some of those alcoves are like great amphitheatres, large as the Hollywood Bowl, big enough for God's own symphony orchestra.

Companions to Desert Solitaire are the essays found in such collections as The Journey Home (1977), Abbey's Road (1979), Down the River (1982), Beyond the Wall (1984), and One Life at a Time, Please (1988). The subjects of the essays (the form being possibly Abbey's greatest strength as a writer) vary from detailed accounts of his wanderings -- rafting the Colorado, exploring such landscape oddities as the San Rafael Swell or Big Bend National Park -- to passionate polemics against national park infrastructure development or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policies on leasing grazing land to ranchers. The latter type showed that Abbey would have done well as an 18th-century pamphleteer. In an essay entitled "Eco-Defense," he writes: "Eco-defense is risky but sporting; unauthorized but fun; illegal but ethically imperative…Spike those trees; you won't hurt them; they'll be grateful for the protection; and you may save the forest. Loggers hate nails."

Abbey's most controversial role was only obliquely related to his work. In 1975 he published his novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, a book that alongside Desert Solitaire enhanced his reputation as an environmentalist, but unlike the latter tome it has prose as purple as an Arizona sunset. The plot involves four anarchic enviros who conspire to blow up Glen Canyon Dam. In a case of life imitates art, the book inspired the establishment of a notorious radical green group in 1980 known as Earth First!, with Abbey as a charter member. Other noteworthy members were activist/writer Doug Peacock, and Dave Foreman, an ex-Goldwater Republican. Earth First! "membership" was and remains (to the extent that it even exists today) anonymous and shadowy, as it's known for acts of "monkey wrenching" of earthmoving and logging equipment, spiking trees, stealing survey stakes, cutting wire fences, and so on. "Earth First!" has spawned ancillary groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which before its downfall at the hands of the FBI in 2006 burned down a Colorado ski lodge, and destroyed a number of vehicles at an SUV dealership in Eugene, Oregon, among other acts of domestic terrorism.

Cactus Ed was a prickly sort; a conservative anarchist, if you will, who on one hand could support eco-terrorism (a favorite motto was: "Keep America Beautiful -- Burn a Billboard!"), and on the other supported the National Rifle Association (NRA), and restrictions on immigration. When he died of natural causes, some of his Earth First! compatriots famously and illegally absconded with his body, and buried it in a secret place in remote desert outside of Tucson. And there he lies to this day, pushing up cactus.

A Short Discussion With a Stranger

2009-11-15T13:57:00.000-08:00

by Luke SD

Walking down my local town centre today, passing the buskers, navigating through the tourists, and politely declining sprigs of heather proffered by pseudo-gypsy women, I caught the eyes of a NGO scout wearing a Friends of the Earth sweatshirt. His partially-bleached hair was arranged in the sort of designer-disarray usually worn by upper-middle-class English trust-fund-beneficiaries who fancy themselves as surfers; whether he was a member of this subculture or not, I cannot say, but he seemed to look and act the part. He waved at me and said “please stop!” in a half-jokey, half-desperate tone. Rather than perform the standard British response to charity scouts (awkwardly and apologetically mumbling something about being in a rush, then shuffling away), I decided to voice my true opinions on FOTE, and simply declared that I disagreed with their approach, and found it to be too mainstream and reformist. Having been raised in an environment saturated with deep, theoretical forms of green anarchism, I was not going to let some gap-year douchermensch tell me how to save the earth, so after having stated my case I proceeded to walk on.

I had assumed that a sincere but firm statement of disinterest would discourage the vacant fool from continuing his interaction with me, but I was evidently wrong, as he called back to me asking what I meant. I walked back a few steps and explained my view that reformism was a waste of time that basically got nothing done, to which he gave me some half-regurgitated drivel about the massive progress the organisation was making in convincing people and governments to recycle toothpicks and use solar-powered iPods, or whatever mediocre horseshit he regarded as being significant. I proceeded to explain my view that, to preserve the ecosystem, a fundamental philosophical shift in our culture was required, towards a cultural environment not entirely dissimilar to that of pagan Europe, and that single-issue political campaigning of the liberal NGO type would do nothing to facilitate this shift. This is where it got interesting. He began to babble about how looking to the past was pointless, because tradition was bad; I asked him why, and his marvellously articulate and well-thought-out response was:

“Because tradition causes bad things, like racism.”

So it took about a minute and a half of discussion for him to bat out the R-word, but that's not particularly surprising. I remarked that this was a massive oversimplification (to say the least), and asked him to qualify his statement. He waffled about tradition making people oppose immigration, which is why it is a Bad Thing; I asked him whether he supported an open borders policy, and he said he did. I pointed out that such a view was inconsistent with ecological awareness, which appeared to confuse him; I clarified by stating that mass immigration only leads to environmental destruction, as consumption increases and more land is destroyed in the host country to accommodate the new arrivals. My opponent started saying that he regarded human rights as more important than the preservation of the ecosystem, and claimed that he was not an environmentalist, nor had he claimed to be; at that point, I ended the debate by saying that I had no interest in talking to someone shamelessly hypocritical enough to declare himself a “friend of the earth” and then to distance himself from environmentalism. Dazed and weary, my opponent simply said “yeah”, and I shook his hand and warmly thanked him for a stimulating discussion.

What this man represented in my mind was the essentially superficial and self-serving nature of the soft-left disposition. His ideas are half-formed and contradictory; he acts for a vague sense of piety and self-satisfaction, but mainly to get money and work experience. His faith in his cause is unfocused, but strong enough at least to overlook any glaring contradictions that he may be confronted with. He is well-spoken (apart from a mild speech impediment in this instance), evidently comes from a respectable middle-class background, and functions as a liberal equivalent of these two:

Equality

2009-08-03T09:27:00.000-07:00

by Anthony Crowe

There is one all consuming mythology that is still believed in more fervently than any other myth. It is a myth that is taken for granted as being an obvious and irrefutable truth that is apparent to anyone possessing any amount of intelligence or reason. It is neither religion nor belief in the existence in god although this near ubiquitous myth has utilized both religion and god to "prove" its intangible existence or as a prop to allow it to function as an moral force within society. When confronted by skepticism of its existence, nothing is more vigorously and heatedly defended. Women collapse in paroxysms of spite and hatred when it is pointed out to them that, in general, women cannot possibly be as physically strong as men because of differences in muscle mass. Stupid people argue that the more intelligent are only "book smart" and lacking in "common sense" (whatever that means), even though the more intelligent have been at the basis of all monumental achievements throughout the history. Graffiti artists such as Basquiat are elevated to the status of Michelangeloes, and plastic talentless pop stars are considered just as worthy and accomplished as Beethovens; its all just a matter of relative perspective. Nothing is confronted with more derision and more laughter than that which is experienced when one challenges the existence of equality.

Wherein does this equality lie? Where can "equality" be measured and observed to be an actual quality that exists within the fabric of the universe? Contrary to mainstream opinion, nothing can be more ridiculous than the belief that nature, in all its monstrously indifferent and blind shuffle through the black eons of time, could possibly have injected all men with the indiscernible quality of equality so as to save a person's sense of high self esteem.

Equality acts against preserving and encouraging those who possess superior qualities. Instead, it acts against our best interests by preserving those who are deranged, mentally ill, criminalistic, stupid and destructive, no matter how inimical they are to society as a whole, no matter how much of a burden they are on humankind, no matter how injurious they are to the community around them.

Equality is a belief of mediocre creatures and the proportion as to how feverishly one argues for its existence can be measured in proportion to how insecure that person is in themselves and their own abilities.

Is America a Racist Nation?

2009-07-20T17:01:00.000-07:00

by Ian Huyett

I've always found people who define themselves primarily by what they oppose, and not what they support, to be rather silly.

I'm a strong proponent of creating a big tent coalition of decentralists in opposition to the state, but when it comes to individual beliefs, an ideology based on opposition rather then advocacy is a shallow one.

Why do egalitarians, who wish to cultivate an image of universal acceptance that transcends biological differences, tend to introduce themselves as "anti-racists, anti-sexists, and anti-homophobes?" Is it more important to express hatred for racists, sexists, and Fred Phelps then to actually advocate equality between the races, sexes, and orientations? Why not simply say "I believe in judging people based on the content of their character"?

Of course this statement would be a blatant lie coming from the mouths of most so-called egalitarians, but that's another issue.

Regardless, I've always considered myself an "anti-racist", despite the many racists (particularly of the ethnomasochist variety) who have taken use of the term. This is for the simple reason that I do not believe race makes anyone superior or inferior to anyone else.

When politically correct liberals initiate discussions of race and racism, they will often (to avoid burdensome facts and statistics) refer to racism as an invisible, insidious force that permeates our society. I disagree. Racism is a very real and tangible problem in America, and saying otherwise does a disservice to its victims.

Just ask Frank Ricci, the firefighter who worked his ass off overcoming his dyslexia only to have his test scores thrown out because of his race. Or talk to Justin Barker, the Louisiana student who was viciously assaulted from behind by 8-10 racists (who, according to numerous witness statements, “stepped on his face,” and “slammed his head on the concrete beam") solely because of his complexion. I doubt you'd have an easy time telling the parents of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, young lovers who were carjacked on a date before being raped, mutilated, and murdered in front of each other because of their skin color, that racism in America is not a tangible problem.

But for all its faults, America is not a racist nation. Even when the courts initially sided against Ricci in favor of racial discrimination - even when people across America held hands in support of Justin Barker's hate-filled lynch mob - even when the mainstream media deliberately silenced the Christian-Newsom tragedy to further their racist agenda, America itself was not racist.

When arguing that America and racism are not forever intertwined, I will often point out that a majority of white Americans entrusted a black man with the most powerful office on earth (if you believe the office of the president holds no real power, please google "nuclear football"). Those coming from the "America is racist" standpoint will claim that by acknowledging Obama's skin color as a relevant election issue, I've demonstrated America's racism.

This is, of course, ridiculous. When people tell you this, what they're essentially saying is "by making an argument, you show that there is a necessity for such an argument, thereby making your argument fallible". Following this logic, their initial claim that "America is racist" is also groundless. After all, according to their thinking, if America was really racist, they wouldn't need to say so.

Fear and Tyranny

2009-07-09T19:14:00.000-07:00

by Brian Hoostal

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

Two things America has a wealth of these days is fear and tyranny. I believe the majority of both can be found in our current Administration. The catch phrase 'Hope and Change' has convincingly been replaced with the above mentioned ''Fear and Tyranny'.

A recent example of this can be found in the proposed amendment to H.R. 2647 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010), introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida. This amendment would ultimately give Attorney General Eric Holder "the power to classify millions of Americans as domestic terrorists." What else would be the motivation for such an amendment, but fear? I am not one to usually put much stock in labels, but this one carries some very serious implications with it for all Americans, including those of us who support the American New Right. It's worth it to take a look at what the one who will be holding the branding iron has recently said. Recently Holder has stated that "prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities." As recently as last year, Attorney General Holder was quoted as saying, “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” that it only protected government militias’ rights to guns. He claimed that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to implementing gun bans.

These quotes bare striking similarities to ones echoed by recently nominated Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. In recent times, she has stated that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applied only to the federal government. That was followed up by her rambling that "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."Obviously though, I should probably respect her words since they were made by "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hadn't lived her life." Unfortunately, I think it's a sure thing that she will still be nominated/coronated, regardless of her obviously slanted views.

In light of all of this, what are we, the American New Right to do? With our support of the Eight Principles Of The American New Right, we will undoubtedly be branded and labelled as domestic terrorists. Our steadfast adherence to these eight principles will ultimately be found unacceptable to THEM. I believe our response can be found in the following passage:

"Our goal must be to fight. Always to fight. If we are fighting, then we are winning. If we put down the sword, then we have already lost. This fight demands loyalty and it demands commitment. If we are not prepared to give our blood, sweat and tears then we will achieve nothing. There will be no advance and no victory. Nothing is more certain." - Troy Southgate.

Again, it is fear that motivates legislation such as the amendment to H.R. 2647. The Holders and Sotomayors of the world are very aware that we will never put down the sword, regardless of what propaganda they may try to force us to adhere to. Their ultimate goal is to disarm. The path to disarmament begins with trumped up labels such as domestic terrorist. Our loyalty, our commitment to The Principles, cannot be disarmed. Ultimately, our Battle,our Fight is as Spengler once wrote, for Life itself.

This battle is life — life, indeed, in the Nietzschean sense, a grim, pitiless, no-quarter battle of the Will-to-Power. - Oswald Spengler

Principles of The American New Right

2009-06-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

by Chris D.

1, The American New Right represents a tendency radically different from what passes for Conservatism in America. We are neither reactionaries who look to an illusory 'golden age" in past historical eras, as many Paleoconservatives do, nor do we endorse the hyper-modernism, mammon-worship, and statist Imperialist militarism of those who refer to themselves as neoconservatives. We are Revolutionary Conservatives, primarily influenced by Jeffersonian decentralism, The Distributists, Southern Agrarians, Populists, and others opposed to the dual tyranny of an oppressive centralized government on the one hand, and the vicious, exploitative, and parasitic influence of Wall Street, on the other.

2, The American New Right seeks the radical transformation of American society from the ground up. We support participatory democracy rather than the tyrannical fraud of "representative democracy" aka the corrupt mouthpieces of corporate and other moneyed interests. We support the most radical decentralization of political and economic power down to the grass-roots level.

3, The American New Right categorically rejects racial supremacist philosophies. We support freedom, self-determination, and national independence for all the peoples of the present United States. The ANR completely rejects the ideal of a unitary multiracial and multicultural society. We support complete freedom of association and an end to coerced government sponsored social engineering schemes.

4, The American New Right supports the reversal of almost a century of American interventionism overseas. It's time to end the influence of foreign lobbies and their specious influence over American Foreign Policy. We advocate ending all entangling alliances and participation in supra-national institutions such as NATO, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, and the United Nations. We support the total dismantlement of the oppressive and parasitic Military-Industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned the American public against almost half a century ago.

5, The American New Right supports ecological conservation and stewardship without falling into the trap of Green elitism and scaremongering about impending ecological doom.

6, The American New Right takes a neutral and completely secular position on matters of religion. We will happily collaborate with all who are in support of our core ideals regardless of religion or creed.

7, The American New Right is resolutely opposed to the scam of the Federal Reserve Banking system and opposes the New World Order in all forms.

8, The American New Right firmly supports the Second Amendment Rights guaranteed in the present United States Constitution and opposes any moves to disarm the citizenry of the United States. We believe an armed populace is the best deterrent to both state sponsored tyranny and terrorism against the public by the criminal class.

'Steampunk' and Contemporary Mass Culture

2009-06-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

by Luke SD

Lately, I have been viewing the development of the Steampunk subculture with a relaxed degree of interest. Despite the fact that, at present, it is mostly anime-geeky cosplay-fetishism with a couple of embarrassing quasi-darkwave bands providing a cringe-inducingly awful soundtrack, it contains elements that could presage an aesthetic resurgence in Western culture.

Steampunk emerged as a distinct literary genre in the late 1980s, arising from an application of cyberpunk elements to an alternate-history Victorian setting, the definitive work being William Gibson and Bruce Sterling's The Difference Engine. The visual potential of steampunk was especially appealing to those involved in comic books, computer games, anime, and film; the collision of the modern and the antiquated proved a potent aesthetic combination. However, steampunk as a subculture has only emerged relatively recently, in the past five years or so. While still fairly superficial as noted above, I feel there is potential in this (for want of a better word) movement for something beyond niche-market cosplaying.

For one thing, it is prompting the DIY modification of technology to make it more aesthetically pleasing. I am writing this on an ugly hospital-white MacBook with an exterior that shines like a gangrenous wound, so the thought of 'steampunking' my laptop is certainly an attractive proposition. People involved in this kind of activity are looking towards the past for inspiration to transform mass-marketed commercial products into hand-crafted artifacts. It is this aspect of the subculture which shows the most promise; the individual reacting against the blandness and conformity of the modern world by making it more imaginatively stimulating.

This marks it out from most subcultural developments of the past decade, which have been almost uniformly ugly, shallow, materialistic, and unimaginative. Ever more grotesque permutations of 'emo', 'scene kid', 'hipster', and 'chav' increasingly invade not only the mainstream, but alternative and slipstream cultures which previously had a degree of resilience to the bizarre death-throes of mass culture. While still in its immaturity, steampunk could provide a glimpse of a potentially more satisfying and aesthetically pleasing future for Western culture. Just take my advice and stay away from the music.

Commentary on 'Where have all the rednecks gone?'

2009-06-17T15:43:00.000-07:00

by Luke SD

Some time ago, I re-posted an article by Chris Irwin, originally sent to the Earth First! Journal, to my now-abandoned blog (the title of which is far too labourious to type, due to a youth misspent on Terry Pratchett, Chaucer, and Blackadder). I should stress that I have had no contact with Mr Irwin who to the best of my knowledge has no involvement with New Right circles, and these are simply some thoughts on the article and the issues raised.

Irwin writes of the strenuous efforts of those involved in EF! in America to accomodate the miniscule number of transsexuals within their movement, while simultaneously behaving with evidently quite obnoxious levels of intolerance to the redneck contingent that once formed the bedrock of EF!'s support. Several points occur to me in relation to this.

First of all, EF!, at least during the 'rednecks for wilderness' era, was a good example of a countercultural movement that transcended left/right boundaries and had strong populist influences, denounced by left-ecologists such as Derek Wall as 'reactionary', 'sexist', 'racist', and all the other tiresome epithets that leftists bat around like a tennis ball machine with a broken Off button. Early EF! had the potential to develop into the sort of revolutionary movement espoused by Keith Preston; it was anti-authoritarian, working-class, and often patriotic in the Romantic sense that Preston quite rightly sees as an effective means of generating support outside of purely countercultural circles. EF! in its early days tapped into an American tradition of ecological thought that incorporates writers ranging from Henry David Thoreau to Gary Snyder, and focuses on a desire to preserve the ecosystem for its own sake, rather than for the benefit of human civilisation. This streak of anti-humanism makes the populist elements all the more striking; a movement of such radical implications gaining any degree of support among the white working-classes is certainly worth taking note of, and it is an unrecognised tragedy that the potential of this was squandered by a swift left-anarchist takeover.

This brings us to my second point: what in the name of holy flying fuck do transsexual issues have to do with saving the Earth? Does Gaia actually care about whether some humans who dress or act or have surgery to make themselves more like another group of humans feel comfortable or not? I somehow suspect not. The same essential question pops into my mind when I read magazines like Green Anarchy; what does all this whining about 'racism, sexism, and homophobia' have to do with primitivism? Considering it is questionable whether certain hunter-gatherer tribes even grasp the concept of homosexuality, the almost obsessive preoccupation with homophobia seems a little out-of-place in an ostensibly anarcho-primitivist journal.

What Irwin touches upon but does not fully develop is the problem of the pervasive cultural mindset of the left lingering on into movements that in other respects have moved beyond it. It becomes seriously problematic if this ends up alienating people who would otherwise be sympathetic; when some snotty little bourgeois fucksticks start on an old-timer for expressing pride in his home state of Colorado, you may as well cut your losses and leave the movement for better things. The anarchistic principles of liberty and self-determination have become sidelined in favour of reactionary political-correctness and a ridiculous misinterpretation of the concept of the State. But oh well! At least they're not 'transphobic', I guess.

In an age where environmentalism has become the commodified domain of Hollywood prettyboys and tedious former Vice-Presidents, a superficial discourse of words rendered meaningless through endless repetition, the anti-humanist ethos of EF! is conspicuously illiberal, and the only way forward for EF! may well be back towards its origins in the American white working-class.

Israel is Above the Law. Duh.

2009-06-16T19:39:00.000-07:00

A Neocon perspective
by Ian Huyett

The UN, the world’s most notorious cabal of anti-Semitic communists, is characteristically attempting to charge the poor, innocent state of Israel with so-called “war crimes”. This UN whining was provoked by Israel’s noble elimination of 1,300 Palestinian “civilians” with gentle strafing runs and light sprinkles of white phosphorous. These pinko conspirators base their charges on the naïve notion that not all Palestinians are hate-filled, bloodthirsty terrorists.

It's common knowledge the Palestinian-Israeli conflict revolves entirely around the Arabs’ age-old desire to murder Jewish babies out of pure and unfounded spite, but the UN likes to pretend that sweet little Israel is actually capable of wrongdoing. Their meaningless techno-babble about “apartheid” (whatever that means) and “ethnic cleansing” might fool croissant-eating socialists in France and Romaniavakia, but they can’t fool us. Anyone with a basic understanding of international law knows that Israel is above it.