Eternity Lost: Racial Diversity and the Fermi Paradox

Paper.

A journal that shall go nameless refused to publish that – without even sending it out for peer review – with the justification that it was “too speculative.” You can decide for yourself whether you believe that excuse, or whether you believe the refusal was for another reason.

And, yes, I know, the paper is too positive toward the HBD perspective and certain HBDers.  However, if the paper had been sent out for review, who would have been likely reviewers?  And, after all, what I cite in that paper are those aspects of HBD which to me reflect reality. There are, after all, differences in intelligence and behavior between the major racial groups, differential birthrates are real, dysgenic trends are real, spiteful mutations are real (just look at the HBDers themselves), etc. I don’t promote the worst aspect of HBD, their lies and distortions.

In any case, the paper is, in essence, a fully fleshed out version of the blog post.

Abstract

The Fermi paradox asks – if aliens and advanced alien civilizations exist, then where are they?  Why have they not visited us? Why have we found no evidence of the existence of alien civilizations? The implication is that sentient intelligent aliens do not exist, and thus their civilizations do not exist. One possibility is that they existed in the past but do not exist now; another possibility is that they have never existed. In either case, something inhibits the development or maintenance of a detectable (by humans) space-faring alien civilization. Here I review several major explanations for the Fermi paradox and then propose a novel solution that focuses on racial diversity, racial differences, and civilizational collapse.  It is typical to envision sentient alien species as monolithic populations, portrayed as monoracial and phenotypically fungible. What if this assumption is incorrect?  Perhaps racial diversity is the rule among sentient species; thus, highly divergent human racial types find their counterparts in significant racial variability among alien peoples inhabiting worlds unknown. I further propose a Gresham’s law of universal racial diversity: the more intelligent and productive races of any sentient species will tend to be demographically outcompeted by those less intelligent and accomplished.  Other disruptive social pathologies may also occur concomitant with increased local intra-species diversity. The threshold of technological competence for a space-faring alien civilization would no longer obtain as the races and cultures capable of maintaining that civilization are replaced by those incapable.  Therefore, no such civilizations are detected.

Keywords:  Fermi paradox, aliens, civilization, race, intelligence

Introduction

The so-called “Fermi paradox”    asks – if aliens and alien civilizations exist, why haven’t we discovered any yet? Where are they? Why have not we been visited (assuming for the moment that UFOs are not evidence of visitation that has already occurred)?  Assuming that evolution to a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale is an assumed outcome of an ever-growing and evolving alien civilization  , where are they?  Where are the self-replicating alien probes3  that we are told should be infesting galactic space; where are the “flying saucers landing on the White House lawn?” It is possible that we are alone? Shouldn’t alien civilizations exist, given the Drake equation  and the numerous possible habitable alien words that exist? Where is everyone? The implication is that intelligent aliens and their civilizations do not exist, that they do not exist now or that they have never existed. A weaker interpretation would be that something inhibits the development of a detectable space-faring higher civilization, even though there may well be intelligent extraterrestrial life, or at least has been such in the past.

In a 2015 essay, Robert Gray argued that the “paradox” as popularly perceived is neither Fermi’s nor is it truly a paradox.  Apparently, Fermi informally broached the subject during a 1950 Los Alamos lunch, with the focus more on the feasibility of inter-stellar travel than on the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life with a technologically advanced civilization1.  In 1975, Michael Hart more formally suggested that the lack of alien visitors meant that there is no intelligent alien life in our galaxy, with various counter-arguments being dismissed2. This idea was extended by Frank Tipler, who argued in 1980 that alien intelligences would have constructed self-replicating machines (e.g., probes) that would have spread throughout the universe, and the absence of such probes suggests that no intelligent alien life exists in the universe; Man is truly alone3. Besides stating that the paradox is properly ascribed to Hart-Tipler rather than Fermi, Gray further argues that it is not a paradox at all, because the Hart-Tipler arguments are based on a number of assumptions that may not be true. Is inter-stellar travel feasible? Would the galaxy be quickly filled? Would the Earth be colonized? Would this scenario be stable over time? These and other questions are assumed premises which if incorrect would weaken the ”Fermi paradox” arguments1.

Gray makes valid points, and in general I agree with his arguments. However, for the sake of simplicity, and to invoke popular perception, I will continue to use the term “Fermi paradox” although it is to be understood to more properly describe Hart-Tipler arguments. In addition, while the existence of the “paradox” depends on a number of questionable premises, since “they” are apparently not here, it is useful to accept the existence of the paradox and examine explanations given in the literature, leading to my own thesis.

Several Explanations 

Among the more recent hypotheses for the Fermi paradox, and in line with certain sociopolitical biases toward “green” outlooks, are those revolving around “sustainability.” Prominent among these approaches is the interesting speculative work of Wong and Bartlett, which builds upon a variety of other studies to formulate one potential solution to the Fermi paradox4.

In this analysis, planetary civilizations are considered akin to global cities, and cities are assumed to inevitably suffer from “superlinear scaling” causing demand for resources to outstrip supplies. While technological innovation can temporarily hold off collapse, eventually the ever-decreasing intervals between crises leads to systematic collapse occurring before a “reset” can be arranged.  There may be an eventual revival, but any subsequent growth-oriented civilization would suffer the same fate and therefore no planetary civilization would make the leap to the point in which it becomes inter-galactic and thus directly makes its presence known to other civilizations. The authors further speculate that such a civilization has an alternate pathway, which they term “homeostatic awakening,” which can be considered the politically “green” approach of valuing long-term homeostatic stability over that of growth.  Although this latter model may avoid collapse, it would also likely prevent the development of a technological civilization advanced enough to travel to other star systems.  Hence, both models – growth and collapse vs. stable “green’ sustainability – would prevent the development of a civilization that would make tis presence known to an extent as to eliminate the Fermi paradox.

There are a number of assumptions built into this hypothesis, and the authors correctly cite some of them in their Discussion.  Is the “superlinear” city model always correct and does it apply universally to larger biological groups, both on Earth and among putative alien civilizations? Will a “global city” linked by information processing rather than physical geographical proximity reflect the same limitations of physical city growth?  Is it always true that technological resets are temporary and limited? Isn’t it possible that a technological fix, or set of fixes, would allow a civilization to have access to practically infinite energy resources?  Could limitations of civilizational growth, such as those that are computational and memetic and not only physical related (energy and physical resources as well as disease), be self-correcting in certain alien cultures?

I also ask – is it possible alien civilizations, using technological breakthroughs that we do not understand, solve the problem of inter-galactic space travel even at a level of civilization not much greater than our own? Thus, instead of going through a slow phase of development of space travel, starting as humans have with chemical reaction engine rockets travelling short distances in space, could some alien civilization stumble upon “exotic” approaches to bridge the gulfs of space early in their space-faring journey? This possibility would “short-circuit” the collapse scenario and allow for inter-stellar travel by a civilization at the same stage as ours, albeit one “lucky” enough to have solved the technical problems of a space-faring culture sans an accompanying very high level of civilizational development.

Wiley5 has considered a number of these issues.  He agrees with Tipler that the seeming absence of self replicating space-probes (SRPs) is a problem, given that he dismisses arguments made against the feasibility and relevance of SRPs.  However, he does cite the idea that perhaps we simply haven’t been able to identify SRPs that actually have entered our solar system (although this would argue for a lower limit for SRP numbers; if we were overwhelmed by them they would be hard to miss – although I suppose they can be very small, even microscopic)5.  Further, the SRPs from alien civilizations outside our galaxy simply may not be able to reach us across the vast gulf of inter-galactic space5.  Perhaps extra-galactic alien civilizations are more likely than those in our own galaxy. He considers “Percolation Theory” as having promise, re: the Fermi paradox; thus, a sufficient number of non-colonizing colonies would block the expansion of the colonizing ones, putting a natural brake on expansion5. Wiley also considers and critiques a number of social collapse scenarios before introducing the idea of “interstellar transportation bandwidth.”  Thus, there may be limitations on how many individuals can be transported across space in a given time frame. This may shield civilizations from contamination of the problems from elsewhere, making expansion more robust and making the Fermi paradox more problematical. If expansion is more protected and robust then where is everyone? On the other hand, the same bandwidth problem can limit expansion of biological aliens and thus explain perhaps why we haven’t encountered anyone yet.  Note that this explanation assumes that a space-faring civilization has been established; in contrast, my alternative explanation (below) would explain why such a civilization may never come into being in the first place.

Another work  invoked the idea of the “astrobiological phase transition” mediated by “global regulation mechanisms” such as gamma ray bursts. The astrobiological history of the Milky Way could therefore be divided into three phases, each separated by a transition.  First, there was an early period devoid of life. Second, there was (or still is) a “disequilibrium” period in which life evolves, but global regulation mechanisms such as gamma ray bursts destroy sentient alien species before they reach the high technological level required of a space-faring civilization. Finally, once gamma ray bursts and other catastrophic events significantly decrease in frequency in an aging galaxy, a third “equilibrium” phase is reached in which a dominant space faring technological civilization has the time to safely develop. If humans are in late period II or early period III then not enough time has elapsed between catastrophic “resets” to allow the development of an alien civilization that we could encounter. In the future, in later period III, things would be different and at least one space-faring civilization would exist to make its presence known. This thesis makes several testable predictions and has been amenable to computer modeling7.

Some of the abovementioned scenarios may be plausible. Astrobiological phase transition seems to me to be particularly promising.  However, none of these explanations are proven and, more to the point, are not all completely incompatible with each other. Even if these scenarios have validity for at least some putative alien civilizations, aren’t there also other possibilities, heretofore ignored, that also can be considered?  Is there an alternative explanation that has heretofore gone unmentioned, perhaps in part because it is too controversial and “politically incorrect?”

An Alternative Explanation

I will now present an alternative explanation for the Fermi paradox, which fits in with the “societal collapse” set of possibilities, albeit with a novel mechanism proposed.

Popular conceptions of aliens (e.g., the “little green men” or “the grays”) envision alien species to be extremely homogeneous, virtual clones of each other. Therefore, in contrast to the human condition, aliens are typically assumed to be a biologically (and, sometimes, culturally) homogeneous population and, further, the implicit assumption seems to be that they have always been so; this homogeneity is the default condition of non-human sentient alien life. But what if this is not so?  What if alien species are characterized by similar racial and cultural diversity as are humans?  What could be the implications of that possibility for the Fermi paradox?

While controversial , evidence exists for genetic, hereditable differences in intelligence between human population groups, such as races . Behavioral differences exist as well  with some populations exhibiting traits more compatible with a highly disciplined technological civilization, as evidenced by the historical record of accomplishment . There is also a tendency for an inverse relationship between intelligence and reproduction .  This inverse relationship exists at the population level as well, as higher IQ populations of European and East Asian derivation have low birthrates and are demographically shrinking while the lower IQ populations of sub-Saharan Africa have higher birthrates and are expanding. In addition, mass migration typically occurs from regions of lower intelligence and accomplishment to those of higher intelligence and accomplishment. The expansion and migration of populations of lower intelligence, discipline, and accomplishment is, ironically enough, the result of conditions (e.g., higher standards of living, global communication, ease of travel) created by higher-intelligence populations. Extrapolating these trends forward suggests the possibility of a significant collapse of further development of, or even maintenance of, advanced technological human societies. In addition, varying cultures, established by different populations, can differ not only in their potential to develop the science and technology to achieve a space-faring civilization, but the interest and willingness to do so. Cultures may be more or less inclined toward homeostatic stability; homeostatic cultures would be less inclined to invest in the sustained technological development required of a space-faring civilization. Thus, differential cultural survival can also alter the technological trajectory of a civilization.

Further, technological advancement and the “global city” can create pathological social conditions akin to Calhoun’s rodent utopia experiments  with the resulting social pathologies that can contribute to societal collapse.  Related to this is the relaxation of natural selection in advanced societies.  Thus, we can observe dysgenic influences , not only manifested in decreased cognitive ability but in the development of “spiteful mutants” , maladaptive genotypes manifested in phenotypes that not only suppress the fitness of self but, spitefully, that of others, destroying social cohesion and promoting societal collapse. Such spiteful mutants are a biological result of technological advancement and the higher standards of living that relax natural selection against the unfit, and ironically contribute to the collapse of the technological society that spawned them.  Another social pathology, related to race and mass migration that can inhibit the development of a space-faring civilization is the erosion of trust, social cohesion, and the organic solidarity of society that has been associated with increased diversity .  

It is of course impossible to know how an alien species would react to increasing intra-species diversity even if such existed in their case, and we cannot assume their reaction would be the same as that of humans. Nevertheless, if we are going to extrapolate the human case to a possible mechanism explaining the Fermi paradox, then social disruption due to racial diversity also needs to be considered as a possibility. It is interesting that Wiley5 cites the idea that we need to be considering stellar societies rather than species; thus there may be cultural differentiation within a species, with each society being a separate contact possibility.  I would extend that in the negative sense, in that cultural (and biological!) differentiation into varying societies, followed by contact and migration between them, may induce pressures and pathologies that would reduce, and not expand, alien contact possibilities.

Therefore, if alien populations are characterized by similar types of diversity and selective pressures as humans, then the following may be a common scenario.  As a technological civilization develops, it creates dysgenic conditions that allows for the demographic expansion of less intelligent, less capable (racial) population groups, who replace the more intelligent and capable groups.  At the same time, dysgenic effects occur in all groups, decreasing intelligence and ability, while promoting spiteful mutants and social pathologies.  With the replacement of more capable racial groups with those less capable, and with the overall degeneration of all, any possibility of advancing to a technologically advanced, space-faring planetary (and then galactic) civilization is ended.  Furthermore, as these dysgenic influences spread, cultures that reject an increasingly unattainable planetary civilization replace the declining cultures that at one time dreamed of going to the stars. This can be outlined as follows:

1. An intelligent alien species evolves on its home world.

2. Similar to humans, this species is differentiated into different genetically and phenotypically varied races (subspecies). These races differ in intelligence, abstract thinking, behavioral traits, accomplishment, rates of reproduction, culture, etc.

3. As the more intelligent and accomplished racial groups produce technological advancement, the enhanced standard of living, and decreased selective pressures, have a variety of consequences.

4. Population growth of the less intelligent and accomplished groups increases and outpaces that of the more intelligent and accomplished groups. The latter may actual see stagnant or declining population and increasingly become replaced by migrants from the less intelligent and accomplished populations.

5. At the same time, dysgenic trends for all populations decrease global intelligence, increase numbers of “spiteful mutants,” and result in various social pathologies. Diversity would erode trust and social cohesion, making long term investment in major projects unfeasible. Scientific innovation, technological advancement, and economic development would all plummet.

6. In the midst of this chaos, cultures may prefer homeostasis over technological advancement and will in any case lose the capacity for such advancement.

7. The alien species loses, perhaps irreversibly, the capacity (and interest) for the development of a highly technologically advanced space-faring civilization.

To summarize the major thesis: there is a Gresham’s-type law of universal racial diversity. Thus, the more intelligent and productive races of any sentient species will be demographically outcompeted by those that are less intelligent and accomplished; the latter, despite their deficiencies, are inevitably more fit with respect to the ultimate criterion of survival.  Further, increased racial diversity among the alien civilization in territories previously important for innovation would induce a variety of disruptive social pathologies that would inhibit the pace of innovation. The threshold of technological competence for a detectable alien civilization would no longer obtain as the race or races capable of maintaining that civilization are replaced by those incapable. Therefore, no such civilizations are detected.

Further, one can link my hypothesis with that of Wong and Bartlett4 and state that one reason why planetary civilizations inevitably fail to solve their problems and collapse, or are forced into stasis, is precisely because the more intelligent fraction of the civilizational population are replaced by those less intelligent and less capable.  If the “race and IQ” problem is inevitable then that would make the sustainability problem inevitable as well.

Proving my theory is problematical; the same can be said of many other theories about the Fermi paradox.  Extrapolating from the human case to the alien is tempting, but is fraught with assumptions and speculations. The absence of alien contact does not specifically and definitively inform us to the reasons for that absence, leaving us with nothing but speculation. Ironically enough, or paradoxically enough, an answer to the paradox may involve actually finding the remains of an alien civilization and/or its artifacts, or somehow coming into contact with an extent civilization, and then, in some manner, discovering the civilizational trajectory of that species to discover what if anything went wrong. Obviously, the presence of racial differentiation in sentient alien life, with each race having different capabilities, would be compatible with this thesis.  Even more general, we would expect alien life to exhibit the types of genetic/phenotypic variation and processes of natural selection as life on Earth, with fitness ultimately being defined by reproductive capacity and genetic continuity.

Even if it was possible to obtain such information about sentient aliens, the data would be limited in sample size (even to a sample size of one) and its universal applicability would be in question.  For the time being, we are left with theory, hypothesis (with little immediate chance of testing/falsification), and speculation. Indeed, given the problems in testing/falsifying any of these ideas, they are more truly speculative theories than scientific hypothesis.  We are left to wonder.

Discussion

It may well be that some combination of some or all of the ideas listed above, including my own seven-point alternative hypothesis, may explain the Fermi paradox. Indeed, one book  listed fifty (!) possible explanations for the Fermi paradox (none blaming it on racial diversity); it is unlikely that any one of those, or mine for that matter, is the one and only answer.  Perhaps none of them are. The alien mind and culture may be so different from that of humans that they may eschew a space-faring technological civilization for reasons we cannot imagine and not those listed above.

We may never know the validity of the thesis outlined here, but its plausibility (at least in my opinion) should be a warning to us of the possibility of a similar situation happening to humanity. The pace of innovation, particularly of “disruptive” findings is slowing  and while there may be a number of reasons for this, and while correlation does not equal causation, there is a correlation between a slowing down of innovation and increasing racial diversity as well as with mass migration and the resulting multiculturalism in the West. It is at least possible that something similar has occurred to other sentient intelligent species.

I would argue that, in any case, humans had better solve these problems for themselves.  If my thesis is correct, then the current trajectory of humanity would preclude the development of a space-faring civilization. If the Hart-Tipler thesis is correct, then the fate of humanity is the fate of the only intelligent life in the galaxy/universe, and these issues therefore take on cosmic importance.  If intelligent alien life does exist, and if the Fermi paradox ends up being proven wrong, if contact is established, then it behooves humanity to be as technologically advanced as possible to deal with that eventuality. Regardless of the possibilities, from the standpoint of human interaction with the cosmos, current dysgenic trends must be stopped and reversed.  While such a suggestion, particularly with its implications, re: race and immigration, may be politically unpalatable in some quarters, the argument nevertheless must be made.

We may never know why THEY are not HERE, but we may discover why WE are not, and never will be, THERE.  And therein lies, perhaps, the true utility of these theories. 

References

1. Robert H Gray 2015. The fermi paradox is neither Fermi’s nor a paradox. Astrobiology 15(3):195-9. doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1247.  

2. Michael Hart. 1975. “An explanation for the absence of extraterrestrials on earth.” Q. Jl R. astr Soc. 16: 128-135.

3. Frank Tipler. 1980. “Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist.” Q. Jl R. astr Soc. 21: 267-281.

4. Michael L. Wong and Stuart Bartlett. 2022. “Asymptotic burnout and homeostatic awakening:  a possible solution to the Fermi paradox? J. R. Soc. Interface 19: 20220029. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2022.0029.

5. Keith B. Wiley. 2011. “The Fermi Paradox, Self-Replicating Probes, and the Interstellar Transportation Bandwidth” arXiv:1111.6131 [physics.pop-ph]m(or arXiv:1111.6131v1 [physics.pop-ph]). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1111.6131.

6. F. Drake. 1965. “The radio search for intelligent extraterrestrial life.: Curr. Aspects Exobiol. 32: 323. Doi:10.1016/B978-1-4832-0047-7.50015-0).

7. Milan M. Ćirković and Branislav Vukotić. 2008. “Astrobiological Phase Transition: Towards Resolution of Fermi’s Paradox. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres” 38: 535–547 doi: 10.1007/s11084-008-9149-y

8. Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, and Tomas R. Coyle. 2020. “Survey of expert opinion in intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media.” Intelligence. 78: 101406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406.

9. Jordan Lasker, Bryan J. Pesta, John G.R. Fuerst, and Emil O.W. Kirkegaard. 2019. “Global ancestry and cognitive ability.” Psych 1: 431-459. doi:10.3390/psych1010034.

10. Tomás Cabeza de Baca, and Michael Anthony Woodley Of Menie. 2018. “Lynn’s r/k selection theory of criminality revisited: Consideration of individual differences and developmental life history contributions to the patterning of population differences in antagonistic social strategies.” J Crim Justice 59:87-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.009. PMID: 31363234 PMCID: PMC6667178 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.009.

11. Charles Murray. 2003. “Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950.” HarperCollins ISBN 006019247X.

12. Satoshi Kanazawa 2014. “Intelligence and childlessness” Soc Sci Res 48:157-70.  doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.06.003.

13. John B. Calhoun. 1962. “Population density and social pathology.” Scientific American 206 (2) 139-149.

14. J. C. Loehlin. 1997. “Dysgenesis and IQ: what evidence is relevant?” American psychologist. 52 (11) 1236-1239. Doi/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1236.

15. Edward Dutton. 2022. “Spiteful Mutants: Evolution, Sexuality, Religion, and Politics in the 21st Century.” Radix.

16. Robert D. Putnam 2007. “E pluribus unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture.” Scand. Polit. Stud. 30, 137–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x.

17. Stephen Webb. 2002.’Where is everybody? Fifty solutions to the Fermi’s paradox.” Copernicus, New York.

18. Michael Park, Erin Leahey, and Russel J. Funk. 2023. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x.

DemoMulticult 101

Fairly easy practical activism.

See this.

Vulnerabilities for the System abound, if only there was a crafty and strategic opponent willing to exploit those vulnerabilities. Consider Title VI and academia – coupled to the whole affirmative action scam about admissions – all tailor-made to infuriate White students and their families.  It is no coincidence that a major focus of “reverse racism” lawsuits have centered on the educational system.  In addition to what Title VI can do, Title VII can bring the focus of anti-White discrimination and hypocrisy to the broader arena, and Title IX can focus on anti-male discrimination and hypocrisy. The three “titles” together constitute a weak point, a chink (sorry, Derbyshire) in the System’s armor.

Salter stated that – from the standpoint of a majority being displaced and replaced – the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does, thus ensuring the relatively painless race replacement of the majority. However, as stated above, Democratic Multiculturalism is not stable for the System in the long run, as the whole idea of multiculturalism is empowering minorities and disempowering the majority. A concerted effort of the majority to demand fair treatment under multiculturalism, according to its own standards, would destabilize the entire multicultural system and heighten the contradictions.

I suggest that White Americans file “multicultural” complaints non-stop, to “monkey wrench” the whole multiculturalist establishment and make it untenable. Of course, the complaints must have a solid basis in reality; they cannot be fabricated out of nothing. However, in today’s “woke” America, it will be very easy – almost trivial in fact – for Whites, particularly White men, to find something legitimate to complain about that is relevant to this approach. Certainly, one must take into account context. Is your position (e.g., as an employee or student) secure enough so that you can make the complaint without undue harm being directed back at you?  After all, you want the complaint to be a net positive. If there is a mechanism for anonymous complaints and if you believe that this approach is best for your situation, then go that route.  If an anonymous option is not available, then consider costs and benefits, and if the context is such that you think it best to move forward with the complaint, then do so. Remember that there are federal (and in some cases, state) laws in place outlawing retaliation against those who file discrimination complaints. That does not guarantee protection of course, but it is another legal weapon in your arsenal. If you make a legitimate discrimination complaint and can demonstrate retaliation, those responsible for the retaliation could (in theory) find themselves in significant legal difficulty.

Are you a college/university student?  Any discrimination against Whites? Use Title VI.  Against men?  Use Title IX. Given what goes on at colleges and universities these days, there would likely be a weekly abundance of choice legitimate complaints that can be filed.  If you work in academia, as a professor for example, not only do you have Title VI and IX in your arsenal, but Title VII as well. With respect to Titles VI and IX, keep in mind that virtually every school of higher learning receives federal money in some form, so those rules will apply. Remember that student loans, among other things, are included in the definition of “federal money” or “federal funds” so, again, virtually every college and university in America is covered. Title VII is a more general rule against employment discrimination.

If you work in any other field, then Title VII alone should cover employment discrimination with respect to anti-White and anti-male activities. Virtually all CRT, DEI, multicultural-diversity training or other activity will be, virtually by definition, anti-White and/or anti-male, and so Whites should file complaints about such activities non-stop.  The more the better!  

Now, if you go the legal route, beware of situations like this. However, filing complaints, either internally via Human Resources (or other internal departments related to diversity and discrimination), and/or externally with the relevant government agencies, is your right under the law and is independent of filing a legal action, so the caveat associated with that link would not apply (as long as no legal action is filed). However, as noted above, the targeted entity may attempt retaliation against you (even though that is technically illegal). Keep in mind that while internal complaints can be anonymous in some cases (depending on the school or employer in question), government complaints, insofar as I am aware, will require you to use your name. If you file a legal action against the entity, you would need to be public as well.

The minimal outcome of your complaints would be to use up the time and resources of whatever department/agency the complaint is made to, and will most likely annoy the (most likely, leftist) person(s) dealing with it.  If the complaint is not taken serious or acted upon, that is further evidence for anti-White (and/or anti-male) discrimination, exposing the contradictions of the System, and could be a basis for legal action (as long as you remember the warning mentioned above). If the complaint is fully taken seriously, the positive outcomes from the perspective of democratic multiculturalism and disrupting the System are obvious.  The most likely outcome of your complaint is that the relevant entity or government agency will go through the motions of an “investigation” and “determine” little to no basis for your complaint. If your complaint was legitimate (which, as I stated, it must be), then this outcome basically conflates with “the complaint is not taken serious or acted upon” and you can go from there. Again, at minimum, you are using up multicultural resources, bringing anti-White and anti-male discrimination into the discussion, provoking further racial division, stimulating societal chaos, and “monkey wrenching” the multicultural apparatus. You are also getting the satisfaction of responding to discrimination against you, rather than just quietly fuming about it, or complaining on some irrelevant forum.

The key here is to have many Whites do it. If a significant fraction of Whites pursue this strategy, the benefits of even a minimal response to the complaints will be amplified.  If the System, overwhelmed by such complaints, declares that anti-White (and anti-male) discrimination will no longer be considered, then they expose themselves to the White public, racial division is enhanced, and we will observe a “heightening of the contradictions.” Regardless of the exact outcome, it would seem that burying the multicultural apparatus under an avalanche of (legitimate) White racial complaints can only have some kind of long-term positive outcome.

There will always be nitwits who oppose such activity – it is not flashy enough for them, not sexy enough, not charging the ramparts with their Viking battle axe. They will write moronic comments about “whining and complaining dishonors our ancestors” as they sit on a computer in their parents’ basement, scrolling through panhandling grifter “movement” sites as part of their hobbyist “activism.”  Ignore such people.  Leveraging the multicultural system against itself is “low hanging fruit” that needs to be grabbed – it is ripe and ready.

Ghostbusting Roger Griffin?

More nonsense from the decrepit dean of “fascist studies.” In all cases, emphasis added.

Let’s take a look at some recent nonsense from Roger Griffin. I will “fisk” certain excerpts (not the whole thing) from Griffin’s hypocritical screed. You are encouraged to read the entirety of Griffin’s hysterical outburst, if for no other reason than to have a few laughs.

Abstract

This article seeks to exorcise some of fascism’s more haunting taxonomic horrors by focusing on the multiple ‘phantasmagorical’ aspects of comparative fascist studies which thwart attempts to achieve definitive resolutions of such nebulous and contested issues as its relationship to the radical right. It first considers the lasting traumatic effect on collective memories resulting from the catastrophic scale of inhumanity and casualties generated by the Third Reich and the war needed to destroy it. It argues that the dark psychological shadow cast by World War II, along with Marxist essentialism and the speculative component of all conceptualization, has made mapping the relationship between fascism and the contemporary radical right particularly fraught not just with ideological controversy but even subliminal psychological factors that subvert objectivity. It then suggests how the difficulties such issues pose to modelling the relationship can be overcome by the consistent application of widely agreed ideal types of the key phenomena to establish the intricacies of fascism’s morphological adaptation to postwar realities and its often subtle interactions with new non-fascist forms of right. On this basis a complex but comprehensible and heuristically researchable relationship between fascism and the radical right looms into view which is spectral in a sense that owes more to natural science than the supernatural.

There you can see how Der Movement and Da System are mirror images of each other; Griffin’s abstract is reflective of the same kind of overly complex yet laughably superficial “analysis” characteristic of some of our Far Right Alt Right “traditionalists” and other denizens of the Nutzi peanut gallery.

I would also like to point out that the excesses of fascism that most hysterics agonize about are from the Nazis, as a result of specifically German fanaticism – the same fanaticism that today, as a mirror image of the Nazis, wants to genocide Whites and turn Europe into a colony of Afro-Asia. Therefore, it is an ethnic problem, and not an ideological one.

The Collective PTSD Caused by the Fascist Era

How about the collective PTSD caused by the Multiculturalist era and its genocidal race replacement policies, as well as the consequent everyday erosion of national cohesion, culture, and quality of life?

The first of these is the collective trauma caused by the phenomenon being investigated, fascism, whose catastrophic impact on humanity in the form of the Axis assault on the very foundations of human society and coexistence still distorts perceptions of contemporary history some seventy five years after the end of the Second World War. Arguably the sheer, literally inconceivable, scale of the crimes against humanity committed in the name of the Third Reich and its allies, particularly Imperial Japan, in order to bring about a civilizational order based on their concept of national and racial superiority, plus the extreme destructiveness of human life caused by the Allied war to defeat fascism in Europe and the Far East, still cast a deep shadow of unprecedented suffering and moral evil over the way the right-wing politics in the postwar period is instinctively experienced. 

That is laughably biased, full of subjective moral hysteria, and of course mentions nothing of the tens of millions of dead resulting from the communist catastrophe.  Note how he conflates “the sheer, literally inconceivable, scale of the crimes against humanity” of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (hapless Italians presumably being too incompetent and mild to match those endeavors) with general “right-wing politics,” smearing an entire section of the political-ideological spectrum with “inconceivable” horrors. Of course it goes without saying that left-wing politics are untainted by the (unmentioned) crimes of communism.

The unconscious effect might be compared to living in a house where you know a particularly brutal murder or tragic suicide has taken place in the past. According to some parapsychologists, and in particular what is known as ‘stone tape theory’, the violence produces an effect called ‘residual energy’, leaving psychic traces which undermine or interfere with the experience of the present’s three-dimensional solidity for those who come after, at least if they belong to the category known as ‘sensitives’. 

Thus Griffin exposes himself as a ludicrous hysteric best suited to be laughed at as a comical zoo specimen rather than as any sort of legitimate academic scholar.

Even if ‘residual energy’ is only helpful as a metaphor, it is worth postulating that the cataclysmic violence and many millions of mostly unrecorded human-made atrocities of the fascist era have created a ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ (PTSD), vicarious for those millions who were not immediate victims of events or were born after them but no less palpable in the way we perceive postwar socio-historical realities associated with any form of political fanaticism and extreme violence generated by fundamentalist nationalist or religious convictions.

And the same can be said not only about communism but the PTSD experienced by Whites as a result of race replacement immigration, forced integration, and all of the other horrors of the multiculturalist regime.

…the reinstatement after 1945 of constitutional democracy…

Such as: Outlawing free speech and banning political parties, not to mention imprisoning dissidents, including historians like David Irving.

…relative prosperity and security…

“Relative” indeed given that Whites can no longer safely live in, or even walk around in, parts of what used to be their countries.

…dizzying technological progress…

Coming to an end due to multiculturalism.

…and a feeding frenzy of popular materialism and consumerism within the more privileged strata of the ‘West’.

Scare quotes around “West” indeed.

This under-researched phenomenon of collective inherited PTSD, in this case induced from an era in which in the course of little over five years an estimated seventy to eighty five million people met violent deaths at the hands of fellow human beings, or about 3 per cent of the world’s population at the time, and several times that number of survivors endured appalling physical and mental suffering, has arguably been to impart an emotional, affective charge to the term ‘fascism’. 

What a mendacious scum this Griffin is, as many of those deaths were a direct or indirect result of communism. And what about the victims of communism before and after the war?

It is this psychological load which arguably triggers its inappropriate use in response to events which only have the faintest resemblance or literal similarity to the phenomena that characterized the fascist era. The symptom of this trauma is a tendency to label as ‘fascist’ any form of authoritarian politics (even in liberal democracies!)…

Why “even?”  “Liberal democracies” are freedom-crushing monstrosities.

As a result, not just populist racist movements and authoritarian nationalists with no revolutionary aspirations, such as Lukashenko, Erdogan, and al-Assad, but even elected right-wing politicians such as Thatcher, Bolsonaro, Orbán, and Modi, not to mention Trump and more recently Putin, are all liable to be dismissed as fascist in the media and social media as a gut-response to their egomaniacal, illiberal or autocratic tendencies rather than as a sober political or academic judgement. A caricature showing Trump as a ridiculous version of Mussolini or Hitler may resonate with opponents and satirists, but it is more revealing about the emotional aftershocks that the seismic events of 1933–1945 still produce decades later than about the precise nature of his politics, temperament or worldview.

No, it is simply leftist hysteria, of which Griffin himself is a prime example.

This is surely the deeper psycho-cultural significance of the way fascism in its most destructive manifestation, Nazism, has become a routine trope in popular culture for triggering a Pavlovian sense of dread. A classic example is an episode of the X-Files where in a convoluted plot Mulder and Scully are whisked back to 1939 in a Bermuda Triangle time-warp and help thwart psychopathic SS troops searching for ‘Thor’s Hammer’ (which turns out to be a scientist and not a sacred object). Then there are the two episodes of Indiana Jones—Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade—where ‘our’ hero finds himself pitted against (and naturally outwitting single-handed) entire battalions of Nazis carrying out expeditions to track down first the Ark of the Covenant and then the Holy Grail presumably on behalf of Himmler’s Ahnenerbe, his institute for reconstructing the heritage of the Aryan master-race. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he actually finds time to attend a Nazi rally and book-burning ritual in Berlin on his way to becoming a reluctant anti-fascist Rambo epitomizing the victory of individualism, scholarship and irony over the dark forces of group-think, irrationalism, and humourless fanaticism.

Keep in mind that this juvenile nonsense is supposed to be part of a serious academic paper from a respected scholar.

Meanwhile the Harry Potter cycle of novels and films can be seen as a thinly veiled allegory of…

I’m just going to skip over much of this nonsense.

Few attending British memorial services for the dead of two world wars will turn a hair when they are assured in the stanza taken from the 1914 poem For the Fallen that those who died for the country ‘shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old./ Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn./ At the going down of the sun and in the morning/ We will remember them.’

Laughable.  Who is listening these days?  In Londonstan, now a Paki-Negro ghetto?  So much for the British blood sacrifice of two world wars.

The neurological well-springs of the imagination, the dream faculty, the fear reflex, the subconscious, indeed the way the entire ‘reptile’ brain functions, seem to belong to another temporality and reality altogether from those of the conscious mind, one where metaphors can symbolically abolish a meaningless death for those we love or honour, and a reverberating echo of past terrors can crystallize round a single word that summons up a collective memory of catastrophes that occurred even before our own life-time. 

An 80-word sentence whose meaning is decipherable perhaps by the mentally ill.

Fascism combines the characteristics of a neutral political concept with the power of a curse or evil spell which conjures up shadows of the nameless henchmen and their victims from the liminal space between rationality and myth, memory and fantasy, past and present.

The man is crazed. What a hysteric. A pleasant scenario to conjure up is Griffin being brutally mugged by a Negro while at the same time having PTSD episodes over long dead historical events.

There is a wide variety of Marxist models to explain the process through which capitalism’s democratic mask slips or is ripped off to reveal a murderous, hate-filled Doppelgänger (another recurrent topos of horror narratives with its own psychological fascination), but they all share the premise articulated by Max Horkheimer: ‘Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism’, because the first subsumes the second.

What nonsense. Genuine fascism is anti-capitalist. Note no talk about the mask of social democracy hiding the horrors of communism.

Given that capitalism is such a Janus-faced phenomenon, it is certainly an attractive proposition to approach fascism as one of the two contrasting personae revealed in its most severe episodes of DID, its Dissociative Identity Disorder.

This talk of fascism and capitalism is boring nonsense, so I will skip much of it.

…the enlightened social liberalism of Nordic countries to the structurally unjust liberal democracies such as the UK, the US…

Huh? Unless he means unjust to White people, which I would agree with.

…and from there centripetally across further Dantesque circles of social inferno for persecuted minorities, left-wingers, and genuine secular or religious humanists designated ‘illiberal democracies’, such as Hungary, Russia, Turkey, or a country such as Bolsonaro’s Brazil. 

We all can’t be like Sweden, where native Swedish women can’t step outside for fear of being raped and murdered by intrusive aliens.

But in Marxist analysis the parameters of capitalism’s capacity for collaboration with systemic inhumanity do not stop there. 

Marxism has always been characterized by extreme humanity; Solzhenitsyn often wrote about that.  Orwell as well.

The metaphysically sideward but morally downward slide continues on via an assortment of ethically perverse constitutional or nakedly authoritarian regimes until it reaches the equivalent of Dante’s ultimate hell, the ‘centre of the earth’ where Satan reigns eternal and where the Third Reich took up residence for twelve years. 

Question: Has Griffin lost his mind?  I ask that seriously.  I believe he is in dire need to extensive psychological counseling.

Here Capital was able to reveal its core sociopathic, demonic essence by embracing the prospect of the racial state becoming the major shareholder or backer in its activities, and hence seizing the opportunity, once suitably Aryanized, to unshackle itself from humanistic scruples (frequently dismissed by the theorists of the Third Reich as ‘Gefühlsduselei’ or ‘wishy-washy sentimentality’).

Unlike the humanistic paradise of Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China.  Is Griffin mad?

Skipping a lot of boring nonsense.

The fact that Marxists and non-Marxists can continue to disagree so axiomatically about the definition of fascism leads us to the final spectral aspect of fascist studies that we want to consider: the insubstantial, shapeshifting nature of conceptualization itself. Though etymologically concepts serve in the human sciences to ‘hold onto’ or ‘grasp’ an essential element of a process, a phenomenon or its properties, they do not in the least resemble the sadistic grabber machines found in amusement arcades and fairgrounds in plastic booths piled high with tempting (to a child) cuddly toys. 

Should Griffin be tested for dementia?  I’m serious.  We should all be concerned about his mental health.

These at least are solid mechanisms which repeatedly act out the charade of trying to gain purchase on a physical object. It is a charade because the springs of the metal claws have been deliberately weakened so that few toys are ever picked up for more than a few tantalising seconds. 

Griffin relives the horrors of his childhood. PTSD!

Skipping a lot of utter nonsense.

The result is that the left has tended to approach questions relating to fascism with an emotive (and humanistically justifiable)…

The Left’s behavior is always “justifiable” of course.

…‘Nigel Farage accused the Scottish nationalists who interrupted a press interview in an Edinburgh pub of being ‘fascist scum’.

Brexit!

In short, as a historical actor postwar fascism seems to have had till recently much more in common with the melting insubstantiality of Hamlet’s ghost than with the fleshly solidity of Hamlet himself, whose words and actions continually imply an underlying method operates behind the histrionic displays of apparent madness. 

It seems to me, reading this piece, that Griffin himself is displaying ‘histrionic displays of apparent madness.”

Since the defeat of the Axis, after two decades of manifesting itself with extraordinary in-your-face visibility in uniformed, charismatically led paramilitary and high-profile party organizations, such as the Fascist Party and NSDAP, as well as in in the most fully developed and invasive form of totalitarian regime, The Third Reich, in the interwar period, fascism has been constantly shapeshifting, fading in and out of focus and physicality like a character in the TV series Haunted. 

Juvenile stupidity.

It has either been lurking on the extremist margins of society or impersonating mainstream democratic parties…

Why “impersonating?” Why can’t they be authentic democratic parties?

…pretending to be ‘metapolitical’…

Why pretending?  Why must Griffin always project mendacity on the Far Right?  I believe the word “project” as in “projection” is key here.  Griffin is the one who is impersonating and pretending – impersonating a liberal and pretending to be a democrat.

…concerned only with preserving ethnic and cultural ‘difference’..

Maybe they are so concerned.

…or fomenting street violence through carefully staged mass rallies; adopting the ‘neutral’ guise of academic historians in order to deny Nazi criminality and the Holocaust or aping the vitalism of punk rock by inserting violently racist lyrics into its music; using public forums to uphold the democratic ‘right to identity’ and ‘freedom of speech’ or clandestinely orchestrating xenophobic hatred through online propaganda and recruitment campaigns…

Lots of projection there.

Now this is important, pay close attention here:

…shamelessly courting mass public support to become ‘populist’ by infiltrating legitimate radical right movements….

So, according to Griffin, it is bad, very bad, for the Far Right to become involved in legal, legitimate, popular movements and parties. BUT –

…or abandoning any bid to be ‘popular’ by operating in subterranean cells dedicated to carrying out spectacular acts of terrorist violence…

On the other hand, according to Griffin, it is bad, very bad, for the Far Right to eschew popular politics and instead engage in illegal activities, such as violence.

So, the Far Right is bad to engage in legal political activity and they are equally bad to eschew legal politics and take another, illegal, path.  The Far Right is just bad, bad, bad.

Griffin is laughable.

…uncritically adopting the perverted discourse of Nazism…

Marxism is of course not “perverted.”

In becoming so protean, fascism has been constantly passing through the walls of the definitional prisons which academics ‘experts’ build to confine it and keep it in its place…

Is that the role of academic scholars?

…Vladimir Lenin asked again in his famous 1902 pamphlet in a very different historical context, ‘What is to be done?’ 

Lenin is apparently Griffin’s role model here.

How can such an elusive, protean, Quixotic political force be apprehended and comprehended sufficiently for its relationship with the non-fascist radical right to be established with any hope of forging a workable consensus among academics, counter-extremism experts, and newspaper leader writers? 

So, Griffin is seemingly advocating an alliance between “academics, counter-extremism experts, and newspaper leader writers” to control public discourse and therefore manipulate “democracy.”

The 1984 film Ghostbusters showed how a leftfield band of scientists thinking outside the box could use the latest understanding of the paranormal to make money by tracking down and capturing ghosts in New York. Well, despite the cynicism and incomprehension of some established historical ‘experts’ in the field, a small but growing international collaborative network of human scientists has been performing a similar task for the comparative study of fascism which allows it to be conceptually ‘captured’ and its relationship to the radical right to be modelled, at least for heuristic research purposes, without a profit motive or a catchy soundtrack.

But with an ideological motive, right?

After seven decades of confusion and contention about the nature and definition of fascism in non-Marxist circles, an academic consensus started emerging in the 1990s pioneered by the likes of George Mosse, Stanley Payne, Zeev Sternhell and Emilio Gentile that it was best approached as a revolutionary variant of extreme, illiberal nationalism that sought to establish a new order based on a new type of socio-political and cultural-anthropological system. The reborn post-liberal nation would expunge the perceived weakness, chaos and decadence from the democratic order and liberalism held to be destroying the nation from within, repel or defeat the nation’s ideological enemies threatening it from without, and proceed to institute a new era of civilization which would transform the relationship between human beings and nations. 

OK, no big problem there.

…an understanding of fascism as the ideology and attempted enactment of a vision of the future nation in terms of ‘palingenetic ultranationalism’ has helped form the conceptual paradigm of the journal Fascism and the international association COMFAS with which it is linked, and has begun to exert perceptible influence on research into the historical and contemporary right not just in Europe and the US, but Latin America and Japan. It is an intriguing sign of its growing hegemony outside the Marxist tradition that this theory is beginning to inform the self-understanding of some fascists. For example, on the online forum of the infamous Iron March website—that was instrumental in radicalizing right-wing fanatics and fostering fascist terrorist groups such as US Atomwaffen Division and Antipodean Resistance in Australia—one of the founders of National Action, Benjamin Raymond, talked of interwar fascist movements as products of a ‘militant reaction against communism with palingenetic nationalist ideals’.

In other words, fascists and “fascists” cannot properly understand themselves without the “guidance” of leftist radicals like Griffin.

Once this ideal type is adopted, the first stage in the process of clarifying the relationship between fascism and the radical right is complete, since it specifies that in order to qualify as a permutation of fascism, an ideology, movement or regime must have a latent or patent anti-systemic and revolutionary agenda to transform society and initiate the nation’s rebirth, a process that axiomatically rejects the humanistic premises and fundamental freedoms postulated by liberalism and the constitutional premises of a functioning or ‘healthy’ pluralistic democracy.

That is an 85-word sentence!  A new record for this screed, I believe.  Putting that aside, let us consider “the humanistic premises and fundamental freedoms” of liberalism.  The humanistic premises include genocidal levels of immigration, destruction of national cohesion, and exposure of Whites to enforced integration with violent, stupid, and/or hateful others. The fundamental freedoms in Europe include abrogation of free speech and the banning of political parties, as well as imprisonment of dissidents (in Greece, including elected politicians), all designed to prevent White majorities to organize on behalf of their interests or even to openly express those interests. That’s a “healthy” pluralistic democracy, no doubt.

It is a taxonomic scheme that recognizes the revolutionary aspirations of ‘genuinely’ fascist movements such as the Falange, the Portuguese Blue Shirts and the Brazilian Integralists, and consigns dictators such Franco, Salazar and Vargas to the radical conservative right…

Quite right.  Authoritarian conservatives are not fascists.

It is perhaps ironic in the context of this article that Payne’s pioneering schema endows fascism with yet another spectral attribute: it proposes that fascism is to be conceived taxonomically as occupying one segment of a spectrum within the political right characterized by the revolutionary nature of its project of total political, societal, cultural and anthropological renewal. It is this inclusive and exclusive definitional trait in the interwar period that makes fascism’s relationship to the ‘other’ rights relatively easy to schematize and tabulate.

OK, fair enough.

When these criteria are applied to the postwar Europeanized world it soon becomes clear that a number of forms of ‘far right’ have arisen since the war which are clearly of anti-systemic and revolutionary intent: notably neo-Nazism both in its local national38 and international39 forms, and right-wing terrorism, whose palingenetic mission is spelt out when the rationale for the attack on society proclaimed in an online manifesto (as in the case of Anders Breivik and Benton Tarrant) or is clear from the evidence of its sources of inspiration.40 To that extent a significant proportion of the contemporary ‘radical right’ can be treated as taxonomically distinct from the fascist segment of the political spectrum because less far ‘to the right’ and less extreme and totalizing in the policies they campaign for to enact their hatreds than revolutionary fascists (e.g. neo-Nazi terrorists).

Let’s ignore the larger problem of leftist terrorism.

The structural reason for the collapse of the popular support base for new forms of fascism in relation to the ‘populist’ radical right since 1945 is the drastic shrinking of political space for revolutionary forms of racism and nationalism in the wake of the Second World War. 

The vicious political repression and constant propaganda of liberal democracy – endorsed by Griffin – has nothing to do with that, right? Liar. If what Griffin wrote here is true, then what is he so worried about?  His entire screed itself-contradictory.

…the powerful anti-Soviet and anti-totalitarian ethos cultivated in the so-called ‘Free World’ after the war had made the prospect of national and racial revolution repugnant to the vast majority of citizens.

Being anti-Soviet is apparently bad – let’s put “Free World” in scare quotes, right Comrade Griffin?

Yet More Spectrality!

If that were the end of the story of the radical right’s relationship to fascism the taxonomy of the far right would hardly be problematic and this article hardly worth reading (or writing). But probing further it soon becomes clear that events of the postwar period fascism have demonstrated another one of its ghostly aspect, that of transambulation, the ability of spirits to walk through walls, the equivalent of what at a molecular level is known by physicists as ‘intangibility’. 

Nutter alert!

To be clear, several interwar fascist movements assumed a semi-democratic guise alongside their paramilitary formations and stood for elections to increase their popular base and conquer state power ‘legitimately’: notable examples are the British Union of Fascists, the Romanian Legionaries of the Archangel Michael (under the name Totul pentru Țară or the ‘Everything for the Country’), The Arrow Cross Party-Hungarist Movement, and of course, the Italian Fascist Party and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. However, none of these parties in either programme or style made any secret of their revolutionary agenda which was in any case apparent from the paramilitary formations and propaganda that formed an integral part of the ‘movement’. 

Excuse me – if the people vote for such, then that is democracy in action.  Authoritarian leftists like Griffin define a successful democracy as such in which their side, and only their side, has the possibility of winning.

By contrast, there are several tactics adopted by postwar fascist organizations to assume a democratic disguise with which they cross practically undetected back and forth over the threshold between revolutionary illegal and democratically legal politics. They can be summarized as: a) revisionism; b) the New Right; d) identitarianism; e) entryism; and f) social mediatization.

All legitimate political tactics.

Revisionism in the context of the far right refers to what is also known as negationism or Holocaust denial…

Boring. A subject I have little to no interest in.  I’m more concerned with today’s Holocaust against the worldwide population of Europeans.

The European New Right is a generic term for the uneven presence in many European states of ‘cultural’ or ‘metapolitical’ forms of revolutionary right and ‘differentialist’ racism which, emulating the example of Alain de Benoist’s Nouvelle Droite which emerged in France in the 1960s, decided to abandon overt racist, ‘Aryan’ fascism to be able to enter the citadel of humanist democracy with the Trojan Horse of a generous addition to Universal Human Rights: the ‘right to identity’. However innocuous and liberal it sounds, such a right in the hands of racists and ultranationalists serves to euphemize the assault on the promotion of multiculturalism and the influx of refugees in a multi-ethnic and multifaith society as a ‘white genocide’ and the destruction of the identity of the indigenous population…

These New Right concerns are objectively true and politically legitimate. If a people cannot safeguard its own existence, then what is the point of politics?  It seems that for Griffin, the only legitimate outcome of political activity is the demographic and cultural dispossession of European-derived people, which they should cheerfully acquiesce to. 

The result is a ‘differentialist’ racism cloaked in the language of liberalism and presenting itself as ‘metapolitical’, but whose implementation could only mean in practice state enforced apartheid, persecutions, and mass-deportations legalized by modern versions of Nuremberg Laws. 

Here Griffin projects his own fantasies onto the political thought of others.  Instead of allowing others to freely express themselves, Griffin asserts that such expression “could only mean” a whole list of horrors, and therefore the free expression of these others must be viciously repressed.  Are we noticing that all of the real world anti-democratic demonization and repression comes from the likes of Griffin?  What a hypocrite.

Though its fascist origins are now well disguised, the hidden agenda of the European New Right is to achieve cultural hegemony for ideas that would replace liberal democracy by a totalitarian ethnocracy still masquerading as a modern liberal state based on ‘rights’, or what is known in German as a ‘Rechtsstaat’ postulated in Kantian liberal state theory. In the last few years, the identitarian movement, exemplified by France’s Génération Identité, has brought the New Right’s pseudo-intellectual…

Ad hominem.

…concern with the erosion of a mythicized ‘cultural identity’ into the streets where it similarly transambulates between liberal notions of ‘rights’ and patriotic ideas of belonging and the extreme right rejection on racist grounds of basic liberal principles of human equality, multi-culturalism and social justice, spawning factions which openly espouse violence and can be seen as permutations of neo-fascism adapted to a stable multicultural democracy.

Openly espousing violence seems to be more on the Left, no?  Who more openly espouses violence today – “fascists” or Antifa?

Inevitably, radical right populist parties offer ideal temporary accommodation or a permanent ‘safe house’ for fascist groups and individuals and encourage a covert form of fascist ‘entryism’ into the democratic political sphere.

It shouldn’t have to be “covert,” you authoritarian – nay, totalitarian – hypocrite, Griffin.  Liberal democracy – your vaunted political god – should be able to accommodate all sorts of political expression, no?

This can been seen from the following examples: the temporary alliances or rapprochement formed between the French neo-fascist right and the populist Front National (now Rassemblement National) at various times in its past; the activities of the now banned neofascist Flügel (wing) of the populist Alternativ für Deutschland led by Björn Höcke and Andreas Kalbitz; the alliance of the neofascist Casa Pound with Salvini’s Lega in Italy in the xenophobic Prima gli Italiani movement; the dominant role in the People’s Party Our Slovakia of the neo-Nazi Marian Kotleba, elected mayor of Banská Bystrica, until he was condemned to four years for his extremist views; the entanglement of neo-Nazi Hungarist István Győrkös’s with two illiberal democratic parties, first the Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MIÉP), then the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik); and the complex relationship of the populist Svoboda party to Ukraine’s Nazi collaborationist past and the fascist segment of the country’s broad far right spectrum. Donald Trump’s relationship with the ‘alt-right’ spectrum is to be seen in this context, namely an entanglement between various permutations of radical populism, bizarre anti-democratic conspiracy theories and overt fascism, allowing free transambulation between the two technically distinct segments of the political spectrum.

Blah, blah, blah…the Far Right has just as much right (no pun intended) of political expression as anyone else.  Again, if disenfranchising people politically leads to violence – as it likely will (and has), will hypocrites like Griffin use the violence that his own repressive policies induce as a justification for even more repression?

All such examples underline how porous membranes have become between fascism and the radical right in some countries in an age where fascist extremism is not only illegal but psychologically taboo for the vast majority of Western citizens…

Griffin apparently has no problem with legal repression of political opponents.  He is therefore of the Totalitarian Left – a Bolshevik

The rise of the populist radical right using democratic freedoms to express fears of loss of identity and being ‘overwhelmed’ by foreign migrants, ethnic minorities, and diverse cultural and religious traditions, has led to xenophobia and racial hatred being normalized and policies advocated that deny human beings their democratic freedoms of thought, expression, ethical convictions, and religion, thereby driving a wedge between the fragile historical synthesis of ‘liberalism’ and ‘democracy’. 

What absolutely mendacious hypocrite Griffin is. IT IS HIS SIDE OF THE POLITICAL EQUATION THAT IS DENYING PEOPLE “FREEDOMS OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION AS WELL AS ETHICAL CONVICTIONS.” How can someone who advocates repressing rightist speech dare write something like that?  It is the RIGHT who is censored, banned, and sometimes imprisoned for their beliefs.  Minorities and the Left say whatever they wish with impunity.  Racial hatred exists mostly against Whites – again, this seems fine with Griffin – and if the synthesis between liberalism and democracy is so “fragile” then perhaps we need to re-think society’s slavish adherence to that synthesis.

Again – many Far Right activists, such as myself, have been deplatformed. Many in Europe have been imprisoned. How DARE Griffin project “liberal” repression on the victims of that repression.

There is nothing more important for voters to consider than what the composition of their nation state will be, in the present and the future – and by composition I mean, primarily, the demographic characteristics of race and ethnicity, and, secondarily, culture (including religion but also all else that makes up a people’s cultural patrimony). If people are not allowed to freely discuss, debate, and decide on that, then what is the use of “liberal democracy?”  If people are not allowed to politically organize on the basis of their identity and interests, if they cannot engage with the political process the safeguard their national existence, then what else matters?  Griffin and his ilk want to deprive Whites of the ability to politically affect the most existential issues of interest, leaving them to quibble about tax rates and other minor considerations. That is a sham of the democratic process.

When the party manifesto of the AfD tells its voters ‘Islam does not belong in Germany’ it has simultaneously a ‘radical reading’ (asking the state to stop further migration from Islamic countries and take measures against ‘Islamization’), but also a fascist one, legitimizing acts of discrimination, violence, and persecution against Muslim communities as in the first stages of Nazi antisemitism.

Or maybe they just want Germany for Germans, a policy that Griffin I’m sure would not object to if promoted by any Colored people.

Moreover, much of AfD party propaganda can be shown to contain a fascist subtext, deliberately evoking nostalgia for Third Reich history and policies. One example is its election poster showing the AfD leader at the time, Frauke Petry, tenderly holding her young baby and asking ‘Und was ist Ihr Grund für Deutschland zu kämpfen?’ [And what is your reason to fight for Germany?] 

What is wrong with that?  After nearly 80 years of German self-destruction – that they are spreading into the rest of Europe – doesn’t a German political figure have the right to advocate for German ethnic preservation?  Why is Griffin so hateful?  Maybe he should be censored.

The exoteric (barely ‘democratic’) meaning is that only ethnic Germans constitute Germany’s ‘true’ population and that non-ethnic Germans are a threat to be defended (fought) against. 

That is in fact objectively true. That Griffin objects reveals his ethnocidal agenda.

Esoterically, however, there is an allusion here to the recurrent topos of Nazi propaganda that a woman’s primary function is to breed a new generation of healthy Aryan Germans. 

Note how Griffin is triggered by the specter of White reproduction.  We certainly can’t have that!

Under the Third Reich those in ethnically or culturally ‘mixed’ marriages or relationships were guilty of the capital crime Blutschande, producing ‘Mischlinge’ (half-castes) who corrupted the nation’s racial purity.

And that doctrine is wrong why, exactly?

Finally, there is the extensive impact which the universal rise of online social media exerts on the far right by creating a virtual, unregulated cultic milieu for the expression of far-right thought, hate speech, racially inspired utopian, occultist and apocalyptic fantasies, and conspiracy theories, one which knows absolutely no censorship, academic rigour, or liberal constraints.

In other words, online free speech is a problem. Note “liberal constraints” and “censorship” – after all, liberal democracy is all about constraining and censoring speech and even thought.  And is Griffin’s screed here an example of “academic rigour?”  It reads as if it was written by an adolescent female Antifa member suffering from her first episode of raging hormones PMS.

Cyberspace establishes no taxonomic boundaries, so that academic attempts to compartmentalize the cyber-right into neat categories meet with frustration, and the task of disentangling fascist from the radical right is more than usually Sisyphean.

And why does some need to have such a “Sissyphean” task?  How about leaving people alone to peacefully express themselves politically?

The Ghost of a Chance?

Despite the taxonomic problems posed by the last group of transambulatory far rights we have considered, the application of the distinction between a revolutionary fascist right and a radical but not anti-systemic one is still to be recommended as a working principle for those engaged with this topic. Applying it consistently avoids the terminological sloppiness and conceptual chaos that prevails not just in the media and in the minds of the general public, but regrettably in the work of some of the more conceptually challenged researchers and historians of right-wing extremism. For one thing respecting the distinction might prevent well-intentioned but intellectually lazy or poorly informed academics and journalists of liberal persuasion from repeatedly raising the spectre of a return of fascism when discussing populist xenophobia, and actually examine the ideologies and programmes of political movements with a more informed and critical mindset.

I cannot argue against that.

Greater focus on the ideas of the right and their practical implications if ever enacted would make it more difficult for covert fascists to assume the guise of right-wing populists or infiltrate populist parties. 

Why can’t fascists be engaged in politics?  Note that if these people turn to violence because they are politically disenfranchised, the mendacious Griffin will use that to justify even more “liberal” repression.

It would also reveal the hidden agenda of systemic inhumanity contained in the New Right’s ‘metapolitical’ assault on multiculturalism and what is dismissed contemptuously as ‘panmixia’… 

Very objective this academic scholar Griffin is.

…whose enforced reversal would inevitably lead to social breakdown and racial violence on a par with Nazi Germany. 

Guess what, fool?  Not reversing it will inevitably lead to social breakdown and racial violence as well. Liberals like you created this problem.  Others need to solve it.

As it is, the New Right’s godfather, Alain de Benoist…

Another over-rated turd.

…claims his now international movement is not a ‘political phenomenon’ but ‘a philosophical and theoretical school of thought’, so that academics who draw attention to its fascist subtext can be dismissed as ‘idiots’ with impunity.

Buffoons like Griffin.

Most important of all, the approach to distinguishing fascism and the radical right we have proposed might also encourage journalists and counter-extremist agencies (e.g. state entities monitoring extremism such as the Verfassungsschutzamt in Germany) to look more critically at what goes on within populist parties…

In other words, “liberal democracy” is characterized by secret police spying on, infiltrating, and sabotaging popular political parties, with banning of those parties an ever-present option.

…with a view to spotting elements within them that cross the line from the legality of the radical to the illegality of the extreme…

What’s “extreme?”  Let me guess – once the party crosses some threshold of popularity and electoral success, ideology that was previously “the legality of the radical” will suddenly become “the illegality of the extreme.”  You’ll note that authoritarian liberal democracies never explicitly and precisely state where the legal/illegal dividing line is, giving them the flexibility to ruthlessly repress right-wing dissent whenever it is convenient to do so.

…and be more alive to the threat to liberal democracy posed by apparently harmless cultural/intellectual movements such as the European New Right and by apparently non-political movements such as identitarianism. 

Apparently, Griffin’s vaunted and victorious liberal democracy is so flimsy that it is threatened by “cultural/intellectual movements.” Thus, liberalism must use state coercion to suppress threatening ideas.

After all both Anders Breivik and Benton Tarrant were demonstrably influenced not just by interwar fascism but by the rise of radical right populist Islamophobia and identity politics.

And how much violence has been “demonstrably influenced” by the Left?

Finally, this approach might encourage concerned humanists or militant defenders of basic civil rights…

Do “basic civil rights” include free expression and the right to politically organize for everyone?  Or does Griffin believe that only people he agrees with have those rights?

…to stop being fixated with fascism, and to look beyond labels in their struggle for a more just society. 

This “more just society” apparently endorses genocide, national destruction, outlawing of free speech, and banning of popular political parties/

Since 1945 fascism has withered as a political force….

Which is why Griffin has dedicated to his career studying it, breathless writes about it, and there is this moronic journal of focused on it.

…to become just one of the many enemies to the establishment of an ecologically sustainable…

Not so sustainable with endless Colored reproduction, the excess of which floods into the “West.”

…and socially just world…

White genocide is “socially just.”

…realistically there is not the ghost of a chance that the sloppy use of the term ‘fascism’ and vagueness of the terms ‘populism’ and ‘radical right’ will be modified by this article. 

Therefore it is so much intellectual (and actual?) masturbation.

Yet however impotent scholars may remain to impose ‘fascistically’ a conceptually rigorous and heuristically valuable definition of fascism on the international community, we surely owe it to another spectre of the mind, ‘historical truth’, to train our eyes to tell the populist dogs from the neo-fascist wolves with their magician’s wardrobe of sheep’s clothing.

What a buffoon.

This is certainly a remarkable document by Griffin, and I obviously do not mean that in a good way. The man either suffers from a pathological lack of self-awareness or is intentionally a mendacious hypocrite. His recent writing is subjective, hysterical, partisan, polemical, and projects the reality of the vicious repression of multicultural liberal democracy on the innocent rightist victims of that repression.  According to Griffin, if the Far Right follows a path of legal metapolitical and political activism, then they are dangerously “infiltrating” potentially leading to catastrophes (in his mind of course), so they must be silenced, censored, deplatformed, and/or imprisoned.  On the other hand, if disenfranchised rightists turn to illegal violence out of desperation, then that proves how dangerous they are and retroactively justified the disenfranchisement and justifies even more repression. Either way, the Far Right is denounced. His laughable and hysterical hypocrisy and lack of logic exposes the intellectual vacuity and moral bankruptcy of the Left. Fortunately for Left, the Far Right (and, really, the entire Right in general) is full of freaks, grifters, retards, fetishists, and buffoons, so there are no real consequences for leftist vacuity and bankruptcy.  With what would the (American) Far Right oppose Griffin? Talk of “Asians are superior to Whites by every standard?” Talk of Savitri Devi, Kali Yuga, and hobbit holes?  Nordicism?

The only place you are going to get any sort of reasonable response to Griffin is here at The Sallis Groupuscule.

I will also point out that Griffin seems to believe that (his interpretation of) “liberal democracy” is an end in itself, rather than being, properly, a means to and end – that proper end being the people choosing the policies, parties, and leaders by which they wish to be governed, and what sort of society will be formed by that governing. Further, Griffin ignores the reality that informed democratic choice can only occur in the context of free and unfettered thought, expression, and speech, and through the political participation of all facets of society and the entirety of political ideologies. Instead, it seems that Griffin’s preference is for a form of Authoritarian Democracy, in which people go through the superficial motions of voting, but the “choices” are confined to a narrow set of predetermined outcomes, and true dissident voices are proscribed by law, with censorship and imprisonment as forces of social coercion. There is only a small step from that to totalitarianism, which, based on his comments, Griffin would likely be comfortable with, if it prevents the people from making political choices of which he disapproves.  That he is a disgusting hypocrite is without question.

No Shared Values

Anti-CRT.

See this.

Also the link:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/professors-publish-playbook-teachers-address-parents-concerned-crt

Let’s take a look:

The report provides teachers and school leaders a three-step approach on how to address concerned parents, including: opening the conversation with a shared value both parties hold; “use active voice to name an antagonist (e.g., the people who are trying to divide us) and call out divide-and-conquer tactics;” and ending the conversation with a “strong, positive call to action that affirms common values,” as opposed to being race-neutral or colorblind.

The lead author of the report, who serves as an associate professor of educational leadership at Montclair State University, Emily Hodge, argued that conservative media outlets and organizations “have inflamed the emotions of parents, often those who are conservative, white parents in suburban, diversifying districts,” according to Education Week. 

“The people who are orchestrating these kinds of media campaigns are concerned about power and politics and not actually about individual children or what’s happening at school,” Hodge said.

Hodge argued that school leaders should respond to concerned parents with “a shared sense of unity” because using a “logical argument” on “angry or fearful parents” might not be effective, Education week reported. 

“Instead, if you also appeal to emotion and create a shared sense of unity as a community, that is a more effective route,” Hodge said. “Because it makes people feel like ‘we have common values and a common vision, we can work together.’”

That reminds me of the sorts of appeals I have experienced at work – the “were all Americans” shtick and other ways of manipulating emotions to win over skeptical Whites for their own humiliation and dispossession (amusingly a Negro panhandler used the same “we’re all Americans” line on me, which suggests that the underlying purpose is “gimme dats” to Coloreds from Whites).

In any case, how do I suggest White parents opposed to CRT answer such “arguments?” Emphasize logic, not emotion, do not let the teacher seize any false moral high ground or use emotional manipulation. The parents should answer the teacher thus:

• Do not blame some outside party for dividing us.  The division exists because we have opposing values and opposing interests.  We have no shared values.  What you are teaching is an attack on my values and is an attack on the interests of my people and their identity. You are the antagonist, not some “other” that you want to shift the blame to.  
• There is no “unity” here. The “positive call to action” is for you to stop doing what you are doing or plan to do. There is no “common vision;” I reject your vision.  You are harming my community.
• If this is an educational institution, then why don’t you allow the students to hear both sides of the issue, instead of politically indoctrinating them to your beliefs?  If you believe in “unity” then why not compromise to allow all voices to be heard?
• By critiquing people based on race, or any other demographic characteristic, as part of the curriculum, you are violating Title VI of the federal civil rights act and thus this school should not receive any federal funding (if it is a private school, adjust accordingly – race-based attacks will violate some federal and/or state laws; you can consult with anti-CRT groups for more advice on how to approach these issues in either the public or private school situations).

The only caveat is that the parents may worry about retaliation against their child by the teachers because of this; however, people should not let intimidation, bullying, and such worries stop them from defending their rights.  If retaliation does occur, the parents (and child) have recourse to legal remedies, starting with federal civil rights laws.