Category: democratic multiculturalism

The Importance of Identity

Not for you White Man.

We have read and heard about some of the important downward trends in White well-being – White Americans being the only racial group in America with increasing mortality rates, Whites devastated by the opioid epidemic, White men with high rates of suicide, opinion polls reflecting White pessimism, all consistent with Whites acting like a defeated, despairing people.

Identity is an important component of the psychological well-being of people.

…groups provide individuals with a sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging (i.e. a positive sense of social identity) they tend to have positive psychological consequences.

Certainly, that’s celebrated for “minorities”– and that’s the point. Non-White well-being is maximized by expressions of ethnoracial Identity, while Whites are not allowed to do the same.

If Whiteness is stigmatized, if Whites are told that they have no positive group racial identity and that Whiteness is a myth that exists merely to subjugate others, if Whites are told that they are uniquely and inherently bad, if Whites are denied the same rights of group racial Identity and the ability to organize around that Identity and around group interest, will that not be psychologically harmful?  If Identity is so important for psychological well-being, isn’t the denial of White Racial Identity – e.g., in America – an attack on White well-being and an important contributor to the problems discussed above?

One can look at places of employment, academic institutions, various other organizations and social entities and observe the fanatical attachment to expressions of Identity by non-Whites. For example, in the academic/education setting the hysterical, obsessive, navel-gazing, laser-like focus by non-White students on their racial and cultural identities is well-known and quite remarkable in its psychological intensity. These people find emotional release in expressions of their Identity and are quite aggressive about it – not only are these expressions typically characterized in the form of opposition to Whiteness, but White students – themselves deprived of the opportunity of equal expressions of group Identity – are forced to watch, and sometimes participate in, expressions and celebrations of non-White Identity. Similar scenarios play out in the workplace as well, from smaller companies to large, multinational corporations. It’s in the general culture as well; it is everywhere.

Indeed, in such a setting, every group has an organization, every such group has special events celebrating their Identity, every such group has a “history month” – every group has that, except for Whites, except for people of European descent. They are singled out as not being allowed to have an Identity or to participate in any expressions of that Identity, but instead are singled out as “privileged” – the ones who are not allowed to have an Identity, not allowed to organize, not allowed to express pride and defend interests are “privileged” while the ones allowed all those thing are “oppressed.” Is it no wonder Whites are in despair?  

Identity is so important to people that when Whites are deprived of authentic expressions of Identity, deprived of expressions of genuine tribal attachments, they pathetically grasp for substitutes. The issue of atomized ethnic attachments and questionable ethnic identities is discussed below. In addition, there are identities revolving around abnormal sexual preferences and other various types of deviant behavior, and of course there are sex-based female identity groups. That is one reason –  besides personal self-interest – that White women, particularly young White women, focus Identity around “woman’s issues,” and all declare that they are “feminists.” However, since feelings of group solidarity are best released by kin-based tribal-like affiliations, I doubt that White women really get much from inauthentic multiracial “woman’s groups” in which they are no doubt lambasted for “White Privilege” and held back as lacking the “intersectional” advantages of their colored “sisters.”

The hostility toward race-based expressions of White Identity can be contrasted to the relative acceptance of atomized White ethnic group identities. Let’s consider a thought experiment, taking place at some American university. A group of Asian students want to form an Asian-American Student Union to express their Asian racial-cultural identity. Would the school have any problem with that? Of course not; indeed, it would be encouraged, promoted, and celebrated. What if, instead, a group of specifically Japanese-American students wanted to form a Japanese-American Student Union for like purpose but restricted only to the Japanese ethny, excluding other Asian groups?  While the school would likely not overtly oppose that endeavor, the move may be considered somewhat controversial, with administrators, faculty, students, and staff wondering why other Asian students are excluded. I’m sure there would be calls for pan-Asian unity and such pan-Asian attitudes would be encouraged by the university, or at least not opposed.

On the other hand, if a group of White students wanted to form a European-American Student Union that would be vehemently opposed at all levels as a “fascist,” “racist,” “Nazi” affront to decency. If not rejected outright, the group would be subjected to official and non-official persecution and ridicule. The doomed history of the European-American Student Union (EASU) from the mid-late 1990s proves that this thought experiment has value.

On the other hand, atomized White ethnic student groups – Italian, German, Irish, Greek, Slavic, French, what have you – would be, if not encouraged, at least somewhat more palatable, as long as there was no cooperation or interaction between them. For adults in the broader society, one can also consider that Italian-American, German-American, Greek-American, Irish-American, etc. celebrations and organizations are mildly acceptable, but any European-American equivalent is hysterically opposed as “Nazi” and “racist” and “fascist.”

So, on the one hand, a pan-Asian Identity would be encouraged and atomization of that Identity viewed askance and perhaps discouraged, while a pan-European Identity would be discouraged if not actively rejected (and perhaps opposed by student violence on campus), while atomization of that Identity would be encouraged, at least as an alternative.

Further, given the realities of inter-European ethnic mixing in America, atomized ethnic identities are actually quite inauthentic for most White Americans. If a person is a mix of several European ethnic groups, what do they do?  Pick only one, ignore the others, and join one ethnic-based club or organization?  Join all of them?  None?  Meanwhile, typically mono-ethnic Asians are allowed to form pan-racial groups and revel in racial solidarity. What is worse is when people on the Right question the validity of Whiteness as an organizing principle and promote intra-European division, thus doing the dirty work of the System. Ethnonationalists are part of the problem with respect to forming a racial White Identity.

Fighting for the right to express a positive racial and cultural/civilizational “White” (pan-European) Identity is a reasonable and feasible activist approach, consistent with Democratic Multiculturalism, and related to the points made here.

This is a project that can bridge the generational divide, uniting dastardly Boomers, angelic Millennials and Zoomers, and Purgatorial Xers in an across-the-board societal-wide battle for White Rights: in the schools, colleges, and universities, the workplaces, the churches, and the wide culture.  For example, at the academic level, Millennial and Zoomer students can fight to establish European-American student organizations and events, with support from Boomer and Xer parents, faculty, and others.  That would be a place to start, success there can spread throughout horizontally and vertically throughout society.

Whites have the right to express a positive racial Identity, but they have to earn that right through struggle.  The hostile System won’t give them that right, they have to seize it.  Their well-being depends upon it.

Odds and Ends, 1/2/20

Various issues.

Am I a hypocrite for mocking Counter-Currents about their System-approved tax-exempt status, while at the same time promoting the idea of Democratic Multiculturalism, leveraging the System, and its multiculturalist ethos, against itself?

No, because Counter-Currents not only eschews the Democratic Multiculturalism strategy, but styles itself as the intellectual vanguard of traditionalist ethnonationalism, revolutionary National Populism,  and hardcore racialism.

This is Greg Johnson (emphasis added):

By the time the next president comes in, there will be millions of new invaders inside our borders.

Then the race war will kick off in the summer of 2021.

White Nationalists need to ask ourselves if we are going to be among the people who fought against white dispossession who declared ourselves accelerationists to own Trump and the GOP.

Which course makes it more likely we will be able to lead a genuine revolutionary National Populist movement?

Talk of “millions of new invaders” and “race war” doesn’t seem to mesh well with being a “tax-exempt foundation” that is System-approved by the IRS. Leading “a genuine revolutionary National Populist movement” is NOT the work-within-the-System Democratic Multiculturalism strategy.  So, I’m not the one being hypocritical here. That characterization fits all those tax-exempt “revolutionaries.”

The HBD-Nordicist-Race Realist alliance continues, with the anti-White Judeophilic self-described Yellow Supremacist site Amren peddling Arthur Kemp, that despicable fraud and divider of Whites. Ignore the leering Levantines and grinning Orientals behind the HBD curtain.

Some recent great moments in White history are when the findings of archaeogenetics continuously refute Kempism (with Der Movement either being mysteriously silent about it or ludicrously interpreting utter refutation as meaning “was right.”).  

Johnson tin-cupin’ in the New Year:

Remember Us in Your Will

Finally, we would like to broach a very delicate topic: your will. If you are planning your estate, please think about how you can continue helping the cause even after you are gone. The essay “Majority Estate Planning” contains many helpful suggestions.

Remember: those who fight for the Golden Age live in it today.

Greg Johnson Editor-in-Chief Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.

Working out in my local gym here in this Eastern European whitopia feels curiously comfortable, like it’s my own private facility.

Is Jef Costello Eastern European?  Or just your run-of-the-mull ethnoimperialist?  After all, Eastern Europeans exist only to make their masters and betters like Costello comfortable, eh?

Costello:

Everybody, in short, used to feel at home in their homelands. And everybody still has a right to that. We need to give it back to them; we need a “new world order,” a world in which “diversity” refers only to a diversity of ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation-states.

Beautiful!  Ethnonationalism!  So, Costello. Morgan, Anton, Fullmoon Ancestry, Munro, Deasy, etc. please leave Eastern Europe and/or never visit.  Farrell, please leave Italy.  Or do “ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation-states” only apply to Northwest Europe, you hypocrites?

Observation: Ethnonationalism is much like Christianity.  Lots of people profess allegiance to it, but they are unable, or unwilling, to live up to its ideals in their own private  lives. Hypocrites all.

The White Tithe –  a new variation of tin cup panhandling.

Right now, we are limited to old-fashioned mail. I’m asking each of you to send what you can to:

American Renaissance

P.O. Box 527

Oakton, VA 22124

Donations are tax-deductible.

Tax-deductible? Of course they are!  The revolutionary, radical Far Right – fighting against brutal System persecution…tax-exempt!  Tax-deductible!

Give, give, give!  What would high-IQ Chinamen do without you?  The Yellow Tithe!

OK, another prediction for 2020:  Der Movement, Inc. (a money-making enterprise) will become ever more shameless in its tin cup panhandling.

Democratic Multiculturalism and Title VI

Title VII and Title IX as well.

See the definitions of these “titles” here at this link.

I have previously written about, and advocated for, Salter’s idea of “Democratic Multiculturalism” – that White majorities should demand a seat at the multicultural table and use the System’s mechanisms of multiculturalism to advocate for White interests. Multiculturalism is defined (as Salter reminded us) as a system in which minorities are empowered and are encouraged to mobilize for their interests, while majorities are disempowered and demobilized. If that is so, then forcing the multicultural system to allow for majority mobilization will, by definition, make that system untenable, destabilize it, and heighten the contradictions, and lead, eventually, to its demise. There is a saying – “if everyone is my brother, then I have no brother.” Likewise, if every group tales advantage of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism.

Always remember Suvorov’s Law of history – revolutions do not typically occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. That is why it is imperative to put pressure on the System, at its weakest points, to force concessions and force relaxation of the repression.  Exploiting the “titles”- VI, VII, and IX – is an excellent place to start.

I will concentrate on Title VI here, but what is written applies equally well to the others.  All are ripe for exploitation by a properly leveraged attack of Democratic Multiculturalism.

Read this.  That is open anti-White hatred and discrimination at an academic institution that no doubt falls under Title VI (as well as VII and IX).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. All federal agencies that provide grants of assistance are required to enforce Title VI. The U.S. Department of Education gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs.

Examples of discrimination covered by Title VI include racial harassment, school segregation, and denial of language services to English learners. A fuller list of Title VI issues OCR addresses appears here. The U.S. Department of Education Title VI regulation (Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR 100) is enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

The Title VI regulation prohibits retaliation for filing an OCR complaint or for advocacy for a right protected by Title VI. Title VI also prohibits employment discrimination, but the protection against employment discrimination under Title VI is limited. As a result, most complaints OCR receives raising race, color, or national-origin discrimination in employment are referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A fair and just reading of Title VI clearly shows that White students are being targeted for repression at Western Connecticut State, and a legal case can and should be made that that institution is in violation of Title VI and should have all federal funding and assistance cut.

If an institution attacks Whites to such an extent that they would attempt to expel a student for saying “it is OK to be White” then this can be construed as a Title VI violation against Whites.  One can think of a myriad of other anti-White academic activities that constitute a hostile environment for White students, and for which the institution should be sued under Title VI.  There are lawyers and legal foundations who have in the past taken on academia from a rightist legal standpoint, we need more such persons and foundations, ones even more “vanguard” in their outlook, willing to begin and sustain an unrelenting legal assault on academia on this issue.  It doesn’t matter if, in the short term, such legal actions will meet with defeat.  The actions, and the resulting publicity, will put pressure on the System at a weak point. It will mobilize Whites. It will heighten the contradictions. It should be supplemented with political, social, and economic activism targeting the academic institutions in question. There should be a multi-pronged assault on the issue, continuous and unrelenting.  Why should these institutions get federal aid if they are so openly violating Title VI for Whites?  No more assistance!  No more financial aid for the students of such a racist institution!  The very act of filing these Title VI suits – regardless of the initial outcome – will be a step in the right direction, a step toward majority mobilization as part of Democratic Multiculturalism. The time to start is now.

Again, remember Suvorov’s Law – revolutions do not occur at the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.

Worse is not always better.  

There are of course mighty obstacles. The System with its legal apparatus has already tried to define anti-White discrimination as “non-discrimination” and thus acceptable. Let us look at this, returning at the end to discuss how all of it can be leveraged against the System. 

Thus, let’s consider what Whites are up against, how “non-discrimination” is utilized to viciously discriminate against Whites, particularly White men – a tactic successful mostly because feckless, cowardly Whites refuse to fight back, refuse to sue, refuse to protest, and refuse to utilize whatever social, political, and economic power they do have to exert force for change.  

Principle 4: Financial Aid To Create Diversity

America is unique because it has forged one Nation from many people of a remarkable number of different backgrounds. 

America is certainly unique.  It is also in terminal decline – and for the reason stated.

Many colleges seek to create on campus an intellectual environment that reflects that diversity. 

Now, how does “different backgrounds” affect the “intellectual environment?’’ Only if that “diversity” leads to diversity of thought and ideas.  But the exact opposite occurs.  As schools become more demographically diverse, intellectual diversity dwindles to nothing – it  is in fact actively suppressed – to reach the real goal of a demographically diverse student body who share exactly the same social and political beliefs.

A college should have substantial discretion to weigh many factors – including race and national origin – in its efforts to attract and retain a student population of many different experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and cultures – provided that the use of race or national origin is consistent with the constitutional standards reflected in Title VI, i.e. , that it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

Who defines “narrowly tailored?” Why is a “diverse student body” desirable?  What about political diversity?

There are several possible options for a college to promote its First Amendment interest in diversity. First a college may, of course, use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. Second, a college may consider race or national origin with other factors in awarding financial aid if the aid is necessary to further the college’s interest in diversity. Third, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if this use is narrowly tailored, or, in other words, if it is necessary to further its interest in diversity and does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race based eligibility criteria.

Laugh – “does not unduly restrict access to financial aid for students who do not meet the race-based eligibility criteria.” They can’t get the aid, but, hey, they are not unduly restricted by that. The argument will then be that schools have unlimited financial resources, so there is no zero sum game, which is an outright lie.

Among the considerations that affect a determination of whether awarding race-targeted financial aid is narrowly tailored…

Again, “narrowly tailored”  is never defined.

…to the goal of diversity…

Why is that a goal?  What kinds of diversity?

…are (1) whether race-neutral means of achieving that goal have been or would be ineffective…

Of course they are ineffective, because some groups are less intelligent and less competent than are others.

….(2) whether a less extensive or intrusive use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid as a means of achieving that goal has been or would be ineffective; (3) whether the use of race or national origin is of limited extent and duration and is applied in a flexible manner; (4) whether the institution regularly reexamines its use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid to determine whether it is still necessary to achieve its goal; and (5) whether the effect of the use of race or national origin on students who are not beneficiaries of that use is sufficiently small and diffuse so as not to create an undue burden on their opportunity to receive financial aid.

If any of those criteria were fairly considered from the perspective of Whites having legitimate interests as do all other peoples, then such programs would not pass the Title VI test.

If the use of race or national origin in awarding financial aid is justified under this principle, the college may use funds from any source.

Sure!  Not for you, Whitey!

Principle 5: Private Gifts Restricted by Race or National Origin

Title VI does not prohibit an individual or an organization that is not a recipient of Federal financial assistance from directly giving scholarships or other forms of financial aid to students based on their race or national origin. Title VI simply does not apply.

The provisions of Principles 3 and 4 apply to the use of race-targeted privately donated funds by a college and may justify awarding these funds on the basis of race or national origin if the college is remedying its past discrimination…

Who decides whether there was past discrimination?  Answer – those getting the money and those eager to give out the money.

…pursuant to Principle 3 or attempting to achieve a diverse student body pursuant to Principle 4. In addition, a college may use privately donated funds that are not restricted by their donor on the basis of race or national origin to make awards to disadvantaged students as described in Principle 1.

The students who get aid, and who are also given preferences in admission, are “disadvantaged.”  Those being actively discriminated against are “advantaged” and “privileged.”  Got it!

Finally, the burden on those who are excluded from the benefit conferred by the classification based on race or national origin (i.e., non-minority students) must be considered. 

Laughable. In reality, the only consideration made is that if Whites suffer, that is good.  White suffering is an essential feature of the system in play here.

Id., at 171. A use of race or national origin may impose such a severe burden on particular individuals – for example, eliminating scholarships currently received by non-minority students in order to start a scholarship program for minority students – that it is too intrusive to be considered narrowly tailored. See Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. at 283 (use of race in imposing layoffs involves severe disruption to lives of identifiable individuals). Generally, the less severe and more diffuse the impact on non-minority students, the more likely a classification based on race or national origin will address this factor satisfactorily. However, it is not necessary to show that no student’s opportunity to receive financial aid has been in any way diminished by the use of the race-targeted aid. Rather, the use of race-targeted financial aid must not place an undue burden on students who are not eligible for that aid.

Who defines “undue burden?” That’s right – those in favor of handouts to Coloreds.

A number of commenters argued that race-targeted financial aid is a minimally intrusive method to attain a diverse student body, far more limited in its impact on non-minority students, for example, than race-targeted admissions policies. Under this view, and unlike the admissions plan at issue in Bakke, a race-targeted financial aid award could be a narrowly tailored means of achieving the compelling interest in diversity.

“Compelling interest.”  Laughable.  How come there is no similar “compelling interest” for intellectual and political diversity?” Why is the “compelling interest” only to have a demographically diverse group of students all of who have – or pretend to have – exactly the same sociopolitical views as each other?

The Department agrees that there are important differences between admissions and financial aid. The affirmative action admissions program struck down in Bakke had the effect of excluding applicants from the university on the basis of their race. The use of race-targeted financial aid, on the other hand, does not, in and of itself, dictate that a student would be foreclosed from attending a college solely on the basis of race. 

Sure! After all, if a poor White cannot afford college but is not eligible for race-based financial aid, that doesn’t preclude them from college!  Take out ruinous loans, Whitey!  Rob a bank!  That’s the ticket!  And if a wealthy Negro gets race-based financial aid, why that’s too bad on you, Whitey!  It’s “narrowly tailored” and all!

Moreover, in contrast to the number of admissions slots, the amount of financial aid available to students is not necessarily fixed. 

Sure! Schools have unlimited funds! Or perhaps they would, if they didn’t pay (anti-White) administrators bloated salaries that far surpass that given to the President of the United States.

For example, a college’s receipt of privately donated monies restricted to an underrepresented group might increase the total pool of funds for student aid in a situation in which, absent the ability to impose such a limitation, the donor might not provide any aid at all.

Certainly!  If the money can’t be given to Coloreds, don’t give it at all!  Let Whitey pump gas for a living!  If a wealthy Negro can’t get financial aid, then no one can!

Even in the case of a college’s own funds, a decision to bar the award of race-targeted financial aid will not necessarily translate into increased resources for students from non-targeted groups. Funds for financial aid restricted by race or national origin that are viewed as a recruitment device might be rechanneled into other methods of recruitment if restricted financial aid is barred. In other words, unlike admission to a class with a fixed number of places, the amount of financial aid may increase or decrease based on the functions it is perceived to promote.

Please read the above paragraph very carefully.  What it is saying is this: Even if you were to strike down as unconstitutional giving race-based financial aid, the schools – in their hate-filled animus toward Whites – would not rechannel that money into race-blind financial aid. They would simply invent new programs to skirt the law so as to enable Coloreds, rechanneling the money to Colored pockets, anything to avoid giving Whites a fair chance for a college degree. It’s the same with admissions. “Holistic review” is just a fundamentally dishonest way of enabling racial (and sex) quotas in admissions in an indirect fashion, to comply with the law in a strictly legal manner, but not in spirit. Anything to screw The White Man is acceptable!

In summary, a college can use its financial aid program to promote diversity by considering factors other than race or national origin, such as geographic origin, diverse experiences, or socioeconomic background. 

Right!  So if you come from a predominantly Black city, come from a high school that is 100% Black, are a member of your high school’s Black Student Union, etc., then, by golly, that’s race-blind admissions!  Holistic review!

In addition, a college may take race or national origin into account as one factor, with other factors, in awarding financial aid if necessary to promote diversity. Finally, a college may use race or national origin as a condition of eligibility in awarding financial aid if it is narrowly tailored to promote diversity.

Again: Who defines “narrowly tailored?”  Answer: The school administering the program.  As well as the leftist judges who rule in favor of viciously racist outright discrimination against Whites.

All of that may be disheartening, but let is take a “glass half full” approach. All those negatives mean that there is much to criticize, much to attack, much “low hanging fruit” for concerted legal, social, and, above all, political methods to be employed to leverage these anti-White policies against the System.  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 for the System, 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. If the System tries to deny Whites relief under the multiculturalist ethos, the contradictions can be heightened to a point of complete System illegitimacy – and although the System can attempt to maintain the repression, there may be a breaking point at which they’ll have to give in.  If they attempt to relieve the pressure by giving in to some White demands, in the hope of appeasing White demands, then Suvorov’s Law comes into play, particularly if there are legitimate White leaders (and not System ringers – always a concern, something we must avoid) who will never be satisfied and will continue upping the demands. Once concessions are made, the floodgates will be opened, and the legitimacy of White interests confirmed. 

Getting back to the idea of the System trying to maintain repression – the reason why Suvorov’s Law has been actualized so many times in history is that repression is difficult to maintain at a high level for long periods of time, particularly when the repressed group is the majority – or at least a plurality – of the population. That’s why it is important to get started with Democratic Multiculturalism now, with Whites still a majority, and the “titles” are a good place to start.  And remember, I am not saying Title VI legal actions alone, but a concerted effort, including Title VII and IX, as well as all other aspects of anti-White discrimination in society, also using political, social, economic, and other forms of protest.  The struggle must be on a wide front, but it needs to start somewhere.  

Hypocrisy vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Salter right, Counter-Currents wrong.

First, please note the hypocrisy of Counter-Currents here (yes, I know – using “hypocrisy” and “Counter-Currents” in the same sentence is a perfect example of redundancy). That site is the premier focal point of ethnonationalism in Der Movement, strongly promoting atomized ethnic identities.  Then they run an article criticizing Irish and Italians for identifying ethnically instead of racially.  Inconsistent much?  Oh, they’ll argue that they refer to Europe with respect to ethnonationalism and Cuomo lives in America, not Italy – but so what?  Isn’t the basic principle the same?  And what about Gerry Adams?  He’s an Irishman from Belfast. According to ethnonationalism, he’s Irish, period.  Why critique him then for eschewing some sort of pan-European “Whiteness?’’  Or is it that the ethnonationalism of Counter-Currents has a purely personal, and not ideological, basis and thus has no underlying political consistency?  

Second, if we consider approaches to “democratic multiculturalism” then we can say that what Cuomo did was not 100% wrong.  Maybe 90% wrong, but not 100%.  First, he was in error in making an issue out of a non-issue: “Fredo” is not an ethnic slur; indeed, Don Trump, Jr. is labeled as such, and he’s of German-Scottish-Czech ancestry.  Second, Cuomo was even more in error in making it an ethnic rather than a racial issue – instead of complaining about an Italian-specific grievance, it should have been put into the context of being attacked for being a member of an European ethny, an anti-White attack, or at least, an attack against White ethnics.  Or, even if it was put in the language of an ethnic-specific grievance, race could have been introduced in the context of (truthfully) asserting that similar remarks (if we assume the remark actually was offensive, which it was not) would not be made to Blacks and Jews, etc. There are many approaches to a strategy of democratic multiculturalism that benefits Whites as a whole, and not just making it a narrow ethnic appeal to victimhood. Of course, this gets back to the first paragraph above – race-based approaches ultimately have to reject petty nationalism and the whole ethnonationalist mindset.

The key to “democratic multiculturalism” is to delegitimize multiculturalism by making it a tool for majority interests.  As Salter states, multiculturalism as practiced in the West consists of minority group mobilization coupled to majority group atomization and the complete neglect of, and opposition, to majority group interests. Thus, any move toward majority group mobilization runs counter to the entire underlying premise of “Western” multiculturalism.

I have detailed a number of approaches, and responses to leftist reactions, with respect to “democratic multiculturalism.” I urge serious and strategic thinkers – by definition, not individuals who are committed members of Der Movement, Inc. – to consider the overall strategy as well as the specific tactics described to help achieve the goals of that strategy. Remember the saying – “if everyone is my brother I have no brother.” By analogy, if everyone, particularly the majority, partakes of multiculturalism, then there is no multiculturalism. By that point, it is pure sociopolitical chaos, heightening the contradictions of the System, which is what we want (or should want). The key is for people to participate specifically and openly as Whites, to make it clear that this is majoritarian multiculturalism, and not merely atomized White ethnies pretending to be non-White grievance groups. There’s nothing wrong with noting a specifically ethnic component of your complaint, as long as it is in the context of it being a White ethnic group.  Again, a pro-White Cuomo, in response to a real (and not imagined) ethnic slight, could call out the slight as an anti-Italian slur BUT at the same time note that the reason why such slurs are acceptable to the Left is because Italians are a White ethnic group (contra the Nordicists, but that’s another issue), and that Italians are attacked as part of the System’s anti-White bias.  And the same holds for the Irish or any other European-derived ethny. So, the problem is not an ethnic-based complaint, the problem is when the complaint begins and ends with ethnicity, and is not broadened to include race. Ethnicity should simply be a wedge to leverage the issue of race into the conversation. It’s not anti-Italian or anti-Irish bias that is to be presented as the real issue, but anti-White bias manifesting in particular cases as attacks against Italians or the Irish.

By the way, as an aside, this is what Hampton believes “looks very White.” Now, there are of course some Hispanics who are White – people who have no New World admixture and are essentially the same as their European ancestors, as well as some people with very low levels of New World admixture that is not significantly higher than those White Americans whose “Indian Princess” stories are in fact true. So, “White Hispanics” do indeed exist; unfortunately for Hampton, Jessica Alba obviously is not one of them (or at least, does not look like one of them – and it is by physical appearance that Hampton made his comment to begin with).

Trumps, Naps, Fetishists, Informants Oh My!

Der Movement.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Two rules of thumb:

1. If someone, online or in person, starts talking to you about committing illegal acts, chances are good they are an informant, or some other type of infiltrator or law enforcement agent.

2. When in doubt, see rule one.

Observations:

1. Do you notice that violent leftists never seem to get caught up in these stings?  Two possibilities (which are not mutually exclusive). First, the Left is more careful and serious than the jackass Right.  Second, the far left Trump administration and its law enforcement agencies are specifically targeting rightists.

2. Idiots like the person charged are likely brought to the point of desperation because of the manifest failures of Der Movement’s affirmative action Quota Queen “leadership.”

3. If someone wants “chaos” then there are plenty of perfectly legal and non-violent ways to achieve this. The multicultural system is so inherently unstable that political campaigns, rallies, propaganda, the “democratic multiculturalism” for majorities Salter espouses, and a myriad of other political and metapolitical stratagems, can cause societal chaos far better than talking to some informant or actually doing some foolish acting out. Heighten the contradictions!

4. One wonders what percentage of commentators on the varied Beavis-and-Butthead Far Right forums out there are actually government informants, leftist infiltrators, and other frauds. 5%? 10%? 20%? More than 50%? (The answer for Far Left forums probably hovers around 0%, see above).

Another attack on White ethnics from Counter-Currents. Never mind some of the comments. Not on the cusp of whiteness here.  That’s pure Nordic, son!  Just like this look-a-like. The Wild Bunch as anti-fascist fiction?

Seriously though, Counter-Currents is increasingly establishing itself as a Der Movement focal point of hostility against White ethnics.  Shabbos sud fools who contribute their shekels to Johnson take note. If Counter Currents gives you an extended middle finger, withhold donating to them. You owe nothing to those who despise you.

Of course, some “ethnics” do deserve contempt.  Since this blog talks honestly about ethnic types, let’s consider for a moment Judge Napolitano.  This guy has always annoyed me; he can be considered in many ways “peak wop.”  Now, the fact that he’s squat, coarse-faced, broad-nosed, non-gracile, and looks and moves like an over-stuffed puppet, cannot reasonably be held against him as a person. But what about aspects of his persona that he has control over?  The puffed-up Guido hairstyle, which is vaguely reminiscent (albeit in a more attenuated form) to that of Ray Luca of Crime Story, would look stupid enough on a younger man, but for a man of “Nap’s” age it is positively ridiculous. What’s next? Gold chains and cheap cologne?  Worse is his constant petty sniping against Trump.  Certainly, Trump deserves criticism from the Right for being an insincere fraud and a buffoon, but that’s not what Napolitano is doing. Instead, he attacks Trump using leftist talking points, and the rumor is that this derives from personal animus over being snubbed by Trump for some sort of judicial appointment. This Napolitano, who older generations of Eyetalians would term “a real guinea,” deserves all of the contempt he undoubtedly receives from the Nordicist types. He’s earned it.

Worse than Napolitano is Cuomo, and worse than Cuomo is any idiot who believes that Cuomo is any sort of spokesman for Afrowop-Americans. Counter-Currents has degenerated to such an extent that each post is worse than the last, and the comments read as if they were lifted from the worst of Chateau Heartiste.  

Salter Trad Addendum

More comments.

Salter and I agree on most (albeit not all) of the fundamentals, as readers of this blog have long known.  Focusing specifically on the Trad analysis pieces, I agree with the general pro-White, pro-Majoritarian, EGI-oriented basis.  I agree that reactive nationalism is a failure, stupid Bunkerism that is counter-productive. The recent Barr-Planet of the Apes fiasco was instructive.  Forgetting for a moment Barr’s history and ancestry, what do we see?  A crude “acting out,” spewing forth racially-charged insults lacking in any productive content (not much balkanization ensued, given Barr’s subsequent lickspittle apologetic spin), followed by the usual groveling apologies and pathology-related excuses (“it was the Ambien”).  So, “racists” are seen to be merely crude bigots, the focus of public humiliation and social pricing, followed by apologetic groveling and implications that negative comments about Coloreds must be due to medication side-effects or some other mental-medical pathology.  In summary, we would all have been better served if Barr had kept her reactive comments to herself.

One difference in our positions is that Salter seems to support liberal nationalism, at least as an option that may appeal to the largest mass of the native population, while still maintaining some degree of concern for ethnic interests.  This seems to me a sort of mainstreaming, making ethnic nationalism more palatable by moving toward the center and justifying greater ethnic homogeneity based upon an appeal to “liberal democratic values” (sort of Jobling’s argument when he was running his website).

However, just like the “Amren Gateway Hypothesis,” mainstreaming has zero empirical evidence supporting it.  Actually, it has a remarkable record of failure, most notably and recently with Ms. Le Pen.

Mainstreaming is based on the idea that the bulk of voters are toward the center, so any Far Right party that wants to win needs to move toward that center and become more palatable to those voters.

There are a number of problems with that.  First, do we know for sure that the target voters are always in the (relative) center, politically speaking?  The genius of the Trump campaign was to realize that a winnable fraction of Republican voters were significantly to the right of the GOP political establishment. In America, in the GOP, it has been the voters who have been mainstreaming toward the Establishment candidates (the Bush family, Dole, McCain, and Romney) rather than the other way around.  Trump moved toward those voters (farstreaming), rather than asking the voters to move politically to accommodate him.  Orban in Hungary is the same.  Of course, the WN position is still much farther to the right than those voters, but, still, the general principle holds.

Second, let us assume that from a Far Right perspective, most of the voters are more towards the center.  So, should the Far Right move toward them?  No, that’s a losing proposition.  Mainstream conservatives always like to feint right come election time.  If you as a Far Right candidate are moving left, toward the center, at some point your position and that of the mainstream conservatives will appear to converge.  Right-of-center voters will always prefer the “safe” and “electable” mainstream conservatives over mainstreaming Far Rightists “tainted” with a past history of “extremism.”  If there is little difference between your position and that of the right-feinting Establishment Right, why would anyone vote for you?  Even those voters skeptical of the Establishment Right’s credibility regards their right-feint won’t be tempted to look in a more radical direction if you’ve watered down your views so as to become another “conservative.”  You will lose respect and credibility, and “turn off” your own more radical base.

What about the young?  What about the need to be more moderate to gain a following among the youth?  Aren’t they all liberals anyway? What about the crowing of the likes of Matt Bai that the bigoted faction of the Trump base is disappearing?  The demographic end of the pincer, the decrease in the White population fraction and the concomitant increase in the Coloreds, well, yes, we all know that is occurring.  But, isn’t that a reason so many Whites, upset at those changes, voted for Trump in the first place?  It’s the other end of the pincer that is less convincing – that the liberalism of young Whites is an immutable characteristic that they will carry with them in the years and decades to come.

There is a stereotype, with some preliminary empirical support, that people tend to get more “conservative” with age.  Let’s say, more generally, they shift to the right.  We can only expect that trend to become even sharper as the racial situation for Whites worldwide continues to degenerate, and tribalism becomes a more dominant force in politics.  Also keep in mind that young Whites have been subjected to an unrelenting barrage of leftist propaganda, which is exponentially been made more potent via the Internet: schools, the news and entertainment media, social media, etc. At the same time, severe social pricing (and the leftist thuggery Trump and Sessions benignly enable) silences rightist voices.  No wonder then that the youth are leftist (besides typical youthful naive faux-idealism); indeed, it is a surprise that any young Whites have healthy ideas at all.  

As these young people age, and encounter the harsh realities of life, and get less dependent upon social media and snarky comedians to form their sociopolitical worldview, they will inevitably jettison, bit by bit, their leftist politics.  They will learn that regardless of their “tolerance” that they are still low-caste subaltern Whites, hated by everyone else and targeted by the System.  Heterosexual White men will find themselves the worst of all, untouchables, the Dalits of the Earth.  Will their leftist social conditioning (i.e. brainwashing) still hold under those conditions?

The likes of Bai should not get overconfident.

In the end, the Far Right needs to get the masses to farstream to us, rather than we mainstreaming to them.

Getting back to the main point: I see no need for liberal nationalism or any other approach that does not give primacy of place to EGI.  Ethnoracial nationalism needs to be sane and balanced for sure, the “mixed ethic” cited by Salter in the third section of On Genetic Interests, and some fundamental, basic human rights can be included (dependent of course on how we define “human”).  Nevertheless, we should not “mainstream” and compromise in order to appeal to fickle, lemming-like masses of sheeple.

If we believe we are the future, the masses eventually must come to us.  “Must” does not imply inevitability; we will need to work for it.  “Must” does imply that this is the only way to achieve long-lasting goals.

The necessity for “culture warriors” I also agree with.  The Right has always been weak in this regard, amplified by the Right’s “declare (premature) victory and go home” pathology, unlike the ever-striving, never-satisfied, always-fighting Left.  It is no coincidence that aggressive leftist SJW political correctness is soaring now under the Presidency of Donald “Alt Right God Emperor” Trump just as it did under Ronald “KKK groups disband because we won in November 1980” Reagan.  Instead of long culture wars of attrition and the long slog through the institutions, the Right gives us the false idols of Men on White Horse frauds.

Three practical problems with “cultural warfare” – 

1. The Right (particularly in the Anglosphere) has been notoriously weak with respect to cultural warfare (I’m talking about the real nationalist Right here, not the “Religious Right”), metapolitics, and serious ideology.  I’m not sure that many on the Right even understand why any of that is important, much less that they would know how to effectively engage in such activities.

2. To the extent that “cultural warriors” exist on the Right, there is poor integration with the more explicitly political arm of the “movement.”  Now, in America, there really isn’t a political arm either (Trump is a civic nationalist cuck and fraud); so in America, in the mess over here, there really isn’t any effective political or any metapolitical/cultural activism.  However, elsewhere – in Europe and Australia for example – there is very weak integration, as the nationalist politicians (or what passes for them) engage in reactive nationalism, in mainstreaming to civic nationalism, or try and dabble in metapolitics themselves, generally with poor results (see point 3).  And in America, whatever embryonic metapolitical and even more nebulous political activism exists is either non-integrated, or you have the ineffective “jack of all trades” problem discussed next.

3. As Salter asserts, for the most part there will need to be specialization of the political and metapolitical spheres, following by cooperative integration of these activities and efforts.  A truly effective “jack of all trades” – someone skilled at politics who is also well versed in ideology and who is a metapolitical master and culture warrior – is very rare (and should be treasured if identified).

A problem therefore is when people engage in activity for which they are ill-suited.  There are people on the American scene (no names, but you can figure out who fits where) with this problem.  There are some people who would have been best suited for electoral politics – either directly as candidates themselves or indirectly as advisers and campaign managers for candidates – and these people instead ineffectively flounder as faux-intellectuals, website managers, ideologists, culture warriors, etc.  On the other hand, there are people suited for intellectual pursuits (even though I may disagree with their views) who put themselves forward in “movement” politics (not even electoral politics), and fail miserably in any leadership capacity whatsoever.

Probably we need even more sub-specialization – for example, some people may be good at organizing meetings and conferences at the level of attracting speakers and attendees, but are completely incompetent at security.  Others may be good at security, but too introverted to do the broad organizing.  Some people are skilled at the more cultural aspects of metapolitics, others at ideology, or are science experts.  We don’t have a critical mass of specialists yet, and the ones we do have can’t work together because of ideological disagreements, personality clashes, and feuding.

One omission in Salter’s work is a lack of analysis on how to defeat social pricing, and I would like to see Salter tackle that problem.

Like Salter, I support the idea of “democratic multiculturalism,” both as part of a main Plan A to defeat the System as well as a fallback Plan B position in case the System will continue going strong for the foreseeable future.  I’ve written a lot about this in the past and there is no need to rehash it now again.

In summary, Salter and I are in agreement with, say, 80% with 20% of difference (a Pareto distribution) on certain specific areas of importance.

I may have more to say on these topics in the future.

Salter Essay Analysis, Part I

Salter on Australian nationalism and what to do.

I would urge the reader to study Salter’s original essays either before or after reading my comments on them.

Salter has a two part essay about identitarian politics and nationalism from an Australian perspective, but what he writes is broadly applicable throughout the White world.  I’ll examine in part in turn, commenting on particular excerpts of relevance.  Again, these are only excerpts.  You should follow the link and read the whole thing.

The heights of Australian politics and culture have been hijacked by the leftist multicultural establishment. Anglo identitarians – those who think of themselves as part of Australia’s historic identity originating in British settlement or more broadly as part of European civilization – have been marginalized by the anti-Western left. The trend has been apparent for decades in politics and the culture industries. The process began in the universities and mass media. As a result Australia’s Western identity is ever more obscured by hostile news, commentary and curricula. It is being drowned by indiscriminate immigration and oppressed by globalist elites. The historic Australian nation is assailed from all sides at a time when it is leaderless, not protected by the sinews of government but tied up and gagged by them.

And the same applies to the entire Western world.

To fight back, people need a vision of the Australia they want. For what should they fight? The second half of this chapter compares types of nationalism that have been pursued through Australia’s history. For present purposes, nationalists and conservatives will know the fight is won or at least going in a winning direction when assimilation is once again winning over ethno-cultural diversity as a guiding principle for choosing immigrants; in particular when the refugee intake is ended and the migrant intake is greatly reduced and limited mainly to people of European descent; when the Chinese and Indian nations are no longer colonizing Australia and relations with these rising powers are stabilized…

Salter’s wisdom contrasts to Silker lunatics and Asian imperialists, who, under the guise of “White nationalism,” propose Asian colonization of Euro ethnostates and the “borders of the West” guarded by Chinese girls with guns. Indeed, Silk Road White nationalism would consider “Asian Australians” as more authentic representatives of that nation than the Anglo founding stock.

…when schools desist from radical indoctrination and teach children the truth about their nation’s and civilisation’s glorious history; when our sons and daughters are not pitted against each other in a fabricated gender war; when civil liberties are secured largely by keeping the state out of the private realm; when UN mandates are lifted to restore freedom of association, allowing citizens to choose among whom they live and do business; when core institutions are reformed to become more compatible with human nature instead of socially engineering and herding citizens; when the multicultural apparatus is dismantled as a system designed to oppress the nation and is replaced with a democratic multiculturalism that includes fair representation for Anglo Australians; when foreign ownership is once again regulated to protect Australian industry and home owners; in short when the historic nation throws off its shackles and reasserts its prerogatives.

Well said.

These policies will be enacted only when Anglo-Australians become sufficiently mobilised and organised to vote for their ethnic interests and build lobby, media, and educational organizations so powerful that wise politicians avoid offending national sensibilities or appearing less than eager to preserve national identity.

What Salter is talking about is building an infrastructure to leverage against the System in order to pursue ethnic interests.  Note to the Alt Right: Salter does not mention rallies in which “activists” come dressed up like Captain America and Batman, while at the same time denouncing the use of “uniforms.”

Because information is usually incomplete, especially concerning complex matters of policy, it is prudent in choosing goals to start with the most securely known interests. The most certain interests are biological, including personal health and a family that is safe and prosperous. That is why it is vital to have a robust diversified economy, secure borders and safe neighbourhoods. At the next layer of biological interests, one should invest in social cohesion and the secure identities upon which it relies. School curricula should induct children into their culture and history. Without such knowledge it is impossible for young adults to know themselves and Australia’s place in world history.

That is all prudent.

How to achieve those goals? I propose a dual strategy of political and cultural activism, with the two linked so as to mutually reinforce. I also discuss how individuals can contribute.

II

Political Activism

The successes of the Brexit and Trump campaigns point to the feasibility of advancing Western identitarian goals through electoral politics. 

Unfortunately, while Brexit and Trump represented a populist, if not nationalist, resistance, both campaigns (predictably for those who understand sociopolitical realities) have failed to accomplish what their supporters really wanted.  Brexit basically eschews Polish plumbers while welcoming Pakistani sex groomers and child rapists and Jamaican gang-bangers.  Trump’s Presidency has devolved into endless scandals, including sex scandals, and pardons for physically abusive race-mixing Negro boxers.

In Australia the same indication is provided by the success of parties that, together, are breaking the political duopoly that has dominated government since the Second World War…The electoral base of these minor parties consisted mainly of Anglo-Australians, defined broadly to mean individuals who have assimilated and identify with the British-derived nation…The European share of One Nation voters was greater than their 80% of the population.

Racial politics.

In a subsequent analysis, Black observed that the Turnbull government was attempting to win back One Nation voters by tough talk about citizenship and refugees.2 He argued that Turnbull was mindful of Senator Hanson’s wide support from “English-speaking Anzacs”, “English-speakers”, “Kiwis”, “disaffected and angry, white, Australian-born English speakers”, and “Poms”, the great majority being immigration conservatives.

The same old trick: mainstream conservatives shift right to poach ethnic patriotic voters, only to shill for more immigration and more anti-White policies once elected.  And the voters fall for the trick every time.  This also shows why “mainstreaming” is a recipe for failure. When “Far Right” parties “mainstream” and move toward the center, they get politically close enough to mainstream conservatism so as to allow the mainstream conservatives to plausibly position themselves as the “more acceptable and electable version of the same basic policies.”  Time and time again, mainstream conservatives outcompete mainstreaming patriots and time and time again, mainstreaming fails.  In Hungary, we instead see the success of what I call “farstreaming” – Orban, originally a more mainstream conservative, has gone from success to success the farther to the right he has moved; while his rightist competitors at Jobbik, originally on Orban’s right and a credible threat, have experienced political disappointment after they have mainstreamed so far they are now on Orban’s left.  Orban and Jobbik have essentially exchanged places on the Hungarian political spectrum, with greater success being observed with more radical rightist positions.  Even Trump’s election can be viewed as a form of farstreaming success, as Trump’s campaign (as opposed to the man himself and how he has governed) was the most “far right,” politically speaking of any since Reagan, and in some ways even more so.  Mainstreaming is a fraud.  Even if staying true to “extremist” principles results in electoral defeat, that’s better than ditching your principles and still being defeated.  At least in the first case, you stake out a position and gradually normalize it through participation in the political process; in the second case, you lose you vacate your ideological high ground and become just another vaguely “conservative” politician, albeit one unelectable compared to your more tame conservative colleagues because of your past “extremist” positions.  Mainstreaming gives you the worst of both electability and ideological promotion: you are still unelectable while weakening your ability to promote an ideology and educate the public.

One Nation’s appeal to Anglo Australians has profound implications. A party could dominate Australian politics if it became identified in the public mind as representing mainstream Australia. At the same time, the census reveals the nation is splitting into ethnic zones, accelerating the rise of identity politics, including among Anglo Australians. The makeup of One Nation’s supporters shows that the nation is not as far gone as its enemies hope, that survival is possible. For many journalists and commentators it is a bitter fact that the original Australian nation is not dead.

One Nation is showing the honesty and courage necessary to represent mainstream Australians and thus the national interest, especially on the issues of Islamic immigration, foreign ownership, and leftist bias in public broadcasting. The party would be allocating resources efficiently if it invested in appealing to its Anglo base, because Anglos are most likely to respond positively and because they are a majority of the population.

As a nationalist party that represents the majority population, One Nation or its successors could become a major political force. However there are obstacles to achieving this, the greatest being that the party’s ethnic appeal is due to the intuitions of the leadership. Party leaders care about Australia and are courageous but like the mainstream parties are not versed in the sociology or history of ethnicity and nationalism. Their ethnic vision of society is implicit. Beyond Pauline Hanson’s wish that Australia return to a relatively united culture, her party has not described the Australia they want in realistic demographic terms. This places One Nation among conventional political parties, not at the cutting edge of reform and renewal.

This is a key, important, fundamental observation, and it is good that Salter objectively identifies weaknesses in One Nation here.  This is particularly important since the same weaknesses are inherent in much of right-wing populist and “mild” nationalist parties and even in some “movement” groups, such as the Alt Right and certainly the Alt Lite.  No doubt Trump goes by “intuition” and “feeling” rather than by thoughtful analysis, ideology, and an explicit ethnoracial focus. We need cutting edge parties and leaders.

Pauline Hanson’s biographer, Anna Broinowski, summarises her nationalism as a deep nostalgia for the monocultural Anglo society of her childhood.7 The left and minority chauvinists disparage nostalgia for any European society. In reality it is noble to be nostalgic for the sense of belonging and community that Australia is losing. There is nothing wrong with such emotion as part of a social vision. But nostalgia can only serve that function if it is attached to analysis. That requires cultural expertise and vision. Politicians cannot be expected to cover all bases. They rely on intellectuals in the humanities and social sciences. The anti-national left’s domination of the universities helps explain why nationalist social analysis is weak.

That last sentence is important.  The suggestion, the implication is that the Right is weak intellectually, analytically, and academically.  The Left’s domination of academia is, as Salter asserts, one key reason for this.  But the Right itself is to blame, for its anti-intellectual tendencies, its reliance on irrational impulses to the exclusion of rational analysis, its eager grasping onto bizarre memes, fossilized dogmas, and crackpot conspiracy theories as well as crackpot pseudoscience.  What passes for “rightist academic analysis” these days is HBD nonsense and “traditionalist” rambling about “the pyramids of Atlantis” being built by “psychokinesis.”  The Right is an unfriendly place for rational, empirical academics, and until that changes, don’t expect the problems identified by Salter to be soon rectified.

Political leaders could exploit cultural capital by the following:

1. Talking about how cultural and racial diversity undermines social cohesion;

2. Introducing the public to the meaning and benefits of nationhood and its reliance on a dominant and confident core ethnic identity;

3. Explaining that multiculturalism is an ethnic hierarchy that subordinates Anglo Australians;

4. Linking indigenous identity to Australia’s historic Anglo identity;

5. Maintaining a rational rage against the corruption of the universities and proposing remedial policies;

6. Working with responsible protest groups to defend the right to public assembly;

7. Explaining how the ANZACs have been betrayed by abrogating the social contract between generations. They did not fight and die for open borders or multiculturalism or foreign ownership;

8. Formulating and transmitting these messages would be made possible by working with nationalist think tanks to obtain analysis and personnel. The identitarian political front cannot advance far without drawing on advances in the culture war.

Who is actually doing this?  

III

Cultural Activism

Identitarian goals can also be advanced by cultural and social work. This overlaps the idea of metapolitics, though that term has obscure post-modernist meanings. Raising ethnic and national consciousness is the prime goal of identitarian cultural activism, a necessary condition for national liberation.

At present patriotic ideas are marginal in academe but have the huge advantage of being largely true or at least open to scientific findings on history and ethnicity. Cosmopolitans, whether motivated by corporate or leftist or minority-chauvinist values, have become anti-scientific in order to construct an ideology that justifies attacking natural parochialisms, from families to nations. Long ago they expelled biological theories of human nature from the social sciences.8 The result has been intellectual chaos. Radical academics have maintained dominance only by non-intellectual means. Research by psychologist Jonathan Haidt9 confirm what many academics have experienced for decades, that conservatives and nationalist are driven out of university careers by hostile work environments and career-limiting bias.

This is all true.  But it is also true that the “movement” is all a “hostile work environment” for activists with an academic/intellectual bent.  The overall disinterest in EGI and, in general all of Salter’s work, is troubling.  In Salter and his work, activists have a rich resource that can be mined for ideas and for guidance, and most of them would rather dress up like Captain America at rallies, make drunken podcasts, or sniff about “spectral psychokinesis,” “orcs,” or “Kali Yuga.”  

Cultural warfare is more fundamental than electoral politics and has objectives broader than those of any political party, even one with a cultural string to its bow. A full cultural strategy cannot be managed by the political leadership; it must be conducted by cultural warriors. That is why the political and cultural strategies will often be separate specialisations, which nevertheless depend upon one another. Just as smart parties invest in culture, wise cultural warriors reach out to help political campaigns. Though neither side can be well managed by the other, both depend on the other; simultaneously self-managing and interdependent.

This is important, and I concur that such cooperation is crucial. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs.  Politicians, who pride themselves on their “pragmatism” and attention to “the real word,” often look with disdain on culture warriors, viewed as “pie in the sky theorists.” For their part, the culture warriors sniff disdainfully at “crude politics” and claim “the time is not right” and we should exclusively concentrate on “metapolitics” (ill-defined).

Those engaged in cultural advocacy for their people also need theory if they are to compete with opponents who for generations have been beating them hands down. The starting point is to understand how cosmopolitans and globalists have been winning. A key source is Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann’s 2004 text, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufmann traces the rise of radical cosmopolitanism from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century to its victory over America’s traditional culture leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. Instrumental for that victory was the left’s capture of much of the centralised mass media and elite university culture by the post-Second World War years. This wrested the heights of culture production and distribution from the hands of traditionalist Anglo-Americans. Since then radicals have been mopping up Anglo resistance. They put down the Old South’s resistance to desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965 they opened the borders to Third World immigration despite lack of popular support.

A missing word here: Jews.

When America lost the cultural cold war so did Australia because we depend on U.S. military and economic power and are net importers of American culture. Academic disciplines and markets for culture are international, especially within language zones such as the Anglosphere. Now the U.S. and Australia are being mopped up through replacement-level immigration, the final irreversible cultural-genocidal stage of the conflict.

Kaufmann’s analysis provides lessons in cultural warfare. Cosmopolitans invested in mobilizing intellectuals and professionals, and through them winning the hearts and minds of up-and-coming leaders. They:

1. Maintained their objectives but used flexible methods. Kaufmann traces the cosmopolitan movement back to 1876. Through all the ideological and organisational changes they retained their hostility to Anglo-Christian America. The New York Intellectuals, who brought cosmopolitanism to victory in the U.S., began in the 1930s as Stalinists, converted to Trotskyism before dividing into nihilistic radicals and pseudo-conservatives (‘neo-conservatives’). Persistence paid off in the 1950s and 1960s, almost a century later, when radicals found places in the universities and the federal government.

Jews.

2. Pursued objectives strategically. Cosmopolitans prioritised ethnic goals over other radical policies. This meant that the goal of liberal immigration trumped most other policies. For example, feminists and gay rights activists have not oppose the immigration of Muslims who hold them in contempt, and environmentalists did not oppose large scale immigration that increased the number of consumers and polluters.

Unlike Der Movement, which is incapable of thinking strategically, is always asserting an imminent System “collapse” and whose “long-term” planning is typically in the realm of weeks or months,

3. Funded their intellectuals with generous philanthropy.

Salter should be funded. The failed Tin Cup Fuhrers of Der Movement should not.

4. Established parallel institutions, social and educational, from which they sallied forth to participate in mainstream politics and culture.

Precisely the type of infrastructure building I’ve been promoting and that the “movement” ignores.

5. Developed tribe-like solidarity and hatreds. Kaufmann describes the pseudo ethnic character of the New York Intellectuals. One aspect of the tribal spirit of the radicals was their unwritten rule against public criticism of other leftists and their intolerance of those whose views they rejected. They showed a racist-like loathing and contempt for conservatives and small town Anglos.

Jews.

6. Found psychological substitutes for religion in ideology and organisations. Their cohesion and ultimate triumph were achieved despite them rejecting traditional religion, not because of it. Put differently, their militant atheism was costly, driven not by cost-benefit logic but by some non-rational impulse to attack Christendom. One lesson for universal nationalists, those who want everyone to enjoy the benefits of identity and community, is that their fight back will be easier because they support religious freedom.

7. Prioritised gaining positions in universities, government departments and the media.

8. Showed disdain and intolerance for opponents, which marginalised conservatives and nationalists, yielding an effective radical monopoly in the universities. This intolerance continues as a hallmark of culture industries across the West.

Unfortunately, the Right is often also intolerant of their own intellectuals.  “The future is in the forest,” don’t you know.

9. Strove to secure career paths for members. Junior recruits were mentored and defectors ostracised.

Compare that to Der Movement, where “leaders” have pontificated that such activities are useless since “the System will collapse within five years.”  Head to the hills!  Grab your musket and pemmican!

10. Put great effort into acquiring or starting journals of analysis and opinion, such as Ramparts and The New York Review of Books, mainstays of the New York Intellectuals. These magazines gave the network some aspects of an academy. They emphasised intellectual achievement, not electoral politics. They adopted the cultural warfare objective of influencing the culture industries, which construct and distribute information, including entertainment, news and commentary. By the 1950s the New York Intellectuals were being hired by the universities and government agencies, which accelerated the march of cultural Marxism.

Jews.

A deeper unstated implication of Kaufmann’s analysis is that these radical cosmopolitans…

Jews.

Religion has been a major front in the culture wars for at least a century. It should give pause that radicals and multiculturalists strive to separate the nation from Christianity and turn the secular state against that religion. Andrew Fraser has studied the role of Christianity in forging the English and Australian nations.12 Other theorists have studied religion as a “group evolutionary strategy” that forges cohesion and cooperation.13 Still other analysts observe that religions provide identity markers.14

According to evolutionary biologists D. S. Wilson and K. MacDonald, Christianity has underpinned European cultural group strategies, which release and direct intense altruism. These group strategies defend bio-cultures by clarifying identity and intensifying altruism. Andrew Fraser includes Australia in his observation that the Christian religion, through myth and ritual, has provided motivation essential for ethnic and national defence. England and Australia originated as Christian nations.

I’m no fan of Christianity and certainly no fan of Fraser, but I understand where the Anglo-Australian Salter is coming from here.

Both Christians and secular patriots need to understand the importance of religion in the culture wars. For Christianity has been a historic identity marker uniting European nations and Europe as a whole against existential and internal threats.

That’s fine as far as it goes.  It goes too far when people make Christianity the litmus test for the West, put religion ahead of race, and start ranting that atheists and agnostics (and pagans too I suppose) should make a pretense of Christian belief so as to “fit in.”  No, sorry, not going to do that. By the way, it is the responsibility of Christian racialists and nationalists to show us how their religion can be reformed and is currently compatible with EGI.  It is not the responsibility, and certainly not the obligation, of non-Christian atheists to help Christians reform their cuck-religion.

These great deeds could not have been accomplished without a Church which saw its pastoral duty as extending to defence of the people, their nations and civilisation. De-Christianisation has been a successful strategy for breaking down ethnic and national solidarity of Western peoples. 

The Christian churches themselves have been in the forefront of this.  Can they be reformed?  Christians need to show the way.  Not me.

Countering this is an important part of an identitarian cultural strategy. 

I really do not agree with that.

The concept of “political warfare” was adopted by Rich Higgins, a security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the early Trump presidency. Higgins described the unprecedented institutional attacks on Trump and noted that:

Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.16

Higgins also described the larger goals of political warfare:

Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become[s] self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.17

Trump has been busy destroying himself and shunning his White base.

It is relevant that Higgins knew, as did every political analyst in the U.S., that Trump’s implicit constituency was white America. The deep state’s goal is not only to bring down the Trump presidency but to break the political will of the historic American nation. A similar situation exists in Australia, with the difference that the political leadership is still in the hands of the multicultural establishment.

The only reason to support Trump.

It is significant that Higgins, a staffer loyal to Trump’s original policies, was fired by a more senior staffer. Training competent and loyal staff is one obvious benefit of cultural activism, which will be discussed further.

Are we surprised that Higgins is gone?  Trump has shifted left upon election, as do ALL Republican “conservatives.”

IV

Feedback: the Virtuous Cycle

So far I have discussed political and cultural strategies for protecting national identity and thus cohesion. Also important is the relationship between them. Electoral and cultural successes need to feed on one another to produce positive feedback. That salutary process should be facilitated where possible because only exponential growth can allow national movements to acquire the numbers and commitment they need to stand against globalist forces.

Very true.  But as I stated above, both sides of the rightist Political-Cultural divide disdain the other.

The cultural front can also help the political front by providing able and loyal staffers. Incompetent or subversive staff are a frequent reason minor parties fail. Patriotic parties must be able to draw on a pool of speech writers, policy analysts and media people who not only support conservative and nationalist values but are able to defend them with social and economic arguments. Promising politicians are too often hobbled, diverted, or hijacked by opportunists.

Or, in many cases, the opportunists are the politicians themselves. Hello Trump!

By constructing parallel institutions in education, media and welfare – all cultural projects – the movement would be better placed to retain its core values as it grows, resisting the temptation to compromise with “big tent” politics. The goal should be to roll back the subversive aspects of the cultural revolution that began in the 1960s while accepting change that is benign or harmless.

Parallel cultural institution should be of sufficiently high quality to be worthy of large investments and philanthropic bequests. Projects should be positive, not reactive. Wealthy individuals will only support groups whose operations are scalable, i.e. whose output rises with investment. Thus they will look for talented individuals and organisations whose performances can be broadcast on radio, television or internet. In the early phase the key ingredient is quality, not quantity.

Who will do this infrastructure building?  The current “movement” has proven itself incapable of doing so.

Two obvious examples are a news service and, more importantly, an online academy. The latter would teach what the universities refuse to teach. Subjects would include social science that incorporates biosocial theories of human nature. Students would be introduced to research on ethnicity, nationality, social cohesion, political and cultural history, reproductive strategies, gender and race, and comparative civilisation.

The dual culture-politics strategy makes sense only if it includes a reformist critique of the universities’ anti-Western bias. The social sciences and humanities are the jewels in the globalist crown. They must be won back to serve truth. Only by fixing the corruption in higher education will political victories be sustainable.

How to fight social pricing?  Theorists like Salter should tackle this problem.  I have no ideas myself other than that of building a sufficient infrastructure so as to “defang” the power of social pricing.  But this is a classic “chicken-and-egg” scenario since social pricing stands in the way of the initial steps of infrastructure building required to defang social pricing.

Political and cultural strategies should be aimed at carving out a constituency. In asymmetrical conflicts the little guy does not have many victories, and when he does, the resulting political and cultural capital is fleeting. So victories should be maximally exploited. The goal should be to complete the feedback loop. Political victories yield platforms, windows of publicity. These should be used to draw people’s attention to important values. Identity comes first, because interests so often depend on who we are.

No greater victory has been won by the enemies of the Australian nation and the West than the obscuring of traditional identities. Those the gods would destroy they first make mad, and loss of identity is madness. Nationalist advocates should expend their limited political capital on clarifying and reaffirming the nation’s core Anglo European identity. That is best achieved through two-way feedback between political and cultural activities.

Good sense, no doubt.  How to actually go about doing it is another story. The “movement” as it exists today is a poor vehicle for getting us there.

(a)

Multiculturalism

An arena in which feedback should be effective is multiculturalism. This is an important doctrine used to legitimate mass non-European immigration and suppress majority resistance.

Identitarians need a Plan B in situations where (and while) nationalism has failed to produce a homogeneous nation state. They need a strategy that protects ethnic and civilisational interests in the face of hostile multicultural regimes. In particular, the strategy needs to be workable in a situation where the majority or original nation has been subordinated by the aggressive type of multiculturalism practised in the West. This type consists of an alliance between minority ethnics and big coercive governments, promoted by the left cultural establishment.

And that Plan B is democratic multiculturalism, which I endorse, and which actually can form a component of Plan A as well.

A promising strategy is to advocate “democratic multiculturalism”, in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises…Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance. 

“Movement” retards say all of that is “dishonoring our ancestors.”  Instead we all need to “grab dem muskets” and head off into the woods.

The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.

Exactly, do both at the same time; thus Plan B can be a part of Plan A, as well as being a fallback position in case Plan A fails.

(b)

Risks of Feedback

Cultural activists should remain autonomous, speaking truth to power. To do so they should not be wedded to any politician or party. They should throw their support behind politicians who are good for Australia and punish those who are not. 

In a word: Trump.  The lickspittle worship of the “God Emperor” by factions of the Right is juvenile and pathetic. That’s America; as Salter suggests, the same principle applies to Australia (and throughout the Western world).

Likewise, politicians should support promising cultural projects. They need to gather constituents able to diffuse ideas into the community. There is no ironclad solution. The relationship between political and cultural activism will sometimes need to be explicitly managed. What is certain is that a national revival will be unattainable without positive feedback between them.

“Explicitly managed.”  I agree, because as I suggested above, if left to their own devices, the political and cultural spheres will disdain each other and achieve nothing…for the Right.  Of course, the more politically mature Left has had a seamless cooperation between Politics and Culture for many decades. Question: Who will be these explicit managers?

A fundamental challenge is weak leadership caused by political expediency. 

In a word: Mainstreaming.

 (c)

Personal Activism

Finally, I want to discuss personal strategy. What can one isolated person do with few resources and an imperfect grasp of the situation? Those engaged in asymmetric conflict must think hard about this question. First and always, citizens should strive to learn more about society, human nature, and the political process, circumventing establishment censorship.

Individual activism can be political and cultural. On the political front, join or support a party or special interest group that represents our people directly or indirectly. Choose one that is capable of making a difference. That is usually not a single-issue or tiny party. Whichever party or group you do join, agitate to have it accept members who are open national activists.

Cultural activism is broader and more varied, including individual artistic expression. On the joining side, get involved with or if necessary establish a group performing useful or needed work. Examples include supporting patriotic events such as Australia Day and Anzac Day; celebrating cultural events, such as Anglo-Celtic and European ethnic festivals and local community events. Become involved in community associations such as historical societies and local suburban groups, such as those resisting high-rise property development. Look for ways to help old people and families trapped in hostile immigrant suburbs. Friendly contact can reduce the sense of isolation and threat. Do chores, help with shopping. Alert the local council and police about local crime and anti-social behaviour. Provide information about welfare rights.

These are exactly the sorts of things I have been advocating for a long time, even as far back as my interview for Robert Griffin’s book.  The “movement” has not listened; the Type I activists have neither the desire nor the aptitude for these types of activities.

As already noted, religion is an important front in the culture war. There are things individuals can do. The religious should get involved in their local churches. Have a presence. Express yourself sincerely while listening to others. Urge ministers, priests and lay people to respect Anglo Australians’ multicultural rights and return the church to its pastoral duty of uniting all communities. Oppose those who seek to hijack religion to harm the nation. The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification. They can teach children about the religion of their ancestors, the heroes of their faith, their music, art and literature. Cultural Christians can encourage clerics who speak up for the nation and for wholesome values.

For an atheist like me, this: “The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification” seems like good sense.

Stand up for your beliefs at work and among colleagues and friends. Use common sense. There are often opportunities to express viewpoints in workplaces. That includes responses to workplace surveys and electing union representatives. Communicate your views in a non-aggressive manner that maintains social norms.

This is an extremely important paragraph of suggestions.  The last sentence is the sort of it-should-be-obvious advice that escapes many “activists.”  Crude Bunkerism is counter-productive.  Set a good example, and, as Salter suggests “use common sense.”  Make use of the opportunities that present themselves to get pro-White views aired, normalizing such views, engaging in “democratic multiculturalism,” and heightening the contradictions while promoting racial balkanization.

Elites have greater responsibility. Individuals influential in politics, economy or culture should examine their consciences. They have a duty of care, especially to their own nations.

Elites are traitors and at some time in the future need to be held accountable for their treason.

V

Choosing an Adaptive Nationalism

A big decision individuals need to make concerns political goals. What are the most adaptive policies relating to the national question?

Our starting position is nationalist, meaning that the nation is something worth preserving. But what is a nation and why is it valuable? At the start of this essay I described some nationalist policy objectives, without defining nationalism. For present purposes it can be defined as a form of social cohesion or solidarity derived from national identity. At its simplest and most cohesive a nation is an ethnic group living in its homeland, the latter being a named and demarcated territory. An ethnic group is a population with a proper name that believes itself to be descended from common ancestors.

Politicians refer to the nation while perpetuating mass indiscriminate immigration and approving a coercive multicultural apparatus that subordinates the founding historic nation. Are such politicians nationalists and can their policies produce social cohesion?

No.

To decide that, we need to examine doctrines that have attracted the nationalist label.

I will next proceed to an analysis of Part II, when time allows.