Category: Duchesne

Race in the News, 9/19/16

Several items.

Why do Whites tolerate this?  Whites: A race of loser cucks, indeed.

On Yockey; I am gratified that some of my work is listed there to honor Yockey, a great man.

That’s good, but one tires about hearing about “Pepe and “Kek.”  The only good about those juvenile memes is that they represent a proof of principle about spreading memes independent of the System.  Now, can we actually start spreading memes apart from cartoon frogs and idiotic ranting?

Exactly, similar to the point I posted yesterday.  The hysteria about Trump is tragicomic. Apparently, calling a bomb a bomb is worse than someone actually planting the bomb in the first place.  The only flaw in Alt-Right analyses is that they don’t go far enough. The Left does not hate Trump merely because he speaks the truth (sometimes) in a politically incorrect manner and is thus agitating certain “White resentments” – it is more fundamentally because Trump is in their “minds” a proxy for White America, the real object of their unrelenting hatred.

Also: I’ll agree with Roissy on one thing – Trump’s Les Deplorables imagery was excellent and I must admit that Der Touchback has been handling the whole “basket” incident with considerable skill.

Another Look At the Yellow Fist of Hatred

The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites.

Excerpt, emphasis added:

A few months ago when Trump was beginning his incredible campaign, a minor politician in Vancouver, city councillor Kerry Jang, demanded that the planned Trump Tower in Vancouver have its name changed to signal disapproval of Trump’s “racism”. Jang, acting as if the Chinese were the new owners of Vancouver, said that Trump was a “bigot” who stood against the Canadian values of “diversity”.  

People like Jang dislike any sense of White identity no matter how implicit it may be. What matters most to the Yin and Jangs is the utilization of White leftist ideas to promote the ethnic interests of Chinese in Canada, a people who come from a most racist culture, yet rarely waste a word about it. Moreover, despite all the myriad differences and disputes between non-White activists, at the end of the day they have a common enemy that unites them: European identity. 

Of course, Jang hates White interests. White man, don’t be fooled by “Chinese maidens” and Japanese anime clones sent to racial nationalist sites to distract you from the Yellow Peril. Yes, the current, the immediately pressing, danger is from the Jews and the colored immigration flood they’ve unleashed, the Muslims, as well as racial integration. However, beyond that lurks the clenched yellow fist of hatred, perhaps the greatest long-term threat to White existence. The immediate danger has to be dealt with, but does not erase the long-term threat. Note though that the Yellow Peril also contributes to the immediate threat as well: if they can destroy the White man now, without a direct confrontation, all the better for them, eh?

Thus, Derbyshire can blah, blah, blah all he wants, but our “revealed preference” is no Rosies in America.

Odds and Ends, 2/1/15

Some minor points.

In anticipation of tomorrow’s important holiday, some odds and ends:

A news story about Marine Le Pen becoming hysterical when it was suggested that there was any possibility of a FN-Golden Dawn collaboration. One rationale for this hysteria was:

More, it is unlikely Le Pen would want to be seen supporting any Greek party after the National Front’s repeated attacks on billions in eurozone bailout money, much of it at the expense of French taxpayers, being poured into Greece following its economic collapse.

That’s great.  What then to make of Marine’s support of the far-Left Greek Syriza party, whose main electoral thrust was being “anti-austerity,” which crudely – but truthfully – can be defined as them promoting the idea that the Greeks should be Medish deadbeats too selfish and lazy to make the sacrifices to pay off their debts.

It would seem that Syriza, unlike Golden Dawn, does not have a “filthy image” for the esteemed Ms. Le Pen?

In America, we have an interesting contrast. On the one hand, the Republican base of support is strongly anti-amnesty, and not well disposed to illegal immigrants (and to some extent, even legal ones).  And yet, all the leading contenders for the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination are pro-immigrant, pro-amnesty immigration “moderates’ (i.e., far-leftists), who have contempt for their own base of support and for the American people. And, despite this contrast, and the ill-disguised hatred and contempt these candidates have for their own supporters, these supporters will gladly line up like lemmings and go and vote for them.

Speaking of hatred and contempt, we have this story.  Interesting how the HBDers love Jews like this, and also interesting how people who “know the score” about the Jews love the HBDers.  That’s one strange love triangle, with ardent (unrequited) love on one side, and hatred and contempt on the other.

Intersecting HBD and free speech, we have this article, about another of the HBDers’ favorite groups.

About vaccination.

The System vs. Democratic Multiculturalism

Further analysis.
I would like to further explore some aspects and implications of the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” – the idea supported by Salter and Duchesne that Whites need to play the multicultural game by demanding a “seat at the table” while resolutely demanding that White identity and interests be taken seriously by the regime.  My contribution to the debate was advocating that Whites become as loud and obnoxious in this regard as are the Others, constantly pushing memes of anti-White discrimination and forcing the diversity-mongers to take their ideals at face value instead of as a thinly disguised grab for Other-Power.
This has of course prompted the usual outcry from the peanut gallery of the pathetic “movement” – this strategy is “weak” and it “dishonors our ancestors.”  As if the current “movement,” with its decades of unending failure, tragicomic buffoonery, complete infiltration by System operatives, and unrelenting stupidity, is something that “our ancestors” would be very proud of. Those complaints demonstrate that the complainer is too stupid to discern that the strategy outlined is “means” not “ends” – it is, simply put, a form of sociopolitical ju-jitsu to undermine the multiculturalist system by forcing that system to live up to is own ideals down the slippery slope to chaos, or be exposed as hollow and hypocritical.  Stating this openly is not a problem, since the System will know it anyway; the point is to press the issue in such a way as to create a “heads we win, tails they lose” scenario so that the System fails regardless of how they attempt to address the issue.
Consider that multiculturalism is based on the “ideal” of minority collectivist mobilization and majority atomization and passivity. Minorities will continue to be mobilized; that is the first principle of multiculturalism, even more fundamental than majority passivity.  Minority mobilization is a given (and we would wish it so, since minority passivity would lead to full assimilation and miscegenation even faster than currently, and would lull Whites to sleep even more than now). Therefore, the key to destabilize the System is majority mobilization. To mobilize Whites, one needs to give them something to get mobilized about. Like it or not, in today’s Last Man society, the White masses will not get mobilized to “honor their ancestors” or to “actualize a High Culture.”  The far-Right pro-White elites may be so motivated today, and, in a future state run according to our principles, the masses would follow the path of honor and greatness.  But today? Today, Whites need to be mobilized through grievance, through racial self-interest, through anger, through exposure of anti-White discrimination, through the entire immersion of Whites in a self-discovery of identity through the same paths followed by other groups in the morass of multiculturalism.
At this point, we need to consider some of the possible ways the System may attempt to derail the strategy of democratic multiculturalism. The following is in no way a comprehensive analysis, but a brief survey, to stimulate further thought, analysis, and refinement.  Please note this applies mostly to the American situation, the situation in Europe is quite different. Europe has rigid speech control laws (which activists there need to overturn), while, at the same time, having relatively weak social pricing.  In America, we have the opposite:  de jure free speech, coupled with de facto control due to intense social pricing.
The System would either Refuse or Accept the place of Whites as full partners at the multicultural table. Refusal is more likely than acceptance, at least at the early stage.  Both refusal or acceptance can be turned to our benefit.  However, at the same time, the System would attempt to manipulate both refusal or acceptance in ways beneficial to their side.  How could they do so and what could be our response?
With respect to Refusal, there could be: Ignoring, Ridicule, Argumentation, Social Pricing.
Ignoring is the easiest to deal with in the long run, although it may seem daunting in the short run. If we are to believe our own propaganda, then the situation for Whites will become more dire, more unpleasant, with the passing of time. We must persevere in our attempts to speak out, to ask Whites why their legitimate concerns are ignored.  We should look at “ignoring” as an opportunity: an empty niche to fill with our own voice.  Granted, that voice has to be reasonable, and not full of “movement” Nutzis ranting about cephalic indices, 0.15% “admixtures,” Evola and Savitri Devi, Atlantis, Hitler as the man above time, or other crackpot stupidities.
Ridicule is a potent weapon, since we live in “the age of snark.” We should expect the System to mobilize its celebrities, comedy routines, quick-witted levantines, smug politicians, etc. to mock the idea that “privileged Whites” could possibly have any problems. They would prey upon right-wing insecurities about “looking weak,” “being beta,” or “dishonoring our ancestors,” as if a stoic “stiff upper lip” while your race and civilization is being destroyed, as if “sitting poolside,” as if doing nothing – as if all of that is somehow “strong and honorable.”  Winning honors our ancestors; losing disgraces them.  Do what you have to do to win.  Persevere through the ridicule.  Again: if we believe our own propaganda, the situation for Whites will deteriorate to a point that I guarantee that, eventually, they will not find anti-White ridicule funny at all. We can ask why is the System mocking your legitimate suffering?  Why are your legitimate interests ridiculed?  Why is your identity a joke? And, most important: we absolutely must use the weapon of ridicule against our opponents. They are far more vulnerable in that regard, objectively speaking. It’s just that they have the “megaphone” and we do not.  Getting our message out will be a challenge.
Argumentation will be used, the standard leftist boilerplate about “White privilege” and the usual sociological nonsense.  In a “fair fight,” we could easily defeat our opponents in any such debate (provided we keep the Nutzis gibbering among themselves in a corner, where they belong). The problem is inherent in the other components of Refusal: having the power and the “megaphone,” the System could Ignore or Ridicule our Argumentation, or subject our representatives to Social Pricing. So, we can win Argumentation only to the extent that we can solve these other issues and create a more level playing field.  In any sort of “fair fight,” intelligent and rational racialists would wipe the floor with their opponents; the System knows this, which is why such a “fair fight” is not allowed. We must struggle to obtain it.
Social Pricing is in the long run the most difficult problem we face. Le Brun stated as much in a podcast, talking to Greg Johnson. In Europe, the social system does a better job of protecting folks from social pricing, while in “free market” America, such protection does not exist. Ultimately, we need to build an infrastructure of sufficient breadth and depth so as to make social pricing a weaker weapon of the System. Unfortunately, the pathetic “movement,” with its incompetent affirmative action leadership, shows no signs of doing so or even of acknowledging that such is necessary. Decades of time, money, and support have been wasted by “movement” trash and their “Der Tag” apocalyptic fantasies.  The truth is far more mundane and less “heroic.”  The “movement” won’t want to hear it. I’ll say it anyway. In my opinion, the real “turning point” will NOT be when “Whites storm the ramparts” or whatever other doomsday scenario whets the onanistic fantasies of the “movement” – instead, the turning point will be when overt pro-White activists can safely and securely live a comfortable middle-class existence while simultaneously being public far-Right representatives of White interests.  I can only imagine the “movement” reaction to that.  All the keyboard warriors will get lathered up into a frenzy over the “dishonor” and “pettiness” of such a statement.  By golly, we need to “head for the mountains” and “smash the System,” while playing “Rambo” and eating twigs and branches.  That’ll show ’em!  I hope sane and rational minds will consider my proposed “turning point” and realize I’m right about that. 
What about Acceptance?  What if the System says, yes, White Identity and Interests can be part of multiculturalism?  What then?  If they do so, it will be for the purpose of co-opting our strategy, from putting forth bogus “White leaders,” masters of the “implicit Whiteness” game, to lead Whites into a sterile cul-de-sac in which mild complaining will be allowed, System representatives  will pretend to listen, and all else goes on as before.  Thus, Co-Opting/Selling Out is the major System ploy I expect in the event they at same point choose the Acceptance option. They would try to defuse White anger by faux concessions, transparent ploys that would be accepted by the fake leaders and thus also accepted by the not-too-bright masses (the same masses routinely hoodwinked by the GOP).  The answer here is to have disciplined, sincere, vetted, visionary leaders who know how to expose the phony leaders, who would demand that only genuine pro-White leadership be representatives of Whites at the multicultural table, leaders who understand the difference between means and ends, and who have their eyes fixed on the endgame – destabilization of the multicultural system.
For White mobilization under genuine leadership will be the death knell for multiculturalism, the harbinger of chaos.  Minorities, nurtured in an atmosphere of self-righteous racial-moral posturing, who believe they have a birthright monopoly on racial mobilization, these folks would never accept White mobilization. Whites standing up for themselves as Whites is the ultimate blasphemy for Coloreds and White Leftists, the Original Sin (which is why the System would, I think, prefer Refusal if they could get away with it).  And the more angry the Coloreds/Leftists get, the more White Identity will become hardened, the more the societal divisions will fossilize into balkanization, the more untenable the whole situation will be.
Chaos!  Our ancestors would be honored by that; the conflict would inflame their blood.  Let’s do it.

Another Defense of Democratic Multiculturalism

Some points.

I’d like to defend the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” from its detractors, who take the initial rhetoric at purely face value and who believe that such a policy – as ONE of a varied set of approaches in the activist toolkit – means that Whites will be reduced to just another minority begging for scraps from the diversity table.
Let’s consider some points from Duchesne (emphasis added):

I believe that if we are interested in preserving and advancing the ethnic interests of European Canadians, it is better to work within the existing framework of multiculturalism than to promote assimilation…

…In the words of Will Kymlicka, humans (= immigrants) have a “very strong bond” to their culture and ethnicity; therefore, Canada should tolerate their ethnocentric tendencies and European Canadians should embrace multiculturalism.

We need to reply to multiculturalists that European Canadians also have a “very strong bond” to their ethnicity and historical ancestry, and in this way demand (within the framework of multiculturalism) the right of European Canadians to enjoy a group identity within Canada rather than being reduced to abstract units with individual rights only.

…The best strategy is to unify all our economic, environmental, and cultural concerns about immigration under a pro-European ethnic group strategy that is operational within, but recognizes the limitations of, multiculturalism in Canada…

…It is odd that the very same people who created multiculturalism have precluded themselves from enhancing their own group interests, preferring to speak only of their individual rights while granting both group rights and individual rights to other ethnic minorities.  In fact, we have practically criminalized any form of European ethnic attachment, treating it, and only this ethnocentrism, as “a pathological condition”. We need to break out of this mental prison house…

…We will NOT be arguing in favor of multiculturalism as a minority to advance our group rights, but will be arguing within multiculturalism in order to make Europeans aware that they are the founding peoples and that Canada is their homeland and that we intend to keep the country majority European. By working within multiculturalism, locating its weak points, “preserving and enhancing” our culture, demanding our rightful place as the majority Canadian culture…

Thus, multiculturalism as it is currently practiced promotes (Colored) minority group mobilization combined with (White) majority passivity and atomization. The System recognizes that ethnic identity and group solidarity are important to minority groups. Whites must demand that the System also recognize, acknowledge, and respect that the ethnoracial identity of Whites is important to us, that Whites have collectivist and communitarian group interests, and are not just a haphazard collection of disinterested (and pathologically altruistic) individuals. Once we force the System to bend to that demand, to recognize – in a politically relevant manner – White Group Identity and Interests, then the “ball will rolling” and there will be a building momentum that can lead to positive outcomes, including and especially a deconstruction of the entire multiculturalist enterprise itself.

Immigrants as Baby Substitutes

The ponzi scheme continues.
Immigration is a ponzi scheme in many ways. As the linked post indicates, using immigration to keep the nation more “youthful” will requite a constant stream of aliens. As I have written previously, using immigrants for cheap labor (“doing the jobs Americans won’t do”) is the same, since the offspring of the immigrants won’t do those jobs either, and a new crop of cheap labor migrants will be required every generation.

Tactics and Strategy for Democratic Multiculturalism

A time to complain.

There are two basic things we need to do: we need to build a new society based upon a new movement (the theme of my Western Destiny blog), while, at the same time, undermining the System, which includes undermining the “movement” – which is actually part of that System (an inept bogeyman, playing a role similar to that of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984).  Today, I have a few words about undermining the System as a whole, built as it is on the ideology of multiculturalism.  I would like to talk about “democratic multiculturalism,” a concept endorsed by Salter and Duchesne, and one that I have previously discussed here.
Why do people who believe that “the only thing worse for the majority than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does work” want to promote so-called “democratic multiculturalism?”  This paradox should become clear with some further explanation.
Whites need to demand a seat at the multicultural table, represented by real advocates of White interests, not groveling patsies.  Given that “Western” multiculturalism is defined by majority passivity and atomization contrasted to collectivist minority mobilization, a more collectivist and mobilized majority will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the System.
How to best begin this process on the group level is something that needs to be determined.  We will need Rightist elites to stand up and follow the lead of Salter and Duchesne. They need not be hypocritical or even deceptive about this, but essentially state: “It is well known that I do not approve of multiculturalism, a destructive ideology bad for my people, my culture, my nation. However, that is the dominant system we currently have and my people and my culture need to be represented within it.”
Most readers here are not, and never will be, part of that elite, but something that can be done at the individual level is to engage in some sociopolitical ju-jitsu against multiculturalism yourself. Think of this as the “bottom-up” component of the strategy, in contrast to the “top-down” approach described above.  When the opportunity arises, one can assert that Whites need to be included and given a legitimate seat at the multicultural table. However, one must present the proper ticket of admission: victimization.  Complain about discrimination whenever you have a legitimate case (in today’s society, you should have no shortage of opportunities).  The complaints should be couched in the language of multiculturalism, but explicitly aimed at targeting discrimination on a racial (anti-White), ethnic (anti-[fill in name of White ethnic group]), gender (anti-male), sexual orientation (anti-heterosexual), religious (anti-Christian, if you are a believer or even if you are not), etc. basis – with those guilty of discriminating being “others” (e.g., coloreds, liberals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, “gay” activists, System apparatchiks, etc.).  

We need to get over the idea that such complaining is “weak, beta, non-White, feminine” blah blah blah.  Not only is this complaining being done for a specific political purpose, but note that in a multicultural milieu, power is in part derived from the role of “victim.”  Yes, it is a “Last Man” attitude, but it is a means to an end, it is the case of Higher Men being able to stomach their sense of disgust (self-mastery, no?) to use the ressentiment of the Last Men against them.  Remember, this is a means to an end, not an end to itself.  It is not mainstreaming, it is not compromise, it is not incremental progress, and it is not reforming the System.  It is instead using the contradictions and weaknesses of the System against itself; it is an approach which forces the System to take its own ideology at face value, or be forced to declare its illegitimacy to the majority of the population.
Certainly, at least in the beginning, these complaints of anti-White, anti-male, anti-heterosexual discrimination will be met with derision, disbelief, snarky ridicule, sarcasm, hysterical responses, heavy breathing about “White Privilege,” and, perhaps, the claim that majority assertions of discrimination are themselves signs that the complainers are the bigots.  This is where the men are separated from the boys, so to speak, where self-mastery comes in: you must ignore these responses, persevere, and push through the barrier. If the System is going to ignore or ridicule your legitimate complaints, you need to push them into a corner in which they have to openly admit that discrimination against straight White men (Sailer’s “war against Whites) is acceptable to them, they must be forced to admit that, to them, Whites have no rights, they must be forced to admit that “inclusion” excludes Whites, they need to admit that multiculturalism is for non-Whites only. The System depends on all of this being implicitly understood by Whites without it ever getting to the level of being explicit (although some former government officials have openly stated that “civil rights laws do not apply to [male] Whites”). The System loves the status quo, they want multiculturalism to work smoothly. They want the low-caste subaltern Whites to quietly accept their lowly status without complaint, without forcing the System to crudely reveal its agenda. Don’t let them off easy. If they want to exclude Whites, then the exclusion needs to be open and overt, as a slap in the face to the complacent White masses. Therefore, if you have a legitimate complaint, go for it.

After all – and this is crucially important – our complaints of discrimination, as opposed to those of the Others, have the added power of actually being true(note my caveat above: make sure your complaints are based on some sort of legitimate issue). This is an “the emperor has no clothes” situation – some Whites do know what the score is, but each alone is afraid of saying anything.  In a multicultural regime, complaining about discrimination is a socially acceptable means of protest.  In theory, socially acceptable for everyone; in practice, not acceptable for White men.  But, following the implicit/explicit argument I made above – it is “not acceptable” only in an implicit sense.  Implicit attitudes are the downfall of a White race unable to articulate or defend its racial interests.  Implicit Whiteness.  The acceptance of an implicit lower-caste status for Whites. An implicit understanding that White men are “not allowed” to complain about race/sex/ethnic animus directed toward them. This implicit bluff needs to be called. If multiculturalism makes whining victimology socially acceptable, then the real victims of multiculturalism have to force the issue. If a few Whites so complain, that might embolden others to follow suit.  With sufficient White complaints that seat on the multicultural table just might open up, as the System strives to placate Whites by assimilating them into multiculturalism.  At first, they may try and get System agents to pose as White representatives, to defuse the pressure: this must be opposed and such individuals replaced by real advocates.
First steps first.  Discriminated against?  Complain. Persevere.  Use the multiculturalists’ own language of “inclusion” and “fairness” against them.  If “White Privilege” comes up, make arguments against it – one can find plenty online.  One can slip in subtle “movement” memes at this point; the idea that a people being demographically displaced as a result of official policy are “privileged” is ludicrous, as one example. Keep on pushing, but within the System framework. Use common sense; become familiar with the vernacular of victimology. Play the game well. The System is based upon a house of cards and they know it. You should know it too.
Success here is predicated on the assumption that “breaking the ice” will embolden other Whites to speak up as well.  Of course, this assumption may be wrong, given the pitiful passivity of the subaltern White race.  But one never knows, one must try. If you wait for the “beer and football crowd” to be the first ones to voice their simmering complaints and resentment you will be waiting forever. 
One concern at this point would be that this essay, along with the statements of Salter and Duchesne, will lead the Others to conclude that the demand for a seat at the multicultural table is for the purpose of undermining their multicultural project, leading to a refusal of that demand.  After all, you can argue that these folks can simply point to essays such as this one that openly state what the strategy is.  That is true. But it is irrelevant.  One should not deny the obvious.  One can say: “It’s true. I don’t like multiculturalism. I want to see it end.  I have an overt pro-White agenda. Others who are demanding a “seat at the table” share these views. But that is not relevant. The multicultural system exists, it is YOUR system, and any system that disenfranchises that majority of the population will be viewed as illegitimate by that majority.  This being YOUR system, it is up to YOU to find a way to include Whites and LEGITIMATE White interests (defined by us, not by you) in multiculturalism. If you believe multiculturalism can work, it is up to YOU to show it can work for everyone. Inclusion cannot be exclusive, as much as you would like it to be, as much as you have practiced it as such for decades. Whites are no longer going to be passive while others are mobilized.”  

This of course, once again, depends upon other Whites doing their part – Rightist elites applying pressure from above, and a fraction of the White masses applying pressure from below. Obviously, if they fail to do so, there will be no incentive to the System to compromise (note: they compromise, not us) in the manner described here.  The “top” and “bottom” pressure must exist, it must be consistent, and it must weaken the legitimacy of the multiculturalist regime. The System may realize that including Whites in that regime may have the same long-term result that “glasnost” had for the USSR – but, like Gorbachev, they must feel like that have no choice but to take the chance on reform.
Another concern is that the System will attempt to co-opt White multiculturalist involvement by promoting compliant anti-White White traitors to positions of representing Whites.  We must absolutely refuse to let the System dictate the terms of our own participation. Only those who represent the interests of Whites, defined by those Whites who have historically been defending and prompting White interests in an explicitly racial manner, will be acceptable. Puppets will be rejected.
This is a long, hard road, and there will be additional objections, problems, and criticisms, but here at least is a broad statement in favor of “democratic multiculturalism” and an outline of sorts of what should be done.
Start complaining!  Do your best imitation of an aggrieved member of the Tribe, or some whining colored activist.  It may be hard at first, and out of character, but remember, it’s for a good cause. Disruption, chaos, heightening the contradictions. Probe the System to expose the anti-White animus of multiculturalism. It’s win-win. If they refuse that seat at the table, use that refusal to expose the animus and the hypocrisy; if they allow the seat, then undermine the very essence of multiculturalism by forcing majority interests to be accepted as a legitimate topic of discussion and policy objective.  Above all else, shake up the status quo.  Chaos, chaos, and more chaos.