Why Trump’s Speech Matters


, , , ,

“Phenomenal” is a good word to use to describe Donald trump’s RNC speech. It is both its content and the reaction to its content that makes the speech phenomenal. The content itself combines Populism, implicit Racialism, and Civic Nationalism. These characteristics make it almost unbelievable to behold and even more unbelievable to hear an American politician say. The orchestrators of our false consciousness (i.e., the mass media) must be in an even greater sense of disbelief to hear it all. Of course, it is satisfying to perceive that sense, but it probably also accompanied by a sense of failure. Bully!—the failure for the Left is victory for the truth.

An Echo of Identitarianism

The content of Donald Trump’s RNC includes implicitly racial Populism and Civic Nationalism. Trump’s speech holds two central promises: (1) law and order and (2) America first. These are not promises of policy but indeed something greater because these are elements of a vision. The “Vision” is a contextual divergence from the normal cuckservative strategy of rearranging the deck chairs of the sinking Titanic. The speech overall paints a picture of what America should be, rather than what can be changed about America. Here is an important passage:

The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017.

The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home – which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.

Trump’s speech in centered on a number of juxtapositions against criminals, looters, illegal aliens, the system, and so on. Such juxtapositions are altogether a Schmittian narrative of politics being a dialectic of “us” versus “them.” The “them” changes, but the “us” stays the same, so the narrative is of the existential struggle of a people and nation proper. Trump displaces his sense of race and identity onto the state. Trump’s Populism and Nationalism are implicitly white because he is not racially conscious, or at least does not appear to be as such. Although Trump is not an Identitarian and probably hasn’t even heard of that ideology, he has Identitarian instincts about things. Thus, Trump’s speech is not outright Identitarianism, but it is an echo of Identitarianism

Reaction and Counter-Reaction

Listening to trump’s speech and afterward, I and many identitarians were ecstatic in reaction to reading and hearing the racially implicit Civic Nationalism in Trump’s speech. And yet, to be fair, identitarians are a tiny portion of the contemporaneous American or any Western vox populi. Much of the rest of the people were not ecstatic and perhaps the opposite in their counter-reaction. In fact, the cosmopolitan center-Right and center-Left (i.e., the “establishment”) of politics were horrified and shocked. A common word used to describe Trump’s speech was “dark.” Reason Magazine writes:

[Trump] talked of rising homicide levels in some cities. He warned darkly of terrorist and immigrants, practically conflating them with urban violence, and told stories of Americans killed by those who had entered the country illegally. The simplest and more straightforward way to interpret Trump’s speech was as a warning that outsiders are coming to America to kill you and your family.

From a cosmopolitan perspective, it is absurd to speak like this because they do not see this reality, so it may as well be untrue. And yet, that reality is a fragmented reality because the cosmopolitan Center only sees what they want to see and all else is obscured. It is not dissimilar to how even Third World dictatorships can look like paradise in the eyes of the dictator. But, contrarily, the reality that white Americans face on a daily basis includes all of this: unfair competition with immigrants for jobs and wages and encounters with black delinquency. Thus, Trump’s speech is true for America, even if it is untrue for America’s hostile elite.

Post-Brexit: Ideology, Implications, and Geopolitics


, , , ,

The reactions to Britain voting to leave the European Union (i.e., Brexit) have been either apoplectic or triumphalistic. These reactions are totally partisan and ignore the nuances of Brexit. These reaction are little more than propaganda and simple thinking. In Liberal Democracy, every political event becomes propaganda to appeal to such simple thinking because of the short term nature of electoral politics. And yet, simple thinking is poisonous and leaves us simpleminded, so let’s endeavor toward greater understanding. This essay will explore the ideology, implications, and geopolitics of Brexit.


The Eurosceptic ideology (i.e., those opposed to the European Union) opposes the European Union because the European Union is contrary to national sovereignty or at least erodes national sovereignty. Obviously, national sovereignty is an abstract idea, but it is not totally abstract because people do not vote for or against abstract idea. In politics, abstract ideas are always representative of things that are deeper and more real to people; that is, explicit ideological ideas are indicative of implicit metapolitical ideas. National sovereignty represents the nation, and the nation represents blood and soil. A patriotic American who loves the US Constitution is not showing his or her love for a two hundred year old piece of paper but rather the people who wrote it. Indeed, likewise, a patriotic British man or woman lamenting the loss of British sovereignty is actually lamenting the loss of British blood and soil. Brexit is symbolic of British ethno-nationalism and positive ethno-centrism. Brexit is a step toward healthy cultural attitudes because white people need positive ethno-centrism to survive. Thus, Brexit implies a Communitarian or Identitarian instinct in the British national consciousness.

Moreover, the dialectic of the state is inherently an illiberal dialectic; that is, it juxtaposes “in” versus “out.” This dialectic is inescapable because the state distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens. Citizens are “in” the state and non-citizens are “out” of the state, so the state is an arbiter of community, but the opposite is also true. People elect the state and therefore choose whom is in that community. For Brexit, that choice was over whether to be British or not. Voting to stay in the European Union was voting to be not British, and voting to leave was voting to be British. The anti-Brexit self-loathing is obvious and palpable. But, conversely, the areas that voted leave are the areas that feel most British (i.e., England, Wales, and parts of Ulster Ireland, but especially southern and eastern England). Thus, Brexit is an expression of being British.

But this implicit ethno-centrism also expresses quintessentially British chauvinism against Europeans. British ethno-centrism disdains other Europeans, but it is also nostalgic for its empire. Since its empire is gone, they favor Commonwealth immigration to European immigration. Such chauvinism is stupid and suicidal because it creates an existential threat to white Britain, where immigration consists of more Kenyans and less Poles. Further, Brexit’s implicit ethno-centrism is directed against the European Union because the European Union is an actor of Neoliberalism, mass immigration, debt, and taxes—or so the Eurosceptics say. Although it is true, it is not true of only the European Union, and Europe’s national governments are far guiltier of these things. Taxes, debt, and immigration is the work of Europe’s nation-states. Nation-states can create or destroy any of these things because nation-states have the power to do that; that is, nation-states have militaries, currencies, and political, legal, and territorial hegemony. By contrast, the European Union has none of these things (i.e., apart from the Euro, which Britain never used).

Accordingly, the European Union’s only power is the power that is given to it by the nation-states. The nation-states can simply ignore the European Union’s demands. In the case of Hungary, the European Union ordered Hungary to accept a quota of refugees, but Prime Minister Viktor Orban refused. Instead, Orban passed a law in the Hungarian Parliament, denying the European Union’s legitimacy to coerce such a quota, and never accepted the refugees. It is obvious that the European Union is a toothless bureaucracy. It is not an instigator but a bystander of the things about which the Eurosceptic condemn so loudly. Thus, the logic of Euroscepticism fails because it displaces legitimate angers about Neoliberalism, immigration, and so on away from the nation-state and onto the European Union.


In spite of the extreme predictions, the world economy did not collapsed in on itself after the Brexit vote succeeded, but there were some economic losses. There was almost $200 billion lost altogether in investments, but only $82 billion of such investments was lost in European investments and even less therefore was lost in British investments. It is, then, not the British people but the transnational merchant class who are suffering from the economic implications of the Brexit vote. These are the money changers, usurers, and gamblers of postmodernity who destroy nations and economies to make their wallets fatter. It is, therefore, morally good that they are suffering from the Brexit vote.

Rather, the important implications of the Brexit vote are not economic but political. The primary political implication of the Brexit vote will be chaos in the system. Chaos will be in the system because Brexit violates the rules of the cosmopolitan political paradigm, so this paradigm loses legitimacy. The Neoliberals and Neoconservatives are the “Center” of contemporary politics—whom are the Center-Right and Center-Left of politics, respectively the Tories and Labour in British politics. They feign opposition to one another, but their premises, ideas, and ends do not at all oppose one another. They both share a vision of the future that will lead to a monocultural world with no identity or tradition. The people who voted for Brexit were a coalition of the illiberal Left and Right against the cosmopolitan Center. As Peter Hitchens remarked:

I realised [Brexit would happen] in early June when a chance encounter revealed to me that the old Labour working class vote was going heavily for Leave. Once this was clear, I was sure that Leave would win.

That shift might have been a populist act of revenge against the “smart people” (i.e., the egg heads who sneered at the possibility of Brexit). If it was such an act of revenge, it was a successful act of revenge because the “smart people” have been proven wrong. Further, the political paradigm of the “smart people” been defeated. Since the political paradigm has been defeated, the system has lost legitimacy. In future, this means the cosmopolitan Center can be defeated by an illiberal Left/Right coalition; of which, a surge of European ethno-nationalism and ethno-centrism may be a consequence. The practical short term implications of this loss of legitimacy will, first, be a rapid collapse of the establishments of both Labour and the Tories. The Brexit vote shows the power and influence of Old Labour, and David Cameron’s resignation symbolizes the replacing of Europhile Tories with Thatcherite Tories as the reigning faction of the Conservative Party. Or, perhaps, the Parties will collapse altogether. Second, since Brexit succeeded, UKIP’s central issue is finished. UKIP may dissolve as a Party. And, third, Scotland may vote to leave the United Kingdom but rejoin the European Union. Without Scotland, British politics would be severely more to the Right than it is now.

The cosmopolitan Center of politics is delegitimized; the system is weakened; and the Parties are edging toward political death. Overall, the political implications culminate in an opportunity for British ethno-nationalism to seize power. It is still not clear whether they can do that colossal task.   


Since 1945, European nation-states have been off-shoring their defense onto non-Continental actors. The United States occupies Western Europe through both a direct military presence and proxy institutions, such as NATO. Meanwhile, Eastern Europe was annexed by the Soviet Union and still is under the Russian sphere of influence. In turn, Europe’s empires and militaries have collapsed to little of anything. The European Union was a contra-Atlanticist idea that intended to refocus hegemony in Europe to Europe, rather than to the United States or the Soviet Union. The European Union functions as a way for European nation-states to repudiate either American or Russian power. Outside of the European Union, European nation-states will seek a greater hegemonic power, so Brexit forces Britain to become closer to the United States. Since, after Brexit, the Thatcherite faction will gain prominence in the Conservative Party, this seems even more likely.

Also, Brexit may trigger a wider exit from the European Union for nation-states elsewhere in Europe. There are political parties in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy that likewise want their nations to exit from the European Union. The success of Brexit has shown that such an exit can succeed. And yet, there are also differences between Britain and these nations. Although the British are part of Europe writ large (i.e., the white race), Britain is not in Europe per se because Britain is geographically removed from the continent of Europe. Since ethno-cultural identities are shaped by geography, the British identity also is not connected to the continent of Europe. As Alain de Benoist recently noted:

[Brexit] is indeed a historic event. But first a note: they should, for starters, never have entered [the European Union]. As general de Gaulle had well understood in his time, England always felt closer to the United States (the “high seas”) than Europe, where it has never ceased to play the role of a Trojan horse Atlanticist and never fully accepted the rules. In this sense, the divorce terminates a marriage that was never really consumed.

Thus, Britain is not like other European nations because it has historical connections not to the continent of Europe but the Anglosphere. If true, a domino effect of nation-states leaving the European Union is unlikely and little will result from Brexit on the continent of Europe. Yet, if untrue, ironically, there indeed will be a pan-European en masse exit from the European Union. Such an en masse exit could be a good thing, a bad thing, or possibly a good and bad thing at the same time. Such an exit would be a good thing because Brexit creates chaos in the system. Also, as aforementioned, Brexit promotes healthy ethno-centrism, allowing ethno-nationalism to gain power. And yet, ethno-nationalism easily devolves into petty nationalism, making a united Identitarian Europe a more difficult possibility. Also, such an en masse exit would also upset the balance of powers in Europe. Vulnerable nation-states would need to seek hegemonic powers for protection, enlarging American and Russian hegemony in their respective spheres of influence; both of which can be destructive.

Overall, Brexit has been simplified by the system of Liberal Democracy to be either celestial or catastrophic, but truthfully Brexit is neither. Brexit is a complex issue with several layers. The explicit ideology of Brexit is symbolic for the implicit metapolitics of Brexit. Brexit is an “in” versus “out” dialectic, in which “out” chooses to be British and “in” chooses to be not British, so Brexit is an expression of Britishness as an ethno-cultural distinction. Although the explicit ideology is a red herring, the instincts that it promotes in the British national consciousness are healthy and good. Also, Brexit is remarkable because it shows that the illiberal Left and Right, together, can defeat the cosmopolitan Center of politics. It is easy to infer that the political hegemony of the cosmopolitan Center is fragile. The system of cosmopolitan Liberal Democracy, then, is in chaos. But, lastly, it is not clear what will happen post-Brexit internationally. It is not clear that Brexit is reflective of a European consciousness, rather than a British consciousness.

Adams’ “Natural Aristocracy”


, ,

John Adams is known for his role in the American Revolution, the Constitutional Convention, and being an early American President. But what is overlooked is his profundity as a political philosopher. For me, Adams is one of the greatest political philosophers of the New World, comparable to the likes of John C. Calhoun.  For Adams, liberty can only exist within a political order. The only alternative to a political order is anarchy, and for Adams, anarchy implies tyranny. Such a political order has a hierarchy (i.e., as Adams notes, a “natural aristocracy”) because the persons in the order vary in virtue. It is right that the order should be administered by those with greater virtue, rather than those with lesser virtue, because a virtuous society is better than a non-virtuous society. Notice that this mirrors Aristotle’s argument, in the Politics, for the moral legitimacy of the Polis. Adams was incredibly Aristotelian insofar as this.

Here is a part of Adams’ letter to Thomas Jefferson, in which he shows the unavoidability of aristocracy:

“Pick up, the first 100 men you meet, and make a Republick. Every Man will have an equal Vote. But when deliberations and discussions are opened it will be found that 25, by their Talents, Virtues being equal, will be able to carry 50 Votes. Every one of these 25, is an Aristocrat, in my Sense of the Word; whether he obtains his one Vote in Addition to his own, by his Birth Fortune, Figure, Eloquence, Science, learning, Craft Cunning, or even his Character for good fellowship and a bon vivant.

“What gave Sir William Wallace his amazing Aristocratical Superiority? His Strength. What gave Mrs. Clark, her Aristocratical Influence to create Generals Admirals and Bishops? her Beauty. What gave Pompadour and Du Barry the Power of making Cardinals and Popes? their Beauty. You have seen the Palaces of Pompadour and Du Barry: and I have lived for years in the Hotel de Velentinois, with Franklin who had as many Virtues as any of them. In the investigation of the meaning of the Word “Talents” I could write 630 Pages, as pertinent as John Taylors of Hazelwood. But I will select a single Example: for female Aristocrats are nearly as formidable in Society as male.

“Your distinction between natural and artificial Aristocracy does not appear to me well founded. Birth and Wealth are conferred on some Men, as imperiously by Nature, as Genius, Strength or Beauty. The Heir is honours and Riches, and power has often no more merit in procuring these Advantages, than he has in obtaining an handsome face or an elegant figure. When Aristocracies, are established by human Laws and honour Wealth and Power are made hereditary by municipal Laws and political Institutions, then I acknowledge artificial Aristocracy to commence: but this never commences, till Corruption in Elections becomes dominant and uncontroulable. But this artificial Aristocracy can never last. The everlasting Envys, Jealousies, Rivalries and quarrells among them, their cruel rapacities upon the poor ignorant People their followers, compell these to sett up Caesar, a Demagogue to be a Monarch and Master, pour mettre chacun a sa place [to put each one in his place]. Here you have the origin of all artificial Aristocracy, which is the origin of all Monarchy. And both artificial Aristocracy, and Monarchy, and civil, military, political and hierarchical Despotism, have all grown out of the natural Aristocracy of “Virtues and Talents.” We, to be sure, are far remote from this. Many hundred years must roll away before We shall be corrupted. Our pure, virtuous, public spirited federative Republick will last for ever, govern the Globe and introduce the perfection of Man, his perfectability being already proved by Price Priestly, Condorcet Rousseau Diderot and Godwin.”

#NeverTrump’s Microcosm of Third Wave Feminism


, ,

#NeverTrump has endless stream of attack-advertisements targeting Donald Trump, but this one (i.e., for lack of a better term, “Big Hands”) is significant because it is a short 30 second microcosm of Feminism. Essentially, Feminism is female Utilitarianism. It is an ideology that intends to establish the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of women. It establishes this intended happiness through liberation of women from heteronormative patriarchy, upon which traditional society is built. Thus, women’s liberation is traditional society’s destruction. Further, women need men to liberate them because women’s power is only what men give them. Men have the ability of violence, so men also are the sex with the inherent power. Women manipulate men into giving them power through sex.

The advertisement features a very attractive, slim, Mediterranean-looking woman in yoga pants, a tight sports bra, and a long ponytail. It is obvious that she is acting sexually suggestive even with the sound muted. She leans to one side letting her sensuous straight black hair fall to one side, then the other; she looks in the camera with a particular look in her eye, which men will recognize; she sits, showing her toned stomach, and spreads her legs far enough to do illicit things; and, finally, she stands on her hands and feet and arches her back. But, verbally, it is also very sexual in its text. To start, the woman says, “I like macho guys, take charge, confident guys, guys with big hands, real men.” The “big hands” part is important because, first, Trump allegedly has small hands, and, second, this can be an indication of the size of a man’s penis. This part is insulting Trump’s manhood by juxtaposing Trump with the woman’s sexual ideal. The woman continues, saying, “But real men don’t go around dissing Muslims and Mexicans. They don’t make demining remarks about women. They’re not bullies.” Actually, they do and they are. A crass person would call these lines hogwash because it is incredibly untrue. Masculine men are drawn to tribes to exercise their instinct to protect, so they often do “go around dissing” outsiders. They are often misogynistic because harem is their goal, rather than girlish love. And bullying is only one man asserting power over another man, which masculine men certainly do. The woman, then, makes further suggestions about Trump’s manhood or lack thereof. All of this serves to juxtapose sexual desirability with Trump; that is, Trump is undesirable and so are his supporters by extension.

In other words, this advertisement weaponizes sex against the Trump campaign. It is this that targets male voters, rather than female voters who likely find this to be tasteless. It is powerful to target men in this way because men attract women through more than appearance. Men much change their manner, personality, and presence to what women find attractive. Accordingly, male behavior can be manipulated. The advertisement manipulates this male sexual tendency by purveying that Trump’s manner is undesirable to women, suggesting to men to not associate with Trump or even think like Trump. A mere survey of Trump’s wives and girlfriends—most of whom are exceedingly attractive—proves this false. And, further, it is a microcosm of Feminism because it imitates Feminism’s strategy of manipulating this male sexual tendency. Feminism has liberated women from any responsibilities besides their own vain pleasure through “white knights” who are men who fight against heteronormative patriarchy in hopes of getting female attention and sex. That is how women attain power through sex. Until men stop caring what shrill women say, men will continue to lose power in the battle of the sexes.

Is Donald Trump A Jacksonian Democrat?



Donald Trump is a populist and nationalist, but the rest of his ideology is hard to place. Rather, he otherwise seems to be pragmatic. This is obviously at odds with contemporary Republicans, whose ideology is neoliberal, modern, materialist, and globalist. In fact, Trump represents a part of America’s historical political paradigm.

In America, there have been many different political parties because political parties rise and fall as circumstances and individuals change. But successful political parties historically have fallen into a familiar paradigm: the Bankers’ party versus the Farmers’ party. That is, successful political parties either stand for the cultural and economic interests of bankers or farmers. The Bankers’ parties are the Federalists (1789-1824), the Whigs (1834-1853), and the Republicans (1854-1900). The Farmers’ parties are Jeffersonian Republicans (1790-1825), the Jacksonian Democrats (1828-1854) and the Dixiecrats (1876-1964). All Bankers’ parties generally support the same thing, and all Farmers’ parties generally support the same thing, so there is seldom daylight within them. Bankers’ parties are capitalist and advocate a strong central government. The Farmers’ parties are pre-capitalist, populists, and nationalists, while advocating states’ rights.

Farmers’ parties are usually led by a rich planter (e.g., Andrew Jackson) who distrusts “moneyed interests.” And yet, the parties’ support comes from the common man (i.e., common white man). It is noticeable that this is the New World’s mirror image of European monarchy or perhaps even Bonapartism, where an authoritarian leader does the will of the people by destroying decadent elites. It is populist albeit anti-democratic. Also, it is noticeable that Donald Trump’s campaign mirrors these Farmers’ parties. He is a very rich man, but he speaks for the common man in the Jacksonian sense (i.e., the common white man) when he decries illegal immigration and unfair trade. His comments about torture and terrorists’ families are obviously authoritarian. He distrusts moneyed elites, as his tirades against wealthy donors show.

If Andrew Jackson were a contemporary of ours, the chances are he would sound a lot like Donald Trump sounds today. More or less, Donald Trump is a contemporary version of a Jacksonian Democrat. As the Republican nominee, he wouldn’t only move America towards its historical paradigm of the Bankers’ party versus the Farmers’ party; but, further, he would force Democrats to defend Globalism at the expense of American workers. America’s political paradigm, then, would be something like the populist patriots’ party versus the plutocratic globalists’ party.

The Metapolitics of #StopIslam

Twitter can be fun, but it also makes everything louder and simpler. Instead of explaining that objective measures of human biodiversity (i.e., “HBD”) exist and prove the need for racial nationalism, the Alt-Right on Twitter spends its time yelling “Cuck!” and sending vulgar memes. I myself am guilty of this. How a person behaves on Twitter is not a measure of that person because everyone on Twitter, more or less, behaves in a likewise manner. And yet, Twitter is also a macrocosm of the ideas of the world. Anyone can post, reply to any post, and be heard on twitter. Reactions on Twitter therefore are more authentic and representative than reactions that can be seen in the mass media. One such reaction is #StopIslam, which is a reaction to the March 23 Islamist terrorism in Brussels. Further, it perfectly fits into Rightist hysteria about Muslims. This hysteria is very unwise because the Clash between Europe and the Middle East has very little to do with religion; rather, it is an issue of race and culture.

#StopIslam is a five year old hashtag, but it is only now in use in the common lexicon. It is now being used by nationalists on Twitter as reaction to the March 23 Islamist terrorism in Brussels. It is similar to the Britain First marches, where a group of wild-eyed screamers show up in a Muslim community. They, then, wave around their giant crucifix and tell everyone how Christian they are. When someone reacts, the screamers make a federal case of it, so to speak. #StopIslam and Britain First can also be seen more broadly as the same metapolitical ritual that is anti-Islamic and nationalistic. It attacks a few barbarous actions and then applies them to all Muslims. Of course, this is unwise because it is a falsehood.

#StopIslam’s assumption is Islam is a monolith, so what some Muslims do can be applied to all Muslims. And yet, this assumption is totally false. There are two main branches of Islam—Shia and Sunni—whom disagree with one another about who should replace Muhammad as the Caliph of the Islamic empire (i.e., the Caliphate). The Shia versus Sunni split is recognized by all legitimate scholars, so Islam can’t be said to be a monolith. Shia and Sunni Muslims also act very differently. As hard as I looked, I can’t find a single Shia terrorist organization that is a danger to the United States, but there are many such Sunni organizations. Whereas Shia terrorists are usually modern and nationalist, Sunni terrorists are usually primitive and internationalist. Moreover, Islam is not a small religion. There are Muslim majorities and large Muslim minorities throughout much of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

These Muslims obviously have differing cultures, races, and political ideas. Indeed, Islam is not very different than other religions (e.g., Catholicism) in that its adherents are defined more by culture than by religion. Just as an Irish Catholic and a Congolese Catholic would have little in common, a Chinese Muslim and a Turkish Muslim also would have little in common with each other. Since religion can be interpreted differently, Muslims interpret Islam as their culture allows them to do; consequently, Islam is interpreted as absolute by post-Revolution Iran, as modern by post-Ataturk Turkey, as tribal by Sub-Saharan Africa, and as warlike by Arabs. Thus, Islam behaves differently in different cultures.

Non-Arab Islamist terrorists are very seldom. It is indeed difficult to recall when or if non-Arab Islamists have ever been a problem for the United States or the Western World in the broadest context. Even though they are only 20 percent of Muslims, possibly all of the West’s problems with Muslims are with Arab Muslims. These problems are with Arab Sunni Muslims to be more specific. It is extremely erroneous, then, to say that Islam is invading the West. Rather, it is a certain sort of Islam that is and certain culture of Muslims whom are invading the West. The contemporary “Clash of Civilizations” is a clash of European versus Middle Eastern civilization, in which religion is nor relevant.

Furthermore, Muslims interpret Islam differently depending on their culture, but it is also true that Muslims think of the West differently depending on their culture. Arab Muslims are surely problematic for the Western World. It is clear that they are a problem population; they have no intention of assimilating; they intend to, even boast that they will, conquer the Western World and are a disproportionate source of terrorism. In the United States, Muslims are 0.9 percent of the population, but they also are responsible for 6-7 percent of terrorist acts. And yet, elsewhere, Muslims have been made tolerant practitioners of the state. Russian Muslims are among the most patriotic Russians whom exist. Muslims from anti-Western cultures hate Westerners, and Muslims from Western-friendly cultures do not hate Westerners. The Clash, then, is not primarily about religion. Rather, religion is a proxy for the actual reasons for the Clash.

Religion is ofttimes used as a mechanism (i.e., a proxy) for race and culture, even by Europeans. After la Reconquista (722-1492 CE), the Spanish ethnically cleansed Jews and Moors from Spain. This was justified under the claim that such peoples do not have “Christian blood.” In fact, the purpose and end of la Reconquista was to drive out racial foreigners (i.e., the Jews and Moors) from Spain and therefore remake Spain to be a homogenous nation-state of white gentiles. Likewise, Middle Eastern Muslims use Islam as a way to justify warfare against Europeans—whether that warfare is literal terrorism or more nuanced warfare vis-à-vis immigration. Still, it is only a justification and scarcely anything more. Such civilizational warfare between Europe and the Middle East predates Islam not by a little but by at least a thousand years.

The Clash between Europe and the Middle East begins more than a thousand years before the birth of Islam. Throughout the 6th century BCE, the Achaemenid Persian Empire conquers Greek city-states in Anatolia. In 522 BCE, aided by mainland Greeks, the Anatolian Greeks rebel against Persian rule (a.k.a. the Ionian Rebellion). The Persians put down this rebellion, and then they attempt to annex mainland Greece, which spurs the Greco-Persian Wars (492-449 BCE). These wars are wars for Greek political autonomy, but, deeper, they are wars of race and culture. The Greeks lived in ethnically, culturally, and religiously homogeneous city-states and worshipped the Hellenic gods. Contrarily, the Achaemenid Persian Empire has an Aryan elite, but it was overall populated by a mix of peoples—Arabs, Mesopotamians, Africans, and others. It was held together not by identity, religion, or language, but by the raw authoritarian power of the Shaw’s slave army. The Shaw himself is considered to be a god-king. He believes he has mastery even over nature itself. In what Herodotus calls hubris, Shaw Xerxes has the water whipped when it is in the way of his marching army. According to Xerxes, it is a “hateful water,” and “Xerxes the king will pass over you, whether you wish it or not!”

The clash continues under Alexander of Macedon (“The Great”) whose father, in 346 BCE, unified Greece under a single kingdom. Alexander successfully leads the unified Greek kingdom against the Persian Empire and conquers Persia. In 330 BCE, Alexander conquers and razes the Persian city of Persepolis—i.e. Alexander burns the city to the ground. Every Persian man was probably killed and every Persian woman probably raped. This violent and cruel act of war is symbolic of the Clash between European civilization versus Middle Eastern civilization, particularly because Persepolis means “city of the Persians.” By razing Persepolis, Alexander shows the total dominance of Greeks over Persians and therefore of European civilization over Middle Eastern civilization.

Two centuries after Alexander’s empire is split, another European empire, the Roman Empire, begins a series of wars with Persia. This series of wars, the Roman-Persian Wars (92 BCE–627 CE), run for 700 years. During the 700 year period, hardly anything at all remains constant within the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is split in two and loses its western half. The Roman capital moves from Rome to Constantinople. The Roman Empire persecutes, then decriminalizes, and then adopts Christianity as its own. Rome becomes a dictatorship, rather than a republic. Rome fights numerous civil wars. The one thing that, however, does stay constant is the Roman Empire is a European empire. It is also important to note than the frontier of the Wars did not change significantly throughout. The Wars were seldom about resources but culture. The Roman-Persian Wars, then, are the continuation of the Clash between European versus Middle Eastern civilization.

The Clash continues through four crusades, which are fought by western European kingdoms (i.e., France, England, and Spain). Into modernity, it continues as European powers colonize the Middle East. Today, it continues as Arab immigrants invade Europe. The Clash between European versus Middle Eastern civilization is an eternal clash of civilization.

#StopIslam is shortsighted and erroneous, but it is indeed understandable why the twitter phenomenon exists. Europe is being invaded by people who are overwhelmingly Muslim by religion, so nationalists retaliate against that religion. By that token, America is being invaded by people who are overwhelmingly Catholic by religion. And yet, it would be seen as an absurdity to call the Mestizo invasion of the United States a Catholic invasion. In both cases, religion is a proxy of the conflict, which is racial and culture. Religion has often historically been used as a proxy for ethnic cleansing, and this is no different. Moreover, #StopIslam makes a mistake in that it assumes Islam is a monolith. This is clearly false because there are different interpretations of Islam, and the adherents of these interpretations act differently. Also, Muslims differ in cultural background and act differently according to that background. Arab Muslims are very anti-Western because their culture is very anti-Western. That culture is a product of a Clash between European versus Middle Eastern civilization, which predates Islam by at least a thousand years.

Myopic Ideological Nationalism


, ,

The sacred cow of the New Left is Globalism, which aims to erase all political, economic, and cultural barriers between peoples. Globalism rejects the legitimacy of races, nations, and cultures, specifically for white people. Nationalists are reactionaries who oppose Globalism by asserting the legitimacy of the nation-state. This is a noble cause to be sure. And yet, it can’t or at least shouldn’t be an ideology in and of itself. Globalism is part of a larger ideology that delegitimizes the ideas and structures that strengthen the nation-state. Thus, nationalism also must be part of a larger ideology to give strength the ideas and structures that strengthen the nation-state.

Nationalism is generally understood to be a certain people claiming a certain territory, in which they declare political and cultural hegemony. This is the purpose of the nation-state, having emerged specifically from the historical experience of Western Europe. This historical experience has four basic stages: (1) Romanization, (2) consolidation, (3) homogenization, and (4) modernization. First, Rome conquers and divides the territories of Europe into provinces. Second, when Rome falls, these provinces are eventually consolidated by warlords. The warlords remake these territories into autonomous polities (i.e., feudal kingdoms). Third, after hundreds of years, these feudal kingdoms homogenize into single nations. Instead of Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Celts, and Normans, there are Englishmen. Instead of Franks, Gallics, and Bretons, there are Frenchmen. And so on. And, fourth, the state is economically and politically modernized. Mercantile capitalism leads to industrialism, empowering the Bourgeoisie to whom suffrage is expanded because their new economic power. The state becomes secular and international because of trade ties.

Left-liberals argue that, after modernization, Globalism naturally follows and is the next stage of civilization. If the Left’s premises are sound, Globalism is a principled and true position to have because the ideas of the Left confirm it. According to the Left, there is no significant difference between human races, and any difference is superficial and therefore myopic. Culture is only an aesthetic, like a jacket, so it can be worn (i.e., expanded) to anyone. Culture has only consequential value because it either leads to good or bad things. These are measured objectively. Thus, identity has no inherent value. And social hierarchy (e.g., patriarchy or aristocracy) is an unnatural creation of the powerful to preserve their unnatural privilege over their fellow man. If this is all true, there is no justification for nationalism, and Globalism is the only moral position. And yet, the problem is the Left’s premises are not just wrong; the premises are spectacularly false and erroneous. Race is a biological fact, not a “social construction.” Culture is the collective historical experience of an ethnic people, not a frivolous aesthetic that can be transmitted to others. And social hierarchy is a natural and positive phenomenon, which gives a civilization a will to live.

To be consistent, nationalism must repudiate the premises of the Left, but ideological nationalism stands alone and does not repudiate these premises. Ideological nationalism does not take a position on anything but opposition to Globalism. Ideological nationalism therefore is a self-defeating ideology because it does not oppose what sows the seeds of its destruction. Ofttimes, nationalists sound only like dubious reactionaries. They LARP and obsess over a time in the past, in which they imagine everything was as it should be, but it was not. A perfect time never existed. If that time could be recreated, all the problems that led to current dilemmas would also be recreated. So to speak, ideological nationalism rewinds the film, but the ended remains the same.

As an ideology, nationalism is doomed. The nation-state is still worth defending, but it must be defended as a part of a larger and more comprehensive ideology. This ideology must directly repudiate the premises that undo the legitimacy of the nation-state (i.e., the premises of the Left). This ideology must repudiate modernity’s secularized Christian Slave Morality; repudiate the cultural hegemony of feminism and homosexuality; and affirm the noble aristocracy and earthy working class over the degenerate bourgeoisie. The whining and petty grievances, which ideological nationalism bequeath, must be stomped to dust in favor of greater civilizational transcendence.


Fascism and Me


, ,

I am convinced that no one in the political mainstream has the slightest understanding of Fascism. I was called a Fascist yesterday by one of my extremely liberal relatives because, arguing about the Arab migrant influx in Europe, I said: “These refugees are unassimilable because they are so culturally different and there are so many of them. The influx results in cultural and racial displacement of the native Europeans. It is genocide. It is invasion. I want Germany to remain Christian, white, and ethnically German.” Certainly, I am a nationalist, but Fascism is more than that. Fascism, as articulated by Benito Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism, is authoritarianism plus economic corporatism and ultra-nationalism. I am neither an economic corporatist nor an ultra-nationalist, so it is unfair to call me a Fascist. As far as I see, words like Fascism and Racism are words that certainly have meanings, but they are abused by left-liberals. Left-liberals use these terms to apply to anyone or anything that is outside the paradigm of modern liberalism.

The Insane Reaction to Roosh


, ,

The controversy surrounding Roosh has been agonizing. All parties involved—Roosh, the media, and feminists—are despicable, dishonest, and disingenuous actors.

A week ago, Roosh had to cancel his international meetings with Return of the Kings’ readers, which were organized in venues in various cities around the world. He was forced to cancel because he had received death threats and feared for the safety of his supporters at these meetings. These were private meetings, where these men would chat, so it imposes nothing on outsiders. It is harmless and benign. And yet, being the feckless tyrants that they are, the meetings were successfully targeted and destroyed by feminists under the allegation that Roosh is “pro-rape.” The international media was totally complicit in this allegation and repeated it. This allegation is made by citing an article that Roosh wrote that satirizes rape by advocating that it be decriminalized on private property; that, to someone of more than a 60-point IQ, is obviously not the same as advocating rape.

The Alt-Right’s reaction to this has been logically lazy. Richard Spencer has written that he stands “in solidarity” with Roosh. In spite of Spencer’s usually longwinded style, the blog post that he writes that in is very short, and nowhere does Spencer come up with a better argument than the fact that feminists hate Roosh. It should be perfectly apparent to everyone how flawed that argument is. If guilt by association is a logical fallacy, then the contrapositive (i.e., innocence by disassociation) is also a logical fallacy, so the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Rather, sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. As Greg Johnson points out, feminists have cried “wolf!” far too many times, but that does not mean that there is no wolf. Roosh is a non-white degenerate who has profited from manipulating and sexually humiliating white women. Roosh’s Bang Poland contains one such passage:

I got down her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No! No!” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen. I put it in. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

Another passage:

It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, No!” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina. The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’d ever had sex with. … She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes. After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how she had sinned in the eyes of God.

These acts are not rape, even if they are extremely rapy, but the far more disturbing part is they glory in the sexual humiliation of white women. Bragging that he “[pounded] her pussy like a pedophile” sounds like horror story out of the Middle Eastern brothels of Rotherham England. The bit about the crying Polish girl sounds like the drunken boasting of a conquering barbarian, telling how he subdued the native women. It is clear from these words that Roosh has very little respect for white women and enjoys degrading them. Since Roosh is not white, it puts his “neomasculinity” writing in new perspective. It looks, then, like a weaponized polemic against white women by convincing white men that white women are their enemy.

These are sentiments that are immoral for an Identitarian because we seek a society beyond this weaponization of culture. And Roosh is indeed no Identitarian, but it is still immoral to ally with him because he holds and has not rebuked these sentiments. That does not mean that we need to ally with feminists against Roosh, and nor should we ally with Roosh against feminists. To choose Roosh or feminists over the other is to choose an answer in a false dilemma. The answer to how to deal with Roosh is neutrality at very least.

Third Wave Feminism: Minimizing and Adapting to Rape Culture


, ,

I hope that, in the minds of young white women, Third Wave Feminism is totally discredited. It is an ideology that pretends to advocate for the rights of women; and yet, as the Feminist reaction to the mass rapes of white women on New Years’ Eve illustrate, Feminists are impotent if confronted with actual violation of the rights of women. In spite of tirelessly fighting against an imagined “rape culture,” they obviously are impotent of fighting against a literal rape culture when that culture comes from non-white men. In fact, Feminists are not only impotent, but, worse, their reaction has been to either minimize or adapt to the threat of rape, which Arab immigrants bring.

The first sort of Feminists (i.e., those who minimize) try to muddy the waters as to whether or not the rapists are indeed non-white. This is done through either denial or questioning the fact. Neither denying nor question is logically defensible because that presumes the premise that news reports, video tapes, eye witnesses, and at least 600 victims are lying because of their racism and malice against non-white people. These Feminists, then, go on to compare racists to rapists and domestic rapists to immigrant rapists. Laurie Penny gives a great example of this disingenuous commentary:

It’d be great if we could take rape, sexual assault and structural misogyny as seriously every day as we do when migrants and Muslims are involved as perpetrators. The attacks in Cologne were horrific. The responses—both by officials and by the armies of Islamophobes and xenophobes who have jumped at the chance to condemn Muslim and migrant men as savages—have also been horrific.

For Penny, both rapists’ and Islamophobes’ actions are “horrific,” so ex cathedra the Arab rapists are no worse than the evil white people who did not want to let them into Europe. This creates a moral equivalency between the rapists and the alleged “Islamophobes and xenophobes.” And yet, thinking naughty xenophobic thoughts does not violate women’s bodies, ripping away their virginity and destroying any intimacy they might have with a husband or boyfriend.

Moreover, Penny has unearthed the stunning fact that Arabs are not the only people whom commit rape. Such demagogic sophistry creates a false sense of equivalency between rapes committed by the domestic population and rapes committed by immigrants. The difference is obvious—every state has a domestic population, of whom some will commit rape, but immigrants can’t rape if they are not in the state; and immigrants are not in the state if they are not let into the state. In other words, rapes by the domestic population will always happen as long as such a population exists, but rapes by immigrants are entirely avoidable and only made possible by left-liberals’ open border policies. Rape by immigrants is something that would not happen if immigrants were not let into the state. Left-liberals brought these Arab immigrants into the state, so the mass rapes are a direct result of their actions. Thus, by minimizing the epidemic of Arab-on-white rape, Feminists, such as Penny, evade responsibility for their actions that created that problem.

The “responses… by officials” to which Penny refers is that of the female mayor of Cologne who, in all likelihood, is a self-identifying feminist. The mayor-ette told German women to keep an arm’s distance away from strange men, dress modestly, and to not be drunk late at night. This comprises the second sort of Feminist response, which is adapting to the threat of rape. It is telling that yesterday’s Feminazis are tomorrow’s Sharia law administrators. Young women are told these things not because it is the will of their loving fathers and husbands who do not want to see them be sexualized pieces of meat but because of the threat of rape. It is a clear response to that threat of violence. It is a classically female response to such a threat, which is not to fight but acquiesce to the threat. In spite of all sorts of flim-flam about equality, women desire the patriarchy of old that tells them what to do under the threat of violence. The mayor-ette’s advice is actualization of the female impulse to submit to the will of powerful men.

It is tempting for some people to claim that this is a Feminist betrayal of women, but it is not. Women have no power, so they can’t defend themselves, nor can Feminists. It is true that Western women have political power, but that power does not exist elsewhere than politics. Women have no way to enforce or maintain that power except to have men their bidding, punish their opponents, protect them from criminals, fight their wars, and so on. Women’s political power is power that is given to them by men, and it only exists if men observe its existence. Likewise, Arab men do not observe the existence of women’s political power. There is no one to give women political power because Feminists have emasculated Western men. These two Feminist reactions also show that they do not hate men, or at least they do not hate all men equally. They adapt to or minimize the violence of Arab immigrants. Meanwhile, they will endlessly whine about “manspreading” and “slut-shaming.” They hate men who look like their fathers (i.e., white men) because, even if it is not a conscious thought, it is repugnant to the white female psyche that white men have given up their birth right as the head of the patriarchal family.