And indeed, Senator Graham’s stance on immigration is well worth protesting, being about on par with that Jeb Bush – their positions on war are equally confusable too, and given how dysgenic contemporary conflict is, I dare say you could call it part of the replacement process.

However, a Republican politician is not worth writing about – but a revered pundit who endorses the former for president is, which brings us to George Will.

Mr. Will out of nowhere published a little while ago calling for a President Graham. In fact, the title of the piece reads, “Is America ready for President Graham?,” because President Graham is obviously a good idea, but those outside the Beltway might not be educated or cultured enough to appreciate it. Keeping in theme with the condescending title, the first paragraph notes that Mr. Graham was first elected congressman in a district that, “had not elected a Republican since Union guns made it do so during Reconstruction.”

Time to bring back Reconstruction (through someone as lame as Graham?) and make those Southerners understand what democracy is all about!

This alone was enough to set me writing a new “Sucker of the Summer” piece – since even after all of Mr. Will’s insufferable moderation, the left still managed to get his column pulled from newspapers for, apparently, supporting rape. It’s enough to remind you of Tim Stanley, no?

Wilmot Robertson – who has been dead today for ten years, and who I eulogized here on Social Matter exactly one year ago – beat me to the punch. His spectacular old monthly, Instauration, featured a “Majority Renegade of Year” award hat George Will deservedly won a generation ago.

Hadley Bennett, in his editorial capacity, has allowed me some self-indulgence and is letting the whole piece be republished here. A few notes before you read on: yes, it’s Jew-obsessed, but for the record, rub on Strauss is honed enough to please any Paul Gottfried fan; the most outlandish claims will raise some eyebrows, but most all of them are confirmed by none other than the Washington Post; and finally, enjoy the writing style, one of the pleasures of the late Mr. Robertson’s writing is its incredibly way of inserting Ivy League vocabulary into muckraker one-liners, like Jared Taylor combined with Jim Goad. This leaves the reader to delight in sentences like:

– For this piece of chicanery she had to recompense the U.S. Treasury with a check for $12,122.40.

– The only holocaust he has no interest in is Israel’s slow-burning hecatomb of Palestinians.

– Considering Will’s penchant for battlefield heroics, it is puzzling that in none of America’s recent bouts of warmongering has he been found in the front or even the rear lines.

Without further ado, here is Pandering Pundit George Will: Majority Renegade of the Year:

——————————————————————————————————————–

In the last three decades the U.S. has been engaged in several wars, warlets, forays and other forms of military intervention ­ and George Will has been beating the drums for most of them. Now that a desert conflict looms against Iraq, bellicose George is frantically scratching out reams of bristling hate propaganda with the help of his obscenely expensive Waterman Le Man 18-karat gold-tipped fountain pen. “Smash Saddam” runs through every Will paragraph like a bloody thread.

Considering Will’s penchant for battlefield heroics, it is puzzling that in none of America’s recent bouts of warmongering has he been found in the front or even the rear lines. In Vietnam, which might be described as his favorite war, though of draft age, he spent most of his time teaching in various colleges, one of them, curiously, the University of Toronto in the very same country that was the refuge of so many draft dodgers. What an incredible coincidence!

During other clashes of American arms, Will was living it up in a home in Chevy Chase, for which he paid $990,000 cash and where he hosted a series of “power dinners,” a few of which were attended by the Reagans (he took a particular fancy to Nan­cy). Nixon never enjoyed Will’s cuisine; the Republican columnist deserted his Republican standard bearer as Watergate cli­maxed. It is doubtful if Bush ever accepted any invitations, since Will once called him a “lap dog.”

It is not known if Mrs. Will, a $77,500-a-year assistant secretary of education, attended these functions. The couple split up a few years ago. At one time neighbors, according to the Washingtonian magazine (June 1987, p. 26), observed that George’s office furniture was stacked up on the lawn with the note, “Take it somewhere else, buster…” Mrs. Will embarrassed her estranged husband by keeping an assistant on the public payroll for four months after she had quit, even giving her a raise. For this piece of chicanery she had to recompense the U.S. Treasury with a check for $12,122.40.

Nowadays George spends a great deal of his time paling around with Washington and New York plutocratic mediacrats, especially multimillionairess Lally Weymouth, the daughter of Katharine Graham (née Meyer), the boss lady of the Washington Post and Newsweek. Pretty fast company for someone raised in a bleak midwestern college town! Will’s father, a socialist, was a philosophy professor at the University of Illinois.

Although down in the books of the intelligentsia as a conservative, George gets along remarkably well with the leading movers and mavens of the liberal-minority coalition, whom he rewards ever so often with titillating columns that descend to the lowest depths of columnist calumny. In one such he waxed indignant about Nazis throwing Jewish babies down wells in WWII. In his Newsweek column (Oct. 8, 1990), he called David Duke “a grade B 1950s crooner: Fabian does fascism…The bad seed of American politics.” Despite such guttersniping, which even William Safire might hesitate to write, Will is considered a deep­ thinker by the media. It helps to socialize with Lally.

George writes for Jews, gads about with Jews, takes money from Jews (Newsweek is hardly an Aryan enterprise), so George is consequently very protective of Jews. Indeed, he is a master of the art of stroking the “Our Crowd” crowd by deifying Israel and diabolizing its enemies. He knows that the first thing a modern conservative must do in order to escape any possible charge of fascism or anti-Semitism is to slander activists of his own race. So he makes a point of calling Duke an anti-Semite, while he himself sounds off viciously against Arabs, a form of racism which to him and his circle is considered commendable. A leading member of the school that deems it racist to go after Jews, he apparently thinks it high-minded to go after Germans and Arabs.

George learned to love Jews in his graduate years – he went to Oxford and has a Ph.D. from Princeton – when he became an acolyte of a weird Jewish mystagogue from Europe named Leo Strauss. A guru who burrowed into American academia in the guise of a political scientist, Strauss absorbed and regurgitated the arcane outpourings of medieval Jewish “philosophers,” stirred in a few ideas of the ancient Greeks and came up with an eggheaded ideological brew that Will swallowed in great gulps. George became intensely enamored with that part of Straussian lore that assumes all the great thinkers of the past wrote esoterically, that is, they concealed their real thoughts, which could only be un­derstood by reading between the lines.

Strauss probably inspired some of Will’s own esoterica – the wafer-thin conservative lamina that masks his half-honest, half­ dishonest liberalism, his quirky way of praising double loyalists, such as describing the war-crazy New Republic as “the nation’s most interesting and important journal,” such as joining 54 Jew­ish leaders in an anti-Catholic spiel against Cardinal O’Connor for saying a good word for the Palestinians. Will exulted over the atrocious film Shoah as “the noblest use to which cinema…has been put.” He was first against, then for capital punishment. He was and is for more taxes and bigger government, denounces abortion, affirmative action and forced busing, and strives mightily for civil rights and equalitarianism. He is horrified by Robert Graham’s Repository for Germinal Choice and by any genetic tampering of the human condition, although his eldest son has Down’s Syndrome, a birth defect that may someday be corrected by genetic engineering. Above all, Will is constantly on the look­ out for atrocities and holocausts, which are reported in his columns in lurid detail. The only holocaust he has no interest in is Israel’s slow-burning hecatomb of Palestinians. On his off hours, as his 1990 bestseller, Men At Work, attests, he is a baseball nut.

To put it plainly, George Will is the sort of pundit who holds up his writing finger to discover which way the racist winds are blowing, then writes not what he believes but what his paymasters want to hear. In these days he who feeds the prejudices of the prejudiced gets fat – quite fat – indeed more than a million dollars a year fat. In addition to his columns and his talking-head role on This Week With David Brinkley, he collects $12,000 to $15,000 per speech.

For playing this sordid, ideological shell game and in recognition of his great “accomplishments” in behalf of the Semitic real­politik, George Will has been chosen as Instauration’s Majority Renegade of the Year.

——————————————————————————————————————–

The original can be found here, thanks to the mysterious Charles Martel Society for scanning it.

And for the record, Mr. Robertson’s first book, The Dispossessed Majority comes highly recommended by both Radix’s Michael McGregor and the irreplaceable F. Roger Devlin – and man is it cheap these days.

The post Sucker Of The Summer: 2015 appeared first on Social Matter.

MO guv: Cops will protect lives, property & "free speech." Only people whose free speech is threatened are whites cowering in their homes.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 25, 2014

Much more surprisingly, Rich Lowry struck gold with:

Is this when rand paul comes out and says he too might have punched a police offer when he was young?

— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) November 25, 2014

But aside from these two goodies, Salon manages to merely point and stutter at people who disagree with them, apparently disgusted by pitifully innocuous tweets like:

All of the witnesses who testified that Brown charged Wilson were African American.

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) November 25, 2014

Dear Liberal Media, You are the problem. Again.

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) November 25, 2014

Same libs blasting US Justice system tonight will defend same system as perfect venue for prosecuting Al Qaeda terrorists held at Gitmo.

— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) November 25, 2014

Per usual, Salon seems to think that everyone to their right is a secret Identitarian or race realist, and “reports” the news with this believe on their sleeve. However, I would like to inform both Salon and this fine readership that Twitter is filled with quips a great deal better than those from the chumps at National Review. So below is the real “best of” concerning the “Right-wing’s sick Twitter celebration” – and if #Ferguson has taught me anything, it’s to stay off Facebook and get on Twitter.

Looter honoring Michael Brown by stealing boxes of Swisher Sweets and Newports #Ferguson pic.twitter.com/xY5pHd15AF

— Hunter Wallace (@occdissent) November 25, 2014

No justice no weaves! #FergusonDecision pic.twitter.com/QMczKZ1iFr

— AdolfJoeBiden™ (@Bidenshairplugs) November 25, 2014

Birmingham's Bull Conner knew how to handle riots.

— Michael Hill (@MichaelHill51) November 25, 2014

#Ferguson: "We have nothing to lose but our chain stores!"

— Radix Journal (@RadixJournal) November 25, 2014

Get into the Zone. Then set it on fire. pic.twitter.com/V5GRXKXDYz

— Anti Democracy Blog (@antidemblog) November 25, 2014

What I'm gleaning from Facebook today is nice, well-meaning white ladies should play no role in public life outside of immediate community

— Ricky Vaughn (@Ricky_Vaughn99) November 25, 2014

"They can't shoot all of us." - Ferguson Protestor Yes they can, but they shouldn't because they'll deprive us of such a great super future

— S. Wes Moss (@SWesMoss) November 24, 2014

all it takes is one white cop shooting one black criminal to turn all the mean old libertarians into pussy left wing faggots

— Duck Enlightenment (@jokeocracy) November 25, 2014

#Ferguson – Diversity is Strength

— Virginia Dare (@vdare) November 25, 2014

When I want to better understand the African-American experience in America, I turn to Chris Hayes.

— jon gabriel (@exjon) November 25, 2014

However, no one has done better than Paul Kersey:

In one night, watching blacks riot/loot/burn #Ferguson removes years of Hollywood inculcation of the numinous negro. #SorryMorganFreeman

— Paul Kersey (@sbpdl) November 25, 2014

Putin is laughing right now. #Ferguson

— Paul Kersey (@sbpdl) November 25, 2014

#RedDawn looks like a great alternative to what we have in USA now; a nation under the iron heel of blackness. #Ferguson

— Paul Kersey (@sbpdl) November 25, 2014

Sorry folks, too drunk to tweet. Had a great workout and toasting #DarrenWilson Tweeting impaired would land in jail tonight. #Ferguson

— Paul Kersey (@sbpdl) November 25, 2014

The post How I Learned to Stop Chain-Smoking and Love #Ferguson appeared first on Social Matter.

Note: In the style of Vdare, some links come from the authors and some from the editors.

Hubert Collins: Everyday there seems to be more and more commentary on “neoreactionaries” (NRx), sometimes loosely called the “Dark Enlightenment.” However, I don’t think they’ve received much strong analysis from the perspective of someone more to the right and less mainstream than they are. In short, and as an Identitarian, what do you make of them?

Michael McGregor: I find neoreaction to be an interesting trend that reveals a lot about the disillusionment smart, young people have with the present System. Many people are starting to be fed up with the comfortable lies of liberalism and are looking for a political alternative outside of acceptable discourse. Many see the problems of today as stemming from the political structure of democracy that allows too much disorder and seems incapable of solving major problems. Ultimately, I see neoreaction as a good thing because it awakens some of the best and brightest of our society to the thought that there is something terribly wrong with the modern world. But I would also say that in many ways neoreaction amounts to what Sam Francis would call “the harmless persuasion” in that the majority of its ideas don’t really challenge the present order and serve as a distraction from more pressing issues. Time could very well prove me wrong on that assumption though.

Gregory Hood: I consider myself a part of it and have followed the rise of the Dark Enlightenment for some time.  I’ve taken steps to be writing a lot more shortly and will be engaging with it more substantially soon.  However, Identitarianism and Neo-Reaction are obviously not the same thing.  What you have is a case of Vesica Piscis where there is overlap between some of these individuals; but it would be a mistake to conflate the two movements.

We’ll get into the differences in a bit, but as an overall tendency, I think it’s a good thing. I think they are raising questions that need to be raised, and I think that the more media attention they receive the better it is for everyone.  That said, I think the European New Right already did a lot of the work that NRx is taking on today.  The differences seems to be that it is possible to be in NRx and have a certain separation from racial or ethnic questions, whereas in the ENR it seems to be utterly central to the whole project.

The critical difference is that Identitarians can, at least theoretically, adopt some aspects of the modernist project.  Nationalism (which is not the same as Identitarianism but there’s obviously some conflation) is a modernist project.  The idea of ethnic homogeneity is modernist.  The idea of culture being rooted (at least partially) in biology is modernist.  Some would even call it reductionist or materialist, like what Julius Evola said of German racial science. Mass participation in politics, suspicion of organized religion and the Church, and impatience with monarchy can be found both in Identitarianism and in “far right” movements of the past, but I think most involved in NRx would be quite critical of it.

HC: Many of the write-ups (both left and “right”) on NRx paint them as being more or less Identitarians (or white nationalists or what have you) already. As someone who reads both Social Matter and American Renaissance, this never struck me as being the case, but at the same time, there does seem to be some common ground – if nothing else, both parties share a similar understanding and hatred of “the Cathedral.” What do you think are the key differences, and do you think there is a real possibility of further convergence between the two, or will they always stay an arm’s length apart, almost like paleo-conservatism and Identitarians?

MM: The key difference is that race is THE fundamental principle for Identitarians. That isn’t the case for NRx. I don’t see the Dark Enlightenment as particularly racial and it seems more concerned with the problem of democracy than the problem of White dispossession. It’s also a movement that will appeal only to a select few, while Identitarianism tries to appeal to a whole broad range of White people. I know some Radix readers who are construction workers, and I know some who are college professors. I don’t think you would have the range of class diversity with Social Matter for example. I think some of the NRx crowd will break off into Identitarianism over time, but if it survives and comes to have more influence over libertarianism, we will definitely be at arm’s length.

GH: Actually, I predict a greater separation over time.  I hope to be proven wrong.  As with mainstream American conservatism, there will be a tendency for people involved in NRx to make their peace with the Cathedral by carving out a more “acceptable” form.  This will focus on the exclusion of Identitarians and anyone who takes racial questions seriously.  Certainly, I’ve run into a number of people like this in real life – people who feel quite comfortable proposing that the United States should be ruled by a Hapsburg or that we should ban cars, but at the same time react with shrieks of fear and feigned outrage when someone brings up Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer.  The problem is that racial egalitarianism is the core of the Cathedral’s program, and giggling about Throne and Altar on the margins won’t get us anywhere.

Of course, it goes both ways.  I’ve argued in the past that race is sufficient in and of itself to serve as a foundation for state policy.  However, just saying that tells you very little about how precisely you execute that program.  NRx and its theoretical predecessors are absolutely core to understanding how society works and how power functions.  I think any Identitarian who doesn’t incorporate NRx into his thought isn’t going to have much to say when all is said and done besides repeating “muh folk,” or “muh people” over and over again.  And he’s certainly not going to have any idea of how we can get out of the mess we are in.

As far as the media goes, of course they will try to call it racist.  That’s all they have.  But that should also tell you something about what the Cathedral is really built upon.

HC: Over the last year, I’ve heard NRx described as both “hipster paleos” and as “elitist Identitarians” (that is to say, Identitarians without the sympathy for the white working class that most have). Do you think there is anything to these descriptions?

MM: Directly linking neoreaction with White Nationalism is misguided, so I would say the second term is very inaccurate, and the first term seems wrong as well. NRx doesn’t seem inherently socially conservative, which is a defining feature of paleoconservatism. It is certainly elitist and almost entirely composed of young people, so the elitist and hipster tags might be accurate. In my opinion, the main concern of neoreaction is taking away power from the masses and placing it in the hands of an elite few, who are also the most intelligent members of society. You could call it a “geekocracy.” Correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption. I think it would be more accurate to consider neoreaction as Paleolibertarianism 2.0, with more elitism and less social conservatism.

GH:  There’s definitely some of that, though I think it is overstated.  Even the kind of patronizing attitude most NRx types have for the working class is still better than the overt fear and hatred our democracy offers white workers.  And the actual rich in this country are fanatically pro-Cathedral either out of fear or actual belief.  Your typical Internet reactionary may favor an aristocratic social order, but I doubt he’s got money to burn in the here and now.  I think he may not consider himself a “worker” in a social sense, but he knows what it’s like to worry about the rent.

Still, I think a real base for NRx is in the tech industry and there’s definitely a sense of “we want to break away from these proles.”  As the American Right has become identified more broadly with Middle American Christians who are anti-elitist, low-church Protestant, and strongly pro-American, it seems predictable that NRx is going to be defined as a kind of Right Opposition – overtly elitist (just against who runs the Cathedral today), high Church, and suspicious (at the least) of the entire American experiment. Identitarians are also against all that, but there’s a greater sense of “we have to save these people.”  In NRx, you can be frankly indifferent whether we will deal with them at all.

HC: Surprisingly, out of all the analyses on NRx that have been done, rarely does anyone make predictions about where they are going. Where do you think they are headed?

MM: As I said before, I see some of the more racially-concerned neoreactionaries becoming Identitarians. If most of the NRx bloggers hold out past 2016 and don’t drop out like Moldbug, I see it having an influence on the libertarian movement that might turn away from appealing to the masses and instead focus on tactics outside of campaign politics. If Rand Paul fails miserably, I can see many a libertarian begin to question democracy and pick up Hoppe. The libertarianism of the future could be very elitist and demand a monarchy to counter the problems of democracy. Though if neoreaction becomes more influential, I can guarantee the more dangerous thinkers like Julius Evola will be dropped.

GH:  As I said before, I think you are going to see the emergence of a media friendly, “respectable” NRx that will present silly little essays on how whatever reactionary principle would ameliorate whatever is the social problem of the given news cycle.  But I don’t think those guys are really going to be that important or relevant.  There are plenty of people in the mainstream American conservative movement who will say things in private about how the South should be independent or how only property owners should vote, but when all is said and done they still go knock on doors for the likes of Ed Gillespie.  I think a big chunk of NRx will move in that direction – more acceptable and less interesting.

But another chunk will enter Identitarianism, which is just getting started.  Ultimately, the dividing line is race — not even whether you think it is important, but whether you are willing to even acknowledge it.  The sheer scale of demographic change and the empowerment of immigrant groups via mass democracy is going to overwhelm all other considerations.  The schools of thought that are going to matter are the ones who have something to say about it.

HC: In the interest of propagandizing a bit, what books/authors do you think NRx should read in order to challenge themselves?

MM:

The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson

Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye

New Right vs. Old Right by Greg Johnson

The Way of Men by Jack Donovan

The essay “Our Cause” by William Luther Pierce

GH:  I assume all of us involved in the Dark Enlightenment already have our basics down (I find myself returning again and again to de Maistre) so I think you want more race related stuff specifically.  Actually, the first book I’d recommend is a history book – The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity by James Russell.  The understanding how religion becomes an expression of ethnicity is a valuable asset in avoiding the kinds of doctrinal enthusiasms that plague NRx.  A German neo-pagan has more in common with a German Traditionalist Catholic than the latter has with various Haitians or Chinese who may be ostensible members of his Church.

I’ll skip over the usual racial books — I think everyone here knows all that.  One person who I think has been woefully neglected by NRx is Sam Francis.  Francis, through his in depth analysis of the work of James Burnham, was really outlining what the Cathedral was years before anyone heard of NRx.  Sadly, he never got to finish his magnum opus, but the columns and collections that survive are an invaluable guide to seeing how the Cathedral uses racial egalitarianism as a way to exercise power.  He provides a way of understanding egalitarianism as an elitist strategy.

And of course, anything from the European New Right.

Hadley Bennett: Could you settle for white-presenting nationalism? That is, instead of deporting (or theoretically structuring a society so that this problem doesn’t emerge) an East Indian at MIT, would he be acceptable if he signalled whiteness in totality? Must the whiteness of Identitarianism be biological?

MM: No to white-presenting Identity. We define White Identity as the biological and cultural heritage of Europe. They are intrinsically linked and they are both essential to making us who we are. I believe that your hypothetical East Indian should, like all people, identify with his own culture rather than that of one that he has no blood connection to.

GH:  Well, yes – because identity is biological.  The question presupposes that I would only be happy with a 100% white ethnostate.  Even if we get that, there are going to be nonwhites in the state at one time or another to trade, visit, study, what have you. And obviously, you treat them with respect and dignity, same as you treat everyone else.

But no, I would not allow them to be full citizens.  The reason is because I believe culture is an expression of biology and that ideas get taken to their logical conclusion.  Even if you have a nonwhite who considers himself “European,” there’s no guarantee that his kids will.  Furthermore, once you introduce the premise that it’s all culture, it’s just a short jump to saying everyone can “assimilate” as long as we hold the line on not granting racial preferences and preserving the language.  Well, we saw how that worked in France.

It’s also kind of funny how we think the West can somehow be universal when almost no other culture is.  If a white man said he “felt” Japanese, or Indian, or Nigerian, we’d raise our eyebrows and few members of that community would accept him as “one of them.”  Yet we somehow believe a Japanese, Indian, or Nigerian can somehow “become” European.  To me, it’s just as weird.

As I believe Jared Taylor put it, “Only we can be us.”  Every Western country spent the last half century pretending it was a matter of culture, not race.  Well, culture comes from race.  It’s an expression of race.  And we’ve seen this movie before and can’t afford to screw this up again.

I want to clarify something important though — I have no patience and no time for people acting rude or self-righteous based on race.  Being “white” doesn’t make you better than a non-white.  It’s just part of your identity.  I love my family, but being in my family doesn’t make me automatically superior to everyone else.  The question of how we order political society and where we owe loyalty is different from the question of how we treat people as individuals.  But that doesn’t mean everyone is the same or that everyone can “become” white.  You’re white or you are not. Full stop.

HB: What are we supposed to do with whites who shop at Whole Foods? In other words, is there enough commonality in whiteness as such, especially in the United States, to even think polity formation could feasibly arise on that premise? Or is it a particular kind of white/whiteness?

MM: All Whites carry the heritage for which we can base a commonly-shared racial consciousness on. It depends on the individual to make a decision whether they want to be a Last Man and watch his people die, or embrace his identity and understands that all Whites share something more than a desire for comfort. The Whites who typically shop at Whole Foods (better known as SWPLs and the worst ones known as “urban elves”) have some great characteristics such as high intelligence, but are typically the most disgusted by White Identity since they are heavily indoctrinated and have the most to gain by sticking with the System. Many Identitarians, including myself, are just as well disgusted with the low T behavior exhibited by many SWPLs and stress a virile, masculine White Identity to counter it. I personally don’t view the Whiteness (which is often portrayed as goofy and effete by the media) of SWPLs very highly and wish to promote a different kind of Identity. Those that adopt our Identity will be able to form a polity if and when the present order breaks down. I think this Identity appeals to all kinds of Whites to the point that we can have a well-ordered society.

GH:  I don’t entirely reject Evola’s idea that race is partially spiritual, but it is still, when all is said and done, biological.  And just as a family is rooted in genetics and not “culture,” race (which is just an extended family) is rooted in biology.  Of course, the culture is screwed up – but the culture is screwed up because we’ve lost the centrality of ethnic identity.  And once you restore that, as I said in the article I linked to previously, you do have enough to serve as a foundation.

Still, houses need more than a foundation.  And that’s where NRx comes in.  But as I’ve argued before, so many of the substitutes that others propose as a foundation for society – religion, “values,” propositions, economics, monarchy, what have you – are secondary to biological considerations and are in fact outgrowths of it.  And again – we’ve seen this experiment fail this century.

But what about self-hating whites, i.e. whites who deny their very identity?  And isn’t “ethno-nationalism” separate from whiteness?  Well, one of the things I think NRx can show us is how relatively new – and artificial – a lot of these nations really are.  And also how the egalitarian poisons of the age are really a religious phenomenon — an outgrowth of a Christian heresy (the key book here is Paul Gottfried’s Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy).

Ultimately, I see Europe (which I define as wherever Europeans are) as a Broken Empire and while I believe in a diversity of regions and want government pushed to the most local level possible, “Belgian” isn’t somehow a more meaningful identity than “European” or “white.”  And that identity can be sufficient to build a society, if properly understood.

Does that mean it’s just a question of biology?  Not really — otherwise the white homeland would already exist (we’d call it Portland.)  But it does mean that if you say the preservation and upward development of your race is the foundation of your state and cultural order that you have enough to go on.

HB: If pathological altruism is true, and whites simply are unable to act like, say, the Japanese, then what are we to do with countries essentially composed of outbred, European mutts? If clannishness isn’t innately present and has instead been replaced with pathological altruism, is the game finished before it’s even started? Should Identitarianism be modulated by a mixture of traditionalism and techno-commercialism to get at the truly good quality stock, rather than using whiteness as a proxy?

MM: I think it needs to be said that we’re not trying to save all Whites, nor do we think it is possible. Many Whites will trade in their identity to be apart of an amorphous and decadent monoculture that stamps out all identities and rewards its adherents with material comfort. I may be misinterpreting you, but I believe by good stock you mean high-IQ people regardless of race. White Identity is our core principle and is what drives our people. Without it, there’s no purpose to our race and I don’t want to live in a world where it is extinct. Pathological altruism will overcome many Whites, but the clannishness and strong Identities of other races will likely forces enough Whites to adopt a tribal mindset that will ensure our heritage and our race will survive. Taking race out of the equation is a non-starter for us.

GH:  Excellent question and I think such a strategy may be what we end up doing in order to achieve an “exit” from all this.  But you still are going to bump into the key question of how you justify “good quality stock” and how you build something that’s sustainable not just for a group of people, but for their kids and their kids and so forth. The obstacles to fulfilling this kind of strategy and achieving a white ethnostate are essentially the same and I see the latter as more sustainable in the long run.

If pathological altruism is inherent, then yes, it’s all over.  But when all is said and done, it was an evolutionary response that is simply not working for us anymore, and we are seeking one that is more effective for us today.  And again, I don’t see “whiteness” as a proxy, but something authentic and meaningful.  As an outbred European mutt (i.e. an American) I actually can see us leading the way in this regard.

HB: What do Identitarians have to say about polities possessing multi-racial elements from their inception? In those scenarios, how does the end goal of whiteness match against higher-order governance values like peace, order, good government, the rule of law, and so on? Would whiteness as an end goal even apply in a multi-racial scenario? Is Identitarianism only useful if your polity is composed of majority—or almost majority—whites?

MM: They have no organic basis and will destroy themselves shortly after creation. People don’t unite on abstract values. They unite based on blood and land. While you may create this society on raceless principles, some of the people who make up this society will have strong racial identities and will work for their own people, rather than that of their own society. This will lead to disintegration and balkanization. Identitarianism is firmly opposed to artificial, multiracial polities.

GH:  I think they are inherently unstable and destructive.  Where I differ is that I don’t see these other things proposed – rule of law, etc – as a “higher order.”  As I said, I think the preservation and upward development of the race should be the foundation of the state.  All else follows.  America today has the “rule of law” and a reasonably reliable system of commerce, but it is leading us to destruction.  Therefore, I favor dismantling it.

In a multi-racial scenario, it’s not that “whiteness” would be the end.  It’s that what happens to the multi-racial polity would be irrelevant to me except insofar as it affects Europeans.  What does an Identitarian say about a multi-racial polity?  Protect your interests and existence within it until you can get out of it.

HB: Final thoughts?

MM: I look forward to seeing where NRx heads in the future and whether it can transform itself into a larger movement. Also, I hear this website RadixJournal.com is pretty neat. You should visit it.

GH:  Though I focus on race, I actually get annoyed by people who focus on it to the exclusion of all else.  Life isn’t just about race.  But race and identity is at the foundation of everything we do.  You can call yourself whatever faith you want, you can call your race or ethnicity “incidental,” but it’s as core to you as your sex, your family, or the language your were taught to speak in as a child.  I don’t like talking about it all the time because it’s equivalent to talking about being attracted to pretty girls or needing to eat food – it’s always there, so what?

What NRx offers is a way to give meaning to this foundation, to build something worthwhile upon it.  It’s the most exciting intellectual development in some time.  But the challenging days are still before it.  To remain relevant, it has to remain dangerous and be willing to take on the critical source of the Cathedral’s power.  That is source is race.  And while I don’t want to see NRx talk about race all the time (or even most of the time), the real danger is that NRx will simply surrender.

And if that happens, well, hell, why not just read National Review?

The post Two Prominent Identitarians Give Us Their Thoughts On Neoreaction appeared first on Social Matter.

• A Scottish left-anarchist once tried to convince me that the origins of the word “Christian” came from 1850s America, and that it was invented by nativists who were trying to unite Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, etc. against non-Christian immigrants
• A Maoist Boomer I knew in Chicago earnestly tried to convince me that there was no other way to describe what went on in America’s prisons than “Hitlerist”
• A Communist girl I went to college with insisted that the word “nigger” had to be banned because its use directly led to lynchings
• A Communist professor I had at college who described the TV show Modern Family as “conservative”

The list goes on of course, but who really cares? The point, in short, is that (as we all know) the far majority of people out there who are purportedly smart seem to be completely out of their minds. Aside from reflecting on the incredible stupidity of certain individuals in certain instances, I sometimes daydream about when the last time will be that I have to meet someone above the age of thirteen who:

• Is white and identifies as Buddhist
• Thinks money, as in currency, should be abolished and humans should go back to the happy days of subsistence farming while occasionally trading goods for other goods
• Genuinely believes are people are equal, even in terms of natural beauty, inclination, etc.
• Wants to tell me how all Republicans are secretly Nazis
• Wants to tell me that [blank] left-wing totalitarian wasn’t that bad

I could go on and on. Solutions to these problems are of course varied; I am sympathetic to Gregory Hood’s call to burn down the colleges, but that’s a debate for another time. In the short run, I would advocate getting together with like-minded people from time to time, and actually being able to speak your mind. There are different strategies for pushing the boundaries of acceptable discourse in day-to-day social circles, but there really is no substitute for drinking and talking shop in the company of thought-criminals.

Should you agree, you’re in luck, as the H.L. Mencken Club is getting together quite soon in Baltimore (where else?). It will be their seventh gathering, and their list of past speakers is impressive: Charles Murray, Tom Woods, Steve Sailer, Pat Buchanan, Keith Preston, Taki, Henry Harpending, and plenty others. The line-up this year is spectacular as well, with big names like: The Derb, Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, Sean Gabb, and Paul Gottfried.

I am sometimes surprised that the club does not get that much attention (though perhaps it is for the best) given that it is more or less the American version of Hans Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society.

More than the speakers though, is the conversations with other attendees. I have gone before (unfortunately, this year I’m about 4,750 miles away) and had the pleasure of getting to talk with Gilbert Cavanaugh, Scott Locklin, F. Roger Devlin, and James Kalb, among others. It is an opportunity to speak with every stripe of the Unauthorized Right: white nationalists, Catholic authoritarians, race realists, Rothbardian anarchists, paleoconservatives, Dark Enlightenment, etc. To put it another way, it is an opportunity to speak with people who are not retarded, something so rare and precious that it only peaks its head out of the blogosphere and into the realm of hotel ballrooms a few times a year.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the Hestia Society will hold an inaugural NRx conference sometime in the near future, in the most appropriate and inappropriate location in the United States. In the meantime, check out the H.L. Mencken club if you can and send our greetings.

The post Looking To The Mencken Club And What Lies Beyond appeared first on Social Matter.

Next thing I knew he had only clichéd and left-y things to say about the “Dark Enlightenment” back when everyone and their mom was writing about us. The winning line was: “there is a distinctly unlibertarian [sic] note of crazy about the neo-reactionary [sic] interest in IQ. Aside from the bad science and the irony of being anti-statist yet sympathetic to the idea that you can measure intelligence and use it to justify social policy.” How curious it was that someone with his qualifications could address race realism with such dismissiveness – and be so careless as to think the “Dark Enlightenment” is somehow within the confines of libertarianism.

But as it turns out, I was wrong to be surprised at Dr. Stanley’s pitiful smear job. In looking over his work this summer, he may well qualify as the “conservative blue-pill popper” of the summer. Let’s take a look at some of his writing over at The Telegraph over the last few months.

August 17^th: “As Ferguson burns, Obama watches silently from a safe distance”

Summary: His latest article on #Ferguson begins with the wry observation that President Obama plays a lot of golf, which is why he isn’t a good leader, because he should be doing more. The leadership Dr. Stanley holds up as a model for the President is Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis, “when he persuaded his audience not to riot after the death of Martin Luther King Jr.” Naturally, the racism that Ferguson blacks apparently have to suffer is brought up, as is the over militarization of the police, and on and on. The article ends by bringing up once again that President Obama is probably too busy playing golf to bother being a good leader in these times of need.

Translation: I am not racist. I think Obama is a weak leader and should do more for justice because as a not-racist-conservative I believe in justice. I am a well-read historian and will make allusions to the liberal BFK stopping a race riot with his words. I will take the Beltway Libertarian cop-out and be sure to focus on how the police state has run rampant. Whatever happens, I will not bring up black crime rates.

August 14^th: A black president couldn’t stop the Ferguson race riots

Summary: Dr. Stanley starts out by trying to sound poetic, “an unarmed African-American teenager cut down by a white cop’s bullets” in his description of #Ferguson. He then wonders out loud how things like this could still be happening in America! (Not that it’s been very long since our last race riot.) Economic figures on the poverty of blacks are brought up, followed by figures on how they don’t have dads, followed by figures on how they have a lot of abortions. He literally quotes Jonah Goldberg and calls him “respected” about half way through the piece. The big heart-warming end is about how “change” will not come from the White House, but from the people.

Translation: As a not-racist-conservative I believe in justice. Mr. Goldberg and I, along with plenty of other right-wingers (like Rand Paul!) have the solutions America’s blacks need. Someday they will realize that, and then white liberals will feel very stupid for calling us racist – and then no one will have abortions!

August 8^th: Bombing Iraq isn’t an act of war. It’s an act of mercy

Summary: As opposed to people who want to go to war for bad reasons (Dr. Stanley hates them!), Dr. Stanley wants to go to war for good reasons. ISIS is evil, there is some kind of genocide occurring, the West has a responsibility because of the foolish invasion of Iraq, etc. Plus Christians are dying, and Dr. Stanley has officially hopped on the bandwagon of “conservatives” who would like to legitimize Christianity in the eyes of the left by reframing them as a persecuted minority in the Middle East. Dr. Stanley would also like to remind us all that normally he is against war, but this time…

Translation: I have come up with a brand new rhetorical tool in which I take the moral high ground in advocating for war by saying it will stop genocide. Also, forget about my column from June called, “As it did with Vietnam, America may have to leave Iraq to its fate.” Also the left will stop its relentless war on the Church once they realize that so many Christians out there are weak and powerless in the face of evil. All I have to do to make Christianity survive is to make it seem as powerless and oppressed as possible!

July 31^st: Peace in Gaza requires faith: a return to the gentle heart of Islam and Judaism

Summary: Sorry readers, but I would rather watch a video called “Swagmaster Chad and Ganjalord homburg hustling the streets” than read an article with this title. So I did.

Translation: Religion is a beautiful peaceful thing. If the Middle East had more religion, it would be more peaceful. The left will stop is relentless war on the Church once I show them that religion brings love to all humanity, especially since the left hates war so much… I can’t wait to write a piece on this topic again on the centennial of WWI’s Christmas Truce!

July 30^th: Mitt Romney was right about everything in 2012. So why not Romney in 2016?

Summary: The title is not ironic or a joke. However, the author concedes it (unfortunately) won’t happen, ergo conceding that he is navel-gazing. Dr. Stanley focuses on four big things Mr. Romney was “right” about: 1) Russophobia 2) Obamacare sucking 3) Mr. Obama’s inability to work with Congress (remember the golf digs earlier?) 4) Illegal immigration. The piece ends with a lame joke about Mr. Romney using his “squillions of dollars to take us all on vacation to the great southwest.” Not only is the joke lame, but Dr. Stanley is not an American, nor is the majority of his audience, so it makes little sense to boot.

Translation: I am one of those reasonable and moderate conservatives – kind of like that other conservative British historian that everyone loves – Niall Ferguson!

July 10^th: Hey Cameron, leave those teaching unions alone: striking is a civil right

Summary: A compassionate conservative (like me!) would respect strikers no matter what, because striking is important for civil society.

Translation: I am not one of those mean conservatives. I love teachers and schools and education because I am not a mean person. Love me.

This list could go on and on, but no one wants that many words dedicated to Timothy Stanley alone – so here are just a few more winning headlines:

We miss so much and so much when we dismiss ‘ordinary’ people

Divine: the drag queen who happily churned the world’s stomach

European fascism has returned? It never went away and it probably never will

So here’s to you, Dr. Stanley; this summer you’ve proved more than ever before that you consider yourself the furthest thing on the right that deserves respect. With that in mind, you’ll be sure to attack everyone to the right of you, but no, the left won’t like you anymore because of it.

Congratulations on being the Sucker of the Summer!

The post Sucker Of The Summer: Timothy Stanley appeared first on Social Matter.

Kevin MacDonald, F. Roger Devlin, and the editors of The Occidental Quarterly have all written impressive praises of the man, but Robertson’s work speaks for itself—specifically one of the most impressive chapters in his seminal work Dispossessed Majority, “The Dissolution of Art.” Robertson wrote well on just about every topic conceivable, but his sharp mind shone brightest when examining the intertwined topics of art, culture, and taste – topics too often overlooked by American racialists, since mustering sophisticated philosophical defenses of western aesthetics is surprisingly difficult. Deconstruction of the western aesthetic and replacement with postmodernism et al. isn’t ‘art,’ is absurd, disgusting, etc. But is there anything more than that?

Note how perfectly on-point Robertson’s observations are, even decades after they were first published in 1972.^[1]

Forbidden to explore the text and context of his collective consciousness, the Majority artist retreats to surrealism, science fiction, murder mysteries, fantasy, travel guides, and pornography. In the process he becomes the punching bag of the minority activist, who views “man’s essential struggle as social, against other men, rather than the moral one against himself.

Consider the wealthiest White authors of our time: James Patterson, Stephenie Meyer, Stephen King, Danielle Steel, JK Rowling, Jim Davis (of the Garfield cartoon), Tom Clancy^[2], Michael Crichton, Dean Koontz, Dan Brown, Janet Evanovich, Ann Rice, George R.R. Martin, Terry Pratchett, Harper Lee, Nicholas Sparks, and on and on and on. All of the above authors are of course White, as are their audiences, and in addition to the genres outlined by Robertson, one could add such pitiful sub-genres as: courtroom dramas, fantasy-pornography, thrillers, and children’s books.

Take a look at the highest grossing films in the US. Most are science fiction films of one stripe or another (E.T., Avatar, Hunger Games, etc.), plenty are sequels, prequels, or sequels of prequels (Star Wars, Iron Man, Shrek, etc.), but the far-and-away majority are films made for humans under the age of ten. ^[3]

This follows logically, since Whites are currently forbidden to express even a modicum of self-interest in the realm of film. There is of course the obvious example of Mel Gibson’s downfall, but the landscape is filled with more nuanced instances of censorship. Consider how Leni Riefenstahl’s career was destroyed after the Second World War, which Greg Johnson aptly called an “aesthetic crime.” Even when films such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy show flavors of Nietzschean boldness, or depict different races in a different realm than our own, they are attacked as racist.

The hollowness of today’s White artist in great part explains, and may even somewhat justify, both the high-end snobbish (think Criterion Collection) obsession with films about the struggles of non-Whites, and its more middlebrow counterpart (think Focus Features). 12 Years a Slave serves as an obvious and recent example, but anything close to a full list gets impossibly long: the filmography of Spike Lee, Amistad, Ali, Roots, The Color Purple, A Raisin in the Sun, A Bronx Tale, The Constant Gardener, Driving Miss Daisy, El Norte, Real Women Have Curves, Shoah, Life is Beautiful, A Serious Man etc.

Certainly the current state of ethno-masochism explains much of the interest in these films, but so too does their lack of competition in the realm of narratives that cover struggles, resistance, and triumph in any genuine way.^[4] And since White self-expression is expressly forbidden, must of us are left to sift through the backlogs of film’s history.

Imagining a world in which White artists in Hollywood would be free to examine their own identities proves difficult, as all counterfactuals are. I am reminded of libertarians who ask us to envision a world in which all the energies of tax collectors and tax lawyers, regulators and regulatory lawyers, etc., are instead directed to something more beautiful and productive. In the libertarian counterfactual, however, it’d be overly generous to assume that tax collector psyches and soulless bureaucrats could be redeemed by institutions, the power of the market.

Well, imagine a film industry in which films about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty could be made. Or in which Arrested Development, a TV show that romanticizes and glorifies the neurosis and decadence of a wealthy Jewish family, couldn’t find an audience — instead of becoming an exemplar of the taste of contemporary Whites.

Although the Internet has more or less killed travel guides, it has not (contra much heresay) killed pornography, an industry currently worth around 15 billion. Though the presence of non-Whites in this industry is certainly higher than in the above two, it is still not altogether very high.

There is a fair number of “Mandingo” black male stars, and not insignificant numbers of mulatto, mestizo, and oriental women, but on the whole, Whites run the industry,[5] and the majority of its performers are White as well. White women in particular have an undeniable monopoly.^[6] And indeed, the smear of racism is applied to all of the above, as implicit Whiteness steadily becomes a more and more unforgivable sin. The left regularly critiques pornography, despite being filled with glorifications of interracial sex. Jezebel, The Root, Ms, and Racialicious have all written published hit pieces on the racism of pornography, and even a few pornstars have leveled the same claim, both Black and White.

No matter how innocuous, a-racial, or even explicitly liberal, Cultural Marxists will find the tiny transgressions in anything not made by (and for) them and attack it: it’s less a matter of genuine philosophical difference than rationalization for hostility to western thedes and aesthetics. As another counterfactual, envision a world in which beautiful White women perform ballet to appreciative audiences instead of starring in “Blacks on Blondes.”

[T]hey [liberals and Marxists] treat as a paradox the fact that a disproportionate number of all modern Majority literary lights are Southerners: James Agee, Flannery O’Connor, Katherine Anne Porter, John Crowe Ransom, Robert Penn Warren, Walker Percy, James Dickey, Stark Young, Carson McCullers, Eudora Welty, Allen Tate, Tom Wolfe, to name a few.

Here we have a sin by omission. With the exceptions of Flannery O’Connor and Tom Wolfe, the academy, the media, and the blogosphere simply do not discuss the above authors. The only circles in which they still carry any weight or recognition are the moribund publications of paleoconservatism: Chronicles, Anamnesis, First Principles, etc. Tom Wolfe’s ability to stay both relevant and incredibly subversive is genuinely amazing, but the exception proves the rule. Meanwhile, though Flannery O’Connor has stayed in the public’s eye, all of the hipsters who adore what they misinterpret to be her existentialism, they also agonize over her “racism.” Her writing has also become an unfortunate meme in the cannon of “hip” and nominally Catholic “conservative” pundits like Andrew Sullivan, John Zmirak, and the American Conservative crowd.^[7]

The surrealist painters, atonal jazz musicologists, prosaic poets, emetic novelists, crypto-pornographers, and revanchist pamphleteers say they are searching for new forms because the old forms are exhausted. Actually they are exhuming the most ancient forms of all-simple geometric shapes, color blobs, drum beats, genitalia, four-letter words, and four-word sentences…. All Majority artists necessarily experience the wrenching depression that comes from enforced cultural homelessness. Of all people the artist is the least capable of working in a vacuum.

Examples of this phenomenon between 1972 and now are countless. Keith Haring was maybe the most perfect example, as a White man who slept almost exclusively with black and mestizo men, and whose “art” consisted of aerosol spray renditions of cave paintings, but eventually came to be considered avant-garde. For years his art communicated nothing but shallow joy (e.g. stick figures dancing, animals playing), but when AIDS hit and he received the deadly diagnosis, all his work became commentary on “gay cancer,” often, by way of dancing condoms.

Other White junkies and degenerates of New York City’s Lower East Side embody what Robertson described as well. The purposeful atonality of the No Wave music scene (complete with a jazz influence), and the sophomorically pornographic Cinema of Transgression movement were both in full swing as the city its adherents inhabited began to look more and more like wasteland somewhere in the third world.

The nihilism, decadence, and aesthetics of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s would morph, evolve, and take us through grunge music, emo culture, all the way to today’s hipster.^[8] These Whites living at the end of History have no sense of time or place, much less a culture to grasp, and are thus left with nothing but cyclical irony, references to anything outside of the present, and vulgarity.

Only in the sector of aesthetics, through the pervasiveness of the idealized Nordic biological type and its continued acceptance as the national template of physical charm and attractiveness, has the Majority been able to mount a small but successful holding action in the present-day racial melee.

But if there is one thing Whites can rely on, it is the near universal and complete acceptance of their beauty. Even in the most self-obsessed and uninteresting hipster films, the dullest of political thriller novels, the openly and proudly ethno-masochistic plays, the most mind-numbing Hollywood action films, and the vilest pornography, there is no getting around the presence and beauty of Whites in all of them – and everyone’s interesting desire to keep it that way, aside from bitter attempts at eradication, as otherwise we will always linger as reminders of an unachievable aesthetic quality.

For these passages, and so many more, and for all of the thoughts – and actions – they inspire, the White world owes Wilmot Robertson a great deal.

^[1] See too the April 1994 issue of Instauration, “What is Happening to Beauty?”

^[2] For a spectacular examination of Tom Clancy’s quintessentially American faux-conservatism, see James Kirkpatrick’s Tom Clancy’s American Dream

^[3] While it can be said that film has not been on “our side” for about a century, and that children’s films have always done well, taking a look at box office records by decade is truly illustrative. Taken as a whole, the highest-grossing films of the first half of the last century, while not terribly intellectual, are hardly anti-White.

^[4] For more in-depth analysis of films from a thoughtful and pro-White perspective, see the archives of Edmund Connelly on The Occidental Observer and Trevor Lynch on Counter Currents

[5] While there is some truth to the “Jewish pornographer” stereotype, gentile presence is not to be underestimated: Hugh Hefner, Larry Flynt, Bob Guccione, John Stagliano, Gerard Damiano, etc.

^[6] Consider that only White women have had any breakout success as well: Jenna Jameson, Sasha Grey, Marilyn Chambers, Tristan Taormino, etc.

^[7] While the last of these three is still much better than something like National Review, it has been some time since they have published even moderate nationalists like John Derbyshire or Roger McGrath. The archives of former editor Richard Spencer were purged long ago as well, and they have even begun publishing attacks on race realists.

^[8] The analysis of today’s “hipsters” seems to have no end, but an excellent primer comes from the surprising source of Adbusters, “Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization”

The post In Memoriam: Wilmot Robertson appeared first on Social Matter.