Introduction to Mary Phagan-Kean’s Insights into the Murder of Her Great Aunt

HERE ARE SOME of the key points offered by Mary Phagan-Kean in her latest interview with social media activist Ryan Dawson. (video above)

Mary Phagan-Kean’s journey into the dark and complex narrative surrounding the murder of her great aunt, Mary Phagan, began unexpectedly. Her father first shared the story after her name was recognized by a teacher, sparking a lifelong quest for truth and justice. The tale, as recounted by her father, painted a grim picture of Leo Frank, the man convicted of Mary Phagan’s murder. According to testimony, Frank was a sexual pervert who molested numerous young girls and even boys, earning him the moniker “the B’nai B’rith pedophile” — a reference to the fact that he was president of the Atlanta chapter of the Jewish fraternal order B’nai B’rith, the organization which gave birth to the powerful ADL, or “Anti-Defamation League.” Frank was even re-elected president of the group after his conviction for murdering little Mary.

The Vigilance Committee, which consisted of leading community leaders and which sought “Southern justice” after a corrupt governor (who was a partner in the law firm that defended Frank) commuted Frank’s death sentence, played a pivotal role in the case by executing him themselves after, as they saw it, outside influencers had illegally prevented his lawful hanging. (The New York Times-invented “Knights of Mary Phagan” never existed. That moniker was likely invented to link the Vigilance Committee to similar-sounding “Knights” factions of the Ku Klux Klan, in order to smear the Committee.)

The lynching of Frank was the first done by automobile, quite a feat considering the limited ownership of automobiles in Marietta, Georgia, in 1915 — further proving that prominent citizens, who were outraged by Governor Slaton’s involvement in the law firm that defended Frank, and his commutation of his sentence, were involved, and not a “mob.”

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization with a vested interest in the outcome, has been relentless in its efforts to secure a full pardon for Frank for decades. Their tactics, however, have been marred by deception and misinformation, leading to numerous hoaxes, including false claims about a pardon (the existing “pardon” does not address his guilt at all).

Mary Phagan-Kean’s father never mentioned Frank’s Jewishness but emphasized his perverse behavior. Her grandfather, Mary Phagan’s brother, was deeply emotionally affected by the case, becoming distraught when asked about it, particularly noting the resemblance between Mary Phagan-Kean and little Mary.

The narrative surrounding the case is fraught with controversy. Jews have even attempted to portray Mary Phagan as a seducer, a claim that Mary Phagan-Kean vehemently rejects.

There has been documented collusion between Jewish groups and officials to alter the wording on Mary’s commemorative plaque, with the altered plaque suggesting that Frank was exonerated for the murder — which he was not. This alteration occurred under the cover of night and was set up during secret meetings from which the Phagan family — and the public — were excluded, further obscuring the truth.

Rabbi Steven Lebow, a prominent figure in the area Jewish community, demanded that Mary’s marker be changed because it “offended” the Jewish community to tell the truth about the non-pardon. This defense of a convicted child rapist and murderer is a strange hill for Jewish groups to die on.

During the 1960s, when Jewish authors Leonard Dinnerstein and Harry Golden were writing their books on the case, the trial transcript mysteriously disappeared, making it unavailable for public scrutiny.

The best outcome of the efforts of both sides in this case, Mrs. Phagan-Kean says, has been the creation of a team to digitize and make all relevant documents on the case available and searchable online. And the best way to study the case, she avers, is to examine these newspaper articles in conjunction with the Brief of Evidence (all now available on leofrank.info and leofrank.org). Contrary to popular belief, the newspapers were pro-Frank and had Jewish editors, contradicting the notion of an anti-Frank, anti-Jewish atmosphere. Nevertheless, the firsthand reports of the trial at that time were mostly honest and paint a very different picture from that of the “Leo Frank is an innocent victim of anti-Semitism” narrative being pushed today. (One can learn, for example, that the grand jury that indicted Frank included four Jews out of 21 members, and that all voted to charge Frank with the murder.)

The Jewish community’s claims that Frank did not know Mary Phagan are untenable. Frank walked past her daily for a year, handled her pay packets weekly, and even directed police to investigate James Gannt, claiming he was “close to” Mary. These actions suggest a familiarity that contradicts his claim of ignorance.

The Anti-Defamation League’s never-ending defense of Frank has inadvertently contributed to the cause they claim to oppose: anti-Semitism.

Mary Phagan was brutally raped, as evidenced by the autopsy report, which, though difficult to read, showed no markings on her body except those of strangulation. There was blood in her panties, and family proof confirmed she was not on her menstrual cycle. ADL-linked author Steven Oney referred to Mary as a “voluptuous woman,” a claim that Parade magazine attempted to exploit this by implying she was “flirting” before her death, a particularly odious insinuation.

A 1980s miniseries, inspired by Harry Golden’s book and dubious material from Alonzo Mann, was produced without consultation with Mary Phagan’s family. This miniseries further muddied the waters of the case.

In a more recent development, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, under pressure from Rabbi Lebow and the Jewish power structure, established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” in Atlanta. This unit, ostensibly to exonerate falsely convicted individuals, including Blacks, was really created explicitly to push for the exoneration of Frank. They have even floated the idea of a new trial for Frank, despite the extreme improbability of a proper prosecution more than a century later.

Contrary to ADL claims, the “mass exodus” of Jews from the area after the Frank case never occurred. This is one of the many hoaxes that will be debunked in the forthcoming new edition of Mrs. Phagan-Kean’s book, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan.

Mary Phagan-Kean’s father’s enduring belief was that “the truth will always win,” a sentiment that continues to guide her quest for justice.

****

Source: leofrank.info

ABOVE YOU WILL SEE another superb video by reallygraceful on YouTube (hosted on another server in case the ethnically-distinct censors at YouTube decide to take it down) who has conducted thorough research on the Leo Frank case and murder of little Mary Phagan. She is presenting the facts of this case in her new video (number one of a miniseries) without any of the lies others like to throw in there to muddle up the case and show innocence where there isn’t any.

The author states:

This video is the first part in a mini-series about a famous Georgia trial–the trial of Leo Frank. The details of this trial have been purposefully twisted over time, images of news articles doctored, and any questioning about it silenced. This video is highly sourced from supreme court documents, archives of original news articles, and statements from the victim’s family.

****

Source: Little Mary Phagan

We at the Mercury do not endorse every point made by the author here, but we do think his Menckenesque demolition of one of the most useless and offensive conservative types is quite brilliant.

by Kevin Alfred Strom

DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION, Donald Trump announced that the US was going to recognize the disputed city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and move the US embassy there from Tel Aviv — exactly what the more extreme sorts of Zionist Jews and nutcase boomer conservatives have been demanding for decades. Never mind that historically, Jerusalem has not been populated mainly by Jews, was not founded by Jews, and was ruled by Jews only for a very tiny fraction of the time since its founding.

Neither the Jews nor the boomer conservatives — most of them Zionist Christians — care about those facts. The Jews do care about some things that are actually real, though — they care about increasing the territory and power of their racial supremacist state, Israel.

The boomer conservatives, in contrast, care about totally illusory things, things that are not real. They care about “fulfilling Bible prophecy” — about “God blessing those that bless Israel” — and they care about submitting themselves totally — pledging the lives of their children and a huge portion of their energy and wealth — to the self-styled “holy,” “godlike,” and “chosen” people, the Jews. Since Trump’s announcement about Jerusalem, they have been going into almost ecstatic paroxysms of joy, literally trembling with anticipation at the prospect of the “re-establishment” of a Jewish kingdom and temple (that probably never existed in the first place).

Boomer conservatives are not mentally healthy. They have wandered off into a psychological/ideological space that is so dysfunctional, so contrary to their own best interests, and so utterly disconnected from reality that they have become a danger to themselves and to all the rest of us who have somehow escaped the mind-virus that has them in its grip. They are so far off the tracks that I believe it is safe to say that they are wrong about everything — hence the title I gave to this program: “Boomer Conservatives Are Always Wrong.”

Some might accuse me of exaggerating. Surely boomer conservatives are right about a few things, they might say — and surely they’re not all as wacky as the extreme Christian Zionists I use as an example. They might also add that some boomer conservatives are just mildly Zionist because that’s what their churches have become in the last several decades, but they’re basically sound otherwise. Let’s examine these claims more closely.

First, let’s define terms here. The “boomers” to which I’m referring are an American phenomenon. The term is short for “baby boomers,” broadly defined as that generation born in the years after World War 2, when returning veterans were making up for lost time, starting families, and, buoyed by economically good times and a still basically intact White America, increasing the birthrate tremendously — hence the word “boom.” If you were born between 1945 and 1964, you’re a boomer. There’s some overlap, and quite a few people slightly outside that range are culturally boomers too.

The boomer cycle is drawing to a close. The last boomers are retiring, for the most part, or will be soon. Their legacy is nearly complete. And their legacy is this: They allowed, or in some cases caused, America to go from an almost entirely White — and consciously White — nation, still imbued with the stern virtues of our ancestors, the pioneer heritage of which was still remembered and revered; to a degenerate cesspool where nearly every sex perversion is regarded as a “sacred right” while healthy White children are allowed to be slaughtered in the womb and disposed of with no more ceremony than that accorded to a dead fly — where Third World invaders and rapists and criminals are given more rights than the descendants of the founders (and are effectively our masters in that we must work for them or be imprisoned), and where even the slightest assertion of White identity is regarded as the vilest crime, worthy of severe punishment, banishment, public execration, and psychological torture.

I shall not deal here with boomer liberals, though they do deserve a program to themselves, except to note that they firmly and enthusiastically bought into the dope-smoking, libertine, and neo-Marxist “counterculture” offered to them by the Jews. Today I am speaking of the boomer conservatives, who rejected — or who accepted and then later rejected — that counterculture.

I was born in 1956 so that makes me a boomer, too. But don’t you call me a boomer liberal — and don’t you ever dare call me a boomer conservative. When I see boomer conservative messages and memes — pictures of Donald Trump superimposed on flying eagles, 50-star flags, Israeli flags, American military hardware, bikini babes with machine guns, and the Constitution and the Bible floating in the clouds next to Jesus, I want to either laugh out loud — or cry at the degradation of my people. Literally nothing that these people believe in is worthy, good, or true.

Boomers were the first generation raised on Jewish television. Their parents, the so-called “Greatest Generation,” were at fault too — they were so naïve they had bought the transparent propaganda and the arranged incidents that induced them to slaughter their kin in Europe, and then were so lazy they let their children sit down in front of the lie-box for hours upon hours every week, or every day, and let Goldenson and Paley and Sarnoff be their babysitters and storytellers.

Boomers were inculcated from the moment of their birth with the myths that justified the mass fratricidal murder-frenzy of World War 2, the war that most of their fathers or uncles fought in. It was indoctrination on almost a religious scale, and very few have been able to break free of the lies: The lie that the “world needed to be saved” from Germany, whose leader Adolf Hitler “wanted to conquer the world” and was trying to exterminate the especially noble and of course totally innocent Jews, and would soon be coming for us; the lie that America had always stood for the opposite of everything that National Socialist Germany stood for (nearly an inversion of the truth); and the lie that any remnants of the principles of racial integrity left in America — like anti-miscegenation statutes, and borders, and immigration laws that favored Whites — were Hitler-like “evils” that needed to be expunged from our nation.

Boomers were sold on the idea that responsibility for the future of their race was “square,” “oppressive,” “wrong,” and, worst of all, passé. They were taught that racial conflicts should always be viewed in a “fairness” frame (is it fair to keep 4 billion non-Whites out of our country?) instead of Nature’s real frame of reference — that of survival. (Does allowing hundreds of millions or billions of non-Whites to cross our borders with impunity help or hinder our survival as a race?)

When many of the boomers later rejected the hippie counterculture, and developed a nostalgic yearning to return to the traditions and sense of community of the America they grew up in, they still retained this utterly false moral framework. This has made them totally ineffective at fighting the degeneracy they claim to oppose.

They are incapable of defining the problem (because “racism is wrong” it can’t be a racial/biological problem, they think); they are “morally” forbidden to conceptualize what a healthy future would be like (racial-nationalism, the only possible way to ensure a future for our children, is the very thing they have been taught is “the very definition of evil”); and they are fanatically opposed to naming the real enemy. (Because that would entail “racism” and the “ultimate sin” — “anti-Semitism.”) The very best they can ever do is complain that “it sure was better when I was young” while piously denying the reasons why it was better. Such people cannot win, ever — except in a fantasy world inside their fevered, crippled brains.

Do I exaggerate? Judge for yourself if this man’s brain is fevered and crippled. Here is an excerpt from the man whose stereotypical catering-to-boomer-conservatives graphic graces the top of the text version of this broadcast. He calls himself “Matthew7-24MonteCarlo24-7” on YouTube and he does claim to be an opponent of the New World Order (NWO) — as Dr. Pierce, the founder of the National Alliance also was. But there the similarity ends. Matthew, or whatever his name is, thinks Donald Trump, with Yahweh’s help as revealed by “secret Bible codes,” is the answer:

The American eagle is a force that will not be defeated! Donald Trump has just taken back those fighting eagles from the elite’s grasp the, NWO! Both America and Israel are protected by the F-15 Eagles wings! God took back these Awesome winged weapons from the NWO by putting his man Donald J Trump into Power and Draining The Swamp! God is not messing around any longer! Judgment of the wicked has began, weather they realize it yet or not does not matter! God’s Trumpet will not be stopped! Nor will his Christian Army of people!! We will became one mind, one party with the one voice of Yeshua! Amen!

There’s a man who can get plenty of likes on YouTube, I suppose, but who is for all practical purposes talking only to the Extreme Special Needs faction of boomer conservatives and is therefore a total nullity at best and at worst a confusion-sowing asset of those he claims to oppose. I’ll put my money on his having a fevered, crippled brain — though there is the remote possibility that his channel might be an intelligence operation or an amazingly well-done parody account.

Boomer conservatives are very bad at noticing things, preferring to live in a dream world of the pleasant fantasies they have been sold by the mass media, their preachers, and lying politicians. They failed to notice when their churches were converted into cheering sections for Israel, for example. They failed to notice that the entire banking system — not just the Fed, which some of them do view as “unconstitutional” — has been stealing a huge portion of their wealth for longer than they’ve been alive.

Boomer conservatives have near zero understanding of geopolitics, and think it’s totally normal for America to be Israel’s cannon fodder in Middle Eastern wars that never end, totally normal for the US to have a military budget nearly as large as that of the rest of the world combined, and totally normal to send their kids to die in order to impose debt-slavery and Jewish oligarchy on other countries under the guise of “democracy.”

Boomer conservatives, though they claim to abjure “socialism,” engage in near-worship of the socialist enterprise called the US military, and judge a president as “good” if he is “strong,” and “tough” and kills plenty of people — never mind who those people are and if they ever were a threat to our nation or not; what really matters to boomer conservatives is “not being weak” — and “being weak” is defined as failing to bomb Tehran or Damascus whenever the chosen overlords tell us it’s time to step lively. Boomer conservatives truly do have an understanding of the world only slightly more detailed and nuanced than that of a dog.

Boomer conservatives love preening themselves on how edgily “right wing” and “conservative” they are, but at the same time would rather have a head-ectomy than be thought of as “racist.” They are constantly — and I mean constantly — virtue-signaling about how “non-racist” they are. One such boomer conservative, whose name on Twitter looks like a typo, “Immortan Deplorable,” tweeted recently:

My lib ex-girlfriend dumped me because I like Trump. A lib sneered she was smart to dump me. Yup. I’m sure she’s happy with her cats, wine and Prozac. Meanwhile, I’m stuck with a drop-dead gorgeous Chinese doctor who is also a chef and nymphomaniac. Woe is me.

Wow. It’s all there in one brief tweet: He hates “libs”; he loves Trump; he’s so “manly” and getting so much “action” he has to brag about it on social media; and he’s so “anti-racist” that he replaced his former White girlfriend, who he pointedly insults, with a rich, supposedly “nymphomaniac,” Asian. Really believable, pal. And how “good” you are — not. Virtue signaling at its most pathetic.

I recently heard an on-air rant from a boomer conservative. He’s been known to complain about the anti-White actions of Black Lives Matter and the worst of the Social Justice Warriors. He dares to denounce Islam and Muslims. (He knows he has a faction of the controlled media and the establishment on his side when he does that.) But he’s very, very careful to observe the really big taboos that circumscribe the minds and thoughts of his fellow boomer conservatives — those quintessential slaves of Political Correctness who pose as its opponents. In describing a recent Thanksgiving get-together at his house, he made sure he told everyone how he had guests who were Christians, guests who “were of the Jewish faith,” guests who were Black and Asian and Indian and a few races I’ve probably forgotten. With tears welling up in his eyes and a lump in his throat, he told everyone how he rejected “racism” and how “we can all be Americans, no matter what our color, as long as we all came here to work our butts off and not be welfare leeches,” because “that’s what being an American is all about.”

Don’t be like that poor excuse for a man. Don’t be a part of the problem. Don’t be a fool. Don’t be a boomer conservative.

Do acknowledge that our problems are racial and biological. Do accept your responsibility to ensure a future for the next generation of our people. Do resolve to abandon all myths, to be utterly realistic and face the world as it actually is. And do join together with us; and use your life, whatever energy you may have, and your limited number of days on this planet, to sweep aside all obstacles, fools included, that block the path to our race’s destiny.

* * *

Source: National Vanguard

by Ron Unz

ALTHOUGH my own academic background is in theoretical physics, I’m the first to admit that field seems in the doldrums these days compared with human evolutionary biology.

The greatest physics discoveries of the last couple of years–the Higgs Boson and strong evidence for Cosmological Inflation–merely confirm the well-established beliefs that physicists have had since before I entered grad school. It’s nice that such experimental evidence means that individuals such as Peter Higgs, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde, whose names have been prominent in the standard textbooks for decades, have received or will surely soon receive their long-deserved Nobel Prizes, but little new has been learned. Or so is the impression of a lapsed theoretician who left that field over twenty-five years ago and who mostly follows it through the pages of the major newspapers.

Meanwhile, human evolutionary biology has been on a tear, partly due to the full deciphering of the human genome over the last couple of decades and our increasing technical ability to effectively read archaic DNA from thousands or even tens of thousands of years in the past. In recent years we have seen shocking discoveries that most humans possess small but probably significant Neanderthal ancestry and that important genetic changes have regularly swept through our genome. On the theoretical side, it was long assumed that human genes had changed little since Cave Man days, but we now understand that in some respects human evolution may have actually accelerated during the last ten thousand years as our rapidly growing population provided a much larger source of potentially favorable mutations, while agriculture and civilization were simultaneously applying strong selective pressures.

Although my other projects have prevented me from following these developments except through newspapers, blogs, and books, such evolutionary issues have long fascinated me. During the early 1980s I even participated in the field, studying under Harvard’s E.O. Wilson and felt that if physics had not been an option, evolutionary biology would have been my next choice. I remember telling all my skeptical friends in 1979 that Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was probably one of the most important books of the decade, and I stand by that opinion today.

Yet although our understanding of the origins of modern humans and their biologically-influenced behavior has grown by leaps and bounds over the last couple of decades, these world-changing developments seem to have received extremely scanty coverage in the mainstream press, meaning that many of them have probably not penetrated into the public consciousness of those who are not academic specialists. The assumptions and world-views of most American intellectuals and journalists often seem stuck in the 1980s, clinging to ideas that are almost completely outmoded and incorrect, much like Soviet biology into the 1960s was still crippled by the Stalinist legacy of Trofim K. Lysenko, who had argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and purged all those biologists who disagreed.

America’s own Lysenko is surely the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, whose platform in the prestige media and widely assigned books have massively influenced entire generations of college students and thinkers. Unfortunately, just like his Soviet counterpart, Gould promoted ideologically motivated misrepresentations of reality, sometimes backed by outright scientific fraud, and people who read his books are regularly absorbing falsehoods.

In a further parallel to the Soviet case, Gould and his Marxist circle of friends and allies, including Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and several others, regularly sought to purge or otherwise silence their most honest and courageous colleagues. During the 1970s, Harvard’s Wilson became their particular target for daring to publish his landmark book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and their wild ideological charges led radical student demonstrators to demand the university fire one of its brightest tenured stars and even to physically assault the mild-mannered Wilson at a meeting of the American Academy of Sciences. Although Gould seems to have been a rather mediocre scientist, some of his radical allies such as Lewontin were first-class researchers, but also ideologues who allowed their politics to dictate their science.

While I was a graduate student at Cambridge University during the mid-1980s, these events occasionally came up in casual discussions across the dining tables. On one such occasion, a former grad student of Lewontin’s said that during the height of the sociobiology controversy he had asked his mentor why he was leveling such ridiculous accusations against a colleague, with the reply being that those accusations were admittedly scientific nonsense, but they served the political interests of Marxism, which was far more important. Meanwhile, given Gould’s strength in words but his weakness in thinking, I find it reasonably likely that he simply believed many of the absurdities he was spouting.

As the years and the decades have gone by, I’ve always assumed that Gouldism was about to lose its grip on American intellectual life, but that assumption has always proven wrong. The totally absurd notion that genetics plays a relatively small role in influencing most human behaviors represents a zombified doctrines, absorbing endless seemingly fatal scientific wounds at the hands of prominent scholars but remaining almost unkillable, more like a religious dogma than a scientific doctrine.

For example, in 2002 Harvard’s Steven Pinker, one of America’s most prominent evolutionary psychologists, published The Blank Slate, an outstanding critique of this incorrect reigning dogma, which specifically included a lengthy debunking of Gould, Lewontin, and their circle. Not only was the book a huge seller and glowingly discussed throughout the MSM, but I was stunned to read an equally favorable review in The Nation, pole-star of America’s political Left. I naturally assumed that the full collapse of Gouldism was underway, an impression enhanced once the august New York Times later published an article describing an important instance of Gould’s scientific fraud.

But a year or two ago, when I heard smart intellectuals still citing Gould, I asked a prominent academic how that would possibly be the case. He explained that whereas in the 1990s, probably 99% of intellectuals believed in Gould, the massive revelations of recent years had merely reduced that support to 95%, leaving Gouldism almost as entrenched as ever. Whereas worldwide support for Stalinism substantially collapsed following Khrushchev’s 1956 “Secret Speech” Gouldian nonsense seems to have largely avoided that fate.

But perhaps that is now about to change.

One of the oddities of American intellectual life is that although a full-fledged scientific revolution in human genetics and evolution has been taking place for the last couple of decades, very little of this has been reported in the mainstream media, perhaps because the findings so totally contradict the numerous falsehoods that so many senior editors presumably imbibed during the introductory anthropology courses they took to satisfy their science distributional requirement as undergraduates.

Indeed, when I consider the major news stories on evolutionary breakthroughs I have read in our MSM over the last dozen years, the overwhelming majority seem to have been written by a single individual, Nicholas Wade of The New York Times, who recently retired after twenty years as a editor and reporter at our national newspaper of record, following previous decades of work at top scientific publications such as Nature and Science.

When I asked around a little, my impression was confirmed. Our nation of over 300 million may be in the forefront of evolutionary discovery, but Wade has long been almost the only reporter seriously covering these fascinating developments in the mainstream print media. Meanwhile, the weekly New York Times Science Sectionseems to be moving in the direction of People Magazine, with so much of the coverage seemingly focused on phone apps, dieting, and phone apps to assist with dieting. For example, fully half of the Letters page in this morning’s print edition was devoted to a heated debate on the “Science of Overeating.”

But while his former colleagues often focus on the transient and the trivial, Wade has spent the last couple of years producing an outstanding book to bring awareness of the revolutionary discoveries of modern genetic research to a broader American audience. Generations of Soviets had been taught the inheritance of acquired characteristics in their universities, and I assume they must have been shocked to discover it was all an ideologically motivated hoax. I suspect that many complacent American intellectuals may have a similar reaction to Wade’s book, which focuses on the highly touchy subject of the genetic nature of our distinct human races and the implications for society and history, bearing the descriptive title A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History. I’d certainly rank Wade’s book as the most important popular presentation of these ideas at least since Pinker’s Blank Slate. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I was also very pleased to see him substantially cite my own major articles from the last couple of years on race, IQ, and wealth and the Social Darwinist roots of modern China.

All too many socially-conditioned Americans have absorbed the Lewontin-Gould mantra that “Race Does Not Exist” which from a scientific perspective is roughly similar to claiming that “Teeth Do Not Exist” or perhaps “Hills Do Not Exist,” with the latter being an especially good parallel. It is perfectly correct that the notion of “hill” is ill-defined and vague–what precise height distinguishes a pile of dirt from a hill and a hill from a mountain?–but nevertheless denying the reality or usefulness of such a concept would be an absurdity. Similarly, the notion of distinct human races–genetic clusters across a wide variety of scales and degrees of fuzziness–is an obviously useful and correct organizing principle, and one which was probably accepted without question by everyone in the history of the world except for deluded Americans of the last fifty years.

Anyway, let us suppose that the Gouldians rising up to denounce the heretic, such as anthropologist Agustin Fuentes, are given their way and the common term “race” is purged from our scientific vocabulary as being meaningless. Well, large-scale genetic population clusters obviously continue to exist in the real world and are an important element in ongoing research, both medical and evolutionary. So it would make sense to conveniently replace an overly cumbersome multisyllabic phrase with a short single-syllabic word now suddenly gone unused, namely “race.”

Indeed, I would suggest that one of the sources of present-day confusion is that the very term “race” has undergone an unfortunate metamorphosis over the course of the 20th century. Today, when people speak of “races” they are almost invariably referring to the continental-scale mega-races such as Asians, Africans, and Europeans. These “races” certainly exist and are highly meaningful and distinct in genetic terms, with blogger Steve Sailer slyly noting that the cover of Prof. Luca Cavalli-Sforza definitive tome on human genetic diversity displays a colored worldwide map looking much like what Sen. Strom Thurmond in his dotage might have drawn on a napkin with crayons.

But I would argue that restricting the term race to merely that small handful of huge groupings is extremely wasteful and we are far better off also applying the term to its traditional meaning, typically aimed at much smaller population groups. One hundred years ago, every educated individual casually used phrases such as “the Anglo-Saxon race,” “the Hungarian race,” and “the Chinese race,” and this is exactly the usage to which we should restore. To be sure, these particular genetic population clusters are naturally grouped into higher-level clusters as well–with Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles all being branches of the larger Slav race, itself a component of the European mega-race, but the word can remain flexible in scale without producing any serious confusion. All these groups are exactly the sort of natural statistical clusters that regularly appear during genetic population analysis, and we might as well use the traditional popular term for them rather than inventing an entirely new one.

As for the full contents of Wade’s book, several reviews have already noted a few small glitches here and there and I myself certainly took issue with some of his arguments. For example, I think he is much too accepting of Gregory Clark’s influential 2007 book arguing that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain because the British had undergone nearly a thousand years of uniquely strong selection for economic success, a thesis I find extremely doubtful. I also think Wade should have given far more attention to the seminal Cochran-Harpending theory that the rapid growth of human population after the development of agriculture has produced an equally rapid acceleration in mutation-driven evolution during the last ten thousand years, and Wade’s omission surely explains why the notoriously arrogant and irascible Gregory Cochran published such an unfriendly review on his own blogsite. Certainly everyone should explore all sides of the ongoing debate and a small racialist website has conveniently gathered together annotated links to the dozens of reviews across the web, favorable, unfavorable, and mixed. But reading the book itself is essential for anyone interested in the current state of human evolutionary science.

I’d originally intended to publish my own perspective several weeks ago and was delayed by other pressing matters. But I have been very pleased to see that Wade’s book is beginning to receive the major attention it so greatly deserves. American intellectuals must begin shedding a half-century of lies and dishonesty based on the dismally unscientific dogma of Stephen Jay Gould and instead start to discover what modern evolutionary biologists and genetic researchers have all known for years or even decades. A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade of the New York Times may represent a huge step forward in achieving this important goal.

* * *

Source: The Unz Review

by Peter Goodchild

THE CORROSION of Western civilization can be seen in a group of interrelated political events, as exemplified in Canada, my own country: multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” the dissolution of nations, my concerns especially since the period of 2008 to 2011, when I was in the Middle East and saw these things from a perspective not possible for the average Canadian.

Most Westerners live in a world of illusion. They might spend their time “catching the news” on a TV set or a computer, but they are unaware that the main news-media are owned by gigantic corporations, which have a hidden globalist agenda. Yet most people nowadays do not often read serious books, and so they have little access to genuine in-depth information. If you push them far enough, they will only say, “Well, I believe. . . .”

What do Canadians think they are learning by having their eyes glued to a TV set? They believe that since Canada has 10 million km2 of land, it can keep bringing in more immigrants for eternity, even though most of the land is uninhabitable, and that with sufficient goodwill one can have infinite growth on a finite planet.

They believe that people of European descent, who composed more than 80 percent of Canada until recent times, are guilty of centuries of rather uncertain crimes, perhaps including the alphabet, education, democracy, modern medicine, and science. They believe the world should be controlled by a benevolent dictatorship, with all history, nationality, parenthood, and even gender scrubbed out of people’s brains.

The most important question, though, is not some vague issue of “ethnicity” but rather that of the political motive for these developments. “Multiculturalism” really means no culture at all, no values, no past, no goals, no hopes, no future. The ultimate message is that Earth should become a terribly crowded but profitable slave planet, and that resistance is useless.

Globalism and Western Decline

Around 4000 B.C. there arose a people, probably living north of the Black Sea, to whom we now refer as the early Indo-Europeans. They were the first people to use iron (versus bronze) weapons, and also the first to use horse-drawn chariots — perhaps indeed the first to domesticate horses for any purpose. After about 1000 B.C. there arose a division between the eastern (Persian) and western Indo-Europeans (Greeks), or, in other words, between the Asians and the Europeans. The Indo-Europeans in Persia were a minority in a sea of Asians and as a result ended up assimilating Asian customs. But the Indo-Europeans in Greece were a majority and thus managed to impose their aristocratic libertarian culture, the idea that the leader cannot be a despot but is first among aristocratic equals. This the world of the Iliad. Herodotus indicates the split in his frequent distinctions between the Persians and the Greeks. He claims that the Persian world was characterized by despotism, while the Westerners, the Greeks, were a people of relative freedom, aristocratic equality, and eventually democracy for all free men, including property-owning farmers.

The people who have that Western legacy, however, are now disappearing from much of Europe and North America. Instead, we have “multiculturalism,” which really means the dismantling of “culture,” the decline of the West. In our schools, young people are now taught to be ashamed of their legacy, and any courses in the social sciences are perverted to show the “guilt” of those who spent thousands of years developing Western civilization. How did these regrettable changes come about?

To answer this question, one must first note that in most Western countries there is no longer a real democracy, but rather a barely disguised one-party system. The elite of the supposed left and right spend their time together — the same restaurants, the same marriages, the same golf courses. For a change of pace they switch to journalism — and so much for freedom of the press. During an election, it would be possible to make a list of all the slogans, mix up those items, and then ask someone to match the slogans with the parties. But it would turn out that the matching could not be done.

Actually there is only one slogan: “Bodies are good for business.” So the population must be kept expanding forever. The price we pay for overpopulation and over-immigration, however, is high unemployment, environmental degradation, inadequate housing, traffic congestion, overloaded social services, high crime-rates, losses of water and farmland, and declining natural resources of all kinds. Overcrowding also leads to mental illness: in an urban environment, our nerves are often like wires that have been tightened to a point where their molecules will no longer hold.

The stage for decline was set by the lowering of intellectual capacity. Most people, unfortunately, don’t react to much of anything anymore. One of the main reasons for this decline is that people don’t really become adults. We have created a world of cultural neoteny — prolonged childish behavior, a milieu of “dumbing down” that stretches from birth to death. “Neoteny” is a biological term referring to remaining juvenile for a long period after birth. Obviously humans do this anyway — it takes years for an infant to turn into an adult. But a great deal of modern political sloganeering has the effect, consciously or otherwise, of keeping people silly and childish for life. Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House was an early look into that, at least in terms of women. Predictions of cultural neoteny can also be seen in Huxley’s Brave New World and in a somewhat grimmer form in Orwell’s 1984. This neoteny is pervasive, but it can be seen in such forms as the decline in literacy and the decline in education.

It’s curious to note, however, that there is a definite substratum of the public that disagrees with official policies. On-line news articles that allow comments from viewers get deluged with people expressing heretical views. Then the comments are shut off, and it’s back to Business as Usual — literally. These dissident members of the general public have rarely been brought together, and each person is largely unaware that there are many others holding the same views. The politically orthodox may be enforcing the rules for most daily conversation, but the disquiet never entirely disappears.

If civilization is defined by the presence of writing, then the decline of Western civilization might be defined by the disappearance of interest in serious texts — from the Iliad onward. People don’t read books as much as they used to. No one seems to feel guilty for the fact that instead of reading a book called X they have merely watched a movie called X, based on the book. Yes, it’s true that a movie sometimes has advantages over print, but in general to make a movie out of a book one has to reduce it to action and dialogue, and all the exposition and analysis has to be removed. The time frame of a movie also means that a great deal of detail will be cut out. Not much meaningful discussion can take place when the person to whom one is speaking is convinced that books and movies are simply different “media” providing the same educational service.

A similar decline can be found in formal education. There was a time when the purpose of a university education was to allow young people to explore the outer regions of space and time. Now it’s just training in how to use a cash register. The lowest clerk in the huge building labeled “administration” has a more pleasant job, and much greater job security, than the average instructor. It’s money that keeps the university churning, apparently, not some vague and pretentious search for wisdom. Teachers are day-laborers, easily replaced, and it takes no great skill to deal with the reading materials supplied by the corporations for their future slaves.

“Education” of the new sort is more form than substance: teachers are so afraid of being accused of heresy that the students are given little real information. The average young person in the modern world spends about twenty thousand hours doing school work, yet nearly all of that is a waste of time, because a job at the end of that road does not require the ability to think in any Platonic or Aristotelian sense. Modern education involves little real learning, and far more time is spent on mere indoctrination.

Any form of “nationalism,” any statement of pride in one’s country, was discredited. Furthermore, any specific form of ethnicity or religion was downplayed. Western culture in general was denigrated, and Westerners were largely associated with colonialism. Reversing colonialism meant celebrating non-Western cultures. The new attitude was that “all cultures are equal.”

By propagating an “underdog” mentality among Westerners, globalists have encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. There is now a strong sense of “wrong,” but especially when these victims look at themselves. They hate their own culture and their own heritage. They live with a sense of guilt and shame, they suffer from self-loathing. They feel a need for self-abasement. They have low self-confidence, low self-assurance, low self-esteem.

Confirmed underdogs have self-destructive attitudes about sexuality, marriage, and the family. To them, a stable marriage, heterosexual and monogamous, is anathema. What better way to prevent the growth of what used to be called a “real man” than to suggest to a young boy that, deep down, he might not be a boy but a girl? (The same in reverse would apply to girls.) And so we create (or imagine) multiple “genders,” “bi-” this and “poly-” that, psychologically disturbed mutations who have no chance of standing up against the totalitarian state. (How odd that no other species of mammal has more than two genders!)

But above all, to be accepted in modern society one must now proclaim that Western culture is guilty of some nameless crime, making it necessary to give preferential treatment to any and all other cultures. Of course, that is a belief with which those “other cultures” are always happy to agree. And once that “guilt” has become established as “fact,” every piece of writing that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs.

All “respectable” political or religious groups shuffling for power now try to portray themselves as holier, more pious, than the others, but really they all have the same goal: to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves.

The Growth of Cultural Marxism

The moral and intellectual fabric of Western society has been disintegrating for some time. To a large extent the destruction can be blamed on a form of Marxism, socialism, left-wing thinking, “underdog” mentality, which has encouraged the nanny state, with people living in perpetual imbecility and irresponsibility. In the middle of the last century, Marxism never had much luck in intellectual contests among Westerners, so it had to burrow underground, eroding the foundations of modern society and leaving people in a state of perpetual self-doubt and abnegation. This is what is called “cultural Marxism.” Not much of the reality of cultural Marxism is clearly evident: most of it is experienced as a mere premonition, like that of a coming change in the weather.

Cultural Marxism began in the early twentieth century, when Marxism in the usual sense (i.e. economic Marxism) was a failure in Western Europe; in the First World War, for example, most people were far more interested in defending their country than in overthrowing their government. Cultural Marxism arose because, in order to win in the West, Marxists realized they would have to go underground, working on the “culture” rather than openly advocating revolution. The movement began roughly with Georg Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, who claimed that in order for Marxism to succeed in the West, it was vital to destroy the existing culture by sowing the seeds of doubt regarding all traditional Western moral values.

Hence the formation of the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt, and its offspring, some of whom (at various times) were Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Following Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Institute left Germany, finally moving to New York City, where it was affiliated with Columbia University.

In “The Origins of Political Correctness” (version of 2000), William S. Lind breaks cultural Marxism down into five parts:

“Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about . . . the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it — where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say. . . . .

“We call it “Political Correctness”. . . .

“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . . If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious. . . .

“First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses. . . .

“Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology . . . is to take some philosophy and say . . . certain things must be true. . . . That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

“Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Cultural Marxism . . . says that all history is determined by . . . which groups . . . have power over which other groups. . . .

“Third, certain groups . . . are a priori good, and other groups . . . are evil . . . regardless of what any of them do. . . .

“Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. . . . When the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. . . .

“And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. . . . . For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. . . .

“The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish.”

It is commonly assumed that the term “cultural Marxism” is a right-wing invention. As such, it could be described as a form of “paranoid global conspiracy theory,” along with so many other right-wing concepts that are casually dismissed in similar ways. But the term isn’t a right-wing invention at all. The use of the term “cultural Marxism” by leftist academics themselves (with the same definitions as are used by the right wing) is indicated by such authors and book titles as Dennis Dworkin, Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain; Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture; Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, Cultural Marxism; and Richard R. Weiner, Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology.

So “cultural Marxism” isn’t a form of “paranoid global conspiracy theory,” since it isn’t paranoid and it isn’t just a theory. But the daily news is so heavy with anti-right-wing judgments that a viewer could could easily give up on trying to find the truth. It’s not surprising that people just accept the claim that cultural Marxism is a figment of the deranged right-wing imagination.

Cultural Marxism is in fact the engine that keeps the whole “multicultural” ship moving along. But even fairly knowledgeable people don’t really think much about that engine, except maybe when they’re lying in their bunks at night and they hear a distant chugging sound.

The attack — by Westerners — on Western beliefs and values never slows down. The “Hippie Revolution,” damaging the lives of so many Baby Boomers, was largely due to the machinations of Benjamin Spock, Noam Chomsky, and Timothy Leary. The Church has reduced itself to infantilism. Ph.D.’s are handed out to students who can only be described as illiterate. Electronic devices destroy our attention span, reduce direct contact among humans, and turn everything into “virtual reality.” Illicit drugs and inadequate diets further reduce our mental capacities.

Sorry — maybe some of this can’t be laid at the feet of poor Karl Marx. Perhaps some of this is just a matter of “lifestyle choice,” to use modern jargon. But is there really a difference?

A related problem that makes cultural Marxism so hard to analyze is that to some extent it’s a group of overlapping activities, not just one, and that’s especially true nowadays. Multiculturalism, sexual deviancy, mass immigration, “sanctuary cities,” aggressive religions, dumbing down, “liberalism” that is not at all liberal, and so on — the modern world has become somewhat shapeless and formless. The trail of Marxism is so long, and goes cold so often.

At times the trail becomes quite ludicrous, with “multiculturalism” itself as an example of that absurdity. The early cultural Marxists hoped to destroy traditional Western culture by flooding it with other cultures. Yet nowadays the photographs in advertising largely portray non-White (non-European, non-Western) people, in spite of the fact that the West is demographically still mostly White. Yet every major bank advertises its services very largely with photographs of happy non-White or multi-racial couples.

But the inclusion of non-Whites is good for business, since such people compose a new and possibly lucrative customer base — “diversity is our strength” is the new chant. So what began in the 1930s as a Marxist tactic has become, many decades later, a marketing ploy by capitalist bankers who would rather die than be regarded as Marxists!

What does the term “left wing” itself really mean? In France long ago, the terms “left” and “right” had precise meanings, based on where one was actually sitting in the Estates General, indicating one’s attitude toward the Revolution. Now perhaps “left wing” means big government, and big spending by that government, but above all it means supporting the “poor” rather than the “rich.” By the “poor” I mean the voters, of course, not the people leading such flocks.

As soon as “guilt” has become established as “fact,” every relevant piece of paper that appears in public must emphasize “multiculturalism” at all costs. Although the terms are used misleadingly, everything must also stress “fairness,” “democracy,” and “equal rights.” The punishment for breaches of “multiculturalism” is swift and merciless, unless one is attacking Christians; Easter seems always ready to disappear from the free calendars handed out by politicians.

There are corollaries to all the above. Leftists must believe in prohibiting the ownership of guns, for example. If people believe they are underdogs, they must also believe they have no right to defend themselves. Only grown-ups should have guns, and leftists know they are not grown-ups.

Most leftists believe all cultures are, in some inexplicable way, equal. In their naiveté, they cannot believe that many cultures are cruel and intolerant, locked in the pre-literate mentality of a thousand years ago. Westerners today cannot understand that there can be such vast differences between the mentality of one culture and another. The mainstream news-media foster this misunderstanding by failing to report the shocking statistics of rape, mutilation, murder, and other barbarisms that go on in this world.

Most people have little sense of history, yet cruelty has long been a part of that history. Beginning about 5,000 years ago in the Near East, various civilizations arose in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and so on. After a war between city-states, it was customary for all the male inhabitants of the losing city to be put to death, and impalement was one of the most common forms of killing. That ancient mentality has not entirely passed away. Yet Westerners like to fool themselves into believing that the entire world consists of people who read glossy magazines and keep up with all the intellectual trends. The reality is that, even in modern times, the counterpart to an act of “tolerance” in one country would just as surely result in a death sentence in another.

Above all, cultural Marxism is an effective means of rationalizing the quest for “the ethnic vote.” The cultural-Marxist dogma plays into an alleged economic need: to increase immigration and thereby sustain a “growing economy.” Yet massive immigration really has little or no benefit to the country, and in fact leads to overcrowding, unemployment, and other social ills. For the rich, on the other hand, massive immigration means more buyers, more workers, and more investors. For politicians, more people means more votes. For religious groups, larger numbers of the “faithful” means a greater chance of pushing out competitors. Yet none of these groups has the good of the country in mind.

In a world of otherwise horrendous overpopulation, we are told that the West itself is headed for demographic collapse, and that we must find out why this is happening. Yet no answer is offered, other than the circular response that the problem is caused by low fertility. At the same time, one gets the feeling that the Westerners in these shrinking countries are being punished for some unnamed sin. Left-wingers are always trying to find ways to justify mass migration and multiculturalism, in the hope that they can dominate a planet of rootless wanderers, people with no culture at all.

But if we choose to have a serious look at the real issues of demographic decline, we can see some important variations. In Europe, it is the eastern countries that are facing the worst decline in population. And it is eastern Europe that is the poorest. In McMafia, Misha Glenny tells us that international “human trafficking” is supplied mostly by women from eastern Europe. This fact is surely connected to another, that women in these countries are choosing not to have children — or rather, they are faced with the near-impossibility of doing so. As I was once told by a white woman, “This isn’t a good world in which to be bringing up children.”

It was eastern Europe that was dominated by Communism. It was eastern Europe that was destroyed by Communism. All of this is the legacy of Karl Marx. Demographic collapse is not a punishment of Westerners for some unnamed sin. The dots are obvious, the connections among them less so. But the more one looks at the picture, the more it comes together.

One Ring to Bind Them All

Muslims repeatedly kill and wound large numbers of people. Basically quite simple. But then I find a large number of questions floating around. For one thing, the politicians and the mainstream news-media are all saying that such attacks are perpetrated by “terrorists,” not specifically by “Muslims.” So this raises the large issue of disinformation (versus misinformation). The KGB, during the Cold War, were quite instrumental in developing this. One of the main tricks is not to tell a lie exactly, because it’s possible to get caught, but simply to tweak the facts a tiny bit, even if the final effect is not so tiny. Now politicians do it all the time. By saying “terrorists” rather than “Muslims,” the average television-viewer can wipe the sweat from his forehead and say, “Oh, thank God. Terrorists. I was afraid it was Muslims.” Then he can go to bed, sleep like a baby, and snore all night long.

Somebody once asked me: Why would people deliberately blow themselves up? To a modern Westerner this seems incomprehensible. The answer is that these people think they’ll go straight to heaven if they perform these acts of martyrdom. And how could people believe such a thing? Because they have such faith in their God. Islam was created fourteen centuries ago, and it has hardly changed since then. In order to understand Islam one can study the history of Europe at that same time, the early Middle Ages. Consider the fact that even the Christian monks spent centuries burning other monks at the stake over minor issues of theological doctrine. And for Muslims nowadays, violence on that level is all part of the grand tradition.

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington notes that “wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peacefully with their neighbors.” A few decades ago, Charles de Gaulle had the bright idea of importing Muslims from his defunct North African empire, in order to form a union of Europeans and Muslims (called Eurabia by Bat Ye’or) that might even compete with the US as a world power. And now France, among many other countries, is paying the price, but the politicians deny all responsibility.

For Westerners, part of the disturbing news these days is that Muslim attacks are often right in the heart of Europe. So the unspoken fear is that jihad (religious warfare) is moving even further west. What will happen next in Germany, for example?

Then there’s the great stumbling block of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. After all that we know of the Muslim assault on the West, why would she have allowed a vast crowd of Muslim invaders from three different continents — sorry, “Syrian refugees” — to swarm into Germany and destroy whatever was left of German self-esteem?

The goal is always the same: to wipe out all the independence-loving particular countries that are now in place. That is why the news media always hammer out the message that one must never use the words “white,” “race,” “ethnic,” or “nationalist” in any positive sense. When those “rebels” (us) have been crushed, it will be possible for the One Worlders to set up their massive government that will have its fingers on all the buttons.

The European Union is not much different from the Soviet Union, and no better. The goal is to establish a world government, and to turn the masses into obedient slaves. All such ideologies have always been quite opposed to democracy. The biggest step, though, is to crush any sense of pride in one’s own country, and to do that the opposite to nationalism must be instituted: “multiculturalism.” And what better way to make a country “multicultural” than to bring in a few million families from places where people don’t even believe in birth control? If a few suicide bombers get a little out of hand, then — well, it’s a small price to pay. And, yes, it’s true that too many massacres could put a dent in the One Worlders’ plans. Never mind. As Tolkien said: “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, / One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. . . .”

Canada Is Not Vacant Land

It is a common misconception that Canada has vast amounts of land that could support large numbers of immigrants. Much of this belief is due to a failure to understand Canada’s unique but rather daunting geography. About half of the country is bare (or, at best, spruce-covered), uninhabitable rock, namely the famous Canadian Shield. But bare rock is never “underpopulated.”

It is the border strip, 150 km wide, which is demographically the most significant part of the country: 80 percent of the population lives in this area. In contrast, Canada’s largely uninhabited 5 million square kilometers of bare rock, the enormous area north of that border strip, has winters of unearthly cold stretching out over the better part of the year, with snow reaching to the rooftops, and the remainder of the year is characterized by dense clouds of mosquitoes and blackflies. The general impression is that Canada is an “empty” land, just waiting to get filled up. In reality, at 38 million the population is now nearly three times greater than in 1950.

Because only a certain amount of the country is livable, Canada is already well populated. There is simply no need to continue our mad rush to fill the country. Thanks to dishonest politicians over the years, Canada has roughly the highest immigration rate of all major industrialized countries. Canada also has many economic problems and is unable to provide adequate employment or other support for the people who already live here. A large increase in population is not a solution. In fact, in a world that now has a total population of about 8 billion, an increase in population is never a solution to anything. Yet, unlike many other countries, Canada has no political party that will take a firm stand against excessive immigration.

Canadian multiculturalism is a policy announced to Parliament by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on October 8, 1971, leading in 1988 to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The policy is harmful, partly because it fails to include strategies for integration, such as a requirement of proficiency in an official language before citizenship is granted. Multiculturalism as we see it today — measured in terms of the quantity of bodies — simply results in enclaves, ghettos, gang warfare. Each culture fights every other one. About 85 percent of recent immigrants have neither English nor French as their first language.

Multiculturalism also leads to cultural relativism. Canadians of European extraction are now taught to believe that there is no such thing as barbarism, only “cultural differences.” We forget that there was actually a point to the long centuries of struggle in the West that fostered democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. Yet we bow to medieval mentality on the assumption that we are otherwise “racists.”

Immigrants displace Canadian citizens in the job market, even though unemployment these days is already very high. They also add greatly to the costs of “free” medicine, education, legal advice, and all the other perquisites of the welfare state. In part this is because the immigrants of modern times often lack both language and education.

Pierre Trudeau’s invention is destroying the country, and to speak against it is regarded as sheer heresy. The Chinese are by far the biggest immigrant group, and Vancouver is now an Asian city. But it is not only numbers of people that matter, because there are other ways of changing the country. Money from Saudi Arabia has insidious effects, and Muslim obsessions with sharia (Muslim law) corrode basic Canadian values. According to the highly respected journalist Robert Fisk (“The Crimewave That Shames the World”), about twenty thousand Muslim women every year are the victims of “honor killings” by their own families, but when Canadians hear such accounts they fail to believe them: if such a story did not appear on last night’s television it cannot be true. Yet I spent three years living in the Middle East, and I know that much of the world is far uglier than is imagined by most Westerners.

As an English teacher back in Canada, I would sometimes have to advise immigrant students against infractions of Canadian laws, including those regarding assault, but my students’ rationale for any moral or legal infractions was always the phrase “in my culture” (or “in my country”). Who, specifically, is teaching newcomers such expressions? Politicians are quite aware that “culture” is not a valid catch-all term, but they don’t seem to care. After all, a higher rate of immigration means more votes, and more customers, and more sweatshops.

Until the creation of multiculturalism, freedom of speech and the press was an age-old right. Now, however, it is a crime to say anything that offends any group of people, because one is said to be attacking “human rights.” A charge of this sort is a circular argument: what is offensive is defined in terms of the claim of the other party to feel offended. It’s like a charge of witchcraft: whatever you say, your statement can be turned around to “prove” you are guilty. The similarity between the twisted logic of Trudeauism and that of Stalinism (not to mention the Patriot Act and subsequent American legislation) is curious, but Orwell described such “thought crimes” long ago in 1984.

It’s easy to understand why the inhabitants of the less-pleasant parts of the world have their eyes on Canada. The most significant result of Communist policy in China was famine, and the worst famine in all of world history was that of Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” 1958-61, when about 30 million people died. Now hunger is again looming in that country. China’s arable land is in decline, and about 600 km2 of land in China turns to desert each year. China has once more outgrown its food supply: the ratio of people to arable land in China is more than twice that of the world average, which is already too high to prevent hunger.

China is the world’s leader in the mining or processing of quite a number of natural resources: aluminum, coal, gold, iron, magnesium, phosphate, zinc, and rare-earth minerals, for example. Yet basic energy reserves are in short supply. Although China has about 20 percent of the world’s population, it produces only about 5 percent of the world’s oil, it uses up coal so quickly that its reserves will not last beyond 2030, and the country’s pollution problems are terrible. And China’s “booming economy” is based on devalued currency, counterfeiting, and what is virtually slave labor.

The “fossil” (deep) aquifer of the North China Plain is being depleted, although fossil aquifers cannot be renewed. Yet this aquifer maintains half of China’s wheat production and a third of its corn. As a result of the depletion of water, annual grain production has been in decline since 1998.

China now imports most of its soybeans, and conversely most of the world’s soybean exports go to China. But China may soon need to import most of its grain as well. How will that amount compare with their soybean imports? No one knows for sure, but if China were to import only 20 percent of its grain it would be about the same amount that the US now exports to all countries.

Immigrants from Muslim countries are another large group entering Canada, and according to the Pew Research Center the Muslim population of Canada is expected to rise much faster than the general population. Saudi Arabia pours money into the West for the purpose of “education,” and many Western academic institutions receive grants from Saudi Arabia, or programs are set up with Saudi funding. At the same time, the numerous mosques in the West serve as training grounds for young Muslims who live in those countries. Mosques are springing up everywhere in the West, yet in Saudi Arabia the building of a Christian church incurs an automatic death sentence. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” versus “radical Islam”: Islam comes in only one form, the one that was invented in the seventh century.

The misunderstanding of the vast difference between Muslims and Christians might be due to the fact that the debate is assumed merely to involve the respective merits of two religions. Yet this assumption is wrong on two counts. In the first place, Muslims regard it as self-evident that Allah spoke first to Moses, then to Jesus, and finally and most clearly to Mohammed: for Muslims, therefore, there is no possibility of a “dialog” among various religions. The second and more important reason why it may not be entirely logical to compare Islam and Christianity is that the former is, in some ways, more like a political movement than a religion. Every major religion has at times done some proselytizing “at the point of a sword,” but that has always been more true of Islam. The term jihad is not a metaphor.

The general public in Canada has become accustomed to submission and therefore remains mute. Unlike other people, most Canadians are never satisfied until they are feeling guilty about something. There is a constant undertone of “moral inferiority” being applied in Canada to people of a Western heritage. One must never mention Christmas, although one must portray a false joy toward the festivities of any other culture. One must constantly mumble and fumble in an attempt to find correct terms for various ethnic groups. Even the terms “B.C.” and “A.D.” must be rewritten as “BCE” and “CE.” All of this is absolute nonsense. To be convinced of one’s own inferiority is nothing more than to accept that some other person is superior — which is exactly what manipulative politicians are planning. It is time to wake up. Those who do not respect themselves will not be respected by others.

by Richard Spencer (pictured)

The following address was given to the H.L. Mencken Club‘s Annual Meeting; November 21-23, 2008.

FOR ANY political movement that seeks eventual ascendancy, it is incumbent to engage in regular bouts of self-analysis. As a casual but sympathetic observer of the so-called far-right, I have compiled a list of what I believe to be some of the tactical errors and misconceptions made and held respectively by many racialists, white nationalists, devotees of the European New Right, paleoconservatives, and other like-minded defenders of what remains of the beleaguered Western world and its people. Not all of these errors in judgment are common. Neither are they necessarily held by the same people all at the same time; it is only natural that a given individual’s political beliefs will change and develop with time and experience, and his opinion on a particular issue may vacillate often, especially in regard to those things that he deems to be non-essential.

The goal here is not to present some ironclad ideology from which no one may dare to deviate. Indeed, experience suggests this only leads to the kind of fruitless sectarianism that has historically plagued us. It is my earnest conviction that most everyone outside of the mainstream right, when it really comes down to it, is on the same page. That is, they seek to live in a world that would be worthy of their ancestors’ many sacrifices–what G.K. Chesterton (pictured) famously referred to as the “democracy of the dead”–and eschew the abstractions of universalism and egalitarianism for the concrete realities of their own lived experience. Above all, they believe in the furtherance of those things tending toward the survival and benefit of their descendants.

This list makes no claim at being exhaustive. As already suggested, is intended to be constructive rather than defeatist or accusatory. And while some of those things listed may seem obvious or merely fundamental, in our age of confusion and outright deception it is sometimes the obvious that is in most dire need of being stated unequivocally.

– Citing the UN Convention on Genocide as support for the white genocide argument:

While this strategy is not entirely without its place, neither is it ideal in that it tends to shine the light of legitimacy on a globalist, universalist organization that is profoundly hostile to the survival of European peoples and historic Western civilization. It would prove a great challenge to find anyone of consequence at the United Nations who sincerely believes that European-derived peoples have a right not to be displaced from their homelands by culturally and/or racially incompatible immigrants. While international NGOs and the various UN agencies may rightly stand up for the welfare of some primitive indigenous groups (though we should have serious reservations about the ultimate aims of such organizations as arbiters of dispute) they will never extend the same assistance to us.

The mainstream right has tried to employ a similar rhetorical strategy for years by pointing out the double standards regarding race and gender displayed by leftists in direct contradiction of their own professed strictures. But the left, being in complete control of the culture, is entirely immune to such charges of hypocrisy, and the end result has only been to solidify the proposition that racial and gender issues (framed of course in terms favorable to the left) should be central to political discourse.

Appealing to our enemies to abide by the rules they have laid down can at best reap only limited gains and must be done selectively; it should not form the central thrust of our efforts. It must always be remembered that “human rights,” like “multiculturalism,” “anti-racism,” and other liberal discourses, is mostly a sham that serves to disarm the opponents of the global liberal order. As such, it can be bent or ignored by its proponents whenever convenience requires them to do so.

– Believing that it is us against the world:

Although it is true that Western nations alone have been marked for demographic replacement by the powers that be, and these powers reserve a special animosity for European peoples (indeed, the destruction of what remains of the historic West is key to their triumph), liberalism is currently being foisted upon nations throughout the world by a variety of means. Most often non-white, non-Western peoples do not fully comprehend the true nature of what is being done to them in the name of development by USAID or UN agencies like UNESCO. Instead, they tend to unsuspectingly assume that radical feminism (euphemistically labeled as “gender equality”) and the Marxist subversion of traditional institutions (packaged as “democracy building”) are integral to modernization and joining “the community of nations.”

Sadly, this worldwide coup is being accomplished with little effective resistance. Unprincipled third-world elites, who have either internalized liberal values or are willing to pay them lip service, are all too happy to accept the resources and plaudits showered on them by their globalist patrons–resources often transferred at the expense of the working and middle classes of first-world nations. Under the influence of Jewish/white-liberal international development specialists and their own Western-educated politicians, the non-European peoples of the world come to associate the West, not with anything it has historically stood for, but with degenerate liberal values, a sentimental humanism traditional peoples view as weakness, and financial handouts that always work to inspire resentment and envy rather than gratitude. The result is the average citizen of the Third World, whether educated or illiterate, now holds a highly skewed vision of Western societies.

It is not the legacy of colonialism that sets the world against us–as we are constantly led to believe by our media and academic establishments–so much as it is the machinations of today’s globalists who seek to transform the world.

– Maintaining an hysterical fear of ‘contamination’ from association with non-European peoples and things:

Given the reality of modern communication and travel, it is almost inescapable that one, at some point in their lives, will come into contact with non-Europeans peoples or cultures. Familiarizing oneself with foreign peoples and things does not, in itself, make one a globalist, multiculturalist, or otherwise fawning devotee of all things non-Western. After all, it is only in contrast to the alien Other that one can come to fully realize, in their entirety, the uniqueness of European man and his achievements.

Much leftist harping on the virtues of diversity is superficial and comes without serious study of the non-Western peoples, cultures, languages, and religions they so uncritically extol. Actual knowledge of the relative strengths and weaknesses of foreign peoples–their virtues as well as their vices–provides ammunition and opportunity to embarrass the left (insofar as this is an effective tactic) and gives the lie to those who would dismiss us as merely provincial ignoramuses. More importantly, the advent of an alternative globalism, replete with strategic alliances with certain non-white groups, may in the future prove integral to the survival of European peoples. Former Croatian diplomat Tomislav Sunic, who is no stranger to dealing with the foreign, has expressed a similar sentiment, one many may find surprising to find in a defender of the West:

“American and European traditionalists and racialists make a mistake when advocating Sameness as a precondition for their ethnic and cultural survival. Often it is the Otherness in its geographic or racial expression that helps a person discover his own national and racial uniqueness. No traditionalist, no white spokesman of his in-group identity can ever deny the fact that in his lifetime he has more than once been victimized by his fellow tribesman and in his homeland. Sometimes, meeting a distant alien or moving to a far away country becomes the only solace.”[1]

Indeed, incorrigible white ethnomasochists, especially those with the power to shape public opinion, probably represent a far greater danger to the survival of European peoples than do those reasonable nationalists who may be found among other peoples.

– Maintaining unrealistic notions of isolationism:

In relation to the points above, I am continually astonished that many on the right–right-wing libertarians, paleoconservatives, and white nationalists among them–seem to believe that our ultimate goal should merely be to attain a comfortable nest for ourselves where we can develop alone while the rest of the word goes to hell. Many apparently consider foreign policy and international diplomacy to be superfluous issues that can be addressed at some indefinite point in the future–if at all. For now they seem content to allow these things to remain the exclusive domain of our enemies: neoconservatives and liberal internationalists with perhaps the odd foreign policy realist in evidence. Likewise, the dominant sentiment among us seems to be that imperialism and colonialism are absolute evils that lead only to unwanted mixing of peoples and cultures. That the drive to explore and conquer might have anything to do with the nature of Western man or, indeed, his very existence outside the European continent goes largely unconsidered.

Though I understand their reticence to engage with international issues, I would humbly submit that those who hold too tightly to such views are engaged in a fantasy. Even an ethnostate would require a corps of diplomats trained to engage and negotiate with other peoples, if only for the purpose of keeping them on their side of the border. After all, force and threats of force are, by themselves, blunt instruments that are more often than not insufficient to maintain international order. And though we should rightly eschew all avoidable wars, we will always have interests (a necessarily ambiguous term in the context of foreign policy) to pursue abroad, which at the very least would take the form of needed material resources.

In regard to the impulse to liberal universalism that has grown out of the West and is currently wreaking havoc in the world, it is less a continuation of historical imperialist tendencies than it is a distorted and cancerous form of them–one characterized by the substitution of self-loathing for a healthy ethnocentrism and further confused by the mostly pernicious influence of the Diaspora. But we are not alone in the world, and there are other peoples who aspire to displace us, even if they currently lack the means, with systems and ideologies we would find no less distasteful–Islamic fundamentalists and the nationalistic Chinese among them. This is a dispassionate statement of fact, one that stands apart from the alarmism and warmongering (which come of course in conjunction with a naive or insincere “humanitarianism”) of our globalist elites, who would have us responsible for the entire world.

But this demands qualification: None of the above is meant as a rationalization for a rapacious and unsustainable empire or a justification for the subjugation of other peoples who, like ourselves, seek their own autonomy. Instead it is a positive affirmation of Western man and his very real attributes. In contrast to what critics like Jared Diamond argue, it is these inherent qualities, and not just accidents of history or geography, which have allowed us to straddle the world for the past 500 years or so. In truth, we have given other peoples much more than we have taken, and often to our own detriment.

As might already have been guessed, I wish to be counted among those, few as they may be in our circles, who are not yet ready to abandon the idea of America or the broader West for what comes after it, be it an isolated ethnostate of necessarily limited geographic size or something else not yet imaginable. A defensive retreat from the world is unbefitting European peoples and seems indicative of a terminal decrepitness rather than a rising vitality. It is not anti-globalism that we should seek so much as it is a sane global order–one that is not predicated on our destruction or, for that matter, that of any other people.

– Engaging liberals and mainstream pseudo-conservatives on issues of public policy:

Turning from the international to primarily domestic concerns, when dealing with the average citizen, rather than becoming embroiled in arguments over the specifics of public policy, a more fruitful tactic is to challenge the essential premises of the liberal system. If anything might cause some of these people to see the light, it is not the realization that they have been wrong on a particular issue (e.g. immigration or multiculturalism) but that they have been working from an unsound basis all along. It may come as a surprise to some that even the average leftist PhD is unlikely prepared to intelligently defend, on the spur of the moment, the absurd and self-contradictory assumptions upon which he bases his claims. Equality as an absolute good and the incontrovertibly Western provenance of the supposedly universal values they espouse, are among the most obviously flimsy of the tenets they cling to. As the politically ill-fated Joseph Sobran wrote in other contexts but whose advice is nevertheless helpful here:

“What is effective is to place the opposition, to localize it, to point out that its own slogans are not emanations of pure reason, but rather proceed from a specific–and, in its own way, provincial–set of presuppositions which are themselves controversial….[T]he habit of social deference toward the intellectual classes has allowed theses notions to hover in the air unchallenged, and, in time, unnoticed.”[2]

“Eventually a certain attitude comes to prevail by sheer attrition. One gathers not so much that it is true as that there is nothing to be gained (and maybe much to be lost) by contradicting it. And today a good many perverse views have seized command of public discussion by claiming to monopolize sophisticated opinion. The devil’s favorite phrase must be ‘of course.'”[3]

One should choose one’s battles carefully though, and from there proceed with caution. I would never recommend revealing one’s real political beliefs to, or for that matter even directly challenging on any contentious issue, a college professor, employer, or anyone else with the power to retaliate. This is simply impossible to do safely in the current political environment, as Sobran himself was to eventually discover.

– Cultivating negativity and discord:

Whenever I read certain authors, Chesterton and Russell Kirk come to mind immediately, I’m struck by the quality of hope and joyfulness, even in describing disappointment and adversity, that pervades their work and makes them a pleasure to read. I suspect this comes from their convictions as Christians, which some might look upon as delusional and as having contributed in no small part to the present state of things. But whatever one’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof), the importance of keeping a positive attitude and engaging in civil discourse, even with those with whom we disagree, is not the stuff of pop psychology or a Sunday school nicety. Wherever I turn, and even in spaces of high intellectual debate, I am struck by the negativity and discord that pervades our movement. If we mean to attract people to us, and even to maintain our own personal mental well-being, it will not do to waste countless hours denigrating and blaming other peoples for their offenses against us, either real and imagined, or arguing amongst ourselves. Ideally, we should each be able to calmly articulate why our concerns are legitimate, even to those who are hostile to us (so far as they are willing to civilly listen), without lapsing into histrionics or name calling and without unrealistic expectations that they will immediately come to see things our way. Many decent people of perfectly adequate education and intelligence, busy with raising families and earning a living, have not, even at this late hour, awoken to the increasingly perilous position that they and their posterity inhabit. They will not snap out of their slumber instantaneously, and growing frustrated with or berating them will do little good in the delicate task of persuading them of the legitimacy of our cause.

– Believing we might be able to capture the moral high ground or win significant numbers of converts by expressing our sympathy for the Palestinians or similar leftist pet causes:

It is really nothing to criticize Israel these days on a college campus or in any other space frequented by the hard left for that matter. However, discussing Zionism apart from shallow and pedestrian expressions of moral outrage at injustices perpetrated by Israel will quickly raise eyebrows. For the left to maintain any semblance of internal coherence it can hardly go about attacking a group of people who even now maintain enormous capital when it comes to playing the role of the victim, and the “anti-Semitism” exhibited by the Occupy Wall Street crowd is mostly an anomaly, existing primarily in the hyperactive imaginations of Fox News pundits. Few of these sorts of leftists, who are often followers rather than the independent thinkers they pride themselves on being, really understand the issue at hand, and their tendency to be fanatically self-loathing, middle-class whites bent on tearing down what remains of their own civilizational inheritance makes them difficult to approach on most other issues. Moderate liberals and mainstream conservatives who, despite the latter’s stubborn philo-Semitism, actually tend to have some economic and emotional investment in their society and its future, tend to be a more fertile ground for sowing the seeds of common sense.

– Investing too heavily in historical revisionism:

Thinkers such as Santayana and Orwell were certainly correct in their assessment of the importance of historical knowledge and interpretation. However, attempts to rehabilitate the Nazis or the Old South are wrongheaded and lead only to a never-ending path of meager returns. Most Americans are not receptive to looking upon their nation’s history as a series of frauds and debacles, and I would tend to sympathize with them in this regard. It is all too easy to level criticism upon our forefathers from our position of historical hindsight, forgetting that most men and women, even those of genius and vision, are not in a position to alter the course of events as they unfold–at least not on their own. It may well be productive to dispassionately discuss how figures associated with, say, the Conservative Revolution shared some of the concerns that American patriots do today, but presenting Hitler as would-be savior of the Western world is a poisonous nonstarter for those concerned with the defense of our heritage, not to mention a too-simplistic inversion of history. Proving the veracity, or lack thereof, of historical accounts accomplishes little, since simply by virtue of raising the questions one is immediately discredited in the eyes of the average citizen who will tend to listen no further, a judgment reinforced by the established powers. Extreme erudition or a charming demeanor can do little to counteract this reality.

It is enough for most people to know, at least initially, that behind the Civil Rights Movement, and every related movement in demand of “equality,” are the forces of Marxist subversion. Most conservative Americans feel this instinctively anyway even if they cannot articulate it. Neither do I think that helping them to further understand that Israel (and by extension the Diaspora) is something less than our “greatest ally” should require bringing down the entire mythological edifice of America and the West.

– Putting too much stock in the idea that white liberals and mainstream conservatives will eventually see the error of their ways:

In moderation of the previous points, although Western survival demands our best efforts, we should not spend too many sleepless nights contemplating why it is that others cannot seem to grasp the obvious. The human capacity for self-deception can hardly be overestimated. People will believe what they want to believe, and unfortunately many people desperately want to believe that the fact America’s founding stock were of European extraction has nothing to do with the character of their country’s culture or its material prosperity. This they will maintain even as liberals send their children to schools conspicuously devoid of black and mestizo students, and conservatives complain unceasingly about immigration whilst claiming the issue has nothing to do with race. America, for these people, is a creed or an idea. To them a culture is, curiously enough, anything but an expression of the biology of the people it arises from. Geographic and historical factors or the Protestant work ethic are responsible for the success of the United States, we are meant to believe, but not its white majority.

Even the average Tea Party enthusiast, regardless of how “implicitly white” he and his associates may be, is very rarely able to make the important distinctions that would really serve him, such as between the divergent interests of America and Israel and the naturally different abilities and proclivities of blacks and whites. Some of this is attributable to the propaganda they have imbibed all their lives and some to the desire, perhaps especially pronounced in European peoples, to think the best of others and behave with altruism. The sad reality is that many of these people will maintain these unfortunate attitudes until it is too late, and they find themselves fighting from a position of weakness from which there is no return. For them denial is a sickness unto death; let it not be so for us.

– Claiming we’re ‘beyond left and right,’ third-positionists, etc:

Is it really true that in today’s world the left-right spectrum has come to lack validity? Even if that is in fact the case, does hastening to discard this paradigm give us any real political advantage? In a related vein, do following laissez-faire principals to the extremes of outsourcing work to foreign countries and importing incompatible immigrants to the point one’s own existence is imperiled make one a conservative or “right-winger”? Conversely, does not wanting one’s hometown given over to ugly corporate chain stores peddling cheap junk from China place one on the political left?

I would venture to suggest that the answer to these and similar questions is an emphatic “no.” Furthermore, I would contend that embracing the morally barren philosophy of self-interest of the Jewess Ayn Rand, who was rightly sneered at by many of her contemporaries and yet remains inexplicably popular, makes one less an archetypical rightist than it does an average citizen of our times.

Hierarchy and social and economic inequality are certainly necessary, but not because the poor and less capable are peons we wish to trample upon. Instead, it is because inequality is integral to the functioning and overall well-being of an ordered society in which men receive their just due, whether it is inherited from family or earned through their own efforts.

Setting aside associated delusions about the necessity of endless development and the primacy of technology, a market economy works provided people maintain the proper understanding of money and material things: that they are not the ends of existence, and one’s loyalty belongs to one’s own nation and not the global marketplace. It is the realization of this sacred trust that necessitates sane limits on efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency and demands serious–that is, more than symbolic–charity to those beneath us. The mainstream right’s abandonment of nation and race for short-term material gains reveals them, not as men of the right, but as proponents of left-wing chaos and nihilism.

We are not fooling anyone; no one outside our immediate circles would describe us as anything but the far-right. However, this is not to let our enemies define us, for a correction is necessary: There is nothing marginal or extreme about us. We are not the far-right but the real right, as we should boldly proclaim.

The old fascists, whose legacy I for one do not embrace, were undoubtedly not, as some disingenuous or misguided people (usually mainstream conservatives) have claimed, a phenomenon of the left or the center. Their opposition to both Bolshevism and its more insidious twin, predatory capitalism, sprang from a concern for the maintenance of a decent social order and the defense of the eternal virtues, hallmarks of any authentic right-wing. This holds true no matter what their failings may have been–and they were many–in terms of theory and practice, as well as fascist hostility to conservative elements of their time. Not that such clarifications matter a great deal given that the notion of fascism as an absolute evil has long ago solidified in the minds of most Americans, probably irrevocably.

– Taking the arguments of Traditionalist and esotericist writers too seriously:

The writings of figures like Rene Guenon and Julius Evola have become, I believe, unduly influential in certain circles. But as rarified and removed from day-to-day concerns as they are (and were intended to be), I wouldn’t venture to claim that they are without any practical value to us whatsoever. The Traditionalists understood, perhaps more acutely than anyone, the ills of the modern world and the ultimate futility of many a superficially conservative campaign to renew civilization simply through the reinstitution of what is itself only a less advanced form of decay. Far from being engaged in mere quasi-historical fantasy, the Traditionalists provide an emotionally, if not rationally, satisfying answer to the search for meaning in history. Myth, I think most would agree, can sometimes provide a more beautifully concise and, indeed, “truthful” explanation of the world than empirical science, and certainly the picture painted by Traditionalism in many ways parallels actual human experience of alienation in the post-modern world. Personally, I’ve never felt that there is anything wrong with simultaneously entertaining several competing explanations of reality alongside one another. Nor do I believe that the embrace of scientific and historical fact necessitates rejecting all the claims of religion or vice versa.

That said, if one takes the claims of Traditionalism too literally it leads, I sense, to an outlook that I can only describe as pathological, not to mention dangerously Utopian. Every age has its challenges and ours is no different; it is not at all an exaggeration to say that our future existence hangs in the balance. But the world proposed by people like Evola never really existed and probably never can exist, and there is much to love about the Enlightenment values and bourgeois existence he despised. I fail to see how embracing the notion that this age is the Kali Yuga is anything but a recipe for a rejection of life as severe as that represented by the strictest of Christian sects. Similar criticism can, I think, be fairly leveled at the other partisans of the Aryan occult such as Miguel Serrano and Savitri Devi. I cannot shake the instinctive feeling about this stuff that, when taken to heart, it only leads one toward discontentedness and misanthropy and even, perhaps, to the truly demonic, if such can be said to exist.

– Believing Russian neo-Eurasianist Aleksandr Dugin is a potential ally:

Dugin, taking after his French associate and mentor Alain de Benoist, has offered much valid criticism of the liberal international order and appears to aim to construct an alternative model that would serve the interests of white Westerners, among other peoples. However, behind his seductive talk of the necessity of a “multipolar world,” Dugin seems to be little more than a typically chauvinistic Russian nationalist. When one closely exams his theories, they reveal themselves to be a thinly veiled plan of Russian expansionism in radical contrast to the world of ethnostates he purports to advocate. As his liberal critics have noted, neither is it at all clear how his desire to radically reshape the present world order could be practically implemented without inciting general chaos and perhaps even world war.

Dugin is much influenced by the overly idealistic anti-modernism of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, an inauspicious point of intellectual departure in my view. As is characteristic of some Russians, he is prone to bouts of irrationality and self-contradiction, and his early Traditionalist-influenced writings sound at times like the ramblings of a delusional mystic. Not unironically, the geopolitics-obsessed Dugin seems to have developed into a mirror opposite of the Neoconservatives he rightly despises, offering what amounts to a peculiar variant of their ideas in which ethnic Russians replace the Jews as the world’s indispensable people, a fact which, like the Neocons, he seeks to obscure.

In considering the various critics of global liberalism, be they Russia, Iran, China, or Islamic fundamentalists, it is wise to keep in mind that, more often than not, the enemy of our enemies is not our friend. That stated, Dugin’s ideas might prove to be of selective use to us even if he has his own ulterior motives for proposing them.

– Believing the Jewish Question might somehow resolve itself given enough time:

It may be true that increasing rates of intermarriage and the self-embrace of the decadent values Jews have long promoted for gentiles are working through a process of slow attrition to diminish Jewish power, but this is not something it would be wise to place stakes on. If the post-modern environment might act upon them in such a way as to eventually significantly dilute their influence, it will not be until far into the future–by definition uncertain–that the affects of this may make themselves felt.

It must be remembered that among these people, the nominally religious and the ethnically mixed have often been at the forefront of attacks on Western civilization. As ever, this eternal problematic remains in need of being addressed objectively and dispassionately by the best of men without lapses into irrational hatred or undue ascription of influence and ability to the Jews. Regrettably, whereas at one time famous and respected men were able to more or less honestly address the issue publicly, present realities allow for this to be done only circumspectly by way of discussion of the State of Israel.

Yet there are some among us who are all too happy to embrace self-censorship in the misguided pursuit of mainstream credibility. To them I caution that we only fool ourselves when we believe that by downplaying or never mentioning the issue, while harping on the problems created by other minority groups, we are being sophisticated or discreet. If Carl Schmitt is to be believed about what constitutes the very essence of politics, then we are lost when we begin to lose sight of the distinction between friend and enemy.

– Rejecting cultural concerns for a purely biological worldview:

In truth the nature-nurture debate probably represents a false dichotomy, at least in part, for just as culture is an expression of biology so, too, does the environment we place ourselves in and create for ourselves act upon us. This is not to deny the primacy of genetics: It would be ludicrous to blame dysgenic trends among European populations solely or even primarily on our increasingly vulgar popular culture–but it certainly must have a reinforcing effect. Hollywood aside, mindless entertainments like NASCAR and contemporary country music, to name but two of the least objectionable, seem to be more a reflection of an inherent white pathology, whether cultural or biological, rather than any pernicious outside influence.

The reality that white trash exists, and always has in one form or another, does not in any way diminish the fact that Western man is a unique creature with a special mission, one that is readily evident from just about any standpoint he may be viewed from. But one has to question the developmental trajectory of a people when their majority holds the viewing of professional sports and the addictive abuse of various entertainment technologies to be among their highest values. Neither am I completely comforted by the notion that only an elite minority can be expected to carry us forward in the future while the rest are left to their own devices. Our interest exists in seeing the largest possible number of European-derived people reach for high ideals. There must be some middle ground, or better yet a synthesis, between the ineffectual culturism of traditionalist conservatives and the reductionist absolutism of some racialists, who remind me at times of Marxist ideologues, so simplistic are their beliefs, and who often steep themselves in a world of substance abuse and vulgarity. The celebration of high culture may be the most readily attainable and ennobling, not to mention the most humane, eugenics program imaginable.

– Unreflectively embracing positions, extreme or otherwise, simply because they strike one as ‘anti-egalitarian,’ ‘rightist,’ or because they were held at some point in time by such-and-such an admirable organization or individual:

We are not in a contest to create the world’s most pitiless and hierarchal society. Rather we ought to set our sights on restoring and maintaining a tolerable civil social order that serves our interests. Believing, as some seem to, that one is a part of a natural aristocracy or intellectual elite that is bound to come out on top in an eventual struggle for power is foolish conceit. No matter how well prepared, we will all be very vulnerable when the liberal order starts to finally unravel, whenever that may be. Nothing is guaranteed to us, and we cannot take our own eventual success for granted.

– Embracing homosexuals as “culture bearers” integral to the cause of Western survival:

The claim, recently revived with enthusiasm in some fashionable quarters, that intolerance of such practices is rooted entirely in a Judeo-Christian monotheism that ought to be discarded, should not go unscrutinized. So too the claim that such intolerance has greatly stifled relationships of platonic affection between men, which, so far as I can tell, are alive in many a military unit and sports team. Those with a vested interest in the acceptance of these sort of specious ideas are usually the ones who put them forward, I believe it is safe to assume. And while I think it can be conceded that homosexuals tend to posses disproportionate levels of creative talent beneficial to society as a whole, in the interest of disease prevention and the general welfare of society, their worst impulses need to be discouraged and channeled. The normalization of homosexuality and other non-reproductive sexual practices–especially in combination with readily available abortion and massive third-world immigration–amounts to nothing less than a cult(ure) of death.

(Part 1 of 2)

***

Notes:

[1] Tomislav Sunic, Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (Lexington,
KY: BookSurge Publishing, 2007), 162.

[2] Joseph Sobran, Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions. (New
York: The Human Life Press, 1983), 15.

[3] Ibid., 101.

RECENTLY I’ve been thinking about someone whose name is attached to an organization I’m currently president of, H.L. Mencken (1880-1956). For years I’ve tried to understand why the Baltimore Sage has been branded, mostly recently in The Weekly Standard (see here and here) and in a voluminous biography by Terry Teachout, as anti-Semitic and anti-Black. The closest I could come to documenting these charges is that Mencken joked in his diary about the bad table manners of an obviously Jewish diner in a club that he frequented. He also said in a moment of levity that “an anti-Semite is someone who dislikes Jews more than is absolutely necessary.” This, as everybody who knew him was aware of, was a quip that Murray Rothbard was fond of repeating.

As for Mencken’s supposed revulsion for Blacks, I can’t find any evidence of it, although he may not have used “African-American,” or whatever is the now fashionable PC term in referring to the minority in question. We know that Mencken criticized segregation in his native city of Baltimore. He also never tired of attacking lower class White Southerners of the kind who wanted to keep Blacks segregated. Indeed if I were going after Mencken for his intolerance, I would have to notice his invectives against Southern Fundamentalists rather than his scattered, insignificant jokes about Jews and Blacks. That said, however, White Southerners don’t count as victims in their own eyes or in anyone else’s. In fact their politicians and journalists seem quite happy to view them as onetime racial victimizers, who were redeemed by civil rights legislation.

In any case, it seems to me that the recent attacks on Mencken have nothing to do with his prejudices. Liberals and neocons hate him for taking stands that don’t have much to do with the accusations made against him. One, Mencken opposed America’s entry into both World Wars, and during the First World War, he was expressly pro-German. (He was after all a German-American.) His predilection for the Central Powers in 1914 elicited a bitter tirade from Fred Siegel in (where else?) The Weekly Standard (January 30, 2006), a screed that charges the “horrid” Mencken with being a lifelong enemy of democracy and decency. Supposedly Mencken’s fondness for Nietzsche (about whom he produced a not very useful or scholarly biography) shows for all to see that he worshipped the “will to power” and saw this incarnated in the Teutonic enemy of Anglo-American democratic civilization. Someone who took such reprehensible positions in foreign affairs, we have to infer from Siegel’s remarks, must also have been against Jews, who represent all that is good and radiant in the West and (lest we forget) Israel.

WHITTAKER CHAMBERS died 50 years ago at the age of 60. Much in the world has changed since then. What might he think about world affairs today, were he still alive?

Before commenting, he would catch up on history with books like Tony Judt‘s Postwar. Another would be Timothy Snyder‘s Bloodlands, which accounts for millions of deaths during Chambers’ most active years. During the same period covered in Bloodlands, he wrote his first major piece for The New Masses, entered and defected from the Soviet underground, and worked at TIME magazine. Always an historian, he would crave hindsight into his own times. Such books would also help explain the demise of Great Illegals he knew and occasionally admired, including Alexander Ulanovsky, Ignatz Reiss, and Walter Krivitsky.

Today’s map of the world might shock him. He would see no Soviet Bloc. Yet quickly he would find Vladimir Putin‘s Russia very familiar. He might revisit his TIME essay on Yalta, “The Ghosts on the Roof.” This time, he would add the Bolsheviks to the Romanovs, as they admire Putin. Or he might renew efforts on his follow-on to Witness, a book called The Third Rome (never completed, though portions appear in the posthumous Cold Friday). To do so, he would have to face the rise of China. How ironic that this strategic nation–once overseen by Alger Hiss in the State Department’s Far Eastern Affairs section–has survived as the last great bastion of Communism. More ironic, China has turned to capitalism in the past few decades and come to rival America itself.

He wrote in Witness: “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.” Today, with Soviet Communism dead and Chinese Communism alive but capitalist, would he conclude that the Chinese have also chosen the losing side?

Our Information Age would probably have limited interest for him–mostly in greater access to books. (Both his children remain avowed Luddites and live in quiet, remote places.) He might enjoy watching Ninotchka again on the small screen, with its many layered meanings that started in his own home: his wife’s family came from Old Russia. However, he would studiously avoid Facebook and Twitter as only so much navel-gazing. (He may have sang like a bird when naming names before HUAC, but he probably could not bring himself to “tweet.”) Besides, to whom would he talk? All the “young men” who knew him in his later years are now dead, too: Henry Grunwald from TIME, Ralph de Toledano from Newsweek, Bill Buckley from National Review. (Veterans like Jeffrey Hart and Garry Wills came after him at NR.)

Changes in the world beyond the West might overwhelm him. So many new nations; so many realignments! Yet today’s map might also remind him of August 1914. No surprise would come from the decline of American empire (the “losing side.”)

Like any euro-centrist of his day, however, catching up with the “Rest of World” might escape him. For instance, his National Review article “Soviet Strategy in the Middle East” (October 26, 1957) speaks only of Anti-Colonialism (in regional terms of “Arab Nationalism”). What would he make of the Islamic aberration that has become “the basis” (a literal translation of al-Qa’ida) of strong anti-Western cultural reaction in this new millennium?

He would soon come to know that American spies since the Hiss and Rosenberg cases have diminished to mere mercenaries (another sign of decline?). Therefore, the return of non-mercenary spies outside the West would very likely catch his eye. Today’s suicide bombers would recall earlier models: Felix Djerjinsky, Eugen Levine, and Egor Sazonov. Of Sazonov, he had written that to protest the mistreatment of fellow prisoners, he had “drenched himself in kerosene, set himself on fire, and burned himself to death” (Witness, p. 6). Why would people of today blow themselves up to harm others, as Sazonov, Stepan Balmashov, Ivan Kalyayev, and other Terrorist Brigade members had, a century ago in Old Russia?

As a grizzled veteran of an earlier form of terror, no doubt he would worry: Have Americans learned nothing about the motives for treason? If we have not understood the experience of the McCarthy Era and the Cold War, how can we possibly hope to understand challenges from the “Rest of World”–like al-Qa’ida? Yet, what can we hope to understand of challenges like al-Qa’ida when so many of today’s “experts” lazily compare for us philosophically mismatched apples and oranges–and avoid a recount of history from “Arab eyes” (to use a phrase from writer Amin Maalouf).

At this point, old glooms might rise up again. Despite publishing the confessional Witness (1952), many Americans, he had felt before, have not understood first why he has served as a Communist spy and then why he defected. Today, he would find many of his (few) admirers appreciate him except for his one-time conversion to Christianity. Most refuse to explore earlier influences, despite the nexus traced in Witness back to the Christian Pacifist movement of the early 20th Century. Nor do many seem to understand his tactical move as an anti-Communist in aligning with Conservatives: they do not see this as political opportunism.

Partly, his old-school Marxist discipline silenced him during the hey-day of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Partly, his early death helped opportunists in the rising Conservative and Neo-Conservative moments to cast about post mortem for intellectual saints like Chambers and Lionel Trilling.

We have missed the chance to hear him grapple with Daniel Ellsberg‘s Pentagon Papers or today’s USA Patriot Act–speaking as a defector from Joseph Stalin‘s totalitarian policies. (Here you will find no speculation: their circumstances are too specific and too complicated for even the simplest surmise.)

In closing, lurking in Whittaker Chambers’ mind on this day, 50 years after his death, would likely be one of the last major political events of his own time: the farewell address of President Dwight Eisenhower on January 17, 1961:

As we peer into society’s future, we–you and I, and our government–must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. (text-PDF/audio/video)

The farmer, the intellectual, the revolutionary, the spiritualist in him all agreed wholeheartedly back then–and would agree now. Just as great doubts would continue to gnaw at his mind about the losing side.

David Chambers is a writer and publisher living in Reston, Virginia. He is the grandson of Whittaker Chambers.

Read the full article at The Smirking Chimp