The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Academe Finally Discovers Right-Wing Critics of Conservatism Inc. Will MSM be Next?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

hawleycriticsDr. George Hawley, [Email him] an assistant professor at the University of Alabama, has provided a badly-needed public service by producing Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism. Hawley’s work, published by an outstanding press for American studies at the University of Kansas, should bring him much deserved attention. Of course it’s ridiculous that America has had to wait so long for a scholarly work specifically devoted to what readers would consider the genuine Right. But the fact is that, as far as the Main Stream Media was concerned, the GOP Establishment and its Conservatism Inc. flunkies was the “extreme Right”—until they met Donald Trump.

Throughout his book, Hawley feels the need to signal his disapproval of some views he discusses. This may simply be the price of publication. If I were young enough to be considered for tenure in the average political science department at an American university, I too would spray my books with PC bromides in order to keep the Leftist lunatics off my back. Given the imbalance of forces, we should thank Hawley for daring to treat our side with even a modicum of respect.

We are that part of the American Right which both the Republican Establishment and neoconservative journalists have succeeded in “throwing off the bus,” as Jonah Goldberg characterized this salvific (for him) process. [The Logic of the Conservative Purges, by Paul Gottfried, Radix, September 9, 2015]

But Hawley accurately notes the never-ending purge has left political discourse in the United States “calcified.” So he seeks to rescue these “right wing critics” by comprehensively profiling the wide variety of thought his subjects represent. We encounter paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, market anarchists, neopagan followers of the European New Right, white nationalists, and racial realists. There’s even a cameo appearance by the Dark Enlightenment. readers may be bothered to find David Duke and Pat Buchanan being juxtaposed in Hawley’s narrative. But Hawley is correct to do so. From the standpoint of their neoconservative critics, Duke and Buchanan are equally reprehensible—and so is the far less rightist but even more bothersome Donald Trump, who has dared to run for president against the wishes of something that still calls itself, however deceptively, “the conservative movement.” Note the continuing ludicrous efforts to link Trump to David Duke.

The only thing uniting these “right wing critics” is their total marginalization by the same Beltway Right that is so eager to shadowbox profitably with the radical Left. Thus Hawley chronicles some of the most shameful campaigns of persecution waged by Conservatism Inc. against dissenters such as M.E. Bradford, Sam Francis, John Derbyshire, Jason Richwine, Joe Sobran and others.

Where does this intense hatred against the Dissident Right come from? The commissars conducting the purges obviously see something in their enemies that’s not just off-putting but evil. Thus we get the Leftist slurs “fascist,” “anti-Semite,” and “racist” adopted by the Respectable Right.

One possibility Hawley proposes is simply the conventional mainstream (Leftist-neoconservative) explanation: he writes “The negative assessment of marginalized ideologies may be correct in many cases.” Indeed, Hawley tells us intermittently some of subjects may be xenophobic, and men like Sam Francis and Jared Taylor have made no secret of their “racialist” tendencies. Hawley even scolds the GOP for its “immigration restrictionism” that has “driven” minorities into the Democratic Party.

But the only example of this tendency that Hawley cites is the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994, under (let’s stress) the generally liberal Republican governor Pete Wilson. Omitted from consideration are Republican support for the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the Amnesty legislation supported by Reagan and congressional Republicans in 1986, and finally the repeated strenuous efforts of George W. Bush, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other leading Republicans to Amnesty at least 11 million more illegals residing in the country.

Besides, as Hawley himself admits, these illegal residents wouldn’t vote Republican anyway, for economic reasons if nothing else.

More convincing than the ritualistic clichés in Hawley’s work are his assessments of the stale thinking and simplistic GOP talking points that haven’t changed since the 1980s. In contrast to the tiresome PR agents associated with the “movement,” (including the assortment of real and bleached blondes on FoxNews), the paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians Hawley profiles ooze with original insight and vast learning. But even though many of the scholars and writers on the Dissident Right are far more well-read and erudite than the minicons of the official “movement,” Conservatism Inc. simply falls back on calling them stupid.

Hawley in contrast devotes respectful attention to his subjects’ scholarship, which leaves the impression that he is truly struck by the force of their ideas. He even explores my sometimes (alas) abstruse tracts on German political thought and devotes considerable space to Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger and other mentors of the European New Right and its American disciples. In short, he suggests the hatred directed towards the Dissident Right is motivated by fear of the intellectual threat we represent.

Hawley investigates in depth an in-house discussion about the paleoconservatism that had emerged in the 1980s and 1990s held between long-time Chronicles Editor Tom Fleming and myself. Fleming “argued that paleoconservatism is a continuation of the interwar old right, whereas Paul Gottfried viewed paleoconservatism as the true heir of the 1950s conservative movement before it was hijacked by neoconservatism.”

My views have changed since then. I now think the paleos were largely a new movement of the Right born of a lost cause, trying to counter the rise of neoconservatives to a position of control over the Conservative Movement. But though the paleos gave it their best shot, they went nowhere as a counterforce after the defeat of Pat Buchanan’s briefly successful presidential runs in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

Hawley ascribes the view that “paleoconservatism is no longer a meaningful force in the United States’’ to me, and I won’t deny it. He says there are two reasons for paleoconservatism’s eclipse: first, the passing of the generation that identified with it and its defeat in trying to take back the movement; and second, the changing social and cultural face of America, which would be even less receptive to paleoconservatives than were the 1980s.

But that doesn’t mean the fight against Conservatism Inc. (and its neoconservative masters) is over. Both Hawley and I have discerned a new populist Right emerging, which focuses on the high costs of mass immigration and capitalizes on growing popular resentment against Leftist elites.

ORDER IT NOW is obviously a part of this emerging political force. Peter Brimelow and are cited and Peter is singled out (not unfavorably) for his “scathing attacks on American immigration policy.” As a result, we are told, Peter “is no longer published in mainstream venues.”

Three other contributors to who have at least four pages lavished on them in Hawley’s study are: Steve Sailer, for his daring commentaries on sociobiology; John Derbyshire f or his examinations of IQ differences and their effect on human behavior and professional achievements; and, well, me, for my studies on E uropean political thought and for being a long-lived nuisance to the neocons. To his credit, Hawley reviews the purge of John Derbyshire by the shameful National Review with sympathy.

Donald Trump in the United States and the National Front in France are two examples of the emerging populist political force—sometimes called “National Conservatism.” In the present historical circumstances, a coalition of the dispossessed, built on the white working class is probably the best the Right can hope for. Hawley is already at work on a sequel dealing with this alternative, populist Right. From having seen his prospectus, I expect it to be entirely on target.

Needless to say, I don’t expect the particular paleoconservatism with which Buchanan and I were associated to make a comeback even if the political climate changes. As one of my favorite thinkers (yes, Carl Schmitt) famously observed: “an historical truth is true only once.” And this aphorism is particularly relevant for the history of failed political movements. After all, the overthrow of Soviet Communism eventually brought to power in Russia the conservative nationalist government of Vladimir Putin. But it hasn’t resulted in restoring the Romanoff dynasty in Russia.

At least, not yet.

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. iffen says:

    Thus we get the Leftist slurs “fascist,” “anti-Semite,” and “racist” adopted by the Respectable Right.

    There are real fascists, anti-Semites and racists. If you do not separate yourself from them, then by default the slur will be applied to you. (birds of a feather) If you can’t separate yourself from politicos like David Duke, if there are no political movements or leaders to your right, you are stuck.

    You can frame it in terms of freedom of thought, freedom of association, and freedom of expression all day long. The fact remains that you will get a double dose of the Trump treatment. In other words, you will lose.

  2. In other words, you will lose.

    Is that a lament, or is it a threat?

    Prof. Gottfried, I have a question. Radio talker Mark Levin, no friend of Donald Trump, says that Trumpism is “Populist Nationalist,” implying that Levin-approved conservatism is non-nationalist.

    My question is, was there ever a variety of American conservatism that was not nationalistic?

    Levin has also labelled Trumpism “Populist Nationalist Agrarian,” which seems even loopier.

    • Replies: @iffen
  3. iffen says:
    @David Davenport

    Is that a lament, or is it a threat?

    Mostly an opinion, certainly not a threat. I guess more of a lament in that the Professor’s caste system social and political order would have to be an improvement over what we have. At least they would let us eat cake on occasion.

  4. Kudzu Bob says:

    In other words, you will lose.

    That would be a correct prediction if this were 1996, but this is 2016 and the psychological conditioning called PC has begun to lose its effectiveness. To Millennials, Hitler is just that funny character in those “Hitler Finds Out” videos on YouTube.

  5. @iffen

    Yes, there are “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists”. They’re to the left of us. Hell, most are to the left of John Kasich.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  6. @iffen

    The most effective approach is to laugh at the accuser. No one really cares about David Duke, he’s a shibboleth. The whole point of cultural Marxist attacks is to force apology and abasement. The main thing is refusing to be cowed.

    Acting like you want perpetuates cultural Marxist mind control over conservatives (& liberals). People love Donald Trump because he (mostly) refuses to kow-tow. He made a big mistake backtracking on the ‘jail women who abort’ thing, though – far better to be unreasonable & stick to it, than moderate and apologetic.

    • Replies: @iffen
  7. iffen says:
    @Simon in London

    I agree with your comment. Satire and ridicule are very effective weapons. You are correct that the “whole point” is to force one to put up the Greengrocer Sign. (I still despise the use of the bogeyman words, cultural Marxist.)

    No one really cares about David Duke, he’s a shibboleth.

    Then why does someone with a first rate mind like Professor Gottfried defend him?

    The “alternative” is going nowhere unless it can separate itself from the David Dukes.

    • Replies: @juster
    , @rod1963
    , @Ace
    , @Maj. Kong
  8. juster says:

    I have been trying to argue this point with the alt-right. They see that a lot of young people on 4chan or twitter etc. don’t care about the anti-Semitism and more egregious racism and assume that somehow that reflects the general population, but it doesn’t. I think this, among several other unrelated factors, is going to cost Trump the election. People who insist on always talking about “the Jewish question” or “race-mixing” are seriously messing this burgeoning movement up. That isn’t to say that there is no substance in any of these critiques, but the public isn’t ready for that. Not even close.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  9. rod1963 says:

    No one among the Nationalist/populist movement really gives a rats ass when some smelly, dried out liberal puke calls them a racist or try to associate David Duke with them – which was tried and failed very badly.

    Thing is, economic and social pain inflicted by decades of globalism and immigration has made a lot of folks very pissed off. This is why all the authoritarian-thought stopping PC/MC labels of “racist”, “xenophobe”, “islamaphobe”, etc don’t work.

    Pain and fear tend to do that. Twenty years ago those tactics worked, but it was a different country back then. The damage from globalization, illegal immigration and trade were just beginning to be felt. Now it’s front and center for anyone whose not upper middle class and people are very worried and many are economically and socially hurt by the policies promoted by the political class, Neo-Cons and Wall Street.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Bill
  10. Ace says:

    Socialist regimes caused immense damage, suffering and death in the past century and David Duke has caused none. Where is your call for the left to separate themselves from the absurd socialist Sanders?

    No, you want rightists to separate themselves from Duke like old ladies who tremble at the sight of a mouse and flee to the nearest chair. Someone out there engages in crimethink so there must be a Def Con IV plan for separation.

    And when exactly did this joinder with Duke take place?

    • Replies: @iffen
  11. Maj. Kong says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    No matter the intention, I and probably some others read your comment as “the Democrats are the real racists” refrain of conservatism inc.

  12. Maj. Kong says:

    For a brief moment David Duke was an extremely popular politician in Louisiana, that happened to make an ill timed decision to run for Senate, and then Governor, than to the House district that later sent Bobby Jindal and David Vitter to Congress. Subsequently, he’s been a demon trotted out by the left and conservatism inc.

    But it should be remembered that he was running at the same time as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. The latter two and their supporters were tarred with the same brush. That is the point Gottfried is making.

    David Duke tapped into a real dissent from the governing elite orthodoxy, and showed how desperate the establishment was willing to go. For that one brief moment in 1991 he had the left scared.

    Look at the left, do they disavow Farrakhan? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? How about Luis Gutierrez? Fabian Nunez? Abe Foxman? Chuck Schumer?

    I don’t favor the worldview of David Duke, but I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament.

    • Replies: @iffen
  13. iffen says:

    No one among the Nationalist/populist movement really gives a rats ass

    This is not the target group.

    The target group is the moderate, apolitical “middle” which can be persuaded by such rhetoric. We don’t really know the size of this group. It could be 20-30-40 %. Trump would be well above 50% if people weren’t scared of the possible validity of the racist accusations that have been directed toward him.

  14. iffen says:

    And when exactly did this joinder with Duke take place?

    Note the continuing ludicrous efforts to link Trump to David Duke.

    • Replies: @Ace
  15. iffen says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Look at the left, do they disavow Farrakhan? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? How about Luis Gutierrez? Fabian Nunez? Abe Foxman? Chuck Schumer?

    These people are the essence of their side.

    Is David Duke the essence of your side?

    If any on the left deviate from the orthodoxy then they will be burned at the stake.

    One of the many advantages of “the other side” is the efficiency with which they separate themselves from heretics.

    “Our side” has a disability in this area. We would rather protect free speech for Nazis than win a presidential election.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  16. Bill says:

    You’re just mindlessly repeating the standard neocon argument for purging. The “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists” get to be identified by the left, and then the right is supposed, dutifully, to purge them. This is a recipe for defeat. And defeat is what it has brought: uninterrupted defeat for 50 years. Defeat so complete that there is now a right for bizarre perverts to hang out in the bathroom with your daughter.

    • Replies: @iffen
  17. Bill says:

    Indeed. If iffen was actually concerned with preventing the rise of “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists,” then he would be hysterically condemning people who misuse those words. What the left is going to succeed in doing, eventually, is convincing whites that “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists” are the only people who are looking out for them. This will not result in less support for “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists” in the long run.

  18. Bill says:

    “including the assortment of real and bleached blondes on FoxNews”

    Which ones are real? I don’t see any blondes in that picture. Lotsa black roots. Lotsa dark eyebrows. Lotsa hyperactive eyebrow pluckers (to minimize the visual impact of the dark eyebrows).

    I could believe that there is a blonde on Fox. I’ve just never seen one.

    Shorter Bill: Megyn Kelly: blonde

  19. Rehmat says:

    Dr. David Duke and Pat. Buchanan have nothing in common except the Whiteness of there skins.

    Pat. Buchanan is part of anti-Muslim Zionist Christian racist establishment while David Duke is champion of human rights regardless of religion and race – even though he was associated with anti-Black racist group KKK, funded by several Zionist Jews.

    In April 2015, former US Congressman, Dr. David Duke and Pat. Buchanan’s duplicate, professor Kevin MacDonald (California State University) stated that the nuclear deal between the so-called P5+1 and Iran is ‘onerous’, and is meant to keep the Zionist entity the only nuclear power in the Middle East.

    Both agreed that the deal reached with Iran whereby that country has agreed to long-term restrictions on its nuclear power program that no other country in the world is subject to. Dr. Duke indicated that this will put Iran into a position of vulnerability, although both men voiced understanding for why Iran would being willing to make such a major concession in order to avoid a massive war. They also assessed the motives of President Obama as well as the different voices in the organized Jewish community. They agreed that while there is a massive push for war with Iran from “crazy Zionists,” more cunning Zionists realize that war would not be in the best interests of Jews.

    Last year, Dr. Duke was interviewed by Argentinian investigative journalist and author Adrian Salbuchi. They discussed the evil nature of the Organized Jewry and Zionism at the Buenos Aires-based TLV1 TV Channel. Watch the interview below.

  20. iffen says:

    “real fascists, anti-Semites, and racists” get to be identified by the left, and then the right is supposed, dutifully, to purge them.

    Exactly wrong. The right should identify the heretics and purge them. Then when the left tries to get someone purged that doesn’t deserve it you tell them to f* off.

  21. Agent76 says:

    Apr 8, 2016 The Death of Western Culture in 60 Seconds

    Stefan Molyneux explains a simple and undiscussed mechanism which has lead to the erosion of western culture and values. Hint: You’re being forced to pay for it!

  22. mtn cur says:

    I have obligations more worthy of my labor than to differentiate between neo con “fear of intellectual threats,” fear of intellect as a whole and trifling intellectual laziness sheep dipped as anti intellectualism. Among the first lessons of poly sci 101 is that far left and far right are back to back in their thinking and now both lots have metastasized into shills for the supreme soviet, aka the corporation. As to which ones are knowing frauds and which too stupid to know that the merger of private and public sector is a brain shot for their alleged different dictums is a task for those with strong stomachs and the compassion of a saint . Thus, the various quarreling demographics are little better than crabs in a basket, trapped by the various rotten fish of credit card consumerism and propaganda proffered by the ad agencies created and paid by the vampire classes. The myth of the one percenters serves to conceal that they are coat tail riders under the magic money spell of the 100 odd necromancers in charge.( .0000000001 %? ) I repeat a prior remark that free market practices like NAFTA tore the peasantry off of the family farm or whatever other means of support and not only made them refugees in their own country , but illegal occupants of their own homes and lands. Unlike many citizens of the developed countries, this was most often not due to charging fast food, soda pop, new cars and swimming pools on their credit cards. Rather than using high tech weapons or seal 6 to assassinate troublesome peasants, we should arrange ax handle shampoos for our high misleadership.

    • Replies: @OutWest
    , @woodNfish
  23. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    Thug discovers Ayn Rand. Sheeeeiiiiiit.

    • Replies: @Agent76
  24. Bill says:

    Exactly wrong. The right should identify the heretics and purge them.

    But fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism are not heresies for the right. Socialism, multiculturalism, perversion, and feminism are heresies.

    • Replies: @iffen
  25. OutWest says:
    @mtn cur

    Communism and fascism are both socialism but differ in that the former takes title to productive means while the latter leaves title thereto with the private sector but asserts full control over the productive means. Economically the United States is essentially fascist. This is confirmed by the distain the government has for private effort, i.e. individuals don’t deserve credit for accomplishments since these are merely artifacts of government policy. Of course individuals do accomplish worthwhile ends despite the government disapproval.

    • Replies: @mtn cur
  26. woodNfish says:

    The right should identify the heretics and purge them.

    Why? Do you ever see the Left purge anyone? Criminals, rapists, racists? No. They embrace them, forgive them, call their crimes something else and go on. The only reason conservatives aver purge anyone is because of the pressure from the LSM.

  27. woodNfish says:
    @mtn cur

    Guillotines. Lots and lots of guillotines. Just remember, to kill the hydra, you must cut off its heads.

  28. @iffen

    Like Jason Richwine, John Derbyshire, the late Joe Sobran?

    • Replies: @juster
    , @iffen
    , @iffen
  29. Agent76 says:

    Sep 7, 2014 Tom Woods – Representative Slavery

    Thomas Woods puts the notion of representative government under the microscope.

  30. iffen says:

    But fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism are not heresies for the right.

    They should be. How much clearer can I state it?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    , @Bill
  31. juster says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    The race realists are completely different from something like The Right Stuff or Daily Stormer. Those names you cited are people who should never have been purged. But if we don’t disassociate from the DS and TRS, what we end up with is people like Richwine, Derbyshire etc. lumped in with the hardcore white nationalists and national socialists. We know they’re completely and totally different, but the average Joe won’t.

    I think iffen’s point is simply this: we aren’t going to win elections with a minority of the population, and the majority is just not going to like DS-type white nationalism. It’s a losing ticket. It destroys the possibility of electoral victory. We can’t win with it, not now, not in 20 years. But we can win with Trump and legitimate complaints about immigration, multiculturalism etc. as long as we can’t be brushed off as racists and anti-Semites.

  32. iffen says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Like Jason Richwine, John Derbyshire, the late Joe Sobran?

    Derbyshire, yes.

    The other two I will withhold judgment. Everything that I have read about Richwine leads me to say no.

    I know little about Sobran.

  33. Agent76 says:

    Apr 5, 2012 The Deal with Jack Hunter: Goodbye to Conservatism

    Conservatives don’t “fix” big government. They end it!

  34. mtn cur says:

    Feces by any other name would stink.

  35. @juster

    The Left has no enemies to its left, and they’ve permanently enacted the welfare state, captured all the institutions and won and continue to win the Culture War. Your respectability gains you nothing.

    • Replies: @iffen
  36. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    “There are real fascists, anti-Semites and racists.”

    And they are the True Right.

    Purging them would be like purging pizza of cheese.

    I’m the only true fascist, race-ist, and counter-Jewite.

    Fascism could have been the greatest ideology of the 20th century, but Mussolini and Hitler messed it up. But many systems fail at first. Greek democracy and Roman Republic failed too. But they had some good ideas. So, what we need is neo-fascism that fixes the old problems of fascism and develops a better one.

    As for race-ism, it is truth. Races do exist, and racial differences do matter. True Right must be honest about race.
    Indeed, regardless of what people SAY, just look at the Race Reality or Raceality all around you? We see Racealism all over cuz racial differences matter.
    In sports, blacks dominate cuz they are stronger and tougher. Jews dominate finance cuz they got knack for numbers and verbal skills.
    It doesn’t matter what people say. It is what they show by their actions that really count. It’s like 99% of businessmen will say they are not greedy but they are.
    It’s like 99% of politicians will say they loathe lies but they are liars.
    Most of what people say is BS. What they show by their actions is what really counts.
    And Libs and Cons and blacks and Jews and etc are all Race-ists, Race Realists, or Racealists. Even those who consciously believe in racial equality don’t practice it in real life. Their actions show what they really feel.

    As for ‘antisemtism’, it really just means DON’T THINK ABOUT JEWISH POWER. But all honest critics of power must think about Jewish Power.
    Now, if most Jews were pro-white and pro-West, white folks should forge close alliance with Jews.
    But the fact is the majority of Jews have hostile feelings toward whites. Jewish elites look down on white gentiles as less intelligent and fear that white gentiles will challenge Jewish power. So, Jews seek to demoralize whites with ugly decadent culture and ‘white guilt’, demasculinize white males with homo agenda and interracialism that encourages white women to prize the Negro as the favored mating partner. Jewish control of media tells white folks, “You white boys need to be more fruity and pansy, and you white girls need to go with negroes since white boys are such pansy dorks.” Have white guys emulate Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner while white girls run off with negro studs.

    So, it is necessary for the True Right to be counter-Jewish. Now, not all Jews are part of this anti-white agenda, but many of them are, and their power and agenda have to be called out.

    The Jewish Agenda for whites is racial inferioritism. Jews won’t call it that, but that is what it is. Who decides which race is superior and inferior? Free individual women do. Their wombs decide which race is superior. Sexual preference of women determine the future generations. The race that survives and dominates in the politics of the testicles and wombs is the superior race. Rest is all just a matter of opinion.

    For most of human history, women had no choice in sexual mating. Most men didn’t either. Most marriages were arranged by parents or social superiors.
    So, white women had kids with white men.
    And then, white women and white men had choice. But since white nations were all white, white women could only choose white men. And since white men ruled the world, they had prestige and promoted their own image as the dominant male archetype. This unity of white man and white woman ensured the survival of the West.

    But now we live in a globalized world. US has lots of black guys, and EU is filling up with black guys and young Muslim men with explosive balls. And they want white women. Meanwhile, white males have been raised to be pansy, castrated, tootsy, and PC-addled with ‘white guilt’. White women grow up to rap music, interracial propaganda, and black domination of sports.

    In the past, white women didn’t choose their partners. Their partners were chosen by their fathers.
    Then, white women did choose but could only choose white men who held the power in white-dominated or white-homogeneous societies.

    Today, white men are accused of all the sins and problems of the world. White morality is all about cucking out to Jews, homos, and blacks.
    In this climate, white women with freedom and individuality get to choose their mates. And increasingly, white wombs prefer black seed and want to produce black babies for black dads… or even Muslim babies for Muslim men who still have manhood left unlike all these dorky tootsy white guys who’ve been PC-castrated.

    So, how should we determine racial superiority and inferiority? It is no longer a matter of opinion. It is really decided by the wombs. Politics of the Womb decides the superior race and inferior race.
    If more and more white women decided that their wombs should take black seed and produce black babies, it means blacks are the superior race due to the simple fact that the wombs, generators of future people, prefer black seed over white seed.

    Men cannot produce children on their own. They can only produce children through women. And if their own women reject the men of their race, it means that the women have decided that their own men are INFERIOR to the men of another race with whom they want to have kids.
    This is no longer a matter of opinion since it has profound consequences on life.
    Suppose there are 100 white women and all decide to reject white seed and take black seed and produce black babies. One would have to conclude black race is superior to the white race. Why? Because white women decided it to be so. Why else would they have rejected white men and taken the seed of black men, as Ann Dunham did? And why did so many white women vote for Obama?

    In the past, women didn’t decide. And even when they decided to choose their mates, white women only had access to white men in white nations.
    But now, globalism has broken down all barriers. Countless Negro men are coming to Europe. Also, Jews own the mass media and fill up white female minds with images of the superior Negro stud with more muscle and dong power.
    And increasing number of white women decide to have kids with black men, often out of wedlock(and we see this all over America now). That will decide which race is superior and inferior.

    We can argue forever about higher IQ and etc, but the future generation will be the product of sexual decisions of free women. Not only Who, Whom, but Woo, Womb.
    And the biggest threat to white race is the Negro because only the Negro man has more manly qualities than white men. And Jews know this, which is why they are promoting interracialism that is mostly about white women rejecting white men and going with black men and using their white wombs to create racially superior black babies.

    We can argue forever that blacks are NOT superior. Our opinions don’t matter. What matters is what the women decide because the pathway to survival and future life is through the wombs of women.
    Women’s wombs are like gardens. And men’s testes are like bags of seeds. If white women open their garden to white seeds, white children will grow in the garden.
    But if white women shut their gates to white seeds and only allow black seeds, then their white gardens will produce black children.
    And more and more white women are choosing to do this. And with population explosion in Africa and endless flow of black males into EU, you can see where this is all going. Every year, millions more black males in the EU. Every year, white girls bombarded with propaganda that promotes interracialism, especially white black males. Cuckish white couples or cuckples even worship the Negro dong. The emasculated white hubby watches his wife getting humped by a Negro. It is the
    Cruci-Dicksion of white man.

    In a free globalized world, racial superiority and inferiority are really decided by women. If white women decide to take black seed and keep producing mulatto black babies, it means black race is superior. You can disagree, I can disagree. But our views would just be a matter of opinion. But the white female decision to accept the black seed as superior(while rejecting white seed as inferior) isn’t just a matter of opinion. It is consequential action that produces new life and decides the future of humanity. When white wombs produce black babies, the life-generator of the white race(white female wombs) have decided blacks are superior to whites. Your minds and tongues can pontificate. But they produce no new life. Only wombs produce new life, and women with wombs, as pathways to the future, get to decide which race is superior in their choice of sexual mates.

    All is race-ist in this world.

    Now, white race-realists might argue that blacks are not superior. They may argue that Whites have higher IQ. That may be true, but if white women prefer black males over white males, it doesn’t matter if white males do have higher IQ. White wombs have decided they want black seed as superior. Black males may have lower IQ but female sexual desire isn’t just about brains. If so, Stephen Hawkings would have been the hottest stud in the world. Women are attracted to raw sexuality. Women are attracted to men for reasons others than geek-nerd ability.

    Indeed, some say that yellows are somewhat smarter than whites, thus ‘superior’ in IQ to whites. But so many yellow wombs prefer to take white seeds than yellow seeds. Thus, yellow wombs are acting on the basis that white race is superior to yellow race. Yellow wombs prefer to produce white babies for white men.

    In the end, racial superiority is determined by reproduction, not high IQ. A smart guy who can’t attract women is a zero. Without access to women, his DNA has met its dead end. It is thus inferior despite higher IQ.
    In our hyper-sexualized world, women increasingly choose mates on the basis of raw sexuality. So, racial superiority is really determined by what turns women on the most. And today, women have individual freedom to choose what her hormones deem as the superior mate whose seeds she will take.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  37. Conservatism is failing because it cannot deal with an overcrowded, over indebted, overgrown world and the world will not turn back from that state voluntarily.

    The Left will fail because their “solutions” are a hodge-podge of ad hoc, over complex, anti-nature, attempts at keeping the inevitable collapse from coming.

    Nature bats last.

    I believe that the fear of a Trump victory is rational from the viewpoint that he threatens the complex web of international cooperation that is keeping the collapse at bay. Support of Trump is rational from the viewpoint that the cooperation must, and will, eventually break down, the collapse will come, and there is an advantage to dealing with the event in a real world manner.

    People who think that Trump can return us to an earlier day are not dealing with reality.

  38. @juster

    …we aren’t going to win elections with a minority of the population, and the majority is just not going to like DS-type white nationalism.

    The USA would never have existed if its creation depended on a majority. The founders regarded “democracy” as what they saw in France at the time (before Napoleon). What we have now they called the tyranny of the majority.

    That is not to say that there is anything to be done about it besides letting nature take its course.

  39. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    David Duke sometimes goes too far, and he tends to overly blame Jews for too much, but he’s been one of the most courageous critics of Jewish power in a long time.

    And some of the things he warned are proving to be true.

    You gotta admit, How Zionists Divide and Conquer has a lot of truth in it.

  40. @iffen

    You’re either naive or jewish. Once the right purges its racists/nazis etc. the left will simply move the line.

  41. Mulegino1 says:

    In 21st Century America, “liberal” means Tweedle-Dem stepping on the gas and “conservative” means Tweedle-GOP occasionally stepping on the brake. The former believes that multicultural utopia is just beyond the horizon, and the latter believes that the new American Century is just up the road. Neither realizes that the car is headed towards the edge of the abyss.

  42. @iffen

    hmm does the left disown hitler stalin mao polpot che peron chavez castro etc etc etc etc -no they make tshirts broadway musicals and Warhol prints of have no enemies to the left not black panthers or NAMBLA , in fact you like and encourage shills to move as far left as concievable get your minions to make art and media normalizing the violence and deviancy and then get the GOP to split the difference – rinse repeat.
    “Fascism “LOL the only remotely fascist leader that was a rightist was franco and he actually neutralized the fascists. Fascism is what happens too democracy as it collapses in a last ditch effort to save it. Trump is what happens way before that.
    “anti semite” whats that even mean well what you mean is those who question the patriotism of jews in the various countries that have adopted them. Its a legitimate topic and a big problem but your tactic is to pretend its all part and parcel of something much uglier.
    “Racist” is a stupid word that basically screams I dont believe in evolution except to beat up Christians who actually discovered the process [Darwin, Mendel,Crick et al] Odd how jews dont accused of creationism. Race is not only skin deep you keep that lie going for the stupid by thuggery because it undermines the entire foundation of progrivism and is a handy political cudgel but CRISPR is coming behold the DARK ENLIGHTENMENT -ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL -NOT EVEN TWO OF THEM

  43. utu says:

    The term “Leftist-neoconservative” is close but zionist or Jewish “conservative” would be much more precise.

    Irving Kristol (1973)
    “Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now in the interests of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”

    “Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns…. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

    Norman Podhoretz (1979)
    “There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs – from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.”

  44. iffen says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    The Left has no enemies to its left, and they’ve permanently enacted the welfare state, captured all the institutions and won and continue to win the Culture War.

    Maybe it’s because they have no organized opposition. They might just be winning by default.

  45. @juster

    “People who insist on always talking about “the Jewish question” or “race-mixing” are seriously messing this burgeoning movement up.”

    The ruling class needs the rest of us at each others throats lest we turn our anger on them. Those who make it all about Jews, Negroes or Mexicans have taken the bait. I don’t know how much they are messing anything up. But I do wish they could understand that our common enemy is the .01%.

  46. Avery says:

    GOTTFRIEDoğlu is another anti-Christian, anti-Armenian, Turkophile, Islamophile denialist Zionist.

    Another disgusting anti-Christian living in Christian America, while shilling for Islamist Turks.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @5371
  47. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    You’re a turd shilling for the toilet.

  48. @Priss Factor

    With respect, race mixing only leads to all of us being the same color. We could all have a claim to having been diminished or enhanced. I live in Louisiana. I often see white men with colored women. Its not a one way street. These feminized white men you refer to must get that way at college. I don’t see them working the oil patch or the paper mills or among the fishermen, farmers and foresters.

  49. Maj. Kong says:

    I disagree, the essence of the left is people like the Clintons, Larry Summers, Jerry Brown, Tony Blair and the Trudeaus. Making “reasonable” sense on economics, and posing as voices of social moderation and progress. The racial chauvinists and the more extreme socialists like Sanders are largely hangers on. They never really get what they are looking for, just like the social conservatives.

    For most of the left, the only thing you can’t be is to be pro-white. They are willing to tolerate supporters of Palestine BDS, anti-GMOs, gun rights and even those hostile to homosexuality. But the minute a New Dealer like George Wallace started down the racial path, he was out, even though his support was essential to Jimmy Carter’s victory in ’76. That’s the same reason that Barbara Jordan has been forgotten, despite being a lesbian black female. She favored an immigration restriction policy that was against the anti-white racism favored by her side.

    George Bush won twice, so did Ronald Reagan. But society didn’t become more traditionalist. The only thing the Republicans care about is corporate globalization and more wars.

    Until the main axis of the right is spinning around preserving our ethnoreligious civilization, we aren’t going anywhere.

  50. Maj. Kong says:

    Like it or not, the Jewish community carries a lot of moral weight in Western society since 1945. Their record with this moral authority is deeply troubling, as my opinion is that far too many of them want Western society to be blurred out as revenge for the Holocaust. To me, any moral debt owed by the West was paid in full during the Yom Kippur War. In return for having supported Israel against virulent Muslim opposition, I do feel it is worthwhile to ask the diaspora Jews to either agree to defend Western civilization or move to Israel.

    We can’t win anything by worrying about what the left is portraying us as. We should instead focus on portraying them as traitors, and even crypto-Muslims. I think that part of the way that our ideas will become increasingly mainstream is that part of the left could be convinced that the SJW-wing is going too far. This includes the nominally anti-white socon blacks, Asians worried about BLM crime, and liberal Jews concerned about BDS* and Le Grand Remplacement. Also Midwestern blue collar workers and (gasp) government employees.

    *One of the strangest things to me is that the alt-right wants nothing to do with the movement that Israeli Jews appear to fear the most. A viable right-leaning BDS movement would be a worthwhile negotiating gambit.

    • Replies: @Ace
  51. Maj. Kong says:

    It can be reasonably argued that due to its populist and militaristic nature, that fascism is a heresy for the right. In that regard, I would not consider Franco a fascist.

    Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization. To put it briefly, since the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish religion has changed from the authority of the Torah to the authority of the Talmud. The latter text is explicitly targeted against the claims of Christianity, just as the Koran is. While you could argue that most Jews aren’t rabbinical scholars, and that reform Judaism is friendlier to Jesus at least as a prophet, I consider that over two thousand years of resentment doesn’t go away easily.

    I’m not arguing that we should bring back Jewish quotas, confiscate their wealth, burn the Talmud or order mass deportations. What I am calling for is an understanding that we believe the claims of Christianity and seek to practice them, as well as continuing our ethnic line and geographic providence. In short, an anti-liberal society which will make those not identifying with it uncomfortable as a non-Mormon would be in Provo, Utah.

    Racism is a Marxist term, it’s a slur, nothing else. Whether we are calling it racial realism or Human biodiversity, it should be an essential component of the right. We are not Young Earth Liberals.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Bill
  52. 5371 says:

    What did this piece have to do with Armenians, Turks, Christianity, Islam or Zionism?

    • Replies: @Avery
  53. iffen says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Very good comments by you. There are many items that I could comment upon but I guess most commenters like to move on. I suspect we are all victims of the just for the moment way of thinking.

    It is true that fascism is a separate case from racism and anti-Semitism.

    I can make a distinction between race realism and racism. If I was a better thinker and writer I should be able to lay it out for others. Maybe I will work on it in the future.

    In a technical, dictionary meaning, everyone (including me) can be considered to be racist, it is a part of being ethnocentric.

    However, just like one can be a patriot and a nationalist without being a fascist, one can be a race realist without being an blatant rabble rousing racist.

    • Agree: Maj. Kong
  54. iffen says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I read some online information on Richwine and it jogged my memory of the material that I read some time ago about his case. I don’t see anything that would justify his persecution or exclusion. The only sin that I noted was working for Heritage, but that is pardonable.

    I only read the Wiki on Sobran. I don’t see anything there that would make me conclude that he was anti-Semitic. (speculation coming up) I think that considering his profession and where he worked that he likely had frequent contact with Jewish Americans who were blind supporters of Israel and after a while that could skew one’s thinking.

  55. Bill says:

    The problem isn’t your lack of clarity. It’s your lack of correctness.

    • Replies: @iffen
  56. Bill says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Yes. Fascism, antisemitism, and racism (as those terms are used in contemporary discourse) are normal right wing positions. To purge people who hold them from the right is to liquidate the right. Which, of course, is the point of purging those people from the right.

  57. iffen says:

    It’s your lack of correctness.

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Bill. I will give your opinion the appropriate consideration.

  58. Avery says:

    Why do you care?
    Are you a volunteer moderator?

    Or you have some warm feelings for Dr. GOTTFRIEDoğlu ?
    Or possibly you are buddy-buddies with that Dr of scatology Dominique Turd Society ?

  59. Svigor says:

    No matter the intention, I and probably some others read your comment as “the Democrats are the real racists” refrain of conservatism inc.

    Reg’s comment aside, saying “we’re the real anti-racists, and the Democrats are the real racists” and “the Democrats are racists” are two very different things. You will never catch me saying the first, but I’ve been saying the second for years.

    Letting any of this stop you from pointing out that the left is racist is a huge mistake.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  60. Svigor says:

    The ruling class needs the rest of us at each others throats lest we turn our anger on them. Those who make it all about Jews, Negroes or Mexicans have taken the bait. I don’t know how much they are messing anything up. But I do wish they could understand that our common enemy is the .01%.

    How Jewish is that .01%? 50%? 40? 30? Somewhere in there, I’d guess. After you correct for political activism (never mind the solidarity effect), it’s probably more like 60%.

    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
  61. Svigor says:

    We can argue forever about higher IQ and etc, but the future generation will be the product of sexual decisions of free women. Not only Who, Whom, but Woo, Womb.
    And the biggest threat to white race is the Negro because only the Negro man has more manly qualities than white men. And Jews know this, which is why they are promoting interracialism that is mostly about white women rejecting white men and going with black men and using their white wombs to create racially superior black babies.

    You’re wrong about this. Jews promote blacks as suitable mates for white women for a variety of reasons, but foremost among them is the extreme apparent distance involved. In other words, because blacks are as alien a group as the Jews can find. See, if white women are conditioned to think of a group as alien as blacks as eligible partners, then of course they’re going to think of Jews as eligible partners. They won’t even notice the small differences involved.

    Jews make blacks eligible partners for whites as a sort of proxy for making Jews eligible. It lets them work from the shadows, which is how they prefer it; Jews never even get mentioned, but they benefit. Same thing goes for a lot of pro-black political machinations from Jews.

  62. Maj. Kong says:

    To the uninitiated, it would be understandable for them to accept “The Democrats are racist against whites”. It is a bit hard for some when the Clintons are still at the top, and neither House or Senate leader is nonwhite.

    To a leftist steeped in cultural Marxism, only a white person can be racist, and to some all white people are racist, even Tim Wise. Their definition: power+prejudice. So even a “white ally” is eternally suspect.

  63. Ace says:

    I see those ludicrous efforts, of course, but they all imply that there is a link, which there isn’t. Just their question When are you going to disavow Duke? is intended as Exh. A establishing the existence of a blood brotherhood.

    No question is posed to Hillary When are you going to disavow the support of Louis Farrakhan? There’s an actual link to Sharpton but no call to disavow him.

    This is grist for a case study on the political ambush.

  64. Ace says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Very good. I don’t think there was any moral debt “the West” owed (or owes) Jews. Their beef is with the government of one country and, to a lesser extent, a few collaborators and governments elsewhere in Europe.

    As is well known, Jews played a disproportionate role in the Bolshevik revolution and Holodomir and a central role in communist takeover attempts in Hungary, Austria, and Germany after WWI. In the U.S. they were hugely overrepresented in the communist movement. If the West is to be blamed for the acts of the German government it seems a fair question to ask are Jews similarly to be blamed for the acts of some of them?

  65. […] But now a book has come out that deals with those of us who are clearly rightists, but in opposition to the faux-right establishment. Paul Gottfried reviews it at the Unz Review link: […]

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS