The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 PodcastsGregory Hood Archive
The Worldview We Need
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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

American race relations are in permanent crisis. Every encounter between police and a black suspect, or even between white and black citizens, can spark a riot. This isn’t surprising. Blacks benefit from rioting; it brings support from the federal government and big corporations. Both the state and corporate America should be enemies of anarcho-communists, but they support radicals and anti-capitalists.

There’s a similar permanent crisis within the American conservative movement. Despite its rich non-profits and platform access, “the movement” is still mouthing the slogans from the Reagan years. In 2015–2016, Donald Trump openly defied not just the “GOP Establishment,” but the American conservative movement, and we can identify key institutions and people that define the American conservative movement. These include National Review the American Enterprise Institute, and commentators such as Ben Shapiro, David French, and Erick Erickson. They probably thought the movement’s tradition of “purges” would stop Trump. They were wrong.

President Trump has governed like a traditional American conservative, despite his nationalist rhetoric, so most Never Trumpers have made peace with him. However, the key lesson from the 2016 campaign was that the conservative movement, the supposed leaders, had lost touch with their base. This will still be the case after President Trump is gone, whether in November or four years from now.

Many Republican voters do not want unregulated capitalism, tax cuts, free trade, and more foreign wars. They don’t want cuts to Medicare or Social Security. Many Midwestern working-class voters in traditionally Democratic states switched from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. This was surely a rejection of free trade and globalism. Some data suggest it was also because of race, specifically white resistance to cultural change. Whatever the case, I can say with confidence it wasn’t because voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were poring over Heritage Foundation policy papers. While the American conservative movement has reconciled itself to defending President Trump personally, the larger question of what American conservatism is remains. What Conservatism, Inc. preaches is not what many Republican voters want.

The American Conservative, founded to question neoconservative foreign policy and the Iraq War, recently asked what the next American conservatism should look like. The Conservative Partnership Institute’s Rachel Bovard suggested that though America faces new challenges, “free enterprise, voluntary association, and the United States Constitution are still Americans’ best chance of success.” William Ruger of the Charles Koch Institute championed a new “fusionism” between classical liberalism, social conservatism, and localism. He revealingly concluded that we should “have faith in our uniquely American brand of conservatism and have faith in America.”

Political movements have to have “faith.” There must be faith in victory. However, “faith” isn’t practical guidance, especially if we are asked to have “faith” in old documents and legal formulas. The Constitution lays out the way our government is supposed to work. It’s a rule book. However, leftists (and many on the Right) have been ignoring the rules for decades. In The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, Christopher Caldwell argues that the Constitution has been replaced by a “rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible — and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out.”

Joe Sobran made similar arguments, noting that the Constitution set out specific, limited powers for the federal government. Nonetheless, the federal government kept expanding into our daily lives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 badly limited freedom of association. “Civil rights advocates” like those at the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League fight free speech rather than defend it. If current demographic trends continue, what’s left of the First Amendment may be abolished within this century.

Conservatives seem to sense what is coming; hence the warnings that a President Joe Biden would mean tyranny or the end of the American way of life. Unfortunately, conservatives lack an effective ideology. “Democrats are the real racists” and “the Founders favored equality” are historically illiterate arguments. Defending “free enterprise” is hardly compelling when Big Tech — private companies — censors conservatives, and when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs Democrats. The conservative temptation is to retreat to the Constitution and “classical liberalism.” Forever on the defensive, the American conservative movement gives its frustrated followers clever arguments why they can’t talk about certain things and shouldn’t use state power to accomplish their goals. Power may corrupt; powerlessness corrupts too.

We can’t rely on the Constitution to save us. It has already failed to prevent a massive federal bureaucracy and unelected judges from imposing policy. For example, today California is a deep blue state. However, Californians voted against mass immigration when they passed Proposition 187 in 1994. A court threw it out. On the most important issue, the people’s will didn’t matter. Now it’s too late to save the Golden State. Falling back on legalism is the sign of a failing movement. The side in politics that is more concerned with “means” than “ends” is the side that’s losing.

Classical liberalism is hardly more compelling than appealing to a long-dead Constitution. Joe Sobran joked that when someone proclaims new “human rights,” no one exclaims, “Oh good, I’m getting more rights!” “Human rights” are the justification for government intervention in our lives, especially to protect “marginalized groups.” That leaves the individual at the mercy of organized groups with a collective identity and a claim to victimhood.

Under “disparate impact” legal doctrine, practically any policy can become a potential civil rights violation if it leads to racial discrepancies. The races don’t perform equally in all fields, so discrepancies are inevitable. If you assume inherent racial equality, you must fall back on Critical Race Theory and white privilege to explain non-white failure. Indeed, the federal government teaches Critical Race Theory under the “nationalist” Trump Administration. The administration isn’t funding American Renaissance, but it paid Robin DiAngelo thousands.

We may even need to revisit the Founders’ assumptions. The philosophical underpinnings of classical liberalism are false. Man is not a blank slate; our genetic makeup helps shape our personality, values, and even political attitudes. Racial differences in intelligence are so undeniable that the most famous opponent of race realism, Stephen Jay Gould, resorted to fraud. Most people do not make rational judgments. Instead, they interpret information to support their biases. Control over information, which is in Big Tech’s hands, means the power to shift public opinion. It undercuts the whole concept of self-government.

(Credit Image: © Jan A. Nicolas/DPA via ZUMA Press)
(Credit Image: © Jan A. Nicolas/DPA via ZUMA Press)

America is not a Jeffersonian Republic of small farmers and shopkeepers. It has sharp income inequality. The middle class — the traditional bastion of any national populist movement — is squeezed between hostile oligarchs and the resentful, non-white underclass the oligarchs imported for cheap labor. This is the “Top-Bottom” alliance against the Middle, as COVID-19 lockdowns and BLM riots destroy small businesses. Today, the law is not a neutral arbitrator that protects property. Instead, America’s government is an “anarcho-tyranny” that cracks down on certain groups while ignoring the crimes of others.

American conservatism didn’t conserve classical liberalism. No one could. Classical liberalism arose from a specific social and political environment. We no longer live in a homogeneous white country in which only property-owning men vote, and in which the population shares a Christian moral background (if not Christian belief). To “return” to classical liberalism would require “returning” to that society. Liberalism, classical or otherwise, is dead. Today, we are seeing the logical conclusions of this flawed system. What will replace it? Who can overthrow its last vestiges?

Some conservative intellectuals, especially Roman Catholics, understand that classical liberalism is failing. Patrick Deenan’s Why Liberalism Failed started this debate within Conservatism Inc. Sohrab Ahmari and Adrian Vermeule have also called for a politics of the common good or integralism with a heavily Catholic emphasis. R.R. Reno’s Return of the Strong Gods urged a resurrection of “strong gods” such as virtue, patriotism, and common religiosity. None of this is surprising; the most important “Counter-Enlightenment” philosopher was the great Catholic reactionary Joseph de Maistre.

Of course, the problem is that like so many conservatives, Traditionalist Catholics are trying to save an institution that is already corrupted. In 2017, the Vatican publication La Civilta Cattolica denounced an alliance between “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism” as an “Ecumenism of Hate.” Traditionalist Catholics also have nothing useful to say about race. R.R. Reno called white identity “perverse.” Sohrab Ahmari doesn’t have any practical suggestions about opposing the thin conservatism offered by people like David French. The Catholic publication The Crisis wrote an especially nasty smear against Sam Francis. At least one Catholic church is offering prayers against “white privilege.” I don’t question the wisdom or courage of Catholic Identitarians such as Julien Langella, but they must reconquer the Church before they can reconquer the West. This isn’t the Church of Francisco Franco or Éamon de Valera, let alone Pope Urban II.

The larger American conservative movement failed because it has largely avoided talking about power. It wished power away, pretending it didn’t exist. Power and hierarchy always exist, and man’s limitless desire for power shapes elite decisions. We must understand the way power functions in the real world. Power isn’t something to be avoided, but a necessary tool. Modernism, which views politics from a temporal, desacralized, rationalist perspective, allows us to analyze it. Unfortunately, Modernism has also unleashed social liberalism and eaten through traditional America like acid.

Does it have to be this way? Evolutionary science shows us that universal racial equality is a myth. Scientific rationalism is paradoxically showing us that man is not a purely rational animal. What’s more, BLM hysteria suggests that when God is removed from the public square, new gods takes His place. In our society, multiculturalism is a faith, complete with sacred sites of pilgrimage and martyrs. One could even argue it has miracles. The “experts” assured us that mass protests won’t spread COVID-19 but that going to the store will. “Are Protests Dangerous? What Experts Say May Depend on Who’s Protesting What,” was the title of a New York Times article.

Sam Francis didn’t think Modernism was necessarily a weakness. He argued that James Burnham offered the theoretical key for rightists to dynamite the foundations of the liberal order. In a little known monogram (still available on Amazon, so get it while you can), “The Other Side of Modernism: James Burnham and His Legacy,” Francis wrote that Burnham’s thought was “distinctly modernist.” Burnham “harbored no illusion that a particular form of society . . . could adequately restrain the appetite for power.” However, this doesn’t mean that modernism itself must be attacked. Instead, it could be used. “Among contemporary conservatives,” wrote Francis, “only James Burnham offered a theoretical framework and a practical application of modernist political ideas that challenge the conventional modernist categories as defined by the Left.”

Burnham’s work challenged American conservatives’ assumptions as well. He focused on order and power, which alienated libertarians. He dismissed supernatural claims as meaningless. He argued that tradition, ideology, and even art spring from “irrational and mythic forces,” as does the basis for authority. Ideology and myth usually are just the masks power wears.

Christian traditionalists may not like their belief being called a “myth” or analyzed as temporal phenomena rather than the Will of God. However, though Burnham’s thought was modernist, even anti-moderns such as Joseph de Maistre would agree with some of it. For example, de Maistre argued that monarchy was an enduring form of government precisely because it is irrational and “men never respect what they have made.”

This argument is especially important when we analyze the conflicting attitudes towards the Constitution by American conservatives and progressives. Conservatives, desperate to defend what’s left of the Old Republic, think the Constitution is semi-sacred. Meanwhile, leftists dismiss the Constitution as an outdated document written by “dead white men” who have little relevance today.

Ideas mean nothing if there isn’t a revolutionary class to champion them and turn them into political action. Francis thought he found such a class in his famous “Middle American Radicals” (MARs). These are the white working-class voters who are suspicious of radical egalitarianism and economic neoliberalism. The MARs were the backbone of Patrick Buchanan’s and Ross Perot’s insurgent campaigns, and President Trump’s 2016 campaign. They are swing voters or they don’t vote at all. They are unlikely to be persuaded by appeals to the Constitution or the glories of the free market. However, American conservatives, aside from President Trump, can’t communicate with them.

April 10, 2019 – Crosby, TX – President Donald Trump President meets with students and union members. (Credit Image: © Joyce Boghosian via ZUMA Wire)
April 10, 2019 – Crosby, TX – President Donald Trump President meets with students and union members. (Credit Image: © Joyce Boghosian via ZUMA Wire)

American conservatives naïvely keep trying to fulfill the Left’s moral dictates about “equality” and “anti-racism,” even though it never gets them anywhere. The values-neutral state of the liberal imagination has never existed and can never exist. What conservatives fail to realize is that these slogans were always just a way to take power. Marxists and rightist intellectuals such as Carl Schmitt were both right in their own way. The state always serves the interests of certain groups. The question is which group is in power. We should be cynical about political rhetoric. We should always look to the concrete ends the rhetoric serves, rather than just the formal meaning of the words.

However, though we must start with cynicism, we can’t end there. Cynicism doesn’t inspire. Most leftists in the streets today really do believe in their egalitarian ideal, even if it’s impossible. Perhaps people have a psychological need for an impossible goal. In Francis’s short piece, he quotes Whittaker Chambers, a convert from communism to Catholicism. Chambers argued that modernists often miss essential truths by reducing everything to material terms. In Chambers’s striking phrase, “The Fire Bird is glimpsed living or not at all.”

Men need a myth, something that reaches beyond empirical judgments about what is “true” or “false.” There’s a yearning for “life beyond life,” in Evola’s phrase. He argued that power and action need a religious or supernatural justification; otherwise they are largely wasted. The calculating, individualist Economic Man can’t see beyond his own interests — so men look elsewhere for meaning. American conservatives and libertarians shouldn’t be surprised that Amazon, Nike, and other corporations are more hostile to Donald Trump than to self-proclaimed socialists. On an individual level, it’s almost always “rational” to conform and avoid trouble, but a truly fulfilling life, for individuals and peoples, must embrace struggle and an impossible goal. You can’t have that without a moral vision.

How can we encourage people to act romantically, idealistically, and “irrationally?” The Right’s central value is hierarchy, which implies order, authority, and service to something higher than oneself, whether that’s God, the state, or an Ideal. The Left’s central value is equality, which implies disorder, change, and the destruction of existing systems. A healthy society needs both impulses, because a purely Rightist society would be static and cut off from the masses, and a purely Leftist society would be in a constant, permanent revolution. The Leftist spirit of entropy has too much power today. However, we also have great income inequality, and ordinary Americans are practically powerless. It’s hard to discuss this because modern leftists think fighting racism and “hate” is more important than fighting inequality. They believe they are fighting the System even though they are the System. Thus, Michelle Obama can say with a straight face that white America ignores black women. Meanwhile, we are supposed to believe white men addicted to opioids and killing themselves are “privileged.”

The solution is nationalism, which synthesizes both Right and Left into something greater. We pursue the greatness of the nation and the well-being of the community. We recognize natural inequality between and among peoples, but we demand service from those with greater power and ability — what we used to call noblesse oblige. The proper attitude is that of Frederick the Great, who, though King, considered himself “First Servant of the State.” Thomas Jefferson said there would always be a “natural aristocracy,” but it must constantly prove its legitimacy.

Healthy men are not islands. Giuseppe Mazzini, in The Duties of Man, said that everyone owes a duty to humanity, but workers must “conquer a Country for yourselves” before they can hope to accomplish anything: “Do not be led astray by the idea of improving your material conditions without first solving the national question.”

But who belongs to our nation? We can thank our foes for telling us.

Writing on the “friend-enemy” distinction that defines politics, Carl Schmitt wrote that actual participants in the struggle are “in a position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence.” Whether its “decolonizing” campaigns in art or mathematics, tearing down statues, or defending looting, Black Lives Matter and its leftist allies are showing us that they want to erase our identity and the civilization created by whites. This effort is taking place across the Western world.

  • Protesters pulled down a statue of Canada’s first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald.
  • Black Lives Matter marches have started in France.
  • A “decolonization” effort in Australia demands special privileges for Aborigines.
  • There is a “decolonization” movement in Germany, which means Europeans living in their ancient homeland are still somehow “colonizers.”
  • In Washington D.C., a committee has called for sweeping name changes in our capital city, including renaming institutions named after Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and Francis Scott Key.

The issue is race. It is what defines “us” and “them.” Conservatives refuse to grapple with this truth, but they are not the ones in power. Those with power see as us white. Like the reluctant patriots among the Founding Fathers, we must recognize our foes have imposed an identity on us and we are rebels, whether we like it or not.

The truth is that we are one people. We share one struggle. This may seem a typically American response to others in the Western diaspora, especially those in Europe. However, we must understand that our identity is at least partially forced on us. To paraphrase Sam Francis, our foes hate us not because “we are ‘Westeners’ or ‘Americans’ or ‘Christians’ or ‘conservatives’ or ‘liberals,’ but because we are white.”

I’d add something to that. “Whiteness” isn’t just a biological reality. “Whiteness” is partially a social construct, but it’s the leftists who control media, academia, and foundations who have defined it. “Whiteness” also refers to behavior and values that lead men to pursue a certain vision that is higher, nobler, and better than themselves. The Smithsonian African-American History Museum recently said “whiteness” involves “hard work,” “delayed gratification,” and proper grammar. It’s not just a campaign against white people. It’s also a campaign against the Western form of human greatness, whether expressed in the thoroughly modern program of space exploration or the pre-modern majesty of Notre Dame cathedral.

Saul Alinsky wrote that the activist requires a certain amount of doublethink to avoid becoming a true believer. He must believe with all his heart in equality, but at the same time prevent his ideology from leading him to stupid decisions. While Alinsky is hardly a role model, he has a point. We can’t follow the American conservative model of simply repeating cliches about limited government or the Constitution. We can’t assume America is somehow exempt from the laws of history. Through the work of James Burnham and Sam Francis, we can understand the way power functions in our society and the critical role the egalitarian myth has in justifying the status quo. At the same time, we should already be looking forward to what comes after this System, when we are once again free to be ourselves.

Our ideal is a united white, Western Civilization that can collectively secure our people’s destiny. We require a “civilization-state.” This requires replacing the current “Western” world order, which undermines our culture and tradition. Most “Western” governments today act against their white constituents’ interests, rather than defend them.

Whites share one fate, wherever our legal citizenship may lie. The conflict is imposed on us whether we want it or not. This is the Identitarian Century, and the great questions of the future will not be settled by appeals to parchment or sentimentality. They will be settled by those who can view politics realistically but still demand the impossible. It will be won if we can reconcile Evola and Burnham, Francis and Faye.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. You gringos and your obsession with race.

    Why should the Church or Catholicism say anything about race? What’s there to say? Some races are more intelligent than others? So what? Some people are also more intelligent than others.

    One really does not understand what exactly do you want. You want do get rid of the blacks, is it? Fine. Do it.

    “united white, Western Civilization”

    We require a “civilization-state.”

    Caveat emptor! Inflammatory rhetoric follows!

    Thanks, but no thanks. We already have civilization-states in Europe. They’re called “país”, from Latin pāgēnsis: peasant, countryfolk.

    We are not “white”. We are Portuguese, Castillian, Britons, Wallonians, etc, etc. When will you people understand this?

    I think you did enough liberation around here for at least 200 years in 1945. It will surely take as much to unfuck our civilization-states. Probably even more cleaning the traces of that disgusting chewing gum off our pavements.

    You want your own civilization-state? Sure, by all means make one. You lack nothing: land, resources, people. But we do not have to, and will not be, “united”.

    If not for anything else, you people are shit at building empires.

    Here’s a protip: one does not build an empire by providing others with empires as you’ve done with the Soviet Union and China.

    Fix your home, yank. We’ll fix ours.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  2. @A Portuguese Man

    You’re not paying attention to the demographic changes that are already occurring in Europe, especially western Europe. Portugal may not be on the cutting edge of these changes, but they’ll eventually get there. European elites hate their own people, and yearn for their replacement, every bit as much as American elites.

    If Europeans had been better at managing the differences between French, German, Italian, British, etc. peoples, there would have been no opportunity for American intervention. Curse the empire all you like, but perhaps the reason for its influence in Europe stares back at you from the mirror

  3. Andrei says:

    The only way to solve the underlying problems in America and Europe is to GREATLY increase the birth rates. And that can’t be done while keeping the current lifestyles and consumption levels. Getting rid of Jews or immigrants will not solve anything. Unless people are willing to make sacrifices and live more frugal and modest lives, smaller houses, higher density housing, fewer cars, fewer miles driven, less going out, and so on, things will just slowly get worse for the whites (and in the long run orientals as well).

    But the dissident right, even though correct on race and gender differences, is not willing to make these sacrifices. It wants to externalize costs and punish others. Even smart race realists like Steve Sailer or Derbyshire would not sacrifice this bourgeois lifestyle for the sake of the white race or to combat dysgenics. This is also why European intellectuals are silent on racial issues. Their lifestyles are too comfortable and addictive to speak up and risk fines or marginalization.

  4. @Diversity Heretic

    I am paying attention.

    What you ought to be paying attention to though, is that the Portuguese managed a successful counter-insurgency war for 13 years in African territories the size of Europe, furthermore separated between themselves and the logistic center in Europe by thousands of miles, whilst being less than 10 million people. “Natives” were counted at 25 million.

    Whilst we did particularly well, any other European country could’ve done it, provided with determined and wise leadership.

    My point being that demographic changes can be dealt with.

    The issue of race is a non-issue. Is an idiotic obsession. Races auto-segregate naturally, anyway.

    But the real question here is the idea of a “united white, Western Civilization state”. Which is nothing but utopian-ism fueled by race-milenarism.

    Hitler made that mistake and Germans paid dearly. There is no racial solidarity. Never has and never will.

    Only fools believe such nonsense. And then get stabbed in the back by their race-brother knaves.

    • Replies: @Andrei
    , @Wyatt
    , @James O'Meara
  5. Protocol 7v5: “In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan.”
    I think we ALL should start wondering why the guns are moving to China? Or does anyone think They will just change the colour of the House? Also, what happened to all those rumours not long ago of NATO holding war games with China on the Canadian border?
    Having lived in the belly of the beast all my life, I dare say: “You do not uplift the barbarian by sinking to his level”. Also, it is very difficult contemplating an alliance of patriots with people who think I am a lesser species or something, ya dig?
    Why has not one white man laid a charge of multigenerational exploitation against the Arab slavers, Moorish invaders or even just the Jewish Sanhedrin? Because we are “above it”? Our collective silence is burying our cultural history. Why can every society on earth claim at least five thousand years of civilisation, but “Western Man” only appeared after some dude may or may not have walked the stinking alleys of Ierushalom two thousand years ago? When will White people regain their history from the ashes of our forefathers, instead of renting a messiah from the Jew?
    When a White man wants something from a god, he gets on his horse and go see the god in person, he does not mumble demands while sacrificing children on a fiery altar! When a White woman gets pissed off, she does not dress like a whore, seduce some man, then stabs him in the back during orgasm, no, she saddles her hog and fetches her man, drags his sorry ass home if needs be.
    And as long as you die facing your enemy, no White man needs fear some everlasting fire created exclusively for us Whiteys, by people who demand we follow their “Divine Mosaic Law” but insist we are not worthy of even saying their god’s name.
    And the only man in a hundred years to stand up against this anti-White bullshit is today the caricature of all things evil. You can stop any argument by accusing your opponent of being a Nazi Fascist like Hitler. Was he really killed by the Bolshies, or was he offed by the Vatican Jews for daring to investigate White beliefs (Vril) from before the New Testament was invented and Whitey got religion?

  6. Rich says:

    The first step is reigniting pride in the great accomplishments of the White race. I recently heard a young White relative say she was “just White” and didn’t have a culture. The young girl is of German, Italian , Irish and English heritage. I told her about the struggles and accomplishments of her ancestors, about the thousands of books about her history and culture. It was common when I was a kid for everyone to argue about how great their ethnicity was, Italian against German against Irishman against Scotsman against whoever else was there. Once that’s brought back, we can regain our country.

    In the present climate, I don’t think a White race realist can be elected dogcatcher. Plenty of pro-black politicos out there, zero White. The best we can hope for is moderate Republicanism where the 20% of us who understand race, push for an end to affirmative action, stricter immigration enforcement and more law and order. “We need to build a color-blind society” is the refrain everyone can get behind and which ensures White survival and dominance. Whites will always rule in a meritocracy.

  7. Andrei says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    “The issue of race is a non-issue. Is an idiotic obsession. Races auto-segregate naturally, anyway. ”

    It’s not about segregation, it’s about whites having a fertility rate of 1.5 and Africans of 4.5.

    • Replies: @A Portuguese Man
  8. anon[212] • Disclaimer says:

    “Human rights” are the justification for government intervention in our lives, especially to protect “marginalized groups.” That leaves the individual at the mercy of organized groups with a collective identity and a claim to victimhood.”

    Hey, Hood, What exactly do you mean by this highly abstract statement? Can you tell us which articles in which instruments you’re talking about? Can you name any human rights instruments or articles and tell us what they say? And how they leave who at the mercy of what, exactly?

    I figure you must know, human rights being an integral part of Catholic doctrine and all, which you must know.

  9. Dutch Boy says:

    It was Sam Francis who was a death bed convert to Catholicism. Whitaker Chambers became a Quaker.

  10. anon[247] • Disclaimer says:

    Comment 8 was a bunch of rhetorical questions, of course. Hood cannot answer them. In that particular passage, sad to say, Hood is talking out his ass. People here talk out their ass all the time, about various details they try to sweep into their new world cosmic theory.

    Hood is right that the constitution’s useless crap. Anyway it’s been set aside for decades now. It’s gone. You’re not getting it back. You might as well be speechifying about the Code of Hammurabi. Human rights is all you got. You could use them to get self-determination of your people, if you knew what you were doing. Even if your people is whitey. Assuming there’s anybody who gives a shit about that. Here I count… 3. Three people in your people. But, hey, you could have your teeny weeny three-man people, with all your cultural and political rights, if you knew how to work it.

    The whole rest of the world knows this as second nature but due to your US statist brainwashing, you don’t. That is why you’re about as politically helpless as the average downtrodden American sad sack.

  11. @Andrei

    Yes, that’s a fact and a problem.

    But it wasn’t Blacks who made the fertility rate drop amongst previously Christian-civilized peoples.

    But that’s not what Mr. Hood’s about either. He’s about the White Utopia. And as any and all utopias, they’re only utopian until you try to accomplish them, turning them ipso facto into dystopias.

    • Replies: @Andrei
  12. The philosophical underpinnings of classical liberalism are false

    That would be a big call in and of itself if the writer knew what the fuck ‘classical liberalism’ means. He doesn’t, though. He has literally no fucking idea.

    It’s abundantly clear, because proceeds to waffle on about blank-slate-ism, which has absolutely fuck-all to do with classical liberalism – indicating that he’s just using those two words (‘classical’ and ‘liberalism’) next to each other because he’s seen it done by others, and hopes that readers won’t notice the elision to a completely unrelated issue.

    Since he’s (obv) a Yank, he thinks ‘liberal’ means Portlandia-style Democrat-voting SJW, so ‘classical’ liberal must be something like the Coke Classic version of same.

    Locke, Say, Smith, Ricardo, Hume, Mill and Bentham and the other leading lights of classical liberalism never wrote or even implied that humans beings are blank slates. The idea would have been preposterous to them.

    Nowhere did they write or imply that the natural differences between human beings can be eliminated by policy (or at all): as a group they’re pretty much characterised as economically laissez-faire and socially agnostic (in that they were not big believers that the State had a role in trying to improve society beyond poor-aid: a decent chunk of their work details the persistent failure and corruption of State efforts to do stuff).

    Look at the list. Read some of their fucking output. They’re minarchist free-traders – and utilitarians – who favour some modest (again, minimalist) social safety net. The safety net is part of the program precisely because people are unequal (and irremediably so): part of being a fucking society involves not letting your fellow-citizens starve to death.

    The classical liberal paradigm is not about forcing economic (or social) equality onto society, or about aspiring to equality: it’s about advocating for economic (and social) freedom, as the best means of generating the largest possible output – and, recognising that there will be losers, using some of the additional output to provide basic support to people who are uncompetitive in a free society.

    The only sense in which all agents are equal, is ‘negative’ – that is, that government should not interfere in the economic system so as to privilege one group over another.

    Trying to set up the giants of classical liberalism for a sub-sophomoric straw-man argument about a completely-unrelated load of horse-shit, is the act of a fucking buffoon. It’s on a par with trying to shoe-horn Stoic philosophy into American military-Keynesianism-for-Jeebus.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    , @ohyeah
  13. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “European elites hate their own people, and yearn for their replacement, every bit as much as American elites.”

    That would be Fake News.

    “If Europeans had been better at managing the differences between French, German, Italian, British, etc. peoples…”

    Well, that would indicate Europeans as a collective squandered their alleged advantages of intelligence and innovation by (gasp) succumbing to the obvious biological differences between Anglo-Saxons and non-Anglo-Saxons. But, unfortunately as borne out by the writings of late 1800’s/early 1900’s biologists and sociologists, the bottom line is that the British are a superior breed of people than the French, who are decidedly higher up on the European ethnic ladder compared to Slavs, who are marginally better than Italians.

    It’s who they are.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  14. neutral says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    You may not care about race, but it will eventually care about you. Think of any city/country overrun with blacks. The nagger that robs or kills you is not doing so because of income inequality and other such nonsense excuses, they are doing it because it is their racial nature to do so, especially against whites who they hate the most.

  15. Andrei says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    Agree about that. This is my issue with the racially aware right. They’re good at pointing out the problem (IQ differences, crime rates and so on) but awful when it comes to solutions.

    The “white ethnostate” is a childish fantasy. Segregation and stopping immigration are at best delaying the inevitable, and at worst completely impractical. Basically any “plan” or solution that treats fertility rates as a non-issue or a secondary one is useless IMO.

    The right is also too obssessed with culture and ideology. It talks about these things as if they exist in a vacuum, insulated from technology and economics. As if you can simply push a button and change society from liberal to conservative with no negative side effects. In practice technology and economics (geopolitics as well) influence culture and ideology more than the reverse.

    My point is basically: if whites are to have a future, they need much higher birth rates. And to have those, they need to give up on this bourgeois preoccupation with careers, status and high consumption. This is true of both men and women by the way (it’s not just about sending women back to the kitchen). In order to gain something, you need to give up something. But if you’re not willing to give anything up, you have no right to complain.

    • Replies: @neutral
  16. @Kratoklastes

    The classical liberal paradigm is not about forcing economic (or social) equality onto society, or about aspiring to equality: it’s about advocating for economic (and social) freedom, as the best means of generating the largest possible output – and, recognising that there will be losers, using some of the additional output to provide basic support to people who are uncompetitive in a free society


    Hume also wrote in a 1753 essay, Of National Characters, that “negros” are “naturally inferior to the whites”.

    While these were common views and behaviour at the time, Dr Waldmann argued that Hume was sufficiently intelligent and wealthy to be able to denounce racism and the slave trade if he wished.

    “There are many questions to consider when removing a statue or expunging name from a building,” he said.

    As it turns out, the classical liberals apparently never figured out how to defend classical liberalism from illiberal peoples.

    In other words, if you want your classical liberal society, the takers can never be allowed to outnumber and outvote the makers. The classical liberals couldn’t restrict the franchise, couldn’t refrain from importing cheaper, browner people, couldn’t tell welfare recipients if you want the money you have to give us the power. Doing so would violate their own universalist principles. Thus ended classical liberalism.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  17. neutral says:

    Birth rates don’t solve the problem because of miscegenation. You have 10 children and they all end up marrying non whites, is that future success?

    The real problem is ultimately ideology, as long as racial equality and universal human rights are accepted as the fundamental ideology (which all the usual fake conservatives do), you can produce no practical solutions.

    • Replies: @Andrei
  18. Andrei says:

    If you have a fertility of 3 and 20% race mix, you still have a growing white population and a viable future. Whearas with 1.5 fertility and no miscegenation, you don’t. Even with race mixing, white genes still survive, albeit in a diluted form.

    Ideology is a part of the problem, no doubt, but the idea that you can radically change ideology without costs to your lifestyle is wrong. The material costs to giving up on this pleasant fantasy of racial equality we’ve had since WW2 will be huge for pretty much everyone. You won’t simply be able to offload them on Jews or some other elite minority if that’s what you’re hoping. It will require a radical restructuring of society, both internally and geopolitically.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  19. Wyatt says:
    @A Portuguese Man

    Yeah, but blacks are a particular kind of stupid and belligerent that only America and Brazil have had to deal with as nominally white nations. You can manage some low int Mexicans pretty easily. Work, church and fatty foods and they won’t cause too much trouble. Indians really do stink and they’re nepotistic like jews, but they keep property values high.

    Blacks? Nothing but violence works on them. Jim Crow existed for a reason. When they’re terrified of whites, they behave (mostly) and do what they’re told. When they’re given even a lick of freedom, they will burn, loot and murder (BLM for short) and then complain that they’re being mistreated.

    We’re currently in a stranglehold by the boomers. The later generations really despise blacks, (getting worse as they get younger) but they’re held back by retards who believe blacks need a helping hand despite getting trillions in (adjusted) subsidies from the federal government and simply getting worse. Social media has shown just how badly blacks act when there’s no threat of force and people genuinely are starting to hate them for their violence, ignorance and worst of all, entitlement.

    They make themselves so worthy of hate.

  20. ohyeah says:

    Locke said exactly that we are born “tabulae rasae”, meaning “blank slates”–that is, all our ideas come from experience, there are no “innate ideas.” He is often called “the father of classical liberalism.”

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  21. @ohyeah

    Locke never used the words ‘tabula[e] rasa[e]’ or ‘blank slate’. The reference that the blank-slatists attempt (dishonestly) to cite, is from BkII, Ch 1 s2 of “An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding“[1]. That paragraph’s rubric is “All Ideas come from Sensation or Reflection“.

    Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas:—How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the MATERIALS of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE. In that all our knowledge is founded; and from that it ultimately derives itself. Our observation employed either, about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the MATERIALS of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.

    He is absolutely not saying that all minds have equal potential at birth. He is simply reiterating the thesis of the whole of Bk I (which is entitled “Neither Principles Nor Ideas Are Innate“).

    The metaphor I like (and claim to have invented): if a shot glass and a tun are both empty, that does not imply that they can be filled with the same volume of liquid.

    Locke makes abundantly clear that people have a variety of faculties and abilities that mean that sensation and experience will be processed differently by different people. This processing transforms sensation (stimuli) into Ideas (and Principles).

    I’ll find the reference for that (the non-uniform distribution of faculties and abilities) at some stage later today after errands: it’s part of Locke that I don’t know offhand, since it’s not central to his main idea.

    However it’s absolutely clear that he makes no assumption that all people have the same faculties in the womb – and because of differences in ante-natal conditions, even if they were genetically identical they would come into the world differentiated.

    Locke even allows for in utero environmental factors playing a part in antenatal cognition in Bk II Ch XI §5 & 6: let’s put a “MORE” in before we go there…


    5. Children, though they may have Ideas in the Womb, have none innate.

    Therefore I doubt not but children, by the exercise of their senses about objects that affect them in the womb receive some few ideas before they are born, as the unavoidable effects, either of the bodies that environ them, or else of those wants or diseases they suffer; amongst which (if one may conjecture concerning things not very capable of examination) I think the ideas of hunger and warmth are two: which probably are some of the first that children have, and which they scarce ever part with again.

    6. The effects of Sensation in the womb.

    But though it be reasonable to imagine that children receive some ideas before they come into the world, yet these simple ideas are far from those INNATE PRINCIPLES which some contend for, and we, above, have rejected. These here mentioned, being the effects of sensation, are only from some affections of the body, which happen to them there, and so depend on something exterior to the mind; no otherwise differing in their manner of production from other ideas derived from sense, but only in the precedency of time. Whereas those innate principles are supposed to be quite of another nature; not coming into the mind by any accidental alterations in, or operations on the body; but, as it were, original characters impressed upon it, in the very first moment of its being and constitution.

    (5) is quite an impressive (if obvious, to us) deduction, if you ask me – especially if you stretch the definition of “those wants or diseases they suffer” to include genetic defects and/or genetic variation.

    [1] “Humane” in the title is now considered to be interchangeable with “Human” – I think the title works both ways.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  22. @Kratoklastes

    It just struck me that my shot-glass/tun metaphor can be extended nicely: the initial point is that two dissimilar things don’t have equal potential to hold stuff, which is just the issue of capacity (which is noice – capacity as volume as a metaphor for cognitive capacity…).

    The ‘extension’ is that two different shot-glasses (or two different tuns) – two things of identical capacity – will have different characteristics when full, depending on the quality of the material used to fill them.

    So two minds of the same potential IQ will exhibit different adult characteristics, depending on the extent of differentials in environmental insult.

  23. I am disinclined to be so optimistic, having witnessed all that I have witnessed, attempting to show people from various cults the truth regarding things, and the resistance and demonization that I have encountered, including cult tactics including surveillance, gas-lighting, and stalking, and Saul Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals tactics being used against me. Cults were a bad idea, in hind sight, but America is made up of cults which is what defines culture, cult being the root word. I am not talking about Moonies, or Jahova’s Witnesses, or Scientologists, or Mormans, I am talking about the RNC, DNC, and AA. Even in my own neighborhood, there is a really weird surveillance cult that moved in and took over this neighborhood and terrorizes me and gas-lights, spies on me, and breaks in, steals, and vandalizes. 

    This society is sick and as evil as hell and is 100 times more evil than Nazi Germany. I refuse to be a part of it. Much like the transition that occured during the Nazi Occupation with the total deterioration of society and a mad rush to join in and land a status position in the Third Reich or be totally rejected, demonized, and ostracized for refusing to buy into the Goebels propaganda, the Mengela Eugenics, and sadistic pointless medical experimentaion and the fury of the fuhrer Hitler.

    Those who rushed in felt a place of belonging and a common goal, never daring to say stop in fear of winding up hated and marginalized, but it is better to be hated and marginalized than respected by evil people with an evil agenda.

    So, I have no choice in my opinion but to refuse to interact with them. They literally can’t handle the truth. I happen to be speaking about many individuals that have Masters degrees, PhDs. and MDs, so it cannot be claimed tbat they simply lack the mental fortitude to comprehend such things, and in the case of AA it is deeply rooted philisophical disagreement since I do not believe in determinism aka predestination as they do. 

    So this is now life in America, as it was in Nazi Germany. If it is join or die, I choose death because I could not tolerate being a part of it on moral grounds.

    Andrea Iravani

  24. @A Portuguese Man

    I thought you were going to talk about Salazar and the incredibly successful Fascist regime you guys had, like Spain. Spain gets talked about, for other reasons, but the whole Iberian peninsula proved you could have a Fascist regime that was a long term success, both historically (lasted decades) and in its own terms. All you had to do was stay away from that jumped-up Austrian colonel.

    I’d be tempted to say it was a Catholic thing, but the Colonel’s Austria was certainly Catholic and his Master Race obviously Judaic (remember, they always accuse YOU of what THEY are doing). Maybe it’s a Latin thing: Mussolini had a good run, until he stupidly aligned himself with the Colonel and had to toe the line on Jews, war with US, etc.

    The Colonel once ran out of a meeting with Franco and shouted that he’d rather negotiate with the Devil than Franco. Then he chewed on the carpet a bit. Franco took his aid and then stiff armed him throughout the War.

    It’s funny to hear all the Anglo-German Master Race talk on the Right when the only examples of successful (i.e. not apocalyptic clusterfucks) of Fascist rule are Romantic.

  25. @James O'Meara

    If you are referring to Adolf Hitler, he attained the rank of corporal (Korporal) during his World War I military service.

  26. Miro23 says:

    If you have a fertility of 3 and 20% race mix, you still have a growing white population and a viable future. Whereas with 1.5 fertility and no miscegenation, you don’t. Even with race mixing, white genes still survive, albeit in a diluted form.

    Ideology is a part of the problem, no doubt, but the idea that you can radically change ideology without costs to your lifestyle is wrong…

    Suppose that you’re miscegenatated … but aspire to the lifestyle of the 1950’s USA (why did your parents illegally cross the border?) – it’s simply a question of unifying with the US Anglos and building an Anglo/Latino world class manufacturing that can challenge Asia. Difficult but not impossible.

  27. Dr. Charles Fhandrich [AKA "Dr. Charles. Fhandrich."] says:
    @James O'Meara

    Hahahaha. he never chewed on a carpet….lol The idiocy of Americans knows no bounds.

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gregory Hood Comments via RSS