Fuck Your Progressive Globalism

Mansizedtarget made the following comment to my previous post:

It seems to me the most coherent and viable identity that exists in a real way and is a means of resisting globalization, homogenization, and all the other evils of today is the nation.

I had been thinking likewise, and his statement triggered me to write what follows. None of it is particularly original or insightful, but it represents a synthesis of facts and opinions I've absorbed, much of it over the past year, some of which I have not previously expressed.

- - -

I paid a visit to Edmond Oklahoma last August, scouting places to resettle outside Aztlan. I remain deeply affected by the experience. In Edmund there are Whites doing all the jobs we're continually lectured Whites don't want to do. Edmond is a glimpse back in time to what Escondido California was like 20 years ago. What it could have remained. Clean, peaceful, prosperous, uncrowded. White America.

I knew even before the trip that "diversity" is a lie. California is not heading for "diversity". It's heading for pure latino. Oklahoma is not yet nearly as "vibrant". Which is to say it has less crime, less violence, and less people claiming special priviledges based on their non-whiteness. Alas, even Edmond shows signs of disease. In another decade latino, asian, and black gangs will be running amok and the Whites there will be looking for somewhere else to live.

After that trip a stunningly simple truth dawned on me: There is no racism when everyone is the same race.

It is an inversion of reality now typical of our sick society that this reality, writ large as nationalism, is seen as ignorant or defensive or reactionary and thus negative. The reality is that nations arise spontaneously from clusters of organically homogeneous people, and further, that such homogeneity is required for a nation's long-term stability and survival. A nation overwhelmed by aliens ceases to be a nation.

This has been known in the civilized world for at least 2700 years, when the Assyrians erased Israel and Babylon absorbed Judea and the jews became a wandering, nationless people. Our mendacious internationalist rulers know this nation-dissolving tactic just as well today. They are the reactionaries struggling desperately against human nature. They are the aggressors hammering uniquely shaped people into their one-size-fits-all worldview. They have corroded White minds with propaganda and miseducation, poking and prodding and delegitimatizing our normal proclivities toward nationalism, to convince us that our borders are mere lines on a map, arbitrary and immoral. They have mesmerized and beguiled us with financial and legal hocus pocus, and this has caused us to lower our defenses.

The progressives pine for one world because they think it will end war. The globalists pine for it because they think it will increase profit. Both goals are false.

Brutal gangs wage a constant undeclared war whose intensity grows precisely as our non-white population grows. Open borders are destroying our nation's cohesion, our sense of common cause, our respect for government and its laws. The crowding is overwhelming our infrastructure, the poverty overwhelming our wealth. We face increasingly unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, with less of our energy going to industry and more focused on security and escapism. We live in a post-civilizational society where distrust, decay, perversion, corruption, crime, and terror are accepted as normal.

"Diversity" and "multiculturalism" are euphemisms, cover for the pseudo-homogenizing forces of a consciously engineered attack on organic White homogeniety. Any natural sense of White common cause is denigrated and supplanted by dictatorial, nonsensical, one-way "tolerance". In contrast to a healthy and heart-felt fellowship that bubbles from the bottom up, "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are imposed from the top down. It is an attempt to accomplish by trickery and fiat the kind of forced mixing that occurs when a people are invaded, conquered, and colonized. This is decidedly unnatural and wrong.

"Anti-racism" is in reality anti-Whitism. The non-white immigration invasion will ultimately destroy virtually every predominantly White nation. Rather than serving as a beacon to the world, demonstrating how a nation can effectively and responsibly care for its own people, the US has instead become a bloated and putrefying Frankenstein monster, flocked to by scavengers, its wealth and possessions carved up and auctioned off by profiteers who will fly off to another victim when their host finally falls apart.

Nothing lasts forever, but the actual hows and whys of our nation's demise are no accident of history. It should have been different. There were plenty of people who warned this was coming and stood against it. They were pushed aside, denounced as nativists, xenophobes, bigots, racists, White supremacists, neo-nazis and anti-semites. For the past sixty years the ruling class has distanced themselves from any such taint, ridiculing and ostracizing anyone impertinent enough to freely say what their eyes and ears and brains clearly perceive. Today it is "politically incorrect" not only to speak such thoughts, but to even think them.

The responsibility for our predicament lies entirely with the willfully blind progressives and globalists whose utopian univeralist one-world policies have prevailed. They had control. They deserve all the blame.

Only when enough people reject the lies and see through the utopian one-world promises to the false and cadaverous reality underneath can we begin to build new societies and renew our civilization. This will only happen in places where the people associate as they choose, and where they enforce rules to keep out the shit-stirring ideologues and treacherous profiteers.

Today our one-world politicians promise everyone the moon. They have proven capable only of dispossessing Whites to buy favor with everyone else. In a true nation the politicians represent a cohesive people and can thus speak frankly about their common problems. Only under such circumstances is there a chance that what politicians propose will be honest and fair. If you're hoping for change it isn't going to come from either progressivist Obama or globalist McCain. Both roads lead to the same non-nation we've been heading toward for sixty years.

Questions Questions

Under the title Whiteness and the Jewish Question Prozium writes:

Jews are a Semitic ethnic group like the Syrians or the Palestinians. “Ethnicity” is also a muddle of kinship and cultural factors. Jews have defined themselves as a distinct people for thousands of years. Until very recently, European Christians treated Jews as an alien element within their societies. Jews remain to this day painfully aware of their history and distinctiveness and do not identify with the American majority like other groups.

The debate over the “whiteness” of the Jews is unique to America. With few exceptions, Europeans have never cared much about “whiteness” because they have traditionally lived in racially homogeneous societies. Even in America, “whiteness” has never been synonymous with Caucasian. “White” was originally a synonym of “English” and was later refined into “Nordic” by the early twentieth century. The Italians were finally accepted as “white,” but are still thought of (accurately, in my view) as being less “white” than Scandinavians. The whiteness of Levantines like the Jews is even more suspect.

Most racialists find the “whiteness” debate interesting but consider it less important than other questions. Even if the Jews were “white” by some genetic proxy, it would not absolve them of the unique role they have played in undermining white racial consciousness in the United States. The fact remains that the organized Jewish community has treated white racialists as “the enemy” ever since the end of the Second World War.

They are the ones who started to antagonize us, not the other way around. Up until the 1960s, American racialism wasn’t associated with anti-Semitism. This changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when it became clear that Jews had played a vanguard role in pushing the racial and cultural changes in America that we dislike. Their actions are what generate “anti-Semitism” and sympathy for the Third Reich.

It is completely rational to exclude a hostile, antagonistic minority from your living space. One can easily imagine an alternative timeline in which Jews showed respect for the customs and traditions of their host and presented themselves as defenders and admirers of Western civilization. I doubt there would be any resentment against Jews if their behavior was of this sort. No one spends their time fretting over the “Mongolian Question.”

In reality, Jewish behavior confirms many of worst stereotypes about their race. They are avaricious, inconsiderate, duplicitous, condescending, materialistic, and aggressive. They cry foul when they endure the slightest criticism, even when they are in the process of destroying others like in their recent attack on Lebanon, or egging on Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

Not all Jews are of this sort. The Jewish community is divided on all sorts of issues. Aside from the neocons, American Jews are more concerned with domestic policy than foreign policy. Jewish wealth and the disproportionate representation of Jewish voices in academia, government, business, and the news and entertainment media has created a pro-Jewish bias in American culture and public policy that would otherwise not exist. This has come at the expense of other groups like the Palestinians and racially conscious white Americans whom Jews count amongst their ethnic enemies.

It doesn’t suit us as Whites for Jews to continue to enjoy privileges like their immunity from criticism or their vast fortunes. This is the gist of the Jewish Question.

To which I responded:

The US has the Latino Question, and Europe has the Muslim Question. Both are really the Immigration Invasion Question, which is: whose interests are served by permitting millions of impoverished, uneducated, hostile aliens to flood any nation? These questions trace back and are in fact subordinate to the Jewish Question. Which is how I became aware of it.

The question "are jews White" is exactly what you need to consider to understand why there is a JQ to begin with, and to contemplate answers. That these questions are taboo, while the anti-racist questioning of Whiteness is not, reveals at least two prongs of anti-White aggression. So I cannot agree that there are more important questions to consider.

Excellent analysis otherwise.

The question "are jews White" was new to me and still fresh in mind when I wrote Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. I was exposed to it by an article written by E. Michael Jones called Francis’s Legacy:

The last time I saw Sam Francis, it was at a meeting in Washington. Sam was the moderator at a talk given by John Tyndall, a leader of the National Front in England. Mr. Tyndall was trying to get us enthused about being white guys, and so he launched into a peroration about the glories of Elizabethan England. Since Elizabethan England was the place where Catholic priests, like Edmund Campion, SJ, could be hanged until not quite dead, drawn and quartered and have their entrails thrown into boiling oil for the crime of saying the Mass, I was less than enthralled by the picture Mr. Tyndall had painted for us. In fact, if his intention was to bring us all together, his talk had the exact opposite effect. Since both Father Campion and Lord Burghley and his henchman Walsingham were all white, just what meaning did this fact possess?

My friend Gerry Bruen must have been entertaining the same thoughts because after Mr. Tyndall finished his speech, Gerry asked him whether “the Irish are white.” The question annoyed Mr. Tyndall, who got a disgusted look on his face and said, “Of course, the Irish are white. My mother is Irish.”

At this point, Sam Francis broke into the discussion, and turning to Mr. Tyndall, he asked, “Are Jews white?” Mr. Tyndall was taken aback by the question. After a long pause, he turned to Sam and said, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” So today I’d like to honor the memory of Sam Francis by trying to answer his unanswered question: “Are Jews White?

Jones believes that the root of America's cultural divide is not race, but religion. Besides Sam Francis the story intertwines Catholics, Leo Pfeffer and the Neoconservatives, Kevin MacDonald, the NAACP, Mearsheimer & Walt, and the SPLC. Jones ends with an appeal to spirituality and Logos I find moving but unconvincing:

In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.

And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).

We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles--and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle--no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed."

The Catholic heirarchy and broader Christian leadership stand alongside the vast majority of jews in support of the immigration invasion and, by implication, the liquidation of Whites. So I disagree with Jones' claim that the main confrontation is between Jews and Catholics. The confrontation I care about is between Whites and the people actively demoralizing, displacing, dispossessing, and disenfranchising them.

Jones is wrong about DNA. DNA is more important than anything else in determining low-level personality traits. Traits that ultimately express themselves in higher forms as ethics, morals, and culture. There is some feedback flowing the other direction, but the driving force is DNA. Some races, ie. genetic clusters, produce more morons, and some produce more geniuses. Likewise sociopaths who crave infinite wealth or totalitarian power and to best achieve these aims gravitate toward, foment, and revel in revolution.

The denial of such truths is akin to Lysenkoism, both in contradiction of biological reality and in the dependence on repressive political and social tactics. We call these tactics Hate Laws and Political Correctness, which suppress truth primarily by suppressing questions.

Perhaps This Will Help

Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:

Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender - if they'll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. "I am race!" Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But - as progressives often observe - they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, "dynamists," and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us - we know the boilerplate answer.

What's interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you're looking for another R-word, I also answer to "realist"), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied - especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam's razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don't have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.

Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old "upper-crust" aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless - classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.

Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don't really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student's naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s "liberated" in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you'd like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven't even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it's not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as "using the barbarians to control the barbarians." Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I'd like to think it's obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it's lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they'll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you're a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I'm not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it's all working. They don't need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they're doing. And you can't exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa's leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting "kill the whites?"

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting "kill the rednecks," ie, Slovo's hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.

No, I don't like Mencius' explanation. It's certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn't exist:

However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless - classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.

Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a "cosmopolitan Anglophone" Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I've sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn't like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn't really need. The ones whose brilliant "industry" boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist's "logic" makes any sense.

Here's what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion's waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as "liberals" warring on "the Christian majority". He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn't explain why his "brahmin" should want or need to attack what he calls "[t]heir real hereditary enemy ... the native barbarian - the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter".

Caste/class make us "hereditary enemies"? Sorry, for my part it's the fact that they're trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it's clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don't need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.

Keeping the World Safe for Plutocracy

The evolution of evil
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Feb 4, 2008, 01:47

Activists and dissidents should understand that evil forces and tyrannical governments have evolved. Just as human knowledge and science expand, so do the strategies and instruments used by rulers, elites and plutocrats. By learning from history and using new technology, they have smarter tools of tyranny. The best ones prevent uprisings, revolutions and political reforms. Rather than violently destroy rebellious movements, they let them survive as marginalized and ineffective efforts that divert and sap the energy of nonconformist and rebellious thinkers. Real revolution remains an energy-draining dream, as evil forces thrive.

Most corrupt and legally sanctioned forms of tyranny hide in plain sight as democracies with free elections. The toughest lesson is that ALL elections are distractions. Nothing conceals tyranny better than elections. Few Americans accept that their government has become a two-party plutocracy run by a rich and powerful ruling class. The steady erosion of the rule of law is masked by everyday consumer freedoms. Because people want to be happy and hopeful, we have an epidemic of denial, especially in the present presidential campaign. But to believe that any change-selling politician or shift in party control will overturn the ruling class is the epitome of self-delusion and false hope. In the end, such wishful thinking perpetuates plutocracy. Proof is that plutocracy has flourished despite repeated change agents, promises of reform and partisan shifts.

The tools of real rebellion are weak. Activists and dissidents look back and see successful rebellions and revolutions and think that when today’s victims of tyranny experience enough pain and see enough political stink they too will revolt. This is wrong. They think that the Internet spreads information and inspiration to the masses, motivating them to revolt. This is wrong. They await catastrophic economic or environmental collapse to spur rebellion. This too is wrong.

Why are these beliefs wrong? Power elites have an arsenal of weapons to control and manipulate social, political and economic systems globally: corruption of public officials that make elections a sham; corporate mainstream media that turn news into propaganda; manipulation of financial markets that create fear for the public and profits for the privileged; false free trade globalization that destroys the middle class; rising economic inequality that keep the masses time-poor and financially insecure; intense marketing of pharmaceuticals that keep people passive; and addictive consumerism, entertainment and gambling that keep people distracted and pacified.

The biggest challenge for dissidents and rebels is to avoid feel-good therapeutic activism having virtually no chance of removing evil and tyranny. Idealism without practicality tactics without lofty goals, and symbolic protests pose no threat to power elites. Anger and outrage require great strategic thinking from leaders seeking revolution, not mere change. And social entrepreneurs that use business and management skills to tackle genuine social problems do nothing to achieve political reforms. To the extent they achieve results, they end up removing interest in overthrowing political establishments that have allowed the problems to fester.

What is the new tool of tyranny? Technological connectivity achieved through advanced communications and computer systems, especially the rise of wireless connectivity. The global message to the masses is simple: Buy electronic products to stay plugged in. Connectivity may give pleasure, but it gives even more power to elites, rulers and plutocrats. It allows them to coordinate their efforts through invisible cabals, to closely monitor everything that ordinary people and dissidents do, and to cooperatively and clandestinely adjust social, financial and political systems to maintain stability and dominance.

In this dystopian world, all systems are integrated to serve upper class elites and the corporate state, not ordinary people. When ordinary people spend their money to be more shackled to connectivity products, they become unwitting victims of largely invisible governmental and corporate oppressive forces. They are oblivious that their technological seduction exacerbates their political and economic exploitation. Though some 70 percent believe the country is on the wrong track, they fail to see the deeper causes of the trend. And if Americans were really happy and content with their consumer culture, then why are they stuffing themselves with so many antidepressants, sleeping pills and totally unhealthy foods? In truth, the vast majority of people are in denial about the rotten system they are trapped in (a.k.a. The Matrix). They are manipulated to keep hope alive through voting, despite the inability of past elections to stop the slide into economic serfdom.

Increasingly, the little-discussed phenomenon of economic apartheid ensures that elites live their lavish lives safely in physically separated ways. Concurrently, economic inequality rises, as the rich extract unusually high fractions of global wealth. When the rich get richer, the powerful get stronger. Does some economic prosperity trickles down to the poorest people? Perversely, the middle class is moved into the lower class. In this new physics of evil, wealth transfer is not from the rich to the poor, but from the middle class in wealthier countries to the poor in developing nations, where a few new billionaires join the global plutocracy.

Some data on economic inequality: The after-tax income of the top 1 percent of Americans rose 228 percent from 1979 through 2005, while middle class income remained flat over the last four decades. The richest 0.01 percent of earners made 5.1 percent of all income in 2005, up more than 300 percent from just 1.2 percent in 1960. Bad economic times like the present just exacerbate inequality. Even as most Wall Street companies lost billions in the subprime mortgage debacle after they had already made billions, they gave obscene bonuses to their employees: the average topped $180,000 for 2007, tripling the $61,000 in 2002. Scholars used to predict that high levels of economic inequality like we have today would lead to rebellion. But there are now insufficient tools and paths for rebellion, because the plutocracy has eliminated them. Instead, citizens are offered elections whose outcomes can be controlled and subverted by the ruling class.

The New World Order is getting what it wants: a stable two-class system, with the lower class serving the elitist upper class. The paradox is that along with rising economic inequality and apartheid is mounting consumerism and materialism that is used to pacify, distract and control the masses. That’s where easy credit and cheap products from low-wage nations are critical. The poor can have cell phones, 24-7 Internet access and increasingly cars, while the bejeweled upper class travel in private jets and yachts, vacation on private islands, and have several gated mansions maintained by servants and guarded by private police. We have a technologically advanced form of medieval society. It is working in the US and China and most other places. Elections just mask economic tyranny and slavery.

The ruling class knows how to maintain stability. Keep the masses distracted, fearful, brainwashed, insecure, and dependent on government and business sectors for survival. Train people to see themselves as relatively free consumers. Maintain the myth that ordinary people can become wealthy and join the ruling class, which theoretically is not impossible, but of no statistical significance for the masses.

Via News From The West.

Samuel Francis

Sam Francis died in 2005. From a memoriam on vdare.com:

With the end of the Cold War, he emerged as a type of white nationalist, defending the interests of the community upon which the historic United States was, as a matter of fact, built. This position, of course, is as legitimate as Black nationalism, Hispanic nationalism, or Zionism. It is, indeed, the inevitable result of multiculturalism that is being imported through public policy.

Although VDARE.COM is not a white nationalist site, we regarded him as an important part of the VDARE.COM coalition. And we will miss him very badly.

The Establishment, left and right, wasn't ready to listen to Sam. The logic of their own policies, however, means that eventually they will be forced to.

It was only some 18 months ago, but the very first bit of Francis' writing I encountered, Poll Exposes Elite-Public Clash On Immigration, had a profound effect on my understanding of the immigration invasion. After a lifetime spent marinating only in the sanitized worldviews of "polite society" I found Francis' explanation of the gap between the elites and the public on immigration both more shocking and yet more sensible than anything I had ever read. Referring to this poll he wrote:

Probably nothing in public life in recent years shows so clearly the vast differences between how elites and the public at large view mass immigration. It goes far to explain why nothing is ever done to control immigration: The people with power and influence don't regard immigration as a threat.

And indeed, why should they? The main problems that mass immigration brings are not those of terrorism but rather crime, job loss, educational chaos, cultural erosion and language barriers. Those are problems that middle class or working class people have to face every day, not those of the ruling class.

Elites, simply because they can afford to isolate themselves from the impact of these kinds of threats, don't feel them and don't see them even when they look at them. They can move to high-security, crime-free neighborhoods and dump their kids in well-protected private schools.

To them, the main impact of mass immigration is that it creates lots of cute little ethnic restaurants and cute little ethnic nannies that allow the up-scale young parents of the ruling class to dine regularly on Nepalese and Ethiopian cuisine.

As for the ethics of mass immigration, the ruling class has long since convinced itself that "we're a nation of immigrants," "the first universal nation," a "proposition country" or a "credal society" that has a duty to let in anyone who wants to come here, and that anyone who opposes mass immigration is a bigot, a nativist, a xenophobe.

The elite has managed to coin an entire vocabulary to demonize and discredit anyone who disagrees with its preferences and interests on immigration.

The poll shows that there is a vast gulf between the elite and the public at large on immigration, but more than anything it also shows that if the American majority that favors reducing mass immigration because they see it as a "critical threat" to themselves and their nation really wants to meet that threat, then they must first remove from power the entire class of "leaders" who are unable to perceive the dangers of immigration even when its dangerous consequences literally blow them out of their own skyscrapers.

One of Francis' most important observations was to recognize our society's ongoing slide into anarcho-tyranny:

. . . a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent).

The result of anarcho-tyranny is that government swells in power, criminals are not controlled, and law-abiding citizens wind up being repressed by the state and attacked by thugs.

Ten days ago Jared Taylor's Introduction to Sam Francis’s Essential Writings on Race was, for me, a timely reminder and review of Francis' thoughts. From the links in Taylor's article I've exerpted two that seemed particularly insightful.

From Why Race Matters - The assault on our race and culture must be met in explicitly racial terms, American Renaisance, September 1994:

We see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life. Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic; it is clear in the rise of multiculturalism, Afro-centrism, and the other anti-white cults and movements in university curricula, and in the penetration of even daily private life by the anti-white ethic and behavior these cults impose. It is clear in the ever-quickening war against the traditional symbols of the old civilization and the elevation of the symbols of the new peoples who aim at their displacement.

It is routine also to display almost all criminals — rapists, murderers, robbers — as whites, though the statistical truth, of course, is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites. A few years ago, political scientist Robert Lichter showed in a study that while during the last 30 years, whites were arrested for 40 percent of the murders committed in the United States, on television whites committed 90 percent of the murders.

The erasure and displacement of official cultural symbols and the similar process in elite-produced, mass-consumed popular culture represents the expropriation of cultural norms, the standards by which public and private behavior is legitimized or condemned and a culture defined. While the traditional norms that are being attacked and discarded were almost never explicitly racial, the new norms that are being constructed and imposed are, and they are not only explicitly racial but also explicitly and vociferously anti-white.

This is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony and ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites. At the most extreme, the anti-white racialist movement resembles the ideology of German National Socialism. It offers a conspiratorial interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, and a myth of black racial solidarity and supremacy. “Afro-racism” is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of “rage” nor as a response to “injustice” and “neglect” but, like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power. It is not confined to blacks but extends also to other non-whites who care to sign up.

Yet the war against the white race and its civilization is not new. It is part of a world-historical movement that began in the late 19th century, perhaps not coincidentally, around the time of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and which the American racialist writer Lothrop Stoddard called, in the frank language of the 1920s, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” and which Oswald Spengler a few years later called the “Coloured World Revolution.”

The fraudulence of the liberalism espoused by the leaders of the racial revolution was clear to Spengler himself. “The hare,” he wrote in his last book, The Hour of Decision, “may perhaps deceive the fox, but human beings can not deceive each other. The coloured man sees through the white man when he talks about “humanity’ and everlasting peace. He scents the other’s unfitness and lack of will to defend himself… The coloured races are not pacifists. They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value. They take up the sword when we lay it down. Once they feared the white man; now they despise him.”

What is happening in our interesting times, then, to summarize briefly, is this. A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against white civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples — if only for demographic reasons due to non-white immigration and the decline of white birth rates.

In the universalist world-view, there is neither history nor race nor even species, neither specific cultures nor particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries. Therefore there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend or neighbor and indeed no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them.

In the happyland of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia — indeed, more — than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles, and Marines who could not have been sent from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles during the riots of 1992 and who are not ordered to prevent violation of the Mexican border adjacent to their own installation in southern California are speedily dispatched to Somalia. Even to invoke “our” identity, our interests, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the “isms” and “phobias” that are deployed to prevent further discussions and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession. The principal white response to the incipient race war thus far, manifested in neo-conservative critiques of “Political Correctness” and multiculturalism, is merely to regurgitate the formulas of universalism, to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King, and to repeat the universalist ideals of equality, integration, and assimilation. The characteristic defense of Western civilization by most conservatives today is merely a variation of the liberal universalism that the enemies of the West and whites also invoke. It is to argue that non-whites and non-Westerners ought to value modern Western civilization as in their own best interests. It is to emphasize the liberal “progress” of the modern West through the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of non-whites, the retreat from imperialism, the achievement of higher living standards and political equality, etc.

Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites. The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites.

Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity because race is real — biological forces, including those that determine race, are important for social, cultural, and historical events. I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man — if race were sufficient, there would be no problem — but race is necessary for it, and it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly how necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are to understanding social and historical events more fully.

In 1994 Sam Francis already saw clearly the anti-White regime - that the many slights putative conservatives have alternatively fought, ridiculed, and averted their eyes from are in fact just pieces of an agenda they dare not see as a whole. For recognizing and writing about the racial dimensions of this assault Sam Francis was banished from "polite society".

In An Infantile Disorder, Chronicles, February 1998 he argued for unity in facing the threat, and to set aside distractions such as neo-confederate secession:

But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea. Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.

The only prospect of resisting the domination of the ruling class and its antiwhite and anti-Western allies in the underclass is through Middle American solidarity, a solidarity that must transcend the differentiations of region, class, religion, party, and ideology. White Southerners are a vital part of the Middle American core, as are their Northern counterparts, and neither is the enemy of the other. Both regional sections of Middle America face the same threats, experience much the same problems, and ought to be joined in the same political-cultural movement to meet the threat together.

These are observations I find extremely useful as I struggle to understand the West's revolutionary transformation. Francis recognized that race matters. In such a world my kith and kin would be wise to realize: White matters.

UPDATE 13 Feb 2008: From Steve Sailer's review of Francis' book Race and the American Prospect:

In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever the label we attach to our own age, the Great Taboo is race. The Victorians virtually denied that sex existed. Today, race is confidently said to be "merely a social construct," a product of the imagination, and of none too healthy imaginations at that, rather than a reality of nature.

Sailer, like my commenter Flippityflopitty, is not hostile to White consciousness, but is certainly pessimistic about White nationalism and separatism. In their stead Sailer advocates citizenism, which he describes as being based on the belief that:

Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.

This was the rationale for US immigration policy until 1965. Forty years of influx have pushed the population from 200M to over 300M, growth of more than 50%, most of it non-white and upwards of 10% of it illegal.

Unfortunately, citizenism will not keep the US from becoming a banana republic shithole. In fact, as the invasion continues citizenism, or at least the deracinated sentiments that label aptly describes, has actually lent the transformation credibility. The legal immigration and many amnesties since 1965 have introduced more anti-White citizens.

Just like those who only oppose illegal immigration, citizenists play right into the hands of the open border advocates who have shown great skill in subverting and twisting our laws to their desires. The US senate, for example, brazenly tried to elect a new citizenry last May. They continue to work on behalf of their prospective zitizens by amending all and sundry legislation with bits of stealth amnesty. By hook or by crook they will eventually legitimize the invasion. They will do so by declaring the invaders legal. President Obama will almost certainly do even more for the invaders than Bush has. We will find that the constitution's "separation of powers" has an entirely different meaning when liberal judges are asked to interpret a liberal president's executive orders. If they are even asked.

The dispossession of Whites has so far been accomplished by double-talk and trickery, without plebiscite, without legitimacy. It is becoming a fait accompli, trumping the too-little too-late fearful indignation of deracinated White citizenists. They think White consciousness is folly, doomed to failure. Well what then of their own deracinated, citizenist arguments? Have they not failed? From this point on aren't they likely only to serve the invasion status quo?

Francis' insight is that other groups do not hesitate to advocate policies they believe to be in their own interests, despite the ill consequences for Whites. Whites must recognize this hostility and counter it directly with their own race-conscious advocacy. Duty does not calculate the chances of success. Right and wrong are not determined by the laws of usurpers. The legacy of slavery and forty years of non-white immigration are clear: race trumps citizenism.