Moral Barriers to White Survival

Alex Kurtagic, American Renaissance, November 30, 2012

EthicsSlide
With replies from Jared Taylor and Henry Wolff.

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

The fate of those who embrace inconvenient data.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.

Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Alexander Dugin

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.

Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

Generation Identitaire: members of this group recently occupied an unfinished mosque in the French city of Poitiers.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.

 

A Reply to Mr. Kurtagic

by Jared Taylor

We should use liberal morality for our own purposes.

I suppose I must be a typical, theory-aversive, pragmatic Anglo-Saxon. I read Mr. Kurtagic’s article with interest and admiration, but I am not persuaded that we have to change the moral foundations of the West before we can make progress on race. As Mr. Kurtagic notes, trying to change a society’s morality is a long and uncertain process, and if that is what our survival depends on, we are doomed.

I want whites to wake up to the crisis of their dispossession and to take action to stop it. We don’t have much time and we don’t have many friends. To launch an attack on an abstract moral system could conceivably do some good, but it is a distraction from the main fight. It is also misdirected because liberals do not even believe what they claim to believe.

Needless to say, a morality so drugged on equality that it could not distinguish between citizen and foreigner, genius and moron, male and female, or black and white would be a false and suicidal morality. A healthy society does not fear or paper over inequality; it praises and rewards superiority. But the morality of the Left is not the pristine body of theory Mr. Kurtagic supposes it to be, but a hash of contradictions and incoherence. Mr. Kurtagic fails to note the breath-taking hypocrisy of the Left’s egalitarian pretentions and does not see how the Left’s own principles can be used against it to support racial consciousness.

We will not lead anyone to our way of thinking by saying we oppose prevailing morality. That is as pointless as trying to convince non-believers by citing the authority of the Bible. It is far more effective to appeal to an opponent’s own principles, and apply them in ways that support out goals.

A caricature of the opposition

To begin with, it is important not to paint a false picture of our opponents. Contrary to what Mr. Kurtagic says, liberals do not want to strip people of every form of identification that goes beyond the individual. Liberals love their families as much as conservatives do. They are loyal to their schools, their home towns, and their sports teams. They claim it takes a village to raise a child. In America, many of them still go to church.

These days, lefties even claim to love America. They care about how many medals America wins at the Olympics. They rage about “shipping jobs to China,” and denounce “America’s enemies.” There were as many American flags at the Democratic Convention as the Republican Convention. Barack Obama carried on about “the greatest country in the world” just as much as Mitt Romney did.

The Left even promotes racial and ethnic consciousness—so long as it is not white. Blacks openly campaign for black votes, Hispanics openly campaign for Hispanic votes, and no liberal ever complains. All the ethnic studies programs at universities are of, by, and for lefties. There is only one group identification the Left forbids and that is white racial consciousness. Just because the Left hates a group identification we value does not mean it disavows all larger identifications.

It is true that liberals claim to value equality, but their own lives are monuments to inequality. They are just as greedy for money, fame, big houses, nice cars, private airplanes, and special treatment as anyone else. Who ever heard of a liberal turning his back on any of those things in the name of equality? Liberals send their children to private schools so they can get into the best colleges so they can get the best jobs with the most money and power. They want to marry smart, good-looking people, not dimwitted frumps. They get amniocentesis so they can abort defectives. They don’t want their wives and children to be equal; they want them to be superior. They never talk about equalizing outcomes for themselves. Liberals hate equality and would be terrified it they saw it slouching their way.

Almost without exception, when liberals try to bring about the equal outcomes they claim they want, it is in ways that require no sacrifice from themselves. It is taxes and “programs” that will give college educations to semi-morons, nice jobs to blacks, and expensive medicine to loafers. No white liberal ever moved out of his corner office and gave it to an oppressed minority.

When liberals talk about lifting people into equality, they never mean it for people they don’t like: evangelical Christians, conservatives, men, poor whites, tobacco chewers. They mean it for only three favored groups: non-whites, women, and homosexuals. Some of them mumble about fair play for fat people, deaf people, ugly people, etc., but only the most crazed lefties have their hearts in that.

So let us set aside the view that liberals have principled convictions about equality. They have a vague notion that it’s not good to have very rich people and very poor people, and they think government should rig things to reduce inequality. That is probably a genuine conviction, but that is as far as it goes. They also would rather die than appear to be anything but noisily in favor of equality for their three pet groups—non-whites, women, and homosexuals—but only so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them.

Liberals think poor blacks should have the right to live in nice neighborhoods—so long as they go somewhere else. Race does not exist, and Haitians and Hmong make excellent Americans, but fortunately, they don’t go to school with Junior. Homosexuals should be able to marry and smooch in public, but please, Lord, don’t let Junior turn out queer. Women should serve in combat, but not even Nancy Pelosi sends for a woman to unclog her toilet.

Liberals’ devotion to equality is therefore not systematic or even deeply felt. Its main purpose is to make them look and feel virtuous without requiring that they actually do anything virtuous.

Mr. Kurtagic writes that our weakness is that we lack theory, but liberals don’t have a theory, and wouldn’t know one if they saw one. All they have are socialist yearnings and a deep, deep need to conform.

Of course there have been regimes that operated according to rigorous theories of equality: the communist regimes. And, indeed, Mr. Kurtagic tells us that it was the incorporation of Marxism into liberalism that made it even more egalitarian and impervious to race realism. He adds that it is Marxist historiography that gave us the notion of whites as the oppressor class. And yet, the whites who lived for decades under Marxist egalitarianism are the most healthy and racially conscious whites anywhere.

Communism was explicitly based on egalitarian theory. If there was ever a system that could be killed only by overthrowing its theoretical foundations it was communism. And yet the Soviet Union did not collapse because its leaders lost the battle of the theories. It was battered to death by reality.

Not one of the movements that show the most promise in Europe began with a critique of egalitarian theory. Jobbik, the Danish Peoples Party, the Austrian nationalist parties, the French identitarian movement, the Vlaams Belang, the Russian nationalists—their appeal is to blood and soil, not theory. The movement that has followed Mr. Kurtagic’s prescription and first tried to change moral foundations—the French New Right—is an increasingly irrelevant talking shop.

The real target

Our real target is not a mostly phony egalitarian ideology. Nor is it homosexual chauvinism or delusions about the equality of the sexes. Our target is the inability of large numbers of whites—and non-whites—to understand that we have the right to survive as a distinct people with a distinct culture. Our opponents do not—and I repeat—they do not fail to understand this because they have a sophisticated ideology of equality. Jesse Jackson and Alan Dershowitz and Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid are not committed egalitarians. Mr. Jackson puts black over American interests, and Professor Dershowitz has a firm grasp of Jewish interests. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Reid are just confused.

It may be exciting to imagine that we are forging a new morality and to wonder how historians of the future will classify that morality, but the best arguments for our side are rooted in the plain language of today. They arise out of the contradictions, hypocrisies, hatreds, and stupidities of our opponents.

The most obvious of these is the spectacular double standard the Left applies to whites. Non-whites can be proud but whites can’t. Non-whites have interests but whites don’t. Non-whites can have organizations but whites can’t. When a white kills a black it’s hate, but when a black kills a white it’s homicide. Non-whites can preserve their majorities, but whites can’t. Al Sharpton is a civil rights leader, but I am a hate monger. It would be tedious to go on. Despite what Mr. Kurtagic says, this is not devotion to equality; it is a brazen celebration of inequality.

Al Sharpton at the 2012 BET Awards.

Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse. His reply will certainly not be a lecture on equality theory. Most liberals have no answer to questions like that and just walk away. The ferocious ones tell you that whites deserve what is coming to them because they are uniquely evil, and that the world will be better off when we die. Again, that is the very opposite of an egalitarian position, and one so vicious that most liberals would be afraid to take in public.

If persuasion is our goal, it is far more effective to appeal to our opponents’ own principles than to plant ourselves in a separate moral universe. If liberals really believe in equal treatment for all people, whites should be able to take pride in their heritage and live in countries where they are the majority—just like everyone else. This is an appeal to equality, not inequality.

People hate to be exposed as hypocrites, and exposing the hypocrisy of liberalism is one of the best ways to discredit it. Ask a liberal to name a single majority non-white neighborhood he would like to live in, or to name a single majority non-white school he would like his children to attend. As Joseph Sobran used to say, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan. Even the looniest liberals understand race—when it affects their lives directly. It is that understanding at the personal level that we must persuade liberals to apply at the national level.

Again, if persuasion is our goal we must appeal to what we have in common with our opponents. They think and behave just as we do—the only difference is that we are honest and they are not. To use a particularly smarmy, liberal expression, liberals just need to get in touch with their own feelings.

Despite what Mr. Kurtagic says, a desire that one’s people survive is not a repudiation of egalitarianism. It is a repudiation of equivalence—it is an assertion that Germans and their society are different from Nigerians and their society—and even the worst lefties would have to agree. They might be happy for Nigerians to replace the Germans, but their unwillingness to let Germans replace Nigerians shows they realize that there are differences. They simply have to be forced to explain why it is right for Nigerians to replace Germans but wrong or Germans to replace Nigerians.

That is why Mr. Kurtagic is wrong to suggest that our desire to be left alone stands or falls on whether there is a prevailing morality of equality or inequality. If we have to wait until we have brought about a sea change in moral thinking before we can assert the morality of our own survival, we will be waiting until it is too late. In fact, a prevailing morality that grants all peoples and cultures equal rights gives us a strong claim in the eyes of liberals. A true egalitarian should care about the prospects for native Frenchmen as much as he does about those of the Nepalese or the Athabascans. A white liberal should worry about the survival of his own subspecies as much as he worries about the survival of spotted owls and snail darters. Again, it is more effective to use liberal principles to our own advantage rather than try to destroy them.

For several decades, liberals have chipped away at any obligation for individuals to stay tied to each other. There was a time when divorce was shameful, because married couples had made a formal promise to stay together and because a stable household is good for children. Now, we have no-fault divorce. When people get tired of each other they move on, promises and children be damned. Why don’t liberals apply this principle to groups? Blacks and whites never promised to live with each other for ever in a loveless marriage. Wouldn’t divorce be the “progressive” solution?

One of the ideas that emerged from the First World War was the self determination of peoples. This is an egalitarian principle; groups should not be subject to the rule of others, but should have the right to seek their own destinies. This was the principle on which Uzbeks, Ukrainians, Estonians, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenians, and many others emerged as sovereign peoples. Why must whites, whether in Europe or North America, be denied what is rightfully granted to Uzbeks and Slovaks?

None of these appeals—to fairness, equal treatment, or self-determination—requires a morality of inequality. Whites as a group—and not just liberals—believe in fairness. Non-whites, blacks especially, tend to care only about their own advantage rather than about rules everyone must follow. Whites are much happier if they think they are practicing reciprocity, fair play, and equal treatment. They will not act in their own interests if they think they are taking unfair advantage of others. They will take steps to stop their own dispossession only if they believe they are acting fairly.

Finally, Mr. Kurtagic believes that it is the morality of equality that prevents liberals from understanding race, and that this morality must be overthrown before their eyes will be opened. Something is certainly blinding them. And yet, where are our arguments more likely to be successful: at the slippery altitudes of moral theorizing or at the level of gene frequencies and crime statistics? Like communism, liberalism will be battered to death by the facts before it concedes that its morality was mistaken.

Whether they admit it or not, most people seek theories that justify their intuitions. They do not study competing theories, choose the most convincing, and vote accordingly. Theory is not conquered by theory but by failure. Most liberals lost their illusions because they were mugged by reality, not because they lost faith in a theory.

Perhaps Mr. Kurtagic prefers a morality of inequality because it does not come with the smell of justification or propitiation. And, indeed, I am arguing that we have to plead our case, to justify our goals, even though what we are saying should require no pleading or justification. There is a heroic quality in simply taking possession of what is rightfully ours, but that would require more allies. Whites can protect their majorities only when something closer to a majority of them believes they have something worth protecting—and that it is moral to protect it.

Our job is to persuade our fellow whites—even liberals—and we will do so by appealing to their own principles and their own aspirations, not by declaring war on them.

 

A Reply to Jared Taylor

By Henry Wolff
You may not be interested in theory, but theory is interested in you.

At bottom, most people are hypocrites. They rarely live up to their professed ideals except in cases where it is personally advantageous or, at the least, not disadvantageous. Ideals are still important, however, particularly when they are embraced by an entire society.

Mr. Taylor says that work seeking to displace the dominant liberal morality is “misdirected” because liberals often do not practice what they preach. But this is not the case.

To understand this, consider Christians. While they all agree that the Beatitudes are worthy of emulation, very few practice them in their everyday lives. They consider their shortcomings “sin,” and feel guilt when confronted with their inability to live up to their morality. There are a few very concrete cases when their behavior may change on account of their morality—they will not murder, abort a fetus, or engage in homosexuality, for example—but even in these cases they may “fall short of the glory of God.” Still, when it comes to policy, you can count on Christians voting pro-life and against gay marriage.

It is similar with liberals. They may send Junior to an all-white school or befriend only people of pallor, but this is their equivalent of sin and they will either feel shame or rationalize their actions if confronted on these matters. Mr. Taylor says liberals need to just “get in touch with their feelings,” but this would be like confronting Christians with their sins and expecting them to decide they weren’t so sinful after all. This would require a change in morality.

When it doesn’t inconvenience them, liberals too will abide by their morality, and this can have serious consequences. Liberal morality was certainly at play in early November when voters in several states voted in favor of same sex marriage, for example. Our opponents may behave as we do in many important ways, but they certainly don’t think as we do, as Mr. Taylor alleges.

Mr. Taylor says we should confront the Left on their double standards, but he fails to see that they aren’t double standards at all from an egalitarian’s perspective, which holds that whites, males, Christians, and heterosexuals are impediments to universal human equality and that, therefore, their rights should be curbed until equality is achieved. This is the whole idea behind “affirmative action.”

It’s no coincidence that there are no white studies, men’s studies, or heterosexual studies on college campuses except when their purpose is to further the interests of “historically disadvantaged” groups. It’s also no coincidence that whites aren’t allowed homogeneous countries. Third-World immigration to the West is a sort of global affirmative action to make up for colonialization and slavery. Any policy, deed, or orientation that helps bring about the equality of human groups is considered moral under liberal dogma, and anything that perpetuates hierarchy among them is immoral. Hillary Clinton is a committed egalitarian, just not the sort Mr. Taylor wishes her to be.

Hillary Clinton on a visit to Malawi.

It may be possible to convince some non-committed liberals that we believe in “true” equality, as many already attempt, but this won’t work on well-versed liberals like Tim Wise who are already convinced that “white privilege” is the reason why it’s immoral (inegalitarian) for whites to organize or have racial consciousness.

A central point of Mr. Kurtagic’s piece, which Mr. Taylor does not address, is that important race-realist facts will be ignored or interpreted unfavorably in the current moral environment. It’s one thing to convince a liberal that Nigeria and Germany have distinct cultures worth preserving and another to suggest that only whites have the genetic endowment capable of preserving German culture.

Facts about racial differences in IQ and temperament, which are significant justifications for white solidarity, are verboten in public discourse under the reigning morality. Even if their evidence were accepted, liberals might argue that’s all the more reason for affirmative action, miscegenation, etc., and indeed I personally know a few who do.

Our message will thrive when an acceptance or even an encouragement of difference is seen as virtuous. We help bring this about when we say that liberal “sins” like self-segregation and in-group preference are normal and healthy. This does not require existence in a “separate moral universe.”

Mr. Kurtagic is right that activists must have an articulable moral theory that is grounded in a coherent political theory (or several), but the latter is necessary only for intelligent whites concerned with that sort of thing.

Contra Mr. Taylor, liberals do have theory—quite a bit, in fact, and it’s taught in university classrooms across the nation. For instance, Ronald Dworkin, the second-most cited American legal scholar of the 20th century, articulated liberal theory in “Liberalism,” an article that has been cited 523 times. Members of the much-criticized Frankfurt School are responsible for incorporating Marxist elements into liberal theory, and they too are widely taught. For some whites, particularly those who comprise the elite, the way to their hearts is through their minds, and it will take affirmative political theory of our own to achieve this.

Activists I’ve met from the BNP, Front National, Vlaams Belaang, and other right-wing parties in Europe are all well versed in rightist political theory. They tell me intellectually-inclined liberals in Europe are familiar with names like Alain de Benoit, Guillaume Faye, Julius Evola, and Oswald Spengler. I believe the prevalence of rightist theory in Europe is an important factor in why the continent has so many committed right-wing activists. All of the younger, college-educated American race realists I know are familiar with the work of the intellectuals I just mentioned. This is no coincidence.

Marxism attempted to educate even the proletariat in political theory, a tactic premised on equality, but theory is only for those who can understand it. For the rest, sound bites akin to “white privilege” and “diversity is our strength” will suffice.

Topics: ,

Share This

Alex Kurtagic
Alex Kurtagic is a publisher, cultural commentator, novelist, musician, and artist. He is the author of the dystopian novel, Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009), the founder and director of Supernal Music, and editor-in-chief of Wermod and Wermod Publishing Group.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Dennis

    Wow, referring to Dugin! Did not know Russian activists would be of interest to people in the US

  • razorrare

    Well, I being a non-intellectual thinker who dosent give a spittoon for “theory” declares Jared Taylor the victor…without using terminology to impress he gets his points across very successfully…at least to a racial realist simpleton like me…good job J.T.

    • razorrare

      My contribution to the debate…its not so much the populace minds that needs a changin,its those who wield the power that force laws and policys on the populace without their approval that needs to be addressed and challenged…unfortunately,it is only through revolution that can it ever be accomplished…Tyrannical governments dont simply concede power…the tiny ruling elite dispenses all forms of “theory” and is beholden to none…the one that works best maximizing power & profit will suffice for them until at such time it is not so profitable to do so as it would be with another political doctrine.

      • Gracchus123

        Finding the head is the problem.

  • Alice Teller

    Brilliant, Mr. Taylor. I am sure your response is destined to become a classic in the field. Thank you.

  • SoCal LoCal

    More than Anglo-Saxon aversion to deductive structures is at play in Americans failure to shed their blinkered take on race. It is our failure to believe history is real and has lasting consequences.
    This, I fear, makes appeals to anything less than hate or fear useless. Whites must become angry toward, or at least deeply suspicious of, the modern liberal project before they will dump the mindset of their upbringing.

    • baltasar almudárriz

      I’ve always found it hard to pierce the American “niceness” shield and get to what some REALLY think and feel. As a Euro-Med, it’s baffling. When dealing with other Euro-Meds, opinions, feelings and thoughts get thrown around freely. The connection between body, mind, and spirit seems to be stronger in our Med corner of the world.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    I have to quibble with Jared Taylor’s apparent characterization of liberals as well-off whites who make unprincipled exceptions for themselves, hypocritically resisting diversity in their daily lives. While this was certainly true in the past, there is a growing and reckless number of whites, mostly white women at all social levels, who are true believers. On Amren’s front page there is a news story that mentions in passing that Gambia is a popular tourist spot for British white women seeking African gigolos. This is cultural Marxism made real, without hypocrisy, fetishizing the destruction of whiteness and our very flesh, the logical progression of what once was empty talk into direct action.

    Sadly the revolution of morality mentioned above has already occured in the past 50 years, but not on our side.

    • razorrare

      These reckless numbers of White women that you speak of,whom is most responsible for poisoning their mind & spirit? Who rules the media? Who promotes miscegenation and through various avenues of rewards dispenses their approval thus ensuring positve results for the Masters of Deception…the media is not ruled & owned by goyim…

      “Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse.”…
      Zionist arent liberal or conservative…its what is good for them…if capitalism best serves that purpose at a point in time then its capitalism that they dispense…if its marxism or communism that is best for them at a point in time then it is that what they
      dispense…its all about maximizing power & profit…whom profitted the most during the “cold war” between U.S. and U.S.S.R???…Whom profits the most from all wars???….Immigration,forced integration,miscegenation,diversity etc etc are not a result of a populace that embraces such non-sensical & suicidal & depraved thoughts but one in which their minds have been poisoned through control of American & European institutions & mass media,particularly the electronic kind…television.If we can not see the true enemy how are we able to save our country and our people?

    • puffdaddy

      I agree – it is not just elite whites who voted Obama in. I know several middle class white families, and by middle class I mean small town desk job or blue collar job middle class with two parents and young children – who voted for Obama not once but twice. They bake cookies at Christmas, love their kids, and seem entirely wholesome. Yet, they also buy into…something, I’m not even clear what they buy into or why they support someone who so obviously despises them. And I think these are the people who are the most difficult to get through to, because they are sort of smart but not intellectually curious. They watch network news and form judgments based on the information received…and don’t think much more about it because who has time? It’s easier to just accept. They are not particularly ambitious and while I do not think they want their daughters to marry ax murderers, I also don’t think they have the means or the mentality to set them up for an MRS at Harvard. These are “regular folks” who you would want to believe understand what’s being done to them, but they don’t. It’s very frustrating.

      • razorrare

        In my reply to Fighting Northern Spirit i put the blame squarely on those who rule mainstream media,television and Hollywood. Apparently thats against the rules here at Amren…

        In Jared Taylors reply he writes,”Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse.”…in my book thats close to naming the 800 pound gorilla in the room…Why not ask an Israeli politician why Israel can be a Jewish State,but for us we have to be diverse.
        Poster Athling written an excellent response in defense of Christianity…if i were to do the same i would be censored for “proselitizing.” Even on Amren we are are own worse enemies…now get busy censoring this reply as well moderator.

        • puffdaddy

          I actually do not agree with Jared Taylor’s passage in its entirety (even though as a piece of crisp, clean writing, it is astonishingly gripping). If you ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, most likely they would say, yes I have asked the same question myself. Progressive left wing liberals, mostly gentiles (Rachel Corrie anyone?) but even some secular American Jews, will tell you exactly what they think of Israel and it’s not pretty. Many left wing progressives see Israel as an extension of American imperialism (and in many ways it is) and a warmonger (ditto). They hate Israel and think they engage in ethnic cleansing and racism. Obama is a case in point except he has to hide these feelings. The better question is ask a typical Israeli or ask a Jewish American Democrat why Israel can be a Jewish state and why we have to be diverse…or yes certainly ask a Jewish politician…and in fact, I have asked a Jewish politician. He related to me the quip (which I actually had never heard before) that Jews would like to see white Americans in prison guarded by blacks. For American Jews, a multi cultural society looks safer to them – they will not stick out as much as being a small minority. However, since they will be seen or understood as white (whether they consider themselves to be white or not) and successful by mass immigrants from 3rd and 4th world countries, they will not be protected by the new majority, nor will they be able to control them effectively. It will come as a surprise to their children.

          • razorrare

            To be fair i dont believe Jared Taylor meant to imply one should ask joe six pack liberal why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse.It does however apply to joe six pack liberal as to why africans and asians can have homogenous countries but we cant…it is not the everyday joe six pack liberal or “small jew” that is responsible for our immigration policies or lack thereof,nor for watershed moments in history like Brown vs.Board of Education that led to forced bussing & integration,not for anti-White policies like affirmative action & hate crime laws that discriminates only against Whites in which we are obviously not all equal under the law ,not for the watering down of Christianity,not for the promotion of culture & civilization programs that are implemented for a divide & conquer strategy,everyday joe six pack liberal is not responsible for the promotion of homosexuality,pedophilia,pornography,sex slavery & miscegenation,the promotion of gangsta rap …no,this question of why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse is directed at those Zionist Jews in the media,Hollywood,and in political action pacs like AIPAC…ADL,ACLU,SPLC…have you yet heard any of these groups or orgs publically making a statement denouncing recent actions in Israel in regards to their “black problem.”? With out a doubt the Big Liberal Jew in Media,Banking,and Hollywood all support Israels right to remain a Jewish state while at the same time promoting and creating ever new policies that are genocidal to the White Europeans & Americans…

            Once upon a time the Big Jew was more careful & secretive to hide their jewishness by using non-sounding jewish surnames…not today…that is except for instances when suppressing information that would really help shine the light upon them…like the red mafia…the name “Dutch Shultz” comes to mind…The Big Jew,the Zionist Jew could care less about the Little Jew…

            Yes,Obama hides it well…both he and Romney tried to outdo each other in the televized debates about who was the greater supporter of Israel…

            To be fair i dont believe Jared Taylor meant to imply one should ask joe six pack liberal why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse.It does however apply to joe six pack liberal as to why africans and asians can have homogenous countries but we cant…it is not the everyday joe six pack liberal or “small jew” that is responsible for our immigration policies or lack thereof,nor for watershed moments in history like Brown vs.Board of Education that led to forced bussing & integration,not for anti-White policies like affirmative action & hate crime laws that discriminates only against Whites in which we are obviously not all equal under the law ,not for the watering down of Christianity,not for the promotion of culture & civilization programs that are implemented for a divide & conquer strategy,everyday joe six pack liberal is not responsible for the promotion of homosexuality,pedophilia,pornography,sex slavery & miscegenation,the promotion of gangsta rap …no,this question of why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse is directed at those Zionist Jews in the media,Hollywood,and in political action pacs like AIPAC…ADL,ACLU,SPLC…have you yet heard any of these groups or orgs publically making a statement denouncing recent actions in Israel in regards to their “black problem.”? With out a doubt the Big Liberal Jew in Media,Banking,and Hollywood all support Israels right to remain a Jewish state while at the same time promoting and creating ever new policies that are genocidal to the White Europeans & Americans…

            Once upon a time the Big Jew was more careful & secretive to hide their jewishness by using non-sounding jewish surnames…not today…that is except for instances when suppressing information that would really help shine the light upon them…like the red mafia…the name “Dutch Shultz” comes to mind…The Big Jew,the Zionist Jew could care less about the Little Jew…

            Yes,Obama hides it well…both he and Romney tried to outdo each other in the televized debates about who was the greater supporter of Israel.

            To be fair i dont believe Jared Taylor meant to imply one should ask joe six pack liberal why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse.It does however apply to joe six pack liberal as to why africans and asians can have homogenous countries but we cant…it is not the everyday joe six pack liberal or “small jew” that is responsible for our immigration policies or lack thereof,nor for watershed moments in history like Brown vs.Board of Education that led to forced bussing & integration,not for anti-White policies like affirmative action & hate crime laws that discriminates only against Whites in which we are obviously not all equal under the law ,not for the watering down of Christianity,not for the promotion of culture & civilization programs that are implemented for a divide & conquer strategy,everyday joe six pack liberal is not responsible for the promotion of homosexuality,pedophilia,pornography,sex slavery & miscegenation,the promotion of gangsta rap …no,this question of why Israel can be a jewish state but we have to be diverse is directed at those Zionist Jews in the media,Hollywood,and in political action pacs like AIPAC…ADL,ACLU,SPLC…have you yet heard any of these groups or orgs publically making a statement denouncing recent actions in Israel in regards to their “black problem.”? With out a doubt the Big Liberal Jew in Media,Banking,and Hollywood all support Israels right to remain a Jewish state while at the same time promoting and creating ever new policies that are genocidal to the White Europeans & Americans…

            Once upon a time the Big Jew was more careful & secretive to hide their jewishness by using non-sounding jewish surnames…not today…that is except for instances when suppressing information that would really help shine the light upon them…like the red mafia…the name “Dutch Shultz” comes to mind…The Big Jew,the Zionist Jew could care less about the Little Jew…

            Yes,Obama hides it well…both he and Romney tried to outdo each other in the televized debates about who was the greater supporter of Israel.

          • HamletsGhost

            Jews are long-practiced in the art of sawing off the tree limb on which they are sitting.

          • fsagas

            Really? So why the hell am I here?

          • HamletsGhost

            Good question. Why the hell are you here?

          • fsagas

            I don’t know. I was figuring you would come with some conspiracy. I’ll leave that to you.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            yes that is a good question jude puke, why the hell are you here…you must be a juden hasbarat..no?

          • baltasar almudárriz

            The only ones I respect are the middle-of-the-road Orthodox Jews- not the newer Haredi sects. They seem to have a good thing going- AND -feel NO need to justify ANYTHING. Also- as a “minority”, they are untouchable.

          • Joseph

            The Jewish/Israeli interests are doing a remarkably effective job of controlling not only the non-whites but the white gentiles right now so eliminating the white gentile from the equation would probably enhance their position. They won’t however, be able to manage the Chinese; they WILL protect their racial interests. That meeting would be the Jews Waterloo.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            The Chinese will protect their own and the jew won’t be able to do a damn thing about it…

          • razorrare

            Thankyou moderator for allowing me a way to post my original comment to Fightin Northern Spirit…

            These reckless numbers of White women that you speak of,whom is most responsible for poisoning their mind & spirit? Who rules the media? Who promotes miscegenation and through various avenues of rewards dispenses their approval thus ensuring positve results for the Masters of Deception…the media is not ruled & owned by goyim…

            “Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse.”…
            Zionist arent liberal or conservative…its what is good for them…if capitalism best serves that purpose at a point in time then its capitalism that they dispense…if its marxism or communism that is best for them at a point in time then it is that what they
            dispense…its all about maximizing power & profit…whom profitted the most during the “cold war” between U.S. and U.S.S.R???…Whom profits the most from all wars???….Immigration,forced integration,miscegenation,diversity etc etc are not a result of a populace that embraces such non-sensical & suicidal & depraved thoughts but one in which their minds have been poisoned through control of American & European institutions & mass media,particularly the electronic kind…television.If we can not see the true enemy how are we able to save our country and our people?

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            The filthy juden parasite is wrong in making the assumption it will be protected..dead wrong…

        • TeutonicKnight67

          Indeed. See my reply to Athling above. I’ve been accused of thinking “emotionally” when I defend The Faith.

        • razorrare

          Thankyou moderator for allowing me a way to post my original comment to Fightin Northern Spirit…

          These reckless numbers of White women that you speak of,whom is most responsible for poisoning their mind & spirit? Who rules the media? Who promotes miscegenation and through various avenues of rewards dispenses their approval thus ensuring positve results for the Masters of Deception…the media is not ruled & owned by goyim…

          “Ask a liberal to explain why Africans and Asians can have homogenous countries but we can’t. Ask a liberal why Israel can be a Jewish state, but we have to be diverse.”…
          Zionist arent liberal or conservative…its what is good for them…if capitalism best serves that purpose at a point in time then its capitalism that they dispense…if its marxism or communism that is best for them at a point in time then it is that what they
          dispense…its all about maximizing power & profit…whom profitted the most during the “cold war” between U.S. and U.S.S.R???…Whom profits the most from all wars???….Immigration,forced integration,miscegenation,diversity etc etc are not a result of a populace that embraces such non-sensical & suicidal & depraved thoughts but one in which their minds have been poisoned through control of American & European institutions & mass media,particularly the electronic kind…television.If we can not see the true enemy how are we able to save our country and our people?

          • razorrare

            Oh, i recently changed my password to this account…maybe it will help solve some of the problems i have been experiencing with disques…someone wouldnt be so conniving as to steal peoples passwords would they? Certainly not here on Amren…hopefully i will see less comments dissapear.

          • razorrare

            recently changed my password to my amren account…maybe this will lessen the amount of my posts i see dissapearing…funny though…at my account page it correctly attributes the correct amount of comments i have made which is around 497 to my profile…however on this page when you put your pointer over my non-avatar profile it states i have made over 2050 comments…i have no merging accounts so something is certainly askew.This load more comments thing is very aggravating and is really creating a mess of things.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            One has to look no further than the Jew…this is its time and it’s working hard towards the Genocide of Whites everywhere…
            14/88
            WPWW

      • A Swain

        “They are not particularly ambitious and while I do not think they want their daughters to marry ax murderers, I also don’t think they have the means or the mentality to set them up for an MRS at Harvard. These are “regular folks” who you would want to believe understand what’s being done to them, but they don’t. It’s very frustrating.”
        This same sense of frustration is felt all over the West by all White ethnonationalists so you’re not alone.

        Some middle class Whites don’t understand, but the academics, ie, so-called ‘teachers’ and ‘professors’ amongst them certainly do. This category suffers from self-inflicted self-loathing White syndrome and continues bathing in its ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ illusions as Marxist Liberal-enabled non-Whites proceed to rapidly replace them everywhere as the West’s new middle classes.

        These White academics have to be individually identified and isolated before the big push forward. They cannot, as a collective ever be redeemed, I’m afraid. Their psychological and physical conditions combined is terminal.

        One could liken it to a need for full-scale weeding.

    • Tina Fiedler

      Excuse me, did you forget all the white MEN dating ASIAN women, and screaming at the same time, that it was evil, ‘liberated’ white women that made them date Asian women?

      I wonder how many white men on this site are dating/married to Asian women? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

      isn’t mating with apes beastiality?

      ?

  • HamletsGhost

    Liberalism is best understood as a secularized Christianity, with one twist. It’s only for whites.

    Just as Christianity teaches that man is corrupted by original sin, so does liberalism preach that white people, (men especially) are corrupted by “white privilege”. Something that happened or didn’t happen long before your birth is still somehow your fault, and only by genuflecting before saints like MLK, Elie Wiesel, and Cesar Chavez can whites atone for their unearned privileges. Dropping heaps of money doesn’t hurt either.

    • KingKenton

      Dr. Paul Gottfried made a similar claim in an interview with Keith Preston( http://attackthesystem.com/radio/3 scroll down to the January 19th podcast with Dr. Gottfried ). Dr. Gottfried contends that modern Liberalsim has become a replacement theology for Christianity with Martin Luther King replacing Jesus Christ as our redeemer. The interview is very interesting and informative.

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    Among the fatal flaws of the leftist paradigm that presses towards ethnic equality:

    • It’s not innate. ‘Blood is thicker than water’ is more than a cliché, it’s biological fact embedded in our genetic code; a product of evolution. Consequently, every child is born with a sense of belonging to their natal groups (family, tribe, race) and view those outside the group as competition for resources. In other words, they have begin anew with every birth.

    • They don’t believe it. Intelligent leftists are following a dogma of convenience, not of conviction. Granted, there are mush-headed neanderthals among them that are actually sapped into the paradigm, but ultimately their behavior betrays their beliefs and their behavior indicates they are innately tribal. That is, white liberals flee to Whitopia for same reason the rest of do.

    • It’s a bogus premise. Social engineers aren’t interested in meshing humanity into one, light-brown race. They’re interested in destabilizing Western culture.

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    (btw – should be noted that ‘classical liberalism’ and ‘liberalism’ are not the same.)

    • The Verdict of History

      Precisely…. Classical liberalism is more akin to what modern American conservatives advocate now. Modern Liberalism is more accurately referred to as social-democratic ideology of the left – “progressivism.”

      • David Ashton

        Still worth reading: James Burnham, “Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism” (1965).

    • fsagas

      The are not the same but they are not world apart.

      To someone who is entirely different they can be viewed the same only separating by a few degrees. Those who lie within those two degrees think they are worlds apart.

  • Athling

    Some observations and opinions:

    “In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.”

    Interesting. So in liberal morality it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness but it is acceptable to recognize blackness, browness, or any other “ness” as long as white is not attached to it. We know this is true because we never hear a black, Hispanic, or Asian criticized for displays of racial awareness and/or self-seeking based on race. Thus, double-standards are allowed in liberal morality. How convenient. Also, how unjust.

    “European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it [multicultural society] farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.”

    Yes, and they are wrong to extrapolate that to mean that all men are equal. I am growing weary of those who falsely accuse Christianity as being the cause of our current dilema. Their arguments are never countered by those who know better. The Bible is filled with examples clearly showing that all men are not equal. Indeed, if God claims that the Jews are His chosen people then is God now a racist? There is no difference between the Egyptians and the Hebrews they held in bondage? Of course there is. For God Himself established the differences among the people and distinctly placed them apart each after their own kind and in their own nations.

    The confusion arises with the New Covenant which was needed because man could not keep the commandments of the law due to the weakness of his flesh. A new way of redemption was therefore necessary. One not totally dependent on the works of the flesh but of the gift of salvation and spiritural rebirth with the good works of the flesh following as a result.

    Christianity draws a sharp distinction between the physical and the spiritual. All men are created equally only in the spiritual sense. This is constantly confused by those hostile to Christianity. The way Christianity is practised today, very differently from the times of the Founders, also leads to this confusion.

    All of this requires a more lengthy explanation than allowed in the space of a comment but I say Christianity, rightly understood, is no hindrance to racial realism. It does not promote a multicultural (multiracial) society as this would contradict what God Himself established.

    Liberal morality is not morality by my definition of the word. It is rather a twisted ideology to which the Left clings. A perversion of morality.

    I would disagree with Alex in that I don’t see liberal morality as something we must overthrow or somehow replace. I think instead our voices have mostly not been heard. Not on a large scale anyway. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left, as Jared suggests, loudly and publicly will become increasingly effective as whites continue getting the shaft from the Left.

    As whites in Western nations begin feeling the effects of Third World enrichment more intensely, when they begin to see that they can no longer control their own governments due to demographic realities, when their culture becomes ever more unrecognizable, then our voices will become more meaningful and influential. In the end whites will either pursue their own racial interests or perish as the distinct people they are now.

    I predict Leftists and their immoral philosophies will become increasingly irrelevant as whites begin feeling the joys of diversity more acutely. With the open-border immigration policies of the West, the decline in white birth-rates, and the inevitable and unavoidable close-quarter contact with racial aliens, it is only a matter of time.

    • Germanacus

      Well said Athling. I would also add that even though the US has long been considered a multicultural society, Whites have by no means felt the full effects of multiculturalism. Least of all liberals who are well insulated from what they preach for the rest of us.

      Although multiculturalism has been praised from the roof tops, Whites have been firmly in control of the government and all major institutions in the US since its beginning. That has only started to change very recently. The effects of diversity have been avoidable for most Whites through geographic separation, White-flight, private schools, etc. As diversity becomes inescapable for Whites they will begin to resist it more openly and forcefully. The best medicine for liberals is to have them get a good dose of diversity themselves.

      • White Observer

        Wish it were true that whites would resist integration openly & forcefully. Many of us simply can’t, especially not in small-town Southern America where all races go to the same school from kindergarten thru high school. Resisting diversity is increasing impossible & white people are simply capitulating or embracing miscegenation whole heartedly, and their
        families & friends are being drug into it whether they want to or
        not. I go to Wal-Mart in small-town Texas & see many, many interracial couples – including attractive young white girls married to ghetto blacks & non-white Hispanics. The high school my son goes to (350 kids) cast a multiracial couple in the high school play, as if race were completely inconsequential. The white drama teacher is Baptist & apparently supports “civil rights” & egalitarianism all the way. The school board has a white member who is married to a well-liked Hispanic woman, and another board member who is an East Indian woman married to a white Catholic. My white “red neck” roofing contractor is married to a Mexican woman & their kids all look 100% Mexican. My white racist neighbor’s granddaughter had an illegitimate child by an illegal Mexican. The white youth pastor at a local white Methodist church is married to a black woman. My liberal sister sent her white daughter to an “integrated” high school
        in Louisiana where her daughter was one of the few whites. Now she has a black
        bastard son whom my sister dotes on. I’m dating a man whose sister is
        married to a Jew. Their son is married to a black woman. Almost
        everyone I know has “polluted” family lines. If I shunned all those tainted by race-mixing, I wouldn’t have any friends at all. That’s just too lonely for me, even though I support segregation.

        • MBlanc46

          “The high school my son goes to (350 kids) cast a multiracial couple in
          the high school play, as if race were completely inconsequential. The
          white drama teacher is Baptist & apparently supports “civil rights”
          & egalitarianism all the way. The school board has a white member
          who is married to a well-liked Hispanic woman, and another board member
          who is an East Indian woman married to a white Catholic.”

          Was the goal to show that interracial relationships are inconsequential, or was it to promote white female-dark male relationships?

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Well said, particularly with regard to Christianity.

    • razorrare

      Excellent response…
      Even in the New Covenant in the New Testament Jesus alludes to the moral principle of “taking care of one’s own first.”
      A syrophonician (non-jew/gentile)came to Jesus asking for his help in curing her child who was sick…Jesus replied,”should i not take care of my own people (Jews) first? To which she replied,”Yes sir,but even the dogs under the table are fed scraps left on the childrens plates.” Jesus said,”you have answered well,go,your child is well.” …just as the whole truth on many of the speeches Abraham Lincoln gave(Lincoln/Douglas debates) concerning blacks & equality are ignored & suppressed so too are many of those speeches that Christ gave…but they shall be dealt with…those who take away from the words of this book or add to so shall i take away from them the book of eternal life…

    • KingKenton

      A welcome and refreshing comment. In White cultures throughout the world we have seen that post-Christian society has given rise to Liberalism / Multiculturalism. The greater the decline of Christianity the greater the corrosive effects of Liberalism. The antidote to Liberalism / Multiculturalism is the embracing of true orthodox Christianity, not the repudiation thereof.

      • TeutonicKnight67

        So true! If Christianity/organized religion is the root of all societal ills then why hasn’t society improved as religion has been banished from the public square?

      • Sherman_McCoy

        As long as the true Orthodox Christianity is race-realist, e.g., Russian/Ukrainian/Greek/Ethiopian, etc, and does not require earthly amalgamation of all ethnic/racial groups. Unfortunately, the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) is all about multiculturalism and diversity. It is an attempt to create a uniquely American melting pot of Orthodoxy, and will succeed ONLY so long as the coloreds remain out of it.

    • TeutonicKnight67

      Well done brother! Thank you for presenting a concise and thoughtful defense of Christianity, the Faith of the White Man. I have commented on this subject before only to be critiqued by an Anti-Catholic and an Atheist/Pagan. They bombed me with links to “factual” research that “prove” how The Faith is the cause of all the White race’s problems.all the world’s misery, all the Wars etc. ad nauseam. I’m glad to see that not everyone on AmRen reverts to white sectarianism or thinks we should bring back the Druids.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Still another perspective on the “moral barriers to white survival”: the sacredness of the cause of racial equality. U. of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his BookTV.org presentation of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, March 21, 2012, observed:

    The idea that groups compete with groups and that we are descended from winning groups, that has been a heresy in scientific circles since the 1960s so very few evolutionary theorists will talk about that.

    [How has racial equality become a sacred object? To answer, one must to the origins of the religious impulse.]

    . . . In the blink of an eye historically. You get gigantic cities popping up — here’s Rome, and a little later in the New World you get Tenochtitlan. These to me are most amazing things on Earth . . .

    How do we do it without kin? Our answer is that we developed morality. We developed the ability to live in moral communities, where we have norms. We can punish each other, but it’s not all negatives. A lot of it is positive. One of the great abilities that we’ve developed is the ability to come together around sacred objects. If we circle around them, we trust each other, and we cooperate.

    * * *

    So when we got the ability to work together, that was the giant leap forward . . . I believe . . .that religion is an adaptation in our evolutionary history and I believe it is for cooperation. We have the ability to circle around sacred objects, sometimes literally. Many religious practices literally involve circling around a sacred object — That’s a rock [picture of cube-shaped building called the Kaaba containing a black stone in one corner which is thought to have been placed there by Abraham and Ishmael and to have been sent by angels from paradise] in Mecca with a box around it, but there’s a rock inside, they say.

    Warfare would be impossible if we were just self-interested creatures. But we circle around sacred objects: flag, standards. Sacredness means no trade-offs. It means you defend the thing you’ve circled around. This is why the flag and the Bible are so important on the Right.

    But the Left has its sacred objects, too. How many Martin Luther King jokes have you heard in your entire life? Probably zero. And if I were to tell one , you would hate me, because that would be sacrilege.

    So everybody, if you are part of a political movement, you probably have sacred objects. You circle around them metaphorically or literally. And then you can trust each other and work together. So I’ll just read one paragraph from near the end of my book:

    “Morality binds and blinds . . . This is not just something that happens to people on ther other side. We all get sucked into tribal moral communities. We circle around sacred values and then we share post hoc arguments about why we are so right and they are so wrong. We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science and common sense. But in fact everyone goes blind when talking about their sacred objects. Morality binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”

    . . . Follow the sacredness. Around it you will find a ring of ignorance. If you know what a group holds sacred, you know what they cannot think straight about . . .

    . . . Politics is more like religion that it is like shopping. You’ve got to understand the sacred element of politics. So if politics is like religion, is there anything we can to do get us into the same congregation? . . .

    End of Haidt quotation.

    COMMENT: No. We’ll never be in the “same congregation,” but fervor for current “sacred objects” will abate — after a prolonged period of strife. Maybe the best analogy is the Protestant Reformation and subsequent wars of religion of 16th and 17th century Europe. These eventually gave birth, in reaction, to The Enlightenment which, in turn, gave birth to today’s establishment orthodoxy, racial egalitarianism/multi-culturalism.

    Today’s establishment orthodoxy is going to crumble, is crumbling. But not before its having had terrible consequences on Western Man.

  • Michael Alan Prock

    Advertizers target audiences in the contexts of age, region, socio-economic status for a reason: it works, and they have a lot of research and results to back it up.
    Each author above makes good points that could be useful when aimed at the right market: Theory targeted at intellectuals. Morality at religionists. Day to day safety targeted at the man in the street. The reaction the liberal media demonstrates to the racial component of crime in covering it up is argued on intellectual grounds, religionists make excuses for it on moral grounds, and the man in the street acknowledges it while emphasizing that he is not racist — each offers a different context and opportunity to exploit. But in all cases, the battle to be waged is a personal one that will only occur when the bubble of personal security (usually illusory) is broken. People must confront their own self-image and self-understanding, and they will only do this when this is threatened. From a strategic standpoint, our best ally is tension, and our ability to utilize it to our advantage with our greatest racial strength, self-control, in combination with our intelligence, will make or break us.
    Tension and self-control: we should strive to create and exploit the first, and strengthen the second. In both cases comfort is our greatest enemy, and as BHO continues his assault on what makes Whites comfortable with immigration reform, Obamacare, and more taxes to pay for them, we should find many opportunities. Get busy.

    • storibund

      Our state’s (Alabama) on-line “newspaper” bans commenters who cite crime statistics related to race. However, this hasn’t stopped the few of us who persist in doing it. It’s become an in-joke, seeing how long our facts stay up before they are flagged by a leftie (usually blacks, who admit to doing this), and taken down, and the commenter banned.

      It’s a small part in the ongoing battle, but… amusing :)

      • Michael Alan Prock

        Being banned is a badge of honor I wear proudly.
        Keep up the good work.

      • baltasar almudárriz

        It’s pretty easy to get banned these days. I guess we are condemned to talk about the weather.

  • Jeff

    Well said Jared!

  • Eagle_Eyed

    All three commentators are correct, but for their own reasons. A solid political theory is the long term answer for Westerners who have seen modern liberalism remove self-autonomy fro whites. However, in the short term progress will be made by pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictory nature of liberalism regarding race.

  • MerlinV

    Somewhere along the way we lost our will to fight for what we believe. Oh, I have a theory alright. A very simple one — Whites living today are no more responsible for the past actions of others (such as slavery) than any other race is. Whites, like any other race, have the right to exist and a right to their own homelands apart from other races.

    Our kindness toward non-Whites has been abused and hasn’t been reciprocated. Our sense of fairness and patience has been taken advantage of and taxed to the breaking point. Affirmative action programs are used against us strictly on the basis of our race. Being born White in a White nation has turned into a curse. We’re tired of it and we need to start asserting our rights more openly and directly.

    Start confronting Leftists head-on with potent doses of racial realities whether they like it or not. Expose their hypocrisy every chance we can. Get the truth out about black crime against Whites and the massive coverup by the media. Encourage White student unions on college campuses across the nation. Get young people involved in their own racial interests — no longer just a “black thing”. Let all White nations have their own versions of the French Identaire and other nationalist movements and so on.

    As Whites everywhere are being dispossessed of their homelands and way of life an interest in White nationalism should eventually gain momentum. We want our countries back. We never gave our permission to give them away.

    Our position is moral and is based on our simple right to exist and remain a unique race of people. The same right that any other race has.

  • JohnEngelman

    A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements.

    - Alex Kurtagic, American Renaissance, November 30, 2012

    This is equally true of conservative/Rightists who reject evidence of man made global warming. The implication of genetics is that some humans are superior to others, and that some races are superior to others, so that beyond a certain point efforts to achieve an egalitarian society are doomed.

    The implications of man made global warming are that major restrictions in economic growth, private property rights, and national sovereignty are necessary.

    Those who dislike the implications frequently reject the evidence.

    • HamletsGhost

      You drank the Kool-Aid. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember, but I personally remember the Global Cooling Crises of the 70s. We had a couple of cold, snowy winters in the Northeast, and all of a sudden it becomes a global crisis that implicitly requires a global authority to forestall.

      Remember Acid Rain? It was all over the news in the 80s. Doomsday predictions of all the fish dying in the rivers and lakes of the Adirondacks died quietly after studies released showed that any acidity in lakes of upstate New York were the natural result of runoff from the forests. It’s been 20 years since I’ve even heard about acid rain, and the fish are still there.

      This Global Warming scare is now the third manufactured crisis in my lifetime. Just as phony as the first two. I may live to see a couple more.

      • JohnEngelman

        As time goes on the scientific consensus becomes more accurate. The scientific consensus is that man made global warming is a serious and growing problem.

        • HamletsGhost

          Nice M.O. Ignore the argument and re-state unproved assumptions as fact. You’d do well in our sovietized universities.

          • JohnEngelman

            You are the one who is ignoring the argument, not me. There are three reasons I believe in man made global warming: during my lifetime I have noticed milder winters and hotter summers; it is plausible; it is the scientific consensus.

          • Gracchus123

            No one disputes that global warming occurs. Vikings raised sheep in Greenland during 900-1100 a.d. Reasons for warming/cooling cycles are multiple. There is no proof that we are in a warming cycle, much less a “man-made” cycle.

          • Gracchus123

            Again, global warming may be real; that it is man-made is highly questionable. It is established science that the earth’s climate fluctuates.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            global warming..another smarmy jew scam … carbon tax ..fraud fraud fraud ..just like you..you Marxist cow.

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      Phuck you…you Marxist bitch.

  • JohnEngelman

    It’s no coincidence that there are no white studies, men’s studies, or heterosexual studies on college campuses.

    - Henry Wolff

    If there are Asian studies or Jewish studies few major in them. White Gentiles, Asians, and Jews usually have the intellectual ability to major in subjects that will make themselves useful to employers.

    • puffdaddy

      And blacks don’t have to because they know their main job will always being black and one way or another they are compensated for it, either as a chief diversity officer in a corporation, or as a victim welfare recipient, or a pundit, or a professional agitator.

      • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

        blacks have monkey in their corrupted DNA helix …

    • David Ashton

      Missed the important point again.
      The “race, gender, class” agenda aka “cultural marxism” in Britain, and in the USA, percolates upwards through the educational and media institutions to “ideologize” political leaders, who then enforce it downwards on the “masses”.
      Race: see e.g. David Caute, “Fanon” (1970)
      Gender: see e.g. Dick Howard & Karl E. Klare (eds) “Unknown Dimension” (1972)
      Class: see e.g. Herbert Marcuse, “An Essay on Liberation” (1969)
      Revolting students yesterday, Democrat policy-makers tomorrow.

  • Sean

    This is a fascinating discussion.

    The situations that race realists face in the United States and in Europe seem to be two different obstacles that must be surmounted. In Europe there are laws and regulations to keep citizens in line. They must worry about fees or even jail time if they say something “racist” along with government-promoted social ostracism by their peer group. However, because of the governmental attitudes and natural leftist distrust of authority our message may be actually easier to get out to our racial homefront only if police harassment and mob violence can be somehow circumvented.
    I don’t see many native Britishers at “Sharia Now” marches, yet a huge amount show up to “bash the fash”. That energy can be redirected partially if a strong nativist movement can spring up with no political baggage and be decentralized to prevent that group(s) from being completely annihilated when the media decides to take a hit out on that theoretical group.

  • anmpr1

    @ Mr. Wolff: At bottom, most people are hypocrites. They rarely live up to their professed ideals except in cases where it is personally advantageous or, at the least, not disadvantageous.

    Most people? This broad statement cannot be at all accepted. To claim that most are hypocrites misunderstands the meaning of the word. A hypocrite believes that one track is good for others, but not for them. What Mr. Wolff probably means is that some people (and I would not use “most,” because if it were true, organized morality in civil society would be impossible) are morally weak, and cannot live up to what they know to be right behavior. Weakness is not necessarily hypocrisy.

    @ Mr. Kurtagic: Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy.
    They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality.

    In fact, there are good reasons for conjoining what is to what ought, and the divorce between the two, a modern consequence of positivism, is one reason that we are in the mess we are. The foundations of morals presumes a natural order, otherwise all is arbitrary. Morality must be consistent with this natural order- the natural moral law known through reason in conjunction with empirical study. Natural law is grounded in the idea of essentialism, that is, the understanding that things/processes have an intrinsic nature or essence, and that this nature is discoverable. And because they have a nature, they have a natural end. Hence, an objective morality would take that into account, and act in accordance with these essences with a view to their natural end. Tradition has always understood this, and made the necessary practical arrangements, however liberalism abandons tradition by denying real essence, or more correctly, positing a false essence for things, and as such violates nature and the natural order.

    We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment… European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation
    available to all.

    Here are two notions here that must be parsed. First, notions about liberty and equality are certainly recognizable Enlightenment schemes, however within Western thought its principal exponent came before, and can be found in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, arguably the first liberal. What Hobbes understood, but what people today are just beginning to understand, is that liberty and equality are contradictory notions, and one cannot have both within civil society. For Hobbes, all men in nature were equal in liberty, and as a result possessed equal right (the “Right of Nature”). However, Hobbes correctly understood that this condition was incompatible with civil order, and that for civil society to manifest, both had to be abandoned through the creation of the sovereign, via the “artificial” covenant. Today, liberals (both modern leftists and classical libertarian) do not quite understand this intrinsic incompatibility between liberty and equality, and because of it are hopelessly confused.

    Mr. Kutagic’s second notion, Christian metaphysics, is really simplified by the author, and because of it becomes too trite, and perhaps misleading. First, the notion of all men being created in God’s image is not, strictly speaking, a Christian notion, but one borrowed from the Jewish tradition. Also, the idea of men being formed in God’s image can be seen in pagan society, one example being Aristophanes’ myth in Plato’s Symposium, where the comic poet discusses the original form of man being in the form of the cosmic (not Olympian) gods.

    Be that as it may, the metaphysical ground for Christianity’s universalism is not the idea that all can be “saved” (whatever that could mean). The notion of salvation is itself secondary, and requires a prior, more fundamental ground. This prior ground stems from a scholastic modification of Classical Greek thought-specifically the Aristotelian hylomorphic composition of substance, where a man’s form is now taken to be the immortal soul, and since everyone has this soul (since everything material is a composition), everyone is “in essence” the same. Here, it is never asked whether all men actually possess a same or similar form? Really, the question is begged, and it is just presumed.

    The way out of all this is not something new, but rather a recovery. It requires us to realize and accept that types of men are intrinsically different, and it requires basing morality and civil order on this very real difference. It requires a return to previously well understood Classical notions of justice, and abandoning wrongheaded ideas of individual right and metaphysical equality. Classical notions of justice are most eloquently detailed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers who today are not paid much attention, but whose thinking must be recovered if there is to be any chance for an objective, rational order.

    Finally, the ethnostate, championed by the late Wilmot Roberston and I believe some ENR thinkers, is perhaps the most practical political solution. Certainly, in our modern United States such a thing is impossible.

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment… European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation
      available to all.

      We are our own worst enemy…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/NQHEAYZCMBOERHG2VZRDQ3YUSQ Felix

    Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations.

    Let me throw a turd into the punch bowl: There exists the real possibility that they know but, for one reason or another, they simply don’t care.

    • puffdaddy

      There is also a possibility that they know, they care, and they want it to happen. This is my view. The question I have is why do they want it to happen, and what’s in it for them?

  • JohnEngelman

    If by “white survival” Alex Kurtagic means the white male supremacy that existed before 1960,that is not going to be restored.

    Race realists should concentrate on issues where victory is possible. These include restricting immigration, ending affirmative action, forced school busing and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, increasing the severity of the criminal justice system, and defending and popularizing the writings of men like Jared Taylor, Charles Murray, J. Philippe Rushton, and Arthur Jensen.

    Race realists should avoid too close of an alliance with the Republican Party. The GOP will thank them for their votes and contributions, mouth their concerns, and disregard their agenda. In short it will treat them like it treated the religious right.

    • Conan

      “If by “white survival” Alex Kurtagic means the white male supremacy that existed before 1960,that is not going to be restored.”

      You’re in for a big surprise, John.

      • JohnEngelman

        How do you expect to restore white male supremacy?

        • Gracchus123

          50,000+ years of human history cannot be so blithely dismissed. That’s how.

          • JohnEngelman

            History began with writing. Writing began about five thousand years ago.

            50,000 years ago modern humans had just recently left Africa. They are our ancestors. They probably looked like the Bushmen of southern Africa. Those are the oldest existing race. By that I mean one needs to go back further to find a common male and a common female ancestor of them.

            http://www.google.com/search?q=bushmen&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=38S7UKKEMoyO0QGvn4CoCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=628&bih=518

          • Gracchus123

            Men, by their physical strength, have ALWAYS dominated women, and they always will. This Leftist aberration of feminism will not stand because you cannot fool Mother Nature.

            And that tripe about Africans being our ancestors is just that, tripe. “Lucy” and the theory of “out of Africa” was derived from a part of one jaw-bone. That theory is being unraveled by genetic analysis.

          • JohnEngelman

            Gracchus123,

            The Out of Africa theory of human origins is the scientific consensus, and is substantiated by virtually all the DNA and paleontological evidence. Your direct ancestors 50,000 years ago would not have been served in a Southern Woolworth lunch counter 50 years ago.

            They would have been served in a black owned restaurant.

          • Gracchus123

            “The Out of Africa theory of human origins is the scientific consensus, and is substantiated by virtually all the DNA and paleontological evidence.”

            That is simply wrong. DNA evidence is now bringing into question that “scientific consensus”. That “out of Africa theory” is simply more of the same politicization of science as is “man-made global warming”. No matter how they try, I will not feel like they are ‘bruthus”.

          • Gracchus123

            Study up on the Tianyuan Cave discoveries. BTW, 50,000 years is barely a heartbeat in an evolutionary sense. Your ancestors may have been black 50,000 years ago, but mine weren’t. :)

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            neither were mine…

          • JohnEngelman

            Do you think they had light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes?

            According to ” The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,” which is favorably reviewed here:

            http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/05/index.html

            blue eyes began with a single mutation about 7,000 years ago. White skin may have evolved fairly recently too, certainly more recently than 50,000 years ago. Your ancestors and mine 50,000 years ago would not have been served in a Woolworth lunch counter in the South fifty years ago.

          • JohnEngelman

            Post your DNA evidence, and I will evaluate it.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr
          • JohnEngelman

            They can produce fertile offspring with whites, so they are human.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            “out of Africa” pure bullshit…liberal fantasy…

          • JohnEngelman

            Moderator: Comments using obscene words should be deleted, don’t you think?

          • baltasar almudárriz

            I say- we are out of Southern Russia/Caspian Sea/Iran, based on the vibes I experienced while traveling there. It was uncanny.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            http://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2012/07/science-africans-arent-entirely-human.html

            related to you maybe…speak for yourself lady..another jew spew lie foisted upon unsuspecting brain washed whites…

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            GD right..
            ‘-)

      • JohnEngelman

        If you were looking for another reason to date an Asian male, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics just came up with one. In their latest report on earnings in the 2nd quarter of 2010, Asian men topped the charts again, making $901 in median weekly earnings. Asian women were second at $854, followed by white men at $838.
        http://www.8asians.com/2010/08/01/asian-men-have-the-highest-salary/

        Because of their high average IQs Asians in the United States usually make more money than whites. I used to think that their higher incomes would incline them to vote Republican. However: “Americans of Asian descent, now surpassing Latinos as the fastest growing immigrant group, prefer President Obama by an increasingly wide margin.

        “According to the National Asian American Survey, likely voters of Asian descent back Obama by a 50 to 19 percent margin.”
        http://thegrio.com/2012/10/25/on-election-day-its-white-voters-vs-everyone-else/

        As the percentage of non whites in the electorate increases, opposition to non white immigration will decrease. I do not think anything can be done about it. Support for secession is nothing more than a panicky reaction. I doubt there will ever be majority support for secession in any state.

        As time goes on being white will be less important. Having a high IQ will be more important.

    • storibund

      “The GOP will thank them for their votes and contributions, mouth their concerns, and disregard their agenda.”

      I would drop dead of shock if I heard any one of today’s GOP “mouthing the concerns” of race realists. They’re trampling on each other in their haste to go in the exact opposite direction.

      • JohnEngelman

        Nevertheless, I give the GOP credit for the decline in the crime rate since 1980. During the 1960s the prison population declined, and the crime rate doubled. Since 1980 the prison population has tripled, and the crime rate has declined by one third.

        If most Democrat politicians had had their way the crime rate would still be climbing. On the other hand, the pay checks of white blue collar workers buy less than in 1980, and their employers are quite a bit richer. That is why race realists should deal with specific issues, and avoid close support for either party.

    • David Ashton

      How much “progress” are you making with your Obama-supporting Democratic Party friends with this agenda?

      • JohnEngelman

        I voted for Obama, and I am glad did. More illegals have been deported per year under his presidency than any other presidency.

        There are still some liberals who complain about the large number of young black men in prison, but it is not something Democratic politicians complain about when campaigning.

        • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

          1. You already know by now that the deportation thing is legerdemain.

          2. Just because Democrat politicians don’t say they’re going to spring blacks free from the hoosegow while they’re begging for votes doesn’t mean they don’t want to, and doesn’t mean they’re taking sub rosa steps to make that happen. The Bible says, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” I say, “By their judicial appointments, ye shall know them.” Another generation of leftist judges, and jail house doors swing open for black thugs instantly.

          • JohnEngelman

            I doubt it very seriously. It was President Clinton who signed the Omnibus Crime Bill in 1994.

          • http://www.google.com/ A.C.

            Don’t be silly. You know, I know, and Clinton now knows that the United States of 1994 was radically different than the United States of 2012. The United States didn’t swing so far to the left overnight; it did so in increments and has been doing so even under GOP presidents. Furthermore, we no have one of the most radically left-wing and anti-White presidents in U.S. history. Obama overturned Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He could very likely overturn more things, especially now that he doesn’t have to fear reelection.

          • JohnEngelman

            The President is only anti-white in the hate and fear distorted imaginations of those who are anti non white.

          • katzkiner

            Perhaps you should attend the presidents ‘ former church, Trinity in Chicago, an admitted Black Liberation institution, you know, the Marxist theology that claims all blacks are NATURAL MUSLIMS and to be free blacks must KILL ALL WHITE DEVILS. Whites voting for Obama is like Jews voting for Hitler, ignorant.

          • TeutonicKnight67

            Wow! Mr. Engleman has truly crossed the Rubicon. I knew he was a sinophile but an Obamabot? I guess my sense of surprise indicates I’m too new to this site.

          • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

            Lady…your a brain dead brain washed Marxist if ever there was one…

        • Guest

          That’s what the “statistics” claim, but as 18 – year veteran of a police department in a large metropolitan city, I can tell you that’s pure horsecrud! I know because I’ve seen it and lived it everyday!

          We’ve rounded up some seriously evil people and – despite all of the “information” put out there by feds – For the last ten years, whenever we call ICE, they don’t show up. There was only one time I can remember them doing so; We picked up an illegal from Mexico on a heroin bust, while holding him we got a call from the feds that they actually wanted him. When ICE showed up, they also had a guy from the FBI with them. Turns out that said FBI agents younger sister was in the ladies room of one of the trendier clubs in the area and said illegal – working there as a busboy – decided to pay her a little visit while she was in there. Long story short, he attacked her, but didn’t get far and she was able to provide a description to us.

          Anyway, as we were signing him over to them, the FBI agent told him, “You know I’ve got a friend in the police department in Mexico City, he’s got a nice little reception planned for you when we arrive.” Yes boys and girls that’s right, people like you and I have to deal with life everyday with these mongrels running around, but God forbid they put their hands on a loved one from the ruling class – then all bets are off and no expense will be spared finding them and making them pay.

          The illegal started crying at this point, not that I had any sympathy for him mind you, but that was the only time in my memory that ICE showed up for somebody. So PLEASE Mr. Engleman stop trotting out all these “official” numbers put out by your boy in the white house, as most of them are nothing more than propaganda tools for consumption by people like you.

          Oh and as for your claim of how IQ will matter in the future and not race – I don’t know what reality you’re living in, but the last time I checked affirmative action was being forced into every nook and cranny of society and doesn’t show any signs of abating – in fact the current occupant of the white house is doubling down on it all. So how will higher IQ be be the only thing that matters in the future when incompetents are running the show everywhere?

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr
  • Flytrap

    “American elites today prefer to dismiss the “unchangeable, undemocratic
    facts” about human inequality, he says. Progressives go further: “They
    think that the main use of liberty is to create more equality. They
    don’t see that there is such a thing as too much equality. They don’t
    see limits to democratic equalizing”—how, say, wealth redistribution can
    not only bankrupt the public fisc but corrupt the national soul.”

    Very timely interview of Harvey Mansfield in WSJ.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149292503121124.html

  • Mike Lane

    Good essay, but I disagree with the notion that individualism is a Leftist ideal. It is definitely a Right wing ideal, as opposed to collectivism, which is most definitely a Left wing ideal. Also, while National Socialism does state that certain people’s are inherently inequal, it is nonetheless a form of socialism (collectivism)- a left wing ideal, but only an elitist form, rather than Marxian socialism, which is an egalitarian form.

    As for Marxism- the author states it was defeated by liberalism. In fact, just the contrary occurred. While Communism (as a political/economic system) did fall in 80s-90s, The ideology of Marxism simply absorbed/hijacked liberalism. Look at the Frankfurt school.

  • Frosty_The_White_Man

    All I see here are different arms of the White Liberation bickering. What’s stopping all three approaches from being implemented simultaneously by the same group or movement? We need the ivory tower, beer hall, privy wall, and barbed wire trench.

    The New Right expresses timeless truths about inequality, hierarchy, and the White man’s need for his own unique spiritual sustenance. But much like the magic Injun dance meant to repel the US Cavalry…it will fail. Race realism is a tool for maintaining the state. Men don’t fly jets, create art, or woo women in the name of IQ studies. The liberal anti-White narrative must be defeated but how?

    I posit this narrative to unite White Liberationists of all stripes: The White Tribes wandered out of Central Asia to build numerous civilizations. Europe being the greatest and our last refuge. Our people are a people of beauty. A people reaching out and touching the stars. Luna was a god to other humans. We planted our banner on her. Now we are threatened. Our altruism has been exploited. Our lands under siege. We reassert ourselves or die.

    New Right values + White Nationalism (Ethnic for Europe) + Environmentalism + class cooperation. That’s our recipe.

    • Tina Fiedler

      Let me tell you a helluva start on defeating the liberal anti-White narrative: you MARRY ONLY other whites. You have WHITE CHILDREN and LOTS of them.

      Then you ONLY patronize white doctors, dentists, plumbers, accountants, etc. YES, they are there- go and find them. I live in So. Calif. and I have to go out of my way to do that, but that’s WHAT I DO.

      You guys do the same. Are any of you married white, and having babies?

    • baltasar almudárriz

      I agree- having traveled through parts of Asia Minor- I have never seen such magnificent, humble men and women in all walks of life. It was a humbling experience.

  • http://valeofdarkness.blogspot.com/ ValeofIgnorance

    Most Christians I know (but especially Protestants) believe they have a
    moral duty to accept all people and races into their (i.e. White) countries – and do so enthusiastically. They think of
    immigrants as their religious ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ and believe that their religious
    identity trumps their national, racial and cultural identity. Obviously this
    plays right into the hands of the progressive left who are only too willing to
    oblige them with yet more immigration and diversity.

    • KingKenton

      I mostly agree with your characterization of the Christian Church in America today. The mainline Protestant churches (Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.), have in partiulcar beome corrupted with modern Liberalism. I can personally attest however, that there are many Christians and churches which have not embraced Liberalism. Most importantly, I think it is critical not to throw out the baby with the bath water. The problem is not Christianity but with Christianity that has become tainted with Liberalism. The corrosive effects of Liberalism are just as evident (even more so), in the secular institutions of the America.

      • TeutonicKnight67

        Christianity, like all our institutions, has been infected by the left. Roman Catholics like myself often get the bum rap that we support illegals because the Leftist clergy tells us to. I can assure you this is NOT the case. Perhaps some of the higher-ups thought that hispanics (being majority Catholic) would be beneficial to revitalizing the Church in the US but the rank and file that I associate with certainly DO NOT AGREE. I assure you, we are sick to death of hippie folk groups and Jesus El Senor hymns. By the way….I wonder how the US Bishops feel about those good “catholic” latinos now that the voted overwhelmingly for the Anti-Catholic, Marxist half-caste Bantu pseudo-moslem? Didn’t exactly work out now did it?

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      http://erectuswalksamongst.us/

      these apes are not our equals….

  • nobody

    Very well written article. I agree that it seems the left likes to say race is a social construct or race isn’t real yet they change their tune when they are talking about white racism, whites oppressing blacks, the white establishment “keeping the brother man down”. Nonsense. They love to ignore the facts unless of course it sheds their point of view in a better light. If the facts support a different point of view than their own they are just made up, or propaganda. Trying to discuss anything even remotely racial with a liberal is like trying to reason with a child who has his fingers in his ears yelling “NAH NAH NAH I CAN’T HEAR YOU”. Black people really treat whites in America much like a child treats their parents, “I HATE YOU!”… “YOU RUINED MY LIFE!”… “When’s dinner?”.

  • http://independent-british-nationalist.blogspot.com/ British Activism

    After reading such a long piece, I am currently short of time for issuing a proper response.

    However, it is an important topic which is perhaps at the front of how we decide to go forward with our messages and our cause.

    I have to admit that I am a bit of a fan of both Alex Kurtagic and Jared Taylor. Both made some excellent points and Henry Wolf nicely handled the apparent schism off nicely between the first two.

    Although it seemed like Jared and Alex were at odds with each other, I do not think they are actually that far apart in what they are saying and doing.

    The way I see it is that Alex Kurtagic and the Identitarian New Right calls for a new modernity which wrestles the moral high ground from the liberals and forges our own path forward. I think that is an important thing, because people want to believe they are doing the right thing by siding with our views.

    Jared Taylor points out the hypocrisy and double standards, reaffirms the need to boldly state that we have the right to exist and the right to homeland – and much of the traditional faire of arguments which Jared is well versed and adept at making.

    Yet the two positions are not opposing. They can go hand in hand. The way I see it is that Jared Taylor’s arguments are part of the rationale as to why what are doing is the moral thing to do and why we should be supported, to create a happier, safer future that is based on reality and real human nature.

    I am not, at the moment, a “swarmer” and although I am fairly familiar with the ‘mantra’ I need to learn to understand the deeper aspects of how to defend such sweeping statements which go along the lines of ‘nobody says that non-white nations should be flooded with others’ – which is also what race-realists like Jared Taylor speak about when they cite Japan and others not being pressured and criticised in the same way as white nations.

    Yet who actually says that though? Would liberals really defend that statement? How true is this homogeneity in various parts of the world these days? (Eg, I heard Japan is starting to suffer from Blacks arriving and that there had been fights over blacks approaching Japanese women).

    If the mass of liberal herds do not concede the double standard and instead say that they do not care whether other nations are thrown into racial mixtures, the morality tact is forced to change again, where we have to discuss ‘racial nihilism’ as a whole and wrestle the ground back on ‘Human Biodiversity’ grounds.

    Not all liberals send their offspring to private schools. Not all liberals move out of “enriched” areas. The classic about the ‘cocktail parties’ may no longer ring so true as they used to do.

    It is probably the highest figure who are indeed hypocrites, but if you start arguing with a liberal who lives in an enriched area, sends their kids to an enriched school, somebody who think that it is fine and right that Japan opens its borders to Africa, all these double-standard crutches can get kicked away. You then need something else.

    Alex Kurtagic gives me the impression that the New Right seeks to tie some things to a deeper level (which in true New Right fashion gets a bit lofty and academic) and work at altering what is deemed right and moral to be doing, whilst forming a ‘Nietzschean’ and affirmative arrogance that we are going to sweep the current state of play aside – irrespective of refuting liberals and often what can amount to our pleading for equal treatment.

    I am not sure how the law still stands here in the UK, but let us take the issue of homosexuals being banned from giving blood to donor stations as an example.

    I know that there was some noise about it a few years ago saying it was ‘discriminatory’ and the ‘right thing to do’ to scrap this ‘blanket ban’ as there was “no room” for such ‘prejudice and bigotry’ in society.

    The pushed ‘moral’ and ‘righteous’ thing to do was to get rid of the ban. Yet it is well known that homosexuals in this country are x-times more likely to carry HIV and other diseases, and that the ban is/was there for common sense and the protection of wider society.

    We would have to argue that the moral and righteous thing to do is to be “inequal” when it comes to homosexuals, because their hurt sense of pride and feelings are not worth putting the entire nations health at risk for. We would have to turn the tables so we are the ‘good guys’ rather than the monsters we would be painted to be. We are doing it for the right reasons, not that we ‘hate’ homosexuals and are ‘bigoted’.

    There are two ways people here on the Nationalist right could go about that kind of argument. One ‘traditional’ way is that they start going on about how “homos, fags, queers should be banned for their sick perversions” and so on and so forth, pumping out quite an “in-your-face” obnoxious sounding rhetoric over the issue.

    Another way is to extol the virtues of why these people need to be curbed from giving blood and why it is in the best interests of everybody that the rules remain in place. The ones seeking the reform need to be seen as out of touch with reality, dangerous people who are putting ideological platitudes and woolly thinking before the health of the nation.

    It may not be the best example, but if you apply race to such societal gymnastics, it is kind of the equivalent of how we have to be sailing against the current winds.

    The way I see it, Alex Kurtagic is advocating a push for a renewed self of identity and turning these kinds of tables to be in our favour.

    Jared’s arguments still remain the same, as they can point out the hypocrisy and double-standards of the opposition’s aims and claims – whilst we still turn those tables and change peoples opinions to be in support rather than disdain.

    Alex is right though when it comes to who we need to target. Too many people in this country, including myself in years before now, have liked the battles with hardened liberals and leftists. The “one-upmanship” seems to take over people on newspaper columns and in forums. We are not going to change their minds.

    Time is indeed going to be better spent winning over the winnable and putting over our arguments in the best way possible. Some people in this country fail to see that, and would rather be seen to be the tough talkers and ‘truth tellers’, instead of remembering to equally be appealing to ‘the winnables’ better nature, their self interest, and potential inner-racially-self-aware selves by making them feel good and righteous about it.

    There is no one-stop solution. Alex, Jared and Henry are all correct in their own ways. Yet the ideal is to bring it all together, not be divert apart.

    • David Ashton

      What is needed is to expose, face down and defeat the combined enemy agenda on “race, gender and class”, not to excommunicate the Buchanans or the Kurtagics or the Coulters for this or that personal deviation from our own personal orthodoxy. Our enemy’s enemies are our friends.

      • razorrare

        Buchanan isnt my enemy…i would rather ostrazise those who attack Buchanan.

  • D. K.

    Karl Marx = Pat Buchanan! That perfectly sums up Alex Kurtagic’s mindset (after decades of stewing his brain in his beloved heavy-metal music): Anyone who is not a fellow neo-fascist is thereby a “liberal”– be it the father of atheistic Communism or a patriotic American and arch-paleo-conservative, like Patrick J. Buchanan. I have no more interest in living in the dystopia that Alex Kurtagic would impose upon us than I would in the one which the Left is seeking to impose. My nation’s Founding Fathers were neither crypto- nor proto-Communists, and there is nothing at all “liberal” about Leftism– other than the fact that the New Left hid itself within the Democratic Party, and eventually hijacked it altogether, calling themselves “liberals” and, more recently, “progressives” merely as politically palatable euphemisms. Collectivists are collectivists, and inherently totalitarian in their impetus, whether they are on the Left or the RIght. They are the enemies of anyone who longs for genuine political and personal freedom– White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, or Beige! Anyone who simply longs to live out his life in a prison, in which all of his fellow inmates and guards are White, is not an ally of me or my people.

    • razorrare

      I too took umbrage with Alex remark that Pat B. is a liberal…hardly no one has been so viciously attacked and demonized in the media than Pat Buchanan…Pat B has been called far worst things(neo-fascist) by the Zionist controlled media…Pat B. correctly identifies himself self as paleo-conservative…firmly rooted in Faith & Tradition.

  • William Allingham

    The only reason why liberalism triumphed is because they had not contemplations or moral restrains for imposing their interests.

    They saw a blind point in our concepts of honor, chivalry and christian morality so they took advantage, knowing that its easier to embrace an ideology that requires not thinking or analysis even if its not accurate (our “parsimonious” brains evolved to ensure survival while thinking the less possible) like a children who doesn’t realizes that the world is more complicated than he would like .

    I call that intellectual opportunism and abuse.

    • A Swain

      Good points!

      Marxist Liberals use a two-pronged methodology. They indoctrinate and enforce, in fact, mimicking theocratic type belief systems. Nevermind whether the tenets of said belief system makes sense or not because when political power is overwhelmingly attained, to control the masses it’s only necessary to utilize the carrot and stick approach with heavy emphasis on the stick.

      However, no belief system can hope to endure since always below the radar others are simultaneously taking form ready to spring into life at the slightest favourable wind blowing in their particular directions – more often than not as a result of the current belief system having shot itself in the foot way too many times as to remain credible and respectable any longer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

    I won’t write an essay here – although it would take a few pages to address issues covered in the articles. So, I’ll (almost) completely disregard particularia of these texts & try to say something new.

    1. these texts are especially pertinent re USA and other English-speaking countries, plus some other more historically influenced by them (The Netherlands, Scandinavia,..). White guilt self-flagellating ideology is not the dominant discourse in France, Germany, Russia etc. Nor is extremist feminism. Actually, no French or Czech intellectual would be demonized for publicly espousing radical macho views. Nor a politician- just look at the Strauss-Kahn and Berlusconi. IMO, historical weakness of American elites re intellectual & ideological aspects of public life had made them an easy prey to mental humbug of militant feminism & anti-racial discourse of Frantz Fanon and similar impostors. Also, it’s not a natural growth of chief currents of Anglo-American cultural heritage, which can be summed in: equal chances for all, results according to capabilities. I suppose it’s a two-step process: the dominance of important aspects of the counter-culture of the 1960s/70s plus assimilation of more egalitarian mental matrix after the collapse of Communism.

    2. I think that excesses in egalitarianism (false presentation & idolization of Blacks in media; women in the military; ..) are not – predominantly- a result of some vast conspiracy, but almost a phase in a biological process, in a Spenglerian way: this is a natural end-result of aged liberalism, a sign of old & dying ideology, not a vigorous one. The absurdity of it is similar to Communist rubbish during Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras- some believed, most did not, but fervor was gone. By 1970s, most Soviet peoples knew they were living a lie. So, we’re witnessing a decadent, last stage of liberalism, not a triumphant movement with bright future ahead.

    3. as usual, science will have huge impact. Descartes & Newton had made ghosts hardly believable; Darwin created both social-Darwinism & other spin-off ideologies galore. I’d say that progress in genetics- in the US, but even more in China, Japan, Russia… will usher in collapse of hyper-egalitarian lunacy. Science will work as a liberating factor, at least for Whites.

    4. at the end- US. The main problem with white liberals is that they are hardly a part of American nation. Huntington’s thesis about American nation (Anglo-Saxon ethics plus Protestantism) is simply wrong. American nation is- for umpteenth time- White phenotype plus English language plus European cultural heritage plus American national-historical identity. Non-Whites can be only permanent foreigners, like Gypsies in Hungary. Here, moribund liberalism (promiscuity, egoism, war against family & religion, ..) has succeeded in temporary estrangement of a part of White population (New England liberal stronghold). But- it’s only temporary. “Coalition” of White women with racial minorities and homosexuals is unnatural & is shown as such in everyday life. And- I would not write off White homosexuals just like that. They’re Whites, after all, and can be useful as race realists. And, women, especially- it is a complete lunacy to act defensively against half of your race.

    • Alex

      I had not thought about your 2nd point before, but that seems to make a great deal of sense.

    • TeutonicKnight67

      Love your reply Bardon, especially point #4!

    • Michael Alan Prock

      American nation is- for umpteenth time- White phenotype plus English
      language plus European cultural heritage plus American
      national-historical identity. Non-Whites can be only permanent
      foreigners, like Gypsies in Hungary

      Except that the “Gypsies” are nearly half the population of the whole country, have taken over large swaths of much of it, and are ensconced with White sympathizers throughout the media, government, and academia. Because of this, the “national-historical identity” has been lost and will have to be forged anew. Not a small task and not for the feint of heart. As Plato observed long ago, everything that is defined is defined against its opposite — hot and cold, soft and hard, black and white… What we have to define ourselves against is no small or passive force, and it will take more than simple persuasion to overcome. It’s going to take a fight: one that will take all our resources to overcome, including our women, but seduction will not win the day. The male principle must reassert itself in White America or all is lost. The men must do it, or the other side’s men will do it to us.

    • Tina Fiedler

      Thank you, half of whites are women, after all. I want nothing to do with non-whites or homosexuals.

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      http://dailykenn.blogspot.com/2012/07/science-africans-arent-entirely-human.html

      Blacks are not human…
      who woulda thunk it..
      LMFWAO .. no brainer..black are slow dim witted sub/human species.

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    Actions, they say, speak louder than words. And a picture paints a thousand.

    The disingenuous nature of leftist abhorrence for white homogeneity is seen in the following images.

    • The first is photo taken at the Academy Awards.
    Can you see a white face?

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MestL-4gQAM/ULqrKUb9xdI/AAAAAAAAEhA/-Cim3AymLt8/s400/academyawards.jpeg

    • The second is Elton John at Dodgers Stadium. I wonder how many leftists deem Elton John a racist because fewer blacks can be seen at his concerts than at Republican conventions?

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n9KcAg_SBO0/ULqrqPymNhI/AAAAAAAAEhI/xp3E7bgMskQ/s400/whiteej.jpg

    • Here are two screen grabs from an Elton John concert video.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-thbwEOD-JiA/ULquTSMrUII/AAAAAAAAEhw/ezoFLepEbfY/s400/whiteej.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wBxuYGU8Ne0/ULqv9dDUcMI/AAAAAAAAEh4/clG60FERJNg/s400/whiteej.jpg

    • And, finally, here is the link to the “all white” Elton John concert is which he performs, “Sad Songs Say So Much.”

    http://youtu.be/RH276U5PiGQ

  • WardKendall

    Too much in the way of “intellectualizing” the white advocacy movement will only serve to delay the necessity for more concrete, real-world action. I have a simpler approach when it comes to grasping the essentials of our enemies:

    1 – In regard to liberal intellectuals, their main motive is power. Their goal is to use the force of law to shackle and enslave the strongest, the bravest, and the best of the white race. Be it by taxing our Captains of Industry or our brilliant thinkers and creators, it all comes down to that. In other words, control.

    2 – In regard to the milling herds of ordinary liberals, they vote liberal intellectuals into power because they have the same mindset that a thief has towards its victim – the desire to rob him. It is motivated by one thing: envy.

    3 – And thirdly, the reason why so many ordinary whites cannot seem to be reached by our most eloquent arguments. The answer is: fear.

    Understand these three prime motives:

    * power/control

    *envy

    *fear

    This is the triad the white advocacy movement must understand, if nothing else. Theory is fine, but it is not necessary for most of us to ponder over frothy cups of latte. It is, however, long overdue that we stop repeating ourselves, year after year, decade after decade, with ponderous and didactic essays that keep regurgitating the same overly-worn advice.


    Hold Back This Day


    The Towers of Eden

    • Joe Webb

      Ward. goo post, Joe Webb

  • http://www.facebook.com/brady.dillon.7 Brady Dillon

    “During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.”

    An important distinction though. Fascism/National Socialism was defeated militarily, but not ideologically. Marxism was defeated ideologically, but not militarily. It was only Marxism that showed itself unworkable as a system. Now, whatever one’s view of Fascism or National Socialism as political systems, they are of no importance now, because they are products of the particular political and social situation that was interwar Europe.

    It is quite feasible however, to form an anti-egalitarian, anti-modernist Weltaunschung that is neither left-wing nor liberal (in the classic sense) which addresses the realities of today.

  • William Allingham

    The only reason why liberalism triumphed is because they had no contemplations or moral restrains for imposing their interests (whether they realize it or not).

    They saw a blind point in our concepts of honor, chivalry and christian morality so they took advantage because its easier to embrace an ideology that doesnt requires thinking or analysis even if its not accurate (our brains evolved to ensure survival while thinking the less possible)

    I have learned a lot from Mr. Taylor but even himself, realizes that his tactics have not produced effects in public policies, the reasons for that well could have been explained in the first part of the article. You cannot menace to death someone who considers any kind of death as good.

    we need to grow a morality that ensures our survival, ideas can spread very fast, i dont think time would a impediment, i think it has more to do with cooperation among whites around the world.

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      and how would we achieve that? networking world wide? our own news outlets..what?

    • JohnEngelman

      Jared Taylor’s “The Color of Crime” drew me to this website:

      http://www.colorofcrime.com/

      The reason he has not been more effective is because the rate of violent crime has made a steady decline since 1991

      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

      and because there has not been a significant black ghetto riot since the Rodney King riots of 1992.

      If one feels something strongly it is easy to overestimate the number of people who feel the same way, and easy to underestimate the difficulty of converting others to one’s persuasion.

      One does not get places in politics by changing people’s minds. One gets places by articulating and channeling sentiments that already exist.

      I learned that as a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialist_Organizing_Committee

      Everyone agrees that a high crime rate is a bad thing. Even criminals would prefer less competition and a population that is less prone to take precautions. Nevertheless, most Americans do not feel an instinctive revulsion from people of other races, ethnicities, and cultures. A movement that tells them that they should will lose credibility on issues where it may be successful.

  • ness

    I largely agree that it is the prevailing liberal morality that prevents whites from stopping their own dispossession. How the left handles race is just a logical extension of contemporary liberalism.

    Equality of men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, whites and nonwhites. The left applies egalitarian dogma to these groups and to society at large. Most political arguments from the left can be reduced to egalitarian morality. When equal outcomes aren’t produced, it is the fault of society and action needs to be taken to correct these injustices.

    Equality is the driving force on the left. Wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else is needed to somewhat level things out. Gay marriage is needed to produce equal rights for gays. Men and women are equal in all important respects so if outcomes aren’t equal for men and women, it is evidence of a sexist society that needs to be corrected. Gender-specific roles should be downplayed so women can aspire be in military combat or auto mechanics.

    How the left deals with race is just a direct outgrowth of the relentless pursuit of equality. The equality of the races means that non-whites should have equal outcomes with whites. If blacks are 13% of the population they should get 13% of the economic pie. If blacks are underrepresented at university or in the workforce, this is because of societal racism. How could it not be? According to liberal thinking the races are equal in all important respects, so how could unequal outcomes not be the result of unequal opportunity? If blacks score lower on SAT tests it must be the structural racism of society that is responsible because the groups are inherently equal.

    Since the groups are intrinsically equal, there should be equal outcomes. If there aren’t then affirmative action and increased spending on these groups is necessary to combat the societal inequities that produced the unequal outcomes. This is all logically consistent for the left.

    The Western moral ideal of universal human equality is the basis for white replacement. According to this view, why should there be homogeneous white societies? All groups are equal so why should whites be preferred? In this view there is no logical basis for preventing white replacement. Any effort to prevent whites from becoming a minority in America or Europe is immoral because of the universal equality of all men.

    Asking why Germans can’t remain a majority in Germany but Nigerians can remain a majority in Nigeria seems to be based on a misunderstanding. If Germans believe in the prevailing liberal morality but Nigerians don’t, then where is the contradiction? The dominant view in the West is that race doesn’t matter, but that isn’t the dominant view in the Third World. So according to Germans and white Americans, there is no justification for retaining their majorities.

    Since white people in the West are all supposed to buy in to the dominant liberal morality, then they can’t logically resist dispossession in their own countries. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that we should expect Third World countries to do the same thing. That is because our societies believe in liberal morality and nonwhite societies generally don’t believe in the same moral system. So from a white liberal’s point of view, there is no contradiction in expecting white societies to become multicultural but not expecting the same thing for nonwhite societies. White liberals apply their principles WITHIN their societies not OUTSIDE OF the Western world. So just because Gambia doesn’t open its doors to everyone in the world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. They may just have a different moral code than us. And that is acceptable to white liberals.

    Whites in general are preoccupied with morality and that shapes their politics and societies. There are constant appeals to morality in the West. The left exploits this very well. If the right opposes programs aimed at the poor it is because the right doesn’t care about the poor and only cares about the rich. Oppose gay marriage, and you are a homophobe. Oppose abortion rights, and you hate women. Oppose Third World immigration or affirmative action, and you’re a racist. These are all moral defects. The left constantly uses the dominant morality to browbeat its opponents. That is why arguing for white interests is so difficult in the West. There is no moral justification for white interests according to left-wing morality.

    I don’t know that morality in the East is invoked as much in political and social discussions as it is in the West. Even if the East was as morality driven, they have their own moral systems and their moral views don’t seem to promote the replacement of their native populations. It is Western morality that is displacing Western man. Nonwhite societies can even be democratic (like Japan and South Korea) and still be ethnocentric. That is probably because the people there aren’t always calling each other racists like they do here. You don’t hear nonwhites very often call members of their own group racist but you constantly hear whites call other whites racist. The whites who do that are basically calling members of their own group immoral and who wants to be thought of as immoral or evil? They call those people immoral because they are violating liberal morality which does not allow for white interests.

    I suspect that it is in whites’ genes to advocate the moral systems they do. And it’s probably in their genes to be less ethnocentric and less racially conscious as a group than other races. Personality is inherited to some degree and whites obviously behave differently than nonwhites which explains why whites do things the way they do them (including their moral tendencies and how they organize their societies).

    While it seems possible to replace the existing morality with a new one, it doesn’t seem practical. The time it would take to overthrow the existing moral system and replace it with a different one would be very long. And it won’t be in time in America to prevent whites from becoming a minority. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, and I think that is what would have to happen in the West for a new morality to emerge and replace the existing one. A morality that can’t logically prevent the group that built the civilization from being displaced is a defective one and will perhaps be overtaken in the future. Sadly, I think we need to go down before we can come up. A new society built on a firmer foundation that will protect white interests would have to emerge from the wreckage produced by the failed white liberal utopian vision.

    • fsagas

      This is a brilliant piece.

      People here assume that Liberal truths are widely held everywhere including the 3rd world (which they’re not).

    • A Swain

      I comprehend the thrust of your arguments in relation to the Left’s notions of what constitutes morality and what doesn’t.
      However, the Marxist Liberal brand of ‘morality’ is plainly perverted and twisted and is deliberately intended to be because they are in the business of knowingly perpetrating genocide against indigenous White European mankind across the world yet the Marxist Liberal elite would explode into fits of uncontrolled violence were it suggested that non-White Third World populations residing in their own lands of origin as well as the vast colonies of them in occupation of White homelands, need to be culled en masse (which they do, incidently).
      We cannot afford to be patient and amiable in our arguments. It is imperative to remain on the attack by pointing out the sheer idiocy of the Marxist Liberal ideology and the extent of the anti-White hate its adherents harbour to the point of wanting AND working for the absolute extinction of the said White race.
      There are only two methods of retribution and these are trial and punishment. It must be made clear to the Marxist Liberal hierarchy they they are going to be held responsible for what’s happening to indigenous White populations in White motherlands and that they shall be required to pay for their countless crimes against the White race with their lives.
      Their twisted version of morality measured against the morality of Natural Law and the naturally-endowded capacity for species survival inherent in every lifeform doesn’t stand up to credible scrutiny or rationale. In other words, the Marxist Liberal camp are mentally deranged and must be urgently delegitimized and criminalized by whatever means deemed necessary.

      • Sean

        Western societies are Enlightenment based cultures. Enlightenment bases itself around the idea of Natural Law. Natural Law states that the government sanctioned invasion of our homelands is wrong. QED replacement of whites is against our cultural ideals (enlightenment) not the logical conclusion of our societies.

        Sidenote: I love amren because of discussions like these, this organization replenishes my morale after work every day.

      • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

        Spot on my good Brother…you nailed it, I for one would love to see all these Marxist scum swing from a rope,bullet to the head whatever does the job is fine by me..no time for games or playing nice with these Phuckers they want us dead…their one and only goal *IS* White Genocide world wide…

  • Achaean

    There is no way around liberalism and its projenitor cultural Marxism
    and yet we should avoid rejecting in toto the classical liberalism
    Kurtagic correctly attributes to Buchanan. The post WWII political
    configuration was critical to the eventual success of multiculturalism
    and mass immigration. Madison Grant and many others of similar minds
    were classical liberals but by current standards they are Nazis.
    Liberalism is intrinsic to the Western identity but not the liberalism
    of the post-WWII era, feminism, racial equality, etc. These currents
    were added later, and although they do have strong links with classical
    liberalism, we need not give up liberalism in the fight against the
    destroyers of Whites. Race is a key presupposition of classical
    liberalism for only whites developed liberalism, and liberalism has deep
    roots in Western history, and therefore in Western traditions, religion,
    collective ways. Classical liberalism was delimited by this historical
    background, heritage, and white ethnicity. It cannot be
    universal, it can only be seen as a Western way of being, individuality
    and liberty. This liberty presupposes a social background, a strong white
    majority without which liberalism becomes totalitarian
    as it has today in so many ways.

    • razorrare

      classical liberalism
      Kurtagic correctly attributes to Buchanan….nope,incorrect…Paleo-conservativism correctly describes Pat Buchanans ideology or way of life.

      • Achaean

        Paleos don’t reject classical liberalism; they contrast themselves to Neocons not by rejecting limited government, or freedom of the press, and other basic liberal beliefs, but by showing that the Neocon endorsement of liberalism for humanity and interventionism is neither classically liberal nor traditionalist.

        • razorrare

          okay…i get it…classical liberalism describes an older liberalism in time…but should we not refrain from using the term “classical liberalism” if it is going to lead to confusion…any word with liberalism in it i find repugnant…Perhaps that is why Pat Buchanan prefers to describe himself as paleo-conservative…the word conservative has been as much changed as liberalism…there are no conservatives left in the repub party…they are now all trotskyites,just like those on the left.

  • johnofvancouver

    Liberals cannot help but be liberals. It’s in their genes. That is, 40% of the anglo-european population carries the s allele, which drives one’s personality towards a collectivist attitude. Hence the modern liberal’s fondness for statism. Conversely, 60% of the same population carries the L allele which leans towards individualism and innovation. In the East, ie China, Japan, Korea, The s allele is carried by 80% of the population. Once one see’s the evidence provided by genetic research, the cultural differences become obvious.

    (http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2009/10/coevolution-of-individualismcollectivis.html)

    There is a common saying in the East, that the “nail that sticks out get’s hammered down,” whereas in the West, in complete contrast, we celebrate those who accomplishe uncommen deeds such as scaling Mout Everest or inventing Penicillin. When the West opens it’s doors to third-world immigrants who, by and large, carry the S allele the resulting friction and social changes are mathematically predictable. The last election in the U.S. if you use the above figures from the French study, are entirely calculable. Genes define the man, and man defines the culture – it’s really just that simple, or to put it more bluntly, demographics is destiny.

    You cannot convince a liberal of anything using rational evidence and facts. It is akin to showing a card trick to a dog. And that is why all the countries whose populations carry the S allele, coupled with a genetic standard deviation lower I.Q., are poor and riven with collectivist tribal conflicts.

  • Exoplanet Finder

    When all other else fails, bet on the white guy anyway.

  • icelandic

    “The Left even promotes racial and ethnic consciousness—so long as it is
    not white.” This is not altogether true. There was a very prominent “ethnic revival” among white liberal academics in the late 60s and 70s who studied the sociology of the descendant of European immigrants in America. Books like Novak’s “Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics” come to mind. Some others did see being Italian, Polish, Greek etc as being “separate from white” or at least unrelated to white Nordic (sic) privilege which in hindsight was perhaps a mistake but at the time made much sense. Recent immigration from all over Europe was very near not distant like today. Blacks and Hispanics had been defiantly forging their own way in academia without a huge codling and untouchable tenure via white liberals circa 2012. Many whites justifiably felt they could be very angry as well. For instance, the biggest mass lynching in US history was of Italians not Blacks (a white nationalist I know calls that event “a failure of multiculturalism” but that’s another subject). Many Italians were not mixed with Irish and French American stock like they are today so perhaps this was the last stand of “white studies”. There were other attempts by leftist white academics to speak of the Euro-American experience but the post Reagan backlash in racial academia enmasse found white studies steam rolled and thus “anti-white antiracist studies” began to proliferate like a cancer. Race relations via academia have not moved or nor evolved since the early 1990s.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Preston-Wiginton/100001737079760 Preston Wiginton

    NIce words, but words seldom attract people like action does. Every youth I have spoken to in Russia about why they became nationalist they replied it was Format 18, the Russian skinhead group that went out an beat the hell out of immigrants, it was Format 18 that protected Russia, not men with words.

    • http://twitter.com/MacAngheirr MacAngheirr

      real change comes out of the barrel of a gun….now who said that, Mao did..and you know something he was 1000% correct, we Whites are not going to change our dire situation with fancy word play, isn’t going to happen, there will have to be a blood sacrifice and lots of it for any change to the betterment of our Folk.

  • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

    Of all the racialists who speak using persuasive arguments, I would have to say that Mr. Taylor might have a better grasp of human nature and the various dynamics involved than anyone else. So much so that if I happened to be an anti-White cult leader, I would really be fearful of my members hearing him speak.

    The hypocrisy of the anti-Whites is not because of an overabundance or strict adherence to equality; it is precisely a hypocrisy because their “equality” is hinged upon taking away the liberty of someone else. In other words, it is targeted inequality that moralizes its hypocrisy by claiming a higher form of Equality.

    “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” — Thomas Jefferson

    The anti-Whites would take the previous statement and claim that Jefferson would have been for mandates, quotas and laws to make sure there were an equal number of blacks working at Company X as there were Whites. That obviously couldn’t be further from the truth. Liberty lies within the individual and allows him/her to attain goals up to his or her capabilities and talents. Equality is simply designed to not limit the individuals capabilities or talents. Equality is a principle, not an industry. That is the major difference between modern Liberals and classical Liberals when they interpret equality.

    Equality to the White Western man is a good thing. A really good thing. Equality to the anti-White, however, is nothing more than a tool used to bash in the head of the White Western man whenever reason and logic fail to do so. If a black man fails to get a job because it was given to a more qualified White man, they will say it was because of inequality. If a the black man gets the job instead of the more qualified White man, they will call it equality. This is their affliction, and Jared Taylor is absolutely right that the avenue to attacking this hypocrisy of equality is much more fertile territory than to simply attack the idea of equality.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    “The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.”

    This bears repeating…and repeating…and repeating…

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    “Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

    Not to be nitpicking, Mr. Kurtagic wrongly traces the roots of contemporary “liberalism” (I won’t go way back to ancient Greece, Sophists, Protagoras etc.). Classic 19th century liberalism is embodied in the ideas of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill & a few other thinkers. Essentially, it’s a British philosophical tradition, from Locke on. These liberals had been serious people, very empirical & logical, and they’d never exalted the importance of an individual, in a hyperbolic fashion, over interests of a broader society. They tried to harmonize both & their chief word is liberty, not equality.

    Postmodern US “liberalism” is an alloy of a few ideologies-among them loony misanthropic musings of Herbert Marcuse- but I’ve never seen anyone had detected the true predecessor of egotistic-immoralist behavior & way of life of many contemporary “liberals”, German philosopher Max Stirner, in his masterwork “Ego and his own” (Stirner was critiqued by Marx and Engels in their posthumous “German Ideology”). Stirner is now best known as progenitor of anarchism, but he’s much more than that. Of course, his world-view is just one ingredient in postmodern, made-in-USA “liberalism”- but his magnum opus is in many ways prophetic: its absolute egoism & complete disregard for the community lie at the heart of moral degeneracy, in their everyday behavior, of so many “liberals”.

    Sure, they hardly know about him & he’s not a direct ideological influence. But, I’d say he’d prophesied contemporary decadence of that particular ideological class.

    • anmpr1

      Actually, classical liberalism has its genesis in the thinking of Hobbes. His was a fundamental repudiation of Classical (ancient) political philosophy, as he argued that individual right was the basis for civil society. Also, from Hobbes we have perhaps the first inversion of man’s place within the civil order. For Aristotle (and up to the modern era), the polis was seen a logically prior to the individual and/or family [the ground here was Aristotle's Politics, but also the thinking of Plato]. In contrast, classical liberalism, from Hobbes outward, viewed civil society as artificial, a legal covenant based upon right derived from a “free” individual.

      Certainly there were major differences between Hobbes and, say, Locke (for whom the latter would not even mention the former’s name), but in this regard Hobbes was the earlier, and the more prescient of the two inasmuch as he understood the fundamental disjunction between notions of right, liberty and all subsequent civil order. Locke, for his part, still clung to certain Aristotelian derived notions of telos, and then attempted to couple it with a Hobbesian notion of right. Hobbes, for his part, went out of his way to abandon Aristotle, as he [Hobbes] was a champion of the new science. By the time it got to Jefferson, the thing was so confused that it is no wonder we are in such a mess.

      As an anti-Classic, we could also mention Machiavelli, however his position in the development of modernity and liberalism was a bit different. Also, late medieval nominalism can be cited from a an epistemological (but not political) standpoint as supplying a ground for liberalism.

      In any case, while Hobbes understood best of any of the moderns, his and all later thinking must be abandoned if we are ever to recover any political sanity.

  • Rich

    Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

    (1779.6) 160:4.14 Success may generate courage and promote confidence, but wisdom comes only from the experiences of adjustment to the results of one’s failures. Men who prefer optimistic illusions to reality can never become wise. Only those who face facts and adjust them to ideals can achieve wisdom. Wisdom embraces both the fact and the ideal and therefore saves its devotees from both of those barren extremes of philosophy — the man whose idealism excludes facts and the materialist who is devoid of spiritual outlook. Those timid souls who can only keep up the struggle of life by the aid of continuous false illusions of success are doomed to suffer failure and experience defeat as they ultimately awaken from the dream world of their own imaginations.

    The Urantia Book

    • anmpr1

      I have no idea about the Urantia Book, but after the quote you cite (and I cited earlier) Mr. Kurtagic writes: Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

      What Mr. Kurtagic appears to have fallen into, is the trap of historicism. His statement would appear to indicate that knowledge is secondary to, and contingent upon, the social system that the knower inhabits. On a superficial level this is the case, but only inasmuch the “received culture” certainly dominates avenues for possible thinking. But truth is not contingent, and to think so is the result of an epistemological materialism that conflates the idea of scientific empirical probability with an understanding of not only how things operate in the physical world, but the moral, too.

      We must recover the Classical notion that mind is in essence non-material. That is, we obviously point to biology as the material cause of thought, but we must also recognize its formal cause, being the thinker’s ability to grasp universals. It is this latter aspect that is actually transcendental, and ultimately leads to thought’s final cause, which is the end of man. And because of this, the possibility of thinking outside of one’s received culture is available to those who make the effort.

      I frankly do not understand Mr. Kurtagic’s idea that “race realism” is a product of Enlightenment thinking. Classical thinkers (and indeed most men up until the First World War) understood the difference among the races. Obviously there were earlier examples of equalitarianism in politics: for example, the Northern political pogram undertaken against the South after the end of the War of Southern Secession. But even then, it is doubtful that many Northerner’s actually believed that blacks were equal to white men. In fact, the usual argument is made that Englightment thinking was the progenitor of equalitarianism, although in reality, even men such as Hobbes did not have in mind “all” men when they wrote their works. For Hobbes there was still the savage who remained savage. Maybe Rousseau thought differently, but then again he didn’t live among blacks, either.

      When speaking of liberty and equality the author writes, Not all of these values have equal importance.

      One thing that must happen is that we need to get away from notions such as “value” when speaking of morality. Value is an idea derived from the modern day sociology, and is contrary to Classical notions of virtue, which is another thing we must recover if we are ever going to survive as a coherent people.

  • Athling

    This requires a more complete treatment but I can offer a two-part outline on the question of morality. I contend that we hold the moral position. Not the Left.

    Part 1

    The Left views us as a collection of evil people who dislike or even hate others because they are different from us. They see our position on matters of race, culture, and country as immoral. Our supposed immorality and general derangement consists of intolerance, bigotry, racism, white supremacy, and so on. To them we are moral lepars who need to be expelled from society. But are we really immoral in our beliefs?

    We need two definitions to begin with — society and morality.

    A society is a collection of people who share a common history, language, ethnicity, and religion. These are the bonds that tie society’s members together.

    Homogenous societies preserve these bonds. Multicultural societies will eventually destroy them.

    Now we need a good working definition of morality. Then through an understanding of morality, why it is important for society and how it is used in society, we can answer questions on morality with confidence. For instance, we can know that miscegenation is immoral and why it is immoral.

    So what is morality? Where does it come from? What makes one thing moral and another thing immoral? Are there any moral absolutes? What is the purpose of morality in a society? Can we just make up morality as we go along into whatever is fashionable at the time?

    Morality is a system of general principles and particular judgments based on cultural, philosophical, and religious concepts and beliefs. Societies typically generalize, regulate, and codify these concepts into a legal system and laws, thereby regulating behavior. A society’s laws are a reflection of its moral beliefs.

    Morality therefore serves a purpose in society. By regulating moral and immoral behavior it contributes to the protection and preservation of society and its members. Any behavior by a society’s members that lead to the harm or destruction of society and/or its members is immoral.

    When determining or discovering whether or not some behavior is moral we can ask how the behavior affects not only the individual but also the society as a whole. Is the behavior good or bad for society?

    It should also be noted that there are degrees of morality. For example, is smoking immoral? Judging by our defenition, one would have to say yes because smoking harms the individual member of society and possibly others in near vicinity. However, the effect on society as a whole is minimal and therefore the degree of immorality is minimal. We don’t throw people in jail for smoking (yet).

    There are two major viewpoints on how moral and immoral behavior are determined. One is based on rationality and reason as I have outlined here. The other, adhered to by the liberal Left, is based on human emotion and whim. This is the heart of the problem.

  • ImTellinYa

    The Leftist mindset is by definition a mental illness because it denies some very obvious realities. How can they possibly rationalize this denial? Leftist leaders spend all of their time and intelligence doing nothing BUT rationalizing lies and fantasies. Deconstructionism is a good example. Leftists have developed an entire literary science that enables them to define a given “text” as meaning whatever they want it to mean. They apply the same insane methods when it comes to race.

    How can they possibly do this? The original Leftist sin is ingratitude toward God followed by denial of God. Instead of thanking God for giving Whites the intelligence and character to develop science and technology, Whites instead decided that their ability to develop these things made it possible for them to take the place of God and use science as a tool for living life on life’s terms by changing those terms to suit Man (or at least the ruling elite) using some very brutal forms of social engineering that essentially turn men and women into the lab rats of the social engineers. The French revolutionaries and Marxists are early examples.

    Ever since science and technology began to transform the lives of Whites, the importance of God has declined until belief in God is considered a heresy to the religion of science. As it turns out, ordering the basic nature of man using scientific principles proved an early and complete failure. None of it works; freudianism, communism, socialism, fascism or any of the other secular “isms”. All have been catastrophic failures because they require that all people be reduced to the kind of lowest-common-denominator in which everyone is equal and exactly alike, and therefore quantifiable for the very blunt instrument that is the human equation for a secular moral order.

    The failure of secular morality requires the true believers to resort to lying about the results, motives and methods of their murderous ideologies. These lies become part of their scripture and inform everything else in their systems. The ability to lie and enforce fantasies as reality becomes the automatic way of life for Leftists. An example is the very concept of “Gay Marriage.” Gay Marriage simply doesn’t exist. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in the sight of God. Period. Whatever the Leftist power structure is calling “Gay Marriage” certainly isn’t marriage at all. But they truly believe that their lie makes this a reality.

    Originally Whites fought and conquered nonWhite parts of the world for the same reasons that nonWhites attacked and conquered White parts of the world: for material gain and imperial glory. By the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, Whites were routinely defeating massive nonWhite forces with relatively tiny White forces. The technological superiority of Whites at that time was marginal or nonexistent, depending on the nonWhite enemy in question.

    In the Nineteenth Century came an almost total White victory over the nonWhite world. The disparity in force and method was so great that Whites understandably began to marvel at their own superiority as they also began to be highly conflicted about their relationship with God. White imperialists decided that the morally proper way to think of White world domination was to think of it as the “White Man’s Burden.” White men would fight and die in order to civilize an ungrateful savage, nonWhite world. NonWhites would be taken in hand whether they liked it or not and be taught how to achieve a minimum level of civilization as defined by the West. All well and good. In spite of nonWhite resentment, nonWhites have in fact tried to the best of their abilities to copy Whites. Africans and Hispanic Americans are almost totally incapable while northeastern Asians have had a lot of superficial success as far as techical method goes. Asians aren’t terribly innovative, but they are obsessively competent at whatever it is they do know how to do.

    At some point the conflict among Whites resulted in two suicidal world wars, and the victory of the system of lies that is secular morality. White superiority is still glaringly obvious, but it no longer fits the egalitarian, lowest-common-denominator narrative of the Left. So the Left not only has tried to raise up our “little brown brothers” to White levels, but has simultaneously attempted to lower Whites in order to close whatever “gap” the Leftists are disturbed about and blaming Whites for. And while the Left is by definition Godless, the typical Leftist is still very much in the mold of the pious, Victorian, sanctimonious twit who desperately needs to not only be right, but needs to feel marvelous and fabulous about himself compared to other Whites. Leftist Whites use nonWhites as foot soldiers in their creation of a Godless morality. They use them to frighten, and they also use them as pets. Leftists honestly feel that if they “feed” nonWhites, nonWhites will return love.

    The fact that nonWhites don’t and won’t ever even mildly tolerate Whites is just another part of reality that Leftists so skillfully rationalize out of existence. Leftism is horribly self-destructive as a result. Anyone who denies reality is setting himself up for ambush by that reality. The ambush is being sprung on us NOW.

  • Joe Webb

    I just read Mr. Taylor’s response to Alex Kurtagic. it is, to put it simply, perfect.

    To amplify my earlier remarks, and to second Taylor’s, nobody changes their intellectual position by mere thinking. Some intellectuals can change, like myself, once on the democratic left, because of higher intelligence and the ability to face their “contradictions” as the marxists like to say.

    I recall a great essay by E. P. Thompson, the British Western Marxist: The Poverty of Theory. Enough said right there for now.

    People change when enough Fear and Threat stare them in the face. The last “superstructural” element to go is their professed Theory. I recall chatting with a smart liberal woman about current politics. Instead of going head-on, I suggested we address things issue by issue. She agreed. After about 15 minutes, I summed up her presentation as essentially conservative, especially with regard to race. She was very uncomfortable but agreed I was correct. However, she, like a couple other liberals I know personally, have a very difficult time jettisoning the LIberal Ideology as what they believe in.

    Intellectuals have occupational hazards:
    abstractions
    pride
    blinders
    fixed ideas
    Ideas (in the first place. most ideas are bunk.)
    inability to distinguish between thinking and feeling.

    Are there any big differences between lefties, righties, and centrists in this regard? Yes, conservatives value tradition and legitimize what folks like Burke called “prejudices”. The word has changed meaning, but Burke meant the whole unreasoned sense of matters social and political. Reason has little to do with it at the individual level.

    Society and Culture preserve what has organically been slowly grown in a people. LIberals and of course leftish revolutionaries think they dan do better…and this has resulted in one disaster after another.

    Just look at South Africa. Even the Economist Magazine had a title a couple months ago, to the effect of S. Africa on the skids, and another recent story: S. Africa, Cry the Beloved Country. Cry the Beloved country is a novel written about 1951 or so and when I read it at age 12 or so (commie parents) I was convinced that the S. African Whites were Very Bad Indeed. I even remember the author, Alan Patton. (liberal or communist?)
    It was great propaganda.

    So effective propaganda can greatly influence anybody, but when
    Direct Experience comes into play, it is a totally different matter. All the Ideology (false consciousness) simply crumbles when the Truth, naked at last as the cliche has it, appears in all its experiential fullness.

    Today, Race and Economic realities are becoming more and more Revealed. I talk to folks all the time, people I don’t know…they see it. They see the Jewish Wars for what they are. They see, especially where I live in the SF BAy Area’s ultra-affluent Mid-Peninsula, the Mexicans swarming and filling the jails and driving the burglary rates sky-high .( 65% over last year in Menlo Park and more or less the same in Palo Alto.)

    They do not need Theory, but they do respond to our race science and especially to the Global North v. Global South with regard to intelligence, etc.

    The Theory is simple, at least for me. I just tell them I am a Darwinian and survival of the fittest does not mean Individual fitness, but group fitness. They get it.

    Any soaring and cuckoo ideology lilke national socialism is dead on arrival. Populism will be our American (and maybe European as well) way forward. It will lurch and stumble along, but Whites do not want to be herded. Some arrogance says, yeah, trying to herd cats. We are not cats, we are Whites , with a surplus dose of individualism in us.

    We will subordinate ourselves to leaders, but they will have to earn our trust. Certainly, Quixotic amateur Fuhrers need not apply. Joe Webb

  • Joe Webb

    I Just read Mr. Wolff’s response to Mr. Taylor. He points to lots of “theory” that the left-libs have and that is true. However, the intellectual class and the political class of left-libs are not the tens of millions of Liberals who voted for Obama.

    The leftish intellectuals will be shoved aside when the tide turns. Nobody listens to them in the work-a-day world. It is true that not many listen to us either. However, to risk an Obamacommie remark, history,( better… Nature) is on our side. For example , many anti-immigration politicians beat the liberals in the election.

    The main task for us is to survive and make sense and not theorize another springtime for Hitler. The liberals , including Republicans, are busily discrediting themselves. Too bad the Repugs did not win…it would have advanced their decline as well as the libs, even at the risk of world war for Israel

  • Sean

    Jared Taylor is correct, there are no moral barriers to white survival and to pretend that there are merely acknowledges artificial roadblocks to our growing cause.

  • Joe Webb

    My first post on this series was either rejected or my computer skills were lousy. Here goes again.

    I complained about Mr. Kurtagic’s almost total reliance on European thinkers/theorists. His endorsement of Yockey, in the The Occidental Quarterly of Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring 2012), page 6, is even stranger. Yockey was an AH devotee, like a few of his other notables. Get it and read it…fyi.

    Then there is his romance of the “divine.” This reminds me of a a Jewish leftie, Todd Gitlin, who wrote a book on the 60s. He described apparently his own feelings of exaltation of Left Visions as “divine delirium.”

    We do not need romance. American Whites do not want political romance. They are interested in taxes, immigration, and the third world swamping of the US, and globalization and resultant wage deterioration.

    Mr. Kurtagic also claims that it is the “..artists, the novelists, the composers, the philosophers, …the mystics…..the immortal ones who make a culture…”

    Not to go ad hominem, but one wonders about this purple prose.

    Sobriety, pragmatism, and a certain trust in the White genome to finally get it right is part of what we need to pay attention to.

    Intellectuals and artiistes Plato had a plan for. The American people distrust these artistes, for good reason. They have gotten us into this mess, while the dispossessed majority looks askance at the liberal nut-cases and waits for some kind of endgame to what the artistes and intellectuals have dreamed up.

    Populism , American style, will arise. It is arising. Even the Tea-party folks sorta get it.’

    The last thing we need is instruction by Yockey, and Co. Joe Webb

  • http://mstrrick.wordpress.com/about/ Mstr Rick

    I want to thank all three contributors for this reasoned and thoughtful deconstruction of our plight. A most revealing discussion. Much to ponder and reflect on.

  • Joe Webb

    “Finally, Mr. Kurtagic believes that it is the morality of equality that prevents liberals from understanding race, and that this morality must be overthrown before their eyes will be opened.” Jared Taylor.

    I would have guessed that Mr. Kurtagic would have brought in one of his Megaton Geniuses from The Occidental Quarterly, Vol 12, No. 1. That of course would be Comrade Nietzsche.

    Nietzsche would have focused, (but not only) on Pity. I have had many occasions to notice how Pity works amongst most Lefties. They pity the wretched and thank god that they themselves are better. They love the wretched of the earth. But interestingly, they do not love their betters.

    Love is the basis of connection between un-equals within the family , friends, and society . It has its limits but it is very important. Ask the average leftie who his or her betters are. They will stare blankly. My mother was llke that, loved the Poor, but her betters? forget it.

    So, getting back to comrad Nietzsche, his overriding concern was with Pity, and its psychology. Most people in a sorry state do not want pity. They might gladly receive a gift, etc. A gift would be a form of love, but Pity is about the most “unequal” emotion of them all…condescension, etc.

    So, liberals are more moved by Pity, and its complement, resentment. Pity for the poor and resentment for the rich or well endowed. “equality”…you think you’re better than me? etc.
    Liberals also love to embrace relativity…that ends all discussion of a serious nature.

    Most liberals are social climbers in the extreme and mouthing the qualifying words for entry to Liberaldom…that is what drives them along with Pity and Resentment. Pretty ugly, but human, all too human. Joe Webb

  • A Reader

    A reply to Mr. Taylor.
    Although I see your view much closer to the American realities than Mr. Kuragic’s view, there are two points that I part with yours.
    1. You seem to dismiss the fact that modern Liberalism is hostile to America as we know. (This fact alone des not imply that all Liberals are America’s enemy, although many of them do not hesitate siding with our enemies, like the migrating Mexican hordes, for political gains.) In particular, Liberal promotion of Islam is one of many sympthoms of the said hostility.
    2. The ethics of egalitarianism is the non-negotiable obstacle in our efforts to liberate ourselves from modern Liberalism. It is the chain that keeps us all in Liberal captivity. Mr. Kuragic is 100% right in recognition of this fact, and this is the strongest point of his analysis. So, we have slim chances of saving the West without frontal attack on egalitarianis, no matter how cleverly we use the absurdities of Liberal ideology to help us out of the Liberal cage.
    The good news is that most of Americans are not egalitarians. So what we really need to do is to encourage them to let their natural instincts prevail. For that we do not need to invent any new morality for the mainstream Americans. We just need to show them that egalitarianism is against their human nature and is used to entrap them in a system that deprives them of the values that they care about most: individual liberty and good lives.

  • http://twitter.com/elviswinehouse SMASH EQUALITY!

    Mother Nature, natural law, rejects the pathology of equality. There is no equality in the natural world. The opposite of equality is not ‘inequality’, it is uniqueness. Inequality is a loaded term created by marxists. Any moral code that promotes equality is an insidious pathological perversion. By exposing the perverted moral argument of equality, we annihilate the marxist liberal ideology. Even the layman on the street can do this. So I would agree with Kurtagic’s argument rather than Taylor’s.
    The moral basis of Liberalism is fundamentally flawed, and it is quite easy to expose this flaw. Adolph Hitler was absolutely correct when he exposed this flaw in marxist ideology in his book ‘My Struggle’. Natural evolutionary law, the only law that’s truly independent from human construct, totally rejects any notion of equality, in favour of specialization and uniqueness. We can advance white identity and the fundamental right of white self rule in this way. It is an undebunkable argument that makes the jewish marxist race wet their diapers. But really, at the end of the day, we have no apologies to make, and the only language that jews and liberals understand is brute force.

  • baltasar almudárriz

    I will need to read this entire exchange very carefully. As a non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant, I am all too cognizant of the theory-aversion of the Anglo-Saxons. Empiricism, the theory that wants to exclude “theory” dogmatically—-gotta love it.

    • baltasar almudárriz

      Regarding traditions – I think it can be argued that Orthodox Judaism and mainstream Sunni Islam are the rocks that will NEVER (B’ezrat Hashem, Insha’Allah) be corroded by the current PC-Lib infection. The study of both (especially the extensive commentaries) are a mirror of the most ancient insights about human nature). Ironically – one of the best sites for in-depth rabbinic studies is the one set up by Machon Meir (a religious Zionist yeshiva).

  • MBlanc46

    At the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, it was plausible to posit the independence of biology and culture. The hypothesis provides an escape route from determinism, which many people find appealing. It provided a theoretical foundation for the great reform movements of the time. It allowed autonomy to the emerging social sciences. With the advances in genetics since the end of World War II, this hypothesis has been greatly undermined. It was rational to hold the hypothesis in 1913, it is much more difficult to do so in 2013. There is a great investment in the hypothesis. Change will be slow. But already there is greater and greater willingness to recognize that much of culture is grounded in biology. At some point there will be a paradigm shift.