Two things have mystified the Francis Fukuyamas of the world about non-Western peoples and their way of ‘adopting democracy.’ One is these peoples’ annoying propensity to produce rulers who stuff urns, crack heads, and throw opponents in prison. The other is that even when such peoples do manage to squeeze out a ‘fair’ election, 50+% of them vote for some brutal lunkhead completely unpalatable to Right-Thinking Westerners:
In 1985, a 19-year-old black woman named Donna participated along with six other perpetrators – three of them women – in the abduction, gruesome torture, and murder of a 60-year-old real estate broker, Thomas Vigliarolo. After gaining access to Vigliarolo by claiming to be prostitutes, the perpetrators drove him to a Harlem apartment, stripped him naked, tied him to a bed, and tortured him to death for over two weeks while demanding a ransom of $430,000.
One of the women explained why she shoved a yard-long metal rod up Vigliarolo’s rectum: “He was a homo anyway . . . When I stuck [it in] he wiggled.”
We knew it was going to be this way: liberals are going to get indignant and obstructionist about any policy that President Trump tries to enact over the next four years, no matter how reasonable or unremarkable it may be in actuality. It will be a continual source of amusement to see what new alleged slights to human decency liberals will discover to get angry about in the years to come.
(Please note that I use the term “liberal” deliberately rather than Leftist, considering that liberalism encompasses not only the Left but much of the Right as well in American politics as it stands.)
President Trump is adding further venom to the raging sectarian hatreds tearing apart Iraq and Syria by his latest ill-judged tweets. These have far greater explosive potential than his better known clashes with countries like Australia and Mexico, because in the Middle East he is dealing with matters of war and peace. In this complex region, the US will have to pay a high price for switching to a vaguely belligerent policy which pays so little regard to the real situation on the ground.
What is the difference between a “people’s uprising” and “dangerous populism”?
As far as I can tell from trawling the media’s usage of these terms, a “people’s uprising” is often violent, but it never seems to worry the media nor the powers that be.
“Populism,” on the other hand, is framed as a dangerous metastasizing of a rancid, stupid peasantry’s baser instincts. These rubes are so dumb, they are easily manipulated by oligarchs that are only lying to them and don’t really care about them at all. Although it hardly ever manifests in violence, well, you know, many considered Hitler to be a populist, and we all know how that ended, right?
an idea that [as far as] public feelings of security and trust in the judicial system, southern and northern Italy should be treated as two separate countries.
the sense of necessity in terms of obeying the rules and moral condemnation of corruptive conduct in authoritative organs is much higher than in the South.”
In my earlier entry, we saw that the thing that made the difference between WEIRD Northwestern Europeans and their more clannish neighbors was the selective pressures that each underwent during their histories – particularly since the fall of Rome until the present. This era in time established the conditions in which different sorts of individuals survived and reproduced, eventually leading to the modern world as we know it.
As before, it is to be understood that these differences have a genetic basis. That is, they are heritable. This means that genetic differences between different peoples lead to differences in their behavioral traits, which, collectively, manifests as cultural differences. We should be clear that all human behavioral traits are heritable, with “nurture” (as it’s commonly thought of) playing a minimal to nonexistent role in each. As John Derbyshire put it, “if dimensions of the individual human personality are heritable, then society is just a vector sum of a lot of individual personalities.” The rest of this entry proceeds assuming an understanding of this reality.
To recap, in Northwestern Europe it was bipartite manorialism that selected for a certain type of people not seen elsewhere in the world.
The most compelling alternative to ethnic nationalism is what we might call “meritocrat” or “individualist” nationalism. This is a system in which people are allowed to migrate to a country on a meritocratic basis. In other words, whether a person is allowed to come into a country is solely determined by whether they are, in some respect, good enough. In the real world, these meritocratic criteria usually have to do with occupational status, health, and income. In theoretical discussions, the idea of only letting immigrants in who have a certain IQ score is also often brought up.
This proposal has many attractive qualities. The most often cited problems with immigration, welfare abuse, crime, political ideology, etc., could seemingly be avoided by only allowing certain kinds of immigrants in. Why, then, should we care about what ethnic or racial group an immigrant belongs to?
Anti-globalization in the 1990s and early 2000s was overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the Left. But now that the mantle of anti-globalization has been taken up by the Right, it will be interesting to see how many on the Left do an about-face, and also to see if the Right can succeed where the Left has consistently failed.
Many people have been taken aback by the seemingly endless amounts of ”Executive Orders” and major new policies being implemented by Donald Trump in such a short period of time. No sooner has one order been given than another appears, and then another. Discussion of one policy, for example the wall, begins to hit the headlines and social media, only hours later, or perhaps a day later, to be succeeded by something else, for example the ”Muslim Ban” or a 5 year ban on lobbying. It’s all rather bewildering, even to people who’re delighted by what Trump is doing.
Among schoolgoys, there is a rather vindictive prank one can do to a classmate who has left his backpack or bookbag unattended, known as skinning. The bag is emptied of its contents, turned inside out, and then zipped back up with all of its contents inside.
This article will consist of three parts. In the first, we will look at how regions and populations have varied in their technological, economic, and scientific advancement going from the ancient world to the present. Then I will review research showing that modern national wealth can be predicted based on how advanced a society was long before the industrial revolution or even recorded history. Finally, I will draw out some important implications that this research has on immigration and history.
If a prize were awarded for the worst policy idea, one that would waste billions in some futile quest for the impossible, the indisputable winner would be uplifting the academic bottom by fixing their “bad schools.” It is a seductive idea that never seems to die despite repeated failures; it even seduces free-market conservatives infatuated with school choice remedies. What can possibly explain such stupidity?
By most measures, Michael Eric Dyson is an accomplished man. He is an ordained Baptist minister, and after stints at universities as prestigious as Brown, DePaul, and Columbia, he is now a professor of sociology at Georgetown. He is a regular commentator on television and radio programs, he has written over a dozen books, all published by well-respected houses such as Oxford and St. Martin’s. For a public intellectual, this is as good as it gets.
Meritocracy is rare indeed, however far back in history we may look. Member-of-my-family-ocracy, on the other hand, can be found almost everywhere. Political dynasties are as old as time. Ancien régime France let state posts be passed down from father to son, like a house. In clannish Arab lands today, one’s spot in college, the army, or the civil service is largely determined by the power of one’s relatives. David Pryce-Jones on Arab society:
To take the everyday matter of wanting to obtain a job, a young man approaches the head of his family or clan, his patron. The head of the family is under obligation to do his very best to make sure that his kinsman is given what he asks for. The honor of the whole family is at stake. […] In the event of the job going to someone else, the patron becomes the object of shame, and his standing is under threat […] Whether or not the young man deserved the job is no kind of consideration. Civic spirit, the good of the community, or mere consideration of who could best perform the job in hand has no part in these proceedings.
White Nationalists believe that our race will become extinct unless we create homogeneously white homelands where our people can reproduce and fulfill our destiny, free from the interference of others. Yet even whites who find this idea appealing think that actually creating white homelands would be impossible or immoral. For the ethnostate requires ethnic cleansing. Borders must be redrawn, and tens of millions of people must pick up and move.
If Europe is to be preserved, every single African, Middle Eastern, and South or East Asian immigrant must leave, and all their descendants too. In the majority-white colonial nations of North and South America and the Antipodes, some provision should be made for the remnants of indigenous populations, and perhaps some territory should be set aside for the descendants of non-white slaves. Yet millions of recent immigrants and their families must still be repatriated.
But how is that even possible? And how can it be morally justified?
Martin Scorsese’s Silence is a very fine film that seems to belong to an entirely different world. Imagine what American movies would be like if our film industry were not controlled by hostile and decadent aliens who have weaponized the medium against European man and culture. Silence is such a film. It is wholly untouched by political correctness and white guilt or self-abasement. Instead, Silence is the story of self-confident, expansionist whites battling non-white savagery.
Silence is about Portuguese Jesuit Missionaries in 17th-century Japan, who had converted large numbers of Japanese to Christianity before the Japanese government, alarmed at the threat to their culture and sovereignty, launched savage persecutions that extirpated organized Christianity and drove the remnants underground for more than 200 years, until the Meiji restoration established religious tolerance in 1871.
Some people would argue that 2016 was the year that the world economy started to come apart, with the passage of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Whether or not the “coming apart” process started in 2016, in my opinion we are going to see many more steps in this direction in 2017. Let me explain a few of the things I see.
 Many economies have collapsed in the past. The world economy is very close to the turning point where collapse starts in earnest.
Sometime in the early 1970s, William Pierce (1933–2002) — founder of the white nationalist organization the National Alliance — was invited to speak at a private high school in Maryland. That he was invited to speak at any school is surprising. That it was the Indian Spring Friends’ School, operated by Quakers is truly remarkable. Pierce spoke to his young audience about his belief that whites must form a strong sense of racial identity and pride if they are to survive as a people. After his talk, Pierce was rendered speechless by one young (white) man’s question: “Why do you think it’s so important for the white race to survive?” Now, one would think that Pierce, of all people, would have had a ready answer to this question. But in fact he didn’t — or didn’t yet.
This is Rebel Yell – a Southern Nationalist podcast of the Alt-Right. I’m your host Musonius Rufus. Joining me are my cohosts Mencken’s Ghost and Ryan McMahon. For our 53rd episode of Rebel Yell, Ryan Landry returns to the programme.