The West IS White Supremecist

Anyone who has been following the recent cultural movement by SJWs and People of Colour™ to undermine the last vestiges of traditional Western civilisation in both Europe and in the Anglosphere has seen the attempt to discredit our remaining institutions by declaring them “white supremacist.”  Building upon their efforts to use Charlottesville, Richard Spencer, and “Neo Nazis” as a foil, practically everything related to the history, institutions, traditions, religion, and heroic mythology in the USA and other Western nations has now been morally reprobated by our modern day Puritans on the radical Left.  America’s police and criminal justice system is white supremacist since blacks and browns find themselves disproportionately caught up in its clutches.  America’s educational system is white supremacist for not granting Harriet Tubman equal time with Thomas Jefferson.  Christopher Columbus has been relegated to the status of mass murderer and genocidal Nazi for merely discovering the American continents.  Figures and institutions in European nations are similarly condemned.  Even such abstractions as logic and reason are openly ridiculed and condemned as white supremacist by anti-white PoCs spearheading the cultural marxist movement to destroy Western civilisation.

On many levels, one cannot blame the white nationalists for reacting as they do.  When someone is – literally – trying to destroy your culture and civilisation and people, it is natural to want to fight back and to expel the intruders, especially when the intruders have a much greater tendency to be socially dyscivic criminals, rapists, welfare mooches, and general troublemakers.

As much as it pains me to agree in any way with the SJWs, however, they are correct in their bare assertions about the white supremacist nature of our institutions.  It is in their reaction to this, in their efforts to undermine and overthrow these institutions, that they are grossly negligent and worthy of our condemnation.  Allow me to explain what I mean.

Let me begin by dispensing with the ridiculous civic nationalist notion that the West, while built by white Europeans and their descendants, could have been done by anyone.  This is not at all the case.  Whites – Europeans and their child stocks – are different people from others.  The fundamental reality about human biodiversity as it relates to whites vis-à-vis everyone else is that they are generally higher IQ than most everyone except for the northeast Asians, and they are generally more aggressive and inventive than the northeast Asians.  Whites combined these and other traits – intelligence, aggressiveness, individualism, inventiveness, speculativeness, and others – to develop a unique set of cultures (Western civilisation) which is really quite different from every other civilisation that this world has produced.  Western civilisation, and by derivation the cultures of its various substituent clades and subclades, is the product of this broad genetic group of people whose inborn traits acted in synergy with their religion and culture and languages.  It could only have been created by these unique combinations, and it cannot be maintained without any or all of the components of these same combinations.

As such, it IS fair to say that institutions in white countries were built by white people and FOR white people.  Hence, they ARE white supremacist in the sense that they operate on essentially white, European-derived norms and assumptions and were created as a result of centuries, and even millennia, of experiences and the agglutination of successful traditions.  White cultures were made for white people, and as recent history continues to show, they only work for white people.  The SJWs and racial grievance-mongers in the radical progressive movement are not incorrect in recognising these facts.

Where they are incorrect is in asserting that there is anything wrong with this.

In point of fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong – not a single, solitary, blessed thing – with whites developing institutions that work for them, even if it leaves other peoples (at least those who refuse to assimilate to white standards of behaviour and mindset) at a disadvantage when trying to navigate within white-originated societies.  The same can be said for any other group of people.  It is equally legitimate for east Asian cultures to structure their societies in ways which reflect their traditions, preferences, and assumptions, even if whites or blacks or browns may often find themselves mystified when trying to manoeuvre their way through.  The same goes for the Indians, for the Muslims, for the Africans, for the Latin Americans.  This is why we have different cultures, and (generally speaking) different countries to go with them.  A place for everyone, and everyone in his place, and all that.

Not surprisingly, this fact has been recognised widely even within this planet’s long history of imperialism.  While conquerors always assert political dominance over their weaker enemies – assessing tribute or slaves or territorial concessions – it is rather rare for imperialists to actually try to eliminate the cultures of their prey and replace them with their own.  The Romans did not do so.  The British did not do so.  The Romans were content to let the Gauls continue to be Gauls, and to operate under their own laws and mores.  The British generally did the same in India and Africa and any other place where the natives were already thickly settled and displayed native cultures.  Typically, the imperialists did not try to navigate these native cultures, but neither did they try to force those they colonised to adopt their own norms.  Individuals may do so, and advance in the imperialists’ own system, but it was not made obligatory to do so.

This is what makes the situation with our modern day SJWs so different.  It can fairly be said that “middle America” and “village Europe” are under occupation by a hostile culture – this being the cosmopolitan, deracinating, post-liberal culture of the transnational élite and their SJW underlings.  SJWism itself seeks to destroy traditional white cultures, those belonging to the “wrong sort of white people.”  I’ve pointed out previously that SJWism is itself a form of cultural imperialism, and it has been elsewhere observed that even the most inane of left-wing causes are really just ways to humiliate and compel submission to SJW culture.

However, SJWism is still essentially a white culture.  All of its assumptions – the goodness of democracy, the equality and fungibility of all peoples, the essential materialism of all its social and economic positions – are basically those of white modernism and flow from the direction of historical forces in play for centuries.  As a result, even SJWism is white supremacy – as the ACLU recently found out.  Thus, the racial grievance movements fabricated by the progressive Left, once they began breaking the chains of their alliance with white leftists, have begun to openly demand that even white liberals “shut up and listen” and fall prostrate before Big Black and Aunty Aztlán.

The problem for these folks is that they find white civilisation, in its entirety, to be structured against them.  And it really is.  After all, if you’re a black who still carries (however subconsciously) a good deal of West African derived culture, then white institutions like patriarchy (patrilocal marriage, men as the primary providers, etc.), private property, the rule of law, and other European-derived social standards will seem somewhat foreign and rankling to you.  This is doubly the case when your distant native cultures (still passed on to you in diluted form even after centuries of contact with whites) originally worked for a low IQ population with low time preferences and high aggression.  In Africa, men could hunt while the women did the “grunt work,” and could fight to the death if “dissed” by other men.  In a high-IQ, high time preference white rule of law culture, this doesn’t work.  When black drug dealers kill each other over turf or honour, they go to the white man’s jail.  (Most) whites see this as entirely just.  Many blacks see it as an affront.  Whites tend to not be sympathetic to a black thug who robs a liquor store and then tries to take away a police officer’s gun, getting shot in the process.  Whites see it as justice served.  Blacks see it as a swipe at their tribal identity and dignity.

And the thing about culture is that it is pervasive.  Despite what many seem to think, culture is not just a matter of  superficialities like “exotic” foods or manners of dress.  Instead, cultures from top to bottom are shot through with interlocking sets of assumptions, mores, traditional modes, and taboos which cannot simply be transferred piecemeal.  In many ways cultures are all or nothing – either you adopt the whole thing or you are left outside.  Cultures are perfectly adapted to sort between the in-group and the Other.

This is why the racial grievance quacks in our Western societies know they have to completely undermine Western civilisation in toto if they are to replace whites as the ruling power in our own countries (and make no mistake, that is exactly what the end game is for the transnational élite, because blacks and browns are generally more pliable and easily cowed than whites are).  No vestige of white, European civilisation can remain.  Hence, the laws and morals must be destroyed.   The statues and heroes must be overturned.  Our history, and especially the classics upon which our traditions and assumptions are built, must be erased from knowledge.  Shakespeare must be replaced with Audre Lorde (I’d never heard of her, either).  Whites must be browbeaten into accepting their own evil and the banishment of their civilisation.  When the white nationalists argue that white genocide is planned, the honest and informed person is hard-pressed to counter their assertion.

This underlies the related claim made by People of Colour™ that “whites don’t have any culture,” presumably because we didn’t dress up in feathers and eat human hearts at our festivals.  Obviously the assertion is ridiculous on its face.  The professional PoCs know this, which is why they’re spending so much time trying to undermine white cultures by simultaneously flooding us with hostile, inassimilable third worlders while seeing to erase every expression of exactly these cultures.  But they have to make the claim if they are to justify these erasures.

The problem isn’t that whites don’t have culture, but that their cultures are too successful, and are practically irresistible when matched against anyone else’s.  Again, whites are different from other peoples, and their cultures will reflect these differences.  Even pre-modern whites, basically everyone from the classical world to medieval Europeans living prior to the Renaissance, thought and acted differently than did other traditional societies.  The Greeks were very different from non-Europeans.  So were the Romans.  So were the Germans who adopted Christian Roman culture.  So were, for that matter, the pagan Vikings.  And so on.  Even the most religiously-minded of Europeans was more rational (though not rationalistic or materialistic) than practically all non-Europeans on Earth during those times.  Whites naturally do philosophy and science and theology and technology, and this is reflected all across their cultures and in Western civilisation.  This is why logic, reason, and even the concept of objective truth itself are now derided as “white supremacist.” These allow whites to do the things that they do. Even when white Europeans were being distempered by modernism, their cultures were still more successful than those they encountered during the march of European imperialism.

Thus, when the professional PoCs talk about “fighting white supremacy,” what they really, actually, truly mean is “overturning Western civilisation,” since that civilisation was built by and for white Europeans and their kindred peoples who colonised major portions of the globe.  Objectively speaking, Western civilisation is superior.  Both in its underlying features and in its overt, empirical results, the West is more successful, more “fit” (in the biological sense of the term) and has brought the world a great deal of underappreciated good.  To see this overwhelmed and destroyed by the machinations of the globalists would be a tremendous loss to humanity.  While there are many elements of the West that need to be unpozzed and restored to their traditional goodness, the overarching structure itself must not be allowed to fall.  If the West falls, high civilisation goes with it.  Hence, we need to recognise that white supremacy, in the sense described above, is not only not bad, but is in fact very good, and very necessary if we are to retain Western civilisation in any sort of recognisable form.

 

This article was originally published at Neo-Ciceronian Times.

The View From Olympus: On the Nature of Fleets

Four recent incidents in the Pacific Fleet, including two in which destroyers collided with merchant ships, killing U.S. Navy sailors, have brought a rash of consequences.  Careers have been terminated, the basics of navigation have received new emphasis (including a wise return to pencils and paper instead of electronic devices) and the Navy’s on-watch/off-watch cycle has been altered.  But one of the most basic reasons for our overworked, overstressed Navy has received no attention.  We seem to have forgotten the nature of fleets.

Fleets are mobile.  This is why navies are so important to would-be world powers.  Moving an army to some distant part of the world and supplying it there is a massive and therefore slow operation.  Fleets, in contrast, can move quickly over long distances.

This is not something new, or a consequence of modern technology.  It came in the 16th century with the displacement of galleys by large sailing ships.  By the time of Sir Frances Drake and the Spanish Armada, ships and fleets could get to any part of the globe accessible by water.  The strategic mobility of fleets was actually undermined by new technology in the form of steam propulsion.  Because steamships had to coal frequently, they were more dependent on the land than were ships driven by the wind.  The replacement of coal by oil for fuel and then of steam by fuel-efficient diesels for propulsion restored most of the strategic mobility ships and fleets had in the day of sail.  Both can now move quickly from home ports to any sea where their presence is required.

What this means, and has meant for centuries, is that most of the time ships and fleets are in their home ports.  Small detachments may be stationed around the world, the gunboats of gunboat diplomacy.  But gunboat diplomacy worked because the gunboat was a reminder of the powerful fleet that could come quickly if the gunboat needed support.  Other than these gunboats and small detached squadrons, the rest of the navy was comfortably at rest in its home harbors.  There was, and is, no need for it to be anywhere else, not only in peacetime but often also in war.  It can go where it needs to when it needs to.

The U.S. Navy seems to have forgotten this central aspect of the nature of fleets – and not only the Navy, but policy-makers who direct the Navy as well.  The incidents in the Pacific Fleet are being ascribed in part to the exhaustion of officers and sailors whose ships are deployed virtually all the time. The Navy claims this shows it needs more ships.  What it actually needs is to remember it is a Navy.  It is by its nature mobile.  Those ships do not need to be deployed, most of them anyway. 

In the past, when navies had to deploy most of their strength over long periods, they had great difficulty sustaining themselves.  The Royal Navy, by the time of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, had developed a unique ability to maintain large fleets on duty blockading French ports for years on end.  Individual ships, not just fleets, found themselves blockading Brest or Toulon for months or sometimes years, touching land only to obtain fresh water and fresh food.  Again, this was easier with sailing ships than with ships powered by engines, and also with crews who had no fixed term of enlistment.

In 1914, when that same Royal Navy had to keep the sea for several months until Scapa Flow could be made into a secure anchorage, the strain on both ships and men was enormous.  That is the same strain now afflicting our Pacific Fleet and perhaps the rest of the Navy as well.  The difference is that it is not necessary.  It is a consequence of forgetting the nature of fleets.

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who is very well read in military history, should understand this.  He should not wait for the Navy to remember the nature of fleets.  Nor should he allow the State department or the White House to make demands on the Navy that reflect ignorance of navies’ inherent mobility.  Most of the time, most of the U.S. Navy’s ships should be in home port.  It is Secretary Mattis’s job to put them there.

The View From Olympus: President Trump is Right About Sovereignty

On September 19, President Donald Trump addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations for the first time.  To the horror of the Globalist elite, the focus of his speech was sovereignty.  In a front-page “analysis” the hyperventilating New York Times reported that he used the term 21 times: “But more important than how he defined sovereignty was Mr. Trump’s adoption of the word itself.”                                                     

Mr. Trump . . . used the words sovereign or sovereignty 21 times.  “Our success”, he said, “depends on the coalition of strong, independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.”

Strong, sovereign nations, he said, keep their citizens safe and enable them to prosper economically.  Strong, sovereign nations, he said, can join together to fight common threats and constitute the irreducible building blocks of world institutions like the United Nations.

Mr. Trump is right.  But to understand just how right he is, we need to look at his stress on sovereignty from the perspective of the new realities created by the rise of Fourth Generation War. 

As I have said many times, Fourth Generation war is above all a contest for legitimacy.  On the one side is the state and the international state system.  On the other side is a vast array of alternative primary loyalties ranging from God through gangs to “animal rights”.

Since World War I, global (and now Globalist) elites have sought to transfer people’s primary loyalty away from the state to supra-national entities: The League of Nations, world peace (the Kellog-Briand Treaty), The United Nations, The European Union, world federalism, etc.  The idea was that by replacing nationalism with internationalism, we could put an end to war.  This was of course a utopian quest; as Martin van Creveld has written, war exists because men like to fight and women like fighters.  But global elites’ feet tend to be anchored in the clouds, not on earth.

Globalism has in fact led people to transfer their primary loyalty away from the state.  But they have not transferred it to Globalist institutions.  Instead, they are transferring their primary loyalties to those more focused, more concrete (yes, God is more real than Globalism), and often more local entities, causes, etc.  In other words, Globalism has ended up feeding Fourth Generation war.

President Trump is correct to stress sovereignty because sovereign states are better able to contest 4GW elements for people’s primary loyalty than are Globalist institutions and causes.  It is much easier to get the average American or Briton or (as President Putin understands) Russian to be loyal to his country than the EU or the UN.  States can still compete effectively for popular legitimacy.  Supra-state, bureaucratic entities, especially those that benefit primarily the elites, cannot.

So President Trump is ahead of the New York Times and the rest of the foreign policy elite that so loathes him in facing the 21st century’s main challenge, uphold the state system in the face of the 4GW challenge.  Does he know that?  Probably not.  His instincts are generally good, and they may give him a valid gut feeling that state sovereignty remains important.  I doubt if he has ever heard of Fourth Generation war, although John Kelly certainly has.  But the unfortunate fact is that almost no one in Washington gets 4GW, in part because it is useless for justifying vast budgets and hi-tech weapons systems.  In Washington, the only war that matters is the budget war.

In the real world, Fourth Generation war changes everything.  The whole foreign policy framework accepted by virtually everyone in D.C. becomes obsolete; the contrasts and conflicts that matter are no longer those between states.  The main threat the United States faces is neither Russia nor China.  It is the spreading collapse of states and the rise among their ruins of an endless variety of 4GW entities and loyalties, some of which easily reach around our vast national security apparatus and establish themselves on our soil, as some have already done.

To confront this threat, we need exactly what President Trump called for: an alliance of sovereign states, ideally of all sovereign states.  Mr. Trump gets it.  Too bad he is the only man in town who does.   

Nazism and Fascism Are Dead

On both sides of the political spectrum the words “Nazi” and “Fascist” have come in common use.  I have bad news for both the nuts carrying swastika flags and the thugs known as the “Antifa” (for the “Anti-fascists”): Nazism and Fascism are dead.

Fascism and its younger, illegitimate brother Nazism were products of specific historical circumstances that bear no resemblance to today’s America.  Both sprang from tremendous anger at the outcome of World War I in two countries that suffered heavily in that conflict, Germany and Italy.  Having agreed to an armistice it thought would lead to a peace based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points, Germany was instead handed the Diktat of Versailles, which both humiliated and impoverished the country.  Thanks to her usual treachery, Italy was on the winning side (she was allied to Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914), but the other Allied Powers treated her with contempt and she gained little at the Versailles Conference, after suffering a million casualties.  Italy had the outlook of a defeated country.

Fascism and Nazism were responses to defeat.  They worshipped strength, despised weakness, and sought to leave behind the whole Christian component of Western culture and return to the value system of the ancient world where power was the highest good.  Fatally, both turned an instrumental virtue, will, into a substantive virtue; the act of will was good in itself regardless of what was willed.  This led to such disasters as Mussolini’s entry into World War II, Hitler’s offhand declaration of war on the United States, and the Holocaust.  Italian Fascism was not race-based, but Nazism offered an ideology’s usual single-factor explanation of history in the form of Aryan supremacy.  As the joke ran in Germany, the ideal Aryan was blond like Hitler and slim like Goering.

There is nothing visible on the American political landscape that is likely to re-create either Fascism or Nazism.  More, each depend on one man, and both Mussolini and Hitler have been dead for more than 70 years.  Mussolini had one potential successor who could have kept the Fascism movement going, Marshal Italo Balbo, but he was killed at the beginning of the war, perhaps not accidentally (he opposed Italy’s entry and asked if Mussolini had gone mad).  Below Hitler, there was no one in the Nazi hierarchy who could have taken over.  The political emptiness of Nazism without Hitler was illustrated by the choice to succeed him as Fuhrer after his death: Admiral Doenitz.

So why do we now have a violent “Antifa” that pretends to be fighting Fascism while themselves behaving like Brownshirts?  The answer is another of cultural Marxism’s words that lie.  The cultural Marxists have given Fascism a new, code-word definition that is contradictory to its actual meaning.  In their vocabulary, “Fascism” is any defense of traditional society and cultural.

Where does this come from?  Actual Fascism was strongly modernist and future-focused, as opposed to “reactionaries” as the Reds.  As is so often the case, it comes from the Frankfurt School and its most creative mind, Theodor Adorno.  In a series of “Studies in Prejudice” that culminated with his immensely influential book The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno argued that all of society’s traditional institutions, starting with the family, produced “prejudice” that became “Fascism.”  His book, which pretended to be a work of sociology (now completely debunked as such), offered an “F-scale” to measure how “Fascist” a person was by determining their attitudes toward every aspect of normal life.  The more normal the person skewed, the higher was his potential to be a “Fascist.”

When the left now uses the term “Fascist” or, less frequently, “Nazi”, it is Adorno’s definition they are using.  Anyone who lives a normal life, with a married mother and father, children, the father as the breadwinner and the mother as the homemaker, going to church, not caring much about politics, is a “Fascist”.  As such, they are all under threat of physical assault by the “Antifa”.

While Fascism and Nazism are dead ideologies, cultural Marxism is an ideology that is alive, dangerous, and increasingly totalitarian.  As we see on too many university campuses, it does its best to prevent freedom of thought or expression.  Any dissent from it makes you “another Hitler”.  Ironically, the neo-Nazis cannot create another Hitler.  But the cultural Marxists might just pull it off.   

Words That Lie

All ideologies take certain words that have commonly understood definitions and give them new code word definitions with different meanings for those in the know.  When the ideologues speak, ordinary people get one message while followers of the ideology get another.  In effect, the words so disfigured become lies in themselves.

My favorite example comes from a debate held at Dartmouth College (before my years there) between the Socialist leader Norman Thomas and my favorite Dartmouth professor, J.C. Adams of the History Department.  The topic was, “Does the Soviet Union want peace?”  Norman Thomas made a long and eloquent speech arguing that it does, quoting extensively from the statements by the Soviet Union’s leaders.  Professor Adams demolished him in one sentence.  He opened the official Soviet dictionary and read its definition of peace: “The state of affairs prevailing under socialism”. In other words, when the Soviets said “peace”, they meant “conquest”.  In their mouth, the word “peace” was itself a lie.

Today’s cultural Marxists’ equivalent is the word “tolerance”.  Everyone knows “tolerance” means putting up with things you don’t like or don’t agree with.  But in their mouths it has a different meaning – one created by Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse in his essay on “liberating tolerance”.  There, he defines “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the Left and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the Right.  This is why campus cultural Marxists can call for “tolerance” while physically attacking conservative speakers.  In their mouths, the word “tolerance” is itself a lie.

The same is true of their unholy trinity of “racism, sexism, and, homophobia”.  The suffix “-ism” is, as the coiners of these words explained, a statement that something is a construct, a mere castle in the air made of cobwebs, the opposite of facts.  But differences between races and ethnic groups taken as wholes are real.  Differences between men and women are real and their traditional social roles reflect their inherent differences.  And moral disapproval is not the same thing as a “phobia”, which means an unreasoning fear.  In the cultural Marxist’s mouths, the words “racism, sexism, and homophobia” are themselves lies.

Now there is a real racism and, to a lesser extent, a real sexism and homophobia.  Real racism is assuming that every member of a race or ethnic group shares all the characteristics of the group; in fact, individual variation is wider than group norms.  There is a small number of women whose wires are crossed at a point where they want to live the lives of men.  And some people who are nasty to gays do have an irrational fear of them.  But in the large majority of cases, what the cultural Marxists call “racism, sexism, and homophobia” are simply recognition of facts, not constructions.  Nothing can be both a fact and a construction; the two are opposed by definition.

Conservatives should respond to the Left’s charges of “racism, sexism, and homophobia” by accusing them in turn of “ismism”.  Ismism is a totemic belief that facts can be nullified by calling them names ending in “-ism”.  It is magical thinking, divorced from reality but enforced by the cultural Marxists where they can, which is mostly on college campuses (under the Trump administration, dare we hope that the federal government will cut off all funding including research grants to colleges and universities that enforce cultural Marxism?). Should the cultural Marxists ever take power nationally, God forbid, they would do what we have seen in Europe and in Canada and make any factual correction of their ideology “hate speech”.  In cultural Marxists’ mouths, “hate” is another word that lies; it means any defiance of cultural Marxism.

The history of the 20th century is a vast pile of skulls and bones, made up of the victims of ideology.  As Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology.  Let us hope the 21st century sees conservatism vanquish all ideologies and give us peace – real peace, not peace as the Soviets defined it.

American Anarchy Vs. European Anarchy

Most of my day to day focus in terms of politics and writing is on the situation in Western Europe. Ever since traveling there as a teenager and early twenty-something, the existential crisis the continent is facing has been an obsession I can’t get past, and the implications of that crisis seem to clearly denote its significance, and the imperative of attempting to understand it. In this regard my eyes are often turned far afield from the U.S. 

The events of recent weeks, however, have made it equally impossible not to focus on America’s existential dangers. The riots in Charlottesville and Berkeley, and the national “conversation” surrounding them (or “proliferation of fake news and virtue-signaling” if you prefer) has demonstrated that our own nation faces perils just as serious as those facing Sweden or Germany or France, and that a large degree of societal disruption is likely on the horizon. 

However, while the coming turbulence–or what the authors Neil Howe and William Strauss call the coming “Fourth Turning”–looks to be equally intense on both sides of the Atlantic, it is clear that there is a fundamental difference between the two situations.[1]

This difference has its roots in the varying immigration policies undertaken by each over recent decades, and the respective results of those policies.

In Europe, the half century since WWII has been defined by massive levels of Muslim immigration. Beginning with the working-class male Gastarbeiters of the 1950s, and then segueing to the family-reunification policies that started in the 1970’s, and the so-called “migrant crisis” of today, these policies have resulted in the wholesale transformation of Western Europe in ways that would have once seemed unimaginable.

Today, we see vast “No-Go Zones” ruled by a mix of Middle-Eastern gangs and Muslim religious leaders, where native European paramedics and police can only venture with military-strength escorts. We see increasingly bifurcated politics, where entire political parties are defined by their Muslim voter base, whether in the case of radical leftist parties in unholy alliances with such voters, or, increasingly, in the specter of Muslim-only, Sharia Law-supporting parties in countries like France, that campaign on openly Islamist platforms. Furthermore, we see the radical demographic transformation that has ensued, where the male 18-30 year old demographic in countries like Germany and Sweden already is or will soon be majority-Muslim. [2][3]

As a result of all this, we see societies that are effectively split in half between their native citizens and their Muslim immigrant populations (or split into thirds, if you consider their culturally suicidal Left-wing native citizens one group and those opposing cultural suicide as another).

Either way, the landscape for impending anarchy is set, and is defined by the separation between Muslim immigrants on one side and native Europeans on the other.

In America however, we see a different situation. Here, our post-WWII immigration policies have been on a similarly massive scale, but have been defined by widespread immigration from all over the world.

Indeed, our immigrant class comes from a hodgepodge of backgrounds. We have Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Central Americans, Pacific Islanders, and dozens upon dozens of other groups. In many ways these immigrants have “assimilated” far better than Europe’s, if we are looking at “assimilation” as a product of economics and business and geography. Our capitalist system has ensured a “melting pot” geographically, where each immigrant group is spread out across the country, and has ensured that nearly all such immigrants learn English.

In terms of shared unity, and a shared vision of oneself as part of a singular national ‘honor group’ however, we have seen virtually no assimilation.

This is not the fault of the immigrants themselves, but rather the system. The idea that a Vietnamese family in Glendale is going to view themselves part of the same ‘tribe’ as a Pakistani in Maine or a Nigerian in St. Louis is ridiculous. In this regard, mass immigration in America has only made the country more atomized. Nobody feels as though as though they are part of an “us”, and societal trust has gone down dramatically.

This shopping mall multiculturalism can appear to work when the economy is humming and everyone is a well-paid, high-spending economic agent, but the real danger is apparent when one considers any form of economic turnaround or emergency.

When things get bad, as they have over and over throughout human history, will our atomized society really come together as one? History would suggest that anarchy and violence are far more likely.

In this manner, while Western Europe’s impending destabilization is defined by the demographic bifurcation of its population, America’s is defined by the radically-heterogeneous and anarchic nature of its own.

These differing dynamics will likely define how things progress over the coming decade in each region, and how whatever impending turbulence that is in store for us plays out.

While it has often seemed to me that Europe is destined for a far bleaker future than the U.S., I think in some ways the simple duality of the situation there is preferable to the confused, messy landscape of our increasingly “diverse” America. 

In our already complicated 4GW landscape, a battlefield with two sides seems easier to navigate than a battlefield with infinite ones.

Bibliography

Neil and William Strauss. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy – What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. Broadway Books. 1997. Print. https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464

Black Pigeon Speaks. “Germany Crosses The Demographic RUBICON: 20-35’s a MINORITY by 2020”. Black Pigeon Speaks via Youtube. 18 Mar., 2016. Web. 3 Sep., 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF9V8POmuxg

Langness, Julian. “Just How Bad Are Sweden’s Demographics?”. Europeancivilwar.com. 19 Jan., 2017. Web. 3 Sep., 2017. http://www.europeancivilwar.com/just-how-bad-are-swedens-demographics/

Author Bio

Julian Langness is the editor of Europeancivilwar.com, and the author of Fistfights With Muslims In Europe: One Man’s Journey Through Modernity. He is also the author of the upcoming book Identity Rising: How Nationalist Millennials Will Re-Take Europe, Save America, And Become The New ‘Greatest Generation’, due out later this year.

The View From Olympus: A 4GW Opportunity for the National Guard

We are accustomed to thinking of the reserve and National Guard as back-ups for the regular armed forces.  In Fourth Generation war, those roles reverse: the regulars are back-ups to the home guard.  Why?  Because in a contest for legitimacy on a country’s own soil, the home guard is made up of local people, while active duty forces can seem like invaders.  More, the home guard’s usual function is to help people in times of disaster, so citizens see the guard through that lens.  Who is not going to welcome a couple of guys in uniform who show up at their flooded house to take them to safety?

We have seen this at play out in the flooding in and around Houston.  But we have also seen something that is in some ways more interesting, and that also offers the National Guard an opportunity to strengthen its legitimacy.  Many of the rescues and resupply missions have been carried out by ordinary citizens.  Some, such as the Cajun Navy of shallow draft boats, had organized and planned beforehand to respond to flooding.  Many other efforts have self-organized, as individuals with useful abilities have reached out to others, come together, and brought what they can do to Houston.

Because these volunteers get no pay, often incur major costs (including time off at work), and sometimes put their own lives on the line, their legitimacy is off the charts.  If the National Guard could tap into that, it would gain legitimacy itself.  In 4GW, legitimacy is the bitcoin of the realm.

How could the Guard do that?  Not by trying to take over the volunteers’ efforts — that would turn many ordinary people against the Guard — but by offering them helpful support.  The Guard could usefully undertake a study of how it could best support volunteer’s efforts in time of emergency.  But it is not difficult to identify some capabilities the Guard could offer.  In return for volunteers simply signing up on some kind of register, either beforehand or when disaster hits, the Guard could give them:

  • Legal immunity.  Some states have “Good Samaritan” laws that protect ordinary people who are trying to help in an emergency from being sued for injuring someone in the process. But not all do, and a certain type of lawyer may be following the rescue boat.  People on the Guard register could be protected from that.
  • Communications and coordination.  The Guard could put volunteers in touch with others offering similar capabilities, help them coordinate and tell them on a real-time basis where the help is most needed.
  • Nationwide notice of need.  While many volunteers will be local, some specialized capabilities could usefully be mobilized on a nationwide basis.  For example, in the Houston flooding, floatplanes could be highly useful.  Given airplanes’ speed, the Guard could notify floatplane owners on the register across the country that they were needed, and even reach overseas (The Japanese Navy still has big flying boats, and Russia has excellent aircraft for fighting forest fires).

As 4GW grows on American soil, which regrettably seems likely, keeping our nation together will require national institutions that still have legitimacy as the Federal government as a whole loses legitimacy.  I cannot think of another institution that could fill that role as well as the National Guard.  In turn, any steps we can take now to further strengthen the Guards legitimacy are of strategic importance (including separating it completely from the regular army, with “National Guard” rather than “Army” on the uniforms, and giving the Guard its own budget).  One such step would be for the Guard to help and support the volunteers who are making so much of a difference in the Texas floods and will in disasters yet to come.

The View From Olympus: A Strategy for Disaster

Last week President Trump laid out his new strategy for Afghanistan.  Actually, it wasn’t his and it wasn’t a strategy.  His strategy, one he talked about numerous times during his campaign, was to get out of what he correctly called a futile war.  The “strategy” he laid out last week was, as his speech made clear, not his but his generals’.  He abandoned his (usually right) instincts and deferred to them.  He might want to ask Kaiser Wilhelm II how that worked out for him.

The generals’ strategy reflected what the Pentagon defines as strategy, which is to do more of the same thing tactically.  This is the classic, Second Generation war “strategy” of accumulating kills in a war of attrition.  We will “take the gloves off”, put more long range, remote firepower on more targets and thereby move more quickly to defeat at the moral level.  There is no surer way to lose a Fourth Generation war.  But it is all the U.S. military knows how to do.  It’s a one-trick pony, and its one trick is to poop on its own head.

If this were all the president had laid out, it would add up to nothing.  Unfortunately, there is more.  And that “more” is a recipe for strategic disaster.

President Trump was correct in saying the key to defeating the Taliban is cutting the cord that links it to Pakistan.  As I have pointed out in previous columns, so long as Afghanistan is allied to India, Pakistan has no choice but to support the Taliban.  A Taliban government will de-allign with India and ally with Pakistan, which is all that can save Pakistan from being caught in a two-front threat.

But instead of calling for Afghanistan to sever its Indian connection, President Trump, acting as the mouthpiece of his generals, said we are going to try harder to engage India in Afghanistan.  Nothing could do more to push Pakistan and the Taliban closer together.  Our new Afghan “strategy”directly contradicts itself.

If the only result of that contradiction were to make our Afghan war even more futile, that would be bad but not catastrophic.  Regrettably, it points to an American defeat far worse than anything that can happen in Afghanistan.  It promises further pressure on an already-fragile Pakistani state, with the potential of causing that state to collapse and turn Pakistan into another happy hunting ground for Fourth Generation entities — a happy hunting ground where the game is nuclear warheads.

All that currently holds Pakistan together is its military.  If, as President Trump suggested, we are going to ramp up pressure on Pakistan to do what it cannot and renounce the Taliban, that pressure is likely to include cutting off money and weapons we now provide to Pakistan’s armed forces.  Unless someone else steps in to fill the gap (perhaps China), that will weaken the only glue holding Pakistan together.

We have seen the disaster that results when we help destroy a state in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and in Afghanistan itself, where before 9/11 the Taliban had proved the only effective government since the monarchy fell.  But the collapse of the Pakistani state would be far worse.  In addition to loose nukes, we would face tens of millions of refugees, competent soldiers now for hire, mass murder on a vast scale (with Pakistan’s Christians first on the list) and God knows what else.  As they saw their state disintegrating, Pakistan’s generals might decide to take out their old enemy India with them and nuke every Indian city.  I am told the Indian military realizes that a failed state in Pakistan would be much more dangerous to them than is the Pakistani state, and for that reason have opposed a conventional war with Pakistan they know they would win.

      But our generals do not seem to be as smart as Indian generals.  The “strategy” they have foisted on a reluctant president is self-contradictory, potentially disastrous and just plain stupid.  The president would have done better to take strategic advice from the good ladies who clean the White House, the nut cases in Lafayette Park, or the cabbages in Mrs. Obama’s White House garden.  Or, better yet, listen to his own instincts.  Had Kaiser Wilhelm II done that, the House of Hohenzollern would still be on the throne in Berlin, just as God intended.

The White Right Rises

One reason Donald Trump won last year’s election was that he was widely perceived as the white candidate.  This marked something more important than his election: the rise of white political consciousness.  As other racial and ethnic groups have done for some time (“La Raza” means “The Race”), whites are increasingly defining themselves by race rather than class.  Like other groups, they perceive they have group interests as whites and they are willing to work and vote for those interests.  This is entirely legitimate. 

But why are whites seeing their interests best served by the right rather than the left?  Because the left is now dominated by cultural Marxists, and cultural Marxism defines all whites as evil “oppressors.”  Just as classical economic Marxism labelled all capitalists and landlords as evil, regardless of what individuals did (many cared about and for their employees), so cultural Marxism considers all whites bad to the bone (unless, maybe, they are gay).  Whites are supposed to do nothing but grovel endlessly in the dirt before “people of color”, apologizing for being white. 

Not surprisingly, a growing number of whites aren’t buying it.  It is not conservatives but cultural Marxists who have created the rise of white political consciousness.  If you keep kicking a dog for being a dog, eventually it does what dogs do and bites you.  Cultural Marxists would do well to remember that when whites get mad enough to bite, the bite is often fatal.

That brings us to recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.  Lost in all the howling and weeping about “hate” (in cultural Marxism’s lexicon, “hate” is any defiance of cultural Marxism) is what sparked white outrage in the first place: an ideologically-driven, ahistorical decision by the town government to remove a statue of General Robert E. Lee from the city park.

It is understandable why many white Southerners were angered.  Lee was no fire-eating pro-slavery agitator.  He opposed Virginia’s secession.  Lincoln offered him command of the Union armies.  But when Virginia did secede, Lee felt he had no choice but to go with his state.  Like many people of his time, his primary identification was with his state, not the United States.

Lee contributed greatly to the nation’s healing after the Civil War by refusing to endorse plans to continue the fight with guerrilla warfare.  That could have given the country another decade or more of war.  After the conflict was over, Lee was respected in the North as well as the South.  Who do the cultural Marxists on the Charlottesville city council think they are to attempt now to turn Lee into “another Hitler”?

In this and other instances of assaults on statues and markers commemorating the Confederacy, Southern whites are right to organize, protest, and demonstrate.  However, unlike in Charlottesville, they should never initiate or escalate violence.  Doing so will almost always work against them and their cause.

Understanding why this is so requires knowing how Marxism (both versions) works.  Marxism takes certain Christian virtues, such as concern for the poor, carries them to extremes and then turns them back on traditional society as weapons.  Until there is no poverty, no misery, no unhappiness even, the fight for “social justice” must go on.  Since perfection is impossible, the assault must continue forever.  In cultural Marxism, these attacks fall under the label “critical theory”.

One outgrowth of “critical theory” is that there can be no higher moral category than “victim”.  When whites initiate or escalate violence, they give “victim” status to anyone on the other side that gets hurt.  Since many Americans have been psychologically conditioned by cultural Marxism, they identify with these “victims” — and cultural Marxism wins another round at whites’ expense.  This is why, as one of the founders of cultural Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, said, it cannot be defeated by violence.

Whites who rally against cultural Marxism, in defense of Confederate history or anything else from America’s past, must be prepared for violence.  As we have seen on too many campuses, elements of the left will physically attack conservatives if they think they won’t get their backsides kicked.  If the left starts the violence, it forfeits “victim” status and we can win (unless we escalate).  If Southern whites want to win our second civil war, the war against cultural Marxism, they have to know their enemy and fight smart.  The South cannot afford a second defeat.

Death and Taxes

Two major issues bedeviling the Trump administration are health care and tax reform.  The key to resolving both is remembering that President Trump was elected a populist, not a Republican.  So far, what the Republican Party has offered on both issues has been its usual disinterest in the problems of people who are not from the .1%.  That includes most people who voted for President Trump.  Kicking your base in the butt is usually not smart politically.

What might the White House propose if it sought to offer populist solutions?  The key to health care is attacking the root of the problem:  vastly excessive prices.  Just as with the word “military”, if you can label something “medical” you can move the decimal point: everything costs ten times as much as it should.  I have a hospital bill sent to my grandfather, Bill Sturgiss, in 1952, his last year.  Everything except medications (which he got at half price as a druggist) came to $10 per day.  Accounting for inflation, that would equal about $200 a day now.  But a hospital room is not $200.  It is many thousands. 

I know of only one way to rein in costs:  Medicare for everyone, including prescription drugs.  I have been on Medicare for five years, and it works well.  It does not cover everything;  I also have supplemental private insurance.  But it covers the basics, which is what people most need.  That is what populist policies seek to do. 

How does Medicare control the cost? Simply. The provider bills x amount, but medicare says, “We only pay x-y.”  The provider cannot charge more.  Medicare for all would extend this pricing power to prescriptions.  If some profiteering scumbag buys a patent on an old, inexpensive medicine and raises the price by a factor of 500, Medicare would say, “Sorry, you will take the old price and like it.”  Any provider who now takes Medicare would have to accept the new, expanded Medicare.  Of course, people could pay from their own pocket for treatments beyond what Medicare considered justified.  But, again, for the people who voted for President Trump, the basics would be covered.  He would have delivered for his base.

Medicare also has the clout to take on a big and expensive problem into today’s health care: keeping people alive who have reached the end of their natural lifespan.  Often, the treatment is pure torture for the people involved.  They know it is time to go.  But the hospital will not let them.  And after torturing them uselessly for weeks or months, when the release comes, the provider sends an enormous bill to Medicare.  Who benefits?  Certainly not the patient.

One step in the right direction would be to allow people to choose hospice care over life-prolonging treatments when they want to.  Now, a doctor has to certify that further treatment is hopeless.  The decision should belong to the patient, not an entity that makes a great deal of money from prolonging treatment.  This is not assisted suicide.  It is just letting nature take its course while providing relief from pain.

On taxes, the White House could propose a populist tax bill with two basic elements.  The first is a series of reforms to the tax code, including large cuts in corporate taxes, that stimulate investment and create good-paying jobs.  There are policy institutes in Washington that specialize in determining how tax cuts should be structured to foster economic growth.  Not all tax cuts do so.  And some taxes, such as the federal gas tax, should be raised.  Our highways are falling apart and we need money to fix them.

What would make this tax bill populist is that it would raise, not lower taxes on the rich.  It should include a tax rate of at least 75% on all earned incomes over $1,000,000 a year.  Who needs more than $1,000,000 a year to live on?  Are they feeding the cat caviar?  The tax should not cover unearned income because that would discourage investment.  But the President’s populist base would get it that he is not just proposing tax cuts for the rich.

By adopting a populist rather than a Republican agenda, President Trump could potentially remake politics for a generation.  The next big political realignment will be uniting the anti-establishment elements in both parties, .i.e., the Trump voters and the Sanders voters.  A populist agenda can do that.  It is going to happen, from the left if not from the right.  It is in President Trump’s interest, and ours, that it be done from the right.