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.


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.

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.

Langness, Julian. “Just How Bad Are Sweden’s Demographics?”. 19 Jan., 2017. Web. 3 Sep., 2017.

Author Bio

Julian Langness is the editor of, 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.

Mormons and Jihadis: Parallel Revolts Against the Modern World

We have all become familiar, at this point, with the doctrines of groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. The theological underpinnings, the history of Salafism and Sayyid Qutb, the crucible of 1980’s Afghanistan, have taken on tremendous significance as our existential battle with Islamism grows.

What we know less about is the culture of the Islamists, the daily lives of Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and Chechnya and the deserts of Syria. This is starting to change however, as writings on the subject begin to emerge. Thomas Hegghammer recently gave a speech in which he discussed the question of “What jihadis do in their spare time”.1 Hegghammer spoke about the love of poetry that exists within their ranks. The New Yorker recently published a similar article, describing ISIS fighters relaxing after battle, sitting around reciting poetry and songs to each other.2

Hegghammer also spoke about the tendency of Islamist fighters to weep openly, an action mirroring their tendency to declare their “love” for their brothers.3 He writes: “It is curious, for example, that Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi should be known simultaneously as al-dhabbi (the slaughterer), and al-baki (he who weeps a lot).” He continues that “These ‘soft’ activities pose a big social science puzzle, in that they defy expectations [of groups such as ISIS]”.

Beyond this question of “hard men doing soft things”, as Hegghammer calls it, such behavior also calls to my mind an interesting parallel, as it reminds me greatly of the Mormon patriarchs I grew up around, who were equally given to such proclamations, and equally comfortable with crying publicly.

In a 2012 article on Mormon men, Kristine Haglund discusses their propensity for weeping at church services, where they articulate their thankfulness for their family and friends.4 She states that “They cry standing at the pulpit, speaking of their wives and children and of Jesus. They cry when they describe their friendships with the men they do volunteer church work and play basketball with.” Haglund describes the poetry of such moments, the heartfelt speeches that Mormon men give about their lives and their culture, in prose that mirrors that of Hegghammer and the New Yorker when they are describing the puzzling “softness” of Muslim jihadis.

Rather than being random, I think this similarity exists for very specific reasons. Most men in our modern society do not weep openly, and there is a certain irony that it is these two groups that are the exception. Men in the West are routinely castigated by feminists and liberals for being “emotionally shut off” and “overly aggressive”, and are urged to get in touch with our feelings. Yet the only two groups of men that seem to be doing this, Mormon men and twenty-something ISIS killers, are in just about as diametric opposition to our modern liberal nation-states as any two groups can get.

In a kind of round-about agreement with feminists, I concur that men must be quite confident in their masculinity to weep openly in front of other men. However, this kind of confidence does not come from a wholesale rejection or “rethinking” of masculinity, as our liberal contemporaries constantly harp on, but rather from an embracing of masculinity. When you have fought other men with your bare hands, when you have looked down the barrel of an opponent’s gun, when you have sired eight children, when you have a close-knit group of male friends who respect you and your prowess as a man, that is when you feel confident enough in your masculinity to weep openly.

Many of my closest friends have been and are Mormon. I have found them, as a whole, to be loyal, dependable, solid, respectable people, and I think extremely highly of them. At times in the past there have been parts of me that wished I was a Mormon man.

In regards to Islamism, I consider the practices of groups like ISIS to be repellant, and should Europe descends into civil war in a few years time (a likely prospect), I would be proud to die fighting against the Islamists to keep Europe free and European. At the same time I have had a large exposure to Islam and Islamism. I have argued with Muslims, been in fights with Muslims, and have researched jihad extensively through literature and media. I must, however, admit that though I view them as enemies, I can understand and appreciate the attraction their groups hold for young men.

Therefore despite the fact that I am not Mormon, and do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and despite the fact that I would gladly fight and kill ISIS members if I had the chance, I also feel, in other ways,  a certain respect for each group.

I respect them because they are attempting to live a sacred life in our profane world. Amidst the overwhelming consumption of our industrialized and corporatized global culture, each is trying to create something.  They are not worshipping Nike. They are not blindly spoon-feeding themselves reality television. They are not cheering on the destruction of their race and society like suicidal European multiculturalists. They are sacrificing to effect movements and rituals that they view as sacred. They are sublimating their own desires for what they feel is the good of their descendants. Whether or not I agree with them, such a focus is highly refreshing and inspiring.

As Lee Harris states in The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat To The West, “While we think little further than our retirement, they think in terms of centuries–what, however, do centuries mean to us anymore? In the long run, we’re all dead–so who cares about the long-term fate of the West? Finally, while we raise our children to have contempt for the very traditions that created the Western cultures of reason, they are raising their children to be willing to die to keep their traditions alive.”5

I also respect these two groups of men because they are each a rare representation of masculinity in our feminized modern world. In a society that actively despises normal heterosexual men, each group is a rare connection back to our ancestors’ notions of manhood, and to qualities that our modern culture is bereft of.  While, to paraphrase Jack Donovan, I do not consider the Islamists “good men”, they are, just like Tony Soprano, “good at being men”–they possess strength, courage, mastery, and honor, even if they use these attributes in the service of beheadings and suicide bombings.6

As Bill Maher so controversially said in the days following 9/11, the hijackers might have been evil nutjobs, but they most certainly were not “cowards”.7 It takes courage to fight jihad and die shahid. It takes a less martial but still significant kind of courage to retain belief in Mormonism in the face of our secular society. It would be easy for Mormon men to give it all up for the sake of becoming “rational” and enjoying casual sex, but honestly, does it really take courage to become an atheist anymore? Does pre-marital sex take courage? Such is now the route prescribed to us in public school.  Retaining one’s faith in Mormonism, raising large families, stating openly in 2015 that you, as a man, have a unique and immutable connection to God that women do not possess; all of this makes Mormons far more manly in my book than your average liberal atheist or Evangelical, and for these reasons I salute them.

As groups who believe in traditional notions of masculinity and gender roles, Mormons and jihadis are both in opposition to our modern world. Multicultural-corporatist society has deemed masculine young men the enemy. But unlike other young men, who deal with this existential crisis through a focus on alcohol, pornography, video games, and other forms of consumption and debauchery, young Mormon and Islamic men stand fast to their values, and in doing so stand in firm opposition to society.

As the jihadi Isa Sa’d Al ‘Awshan writes in his poem Epistle to the Scolders: “The Age of Submission to the Unbelievers is over… I do not desire money nor a life of ease”. What can this be called but a wholesale rejection of modernity? An excerpt from a recent Nashid (poem) from ISIS reads:

Oh Istanbul!
You consented to profanity in your streets
You filled the streets with harems
What happened to you that in such a short time
You yielded to despots, oppressors, and infidels
Oh Istanbul!8

Such laments echo the refrains of Mormons, who also reject the decadence of modern life. It is this rejection that is so crucial to why Mormonism and Islam are the two fastest growing religions on Earth.

Young men across North America and Europe suspect or know that the modern West is deathly ill. They likewise understand at some level that their normal urges for brotherhood and aggression put them at odds with modern society. With this being the case, is it any wonder some flock to the Middle East? The jihadis, whatever else they may be, are the only group on earth actively trying to tear down modernity.

The more aware members of the Western intelligentsia understand that they are threatened by groups such as these. They are threatened by the greater birthrates of Muslims and Mormons, which mean that an increasing share of the population will hold what are to them “backward” beliefs. Whether they want to admit it or not, they (and we) are also threatened by the guns and knives and bombs of the Islamists, and the masses of “regular” Muslims who tacitly and not-so-tacitly support such violence. Yet such members of the political elite seem to think that with enough exposure, our “freedoms” will convert such groups to “our” way of life. Under this thinking, exposure to the consumeristic and sexual and entertainment opportunities of the West will cause Muslims and Mormons and other religious groups to slowly let their religiosity and conservatism fade away. Never mind the fact that this requires more and more of our children to grow up to be prostitutes, strippers, homosexuals, and investment bankers. What is even more pressing is the basic moral premise this brings–that we should pin our hopes on pleasure, decadence, consumption, and weakness.

With such a strategy being the increasing modus operandi of Western nation-states, I will take my cue from the Mormons and jihadis, and embrace a life of procreation, heritage, guns, and poetry. My version won’t be Muslim or Mormon, but the constants are the same. And when the civil war does start in Europe, I and those like me will actually have lives worth fighting for.  Can the liberal multiculturalists say the same? favicon

Julian Langness is the author of the upcoming memoir Fistfights With Muslims In Europe: One Man’s Journey Through Modernity, Culture, Masculinity, and Violence, coming out in the fall of 2015. To receive excerpts and updates, please email to be added to Julian’s mailing list.

  1. Hegghammer, Thomas. “Why Terrorists Weep”. Paul Wilkinson Memorial Lecture. University of St. Andrews. 16 Apr. 2015.  Web. 16 Jun. 2015. (PDF)
  2. Creswell, Robyn and Bernard Haykel. “Battle Lines”. 8 Jun. 2015. Web. 16 Jun. 2015.
  3. Nasiri, Omar. Inside the Jihad. Basic Books. 2006. Print.
  4. Haglund, Kristine. “Why Mormon Men Love Church-ball and are Scared of Homosexuality”. 10 Sep. 2012. Web. 16 Jun. 2015.
  5. Harris, Lee. The Suicide Of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat To The West. Basic Books. 2007. 260. Print.
  6. Donovan, Jack. The Way of Men. Dissonant Hum. 2012. Kindle.
  7. Raphael, Chris. “Politically Incorrect: A Eulogy”. Undated. Web. 16 Jun. 2015.
  8. Creswell, Robyn and Bernard Haykel. “Battle Lines”. 8 Jun. 2015. Web. 16 Jun. 2015.

The Man Who Wouldn’t Be President

I am a former National Delegate for Barack Obama. In 2008 I was part of the Idaho Delegation that cast ballots for him in Denver. I was not a race-obsessed “hope and changer”. I did not particularly care that he was going to be the first black president. I had already seen past the white-guilt narrative that we learned in public school. I was however still in the grips of our Western carpe diem ethos, and this focus on personal freedom as the highest virtue led me to support Barack Obama as the candidate most likely to legalize drugs and do other things which would add to our freedom to seek pleasure.

In the intervening years my politics have continued to evolve, and instead of watching MSNBC I spend more time on traditionalRIGHT and Radix, and the television has been tossed out.

However I did learn a few things during those months in 2007 and 2008, some of which are very useful as the next big presidential race heats up.

At the convention I was somewhat dismayed at the blind, communist-rally idolatry I saw. However, as ridiculous as Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign slogan sounds seven years removed, the convention was genuinely filled with hope. Yes, the hope was misplaced, and many of the people most invested in Obama had entirely wrong and/or shameful ideas, but their hope was sincere, and I saw many people with tears rolling down their faces by the end.

The power of grassroots organizing was equally on display. Obama may have had support from corporate shills and the media was certainly in the tank for him, but without the hard work of people on the ground like myself, Obama would not have raked in so many small state caucus delegates and Hilary would have become the nominee. In that alternate reality, McCain would probably have become president (arguably worse than Obama becoming president).

This is all very relevant, however, because the current election season is bringing us an even more interesting alternate reality. This involves the candidate who the title of this article is in reference to–Rand Paul. The 2008 election cycle is informative in Senator Paul’s case because he is steadily building a tidal wave of hope, emotion, and commitment to potentially rival Obama’s back in 2008. In the rural small-state environs in which my family lives I end up talking to a wide variety of people–upper class business owners, middle class whites, non-white students, left wing socialists (former hippies), even the Medicaid trailer park population. In each of these groups I have met diligent Rand Paul supporters, and in their eyes gleam the same sparkles that I saw at the 2008 Convention. I am not comparing Senator Paul’s supporters to Obama supporters, obviously many of the Paulites have deep intellectual and policy-based reasons for supporting him and their politics are far different than the Obama supporters. However, the same currents that propelled Obama to the White House are beginning to flow under Rand Paul.

My wife is a 26-year-old blonde-haired Texas belle. She attended an Evangelical college in Florida. One might think she would support Texas Governor Rick Perry, or a neo-con Republican like Lindsay Graham, maybe even an Evangelical like Mike Huckabee. However she is a die-hard Rand Paul supporter who has even tried to get me to volunteer to work for him.

For myself, I am not too sure if it matters whether Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders or anyone else becomes president. With Paul or Sanders, the economic prescriptions may shift, but the steady slide into multi-or mono-culturalism will continue, as we become increasingly deracinated and consumption-driven. For this reason I am more partial to Jack Donovan’s hopes for Hilary Clinton to become president in order to wake men up to just how much society doesn’t want them, and hopefully usher in the Zombie Apocalypse sooner.

However, Rand Paul’s campaign could equally affect such a wake-up call. For if, as I predict, Rand Paul becomes the Republican Nominee, then his chances of becoming president still may not rest on how good of a campaign he runs. If that is what it was based on then I would with confidence go out on a limb and state that Rand Paul will become the next president. The reason he is the “President Who Wouldn’t Be”, however, is because despite the groundswell of support he is beginning to command, despite the intellectual clout which he brings, and the presidential demeanor that he possesses, the changing demographics of America will most likely make it impossible for him to ever ascend to the presidency.

Even at this point over a year before the election, the Democrats already have nearly enough electoral votes to win just from the states that always vote Democrat. This speaks to just how heavily the racial/cultural component is at play. A simulation was recently done to predict the outcome of the 2016 election based on such factors. In it, the percentage of each race voting in the 2016 election is comparable to 2012. However, in the simulation, whites vote Democrat/Republican in the same percentages as 2012, in which they heavily supported Mitt Romney. Minorities however vote for the two parties in 2004 percentages, in which George Bush won 4 out of 10 Latinos and became president. Even in this ideal scenario for Republicans, they still lose the White House handily, because the number of minority voters has grown so substantially. Thus a path to victory for Republicans is arguably impossible in 2016.

This predicament is not unique to America or the Republican Party. In France, the next presidential election (also in 2016) is the last chance the French voters will have to save themselves from becoming an Islamic nation. By 2022 (the following election) the number of Muslim citizens will have become so large that it will become impossible to govern the country without their support. At that point a political (read: non-violent) solution will no longer be possible, and the only hope for the native Frenchmen will be a long slog into 4th Generation Warfare. For all intents and purposes this is what will happen even if Marine Le Pen and the National Front get elected next year, as France’s Muslims will not lose all the momentum they have gained without a fight.

In America we can be thankful that things are not yet as bad as they are there, but still, there is something very distasteful about knowing that one party has potentially achieved a perpetual majority through its efforts at cultivating illegal immigration and racial politics. This was certainly helped by Reagan and the Republican amnesty he approved in the 80’s, which the Republican Party has been increasingly suffering from as a result. But the very ironic component to this is that the Democrats may be sowing the seeds of their destruction just as thoroughly as Reagan and the Republicans did 30 years ago.

Latinos in America are not especially liberal people on social policies. Neither are blacks when it comes right down to it. Both groups voted heavily against gay marriage in California, and both groups have relatively high rates of religious belief and conservative values. For right now the blacks and Latinos are happy to vote Democrat; the blacks out of tradition and because of heavy reliance on government programs and the Latinos because the Democrats promise more amnesty for their relatives in the country illegally and over the border. But down the road it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which both groups begin to vote for parties other than the Democrats.

At that stage we may see the breakup of American two-party politics into a menagerie of parties more like in the United Kingdom. In that world the Democratic Party may be reduced to being America’s Labour Party, or worse, America’s Lib-Dem’s. But we as a society will also be reduced to an overall reality more like the UK as well, where political parties fight over the scrap heaps of multiculturalism, and where all mainstream parties are afraid to discuss issues which upset the delicate racial balance (see the 1400 11-16 year old white girls raped by Muslims in Rotherham).

Facing such an eventual reality, I am tempted to campaign for one more round of hope and change and go vote for Rand Paul. Rather than toil over a political system on its deathbed, however, I hold out even greater hope that the Zombie Apocalypse is nigh and that our individual actions will once again have consequences–for that is truly where hope and change begins. favicon

-Julian Langness is the author of the upcoming memoir Fistfights With Muslims In Europe: One Man’s Journey Through Modernity, Culture, Masculinity, and Violence, coming out in the fall of 2015. To receive excerpts and updates, please email to be added to Julian’s mailing list.