Perspective

No, We Shouldn’t Reject Identity Politics

The Rebel has some black guy telling us we ought to reject “identity politics.”

Why on earth would we do that? As I pointed out in the previous article, every single generation of Americans prior to the Baby Boomers embraced what is now called “identity politics.” Whites had a positive sense of racial identity. Christians had a positive sense of religious identity. We Southerners had a positive sense of ethnic and cultural identity.

Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book Democracy In America was first published in 1835, was the most important foreign authority on Americanism in the 19th century:

“I have shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.”

We’ve finally reached the “long run” that Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about in 1835. Extreme individualism, which has its origins in liberal democracy, has consumed American public life:

“Among aristocratic nations, as families remain for centuries in the same condition, often on the same spot, all generations become, as it were, contemporaneous. A man almost always knows his forefathers and respects them; he thinks he already sees his remote descendants and he loves them. He willingly imposes duties on himself towards the former and the latter, and he will frequently sacrifice his personal gratifications to those who went before and to those who will come after him.”

Is there a better description anywhere of our peculiar mindset? That’s exactly how we see the world. That’s why I spend so much time and money writing these blog posts:

“Aristocratic institutions, moreover, have the effect of closely binding every man to several of his fellow citizens. As the classes of an aristocratic people are strongly marked and permanent, each of them is regarded by its own members as a sort of lesser country, more tangible and more cherished than the country at large. As in aristocratic communities all the citizens occupy fixed positions, one above another, the result is that each of them always sees a man above himself whose patronage is necessary to him, and below himself another man whose co-operation he may claim. Men living in aristocratic ages are therefore almost always closely attached to something placed out of their own sphere, and they are often disposed to forget themselves. It is true that in these ages the notion of human fellowship is faint and that men seldom think of sacrificing themselves for mankind; but they often sacrifice themselves for other men. In democratic times, on the contrary, when the duties of each individual to the race are much more clear, devoted service to any one man becomes more rare; the bond of human affection is extended, but it is relaxed.”

Penetrating insight.

I know lots of people in the Alt-Right movement who are “disposed to forget themselves” because they are constantly thinking of their ancestors and descendants or the humiliations their people are suffering in the present. Similarly, I know lots of progressives who express a faux sympathy for humanity in general, but who probably don’t know the name of their next door neighbor.

“Among democratic nations new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after, no one has any idea: the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class gradually approaches others and mingles with them, its members become undifferentiated and lose their class identity for each other. Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king; democracy breaks that chain and severs every link of it.

As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellows, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.”

This is a devastating insight:

“Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.”

Alexis de Tocqueville was pro-American! He said that the extreme individualism of democracy “threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.” We believe America’s extreme individualism and its cultural decomposition in this advanced stage of liberal democracy, not identity politics, is the real problem.

Baron Edmond de Mandat-Grancey, a distant cousin of Alexis de Tocqueville, had an even harsher assessment of the American democratic man:

“Past acquaintances with the United States had given Frédéric Gaillardet a head start, but his anti-American venture would not be a solo one for long. Ten years later there would a great editorial rush toward America, the Uncle Sam rush. For the moment, Gaillardet had to make do with the unexpected Edmond de Mandat-Grancey as a traveling companion.

A distant cousin of Tocqueville, whose ideas he boasted of not sharing, the Baron de Mandat-Grancey was an ultraconservative. A serene racist and confirmed antidemocrat (he predicted the rapid demise of New York, an inevitable result of “the spirit of heedlessness which is inherent in democratic governments”), he seemed more interested in the enhancement of the equine race than in the workings of America’s social and political institutions. Spry and instructive, he peppered his travel diaries with remarks that gave off the whiff of high society. Thus he disapprovingly noted that in New York one saw “very few private carriages” and that “those one does see are ill-harnessed, ill-kept, and driven by coachmen with unspeakable mustaches.” Elsewhere, he waxed indignant over “the incommensurable culinary ignorance” of Chicago’s 600,000 inhabitants, who had never prepared crayfish à la bordelaise, despite the fact that ” all the streams in the vicinity are literally crawling with the admirable crustaceans.” It would take all the irascible baron’s aplomb to articulate such grievances with solemn gravity and use them to flesh out the docket in his case against the United States. …

These authors’ treatment of the “black question” was both more brutal and circuitous. Mandat-Grancey’s racism was not paved with a single good intention. He did not mince words, declaring the black race “absolutely inferior to the white race.” Abolitionism was an abomination to the baron, who had not forgiven Victor Hugo (and this in 1885, when France gave Hugo a state funeral) for having “spilled so many tears over the misfortunes of John Brown and all the Dombrowskis and Crapulskis of the Commune.”

It speaks volumes about Mandat-Grancey’s intellectual universe that he would associate Communards with unpronounceable names with the famous abolitionist hanged in 1859 in Charlestown for having roused the blacks to insurrection. But this fundamental racism, loudly and clearly expressed, did not stop the very same Mandat-Grancey from placing the entire responsibility for the unworkable and explosive situation created by the “black question” on the hated Yankee’s shoulders. Without the North’s hypocritical propaganda, the blacks would have stayed in their place.

It was the Yankees who had opened Pandora’s box, and in this sense, they were more hateful than the former slaves misled by their promises. How could you blame the Southerners for taking a few steps toward self-defense – such as creating the Ku Klux Klan – in reaction to the unbearable “state of things”? And how could you avoid fantasizing (aloud) about the Yankees’ annihilation by the very people they had purported to want to free at any price? “If this continues,” Mandat-Grancey glibly prophesized, “the Yankees, who struggled so hard to free the blacks, will be conquered by them like the Tartars were by the Chinese, or else they will have to suppress universal suffrage.”

In this, Baron Edmond de Mandat-Grancey was correct. He continues:

“After substituting the Indians for the cowboys, why not replace the Yankees with the blacks? At least the choice he was offering America’s Anglo-Saxons had the merit of being clear-cut. They could choose between their own demise or the destruction of their founding institutions, starting with the tradition of “one man, one vote.” The blacks would practically find favor (a very temporary one) in Mandat-Grancey’s eyes. Immanent justice that they should be ones to inflict punishment on the self-same Yankees who had, in more than one sense of the word, unleashed them. Frédéric Gaillardet had been satisfied with a less apocalyptic historical irony in stressing the fact that the freed blacks had used their right to vote in favor of their former masters. But for both writers, there was the same dialectic, in which the Yankees were presented both as the exterminators of the non-Anglo Saxon races and the sorcerer’s apprentices of a false and calamitous emancipation. …

Their views about the Civil War’s being a missed opportunity were also identical. Mandat-Grancey’s sympathies are less unexpected than Gaillardet’s: how could a conservative aristocrat not be on the Confederates’ side? Like Gaillardet, then, he reshuffled the diplomatic cards; he recast and replayed France’s had with big swipes of “we should have” and “we would only have had to.” For “we would only have had to unequivocally back [the Confederates] to make America permanently split into two rival States which would have mutually paralyzed each other, and of which one, made up of populations with preponderantly French roots, would have been a precious ally for us.” Self-interest and honor worked together here: “Having started the war in Mexico, this was the only way of getting out of it honorably.” So it was the same old story? No! France’s spinelessness was what had allowed a devouring monster to come to life – “the reconstructed United States.” It had now “achieved the economic conquest of Mexico by constructing its network of railroads, and soon it will take over the Isthmus of Panama in order to profit from the millions we are so madly spending there.” But Mandat-Grancey was a better prophet in announcing France’s misfortunes than in wishing them on the United States. The Panama Canal would be taken over in the end, as he had predicted, but the secession of the American West, which he considered just as inevitable, would not take place. In Mandat-Grancey’s opinion, France had played its cards so badly during the 1865 conflict that it would only have been sporting of America to give it a second chance with an encore of the Civil War – but his wish would remain unspoken …”

Is it racist? Is it reactionary?

This is a view of the United States from 19th century France which at the time was more liberal on race relations. Baron Edmond de Mandat-Grancey was a moderate on race compared to Comte de Gobineau. The narrative presented in The Rebel video below, which attributes “identity politics” to Marxism, is so absurd and historically ignorant that I don’t even know where to begin responding to it. If this kid was one of my students, I would give him an F in history and political science. I would be embarrassed to publish this video on my website.

White identity is over a century older than the United States:

“In significant contrast, the colonists referred to Negroes and by the eighteenth century to blacks and to Africans, but almost never to Negro heathens or pagans or savages. Most suggestive of all, there seems to have been something of a shift during the seventeenth century in the terminology in which Englishmen in the colonies applied to themselves. From the initially most common term Christian, at mid-century there was a marked drift toward English and free. After about 1680, taking the colonies as a whole, a new term appeared – white …

Altering his emphasis a few pages later, Godwyn complained that “these two words, Negro and Slave” are “by custom grown Homogeneous and Convertible; even as Negro and Christian, Englishman and Heathen, are by the like corrupt Custom and Partially made Opposites. Most arresting of all, throughout the colonies the terms Christian, free, English and white were for many years deployed indiscriminately as metonyms. A Maryland law of 1681 used all four terms in one short paragraph.”

By around 1650, there was an embryonic American identity. When Englishmen founded Virginia and Massachusetts, their identity was English, Christian and free. By the second generation in the New World, the English colonists had started identifying as White people.

Jamestown and Plymouth wrestled with identity politics in military conflicts with the local Indians. American history is unintelligible in the absence of identity politics. White identity was central to American national identity all the way up until the 1960s. Far from being a foreign import, White identity is indigenous to colonial societies. It organically grew out of the struggles of Europeans with other races who were born in the New World.

Why are we even discussing White identity politics? I would say it is due in large part to the vacuous American identity which is based on “values.” Young people intuitively sense that something has gone wrong in America. There is something fundamentally missing in our lives. They find a purely personal identity or consumer identity to be unsatisfying. What’s missing in White America is a rich sense of identity that gives our lives structure and purpose and connects us to each other and the living with past and future generations.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said, democracy made us forget our ancestors, it has hidden our descendants and it separated and isolated us from our contemporaries. It has robbed us of our identity.

Share:
  • It is striking how closely the difference between democratic and aristocratic mindsets, as articulated by Tocqueville, aligns with the r/K theory of differing life strategies, from ethology and evolutionary psychology. One has to credit the author Anonymous Conservative, for providing a synthesis of the scientific research under r/K theory, in its relevance to understanding the psychology of Leftist behavior. Political strategists of the future should be studying this material.

  • Eugen

    Best comment on that rebel article, by Dan Mancuso:

    “But Jay, I’ve finally found my political identity – and it’s constantly being reinforced…

    …alt right Nazi, hateful conservative warmonger, privileged White racist
    Christian bigot, heterosexual homophobe, misogynist male, meat-eating
    redneck, gun-nut hillbilly and free market capitalist pig,
    tree-murdering animal abusing( hunting or cowboying?) fossil fuel
    burning, deplorable, Islamophobe and anyotherphobe they can make up,
    disenfranchised rural minority, nationalist citizen voter! A pariah.

    …so how could I possibly ‘Reject Identity Politics’? – even if I wanted to…”

  • Eugen

    White people rejected identity politics and as a result they are colonized (scheduled to become a minority in one generation in the USA), taxed to support others (2400$ each per US household just to pay for Californian illegals) and abused (look up crime stats by race, that’s at least thousands of people dead and tens of thousands of women raped each year). And in Europe it’s MUCH MUCH WORSE.

    What he’s doing is working the two sides of the political spectrum for the same goal as the globalist leftists. They tell whites they don’t have identity, they don’t have indigenous culture, they don’t have the right to have their own countries and he tells whites (aka the Rebel audience) to reject their own identity for the good of the globalist elites that are currently destroying their nations. And probably for the good of his own group interests. His identitarian, collectivist group interests.

    As for the supposed benefits of individualism, individualism looks more and more like entitlement, selfishness and hedonism than philosophical morality – a theoretical notion in itself. America was great when it was a white, collectivist Christian, homogeneous nation and it was free because their shared values regulated the nation with minimal government interference. That’s not possible in multiculturalism.

  • Nothing_Much

    Identity politics is how Nationalism will absolutely succeed. Hell I want Nationalism for everyone, not just huwhites.

    • ThomasER916

      I stopped caring about non-Whites a Ferguson ago.

      • Nothing_Much

        That’s the point of Nationalism, stop caring about people who aren’t your people. It gives a heck of a lot more incentive to care for your people instead of trying to cater to so many different racial groups.

      • Al Hope

        The Marxist’s implementation of Prison House Race Rules at the national level via Obama’s Executive Invasion Orders, supports the necessity of rejecting your racist idea that you are better than other ethnically loyal groups. Stop the rampant racism within the Euro folk.

        • ThomasER916

          Fuck off cuckfag and never come back!

          Whites don’t need you preaching the gospel of shame, blame, guilt, and racism. We get that 24/7 from Jews and POCs. Now fuck off loser!

          • Al Hope

            It is sarcasm.

    • Al Hope

      The decrepit intelligentsia are incapable of comphrending a world were majority and minority rights are well balance…the extermination of majority is their only play.

  • America was founded by White Nationalists as a White Nationalist federation of White Nationalists sovereign states. White Nationalism is the basis of Americanism.

    • John Murdoch

      I believe the first immigration & Naturalization Act restricted citizenship to ‘Free White People’ (circa 1787?)

  • Real Human Being

    (((No, no, goy, identity politics are bad. You should stick with principled Constitutionalism and civic nationalism. After all, we’re all Americans, right goy?)))

    • )))GOYKNOWS(((

      Oy vey, that’s correct goys. Focus on a semite-friendly society.

      • Veruschka

        Pay no mind to the Ezra behind the curtain!

  • Albionic American

    democracy made us forget our ancestors, it has hidden our descendants and it separated and isolated us from our contemporaries.

    And that shows why our elites have elevated gay men as the shock troops for destroying healthy traditional societies. Gays “live the dream” of secularism, hedonism, alienation, atomization and deracination that the elites want to impose on everyone.

  • Evolver1

    My primary identity before all else is as a White person. Nothing trumps this. I live White. I breathe White. I vote White. I worship White. I am lucky to have born with the White racist gene which is a very, very good thing and it helps me stay focused on what is truly important before all else: Whiteness.

    • Al Hope

      White is a demeaning smear…from Russia to New Zealand, we are Euro folk united by a common thread…Marxist Overlords are teaching the other 90% of humanity to hate us enough to purge us.

      • Evolver1

        White is not a demeaning smear. Call yourself Euro if you wish, I have no problem with that, however, you’ll soon have to add “White” to Euro since there are now so many non-Whites living in Europe who call themselves Europeans or by various nationalities. Thus, in Great Britain, one can be “British,” even if one is not White. To me, White is the most essential element of who and what we are. We get it by birth, no matter where we are born or live.

        • Al Hope

          This has nothing to do with the folks in any one nation. A Han will forever be Han in whole or in part. White is a meme developed by Marxists to dehumanize Euro folk, to get them to perceive they are just color coded units with ZERO ancestry, ZERO heritage, ZERO TERRITORY.

          Now remove the noose from your neck…or stop putting the noose on the neck of others.

    • John Murdoch

      It is kinda’ hard to not think this way after you have been forced to sit in some Diversity Seminar and hear about ‘White Privelege’ at school or work.

      The Far Left thrusts Whiteness onto people.

      After awhile one just shrugs and says ‘ So be it’

      (Commander Rockwell had a similar observation: ‘They say if you are White & Christian you are a Nazi… Well why not be a Nazi?!?!)

  • johnxr

    White family, White tribe, White nation. Why not?

    • – TheFinn –

      Yep, groups like BLM did us a huge favor. Basic-Bitch conservatism can’t deal with racial questions at all – they shrank away crying “racist” even with the topic of the mexican border being brought up by Trump.

      Trying bringing up IQ bell curves lol

      They are done, and identity politics is what did them in.

  • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    It’s fun to watch Hunter wipe the floor with these pig-ignorant cucks who pretend identity politics is foreign to American values.

    On the other hand, there’s something pathetic about the way Hunter feeds his We Wuz Cavaleeyuz complex with these Toqueville quotes. Personally, I’m glad the South was smashed and I can’t wait till all memory of Southern identity dies out, finally bringing an end to that experiment in savagery.

    • WarPoet

      The South was smashed because niggers and Northern whites are equal.

    • Robert Bruce

      It isn’t foreign, but it isn’t a winner politically if it is the only leg you stand on. Alt right needs to materialize into a party to actually do something, but to do that it has to have a distinct economic and foreign policy program.

  • Scott Schroeder

    All politics in a multi-racial country is racial politics.

    The anti-whites are not going to stop their attacks on white people. Non-whites are not going to stop trying to further their racial interests, starting with importing more of their own kind. Any call to end identity politics is a call for white unilateral disarmament.

  • Scott Schroeder

    Decades of effective anti-white propaganda has had vastly more impact than anything de Tocqueville talked about.

    • ThomasER916

      The only way out of this is to make Whites feverishly uncomfortable with anti-Whiteness. Rub their anti-Whiteness in their faces. Post it everywhere. The cucks will out themselves and the normies will shun them. The cucks will form a religious cuckold group like the Quakers and Abolitionists. They will remove themselves from our gene pool and our presence.

      • Scott Schroeder

        Make white people more afraid of being called traitor than they are of being called racist.

  • Marathon-Youth

    White identity to being proud of being white is on the rise regardless if anti white propaganda continues or not.
    and partly due to the Hate white movement (and I mean partly) Whites are rediscovering our own history,culture etc
    but ultimately we will rediscover our identity regardless what others think about it.

  • MylesStandish

    An entire article about identity politics without a single mention of the jews – quelle surprise! This is a Trumpist publication after all, so let me guess: Mooslims shureea law greatest ally looks Hwhite to me? How does it feel to be less jew-wise than a BLM negro? How does it feel to be far dumber than Cynthia McKinney? While you were fretting about mooslims and negros and mexicans oh my, take a look at who was ascending to the highest office in the land: a pack of greasy foreigners whose grandparents weren’t even born in America. But they’re white-ish so we’re all part of the same identity group, right?

    No, Kushner and Cohn and Mnuchin and friggin “Bibi” are not part of our identity group, white though they may be. They are all foreign nationals with foreign looks, foreign hearts and foreign ideas.

    “Bbbut negroes and sjws and mooslims….” Come off it, none of these are controlling the executive branch of the federal government. The most foreign, fresh off the boat, slimy, israeli, soviet background jews to be found on American soil are ruling this country at the moment, so stop being such pathetic cucks. Don’t pretend to be brave, punching down at lesser peoples, while fluffing the very party responsible for our present predicament – it’s absolutely disgusting.

    When will we see an alt-right article that deals honestly with the Kushner question; let’s discuss the McGreevey scandal, the utter filth and corruption of New Jersey politics or perhaps the curious case of Corey Booker. Or maybe just play dumb and give us some more “make Iran great again” war propaganda. Looks hwhite to me, lel.

    • Over at AryanSkynet we’ve discussed the McGreevy scandal – and its connection to the Trump family and campaign, extensively. We have never shied away from discussing Jewish subversion of White societies and Zionist infiltration of American political institutions. It’s one of our most discussed topics as our writers and commenters are very knowledgeable of the deep state, espionage, and intelligence agencies.

      http://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/

      We haven’t discussed Corey Booker much because he’s just a Negro puppet for the Israel lobby and there’s nothing really more to say about it.

      • MylesStandish

        AryanSkynet is truly first-class. It’s a bit edgy, but still genteel enough that we can recommend it to normal people who might be amenable to pro-white politics. Thanks for all your good work. Consider adding disqus commenting as it will bring the blog to a wider audience.

        The Cory Booker matter is potentially quite juicy. It looks like another case of Mossad blackmail a la McGreevey and the implications are fairly explosive. Booker, like McGreevey, owes his political success to Kushner money and elicited a rather telling response from our tweeter-in-Chief when he responded to some slight criticism from Booker with this “cryptic” remark: “I know more about Cory than he knows about himself”.

        Given Booker’s effeminate mannerisms and the shameful NAMBLA-type rumors which have plagued his career, we can only surmise that the depths of the Kushner blackmail scandal have yet to be probed.

        • Are you a commenter? Why not send me an email. hipsterracist at yahoo

          I had no idea about the Booker thing, I just assumed he was taking cash. That would make an interesting story for AryanSkynet.

          Glad you consider it edgy but genteel enough for normies – that is precisely what we are going for.

    • John Murdoch

      No need to worry about Kushner. Bannon has amassed way more power then him so far.

      Illegals are finally being deported. I never thought this would happen. Feels good man. No need to worry about the Jewish Question right now.

  • Newfoundlander

    I think democracy can be a good thing, so long as it is mixed with a powerful sense of group identity and ethnonationalism. If you’ve ever read Tacitus’s ‘Germania’ the society he describes is a very democratic one, but the people are still connected to their ancestors. Despite being democratic they did not suffer the debilitating effects of individualism because of their strict adherence to traditional morality, their pagan religion that was unique to them and included ancestor worship, and sex roles that dictated different roles for men and women, thereby preventing society from becoming effeminized. The problem is not democracy itself, but universalist ideas such as human rights. What makes modern Western democracy so debilitating to the nation is that it insists on granting rights to everyone merely because everyone is human. A healthy, nationalist democracy would not grant human rights, but instead citizens would have individual rights on the basis of their belonging to the nation. The nation would not be interpreted as a set of abstract values, but as an organic, biological and cultural (a.k.a. ethnic) entity.

    • Robert Bruce

      Good post, but you mentioned the number one reason focusing on identity politics is a loser, hyper individualism in the West. The younger generations are absolutely focused on themselves and that is it. They put off having kids much later, or put it off entirely, or wait too late(women waiting til they are 40 and finding out they can’t have them) Demographics is all that matters in reality. You can stop all immigration and even send the illegals back, but that isn’t going to stop whites from being outbred. Do you think Lauren Southern and the other alt right babes are going to do their patriotic duty to their race and have 5-6 kids?

      • Abcdedcba

        Hell, three would be good enough.

      • Al Hope

        Our younger children, as with most adults, have little capacity to fight the mass social engineering and indoctrination systems that bombard their brains.

        All focus must be kept on the powerful and their monolithic social engineering, population engineering activities…the infinite, egomanical quest for galactic RULE. They hate walls and borders for one and only one reason…massively distributed power is only possible with an equally virilent quest for barriers and barriers and barriers to global rule.

  • GoldbergAreUs

    Yes Goyim you must stay divided.

  • Jarod

    A black guy who acts as best he can to be a white guy is telling white guys not to care about being white…

    Hey watch doin Rabbi?

  • Aedra Daedra

    Maybe we should embrace identity politics but keep in mind that identity politics is the same tool used by minorities to push multi-cultarlism.

    • Nothing_Much

      It’s not used by the minorities to push multiculturalism, multiculturalism is pushed by majority of Jews, for example we have this Jewish guy for Australian multiculturalism.. but not for Israel.

      https://imgoat.com/uploads/87ff679a2f/3929.JPG

      • I hope you don’t mind me having posted this over at an Australian alt-lite site I’ve recently come across (xyz dot net dot au); it was too important to not share this around.

        Especially in light of renewed focus on how “Sweden became multicultural,” thanks to the likes of Jewish multicultural goyim anti-White/European fanatics like Barbara Spectre.

        • Nothing_Much

          Publicity is what we need the most, brother. Post everything everywhere, the truth won’t ever be suppressed forever!

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    The key moral issue is not to care about refugees. It is to take care not to turn people into refugees.

    This is the big blindspot in MSM discourse. We hear “welcome refugees” but not “don’t bomb them into refugee-status”.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    The real dichotomy is between free patriots and paid agents.

    So-called ‘TruCons’ are sockpuppets of Jewish globalists. They’ve been bought and sold.

    TruCons are whores. They will blow the ones with the cash.

    Alt Rightists are free patriots whose views and values aren’t tainted by donor money. Alt Rightist convictions do not bend with globalist money. They won’t blow anyone no matter the price.

    Essentially, TruCons and Alt Rightists differ along these lines.

    TruCons: Nationalism and Identity for Jews ONLY. No nationalism and identity for any white gentile nation. All white gentile nations must abandon their own identity & nationalism and support & revere ONLY Jewish identity and nationalism. It is suppression of whiteness not for universalism but for servility to Jewish supremacism.

    Alt Rightists: Nationalism and Identity for ALL peoples. So, if Jews want to defend Jewishness and support Israel, that is fine with the Alt Right. Let Jews do their own Jewish thing. But let gentile peoples will serve their own identity and interests. Gentile groups should not not subjugate their identity and interests for the sake of serving Jewish identity and interests.

    Now, which side is more principled and fair?

    TruCons who insist on Identity and Pride ONLY for Jews

    OR

    Alt-rightists who believe in Identity and Pride for EVERY race, culture, and people?

    TruCons are nothing more than servants of Jewish globalist-supremacism.

    ===============

    • Robert Bruce

      What would you categorize Trump as? Right now, I would say TruCcon all the way.

      • Abcdedcba

        He’s a mix. He would happily swallow Bibi’s load on live TV but he also seems to genuinely be pro-white, at least implicitly.

      • Gubbler Chechenova

        There is Core Trump and Strategic Trump. He has to work with others, so he has to play the game.

        But is there a Core Trump? I think it is nationalist.

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    Given the problem with gypsies that Europe has been having forever, you’d think they’d wise up and realize it’s not good to have large numbers of roaming peoples.

    But maybe Europeans figure the NEW ones will be better and replace the old ones. Or, maybe the new non-Europeans will be so wonderful that they will serve as inspiration for old non-Europeans(who arrived earlier) who’ve proven to be disappointing.

    It’s the NOVELTY that is appealing to Europeans. It’s like a woman who is never happy with the things she buys and are clogging up her closet.. but thinks she will be happy if she buys something NEW. Or a woman whose string of boyfriends she’s picked up at sleazy bars turned out to be all worthless… so she thinks the solution is to get a New one(the same way).

    So, when Europeans feel they’re stuck with an old problem, the solution is to get something NEW. Can’t fix the problems with Gypsies? How about trying Muslims and Africans?

    In a way, maybe it is related to European spirit of discovery. Looking for new lands and places than dealing with problems at home.

    Since the whole world has been discovered and claimed already, Europeans seek novelty by just taking in new peoples. Reverse-discovery. Have non-Europeans ‘discover’ Europe and empathetically share in their wide-eyed wonder.

    Soon, the new peoples become old peoples whose own problems only compound the mess.

    But then, the solution is more novelty with more new people.

    Noveltism is based on hope that something new, different, and exotic will be the fix. But the Noveltism renders everything new instantly into something old. Noveltism calls for more and more new stuff since it is addicted to the thrill of the New without any long-term consideration of its full value or real danger.

    We see in the US too. US still has problems with blacks. Lot of it. But hey, maybe if we bring exotic Somalis to America, that will be something new and wonderful. But Somalis are now an ‘old’ part of US landscape, and it’s not pretty.

    Maybe pgymies should be next.

  • People, we need to start hitting that Recommend button so this website gets recommended by Disqus when people sign up or search for sites to sub to..

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    I prefer ‘inheritance’ to ‘identity’.

    ‘Identity’ implies something we make up for ourselves. It’s like someone declaring one’s ‘gender identity’.

    ‘Inheritance’ means we inherit a certain gene pool and cultural/historical memory, and we are obligated to preserve it, improve it, beautify it, understand it, critique it, and pass it down.

    Identity Politics operates at the whim of individuals.
    Culture of Inheritance lives on through the river of time.

  • Each day alt-lite and alt-right rescind further away from each other. It’s probably a good thing.

  • The Cuckservatives and Liberals don’t like Identity. However it’s the reality. We need Identity Politics and White Nationalism. WPWW !

    • Abcdedcba

      Liberals are all about identity politics for everyone but YT

  • Jusqu’au Bout
  • I think that it’s essential for survival to reject false identity politics. It has to be stated clearly: one cannot build one’s identity on his/her sexual orientation or imaginary gender. Even one’s biological gender is not sufficient to build one’s identity. Identity is something to be recognized, and not something to be made up from whimsies and superficial characteristics.

  • Fash McQueen

    The Black guy in the (((Rebel Media))) video is the Jewiest looking Negro that has ever walked the Earth.

    I smell chitlins and bagels.

    • Oedipus Rex

      That’s what Somalians look like… the tired eyes and arab noses are a dead giveaway.

  • Sometimes simple observations lead to simple propositions, which eventually lead to simple solutions.

    Case in point:

    Why is it that the people trying to dissuade White people from identity politics usually only do so from a minority standpoint? Even when you find them disagreeing with the Black Lies Matter cult, they are only doing so in the context of how it currently fits within a majority White nation. And even the White people[Cucks] that try to diminish identity politics are usually doing so as way to protect the perks that come from their privileged minority-majority status(i.e. fame, fortune, material possessions, etc.). Without indoctrination and the constant threat of reprisals, normal, regular people that you meet will almost always gravitate toward identity politics to some degree. If you look around at the political landscape and the Media/Celebrity classes, you’ll see these regular people being “represented,” entertained and informed by people that often times don’t look like them, don’t act like them, don’t talk like them, and don’t even really share the same views as them when push comes to shove.

    Never once in the history of man has a majority completely surrendered its influence to a minority in any measurable degree other than through sheer force or absolute idiocy and insanity.

  • Nothing_Much

    https://youtu.be/8iUDloR_Q7o

    Here’s a bit of a relevant video, it’s why white nationalism is an absolute must for the entirety of our existence.

  • Eis Augen

    You may not be interested in identity politics, but identity politics are interested in YOU.

  • bjalverod

    Get a lite racists

  • Gubbler Chechenova

    I think we should cut the Rosato Brothers some slack. They were more inclusive than the Corleones and esp Pantangeli. They recruited those of other races and ethnic groups. Pope Francis would surely bless the Rosatos.

    To be sure, the Corleones could be inclusive too. Since America adopted Vito, he later adopted Tom Hagen the German-Irishman to serve the Corleones.

    Come to think of it, much of Wasp America has become Hagenized. The ethnics first arrived to serve the Wasps, but today, the Great Wasp Hope is to be adopted into the dominant ethnic clan. If not Hagenized, they soon become Geary-Wearied. I wonder what the Deepshi* State is cooking up to Gearize The Donald.

    Indeed, the transformation of National Review and Buckley is alarming. The Narrative says Buckley and Wasp Conservatives generously opened the door to let in poor homeless Neocon Jews, the emigrants from the Failed State of Trotskidonia. So, Wasp Cons had the power and were just doing a favor to the huddled Neocon refuse yearning to be free.

    That is the surface narrative.

    But underneath, something else was happening. The real power was shifting or had already shifted to the Jews, and the desperate Wasp Cons were seeking a way IN to this Real Power. And Neocons, as junior partners of Jewish America Inc., were the ones who let them in ON CONDITION that they renounce race-ism, nationalism, and white identity AND worship at the altar of MLK, shut up about homo issues, embrace open borders, define America as a proposition, and feel closer to Israel than to UK, the traditional motherland of the US.

    Shallow surface narrative can be deceiving. The deep narrative, the undercurrents of power, is where it really happens.

    So, those who attack Buckley are missing the point. They assume he had this great power and misused it by letting in neocons. But in truth, he realized the Power Game had shifted. Its ethnic balance was now in favor of Jews. And he wanted an IN with this Great Power. It was the last card left.

    Maybe things would have played out differently in the 80s if the internet had existed back then. Internet has changed the game somewhat because MSM and academia have been challenged by explosion of alternative views.

    But prior to the internet, all of media was about gatekeeping.

    Ironic that those who call for free trade and open borders are for total gate-keeping and wall-building when it comes to news, info, and narratives.

    Those who take umbrage at the term ‘illegal alien’ came up with the idea of ‘fake news’, which is any news not blessed by MSM’s holy water.

    But if ‘no human is illegal’, maybe ‘no news is fake’.

    ——————————–

    I don’t see any problem with the idea of hate groups.

    It all depends on what you hate and why.

    It’s natural for whites to hate demographic displacement and PC that demean them.

    SPLC and MSM say whites must love their own demise and displacement. If not, whites are haters. I say fine. Whites should hate those who mean them harm. Only idiots love or are indifferent to their demographic displacement.

    The fact is ALL groups are hate groups.They have their loves but also their hates.

    But the dominant discourse has been rigged so that only certain kinds of hate make for designated ‘hate groups’.

    Russians understandably hate Nazism and globalism because both were predicated on destruction of Russian national independence and sovereignty. I see nothing wrong with that kind of hate.

    All true nationalists must hate globalism that hates national independence and integrity based on organic exclusion as protection against invasive inclusion.

    ————————

    I think Jewish Views come in three flavors.

    1. Objective rational thought. When it involves something that doesn’t trigger their emotions or ideological vanity, Jews can be very good critics. And this can be said of Reich too. On some topics, he is reliable. Jews may go into some show-off acrobatics, but they remain faithful to issue at hand.

    2. Ideological thought. All people have some ideological bias, but Jewish intellectualism sometimes settles for Big Ideas. And there is a tendency to place everything into such framework. Greenspan and his Randian free market, for instance.

    3. Tribal issues. This is where even the most erudite and intellectual Jew can go into hysterical and paranoid mode and go nuts.

    Ron Rosenbaum is a good example of this. He has written intelligent and thoughtful stuff on history. But when something triggers his tribal paranoia, a piece of white bread or turkey meat is Hitler staring at him.

  • Gray Liddell

    YT is such a pussy, always trying to appease, looking for gratefulness where there is none, zero, zilch, zed. YT does not know the first rule of life which is ‘When the sh*t comes down you must support your color.’
    That rule(recently articulated in the novel Matterhorn, is true in prison where there are no hypocrites,
    What do you look like? Humans run the gamut from real black Africans to bleached out Finns but the
    easiest identifiers are black skin on one side and blue eyes on the other.
    So gather up your stuff and go to your own kind(or get a real good tan) because maybe not now, maybe not in 20 years(I mean look at Brazil) but someday YT will be fighting for survival(8 billion in the world, 800 million YT) and when that happens the unpalatable truth of Benjamin Disraeli, former (1870s?)Prime Minister of the UK and author of many novels, will out.

    “All is race, there is no other truth”
    https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary

    or a modern version of this would be by Karl Marlantes in Matterhorn p. 311
    “…he had to support his color when the shit came down”

  • Bruce Regael

    Damn Hunter. That was one of the best articles I’ve read in awhile. If only we had more educators like you in our schools.

  • Brent McKaskell

    Once again we see an article allegedly “on our side” attack “Yankees”. This is yet another reason why the white nationalist movement has long been impeded, precisely due to Southern regionalists like Hunter Wallace, who, when he’s not using that silly fake name, is known as Brad Griffin. What he fails to mention is that a “Yankee” by the name of Abraham Lincoln (and not a single Southerner) had implemented a plan to ship negro slaves either down to Central America, the Caribbean, or back to Africa. But then along came a Southerner by the name of John Wilkes Booth who put a bullet into the one man who had the power to accomplish this. So if you want to blame the South’s ongoing destruction by feral negroes, blame a Southerner.

    One final note: the League of the South, whom Brad Griffin sucks up to, was viciously opposed to identitarian politics for the longest time, until its blowhard leader, Michael Hill, saw which way the tide was flowing, and ditched his stupid ideas and jumped on the white nationalist bandwagon, in all but name only. The point is this: we need to reject Griffin’s “North Against South” dichotomy and unite under the banner of “white Americans” and nothing else.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dae3afddfa3eee14463ef96cb8e2f9ec1262a558e0c3185336205de767fe2a9b.jpg . And, yes, I’m a native born Southerner.

  • Al Hope

    The Marxist Overlords implemented prison-house races rules at the national level; when they directed Obamby to issue the Executive Invasion Orders and establish Invasion Staging Zones in every city.

  • Mantelar

    when the left started pushing identity politics hard they didn’t think through the dialectic they were starting. the logical ends are either white people stay disorganized and are destroyed or white people organize and defend themselves. mother nature pretty much demands that events turn out somewhere between the two. thus whites going tribal to some extent was guaranteed from the onset. the academics who started all of this live cloistered, sheltered lives; and having no practical base of experience have no real appreciation for the dangers and costs associated with stoking racial animus. i’m sure if and when things get violent, they’ll all fail to see the connection. they already do.

  • J.j. Cintia

    If everyone is equal you are as free as wild animals. With the law of the jungle as your only guide. If everyone is an individual then only the strong or cooperative will have the advantages. If life has no hierarchy, then one must be formed either through skill, intelligence or raw naked force.
    Peace is for the strong, the weak are prey or serve the strong. There can only be one dominant species in any territory, and only a liar or a fool would say otherwise. Every creature on Earth has a home and territory and dies off quickly if pushed off of it. Real Estate is the base your life is lived on and your life story and your peoples’ history will be written on that palette. Homeland or natural habitat, its is the necessary component for your survival.
    The other races have a homeland and would deny us ours. If they want War I will prosecute one. If they and their homelands must burn and die out to save me and mine, so be it. Make no mistake, I care not for you or your ancestors. My ancestors and my people are my concern. If you make them your enemy, you make me your enemy. I promise you, that will be the Worst Mistake you will EVER MAKE.

  • Alex

    I read a good chunk of Democracy in America already, and what I learned is that identitarian politics, aka “human condition” according to Tocqueville, is inescapable, and that America was only ever stable, and he only ever had faith in it’s survival, based on the dominant white racial homogeneity.