Ron Unz predicted the rise of White Nationalism

Lately I’ve been browsing Ron Unz’s new venture The Unz Review. It looks like a mishmash of HBD, libertarian economics, anti-Israel sentiments, anti-U.S. imperialism and old fashioned common sense (Fred Reed!). Personally I like the site a lot; and it just might be the avenue down which some of the alternative views I advocate reach the mainstream. My hope is that Sailer wills gain some prominence.

 On Unz himself, he is quite a guy! He’s clearly hyper-intelligent and passionate about politics – maybe even naively passionate. But most importantly, he seems to want to get to the truth and the heart of things, unabated by ideology.  This striving for truth has precipitated emotional and intellectual debate with the alt right’s most prominent and formidable intellectuals. From the sidelines, it looks like Unz came out on top on one or two of these forays; and not just empirically but gentlemanly.

The impetus for my writing this piece, however, was not to discuss Ron Unz the person — much has already been written.  While I was browsing his archives, I came across a 1999 article provocatively titled ‘California and the End of White America.’  In this article, Ron Unz lays out America’s future: either Hispanics assimilate, and thus become white — averting the need for white nationalism; or Hispanics do not assimilate, and thus whites sink into a minority — and channel their disenfranchisement and displacement into White Nationalism. 

—————-

Despite the obvious failings of the black community and their parasitic nature as a population, their presence has never precipitated White Nationalism on a national level. I think this is solely due to their stable 12-13% proportion of the US. population. Whites have never felt displaced and disenfranchised by blacks on a national level, thus white nationalism could never, and will never, arise as a response to Blacks. 

What is causing the uptick in white nationalism ( a fact that I think is manifest in the rise of NPI, AMREN, Counter-Currents, white student unions, etc) is the hispanificaiton of the US. Not only are Hispanics demographically bulging, but culturally, too, they are beginning to exert influence.  

Thus the question is: even if all immigration were to cease, what could the US do to turn the tide of hispanificaiton , and thus avert the need for white nationalism? The obvious answer is assimilation. Another question now arises: are Hispanic assimilable? 

Nearly all white nationalists would argue that hispanics are genetically non-white. But wholly independent from their non-whiteness, they are still not assimilable because their IQs are low and they are anti-social (high crime rates, civic disengagement, etc). On the first point — their non-whiteness — it was believed that the Irish and Eastern Europeans were non-white, but into the melting pot they went; and now decades later they are indistinguishable from traditional white america.

One explanation that might be put forth for this problematic reality is that our knowledge of race has advanced since 100 years ago, thus the Irish and Eastern Europeans really were white all along; we just didn’t know it back then. Hispanics, however, are not white, according to modern science. I do not have the requite knowledge to verify this argument, so I will remain agnostic. 

On the latter question — the civic engagement of Hispanics — most white nationalists agree that the mean IQ of Hispanics is too low for assimilation; and equally problematic is the high-crime rate of Hispanics and their unwillingness to identify as White -Americans  — let alone as Americans. 

Ron Unz has grown notorious in the Alt right for putting forth arguments that refute the low IQ of Hispanics , the high-crime rate of Hispanics and the civic-disengagement of Hispanics. Thus Ron Unz paints the picture of a people who could become white if only a policy of assimilation were undertaken. I am not going to delve into his more than 20,000 words of articles to get to the bottom of this. One day i might. 

Let’s assume that Ron Unz’ arguments about Hispanics are correct: yes, Hispanics can assimilate and will, in time, come to be white. For what, then, is White Nationalism?  White nationalism will no longer be a response to a cultural or demographic erasure of White-America (because Hispanics became white). The only force that could propel White Nationalism in the face Hispanic assimilation is the first argument i wrote of — the  genetic non-whiteness of Hispanics. 

What is revealed is the murkiness of White Nationalism. It’s still a very fragmented ideology that is in no way ready for popular dissemination or application. Ron Unz correctly predicted its rise; and as it currently stands, Hispanics, regardless of their high/low IQ or crime rate, are being encouraged by the Elite not to assimilate and to resent White-America, thus propelling White Nationalism further. 

 

 

CJ Ciaramella is a bigoted classist

A meme that floats around is that people on the far right (white nationalists in particular) are not well educated, poor and dress badly. This is mostly correct; and opponents of the far-right will never let you forget it. Indeed, of all the article I’ve seen in the mainstream press about the alt-right, the theme of attire, and how shocking it is that these alt-righters wear suits(!), has been most prominent.

“SOME WELL-DRESSED WHITE NATIONALISTS GATHERED IN DC LAST WEEKEND” was the title that CJ Ciaramella gave to his haughty piece at Vice. The phrasing of the title evokes images of country club republicans mocking the seedy attire of occupy-wall street types and millennial leftists in general. Such a critique would be dismissed as classist by the left, yet here they are, doing exactly that which they dismiss as classist, to the far-right.

What ties the country club republicans and leftist journalists like CJ Ciaramella together is the power they hold in society — manifest in their relative wealth, their education and the respect that their political positions accrue them.

We really are disenfranchised in society; we know this because the leftists mock our poverty, out lack of education and pariah-status. The difference between our disenfranchisement and the disenfranchisement of minorities and occupy-wall street types is that we don’t trade in ‘slave morality.’ We rise above it.

The Southern Poverty law Center is anti-white

The SPLC states:

Although the racism of a group like the Nation [of Islam] may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

This quote reveals that the SPLC’s pursuit of black hate groups is primarily motivated by their not wanting to appear hypocritical.  In other words, pursing black groups gives their hatred of whites a facade of fairness…

 

 

Who deserves health-care?

If you ask most Libertarians or Classical Liberals the answer to ‘who deserves health-care’, the answer is ‘those who can afford it.’ Under such a system, people will literally die in the streets and in their homes because they cannot afford the cost of the treatment and the other costs associated with treatment (which are many and often overlooked).

The problem with this libertarian/classical liberal justification of free-market health-care is that it puts money and wealth on a pedestal. In this free-market society, the meaning of life — and the only way to life — is the acquisition of money. Individualism.

Of course, no one believes this, save a few crack-pots at Mises.org. Take as an example the Department of Veterans Affairs. One of the many functions of this government agency is to provide health care for veterans of war. Military service is by no means lucrative; despite that, I believe that military service — serving one’s country at the risk of one’s own life — is of higher virtue than acquiring personal wealth. The man who serves his country has earned his health-care, more so than the man who acquires wealth for himself.

I am not alone in that belief. As I said in my previous paragraph, no one wants to deny military veterans their health-care. I would, however, take it further. One can serve his country in more than just a military role. Surely these men and women, though not in lucrative jobs, are still just as deserving of health-care than the man who acquires wealth for himself. Under a pro-white and racially conscious zeitgeist, national service will be of higher virtue than individualism — which most often and most perversely manifests itself in the cut-throat rat race and 9-5 acquisition of wealth.

I believe in socialism. National socialism, in essence. That name, unfortunately , is tainted by the Hitler regime. We must think up a better one.

—
BTW, ‘That name, unfortunately , is tainted by the Hitler regime.’ was not meant as a disavowal of Hitler. He was a great man. That said, he is tainted and his views on Jews are perverse, immoral and empirically wrong.

The myth of Jewish Bolshevism

It goes without saying among most right-wingers that the Bolshevik party was predominately Jewish. I believed it too.  But this is far from the truth. The myth originated independently in different circles throughout the 20th century — most notably Nazi Germany. The only attempt, however, at a scholarly foundation for the claim was made by Robert Wilton, a journalist and writer for the Times of London.

Mr. Wilton tabulated in his ‘the last days of the romanovs’ the membership of key Bolshevik committees and Agencies in the Soviet Union. By Mr. Wilton’s reckoning, at least 80-85% of the the membership was Jewish.

I found Mr. Wilton’s  tables online and began googling. Most of the names in the tables presented by Mr. Wilton are completely made up! In other words, it’s all one big lie. Most troubling is that many right-wing websites like David Duke’s and Rense cite Mr. Wilton.

Furthermore, the tables presented by Mr. Wilton contradict other tables that exist on the internet. And per these other tables, the Jewish membership of key agencies and committees hardly reaches 10%!

Thus the idea that jews were predominately involved in Bolshevik affairs is not true.  I feel that the right will not make any intellectual or political progress until it reconsiders its beliefs on Jews.

The Adam Goodes Affair: Modern-Day Analog of the Catholic Church

One feels a sense of satisfaction when his view of things transpires like clockwork. I felt such a satisfaction last week, when my view of Australia as a modern day analog of the Catholic Church played out — first on the football field, and then in the papers and on the television, and, finally, making an explosive encore on talk-back radio, what was to be its final showing.

Of course, I am talking about One Adam Goodes, the Football player who suffered the humiliation of being called an ape.

I try to live by the mantra : “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Adherence to said mantra  keeps me, at least most of the time, out of trouble. But as my reader knows: we are human. An outburst, from time to time, is inevitable. One such outburst was that of an unnamed ,thirteen-year old girl.

For calling Goodes an Ape, the unnamed thirteenth year-old girl was humiliated before all in attendance at the packed stadium. Her jaw dropped to the ground, and her face turned a sickly pale. This is what a public shaming looks like. Yellow-jacketed authorities then carted her out of the stadium. Her family looked on with horror.

Does this ring any bells? It should; we learnt about this years seven through nine: the world was once a dark, dark place. Where new ideas were oppressed, public discourse was  tightly controlled, and individuals who dared express an anathematic position were publicly shamed, subject to correctional facilities,  and, if failing that, ostracized or put to death.

Our history books depart form this grim view of the past by explaining how liberalism, with its  devotion to freedom of expression,separation of church and state, and ‘melting pot of ideas,’ lifted man and society out of his dirty, unenlightened hole, and thus brought man into the modern age,  where we know (because science tell us so) that liberalism is correct and the only correct worldview.

We need not concern ourselves with the validity of the above characterisation of history. All that matters for the purpose of this post is that Liberals (or left-wingers) believe it. For, if this is what Liberalism preaches, then the adage ‘history repeats itself’ is true now and will be true for a long time to come.