In which the Carlyle Club makes a French connection.
- The French Connection
- Third Worldism
- Au Revoir, à Bientôt from Radish
- Recommended Reading
- Letters to the Editor
Some of the finest reactionary minds of the last half-century were French: Jean Raspail prophesied the death of the West in his 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints; Alain de Benoist founded the French “New Right” and wrote The Problem of Democracy, among other fine books;—but they will have to wait: today, we’re featuring Guillaume Faye, whose books and essays are finally available in English.
M. Faye is best known to his English-speaking audience for Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age, but I think the best place to start on la Nouvelle Droite is Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance. As you can probably tell from the subtitles, the last thing you should expect from M. Faye is a dry read; Alex Kurtagić:
Faye communicates his thinking in a direct, high-velocity prose, which, in spite of its evident erudition, and much to O’Meara’s credit in the English edition, is energetic, angry, and intense. The latter, however, owes in no small measure to the fact that, while Faye may be intellectual heir to a tradition of cultural pessimism, best exemplified by the Weimar-era Conservative Revolutionary writers, he is far from yet another purveyor of doom and gloom. On the contrary: for Faye, nothing is set in stone; history for him is an open, dynamic field where anything is possible, where the unthinkable may well become thinkable and the impossible possible, if the will is there to make it so.
At the core of Why We Fight is a narrative, a way of understanding history, right up to the present time, which is presented to us in the form of a “metapolitical dictionary.” Everybody’s got one—yes, even you, my friend.
What’s the difference between a rebellion and a revolution? Between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Between concessions, which are good and just and necessary; and appeasement, which is bad and wrong and never works? Why did the best country in Africa have to be crushed in the name of human rights,” but the worst country in the world merits “engagement”? For answers, consult your own metapolitical dictionary. The facts are the same (at least, if you’re informed); only the narrative changes.
While you’re at it, find the difference between the global leadership of progressive President Woodrow Wilson—
My dream is that as the years go on and the world knows more and more of America it will also drink at these fountains of youth and renewal; that it also will turn to America for those moral inspirations which lie at the basis of all freedom; that the world will never fear America unless it feels that it is engaged in some enterprise which is inconsistent with the rights of humanity; and that America will come into the full light of the day when all shall know that she puts human rights above all other rights and that her flag is the flag not only of America but of humanity.
—and the world domination of Joseph Stalin, “Leader of Progressive Mankind”:
The name of Comrade Stalin has long become the banner of peace in the mind of the peoples of all countries. All who want to struggle against the instigators of a new war know and are convinced that they will do the right thing by rallying around Comrade Stalin, the great defender of peace. Mankind, having lived through the horrors of the last world war, craves for peace and is resolutely opposed to a new slaughter. Precisely for this reason all nations greet with gratitude the resolute, unequivocal policy of peace which Comrade Stalin pursues and upholds.
While we’re on the subject, who were the “good guys” in World War II?
Let me point out that the largest ally President Roosevelt had during the war was Stalin’s Soviet Socialists. […] Instead of staying out of the war and letting the German and Soviet barbarians pound each other to dust on the plains of central Europe, Franklin Roosevelt abandoned neutrality and in June 1941—five months before Pearl Harbor—announced he would back the socialist Stalin. Stalin was the worst known evil in history. […] Franklin Roosevelt backed Stalin, so the worst evil in history won the war, Stalin.
Why are some democides worth teaching in schools, but other mass killings just… aren’t? And if you don’t think questions like these are appropriate—where, exactly, do you draw “the bounds of acceptable discourse”?
Consult your metapolitical dictionary, for the facts are the same; only the narrative changes.
UN “Refugee” Agency photo of Libyan colonizers at sea in the Mediterranean (2011).
“Europe has till now received less than 2% of the people fleeing Libya”—which is, apparently, not enough of them.
“Surely,” you demur, “colonialism is history.” Well, that all depends on your metapolitical dictionary. Here is how Faye defines colonization, in these “postcolonial” times we live in:
The occupation and permanent installation of a people (or several peoples) on another people’s homeland. This term is preferable to that of “immigration.”
This is what Europe is presently suffering: a massive colonisation by alien peoples, which makes it the greatest tragedy in her history, because it threatens to destroy her ethnic stock. This colonisation is far more serious than a military occupation, because it’s potentially irreversible. At the same time, this colonisation threatening an Islamic conquest of Europe is carried out with the complicity of the United States.
(Faye distinguishes between Americans and the United States government: in a 2012 speech in Nashville, he described Americans and Europeans as “brothers in arms.”)
From a tactical perspective, it’s necessary to speak of colonists rather than of immigrants, and to stop affirming that the latter are victims of “exploitation.” Just the opposite, these colonists have come to Europe to live at our expense. Their invasion comes from both the maternity wards and porous borders (30 percent of French births are now of alien parentage and, if nothing changes, by 2010 Islam will become the largest practiced religion in France). We are suffering “a colonisation from below,” very different from the former European colonisation of the Third World. The gravity of the phenomenon has been compounded by Europe’s demographic collapse.
European colonisation was civilising: it brought many things to the countries involved and, contrary to the dogmas of the xenophilic Left, […] it had little effect on native culture. Rather, it (stupidly) reinforced Islam, laying the basis for its current historic assault on Europe.
In every realm, resistance to this colonisation and reconquest constitutes the single overriding objective of every European political project of the Twenty-first century.
Let’s apply Faye’s definition to the BBC article ‘Greece’s treatment of migrants shameful, says Amnesty’ (2012). On second thought, make that: ‘Greece’s treatment of foreign invaders shameful, says Amnesty.’
Greece faces a “humanitarian crisis” over its mistreatment of foreign invaders, according to a report by Amnesty International.
The group accuses the government of detaining thousands of would-be colonizers, including many children, in “shameful [and] appalling” conditions.
Greece is a major gateway for conquering tribes from Asian and African countries as they try to assault and overthrow the European Union.
Defenses against foreigners have been on the rise in the debt-stricken nation.
The report claimed that Greece systematically fails to provide the most basic requirements of safety and shelter to the thousands of invaders passing through the country ever year.
“Greece is clearly failing very significantly to surrender to and prostrate themselves before the many colonizers that are crossing its land and sea borders with Turkey,” Amnesty International spokesman John Dalhuisen said.
Again, the facts are the same; only the narrative changes. The BBC narrative was progressive; ours is reactionary, at least on this one point, and it shows us a very different sort of “crisis” underway in Greece.
Does Greece have the right to defend itself against invasion? Is Greek culture worth preserving? Do the Greeks get a say in their own future? These are the sort of questions you can’t ask if you only look at the world from a progressive point of view.
Are we perhaps being unfair to the colonizers? Let’s find out. We turn to the New York Times for a pure progressive narrative, in Karl E. Meyer’s ‘Who Gets to Be French?’ (2012):
While researching a book on the politics of diversity with my wife, Shareen Blair Brysac, I encountered not only the exclusionary attitude prevailing in metropolitan Paris, but also the more tolerant worldview epitomized by the port city of Marseille—a worldview that the rest of France would be well served to embrace.
To exclusionists, the test of French-ness is straightforward: have you relinquished any other identity you might have had?
The effects of this exclusionary mindset are palpable. France today has Europe’s largest Islamic minority, making up nearly 10 percent of its population. Yet Muslims remain a people apart, as documented in 2011 by a research team recruited by the Open Society Institute.
Hence the contrast one experiences in Marseille, France’s second largest city. Its 840,000 inhabitants include an estimated 240,000 Muslims (more than any other European city). Yet it is famously welcoming. Here, as we were told by Jean Roatta, a politician representing the port’s upscale central district, “you’re Marseillais before you are French.” In the fall of 2005, as ethnically charged riots consumed Parisian suburbs and spread to scores of other cities and towns, peace prevailed in Marseille. It’s still a long way from being a multicultural Eden (jobless Muslims credibly complain that they experience discrimination), but this second city still points the way in its welcoming civility.
Well, arsonists did torch 35 cars in one night, but it really comes down to your definition of “peace,” doesn’t it?
Why? Doubtless, fine weather and abundant beaches help maintain a tranquil atmosphere, but the chief reason is that it has for centuries been a magnet for immigrants. And its minorities are not geographically ghettoized in suburbs but rather integrated into Marseille’s daily life. Just as important, successive mayors have bent the rules to provide special job, housing and political benefits to newcomers. Moreover, there’s the bonding power of its popular soccer team, Olympique de Marseille, which includes many players of African origin, and the salutary effect of its trademark cultural product: rap. Rap reached France in the 1980s, and almost instantly immigrant youths in Marseille vented their melancholy and frustration in verses salted with local slang.
Can and should the Marseillais spirit of civilized tolerance spread northward?
And there you have it: tolerance, tranquility, peace and civility. Huzzah! No need to look into this any further—wait, stop! Stop looking, we’ve got the answer we wanted! Oh, too late (Agence France-Presse, 2012):
Prostitutes and drug dealers lounge in doorways, propositioning passers-by. Piles of overflowing rubbish litter the streets.
Near the busy Noailles market, a grocery shop owner says he is afraid when he stays open after dark.
“I’ve heard about the capital of culture, there are going to be concerts and art exhibitions, yes?” said the shop owner, who gave his name only as Mohammed.
“Who needs that? What we need is security and clean streets. For people to stop being afraid.”
Marseille, a 2,600-year-old Mediterranean port and France’s second city, has long been plagued by a reputation for gang crime, drugs and lawlessness.
In December, a 37-year-old policeman died after being shot by burglars with Kalashnikovs, a teenage dealer died in a hail of bullets and the bullet-ridden corpses of three men were found in a torched car on Christmas Day.
David Olivier Reverdy, a spokesman for the Marseille branch of the Alliance police union, said the city is in the midst of an ultra-violent outbreak of gang-related crime that shows no sign of abating.
Police say there were 20 drug-related murders last year. Armed robberies were up 28 per cent, violent robberies up eight per cent and burglaries up six per cent.
The root of the problem, Reverdy said, is a new generation of ruthless young drug dealers and a recent proliferation of weapons, especially Soviet-designed AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles.
“They are ready to do anything to protect their business,” he said. “Where before things were decided with fists, these days for nothing—for a sideways look—out comes the Kalashnikov and the shooting starts.”
Police are struggling to contain the violence and last year saw the city’s third new police chief named in only two years.
Marseille, a city of around 860,000 people, is among the poorest urban areas in France.
Official unemployment is around 13 per cent, the highest among France’s urban areas, but Madrolle [a local opposition councillor] said nearly 40 per cent of people are actually jobless.
Marseille also holds the records for the country’s lowest higher-education levels and the highest number of single-parent families on state benefits.
Welcome to Marseille, with its 240,000 exceedingly tranquil Muslims:
Left: “Not an uncommon sight in Marseille but one the tourist may not see” (AFP, 2012).
Center: “42% of French consider the presence of a Muslim community as a ‘threat’ to the identity of their country” (Le Monde, 2011).
Right: Arab colonizers expel Gypsy colonizers, burning their camp (La Provence, 2012).
Allow me to translate pour vous an anecdote Marseillais (Le Figaro, 2012):
Police, who were trying to verify the identity of a young veiled woman, were attacked by about fifty people in the third district of the city.
Four people were arrested Tuesday night in Marseille for assaulting police officers trying to check the identity of a young veiled woman.
However, the prosecutor decided to release them a few hours later, with just a summons. The decision shocked Marseille police. “We would have liked them to at least be held longer,” said Lionel Vidal, departmental delegate of the Unité SGP police union. “The police had not even finished writing their reports by the time they were all out.”
The prosecution also requested an investigation into the conduct of the incident and the actions of the police. “This decision is fraught with meaning,” announced David-Olivier Reverdy [the same police union spokesman quoted above]. “The police are the subject of regular violence in Marseille, and this court decision sounds like a license to attack security forces without getting in any trouble for it. It is tragic.”
Somehow, Mr. Meyer of the New York Times forgot to mention this—any of this.
Just look at all these Muslims, Mr. Meyer says. There are hundreds of thousands of them—et voilà, they have made Marseille a wonderful place to live, for they have created a “tranquil atmosphere.” Yes, a great mood of calm has descended on Marseille, all thanks to the Muslims. We should embrace a more tolerant worldview, and let the spirit of civilized tolerance (so characteristic of Islam) into our hearts, because that just sounds so much nicer than being exclusionary, intolerant, and uncivilized.
You don’t need to know how many people in Marseille actually share this tolerant outlook; nor do you need to know what they’ve actually been forced to tolerate. Just be welcoming; be famously welcoming. Let the Muslims in! Let them all in! Then we, too, can bask in a mood of calm. If the rules (some would say laws) do not allow it, then the rules must be bent, so that we might shower these gentle newcomers with all the job, housing and political benefits they desire, demand, and seem to require.
Metapolitical dictionaries: everybody’s got one.
A travesty which is typical of modern Britain (Telegraph, 2011):
A former member of Robert Mugabe’s feared secret police in Zimbabwe who admitted kidnapping dozens of his political rivals and carrying out acts of torture “too gruesome to recount” has been granted asylum in the UK under European human rights legislation.
Phillip Machemedze, 46, came to the UK in 2000 along with his wife because he had “enough of the torture”, but waited eight years to apply for leave to remain.
He was originally turned down by the Home Office in March this year because he had committed crimes against humanity.
But on May 4, he was granted asylum on appeal under European human rights laws because a tribunal ruled he would be killed by his former Central Intelligence Organisation colleagues if he returned to Zimbabwe.
According to sources close to the case, he and his wife are living on social support benefits [including HIV treatment] in Newport, south Wales.
Mr Machemedze spent four years in the CIO [Central Intelligence Organization] and admits smashing the jaw of an MDC activist with pliers before pulling out his tooth and stripping another naked and threatening to force him to rape his daughters if he did not give information.
He also confessed to electrocuting, slapping, beating and punching “to the point of being unconscious” a white farmer suspected of giving money to the MDC, and to “putting salt into the wounds” of a female MDC member who [was] imprisoned in an underground cell before being stripped naked and whipped.
Mr Justice David Archer, of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in Newport, said there was no doubt that Mr Machemedze was “deeply involved in savage acts of extreme violence.”
“Some were killed slowly and their bodies disposed of. He witnessed people with their limbs cut off. Other acts of torture were too gruesome to recount,” he said.
But he said that under the European Human Rights Convention, he himself should be protected from torture and threats to his life.
“Those rights are absolute and whatever crimes PM has committed, he cannot be returned to face the highly likely prospect of torture and execution without trial,” he ruled.
Ha! That’s a good one, Mr. Justice Archer. Now we hang him, right? Oh, you were being serious. Well, I suppose we can just hang you too.
The Telegraph (2012) also reports that a Sudanese war criminal, “who belonged to a brutal militia that killed thousands of people,” “is living rent-free in a large house in the Midlands.” Although a television interview “brought him to the attention of the Border Agency’s war crimes unit, he has not been removed from Britain because it would infringe his human rights.” Of course it would.
Hard Hearts or Soft Heads?
In the pages of the reliably egregious New York Times (2012), law professor Daniel Kanstroom musters considerable outrage over the prospect of removing foreign invaders who also commit additional crimes. See if you can spot any “bias language” from the progressive metapolitical dictionary.
It would have taken a hard heart not to be moved this month as tens of thousands of “Dreamers”—young undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children—emerged from the shadows to apply for temporary work permits and deportation deferrals under a new policy by the Obama administration that has delighted immigrant advocates and enraged conservatives.
Though generous and humane, the policy represents only one side of the deportation story. Barack Obama has presided over a record increase in the number of removals, in many cases on legal grounds that offend our basic notions of fairness. These injustices predate him; they started in 1996, when immigration policy was changed in a draconian fashion so that noncitizens—including permanent legal residents—became vulnerable to deportation even for minor crimes committed years ago, with little regard for procedural rights or judicial discretion.
Oh, no: we’ve been deporting foreign invaders even for committing additional crimes.
Before 1996, deportation was a comparatively small enterprise, with safeguards that allowed judges to exercise compassion and recognize rehabilitation. Since then, one of history’s most open societies has developed a huge, costly, harsh and often arbitrary system of expulsion. Between 2001 and 2010, more than one million people were deported from the United States because of post-entry criminal conduct.
Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly: over the course of ten years, so many tens of millions of people have invaded the United States, and so many millions of them have committed additional crimes here, that out of the (no doubt very small) fraction who were caught, then out of the smaller fraction who were convicted, the even smaller fraction who were deported still makes up one million criminals—one for every 300 Americans.
In other words, the deported fraction of the convicted fraction of the arrested fraction of the twice-criminal fraction of these “undocumented immigrants” still amounts to 100,000 criminals every year. So naturally Professor Kanstroom is concerned that the system by which these criminals are expelled from the country might be unpleasant for the criminals.
These homesick exiles can be found around the world.
Deportees to El Salvador (a country many had fled during the civil war of the 1980s) encountered discrimination because of their accents, style of dress and California gang-themed tattoos.
A “gang-themed” tattoo… is that anything like a gang tattoo?
I don’t know, I’m no law professor. And I certainly don’t write for the New York Times.
The documentary “Sentenced Home” tells of Loeun Lun, who was brought to the United States at age 6. He served 11 months in jail for having fired a gun in a shopping mall (no one was hurt) when he was 19, but he turned his life around. Even so, he was deported in 2003, at the age of 27.
Really? “Even so”? Just for being in the country illegally, and shooting a gun “in” a shopping mall? (At…?) And after he’d already “turned his life around” in some unspecified way?
This vast experiment in deportation hasn’t deterred [America's invasion by Central America], which increased steadily from 2000 to 2007.
No kidding. Well, we “experimented” with deporting them—kinda, sorta—but they just kept coming! So I guess we should stop trying to deport them.
Though most experts agree that we need visa reform, better border control and a large-scale legalization program for those already here, no comprehensive legislation has passed. The plight of the deportees is even further down on the legislative agenda, if it is there at all. And so the deportations go on.
Do you think Daniel Kanstroom, Professor of Law, voice of the “experts,” and pusher of “large-scale legalization,” is aware that treason is punishable by death? Or do you think he needs to be reminded?
Not the Country They Fought for
A truly remarkable piece in the Daily Mail (2009):
Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out.
She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand.
Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.
As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort.
Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation’s sense of service and sacrifice.
Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally.
But was it worth it? Her answer—and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s—is a resounding No.
They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It’s not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger.
They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, ‘betrayed.’
Immigration tops the list of complaints.
‘People come here, get everything they ask, for free, laughing at our expense,’ was a typical observation.
‘We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you ask?’
Many writers are bewildered and overwhelmed by a multicultural Britain that, they say bitterly, they were never consulted about nor feel comfortable with.
‘Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for care and are being refused medical services because incomers come first.’
Her words may be offensive to many—and rightly so—but Sarah Robinson defiantly states: ‘We are affronted by the appearance of Muslim and Sikh costumes on our streets.’
But then political correctness is another thing they take strong issue with, along with politicians generally—‘liars, incompetents and self-aggrandising charlatans’ (with the revealing exception of Enoch Powell).
As a group, they feel furious at not being able to speak their minds.
They see the lack of debate and the damning of dissenters as racists or Little Englanders as deeply upsetting affronts to freedom of speech.
‘Our British culture is draining away at an ever increasing pace,’ wrote an ex-Durham Light Infantryman, ‘and we are almost forbidden to make any comment.’
Welcome to Brave New Britain. Hey, thanks for killing all those Germans!
Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we [are] about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist.
It’s said that for the first week after they [the Red Army] took it [Berlin], all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it [instead] had I been allowed.
An entry in Patton’s diary (August 18, 1945):
At dinner with General Juin the remarkable statement was made by him to me that, “It is indeed unfortunate, my General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country—and I do not mean France—therefore the road is now open for the advent of Russian Communism.”
Another letter to his wife (August 31, 1945):
Actually the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans. So do our cousins…
And a final letter to Beatrice (September 14, 1945):
Some times I think I will resign and not be a further party to the degradation of my country.
Shut up, you stupid ignorant bigot! Oh, wait: he died three months later after a car crash. Seriously, though, thanks for killing all those Germans. Well done. You sure saved Poland, which was, after all, the nominal reason Britain started the Second World War! Oh, wait: no, you didn’t.
All may not be lost (Gatestone Institute, 2011):
The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim invaders to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.
A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”
The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups.”
As expected, Muslim organizations in Holland have been quick to criticize the proposals.
But polls show that a majority of Dutch voters support the government’s skepticism about multiculturalism. According to a Maurice de Hond poll published by the center-right newspaper Trouw on June 19, 74 percent of Dutch voters say colonizers should conform to Dutch values. Moreover, 83 percent of those polled support a ban on burqas in public spaces.
There are now an estimated 1.2 million Muslims in the Netherlands, which is equivalent to about 6 percent of the country’s overall population.
As their numbers grow, Muslim conquerors have become increasingly more assertive in carving out a role for Islam within Dutch society.
The report concludes that Dutch society is poorly equipped to resist the threat of radical Islam because of “a culture of permissiveness” that has become synonymous with “closing one’s eyes” to multiple transgressions of the law.
In 2012, 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale was lured, beaten, strangled, and dumped in a recycling bin by a black 15-year-old and 17-year-old because they wanted parts from her BMX bike.
If you’ve never heard of Autumn or Jonathan, but you have a strong opinion about George Zimmerman defending himself from a 17-year-old black “child,” you just might be an “anti-racist.” Give yourself a pat on the back.
Guillaume Faye provides an accurate definition of anti-racism:
In the guise of combating racism and xenophobia, this doctrine encourages discrimination in favour of aliens, the dissolution of European identity, the multi-racialisation of European society, and, at root, paradoxically, racism itself.
Anti-racists use their fake struggle against racism to destroy the European’s identity, as they advance cosmopolitan and alien interests.
Anti-racism, moreover, translates into a racial obsession and contradicts itself, since its partisans deny the existence of races. In promoting open borders and dogmatically encouraging multi-racial society, anti-racists end up objectively provoking racism.
The dominant ideology imposes a quasi-religious anti-racist faith that promotes integration into its politically correct society. Anti-racism is quintessentially a form of intellectual terrorism. Whoever disapproves of immigration or affirms the superiority of European civilisation—and identity—whoever denounces the evils of multi-racial society, whoever observes the ethnic character of the growing criminal element—is demonised and branded by media, society, and the law as a “racist.”
Touchstone of the self-righteous, anti-racism is the most advanced expression of postmodern totalitarian ideology. It demonises all forms of rebellion and anti-system opposition. Similarly, it neutralises and keeps potential dissidents within the system’s ideological bounds. A certain intellectual Right, hoping not to alienate the ruling powers, has in this way been recuperated, marginalised, and subjected, losing in the process any hope of being publicly recognised. […] This egghead Right […] is not content with publicly declaring itself to be “anti-racist,” but goes so far as to denounce whoever publicly defends his European identity as a ‘racist.’ Incredible, but true.
This all goes to show the paralysing and integrative power of anti-racist dogma, which demands that its collaborators become informers—which probably isn’t a very sound calculation.
Controversial, perhaps. On the other hand, a well received post at a popular “anti-racist” blog is titled ‘Why I hate white “anti-racists”’ (2008). If your own definition of “anti-racism” differs from M. Faye’s, how do you account for this? (As an exercise, swap “black” and “white,” and see how the sarcasm strikes you.)
In “I am not a white bitch,” senior Beth Rankin complains about being “ostracized” for being white. She claims she wants to be “united” in the “fight against prejudice.”
The problem is that the black people are being mean to her. No, really! And undoubtedly that’s what’s stopping her from being a good anti-racist.
But read through Rankin’s piece, and you see the condescension, the arrogance and the privilege that too often are the hallmarks of the “white anti-racist.”
First, Rankin believes that she should be welcomed everywhere and is shocked to find that is not the case.
She was “forced to understand” because on two separate occasions she claims she was called a “white bitch.” By black people.
Because she experienced two or three acts of prejudice, she now claims to understand racism. And it apparently stung her deeply. Not only did black people not welcome her at their university event, but she was told that she might not have the life experience necessary to understand a viewpoint and people were mean to her to boot!
I would laugh if it weren’t for the fact that so many discussions of racism end up with white people similarly claiming all the air in the room for themselves. Once during a discussion of systemic institutionalized racism, a white man talked about the racism he too had suffered. He talked about how black people were racist too. And when asked what he was referring to, he said a black boy had thrown pebbles at him once when he was walking down the street.
I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.™
So having rocks thrown at you in the street is another one of those “acts of prejudice” against white people that simply don’t count. “Systemic institutionalized racism,” on the other hand, doesn’t involve any actual, specific “acts of prejudice,” and thus can only be detected through statistical analysis—under the assumption that all human subspecies are identical, of course, despite their obvious differences in heritable traits.
At another community meeting convened to discuss problems of racism in the schools, a white woman took up a large portion of time while she cried. She said that she had tried, really tried, to be nice to black people. But sometimes they were mean to her.
And of course, people of color should be extra-nice to white people who deign to come and help us out with our “plight.” We should give them cookies and be very grateful. Because of course, racism isn’t their responsibility.
Their collective racial responsibility. All white people everywhere, automatically guilty of “racism,” whatever that is, because of… their race. No, white bitch, you won’t be “welcomed everywhere.” No, white bitch, we don’t care if our people make you cry, or attack you in the street. Why should we? You’re not one of us!
“I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.” I’m sure you aren’t. “I would laugh.” I’m sure you would.
(While you have the cookies out, give her one for having a non-white boyfriend! Because that’s so open-minded! Really, she picked a boyfriend of color when she probably could have gotten a white one.)
As you can see, this is one “anti-racist” who really gets it. This has nothing to do with “equality,” and it never did. It’s a fake struggle coupled to a racial obsession, which serves alien interests by attacking European identity.
And a collaborator like Beth Rankin, that self-proclaimed “anti-racist,” with her “boyfriend of color” and her pathetic plea for “unity,” isn’t a valued ally to be treated with any sort of respect. She’s a target of ridicule and contempt, a useful idiot. Thanks for the help, white bitch!
Once again, the facts are the same; only the narrative changes.
From Robert Weissberg’s ‘Hidden Impact of Political Correctness’ (Minding the Campus, 2007):
It’s easy to think of Universities as a circus for wacky professors; their semi-monthly comparisons of Bush to Hitler or indictments of inherent American racism are hard to miss. Universities’ deviations from traditional education are far more serious than a few zany radicals, though. Something far more significant overshadows this ranting, namely how PC invisibly sanitizes instruction to avoid “offending” certain easy-to-anger students. This is the dog that does not bark—“safe lecturing” to use the STD vocabulary—and seldom recognized since it concerns what is not taught, and as such deprives students of a genuine education.
Students will thus mistakenly “hear” things they might find objectionable. […] No matter how trivial the alleged wrongdoing, no matter how obvious the misunderstanding, true or not, crimes against racial sensibilities requires action. This is the raison d’etre for these injustice monitors and justifies salaries.
I had a distinguished colleague—Stuart Nagel—whose tale is worth telling. He taught public policy and one day explained that black businesses in Kenya were uncompetitive against Indian-run enterprises since blacks where too generous in granting credit to friends and family. He had been invited by the government of Kenya to study the situation and suggested better business training for black Kenyans. The topic was indisputably part of the course and thus totally protected by AAUP academic speech guidelines. Stuart was also extremely liberal on all racial issues.
Nevertheless, to condense a long story, an anonymous letter from irritated black students complained of Nagel’s “racism” and included the preposterous change of “workplace violence.” After a protracted and bungled internal university investigation, two federal trials (I testified at one), he was stripped of his teaching responsibilities and coerced into retirement. Interestingly, having been charged as “racist,” his departmental colleagues, save two conservatives, abandoned him. A few years later, partially as a result of this emotionally and financially draining incident ($100,000 out-of-pocket for legal fees), he committed suicide.
I can only speculate that he believed that years spent being a “good liberal” (including service in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division) would insulate him from being denounced as a “racist.” Nor would he have anticipated that the university would spend the hundreds of thousands in legal fees to punish a famous tenured faculty member who “offended” two students.
Professor Weissberg himself was later dropped from the supposedly “conservative” (though of what, unclear) National Review, to which he occasionally contributed, for participating in the 2012 American Renaissance conference in Tennessee, along with Alex Kurtagić and Guillaume Faye.
The first speaker Saturday morning was the always stimulating Robert Weissberg, Emeritus professor of University of Illinois at Champagne, who proposed “A Politically Viable Alternative to White Nationalism.” He argued that any movement that is explicitly based on white racial identity is “dead on arrival,” and must be repackaged in order to win successful recognition.
Prof. Weissberg argued that an “80 percent solution” would be one that enforced the “First-World” standards of excellence and hard work that attract and reward whites. He pointed out that there are still many “Whitopias” in America and that there are many ways to keep them white, such as zoning that requires large houses, and a cultural ambiance or classical music and refined demeanor that repels undesirables. This approach to maintaining whiteness has the advantage that people can make a living catering to whites in their enclaves.
He did note, however, that because racial consciousness is so natural, it could return with surprising rapidity.
Or, as National Review editor Rich Lowry put it, “he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism. He will no longer be posting here.” Twelve hours earlier, the “anti-racist” Leonard Zeskind had referred to Mr. Weissberg’s positions as “noxious.” “Is it normal,” Mr. Kurtagić wonders, “for a conservative editor to get his language and opinions from a commentator on the extreme Left?”
Lowry proceeded to thank his progressive enemies “who brought it to our attention.” Guillaume Faye has a term for “conservatives” like Lowry:
Anti-racism […] neutralises and keeps potential dissidents within the system’s ideological bounds. A certain intellectual Right, hoping not to alienate the ruling powers, has in this way been recuperated, marginalised, and subjected, losing in the process any hope of being publicly recognised. […] This egghead Right […] is not content with publicly declaring itself to be ‘anti-racist,’ but goes so far as to denounce whoever publicly defends his European identity as a ‘racist.’ Incredible, but true.
What could be more perfectly “anti-racist” than obsessing over how pale the pretty French girls are?
A black rights group on Monday slammed the latest Miss France competition for producing a “white as snow” winner from a field it claimed was unrepresentative of the country’s ethnic make-up.
(Aside: am I supposed to believe that French blacks are still missing some of their “rights”?)
Marine Lorphelin, 19, a brunette medical student from Burgundy, was on Saturday crowned Miss France 2013, having edged out Miss Tahiti, Hinarini de Longeaux, in the final round of judging.
Louis-Georges Tin, the president of the CRAN (Representative Council of Black Associations), on Monday lamented the lack of contestants from France’s African and north African communities.
“The failure to represent the contemporary French population in an event such as this is obviously serious,” Tin said in a statement issued jointly with Fred Royer, the creator of Miss Black France.
“It amounts to denying the very existence of French people of African origin.”
Of the 33 finalists in Saturday’s contest, eight were from ethnic minorities with six of those coming from France’s Pacific or Caribbean territories.
“In the antiquated world of Miss France, blacks apparently can only come from overseas departments,” the CRAN statement said.
“As for Frenchwomen of north African heritage, they were ‘represented’ by only one candidate who was quickly eliminated (too Muslim perhaps?).”
France is home to around five million Muslims, most of them of north African origin.
The statement went on to express regret that “Miss France is as white as the end of year snow on the steeples of an eternal France.”
Try to wrap your head around how stupid this is, even if we grant that Miss France 2013 is “obviously serious” business: France is about 85 percent white. If the finalists for Miss France 2013 were “representative of the country’s ethnic make-up,” as demanded, there would be twenty-eight white finalists, not twenty-five. By complaining that Miss France is too white (not, e.g., “too Pacific-or-Caribbean”), this “black rights group” is demanding that white women, already under-represented, be replaced by North African women.
They seem to be particularly displeased that the winner was “as white as the end of year snow.” But someone had to win. Presumably, if Miss Tahiti had won, the “black rights group” wouldn’t have a problem with that. So “anti-racism” requires that white people in white countries, regardless of representation, just not win.
Finally, this notion of equal representation is based on a blatant lie: that women of different races all look the same. Since they don’t, the distribution of attractiveness among North African women will not be the same as the distribution among white women, and the entire argument falls apart.
After all that, are we still expected to believe that “anti-racism” simply means opposing racial discrimination?
“Socialist,” and Other Racial Mustard Gases
Attention, dark-skinned but otherwise talentless journalists. Have you built a career on accusing white people of “racism?” (Of course you have.) Would you like to cash in on “racism” hidden in ordinary words and phrases? (Of course you would.) Generate an endless list of fake racial grievances with help from professionally mulatto political commentator Touré Neblett, in ‘How To Read Political Racial Code’ (Time, 2012):
Part of my job when I speak about politics is to speak up for black people and say things black people need said. This mission has rarely felt so necessary as it has when racial code words recently entered the Presidential election. These code words are ancient racial stereotypes in slick, modern gear. They are linguistic mustard gas, sliding in covertly, aiming to kill black political viability by allowing white politicians to say ‘Don’t vote for the black guy’ in socially-acceptable language. Sometimes the code comes directly out of a candidate’s mouth. Sometimes it comes from supporters, or can be found in advertisements.
Do not be fooled by the canard that both parties do it. […] Using certain words to invoke racialized fear and scare white working class voters is a long-established part of the Republican playbook. The GOP is a 90% white party and has been for decades. […] Given that math, in a base turnout election where Romney has a big lead among white, non-college educated men, it’s understandable why he’d try to motivate those voters with code words that remind them of their racial difference with Obama and stigmatize that difference. In this effort a word like “welfare” is extremely valuable. Sure there are more white than black Americans on welfare [wrong], but when a candidate says ‘welfare’ many whites think of their tax dollars being given to blacks.
Another classic code word—that hasn’t cropped up in this election yet—is “crime.”
Here’s a riddle: how can half of your examples not be examples?
There’s also the cornucopia of terms and concepts created to de-Americanize Barack Obama, from calling him “Muslim” or “Socialist” to Romney surrogates like John Sununu saying things like, “I wish this President would learn how to be an American.” There is also a return to birtherism, with Romney recently joking, “Nobody’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.” The subtext of all this is: Obama, like other blacks, is not one of “us.” He is other.
Do Democrats use racial code? No. The Democratic party is a racially diverse coalition. There would be no value to playing this game.
Are they really no progressive code words? Bear in mind, we live in a society where “equality under the law” means that the state enforce special privileges for protected classes, a policy we have taken to calling by a meaningless phrase; where “diversity” goes up any time the white population goes down, no matter how few of them are left; where “racism,” in an election year, basically means white people not voting for a black candidate. But never mind that, tell us more about how unfair it is to associate blacks with crime—when blacks, at 13 percent of the population, are only committing about 30 percent of aggravated assaults, 60 percent of robberies, and 35 percent of rapes (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
You see, there is some value in playing this little game.
“The Dissolution of European Identity”
Tim Wise counts himself “among the most prominent anti-racist writers and educators in the United States.” We therefore present this excerpt from his ‘Open Letter to the White Right’ following the 2010 midterm elections. Oddly enough, Mr. Wise later tried to edit out some of the most blatant “anti-racist” content, but we managed to save it. Emphasis (not to mention psychotic racial hatred) in original:
For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.
And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor.
Whatever the case, and whatever your economic station, know this…
You need to drink up.
Because your time is limited.
Real damned limited.
So party while you can, but mind the increasingly loud clock ticking away in the corners of your consciousness.
The clock that reminds you how little time you and yours have left.
Not much more now.
I know, you think you’ve taken “your country back” with this election—and of course you have always thought it was yours for the taking, cuz that’s what we white folks are bred to believe, that it’s ours, and how dare anyone else say otherwise—but you are wrong.
Your kind—mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like—are dying.
You’re like the bad guy in every horror movie ever made, who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass—even if it takes four sequels to make it happen—but who in the meantime keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.
Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends.
Our ankles survive.
You do not.
Fine, keep it up. It doesn’t matter.
Because you’re on the endangered list.
And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.
Because in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Loy [sic] tiene muy mal, hijo de Puta.
“Too bad, you son of a whore.” Okay. Try to imagine the mindset behind that remark. Can you see yourself gloating over the destruction of someone else’s culture? The extinction of someone else’s race? Let’s say you’re white. Arabs certainly enslaved a lot of white people over the centuries. Do they deserve to go extinct? If they did, would you sing and dance and cheer? No? Then perhaps “anti-racism” is not for you. Mr. Wise continues:
And by then you will have gone all in as a white nationalist movement—hell you’ve all but done that now—thus guaranteeing that the folks of color, and even a decent size minority of us white folks will be able to crush you, election after election, from the Presidency on down to the 8th grade student council.
They have to study you, to pay careful attention, to adjust their body armor accordingly, and to memorize your sleep patterns.
And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now—we are—your destruction.
We just have to be patient.
And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well…
Do you hear it?
The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.
That right there is some pure, unadulterated, 200-proof “anti-racism.” That’s what it’s always really been about—which is why Mr. Wise would rather you hadn’t seen it.
“Anti-Racists” and Diversity
If anyone can appreciate the merits of racial diversity, it must surely be the “anti-racist” crowd. That’s why they can so often be found living in places like Haiti, El Salvador, Cambodia, and Detroit. Oh, wait…
Chris Matthews of MSNBC is always looking out for new forms of “racism” to complain about—especially in an election year, for some reason—and black people just can’t get enough of it, he says (2012):
Everybody I’ve met who’s African-American has come up to me, about six inches away from me and very personally said, “Thank you.” I met some people in Mozambique, I met some people in Jamaica. It is an international reality and everybody feels it on that side of the racial divide.
I wonder if Mr. Matthews met one of Mozambique’s “ruthless” AK-47-wielding gangs that go around robbing and kidnapping every foreigner they can get their hands on (Reuters, 2012), or one of the Jamaicans who wish their “crime-ridden, poverty-stricken nation” was still a British colony, and make up a solid 60 percent of Jamaica’s population (Daily Mail, 2011). But do go on, Mr. Matthews:
It’s disgusting that white people, to whom the dog whistle is aimed, refuse to acknowledge it. It’s there, it’s been part of our politics. We thought it was gone, it’s back and it’s being used to get votes.
More code words? How awful—and yet I find myself wondering how, exactly, Mr. Matthews has achieved this remarkable understanding and rapport with all black people everywhere, not to mention where he got his uncanny ability to identify secret racist code words (NewsBusters, 2012):
It’s amazing, here we are in the 21st century, 2012, and what worked 60 or 70 years ago is still working today. Say welfare, people think black because politically they’ve been taught to say so.
But I go back to living in DC all these years. I’ve lived there 40 years, a black-majority city, and anybody who wants to get up early in Washington and drive down North Capitol and drive past Florida Avenue, sees nothing but young—but black people up at 6:30 in the morning going to work.
In reality, Mr. Matthews, who finds white people so “disgusting,” lives in Chevy Chase Village, which has exactly 10 black residents (to be fair, they probably aren’t on welfare), making it 93 percent white and 0.5 percent black. Diversity: our greatest and only strength!
The last time we saw Tim Wise, he was celebrating the extinction of white America. What’s next, Mr. Wise (2012)?
I swear, if I hear one more transparently racist person insist they aren’t racist because they have black friends, I am going to shoot them.
They don’t have black friends. Not real ones at least. Knowing some black dude with whom you occasionally shoot hoops at the campus rec center does not mean you have a black friend.
I grew up with mostly black friends, for the first several years of my school experience. […] It was black kids with whom I identified early on.
Interesting—but I’m no psychiatrist. In any case, Mr. Wise’s “genuine connections” to black people are “in all likelihood far more extensive than 90 percent or more” of white Americans. And why are those connections so very important? Why do white people require black friends?
No matter how many friends of color we white folks may have, unless we are there to intervene every time they get unfairly stopped by a police officer, every time they get followed around at the mall on suspicion of shoplifting, every time they apply for a mortgage loan and face the risk of being charged higher interest, and every time they apply for a job, knowing that the employer may be looking at them as a walking, talking stereotype, then our friendships will mean pitifully little in the larger scheme of things.
Personally, I’m inclined to let people associate with whomever they like, even if they don’t like shoplifters and credit risks—but I’m no professional “anti-racist.” Strangely enough, Mr. Wise, renowned “anti-racist” and friend to all the world’s black people, lives in Davidson County, Tennessee, in census tract 134, which is 97 percent white and 0 percent black.
You know, Mr. Wise, I hear you can buy a house in 83 percent black Detroit for one dollar these days—but I guess in Davidson County he actually can stop to lend a hand every single time a black person applies for a loan.
M.G. Miles provides an excellent example in ‘Bring low the enemy of Multiculturalism’ (links in original):
Stupid White Men author Michael Moore is one of Flint’s famous native sons. When Moore was born there, the Euro population was 91.4%. Since then, this number has fallen to 35.7%. Mysteriously, Moore has since chosen to forsake his vibrant, diverse hometown for Traverse City, stupid white population…
… 93.3%. (His beloved Afros? Only 0.7%.)
We are confronted with this psychological dissociation again and again, from diversity-lovers who pull their children from schools that become too colored (be it in Norway, Australia, or the U.S.), to Blacks who moan about segregation in one breath and in the next give each other tips on how to avoid black movie theatres.
It was almost as if there were two separate levels—one of everyday events and experiences, which I found myself often criticising; the other that of the great [Communist] Party line which at this time, despite many hesitations, I still regarded as correct, from the standpoint of general principle.
—Wolfgang Leonhard [German Communist], 1958
Minnesota, among other places, has chosen to import tens of thousands of Somali “refugees,” blessing the state with a veritable rainbow of vibrant diversity—along with an epidemic of assault, murder, more murder, further murder, gang murder, gang warfare, terrorism, more terrorism, racial violence, rape, sex slavery, and more sex slavery, including the 29 diverse vibrancies pictured below. They’re also ruining the school system with their violence and stupidity (I’m sorry, their “autism and learning disabilities”), and disciplining them is, of course, considered racist. Who, exactly, decided that this was a good idea?
Guillaume Faye helps us to understand Third Worldism:
Doctrine, on the Left and Right, which claims the Third World has been “exploited”—and that it’s advisable to aid it, unceasingly, with financial and technological transfers, and to welcome its migrants.
The proper attitude to the Third World is one of relative indifference, the opposite of the present “right to intervene.” Europe has no obligation to peoples whose destiny is not their own. The endemic poverty, wars, and epidemics that ravage certain parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are not our concern. These populations are alone guilty of their incapacity to govern themselves. We are not “responsible” for them. To let the Third World take responsibility for its own fate requires that we refuse to assist it.
A certain number of legends also need to be resisted. Specifically the legend that European colonialism, in the form of exploitation and slavery, was a sin for which we must forever repent. […] European colonialism, though, was harmful to Europe, though it benefited the Third World, whose demography it vastly developed.
(Remember Chris Matthews’ Jamaicans.)
This has boomeranged against Europe—an immense historical error. For European colonialism was the starting point for the South’s colonisation of Europe.
It also needs emphasising that in the period of European colonisation, Third World populations, notably in the Maghreb, the Middle East, and Africa, lived under conditions of peace, liberty, public order, and prosperity far superior to whatever “independence” brought. All Africans and Maghrebians of good faith who were born before independence today realise this.
Third Worldism, like anti-racism, is a pseudo-philanthropic doctrine that blames and paralyses Europeans. […] Now part of the dominant ideology, Third Worldism rests on the principle that industrialised countries once pillaged the Third World, […] even though the Third World now lives at the expense of European countries—which it financially exploits and colonises.
Are you at risk of developing FPCS—Fatal Post-Colonial Syndrome? Consult our helpful map!
Let’s see if our new narrative can help us make sense of the Third World, starting with a remarkable piece in the New York Times: ‘Eradicate Malaria? Doubters Fuel Debate’ (2008).
Last year, challenging global health orthodoxy, Bill and Melinda Gates called for the eradication of malaria.
That is, for exterminating the parasite everywhere and forever, except perhaps in laboratory storage, as has thus far happened to just one disease in history, smallpox.
Their call, delivered at a malaria conference that they had convened in Seattle, was, in Mrs. Gates’s language, “audacious.” Her husband went further, asking, “Why would anyone want to follow a long line of failures by becoming the umpteenth person to declare the goal of eradicating malaria?”
The best opportunity probably existed in 1955, the year Mr. Gates was born and the year the W.H.O. said it would eradicate malaria. With weapons then new, DDT and chloroquine, a fast-acting synthetic quinine, annual deaths were driven down below 500,000.
The world changed. Before the 1960s, colonial governments and companies fought malaria because their officials often lived in remote outposts like Nigeria’s hill stations and Vietnam’s Marble Mountains. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.
Um… I think I have a pretty good idea what “civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care” look like. But what exactly is this other thing—yes, this “freedom” of which you speak, which apparently makes up for all the other things, and more? As in: given the choice between (a) peace, plenty, good health and rule of law, without “freedom” (whatever that is); and (b) “civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care,” with “freedom” (whatever that is); you should definitely—obviously—go ahead and start that civil war; burn those hospitals; shut down those businesses; etc., etc. Who did the arithmetic on that?
Oh, and look: those awful, racist colonial governments, fighting malaria for their own selfish, racist purposes—and accidentally saving millions of Africans and Asians in the process. Boy, their faces must have been red.
Much has changed for Robert Mugabe and the former Rhodesia
The Washington Post invokes a novel definition of “independence” in ‘Looking Toward Zimbabwe’s Future’ (2007):
When Zimbabwe became an independent country in 1980, it was a focal point for international optimism about Africa’s future. Today, Zimbabwe is a basket case of a country. Over the past decade, the refusal of President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party to tolerate challenges to their power has led them to systematically dismantle the most effective workings of Zimbabwe’s economic and political systems, replacing these with structures of corruption, blatant patronage and repression. The resulting 80 percent unemployment rate, hyperinflation, and severe food, fuel and power shortages have created a national climate of desperation. Estimates suggest that roughly one-quarter of the entire population has fled the country. Meanwhile, the government’s violent crackdown on voices of dissent has left the opposition divided and eroded public confidence in the prospects of peaceful political change.
The human rights and humanitarian consequences of these developments have attracted the attention of the United States and others in the international community, as has the potential of the crisis to add Zimbabwe to the roster of the world’s dangerously unstable failed states.
But, as I argue in a new Council Special Report, Planning for Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, the U.S., working with others, can help to alter the calculus of the Zimbabwean players who can affect change—at least those players who are not 83 years old and determined to tank their country in a fit of pique. By focusing on the future and putting a serious commitment to Zimbabwe’s recovery on the table, we might be able to influence the present.
This means working closely with others in the international community to map out strategies that will help bring essential services back on line and get the economy back on track.
A clear plan to link robust recovery assistance to better governance can help Zimbabweans interested in charting a new course to plan their strategy by making it clear just how the spigots of international support can be turned back on.
The author is an International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Alter the calculus.” “Influence the present.” “The spigots of international support.” “Zimbabwe became an independent country in 1980.” Do these words not seem a little strange, coming from this former International Affairs Fellow at “the nation’s most influential foreign-policy think tank” (Jim Lobe), now U.S. Ambassador to Botswana, who is definitely not an idiot; who was, in fact, a Rhodes Scholar in International Relations at Oxford?
There have been no significant protests against the result as Mugabe retains an iron grip. Police trucks with mounted water cannon watch over “freedom square,” the name given to an open field in downtown Harare by MDC supporters who held what was described as the country’s biggest ever election rally there.
Glorious “freedom” (CNN, 2013):
Police officers and their families were warned that they would lose their homes if Mugabe did not win the election. Add to this the tight control by Zanu-PF of the mass media, the constant demonization of Morgan Tsvangirai, his MDC party and Western sanctions, and the exhaustion of a populace ground down by decades of poverty, lack of access to independent information, violence and the threat of violence—and you begin to understand the toxic recipe for a Zanu-PF “success” at the polls.
I expect Mugabe can’t wait for those wonderful “spigots” to “be turned back on”:
There is, of course, some support for Mugabe in the rural areas, where he has given hundreds of thousands of families land, agricultural inputs and food—which was given as humanitarian aid by the international community and re-bagged and distributed in Mugabe’s name strictly to Zanu-PF members during the past 15 years.
Still, it could be worse:
The general mood across the nation is one of despondency. Everyone seems depressed. No one knows what to do next. It would seem the will of the people has not triumphed at all. Riot police patrol quiet streets. No one sings or dances.
What happened on July 31 was a demonstration of what can be done by a small group of people who have everything to lose and who have spent more than 30 years cementing their grip on power and wealth. It certainly was not a popularity contest.
Mercifully it was peaceful. Memories of the 2008 election—burnt and lacerated bodies, weeping girls and women who had been raped, swollen, bleeding feet and dead bodies—were fresh in the minds of many.
I see a similar paradox in the Guardian (2010): ‘Iron rule of Mugabe casts pall over independence.’
Few could have guessed that, when the country marks 30 years of independence, it will also be forced to salute 30 years of Mugabe’s iron rule. Nor could they have imagined they would be asking how this eloquent freedom fighter, once lauded by the west and knighted by the Queen, turned into one of Africa’s most reviled tyrants.
Truly a mystery. Because we were told, by the anti-racist, anti-imperialist, social justice-type progressives (who never lie, because they’re the good guys) that Mugabe was an “eloquent freedom fighter”—based on his speeches, because of course Third World politicians “lauded by the west” always write their own speeches. Yes, eloquent, we were promised, and so much more; Andrew Young, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations:
I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible. […] The problem is he was educated by the Jesuits, and when you get the combination of a Jesuit and a Marxist kind of philosophy merging in one person, you’ve got a hell of a guy to deal with.
Lies upon lies. Even at the time, they knew, or could easily have discovered (New York Times, 2008):
At the time, nearly 30 years ago, Mugabe was an unknown leader of a guerrilla movement trying to overthrow white rule in what was then Rhodesia. I was a New York Times foreign correspondent covering Africa. And Rhodesia itself was a delusional outpost of colonial living in which many of the 270,000 whites appeared blissfully unaware of a war being pressed on behalf of the 7 million blacks.
I first heard mention of Mugabe in May 1976 in the Quill Club of the Ambassador Hotel, a watering hole where Prime Minister Ian Smith’s police, guerrilla sympathizers, reporters and agents from various factions suspended normal antipathies for the sake of gossip. We foreign correspondents used to toss around names of the ultimate leader of the emergent new country like miners testing gold nuggets: Would it be Joshua Nkomo? Ndabaningi Sithole? Jason Moyo? A Guardian correspondent named James McManus, who looked particularly dashing in the safari suits we all wore, pulled me aside and said that he was putting his money on a new man called Robert Mugabe.
Responsible journalism at its finest.
No one knew much about him, he said, but he was a Shona, which meant that he belonged to the largest tribal group. He was said to be operating out of Mozambique, then notorious as Rhodesia’s hard-line communist neighbor. And, most intriguing of all, he was an intellectual, a teacher who loved the poetry of T.S. Eliot. Understandably, this last bit of information got to me.
Some time later, our reporter, John Darnton, gets a face-to-face interview with Mugabe.
As the interview seemed to be drawing to a close—he was looking frequently at his watch—I couldn’t repress the unsatisfying feeling that I had won a headline but hadn’t really learned anything about the man himself. He was expressionless. His voice hadn’t risen. His small eyes hadn’t broken through the mask of placid assurance and even, it seemed, remote indifference.
Surely there must be a key to unlock this enigma. “So,” I said, “what is it exactly that attracts you to T.S. Eliot?”
He gave me a blank look and stood up. “You know,” I added, “‘The Waste Land.’”
For the first time incomprehension crossed his features, maybe even a flash of irritation. I persisted.
“‘April is the cruelest month,’” I said. “Eliot. The poet. You know.” As he ushered me to the door, his bewilderment seemed to turn to anger. “I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about,” he said, closing the door firmly behind me.
How strange: Mugabe turned out to be something entirely different from what we were promised by the people who helped him seize power, including journalists from the New York Times and the Guardian (newspapers which are not, in fact, based in Zimbabwe), and other members of the “international community” (Daily Mail, 2013):
What has happened in Zimbabwe is to Britain’s eternal shame. When the Foreign Office handed power to him after the 1980 Lancaster House Agreement, its mandarins muttered that Mugabe was probably a decent chap. So decent that within years he had massacred thousands of Matabele supporters of his arch-rival, Joshua Nkomo.
But let’s get back to the present-day Guardian (2010), responsible as ever:
Today there are many Zimbabweans who believe that, far from being a good man corrupted by power, Mugabe’s ruthless streak was forged long ago in the bitter liberation struggle, during which he spent 10 years in jail. Reflecting on three decades of bloodshed, economic ruin and erosion of civil liberties, they see little to celebrate in the eclipse of what was once Africa’s greatest hope.
On 18 April 1980, the renegade colony of Rhodesia gave way to the new Zimbabwe, ending a seven-year war that left 27,000 dead. Mugabe, a guerrilla fighter hated by Ian Smith’s white-minority regime, announced a policy of reconciliation and invited whites to help rebuild the country.
Zimbabwean independence 30 years ago signalled the demise of the last outpost of the British empire in Africa. With it Rhodesia, so-called after its imperial founder, Cecil John Rhodes, was dispatched to the history books.
Rhodes, who modelled himself on Caesar, was one of the dominant figures in Victorian colonialism. He ruthlessly exploited southern Africa’s mineral wealth and dreamed of building a Cape-Cairo railway.
Okay, let’s review. On the one hand, we have a “liberation struggle” by a “freedom fighter,” which was also “a war on behalf of the 7 million blacks,” culminating in Zimbabwe’s legitimate “independence” in 1980—which somehow led to an “erosion” of actual “civil liberties,” not to mention “corruption, blatant patronage and repression,” and of course literal dependence on “the spigots of international support.”
The move was immediately condemned as illegal (“an act of treason”) by the British government, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations. Independent Rhodesia was not recognized by any country; even apartheid South Africa sent no ambassador to Salisbury, the capital. Britain and the U.N. imposed economic sanctions, and many Rhodesians worried that an oil embargo would cripple their landlocked country.
So this earlier, fake “independence,” of the same actual piece of land and with a lot less violence, saddled Rhodesia with a “white-minority regime”: the sort of people who “ruthlessly exploited southern Africa’s mineral wealth” (i.e., made a profit), and even “dreamed of building a railway”—the fiends! All while somehow not inducing “roughly one-quarter of the entire population” to flee. Obviously, this necessitated “economic sanctions” and other interference by the “international community” (remember the Quill Club), ultimately “dispatching” the “renegade colony”—and more than a few innocent lives—“to the history books.”
For some racist reason, even after the triumph of this “liberation struggle” by the great “freedom fighter” (followed by “three decades of bloodshed, economic ruin and erosion of civil liberties”—“the eclipse of what was once Africa’s greatest hope”), Ian Smith’s stupid retarded racist government “hated” Mugabe, even though he wanted “reconciliation” and for “whites to help rebuild the country” he’d just destroyed. I wonder why they felt that way…
Let’s investigate, with the help of some interesting booklets published by the government of Rhodesia: ‘Anatomy of Terror’ (1974), ‘Massacre of the Innocents’ (1978), and ‘The Murder of Missionaries in Rhodesia’ (1978). (We might also try ‘The Farmer at War’ (1979), ‘A View of African Nationalism’ (1976), and ‘A Case for Rhodesia’ (1978) for a broader perspective.) Wait, the murder of missionaries? Yes, that’s how the “eloquent freedom fighter” conducted his “liberation struggle” (Time, 1978):
At the beginning of the war, the killings of white missionaries had seemed, in most cases, to be merely part of the prevailing violence. The latest rash of murders suggests that the guerrillas are now killing missionaries in an effort to create panic among Rhodesia’s remaining whites, particularly in rural areas. Since whites are now leaving the country at the rate of 1,000 a month, that brutal plan may be having some success.
Under more politically convenient circumstances, this would, of course, be ethnic cleansing. However, since the perpetrators are black and the victims white, we’ll adopt the standard convention and call it “white flight.”
The third booklet can tell you all about the Elim Mission Massacre of 1978 (also known as the Vumba Massacre). From the Sunday Mail in Salisbury (1978):
Eight British missionaries and four young children—including a three-week-old baby—were bayoneted to death by terrorists on Rhodesia’s Eastern border on Friday night in the worst massacre of whites since the six-year-old war began.
Three of the missionaries were men and the others women.
A sixth woman was stabbed and beaten and left for dead. She staggered 300 m into the freezing Vumba bush to spend the night before being found semi-conscious by security forces yesterday. Despite intensive care in a Salisbury hospital she subsequently died.
The gruesome murders, by a group of eight to 10 terrorists, happened at Emmanuel Mission School—15 km south-east of Umtali and 8 km from the Mozambique border—once used as the Eagle boarding school.
Most of the women had been sexually assaulted, and one mutilated.
The children had been dragged from their beds. Two children were in yellow pyjamas, one with a red dressing gown, and a third in a flowery nightdress.
One child had her tiny thumbs clenched in her palms.
Even hardened security men were stunned by the bloody scene and stood around silently. “The quiet is uncanny,” said one.
Mr. Brian Chapman, director of the Church in Rhodesia and South Africa, visited the scene yesterday. He said: “We saw no humanity here.”
And from the Citizen in South Africa (1978):
“Non-violence in many ways is being practised by the Patriotic Front. I asked one of their commanders, Tongogara, what they actually do in Rhodesia, and he said they’re not doing much fighting, except when they are fired upon, or when the Rhodesian defence forces find them and try to run them out.
“Basically what they are doing is moving around the villages and conducting political seminars and singing songs.”
So says Mr. Andrew Young, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, in a recent interview [May 22, 1978] with the London Times.
This weekend, in the worst atrocity committed against white civilians in the history of Rhodesia’s six-year war, terrorists of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe National Liberation Army hacked and battered to death almost the entire white staff and their families at the Elim Pentacostal Mission in the Eastern border mountains.
Mr. Young is asked: “Does Mr. Mugabe strike you as a violent man?”
He replies: “Not at all, he’s a very gentle man. In fact, one of the ironies of the whole struggle is that I can’t imagine Joshua Nkomo, or Robert Mugabe, ever pulling the trigger on a gun to kill anyone. I doubt that they ever have…. The violent people are Smith’s people and hopefully they won’t be around for the new Zimbabwe.”
This weekend, when local and international journalists arrived at the scene of the massacre 15 km from Umtali and less than 7 km from the Mozambique border, the mutilated and blood-stained bodies of three men, four women and five children—including a three-week-old baby—were lying as they had been found that morning.
Mr. Young is asked how he gets on with Mr. Mugabe.
He replies: “I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible…. The problem is he was educated by the Jesuits, and when you get the combination of a Jesuit and a Marxist kind of philosophy merging in one person, you’ve got a hell of a guy to deal with.”
This weekend, one of the newspapermen who flew to the scene of the massacre reported: “The bodies lay in clusters round the school’s cricket pavilion. The victims had all been foully abused. All but one of the four adult women had been raped and left semi-naked on the grass.”
Mr. Young tells of the “deep-seated humanism” of a young man who told him: “I started killing at 14 and when you kill and when you realize you could be killed for something that you believe in, you learn that there’s nothing more precious and valuable than human life.”
This weekend, at the scene of the massacre, correspondents reported that the “victims were beyond help, with axe wounds scarring their bodies, bayonet thrusts deep in their backs, and skulls crushed by knobkerries or lengths of thick wood.
“Shocked and angry troops viewed the carnage and quietly cursed the terrorists. One man had tears in his eyes as he muttered: ‘The bastards. They are nothing better than animals. How could they do this?’”
Yet these are the terrorists whom men like Andy Young support.
The tragedy of Africa is not just that such savagery still persists.
It is that terrorism has been given respectability. That the men with the guns are regarded as freedom fighters, as liberators, when they are no more than thugs and animals.
When will the World Council of Churches appreciate that it must stop aiding men who kill and maim the innocents?
When will our local political priests accept that it is time to condemn, instead of support, such forces of evil?
When will Mr. Andy Young and people like him realize that every man, woman or child who dies at Elim or at Kolwezi, or anywhere else on this dark continent, is a victim of insensate hate and barbarism?
When will they back the forces of peace, of tolerance, of goodwill, instead of supporting the brutal and beastly terrorists?
When indeed. As for Joshua Nkomo, that other “very gentle man” (Trumpet, 2008):
Perhaps one of the cruelest attacks came on Sept. 3, 1978. The Hunyani, a Vickers Viscount passenger plane carrying 52 passengers and 4 crew men, was shot down. The plane crashed, but due to the pilot’s skill, there were 18 survivors. Promising them help, the guerrillas rounded up 10 of them and then shot them.
A group run by Joshua Nkomo organized the massacre. Nkomo chuckled about his “triumph” in an interview with the BBC.
Joshua Nkomo served as Mugabe’s vice president from 1987 to 1999.
In February 1979, a second plane was shot down. There were no survivors.
The past is a foreign country, my friends. Try not to get lost…
(Bonus: ‘Zimbabwe Develops Helicopter.’)
Welcome to the Jungle
I present to you a truly remarkable piece from Time magazine: ‘Come Back, Colonialism, All Is Forgiven’ (2008).
Le Blanc and I are into our 500th kilometer on the river when he turns my view of modern African history on its head. “We should just give it all back to the whites,” the riverboat captain says. “Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won’t see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn’t just stay where we were. We went backwards.”
Le Blanc earns his keep sailing the tributaries of the Congo River. He’s 40 years old, and his real name is Malu-Ebonga Charles—he got his nickname, and his green eyes and dark honey skin, from a German grandfather who married a Congolese woman in what was then the Belgian Congo. If his unconventional genealogy gave him a unique view of the Congo’s colonial past, it is his job on the river, piloting three dugouts lashed together with twine and mounted with outboards, that has informed his opinion of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s present. “The river is the artery of Congo’s economy,” he says. “When the Belgians and the Portuguese were here, there were farms and plantations—cashews, peanuts, rubber, palm oil. There was industry and factories employing 3,000 people, 5,000 people. But since independence, no Congolese has succeeded. The plantations are abandoned.” Using a French expression literally translated as “on the ground,” he adds: “Everything is par terre.”
It’s true that our journey through 643 kilometers of rainforest to where the Maringa River joins the Congo at Mbandaka, has been an exploration of decline. An abandoned tugboat here; there, a beached paddle steamer stripped of its metal sides to a rusted skeleton; several abandoned palm oil factories, their roofs caved in, their walls disappearing into the engulfing forest, their giant storage tanks empty and rusted out. The palms now grow wild and untended on the riverbanks and in the villages we pass, the people dress in rags, hawk smoked blackfish and bushmeat, and besiege us with requests for salt or soap. There are no schools here, no clinics, no electricity, no roads. It can take a year for basic necessities ordered from the capital, Kinshasa, nearly 2,000 kilometers downstream, to make it here—if they make it at all. At one point we pass a cargo barge that has taken three months to travel the same distance we will cover in two days. We stop in the hope of buying some gasoline, but all we get from the vessel are rats.
Even amid the morbid decay, it comes as a shock to hear Le Blanc mourn colonialism. The venal, racist scramble by Europeans to possess Africa and exploit its resources found its fullest expression in the Congo. In the late 19th century, Belgium’s King Leopold made a personal fiefdom of the central African territory as large as all of Western Europe. From it, he extracted a fortune in ivory, rubber, coffee, cocoa, palm oil and minerals such as gold and diamonds. Unruly laborers working in conditions of de facto slavery had their hands chopped off; the cruelty of Belgian rule was premised on the idea that Congo and its peoples were a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.
The author then skips straight to postcolonial Congo, ignoring the Belgian Congo (1908–1960) entirely:
Leopold’s absentee brutality set the tone for those that followed him in ruling the Congo—successive Belgian governments and even the independent government of Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled from 1965 to 1997 and who, in a crowded field, still sets the standard for repression and corruption among African despots.
Le Blanc isn’t much concerned with that history; he lives in the present, in a country where education is a luxury and death is everywhere. Around 45,000 people die each month in the DRC as a result of the social collapse brought on by civil war, according to a study released in January by the International Rescue Committee. It estimated the total loss of life between 1998 and April 2007 at 5.4 million. For many Congolese like Le Blanc, the difficulties of today blot out the cruelties of the past. “On this river, all that you see—the buildings, the boats—only whites did that. After the whites left, the Congolese did not work. We did not know how to. For the past 50 years, we’ve just declined.” He pauses. “They took this country by force,” he says, with more than a touch of admiration. “If they came back, this time we’d give them the country for free.”
This, by the way, is what the author skipped over: ‘Boom in the Jungle’ (Time, 1955).
In the Belgian Congo last week massed tom-tom drummers practiced a welcome tattoo. Prosperous Negro shopkeepers climbed up wooden ladders and draped the Congolese flag (a golden star on a blue field) from lampposts and triumphal arches set up along Boulevard Albert I, the spanking concrete highway that bisects the capital city of Leopoldville. In far-off mission churches, encircled by the rain forest that stretches through Belgian territory from the Atlantic to the Mountains of the Moon, choirs of Bantu children rehearsed the Te Deum. African regiments drilled, jazz bands blared in the bush, and on the great brown river that drains the middle of the continent Negro captains tooted the raucous steam whistles on their swiftly gliding paddle boats.
The Belgians like to feel that they have devised “a middle way,” making possible black-white partnership. Their program is: full speed ahead in economics and education, dead slow in politics.
So far, the evidence is that the Belgian way is working. The Congo, under hard-working capitalism, has become a tropical cornucopia in the heart of a poverty-stricken continent.
To Novelist Joseph Conrad, the Congo River was “an immense snake uncoiled” curving through “joyless sunshine into the heart of darkness.” There was plenty of darkness in the Congo during the igth century “scramble for Africa,” when Baudoin’s great-granduncle, Leopold II staked out his monarchical claim to the uncharted Congo Free State. Leopold’s rubber gatherers tortured, maimed and slaughtered until at the turn of the century, the conscience of the Western world forced Brussels to call a halt.
Today, all has changed. Nowhere in Africa is the Bantu so well fed and housed, so productive and so content as he is in the Belgian Congo.
In little more than a generation of intense economic effort, the Belgians have injected 20 centuries of Western mechanical progress into a Stone Age wilderness. The results are staggering: in forests, where 50 years ago there were no roads because the wheel was unknown, no schools because there was no alphabet, no peace because there was neither the will nor the means to enforce it, the sons of cannibals now mine the raw materials of the Atomic Age.
Belgian brains and Bantu muscle have thrust back the forest and checked the dread diseases (yaws, sleeping sickness, malaria) which sapped the Bantu’s strength. In some areas, the Congo’s infant-mortality rate is down to 60 per 1,000—better than Italy’s figure. More than 1,000,000 children attend primary and secondary schools—40% of the school-age population (compared with less than 10% in the French empire).
And so on and so forth. But I’m sure Le Blanc was relieved to learn, from a foreign journalist, that all his problems are caused by the poorly researched pre-colonial “cruelties of the past,” and not at all by foreign journalists, and other respected members of the international community, stirring up trouble in the colonies. Blame white people: because that’s almost as good as living in a functioning society with schools, hospitals, roads, and electricity!
Maurice Gomberg’s mind-boggling New World Moral Order (1942)
Merci beaucoup for reading the second issue of Radish. We hope you enjoyed it. Why not share it with your friends? Don’t be alarmed if they are initially unreceptive to your message of hope, change, and death to democracy: perseverance, quiet dignity, and a little LSD in the water supply will soon fix that.
I leave you with Guillaume Faye’s definition of progressivism: “the belief that history is an ascending movement toward the constant improvement of the human condition.”
The idea of progress has been in crisis for a long time (the famous “disillusions of progress”), since progressivism insists that things are always getting better. The idea, however, is undermined from within by a generalised pessimism and the collapse of any confidence in the future, just as its achievements constantly fall short of expectations.
The “happiness of peoples,” rhapsodised by Victor Hugo, had no rendezvous in the Twentieth century—just the opposite. What’s particularly mind-boggling is that progressive ideology (like its modernist counterpart) continues to run in circles, even though the world it has created is heading, full speed, in a fog, toward disaster.
The idea of progress—central to the “modern” vision of the world since the Seventeenth century—is a secular and materialist offshoot of the religious doctrines of salvation.
The Twenty-first century will not bring the end of history, nor the world prosperity of a universal state, but a terrible acceleration of history and a heightening of its tragic essence.
Until next time.
Want to learn more about the topics covered in this issue of Radish? We recommend the following resources. (We do not, however, necessarily endorse all opinions expressed in them: some are not nearly extreme enough.)
- Why We Fight
- Convergence of Catastrophes
- Counter-Currents author archive
- Michael O’Meara’s foreword to Archeofuturism
- ‘Strangers at the Gate’
- ‘Will The Norwegian People Disappear?’ and ‘Demographic Ruin Is Upon Us’
- ‘The Africanization of France’
- ‘France Reaches 30% Diversity Among Newborns; Native Youth Get Angry’
- ‘All Rapes in Oslo Committed by Immigrants’
- ‘French Suburbs Becoming “Separate Islamic Societies”’
- ‘France: Marseille Mayor Requests Army to Fight Kalashnikov-armed Gangs’
- ‘French government cuts immigrants welfare by 83%’
- ‘Obama Plans to Push Congress on Immigration Overhaul’
- ‘Rubio Outlines Bold Plan Giving 12 Million Illegals Legal Status’
- ‘Covered in tattoos, can El Salvador’s gangs reintegrate into society?’
- ‘We’ll never send the Jamaican and Nigerian prisoners home’
- ‘Too diverse?’
- ‘Revealed: 3 in 4 of Britain’s danger doctors are trained abroad’
- Enoch Powell: the (so-called) ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech
- ‘Civil rights leaders question Timberwolves racial makeup’
- ‘ACLU: Emails From Author Of Arizona’s SB 1070 Prove Racial Motivation’
- ‘Couple angered over controversial literature handed out in neighborhood’
- ‘White Nationalists Agree: Multiculturalism Is Bad’
- ‘Matt Drudge’s disgusting race war awareness campaign’
- ‘The GOP’s Immigration Problem Goes Way Beyond Immigration’
- ‘Dear Matt Drudge: Stop the race stories’
- ‘Why conservatives obsess over flash mobs and “race riots”’
- ‘A Very Long Post About John Derbyshire’
- ‘The Origins of Political Correctness’
- ‘Less Academics, More Narcissism’
- ‘Colleges skimp on science, spend big on diversity’
- ‘James D. Watson: Broken By The PC Inquisition, Betrayed By The Righteous Right’
- ‘The Guillotining of John Derbyshire’
- ‘Dog-Whistling Past the Graveyard’
- ‘1980: Mugabe to lead independent Zimbabwe’
- ‘Out in the cold’
- ‘Life in Rhodesia Was Better Than Zimbabwe’
- ‘Kikwit Journal; Once a Colonial Jewel, a City Hurtles Backward’
- ‘CONGO: Boom in the Jungle’
- ‘No More Mandelas’
- ‘Mike Davis: Late Victorian Holocausts’ vs actual history
Those Who Can See
- ‘Five-Year Plan in Four Years’
- ‘Bring low the enemy of Multiculturalism’
- ‘Heretics, Kulaks, and Witches: All That’s Old is New Again’
- ‘From Cromer to Romer and back again: colonialism for the 21st century’
- ‘I wonder if Jonah Goldberg talks about this’
- ‘The real meaning of diversity’
- ‘A theory of the ruling underclass’
- ‘Race: a modest proposal’
- ‘Evidence in current history’
- ‘The country that used to exist’
- ‘South Africa: a message to Jenny’
Assorted, Tangential & Miscellaneous
- Alex Kurtagić: ‘Masters of the Universe’
- ‘Are Babies Born Good?’
- ‘A decade after Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate, why is human nature still taboo?’
- ‘“Islamization of Europe a good thing”’
- ‘Michele Bachmann: “Not All Cultures Are Equal” (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO)’
- ‘Egalitarianism, not inequality, caused the meltdown’
- ‘The slow death of white America: How will the great melting pot adapt to the millions of black and Hispanic voters who swept Obama back to power, asks Tom Leonard’
- ‘Affirmative Action For Immigrants vs. National Security’
- Jim Goad: ‘Can’t We All Just Get Post-Racial?’
- Kathy Shaidle: ‘The Silent Spring That Won’t Shut Up’
- ‘Mandela: Speaking to reporters after singing to kill whites’ (video)
- Lothrop Stoddard: The Revolt Against Civilization