The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) surges valiantly ahead with another edition of our free newsletter, Radish.
Advancing to Issue 3? Click here. Retreating to Issue 1? Click here.
Contents
- The French connection: France has unquestionably produced some of the finest reactionary minds of the last fifty years.
- ‘Colonization’: They’re not ‘illegal immigrants,’ they’re not ‘undocumented workers,’ and for God’s sake, they’re not to be put on a ‘path to citizenship’ — unless it’s Mexican or Algerian citizenship. Includes:
- ‘Anti-racism’: Intellectual terrorism meets linguistic mustard gas — look out! Includes:
- ‘Anti-racists’ and diversity: If anyone understands the merits of diversity, it is the ‘anti-racist’ crowd. That’s why they can so often be found living in Detroit, Haiti, El Salvador, Cambodia, and — oh, wait…
- ‘Third Worldism’: “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.” Includes:
- ‘Competition’: Or ‘Fighting Ravenous Prehistoric Cave Bears with Pointed Sticks: An Illustrated Guide.’
- ‘Progressivism’: “The belief that history is an ascending movement toward the constant improvement of the human condition” and that the best way to accelerate said ascent is to do as much damage to society as possible, as quickly as possible.
- ‘Democracy’: “A political system in which the people is sovereign and governed by its elected representatives,” which obviously bears no resemblance to the garbage we have to deal with today. Plus:
- ‘Democratism’: The modern perversion.
- ‘Organic democracy’: “Possible only among ethnically homogeneous people.” You are unlikely to hear about it on either MSNBC or Fox News.
- Recommended reading: As usual, you can learn more about the topics covered in this issue with our extensive reading list.
- Au revoir, à bientôt from le magazine Radis!
The French connection
France has unquestionably produced some of the finest reactionary minds of the last fifty years. Take Jean Raspail, author of the prophetic novel The Camp of the Saints (available for free online), or Alain de Benoist, founder of the Nouvelle Droite and author of The Problem of Democracy, among many other books.
I’m sure we’ll see them again in a future issue of Radish. This week, our interest lies in another key figure in the Nouvelle Droite: Guillaume Faye.
I’ll leave the formal introductions to Alex Kurtagić and Jared Taylor (each an important reactionary thinker in his own right), because I believe the best way to understand Monsieur Faye — or any other great reactionary, for that matter — is to simply read his marvelous writing. Faye’s work has been featured by Counter-Currents Publishing, and English translations of several of his books are now available from Arktos Media.
Guillaume Faye
Faye’s best-known book is probably Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age, but his most urgent may be Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance.
As the titles suggest, a dry read is the last thing one should expect from Guillaume Faye. As Kurtagić puts it, 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.
… [W]hile Faye may be intellectual heir to a tradition of cultural pessimism, … 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.
The core of Why We Fight is a ‘Metapolitical Dictionary’ — “an attempt to fight the perversion of language by coining new words and giving correct definitions to old ones,” Jared Taylor writes, while Faye himself calls it “a synthesis of our conception-of-the-world and our historical perspective, for it’s on the basis of keywords and concepts that we inevitably organise ourselves.”
In this issue of Radish, we’ll apply six keywords and concepts from the meta-political dictionary in order to better understand the world that centuries of political ‘progress’ have inflicted on us. Needless to say, it was difficult to pick just six, so if you enjoy these few excerpts, please consider purchasing the book and supporting a powerful reactionary thinker.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Colonization
(Above: UN “Refugee” Agency (UNHCR) photo of Third World colonists at sea in the Mediterranean.)
Guillaume Faye’s definition from Why We Fight (emphasis in original):
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.
Crisis in Greece
Let’s apply Faye’s concept of ‘colonisation’ to a recent report by the BBC (2012): ‘Greece’s Treatment of [Colonists] Shameful, Says Amnesty.’
Greece faces a “humanitarian crisis” over its mistreatment of [colonists], according to a report by Amnesty International. The group accuses the government of detaining thousands of [foreign invaders], including many children, in “shameful (and) appalling” conditions.
Greece is a major gateway for [alien opportunists] from Asian and African countries as they try to [conquer] the European Union. … The report claimed that Greece systematically fails to provide the most basic requirements of safety and shelter to the thousands of [colonists] passing through the country ever year. “Greece is clearly failing very significantly to absorb and respect the rights of the many [invaders] that are crossing its land and sea borders with Turkey”…
As you can see, the facts remain the same; all that’s changed is the narrative — what Faye meant by “our conception-of-the-world and our historical perspective.” With the help of his “keywords and concepts,” you’re seeing the world through reactionary eyes.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
“Civilized tolerance”
Perhaps we are being unfair to colonists. Let’s try a different point of view. The New York Times wonders (2012): ‘Who Gets to Be French?’
While researching a book on the politics of diversity…, 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.
… 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. … 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. … successive mayors have bent the rules to provide special job, housing and political benefits to newcomers. …
Can and should the Marseillais spirit of civilized tolerance spread northward?
Tolerance! Tranquility! Huzzah! Well, that settles that. No need to dig any deeper — wait, stop! Stop digging —
Too late. ‘Crime-Plagued Marseille Hopes Culture Can Clean Up Image’ (The Mole, 2012):
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. … 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. …
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 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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
“Human rights”
Another travesty, this one from the Telegraph (2011): ‘Former Member of Mugabe Secret Police Granted Asylum in UK.’
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…
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 [pictured above, on the right, enjoying "African Night" at a club]… 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… He also confessed to electrocuting, slapping, beating and punching “to the point of being unconscious” a white farmer… 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. …
“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,” [David Archer of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber] 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… [H]e cannot be returned to face the highly likely prospect of torture and execution without trial,” he ruled.
Ha! That’s a good one. Now I suppose we hang him? Oh… you’re serious.
Well, I suppose we hang you too.
(Incidentally, the Telegraph 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.”)
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Hard hearts or soft heads?
The reliably egregious New York Times musters considerable outrage over the prospect of deporting criminal colonists in ‘Deportation Nation’ (2012). Can you spot the pro-colonist bias? I bet you can.
It would have taken a hard heart not to be moved this month as tens of thousands of “Dreamers” — young [foreign invaders] 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 [treasonous xenophiles] 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…
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.
These homesick exiles can be found around the world. … Deportees to El Salvador… encountered discrimination because of their accents, style of dress and California gang-themed tattoos. … 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 [so it’s totally okay, you colossal racist]) when he was 19, but he turned his life around [in some indeterminate way]. Even so, he was deported in 2003… [Oh no!]
This vast experiment in deportation hasn’t deterred [the Mesoamerican invasion], which increased steadily from 2000 to 2007.
Of course it did.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
“This is not the country I fought for”
Goodbye, England. From the Daily Mail (2009): ‘“This isn’t the Britain we fought for,” say the “unknown warriors” of WWII.’
Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. … 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).
‘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.’
Quiet you! You big racist.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Failure to integrate
All is not lost, the Gatestone Institute reports (2011):
The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim [colonists] to create a parallel society within the Netherlands.
A new integration bill… 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. …”
The new integration policy will place more demands on [foreign invaders]. For example, [colonists] will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to [occupying forces that] ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.
The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim [colonists]… The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages… [and] will impose a ban on face-covering Islamic burqas…
If necessary [!], the government will introduce extra measures to allow the removal of residence permits from [colonists] who fail their integration course.
As expected, Muslim organizations in Holland have been quick to criticize the proposals. … But… 74 percent of Dutch voters say [colonists] should conform to Dutch values. Moreover, 83 percent… 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 [colonists] 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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Anti-racism’
Guillaume Faye’s definition:
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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Non-white people get it
A well received post at a popular ‘anti-racist’ blog, Resist Racism, is titled ‘Why I Hate White “Anti-Racists”’ (2008). If your own definition of ‘anti-racism’ conflicts with Faye’s, how does it account for the following? (As an exercise, swap white and black and see if the sarcasm still seems appropriate.)
In “I am not a white bitch”… 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. …
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. … And when asked what he was referring to, he said a black boy had thrown pebbles [i.e., rocks] at him once when he was walking down the street.
I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.™
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 [collective racial] responsibility. …
(While you have the cookies out, give her [Beth Rankin] 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, non-white ‘anti-racists’ understand the true meaning of the movement: as Faye put it, a fake struggle used to destroy European identity while advancing alien interests, all coupled to a racial obsession. This blogger has made it unusually clear that ‘anti-racism’ is nothing more than a war on white culture. A collaborator like Beth Rankin, black boyfriend or not, is just a useful idiot.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
“Intellectual terrorism”
Robert Weissberg’s ‘The Hidden Impact of Political Correctness’ (2007) tells a sad story.
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 [above] — 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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Miss France 2013
Who would want to look at her? Racists, that’s who.
What could be more perfectly ‘anti-racist’ than obsessing over how pale the pretty French girls are? From France 24: ‘Row over “White As Snow” Miss France’ (2012).
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.
Are we supposed to believe that blacks in France 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 [sic].”
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 [sic], 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.”
Personally, I would like to express regret that anyone should even feel the need to deny such an obvious impossibility as “French people of African origin.” Alas.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Socialist,’ and other racial mustard gases
Cough, hack.
Have you based your entire career on accusing white people of being ‘racist’? Would you like to cash in on ‘racism’ hidden in ordinary words and phrases? Learn how to generate your own endless list of faux racial grievances with help from the mononymous and professionally Mulatto political commentator Touré 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. …
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. … 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.” …
There’s also the cornucopia of terms and concepts created to de-Americanize Barack Obama, from calling him “Muslim” or “Socialist” to… 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.
No progressive racial code words? ‘Affirmative action’ means special treatment for non-white people. ‘Diversity,’ if it means anything, means fewer white people. ‘Racism’ basically means not voting for the non-white candidate. I could go on.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
“Dissolution of European identity”
“Too bad, you son of a whore.” Just imagine the mentality behind that.
Tim Wise counts himself “among the most prominent anti-racist writers and educators in the United States.” Here is an excerpt from his ‘Open Letter to the White Right’ following the 2010 midterm elections. (Italics, and psychotic racial hatred, in original.)
You need to drink up. And quickly. And heavily. Because your time is limited. Real damned limited. So party while you can, but mind the increasingly loud clock… that reminds you how little time you and yours have left. Not much more now.
Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick. Tock.
I know, you think you’ve taken “your country back” with this election… 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… but who in the meantime keeps… grabbing at our ankles as we walk by… But remember how this movie ends. Our ankles survive. You do not.
… you’re on the endangered list. And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving. … 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.”]
And by then… the folks of color… 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. … 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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Anti-racists’ and diversity
If anyone understands the merits of diversity, it is the ‘anti-racist’ crowd. That’s why they can so often be found living in places like Detroit, Haiti, El Salvador, Cambodia, and — oh, wait…
(Above: S. Mutzel’s ‘Principal Types of Mankind’ (1893).)
Chris Matthews of MSNBC is always looking out for new forms of ‘racism’ to complain about, and black people, he says, can’t get enough of it:
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.” … It’s disgusting that white people, to whom the dog whistle is aimed, refuse to acknowledge it.
In his coverage of the 2012 Republican National Convention, Matthews explains how he, as an ‘anti-racist,’ has achieved his rapport with, and superior understanding of, all black people everywhere:
But I go back to living in DC all these years… a [formerly] black-majority city…
Actually, Chris lives in Chevy Chase Village, which has exactly 10 black residents (who, to be fair, are probably not on welfare), making it 93.4 percent white and 0.51 percent black. Diversity!
M.G. provides an even better example (Those Who Can See, 2012):
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.
Finally we have prominent ‘anti-racist’ writer and ‘educator’ Tim Wise, whose white-hating psychosis could comfortably fill a thousand issues of Radish, and whom we already met, celebrating the extinction of white Americans and their culture. (Incidentally, Tim, being Jewish, doesn’t really count himself among them.)
Tim has strong feelings about white people who associate with the wrong sort of people — meaning, of course, other white people:
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.
And Tim would know:
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.
Indeed, his “genuine connections to black people” are “in all likelihood far more extensive than 90 percent or more of all white Americans.” And why are such connections so important to Tim? Why do white people need black friends? Because:
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… then our friendships will mean pitifully little in the larger scheme of things.
Curiously, Tim Wise, famous ‘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.
Tim Wise lives here
So I suppose Tim actually could stop to lend a hand every single time a black person applies for a mortgage loan in his town.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Third Worldism’
(Above: the Ganges river in India is filled with industrial waste, sewage, and human and animal corpses. To illustrate, I’ve chosen one of the least disgusting photos available.)
Guillaume Faye’s definition:
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. 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.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Freedom! But also…
Let’s see if our bold new conception-of-the-world and historical perspective can help us make sense of the Third World today. Take this article from the New York Times (2008): ‘Eradicate Malaria? Doubters Fuel Debate.’
Last year, challenging global health orthodoxy, Bill and Melinda Gates called for the eradication of malaria. …
The best opportunity probably existed in 1955… With weapons then new, DDT and chloroquine, … annual deaths were driven down below 500,000. …
Then, slowly, it fell apart. …
… 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 to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.
Oh, those dreadful colonial governments: fighting malaria for their own selfish and no doubt racist purposes — and accidentally saving millions of Africans in the process.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Independence’
Guillaume Faye must not be the only one with a meta-political dictionary, because the Washington Post invokes a novel definition of ‘independence’ in ‘Looking Toward Zimbabwe’s Future’ (2007). Spot the paradox.
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.
That sounds pretty bad. Well, at least Zimbabwe has achieved ‘independence’ — at the cost of civilization.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Welcome (back) to the jungle
Speaking of “Africans of good faith who were born before independence,” consider this 2008 Time magazine article about the Congo: ‘Come Back, Colonialism, All Is Forgiven.’ (Note that the reporter couldn’t quite wrap his head around his subject’s unique historical perspective.)
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. … “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.” …
It’s true that our journey through 643 kilometers of rainforest… has been an exploration of decline. … 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… to make it here — if they make it at all. …
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. …
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. … “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.”
I’m sure Le Blanc will be relieved to learn, from a visiting American reporter, that all his country’s troubles are due to the vague, colonialism-induced “cruelties of the past.” Here, a new slogan for Third Worldist doctrine: “Blame Europe™ — it’s almost as satisfying as actually living in a functioning society with schools, hospitals, roads, and electricity!”
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Competition’
“The clash of living-forms for supremacy and survival.” Learn to love it.
(Above: Zdeněk Burian’s ‘Hunting the Cave Bear’ (1952).)
Guillaume Faye writes in Why We Fight:
Competition, or the struggle for life, constitutes the principal motor force of evolution in everything from bacteria to humans, as well as history. Even the most fanatical pacifists acknowledge it.
Competition affects every domain of existence; it’s observable between individuals and between groups. Communal solidarity is the sole element mitigating its harshness. In blunting the individual’s egoism, its goal is to ensure the superiority of the community over other communities.
Even religions that ‘submit to God’ (Islam, for example), which might appear to renounce competition, appeal to it. For an individual or for a people, decay sets in once one starts believing that competition and the struggle for life are ‘unjust’, that enmity toward the Other is ‘abnormal’, that the state of peace is natural and war unnatural, and that the Garden of Eden is possible on Earth. Competition, the struggle for life, is the normal, permanent state of all living things — pacifism renounces life; it’s a morality of slaves.
There’s no use complaining about enemies: we should instead take satisfaction in fighting and eliminating them, knowing that they will always be with us. Those who declare that they have no enemies, that they aren’t in competition, that peace is perpetual, have succumbed to the entropy of extinction and death, which will pitilessly eliminate them. Even the most sincere cooperation is never definitive. An individual or a group or a people not in competition with one another are threatened in the long run by dying off. Vital forms of harmony are paradoxically born as much from struggle as from concord. And the choice of one’s friends is inextricably linked to the designation of one’s enemy.
The enemy is never wrong, if he wins. A ‘superior people’, a ‘superior individual’, a ‘superior group’ (whether military, economic, religious, etc.) operates not with abstract, ontological principles, but on the basis of the concrete results that come from competition. This is the case for all living things. One is never ‘intrinsically superior’ to others. One is superior only in successfully achieving supremacy.
It’s the law of the strongest, the most capable, the most flexible that always dominates. Vae Victis, death to the vanquished, such is the law of life; there has never been born a philosopher who could prove otherwise. If an individual possesses talent and will, he can defeat multitudes. Competition is economic, political, ethnic, etc. It’s based on an alliance of will and talent. One ought never to complain about being dominated. It simply comes from not being strong enough — not effective, not clever, not wilful enough.
The key to victory in any competition, as Robert Ardrey saw, is the combatants’ solidarity. For humans, competition and the struggle for life are not primarily individual, but collective. In this way, the friend-enemy polarity is formed, a polarity which is the source of life itself.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Progressivism’
“The belief that history is an ascending movement toward the constant improvement of the human condition.”
(Above: Maurice Gomberg’s ‘New World Moral Order’ (1942).)
Faye writes:
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. …
Through a dialectical contradiction that frequently occurs in history, progressivism and ideologies of history’s end have actually provoked a resurgence of history — because of the catastrophes they themselves are producing.
As for ‘scientific progress’, it possesses, let us repeat, nothing that is qualitative; it is purely quantitative and neutral; it even leads to disaster if not mastered (such as when it succumbs to purely market or profit motives) — or it can lead to significant benefits if thought out, planned, and ordered by the cold lucidity of a political will.
See: ‘History’
The consciousness, evident in European and several other civilisations, of the emergence and continuity of a people’s collective destiny in time.
History is profoundly tragic. This is why both bourgeois and egalitarian spirits reject it. Whether Marxist or, today, liberal-cosmopolitan, these spirits have always sought the end of history… Since the fall of Communism, the present Western/American ideology implicitly strives for the end of history, seeking to establish a ‘New World Order’, a unified planet. History, though, is making a thunderous comeback, with the inevitable confrontations that come from an increasingly multipolar world.
See also: ‘Modernity’
Cult of the present, alleged to be intrinsically superior to that which is past. …
Modernity has never fulfilled its promises, because these promises were impossible… Modernity promised to: first, ensure happiness, peace, and prosperity…; second, replace aesthetics and traditional philosophies…; and third, do away with peoples, religions, and customs for the sake of a homogeneous humanity… such objectives have since been taken up by… the myth of progress.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Democracy’
“A political system in which the people is sovereign and governed by its elected representatives.”
(Above: Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’ (circa 1510).)
Faye writes:
It [democracy] was originally a constitutive part of the European tradition (Hellenic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic), unlike Oriental political systems based on despotism.
Reappearing with the Eighteenth-century Enlightenment, democracy has since been largely corrupted — not only in the ‘popular democracies’ of Soviet Communism — but no less so in the present Western democracies.
Democratism is now a world dogma, but it’s a sham democracy, for it neglects the people’s interests. Western democracies are actually oligarchies that conceal their betrayal of the Hellenic-Germanic tradition of democracy.
What’s wrong with Western, and especially French, democracy?
First off, it has been transformed into a plutocracy (‘power of wealth’), in which access to power and its exercise are conditioned by money.
Second, it’s dominated by a political class that has been institutionalised as a largely corrupt careerist caste.
Third, real power is not exercised by the people’s so-called representatives, but by unelected technocrats (at the national and European level) and by financial and economic decision-makers, pressure groups, and corporate and minority organisations. The people has lost control of its destiny and a disguised totalitarianism has come to control it: in the guise of a false plurality, the parliamentary Left and Right function almost as a single party, dealing with issues only if they are politically correct.
‘Democratism’
The modern perversion.
Democratism is becoming all the more virulent given that real democracy has been eliminated by the system. The system, in fact, refuses real democracy since with it the people might express dangerous or morally condemnable opinions. …
In Western Europe, the best illustration of democracy’s absence is the fact that the established powers objectively favour our replacement by non-European, Islamic colonisers, without ever having consulted native Europeans. The people’s destruction, its ethnocide, is indeed programmed by the present pseudo-democracy.
This makes it completely anti-democratic, since it destroys what needs conserving. Besides, it’s always on questions of secondary significance that the people or its representatives are consulted. Important issues are settled elsewhere.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
‘Organic democracy’
“Possible only among ethnically homogeneous people.” You are unlikely to hear about it on either MSNBC or Fox News.
(Above: the Pnyx, a hill in central Athens where ancient Athenians gathered to host their popular assemblies.)
Should we be anti-democratic? No, we should instead revive the organic democracy deeply rooted in the European tradition. Such a democracy, as the Ancient Athenian political philosophers held, is possible only among ethnically homogeneous people.
The notion of allowing aliens to vote negates the very idea of the nation and democracy. The participation of everyone in the exercise of power, in making political decisions affecting the whole, is possible only within a human ensemble possessing the same values, memories, and culture.
A multi-racial, multi-confessional society can in no case be democratic, since it lacks commonly shared references. Such a society would be endemically oppressive and culminate in a caste system.
Organic democracy, in contrast, embraces the principle of aristocracy. That is, ‘the selection of the best to rule’.
Organic democracy thus presupposes a meritocracy, not a plutocracy, as we have today.
It’s also necessary to understand that the form of government is not all-important. The opposition between a hereditary monarchy and a republic is mainly a matter of semantics.
The existence of a hereditary king, a royal family, would contribute to ensuring continuity, tutelary protection, and the spiritual perspective of the people’s will.
But this is a question that history alone will decide, for a ‘ruling family’ isn’t always necessary to assure a people’s spiritual and historical continuity.
Organic democracy is not egalitarian. It has need of leaders, ones who serve the people, not themselves. … In the European tradition, the leader, the king, the emperor, the elites served their people, being part of it, like the brain is part of the body. Hence its ‘organic’ character.
Organic democracy, finally, doesn’t consider immediate interests alone, but the people’s historic destiny, taking account of its memory and its future generations, abiding by the imperatives of sovereignty and independence, along with a faith in the longevity of its collective, biological, and cultural identity.
In a word, organic democracy is founded on the following, ostensibly contradictory, but in fact complementary notions: ethnic homogeneity, the primacy of the popular will, aristocratic and meritocratic selection, and historical destiny.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Recommended reading
Want to learn more about the topics covered in this issue of Radish? We highly recommend the following books and articles. (We do not, however, necessarily endorse all opinions expressed in them: some are not nearly extreme enough.)
Guillaume Faye
Plus:
- Counter-Currents Publishing author archive
- Faye’s English-language publisher, Arktos
- Michael O’Meara’s foreword to Archeofuturism
Guillaume Faye book reviews
- Thomas Jackson: Archeofuturism
- Georges Feltin-Tracol: Archeofuturism
- F. Roger Devlin: Archeofuturism
- Michael Walker: Archeofuturism
- Brett Stevens: Archeofuturism
- Alex Kurtagić: Why We Fight
- Jared Taylor: Why We Fight
- Alex Kurtagić: Convergence of Catastrophes
Those Who Can See
- ‘Five-Year Plan in Four Years’ (essential)
- ‘Bring Low the Enemy of Multiculturalism’ (this too)
- ‘Heretics, Kulaks, and Witches’ (and this)
- ‘Hunting the Yeti’ (one more!)
- ‘Overcoming Our Asian Privilege’
- ‘Checking Our Ashkenazi Privilege’
- ‘Strangers at the Gate’
- ‘Immigration, Yesterday’
- ‘When America Lays Herself Down to Sleep’
- ‘Sweet Little Lies’
- ‘Exceptions’
Unqualified Reservations
- ‘From Cromer to Romer and Back Again’
- ‘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’
Alex Kurtagić’s conception-of-the-world
- ‘Masters of the Universe’
- ‘Why All that Theory?’
- ‘Vanguard, Aesthetics, Revolution’
- ‘Politicized Science vs. Scientific Politics’
- ‘Moral Barriers to White Survival’
Assorted, tangential & miscellaneous
- ‘Are Babies Born Good?’
- ‘Why Is Human Nature Still Taboo?’
- ‘The Origins of Political Correctness’
- ‘Islamization of Europe a Good Thing’
- ‘Egalitarianism Caused the Meltdown’
- ‘Dear Matt Drudge: Stop the Race Stories’
- ‘The GOP’s Immigration Problem’
- ‘The Slow Death of White America’
- ‘Affirmative Action for Immigrants’
- ‘Can’t We All Just Get Post-Racial?’
- Nelson Mandela would like to kill white people (and did)
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Au revoir, à bientôt from le magazine Radis!
Merci for reading the second issue of Radish! We hope you enjoyed it. Please consider sharing it with friends and family. Don’t be alarmed if they are initially unreceptive to your message of hope, change, and an end to popular government: perseverance, quiet dignity, and a little LSD in the town water supply will soon fix that!
(Needless to say, Radish does not actually recommend putting LSD in your town’s water supply! That would be incredibly inefficient. You can save time and money by administering individual doses of powerful psychoactive drugs to key persons in your town: the mayor, police chief, high school principal, weatherman, milkman, priest, rabbi, bartender, etc.)
We close with this, from Czech dissident Václav Havel’s ‘The Power of the Powerless’ (1978):
The original and most important sphere of activity, one that predetermines all the others, is simply an attempt to create and support the independent life of society as an articulated expression of living within the truth. In other words, serving truth consistently, purposefully, and articulately, and organizing this service.
This is only natural, after all: if living within the truth is an elementary starting point for every attempt made by people to oppose the alienating pressure of the system, if it is the only meaningful basis of any independent act of political import, and if, ultimately, it is also the most intrinsic existential source of the “dissident” attitude, then it is difficult to imagine that even manifest “dissent” could have any other basis than the service of truth, the truthful life, and the attempt to make room for the genuine aims of life.
May we all enjoy a lovely holiday in Bulgaria, comrades. And from everyone here at Radish: have a happy, healthy Robert E. Lee Day.
Need the table of contents? Click here.
Advancing to Issue 3? Click here. Retreating to Issue 1? Click here.
“Radish” and “race,” as in “Caucasian race,” are apparently not cognate. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race?s=t There, “race” as in “gingerroot” is, indeed, said to be from Latin “radic-” or “radix,” whence descends, yes, “radish,” too. (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radish?s=t ) On the other hand, “race” as in “Caucasian race” is said to be descended from an Italian word “razza,” which is said, in turn, to be of obscure origin.
In announcing Radish, a year ago, you explained the name by linking Richard Spencer’s announcement of Radix at Alternative Right. In that announcement, as you know, Spencer stated that “radish” and “race” are both from radix. He seemed to be speaking of both “race” as in Caucasian race and “race” as in “gingerroot.” Those two words — “race” and “race” — do not appear to be related.
The Carlyle Club makes it a point never to announce anything. We strive for total unpredictabi— OH MY GOD A VAMPIRE BAT JUST FLEW IN THE WINDOW
Shoo!
Anyway, it sounds like someone might have been having a bit of a good-natured joke at AltRight‘s expense. We Students Against a Democratic Society, on the other hand, just like radishes!
Understoo–ARGGHH! Vampire bat … got me in the neck. Send he–