Cynicism generally aims in the direction of truth, but it lacks the range to reach it. Cynicism’s overcorrection, the Pollyanna placebo, demoralizes. So instead, we push through the lazily mechanistic and the anodyne cowardly thoughts, to face the sun.

Nothing stops me from turning my back on everything and henceforth surfing lively comment threads while drinking myself to death. It’s comforting, knowing that I can leave it all behind. But that would be an anxious, irremediable slide.

I met a man whose wife contradicts everything he says. It is clear that he had never told her, in private: you need to shut your mouth. The imprisoned modern men forgot that they don’t have to live like this.

The immortals on Olympus were superior to us by every measure, yet they envied mankind for the one thing we have, that they wanted — our capacity to feel. For men and women, it all hangs on a thin string. That makes the dark more terrifying to us, and the cold glass of water more quenching.

I faced the sun over the three-day poolside weekend. The tendrils of joy will live in their hearts for the next eighty years. This didn’t just happen by itself. I don’t have the luxury of letting my attention float away like a balloon.

What do you think about life?



The Liberal Personality

There is a consensus that a person’s political orientation is hereditary, following the notion that political orientation in broad strokes is a function of genetically determined personality traits. If true, then which personality traits put a person at risk of becoming a liberal?

“Liberal” in contemporary context means being, wittingly or not, aligned with globalism-enabling attitudes such as promotion of the procrustean leveling of differences among men and among nations, an impulse to attack one’s own traditional hierarchy structures, and complicity with forces that corrupt family bonds. Liberalism (or neoliberalism as I sometimes call it here when focusing on its globalist program) is a mutation of Communism.

As I see it, these four personality traits contribute to the development of the Liberal Personality; in their acute expression they create the so-called SJW, or Social Justice Warrior:


People with that Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profile are introverted, reliant on intuition rather than on sensory evidence in forming their worldview, they are emotion- rather than reason-driven, and are passive and open to experience rather than assertive and judging. The quintessential INFP personality profile is the poet. At their best, people with an INFP profile are visionary and loyal. At their worst, they fall into depression and passive-aggressive ways of dealing with others.

A person with an INFP personality gravitates to universalist worldviews, is willing to suspend critical judgment, and is susceptible to persuasion. If his thirst for transcendence is not already quenched with sturdier values, he is a mark for brainwashers in schools and in mass media.

2. Mid-Wit Intelligence

The liberal’s pretense to intellect can almost always be exposed as pseudo-dialectic and whenever engaged by one, I check-mate him in three moves. You know you’ve beaten a liberal in a discussion when one of these three things happens: he gets standoffish or angry, he acts dumb and pretends that you agree with him, or he slips out of the pin with a flippant quip.

Lenin coined the term “useful idiots” to describe his naïve sympathizers in the West. Sincere liberalism is the province of the mid-wit. A person with below-average intelligence won’t rationalize his experience to accommodate a conceptual model and a highly intelligent person sees through liberalism’s internal contradictions. If a highly intelligent person happens to be a liberal, it’s usually for Machiavellian reasons.

[UPDATE: Handle and Vladimir make excellent points in the comments on this item.]

3. High Disgust Threshold

If your disgust threshold is low, you will reflexively recoil from ugliness, habitat-contamination, and immorality. As I recently laid out in my post on prejudice, a person’s moral framework is a function of his visceral response to his environment, and that gut-response guides his judgment before he is socialized into his culture’s ethical system.

The level of a person’s disgust threshold sets the point at which he stops tolerating things that appear to be unclean, such as avoiding literal shit and up to abhorring abstract concepts like dishonorable behavior. The disgust threshold determines a person’s capacity for tolerating degeneration in hygiene, sexuality, aesthetics, and morality.

4. Low Empathy

This one is counterintuitive, with the stereotype of a bleeding heart liberal. In fact though, bleeding hearts are not necessarily liberals — they can be poorly-informed people or posers, often young or female, who’d act on their real views if push came to shove. My empathy quotient score, were I to be tested, would be off the charts. This is why I so deeply hate those who’d harm innocent people.

Having low capacity for empathizing with others is what makes it easy for a liberal to shrug off the evidence of liberalism’s toll on human beings. He is comfortable with breaking the eggs to make an omelet, or imposing an ill-fitting theoretical framework on reality and reconciling its cruelty with its elusive utopian promise. Apostate Communist intellectuals like Arthur Koestler and Czesław Miłosz wrote at length about the leftist’s devotion to ideological abstraction no matter the misery it inflicts on millions.

The Age of Shivalry, or Goodbye jeb

Sometimes it’s hard to resist feeling pity for a pathetic adversary, until you remind yourself of how hard he’s been working at creating a future without you in it. The underwhelming yet spectacular and now failed candidacy of presidential hopeful jeb bush (sic) is what I am talking about here.

I wrote this at Chateau Heartiste last night, with minor revisions here, in the wake of jeb’s dropping out of the race:

The Hannah Arendt coinage “banality of evil” fits well with jeb bush, in the unfolding great morality tale of our time. He’s a beta, goofy and endearing, a dad who’s trying to do the right thing by his family. Calls his homely wife his “best friend.” He’s not the first or the last man to do that, and we normally wish those fellows well.

He wrote about the dispossession of all of our children and grandchildren in their own lands as “an act of love.” There already is a Mexico, a Guatemala, a Somalia. There is no second America, though, and American kids, I guess, just have to step aside. But does a nullity (your grandchild) even need to step aside? No, a nullity does not figure into the equation.

South Carolina loser jeb bush did his damned best on behalf of his nuclear family (the extended Bush family may be a complicated story here) and on behalf of every hill troll that wanted to grab a piece of your grandchildren’s birthright. Jeb bush is a good man by his lights, that awkward big galoot who wants your grandchildren to be brown, or never-born.

You will burn in hell one day, traitor, but first twist in agony at the mental replay of every campaign humiliation your introspective mind torments you with, as Columba pushes you away in bed tonight.

Commenter Greg Eliot over at the Chateau writes: “PA ushers in a New Age, a True Age of Shivalry. Well done.”

A fine pun it is, sir, and I thank you.

Orwell on Leftist Media: “Once a Whore, Always a Whore”

First of all, a message to English left-wing journalists and intellectuals generally: ‘Do remember that dishonesty and cowardice always have to be paid for. Don’t imagine that for years on end you can make yourself the boot-licking propagandist […] and then suddenly return to mental decency. Once a whore, always a whore.’
 —George Orwell [“As I Please,” Tribune, Sep. 1, 1944]

Something that strikes even the casual observer is that the truism about history repeating itself, or at least rhyming, proves itself reliable. In the quote above, George Orwell denounces England’s left-wing press for covering up their government’s collusion with the Soviet Union in backstabbing a war ally.

In “The Witness of Poetry,” Czesław Miłosz wrote something that strikes me as central to the relationship between the establishment media class and the objective reality they purport to write about (emphasis in the original):

We discover a certain unpleasant truth that constantly intrudes on us, even if we would like to forget it. Mankind has always been divided by one rule into two species: those who know and do not speak; those who speak but do not know. This formula can be seen as an allusion to the dialectic of master and slave, for it invokes centuries of ignorance and misery among serfs, peasants, and proletarians, who alone knew the cruelty of life in all its nakedness but had to keep it to themselves. The skill of reading and writing was the privilege of the few, whose sense of life was made comfortable by power and wealth. [Harvard University Press, 1983]

I read that book in the late 1990s and the italicized line—”those who know and do not speak; those who speak but do not know”—has had an immediate and enduring impact on my thinking. Let’s take a look at these two classes of people.

Those who Know but do not Speak

In 2011, an English woman named Emma West gained worldwide notoriety when a video of her emotional argument with hostile non-Whites on a tram was posted online and viewed by more than 11 million people. Consequently, she was arrested and held in jail through Christmas, in effect a political prisoner. Pictured below is Emma West holding her toddler son on that day when she became an enemy of the state and a recipient of death threats. Her crime: saying “This is my England.”


Almost two years later another young woman, an American named April Sims, wrote on Facebook:

My boyfriend was robbed last night by 2 black males. They held a gun to his stomach and took our $85 Wyatt’s formula, diaper wipes and veggies.

She then vented her outrage with Blacks in general, quite understandably, given her boyfriend’s ordeal and also given common observations of their antisocial behavior. For that, she lost her job. (But to my respect, she refused to apologize and when pressed she wrote: “I stand by every word I said, and do not apologize.”)

Both of those women—Emma West and April Sims—voiced legitimate grievances. Given the informal medium of their protest and emotional duress they spoke under, their words were raw, spontaneous, from the heart. And as such, their speech was opportunistically used against them by their denouncers in the media.

Michał Borowicz provides insight into what drives “those who know but don’t speak” to defy their hardship and speak nonetheless. Writing in the context of World War II-era atrocities, he writes as translated here:

Man, pushed to the very limit of his condition, found once more in the written word a last rampart against the loneliness of annihilation. His words, elaborate or awkward, cadenced or disorderly, were inspired by only the will to express, to communicate and transmit the truth. They were formulated in the worst conditions possible, were spread by impoverished means and dangerous by definition. Those words were opposed to the lie fabricated and maintained by powerful groups which had the gigantic technology at their disposal and who were protected by unbounded violence. [Ecrits des condamnés à mort sous l’occupation allemande, Presses Universitaires de France, 1954]

When listening to those who speak with a metaphoric knife at their throat, look for scraps of unadulterated truth embedded in their words. The manner in which they speak is a distant secondary consideration. Let’s now look at the other class of people from Miłosz’s formulation.

Those who Speak but do not Know

In the contemporary West those people, inclusive of members of the media, constitute a comfortable class whose wealth and connections allow them to live in insulation from the very social arrangements that they promote. Tucker Carlson describes that caste in his January 28, 2016 article “Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right” in Politico magazine:

If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good. 

The people Carlson describes are pig-ignorant about the things that women like West or Sims know well, yet they are the loudest in denouncing them for crying out about their circumstances. Women from pricey ZIP codes do not leave their homes in the morning to barbaric noise thumping from car speakers or go to sleep to pre-human shrieks from their welfare-class neighbors. Tucker Carlson’s neighbor does not take her child outside to have a creature named De’Marquise hassle her for money and then shoot her stroller-strapped baby in the face.

The Disgraced Journalists

The journalist’s vocation is to become someone who speaks and knows. Instead, in Orwell’s time as in ours, left-wing news media have assumed the role of protector of the official state narrative, no matter how that narrative conflicts with facts and reason. In other words, they lie—on three levels:

One, they bury news of interracial crime that involve a White victim. Two, when reporting such occurrances, they refuse to identify or synthesize the larger social pattern that those occurrances constitute, de rigueur trivializing every instance of Black-on-White murder, for example, as “random” or “robbery gone wrong.” And finally, the media actively construct an anti-reality narrative around current events to promote sentiments and policies that drive the ongoing dispossession of Whites in their own countries.

From the desegregation of American schools at the point of a bayonet to Angela Merkel’s jihadi invasion of Europe, the unwritten volumes of human misery are a byproduct of the elites’ goal of replacing Whites in their own countries. The leftist media are a core, active participant in this effort. Mass immigration and the forcible mixing of communities deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part of the European people and their diaspora.

My message to today’s left-wing journalists: no one believes your story. Bloggers fact- and logic-check your writing, like Steve Sailer has been doing for over the past twenty years. Everybody goes straight to the comments sections of your articles for the truth. You have placed yourself in service to lies in defiance of your code of professional ethics and common decency. But your name is on the bylines and history’s forthcoming judgment will be clear:

Not only are you a whore, you are also accessory to genocide.

A Short Post About Killing

Here are two literary references to the taking of human life.

The first one is from Henryk Sienkiewicz, recipient of the 1905 Nobel Prize in Literature. I read his popular adventure novel for boys titled “In the Desert and the Wilderness” (orig. “W pustyni i w puszczy”) when I was in second grade. It is a story about two children of British empire’s civil engineers in Egypt, a fourteen-year-old boy Stan and a younger girl Nell, who are abducted by Arab rebels and transported to Sudan as hostages.

While traveling through the Sahara, Stan gets a hold of a rifle and kills his captors. After a series of adventures in Africa in their quest to reach British soldiers or explorers in Kenya, he and Nell are rescued and reunited with their families. In telling his story to his father, Stan gets to the part where he killed the men and looks at him apprehensively. His father says, as translated by me:

“Listen, Stan, don’t deal in death lightly, but if someone threatens your homeland, the life of your mother, sister or the life of a woman placed in your care, put a bullet in his head with no questions asked and don’t burden yourself with any remorse.”

The second fictional account of killing — two killings, to be precise — is from Krzysztof Kieślowski’s one-hour film “Decalogue 5.” The eleven-minute clip below shows both homicides, each in graphic detail: the brutal murder of a taxi driver that starts at the beginning of this video and the killer’s resulting execution by hanging, which starts at 5:45.

The anguished-looking man in the execution scene is the convict’s lawyer, a young idealist who is very emotionally involved in the case and at one point (not shown in this video) is reprimanded for being too delicate for his job.

In my past conversations about the film — in which the taxi driver is rarely mentioned — sophisticated liberals have pointed to “Decalogue 5” as an impassioned case against capital punishment. As far as I know, Kieślowski himself was against it. But an artist’s conscious mind and what he transmits through his art can be two different things.

When I watch the execution scene, I feel sincerely sorry for the kid but I am also satisfied that the punishment redeems his humanity and ours.


What Have We Learned?

Imagine the overthrow of our usurper class. It’s easy if you try. Throughout the West, establishment parties are acting like they’re losing faith in their works and have shifted their focus from long-term strategic goals to short-term opportunism.

This is especially evident in the case of putatively conservative parties. And in the case of the leftist apparatus — the political, corporate, and media/entertainment complex — we are witnessing an extinction-burst of id incontinence that points to either panic or hubris, in either case a fatal error.

Donald Trump’s storming into the epicenter of American politics has been no less than the cleansing of Augean stables that is the Republican Party, now exposed as a club of disgraced half-men who had sold out to cuckservatism. And on the Democratic side of the bifactional ruling party, Bernie Sanders is the socialist dreamers’ last gasp of faith, tired though it is like the old man himself.

We have been living through a silent spiritual and demographic war since 1954, with 2015 bringing on an acceleration of events in the West. The nationalists may yet win this and secure their respective homelands and a future for White children.

The hollow world of the materialistic globalists is no match for what can be offered through group struggle.

What will we have learned from the Long Silent War?


A lot, certainly, across wide swathes of political, economic, and philosophical lessons-learned. For starters, here is brief list of practical reminders:

  • Blood matters. Immigration + integration = no future for your  children. It really is that simple.
  • Beware women in public life, which includes the voting booth. Single women in particular, and especially beware the mischief wrought by childless post-menopausal women.
  • Never let them disarm you; look at what surrendering their guns got the English. If it comes down to it, “Μολὼν λαβέ (Molon labe), motherfuckers” better be either the last words you speak, or the last words they hear.
  • There is no such thing as cheap labor; mow your own lawn (better yet, grow vegetables instead of grass).
  • The blackmail of politicians: elect men of integrity to public office, who cannot be blackmailed. Failing that, elect ones who either possess the honor to step down or the guts to defy their blackmailers.
  • “Tolerance” is just another word for cowardice.

But the above points are no news to AltRight-wise readers. What I provide next, is my thoughts on how we were fooled into letting ourselves become dispossessed and how to avoid those errors when the merchants of lies inevitably once again hiss into our ears:

1. Speak the Truth.

I always thought that there was something prophetic in the tagline of Château Heartiste, “where pretty lies perish.”

A classic example of truth overcoming an edifice of lies is the effect that Vaclav Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless” had on anti-Communist movement in Poland. Below is a quote from a former Solidarity activist reflecting on the impact of that essay. The passage I bolded below, I think, speaks to us with special immediacy today.

This essay reached us…in 1979 at a point when we felt we were at the end of the road…we had been speaking on the shop floor, talking to people, participating in public meetings, trying to speak the truth about the factory, the country, and politics. There came a moment when people thought that we were crazy. Why were we doing this? Why were we taking such risks? Not seeing any immediate and tangible results, we began to doubt the purposefulness of what we were doing…Then came the essay by Havel. Reading it gave us the theoretical underpinnings for our activity. It maintained our spirits; we did not give up, and a year later — in August 1980 — it became clear that the party apparatus and the factory management were afraid of us. We mattered. And the rank and file saw us as leaders of the movement…

Theodore Dalrymple’s well known observation ties Communist propaganda in with modern political correctness:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
– Theodore Dalrymple

My emphasis above as well. In practical terms, speaking the truth entails:

  • Saying what you mean. Speaking clearly from first-causes. Conservatives lost all race-related battles because they objected to immigration, for example, on debatable and ultimately irrelevant economic grounds, rather than on identitarian principles.
  • Valuing your own extremists. Timid moderates are uncomfortable with the direct words of the extremists, which trigger a fear of provoking the adversary whom they’d rather appease.
  • Hating the lies and not tolerating liars.

2. Don’t Get Seduced by Alien Philosophers.

Because they are not one of you, and because they have conflicts of interest with your interests, don’t trust them to tell you how to think or how to live. The catastrophies of the twentieth century are a testament to the errors of following the counsel of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Same goes for the Neocons, whose hijacking of the American conservative mind bore fruit during the disastrous George W. Bush administration.

Another example of alien counsel, this time for young women watching Sex and the City:

“Enjoy yourself – that’s what your 20s are for. Your 30s are to learn the lessons. And your 40s are to pay for the drinks!”

And your dusty uterus will spasm every time you see a baby.

When someone tells you that children are not important or directs you down a path of barren, empty-headed hedonism, or wants to run out your motherhood clock, he just may be someone who dreams of a future without you in it.

3. Don’t Concede the Moral High Ground.

“I’m not a racist, but…”

When confronting an armed home invader, do you say “I’m not a bad host, but…”? Ok, I can see that being a fittingly wry thing to say before you dispatch him with a single round from your .38 Smith & Wesson. But people who defend their communities from Anti-Whites with the words “I’m not a racist but…” are essentially saying that they no moral authority because their very self-defense is immoral.

Ceding your moral authority often takes the form of appealing to the enemy’s values. Here is a hypothetical example:

  • Timid Conservative: “We shouldn’t be letting Muslims into Europe because they oppress women.”
  • Leftist Snake: “The Neonazis also want women kept under Kinder, Kirche, Kuche.”
  • Timid Conservative: “But… but…”

This exchange would have gone better if it had begun on a forthright note, with clarity and conviction. Like this:

  • Nationalist: “We shouldn’t let Muslims into Europe because as racial and cultural adversaries, their descendants would pose a mortal danger to our posterity.”
  • Leftist Snake: “Racist! Xenophobe!”
  • Nationalist: “Enough of that. Go slither away.”

4. Defend Your Public Space.

Public space, on the micro-scale: here is a tragic example of a man who wanted to assert his right to define his public space. Several years ago in Florida, a man was fueling his car at a gas station when a Black driver pulled up to do the same, but with loud rap thumping from his car. I’m inferring from the facts that were provided that the White driver asked the Black one to turn the noise off or down, which escalated into a confrontation that resulted in the White man shooting and killing the Black. Today, what is likely a good man is in prison because he refused to lower his head in face of savage displays.

“Liberty” means to have an undisputed dominion over your public space, keeping it in your own image to reflect who you are. “Community” means sharing that space with like-minded people. When groups of people with conflicting aesthetics, existential goals, moral values, and temperaments share the same jurisdiction, one or more of the following scenarios is inevitable: (1) open conflict, (2) a demoralizing imposition of one group’s values on the other, or (3) a bilateral withdrawal from the public space, as shown by Robert Putnam’s study, which demonstrated that diversity erodes civic life.

Public space, on the macro-scale: this is something I witnessed in the early 1980s upon arriving in the United States in time for my first Christmas here. Television news programs were reporting on the removal, under court orders, of Nativity scenes from the grounds of government buildings. Almost a teenager then, I felt uneasy about the developments. “How can a free, Western nation deny its people a public affirmation of their most joyous holiday?” I thought in slightly different words. “Didn’t we just escape a Communist country that did exactly this?”

Separation of Church and State is just a code word for “this ain’t your country.”

5. Balance of Order with Chaos.

Man has a wild side that compels him to find life under perfect order stultifying. Life needs an element of chaos to remind us that it all hangs on a thin string and to steer us clear of Eloi-like complacency and softening of character. Passion and creativity come from the darker recesses of our soul and thrive under a touch of danger.

This leads me to the subject of crime, diversity’s most talked-about burden. Violent crime is something that conservatives pin on Dindus, as a plea for freedom from Dindus. While the statistics on violent crime starkly follow race-based patterns, it is a mistake to hang one’s nationalistic case on crime, or to renounce it as such. It’s a Ned Flanders trap because a healthy society includes a reasonably contained criminal underclass. The wilder of our girls need someone to crave. We need the wisened older men who know what it means to steal or worse. We are better-off for having our own reserve army of muscle and balls. And importantly, we need someone to rule the rougher streets; best it’s our thugs than their thugs.

Looking from the perspective of a future victory, we would not have repelled the invaders and hanged the traitors without our own rough young men — like European nationalists — being the first to stick their necks out and take it to the streets.

Related: value and protect your working class. They really are all you’ve got.

6. Cultivate an Extended Family.

I’ll start this with a personal note. I have a very large extended family but from late childhood through my late 20s, I had no contact with them. This includes my grandparents, whom I only met once as an adult, in the final months of their long lives.

The extended family is a fallback means of support and the primary giver of a sense of identity. The placed importance of family ties varies by ethnic groups, and Western Europeans have been less reliant on kinship ties than others. But you really do need uncles to help you develop an identity as a boy and cousins to have your back when you are in trouble.

Don’t be alone.


History never ends and as human beings, we are bound to repeat our mistakes, over and over. Satan stands behind you in the shadow, always watching. But there is Truth that blazes our path through the darkness. Not losing sight of that light is our hope for making it through just far enough to let our sons and daughters, in turn, walk yet farther onward, straight and true.