Pro-White Soundbites for Donald Trump

Presidential debates are stuck on 1992 anachronisms about the economy and on 1980s-era hand-wringing about “inner cities.” White voters go along with those talking points as with ritual incantations to be recited for the sake of good manners. Dead liturgies have their purpose. They keep shut the doors behind which pace the wolves of our survival instincts.

So what can Donald Trump say to connect with things that matter to White Americans? Trump’s goal is to win the election, not to burn out with a swan song. But there may be a time and place he deems fit to push the blade deeper into the Narrative’s bloated gut and communicate that which Suburban_elk captures with eloquent simplicity:

[R]eal concern and real vision, and from the heart, about how white people are suffering for having lost their country, and even more than that, having lost their purpose and their identity; their very soul.

Here are a few of my suggestions for avowing a people that dare not speak its name:

1. Apathy. “I remember when every home in hard-working communities had these pretty flowers in front of it, little American flags lining the street. And these people had pride in their neighbors, in themselves — because they believed that they have a future. And today, they don’t care any more. Why? because they feel that they have lost their country, their public space. Folks, when the people who built America drop out, we are all hurting.”

2. Ethnic Cleansing. “Good people cannot afford to live in their own communities! They watch their aspirations, their work go to ruin when their neighborhoods change character. Their property values are wiped out. I want Americans to have the homes, schools, and families like their grandparents and great-grandparents had.”

3. Despair. “And you know who else is hurting? White Americans. Yes, Whites. Like the families I met in central Florida. They have friends, or even their brothers or sisters, who live with no hope. No appreciation from their leaders. They have watched these beautiful young people fall into methamphetamine addiction. The drug of despair, folks. It never had to be that way. And this is going to change.”

4. Family Formation. “Americans who trace their heritage to Europe do not feel like they can build their own future. I’ve talked with folks in New Jersey, they are afraid to start a family. Or to have a second baby. Schools, affordable neighborhoods for young families are hostile in character. So many young, bright people want to have children but they are choking on their student loans.”

5. Founders’ Posterity. “Listen to me. The only meaningful job of the government is to secure a future for its people and their posterity. It’s right there, in the preamble to our Constitution. That spirit is in the Declaration of Independence and in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.”

6. Guns. “Let’s be frank about something: our Founding Fathers had a good reason to articulate your right to bear arms. My opponent wants is to disarm you. It is tyrannical to take away an American’s right to defend his family from anyone who would threaten the peace of his home.”

7. Immigration. “No, it’s not just about the economy. Or security. It’s about Americans watching the country of their great-grandparents turn ugly, day after day, one administration after another. There are those who say that America is already great. They are lying to your face.”

[Can’t you just hear Trump’s drawn-out, emphatic enunciation in that last sentence?]

“You’re seeing your towns become third world. You know what, folks, Americans no longer see friendly faces. They feel like this isn’t their country any more. And they are right. And they don’t like it one bit.”

[There is so much to be said about immigration]

8. Neighborhoods. “The politicians give you their tired clichés like it’s time to bring communities together. Wrong! Maybe we should take a time-out on togetherness. We have a beautiful diverse America but we get on each other’s nerves. All people need their space.”

9. Neoliberalism. “Very powerful people who run our government and our economy have sold your birthright to the world’s low bidders. Whom they invite here to replace you at work — and guess what: they don’t do half the good job you do. They just work more cheaply and put up with the abuses you wouldn’t accept. And they also drown out your voice at the voting booths.”

10. Our Future. “The American people, the posterity of brave men and women who fought in the War of Independence, who risked everything to settle the frontier and help build this great country. They are vilified. They are not protected. They are told to shut up and pay their taxes. They are being pushed aside — and they are still very patient about it.”

“I want to talk about our future. Many Americans don’t feel like they have one. This is a crime, folks: their heritage is being erased, their history twisted into shrill accusations. And they are good, beautiful, hard working, relentless, creative people. Without them, there is no America. With Donald Trump as your president, you will look forward to the future, just like your ancestors did. Together we will make America great again!”

***

Trump knows. I had a short post in February, titled Reframing Compassion: You Can’t Come Here that pointed to his good instincts. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism, he said in his foreign policy speech last April. And remember his White Genocide retweet?

Advertisements

The Mudshark: A Comedy Or A Tragedy?

A young brunette and a dark-skinned man are strolling about downtown on a nice evening, looking idly into the storefront windows they walk past. It’s not what you think. I was meeting up for drinks with a group of coworkers and as it happened, most of us were running late except the above-mentioned brunette and the Black coworker of mine, who were not a couple. To kill time while waiting for the rest of the group, they walked around for a bit. Later, she described to me the shock of noticing people’s reactions to the sight of them as a presumed couple. She said that she’s never experienced that before: every person she passed either gave her dagger-looks or froze her out. “How can somebody choose to live that way?” she asked.

On a crowded subway train, a petite White woman stood with her stroller turned away from me. I gave her a sympathetic smile as she jostled her way through the crowd to get off the train at her station. She caught that and responded glowingly. Then she turned the stroller, revealing a biracial child that obviously had a Black father, and — this was purely a reflex on my part — my friendly expression changed to a cold mask. She caught that too, and it showed in her eyes.

How about an East Asian perspective on mixing? Stationed as a U.S. soldier in Korea, I was out with a local girl one afternoon. We were cutting through apartment blocks and came upon a group of young boys who shouted something at us in Hangul. Her face turned deep red, she squeezed my hand and prompted me to walk quickly. Once clear, I asked her what they said. She replied “they called me a terrible name, I don’t want to tell you.” Two years later, now out of the Army and back in the United States, I was having lunch with another Korean girl. She mentioned that she had two Amerasian classmates in Seoul and told me that the half-White girl was very nice. She then scrunched her face into a portrait of disgust and added “the Black one was so ugly. Everybody hated her.”

Folks, I didn’t create the world, I just describe it. For pretty lies, you’re free to look at Old Navy ads. For ugly lies, turn on your television. And as for comedy, there is this story in the Observer, titled “The Tiresome Question I’m Often Asked About My Brown Kids: Where Are They From?” that transcends the sordid to reach for high farce:

I’m a white mother of six children, five of whom are children of color, and four of whom came home to our family through foster-adoption.

So… one out of six ain’t bad? Not exactly:

[M]y first child, Rory, who is my biological son. His father is Jamaican, and Rory, now 18, alternates between referring to himself as biracial or Black.

Sometimes you just have to laugh. The linked article is unadulterated comedy pinned on hackneyed bitching about normal questions that normal people ask her about her abnormal household.

But that spectacular story aside, what about the common and depressingly banal instances of mudsharking — does one laugh or weep at one woman’s self-removal from the common gene-pool? I guess it depends on whether you think that her straying was predisposed or an accident. Or to expand on that question, is exogamy effectively nature culling a defective female in a mocking form of subtractive eugenics? That is the case if you accept a deterministic explanation that ‘sharks are genetically predisposed to becoming morbidly generous and disloyal. In that scenario, female exogamy is a boiling-off dynamic similar to Amish youths who leave their communities for modern life.

Or is the eugenic explanation false because women are malleable, or like leaves in the wind that follow the strongest current? That would make miscegenation a tragic loss to all of us, no different, from the Darwinian perspective, than an ordinary teenage girl’s death in a traffic accident.

More succinctly then, is it fate or chance? I will leave that question to the reader, but first ask him to acknowledge a common overcorrection of sex-realism, the tendency to discharge women of their agency. When it comes to sex, from selecting the shade of lipstick to making herself vulnerable to rape, nothing a woman does is “by accident.” Rather, her choices, big and small, follow a ruthlessly Machiavellian, internally consistent logic that guides her toward the optimization of her reproductive outcomes. In a healthy girl living in a healthy society, that internal guide can lead her toward life’s end-game of triumphant grandmotherhood. In other cases, her inner guide will be a false song, as with women who delay pair-bonding and motherhood. Or its program will be hijacked,  as with girls who deform themselves in body and soul.

Mudsharks follow that hijacked behavioral template. Some are extreme submissives thrilled by being degraded. And what’s more degrading that the steps that lead her toward lumbering through Walmart with fatherless, identityless children?  Others are acting out the female equivalent of omega-rage, lashing out at their world in the most devastating way they can, exacting revenge on their fathers or former White boyfriends by staining their own branch to spite the tree. And yet others merely have exotic tastes and as with the author in that Observer article, they want the world to know it.

So is the crossing of racial lines always pathological? My answer would be that miscegenation is a breaking of a taboo. Sometimes nothing bad happens. Sometimes love has strange whims and two good people find each other across cultures. In fair-weather times, a touch of spirit for vive la difference can even turn up a genial “superman.”

But these are not fair times and fortunes are no longer in a forgiving mood. A big part of our former dispensation was society’s acceptance of the collective costs of individual discretion and indiscretion. Yet tolerance has its limits and human nature, with its aversion to cuckoldry and habitat corruption, asserts itself when pushed by circumstances such as the current demographic climate Whites are finding themselves in, facing an engineered future of being minorities in our own countries. Such a worst-case-scenario is frightening to a sane person. And that is why the future is identitarian, which means that you have to know who you are.

***

Wisdom is a product of patriarchy. Old women transmit their fathers‘ lessons to their granddaughters. The man is a tree, with women as vines wrapped around him, assuming his shape. Where there is nothing upright, the vine creeps along the ground. Woman — like any human being — has agency but she needs a man’s guidance to balance her sometimes conflicting instincts, and without that guidance she flails. This is why as men, we are responsible for directing women toward decisions that do not destroy their lives and snuff out our common future in the literal crib.

Because if we don’t, we are enabling their behavior, letting them forget that a woman’s burden — normally a happy one — is to draw support from the same men whose child she bears. Fucks and bucks from the same men, which is why when they go Black, a natural process kicks in wherein men drive their unfaithful women to exile — literally or into internal exile, starting with hardened eyes on a crowded train.

It can be difficult, such as when you are a father faced with the choice of either the humiliation of being a race-cuckold or the pain of disowning your daughter. Gentlemen, don’t fool yourselves — there is no third way. That’s why to avoid the dilemma, if you have a daughter, raise her right and give her all your love and protection as she’s growing up. And at the right age, let her know that there are things you will not accept. Then if she turns her back on you, you are free to cut her off with a clean conscience. A commenter at Chateau Heartiste offered the words for a hypothetical conversation with one’s mature daughter before it’s too late:

if you betray your people by sharing your love with outsiders, they will reject you. the outsiders will also reject you, because you’re not one of them. you will be totally alone. nobody will want you. ever.

you will have no safety. no protection. no friends. no love.

And maybe tell her that yes, you get it, Black people have become America’s national mascot and you concede that it’s now bad form to criticize them. But then add: “silly girl, it’s Black women who are supposed to have babies with them.”

Poles Apart: Nationalists and SJWs in Poland

The pun in the title of this post is obligatory with any article about opposing views internal to Poland. Nonetheless, I use the cliché because it works.

An “SJW,” for the sake of readers unfamiliar with the term, is an abbreviation for “social justice warrior,” itself a pejorative for anti-racist (read: anti-White) globalists. Last year Vox Day wrote a best selling book about them, which I bought and I highly recommended. This post takes a look at Polish nationalists and anti-racists.

The Nationalists

The March 4, 2016 edition of the International Business Times (IBT) posted an article titled “Polish far-right groups extending influence across Europe, warns expert” about the cooperation between Polish nationalists abroad and their counterparts in Western European countries.

PL_act

Nationalists in Warsaw, 2013 (Getty)

Expressions of solidarity among modern European nationalists are not a new thing, but active cooperation probably is. The IBT article writes about the phenomenon disapprovingly, relying on statements by Rafał Pankowski, whom it describes as a leading expert on Polish nationalism:

… branches of far-right groups had been set up in Polish immigrant communities throughout Europe, where they are forming alliances with native anti-immigrant groups, and engaging in racist attacks.

…Last week Polish far-right activists joined UK extremists the North-West Infidels at a rally in Liverpool, where they clashed with anti-racism demonstrators.

The occasion has provided an ideal opportunity for Polish extremists to build alliances across the continent.

… In Sweden, Polish far right groups have formed ties with members of the Nordisk Ungdom (Nordic Youth) fascist group, while in neighbouring Hungary Polish extremists have built alliances with far-right group Jobbik, which is notorious for its fiercely anti-Semitic rhetoric and for organising attacks against Roma.

Five things are missing from the original article: (1) context for what is implied to be unprovoked hostility toward immigrants; (2) acknowledgment of the sheer size of the migrant influx since last year and its deleterious impact on Western Europeans; (3) any indication of an awareness that European nationalism may be a natural fight-or-flight response to a state-engineered displacement of Europeans in their own countries; (4) any nod to the arguments that mass immigration of more than one million unaccompanied military-aged men is considered to be an invasion, rather than humanitarian policy, by the immigrants themselves and by opponents of immigration; (5) and any reference to the widely known predatory behavior of immigrants themselves — intimidation, shitting in public, rape, and murder — that motivates nationalists to either retaliate or to simply show up to deter further violence. But neither Pankowski’s statements, nor IBT’s own editorial discretion, provide any such elements of a more complete picture.

Nevertheless, in reading that article, I was heartened by the international spirit of “we’re in this together” among Polish, English, and Swedish nationalists. And that type of solidarity isn’t without precedent: the Polish-Hungarian friendship has been legendary for centuries.

The irony that nobody seems to have picked up on, is that working-class Poles abroad are objectively going abroad to take the working class jobs of native Western Europeans, yet as such, they still actively support their hosts’ nativist cause. It’s genuinely the case of workers of the world (or at least of Europe) uniting, but not in the way that Communists had envisioned.

A Point About the Immigrant’s Obligation

This is a sidebar item but it needs addressing. Pankowski was also quoted as follows:

After Poland became part of the EU, millions of young Poles took advantage of the union’s freedom of movement policy to escape economic stagnation at home and find employment in prosperous northern European countries. Pankowski acknowledges the ‘paradox’ that those who are themselves immigrants should show support for such violently anti-immigrant groups.

“They don’t seem to realise they are actually attacking other migrants who may be in a similar situation apart from they have a different skin colour,” he said.

That is a commonly used argument and it’s illogical. I once veered into politics with an Eastern European-born woman who said that she supports open immigration to the United States because, as she said (her nose shot up into the air), “I am an immigrant too.”

“So am I, you idiot girl” was my response. I then explained that the immigrant’s obligation of loyalty is to the people who took him in, not to the party-crashers that follow him. On the practical level, an immigrant has no interest in seeing the country that he tied his fortunes to degrade via low-value immigration, just as a homebuyer has no interest in seeing his neighborhood turn into a slum.

The Professional Anti-Racist

After having read that IBT article, I became interested in a private dialogue with Pankowski, should his email address be posted on his organization’s site. I imagined a serious-looking man, about a decade older than me, whom I can persuade to reconsider some of his opinions. But cursory web search took me to his eponymously-named web site and after a quick look, I dropped the idea.

Pankowski’s web site describes him as a sociologist and political scientist, Doctor of Humanities, Professor of Collegium Civitas in Warsaw, deputy editor of the magazine Never Again, and:

He is coordinator of the Monitoring Centre on Racism in Eastern Europe, a board member of the network UNITED for Intercultural Action (based in Amsterdam) and Football Against Racism in Europe (based in London). He was employed, among others, as an expert-consultant in the Department of Tolerance and Non-discrimination of the OSCE, he took up their cooperation with Chatham House, Policy Network and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

Additionally, he has authored four books on racism and other such subjects. In other words, he is a professional leftist and experience has taught me that engaging them on a dialectical level with the goal of convincing them of anything is futile. I am also unfamiliar with the magazine or the organizations he’s affiliated with, but it is reasonable to start with an assumption that any anti-racist outfit in Eastern Europe is either a George Soros- or otherwise an American-funded subversion. And then, there is his appearance, per the photo below from his web site:

RP

The face of an anti-racist. Nobody is mistaking him for Pudzian. Granted, practitioners of clerical occupations get a pass on having a less-than-working-class physiognomy but there is such a thing as an SJW look, and he’s got it. This is purely intuitive on my part, but one should trust his intuition and talking with an SJW is even more futile than with a mere professional anti-racist.

Final word on Pankowski: while he and I are ideological adversaries, I don’t rule out a possibility that I may be wrong in my personal reservations about him and he may in fact be a thoughtful writer who is willing to discuss nationalism from outside of the anti-racist perspective. He may also be a very nice and charming person. Either way, without knowing more about him, the tone of this post remains duly respectful toward him because despite my disgust with the ideas that he promotes, he has given me no reasons to adopt any other kind of attitude.

What Makes a Polish Anti-Racist?

Here are factors that contributes to the formation of a Polish (and more broadly, an Eastern European) anti-racist or SJW mentality. Some of the following qualities are universal, while others are particular to Eastern Europe:

Being Jewish. Let’s get that out of the way first. Polish and Jewish perspectives on Poland’s history and her national question differ. Historian Jan Tomasz Gross, who has made a career out of tarring Poles as murderous savages, is an example of a professional anti-Polonist Jew — a less buffoonish version of what Tim Wise is to U.S. Whites. You can also plumb the depths of Jewish animus in Art Spiegelman’s Holocaust-themed “Maus,” in which Poles are, literally, swine.

Ego. The human ego is the most powerful force in the universe. When personally invested in identifying with a political orientation, a lot of people will double-down on their positions rather than reconsider them when faced with facts or insights that contradict their views.

Mid-wit intelligence. Such a person has an above-average but by no means exceptional IQ, along with little capacity for original thought. He also lacks the discipline for rigorous dialectic. Mid-wits are intellectually at home operating within manichean, state-sanctioned ideological templates.

Career. Academic careers are rarely renumerative, except when you get into a Western-affiliated globalism-promoting NGO network. Then like any good employee, you enthusiastically support your employer’s mission.

Pathological snobbishness. The upper-middle-class contempt for members of the working class is a human universal.

Gamma male. This refers to a psychological profile conceptualized by Vox Day and elaborated-on in my post titled “Assessing Your Place on the Hierarchy.” A Gamma male passive-aggressively acts out on his resentment of men who are higher than him on the socio-sexual hierarchy. If he gets involved in politics, he sublimates that resentment into a left-wing ideology.

Eastern European inferiority complex. Decades of material backwardness behind the Iron Curtain and the subsequent collapse of their states in 1989 has had a psychological impact on many Eastern Europeans. Some of them overcompensate by identifying with the European Union’s ruling class values.

National pride. This kind of a left-winger is fond of his country but is embarrassed by what he considers low-class attitudes among his compatriots, which reflect badly on Poland and on him. Pankowski’s comment in that article suggests that this may be part of what drives him:

With Poland among the least multicultural societies in Europe, moving to a country with a sizeable ethnic minority population can trigger an identity crisis for some young Polish immigrants, he said. “I think many are quite confused about their identity, and being Polish abroad means understanding what multicultural society looks like, but for others it brings out dormant prejudice, and reinforces some prejudices they are prone to.”

What he’s saying is patronizing as hell and naive, but I can see how he’s trying to do what in his mind is damage-control on behalf of Poland’s image.

Morbid fear of chaos and violence. This type of a leftist prefers to suppress short-term limited and justifiable violence such as border protection, even as suppressing it makes extreme and continent-scale violence inevitable in the long run.

There is a lesson here for makers of national policy: if you don’t like skinheads, then stop creating conditions that make skinheads necessary. Personally, I empathize with all street-level nationalists because they are stepping up where the state has either failed to protect, or has outright betrayed, its own people.

Brotherhood of man. That ideal appeals to me as well, yet am not a leftist. Nationalism and universalism, in fact, are more compatible with each other than anti-racism is with universalism. As I recently wrote:

Men generally enjoy meeting men from other nations and races. There is a lot that is interesting, even fraternal, in the crossing of cultures—so long as these three conditions are met: both parties are coming from positions of equal relative status, each man has a home of his own, and each man knows who he is. Even Pashtun tribesmen are famed for their hospitality toward strangers whom they do not perceive as invaders. But multiculturalism, by imposing strangers on another’s home and codifying this intrusion with the Marxist duality of oppressor and oppressed, precludes any such fraternity.

Or as the American poet Robert Frost put it much more simply: “Good fences make good neighbors.” The humanist who becomes an anti-racist denies man two of his most essential dignities: identity and community.

“It’s Complicated” — Collaborating with the Empire

Being from a smaller country that occasionally finds itself under the power of stronger neighbors or subsumed into an empire comes with dilemmas. Sometimes one has to weigh the pros and cons of cooperating with the occupant for the larger good of his people or for personal benefit.

At its low points, Polish history featured men, sometimes tragic figures, who had stood at such crossroads and made an unpopular but principled decision based on what they thought would be best for their nation. Two such historic figures come to mind: Margrave Aleksander Wielopolski (1803 – 1877) and General Wojciech Jaruzelski (1923 – 2014).

My first example is Margrave Wielopolski, who ran Poland’s civil administration within the Russian Empire and he feared that the Polish independence movement was escalating toward bloodshed. To forestall that, he ordered 20-year-term conscriptions of Polish activists into the Tsar’s army. That decision ignited the January 1863 Uprising, the very outcome Wielopolski wanted to avoid.

The second example is Gen. Jaruzelski, who was appointed Communist Poland’s head of state in 1981. Several months later he crushed the growing Solidarity movement, imprisoned its leaders, and imposed the infamous Martial Law that lasted through July 1983. He is a reviled figure in Poland but his defenders argue that he imposed those measures to prevent a Soviet invasion.

And there is another, very obscure but memorable to me example of collaborating with a foreign power. There was a World War II memoir I read, written by a woman who had survived the notorious Pawiak prison in German-occupied Warsaw where captured resistance fighters were taken for interrogation. As a doctor, she worked in the prison’s infirmary, which put her directly in contact with inmates just coming off their torture-interrogation sessions. She related a story about a prisoner who escaped but was later tracked down and arrested by a Polish collaborator policeman who (as described by the author) beamed with pride as he turned the “bandit” over to the Germans. The policeman was rewarded with a dinner in the German staff dining hall, but as he later listened to the screams of the recaptured escapee coming from the interrogation room, pride had drained from his face.

The Polish anti-racist should make a humbling effort to better understand the refugee influx and the state-enabled Islamic invasion of Europe. He should then extrapolate Europe’s — as well as Poland’s own — fate under the trajectory of those events. Then, as a collaborator with the Brussels-based empire, ask himself: Czy jestem dumny z tego, co robię?

Is the Mulatto the New Superman?

“But what if our child inherits my body and your brains?”
– Attributed to George Bernard Shaw, his riposte to a shapely dancer’s eugenically-flavored proposition.

The title of this post is in jest, but this post’s amicable spirit toward the long-time commenter and occasional pain-in-the-ass whose handle is an anagram of “Trickin” is in earnest. My man Trickin has been both lurking and commenting on the fringes of Alt-Right’s discussions for years and it’s high time to address his contrarian point of view.

To readers unfamiliar with him: Trickin describes himself as a forty-something former rock-n-roll scene journalist, now comfortably settled in the frozen mid-West. Most apropos our interests, he also notes that he is a biracial American man, the son of a Black father and a White mother, an outlier in that he grew up in a happy upper-middle-class home with both parents. So without further ado, let’s meet Trickin:

bfar

Not Trickin

No, that’s not him, I just couldn’t resist because this is how I imagine him to appear, his protestations notwithstanding. I actually have no idea what he looks like.

The original impetus behind this post is a meme that society pushes, and one that Trickin himself occasionally advances with varying degrees of seriousness, namely the melding of the European mind with the African body through intermarriage as evolution’s direction toward a superior new man.

There is a time for dialectic on miscegenation that encompasses one’s feelings about it, as well as an objective analysis of its viability. But I am not doing that in this post. Rather, my aim in this post is to acknowledge and try to grok Trickin’s perspective on his biracial identity. He wrote something recently to poignant effect:

there is a sorta purely physical aesthetic imagining that comes back repeatedly; a sorta idealized figure that i’m sure is tied to my id and history —- a halfrican with appealing features that nonetheless cover the vastness of its essential being…. I have some haunts along this line of personal inquiry; such a figure just might not be a pure figment in terms of me and my past.

You may now be wondering about this idealized Halfrican physiognomy. Trickin may have already given us a hint. He has asserted — in earlier denials of the photo at the top of this post — that he looks similar to a former NBA player, pictured here:

rfx

Trickin’s doppleganger?

That’s not a bad looking fellow. I have no reason to doubt Trickin’s claim and if true, then it would appear that he has drawn well in genetic card-dealing. In magnanimous detachment, I ventured to accept, as a thought experiment, the Mischling as an integral part of the continuum of our own communities.

But then I saw three things in the real world: a young White woman one evening, she walked lightly. The streetlamp’s glow kissed her flowing hair and caressed her shoulder. A birthday party full of White children playing. Their bright faces were God’s own joy. A White man, his solid face and clear eyes, and I knew that I am looking at the only man in this world whom I can trust.

There is the world of the European man, with its aspirational supremacy, and in that world there is little room for impure blood. And there is also, as confessed by Trickin, an idealized home aligned with his Mulatto identity, implicitly one with its own standards of purity. Like two free men who visit each other’s worlds but then part ways, the European returns home and so does the Halfrican head for his own.

But where does the biracial man go? The one who got the best of both heritages is free to enjoy this moment in history among Whites as an interesting stranger. But once he tires of Circe’s feast and is back at sea, he becomes like Odysseus but with no crew and with no Ithaca, on open water between the unreachable light of Europe and the wild call of Africa.

Orban Calls for the End of the Liberal Era

And proposes a new, democratic era. As Hungary’s prime minister makes it clear in his speech, the prevailing liberal order is globalization with a patina of Enlightenment universalism masking its authoritarian impulses. The democratic era, as Orban envisions it in the European context, would be guided by the Christian spirit and national identity of sovereign nations.

Reader Ensuite forwarded the 31-minute video at the bottom of this post. It is an abridged version of Viktor Orbán’s nearly 60-minute long speech at the Fidesz party convention in December 2015. The video is subtitled in English and in this post I’m citing its select parts. The following passage is Orban’s call to the leaders of the European Union:

We suggest a return to democratic Europe. Instead of today’s Europe of weak leaders, to a Europe of strong people. The next European era will either be an era of democracy, or it will cease to exist. The time has come. We are living in a different world. Twenty eight nations cannot work according to the same rules that six countries were able to work with.

Ethnically homogeneous states are more likely to work on behalf of their people because they do not preside over a mix of ethnic groups with irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Viktor Orban touches on the difference between having a national government, versus living under an imperial arrangement as either a lord or a vassal nation:

We do not want to be the ruler nor the subject, nor the caretaker nor the dependent, of other peoples.

Imagine, having a country of your own. Hungarians don’t have to imagine, they already have a country. One key condition for having one’s own country is a government that in word and deed strives to secure a future for its people:

Just think about the immigration issue…. Our politics are exclusively Hungary- friendly politics. Our major goal is the support of Hungarian families… For us, families and to-be-born children mean the future of Hungary and Europe.

He then connects Hungary’s fate to Europe’s:

We cannot effectively speak of our homeland’s situation without speaking of Europe’s situation… Europe is under an invasion. In the depths, a parallel world is being built, which slowly but surely, step by step, according to the laws of nature, will push back and squeeze our world into a minority, and together with that ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren too. If this continues, we will lose Europe… what is happening is not an accident. It is not an unintended chain of events, but a planned and controlled process.

Although I am not including that particular line, he calls out George Soros in all ways but by name in the above passage. He then closes in on the attribute of Europe’s malaise:

The true, fatal disease endangering Europe is … of a spiritual nature… Europe does not acknowledge itself.

The European spirit, and her people believe in superficial and secondary things. Human rights, progress, openness, new sorts of families, tolerance. Those are nice things, but in reality they are secondary because they are only derivatives. Yes, today Europe believes in secondary things, but it does not believe in the things from which these originate. It does not believe in Christianity. It does not believe in common sense. It does not believe in military strength. And it does not believe in national pride. It does not believe in what created it, and what it once was. It does not believe in it, it won’t stand up for itself, it won’t debate, it won’t fight, and it ultimately won’t make sacrifices for it.

It does not want to think or speak about who it really is. And after not acknowledging itself, it does not acknowledge any differentiation, either. And by not differentiating itself from others, it will consequentially lose itself. But it’s clearer than the sun that Europe is ancient Hellas, not Persia. Rome, not Carthage. Christianity, not the Caliphate.

And finally, the speech builds toward its coup de grâce, Orban’s call to close the era of liberalism; I only provide short excerpts below. Be sure to listen the whole speech and note the large soul and the generous spirit in which Orban makes his proposal:

The past 25 years of our lives was a major liberal era in Europe. It had nice periods, good results. It had major moments, and momentous figures. We can rejoice to have personally known them. Today, however liberal politics has lost its power of attraction. It piles failures upon failures. It has tired out and become exhausted. … it’s unable to protect people from external and internal dangers. Not from immigration, terrorism, nor crime.

It has stiffened and become monomaniacal. It senses enemies everywhere. It’s angry if its belief system is questioned. It’s exasperated when it hears new ideas, and it’s aggressive when one references the will of the people against it. It has lost its connection with reality. Instead of debates, it wants to censor public speech. And so it has developed the stop signs and regulations of political correctness.

All I am saying is that we have reached a point where today politics has turned against freedom. It has turned against freedom of thought, speech, and media. Consequently, it has turned against people and democracy…

I belong to those who want to live the next 1,000 years as Hungarians in a Christian Europe. In the interest of this — no matter how painful it is to certain politicians in Brussels — we must close down this era! In a political and in a spiritual sense as well. I believe that we, all of us, think that our lives are only meaningful, only have weight when we serve something greater and more important than our own lives. For example, our family, our homeland, or perhaps God’s country. Maybe all three at once.

 

The Office Manager’s Sign, 2016

emplyes

The manager of a professional office places on the wall of the break room, among the fliers and announcements, a poster with people of different races working together on a project and the slogan: “Celebrate Diversity.” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of racial diversity among employees? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a celebration might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of office managers never think about the slogans they put on their walls, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our manager from the enterprise headquarters along with the pens and coffee packets. He put it on the wall simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration on the break room wall; someone might even accuse him of racism. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life; it is “socially responsible,” as they say.

Obviously the manager is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan on the wall from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the manager XY, work here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the manager’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the manager from potential complaints. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the manager’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the manager had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The manager would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation on the office wall, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the manager to say, “What’s wrong with celebrating diversity?” Thus the sign helps the manager to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the office manager, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in diversity being celebrated, to the highest executive, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about inclusion. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing. 

[This post was inspired by Vaclav Havel’s “greengrocer’s sign” metaphor from his 1979 essay “The Power of the Powerless.” See my comment in the thread below for a clarification on the authorship and the original language of the above excerpt.]