Print this post Print this post

Waking Up From the American Dream 
The Question

Norman Rockwell, Study for "Freedom of Speech"

Norman Rockwell, Study for “Freedom of Speech”

1,414 words

Consider it your secret weapon. Simply ask, “What are you basing that on?”

Even the most backwards, ignorant person that is stereotyped as being “on our side” has some kind of reason for being a white activist. No one “hates people because of the color of their skin.” The most “ignorant” racist may rant that immigrants destroyed his neighborhood, or Jews run the media, or blacks commit most of the crime, but this doesn’t mean he has no reason for his beliefs. Indeed, even if crudely expressed, these kinds of statements tend to be objectively true.

“Racist” beliefs can be challenged – but at least there is something to debate about. If someone asks a “racist” what he is basing his beliefs on, he’ll at least have something to say.

In contrast, sometimes the most educated, refined, and highly trained spokesmen for multiculturalism and diversity will say things that quite literally have nothing to support them. And you can hear yourself raging in your own head at the blatant absurdity.

“Diversity is our strength.”

(What does that even mean? How does the mere fact of difference make a group’s efforts better?)

“We need diversity to compete in the global economy.”

(Compared to whom? The Rising Tigers of South Korea, Japan, and China, none of whom believe in multiculturalism?)

“Multiculturalism defines us as a community.”

(How does the lack of a community somehow define a community?)

The System is developing an ever more elaborate system of repression for dissenting against the state ideology of multiculturalism, but the actual rationalizations are growing ever weaker. College campuses are dominated by discussions of “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings” so abstract, complicated, and minute that they make the theological debates of medieval scholasticism seem like Blue’s Clues. Few people who aren’t paid for it can give a real definition of “white privilege,” let alone defend it.

At the same time, every day brings another example of a Two Minutes Hate directed at someone who dissented against the official ideology either consciously or accidentally. Whether it be Paula Deen confessing a racial slur against someone who had a gun in her face decades ago, the owner of the LA Clippers complaining to his non-white girlfriend about her constantly hanging around with blacks, or a politician who had the gall to quote Charles Murray, the search for heretics is never ending and the definition of thoughtcrime ever expanding.

And each case is treated at the Most Important News Story in the World, breathlessly debated and promoted to the exclusion of petty concerns like military conflict in Europe, financial crisis, or even the never ending crime that is victimizing the nonwhites that media claims to care so much about.

Most normal white people don’t want their lives destroyed by social justice crusaders who have nothing better to do than look for reasons to be offended and attack people’s lives and careers. Therefore, whether ostensibly liberal or conservative, they seize on multicultural slogans and clichés as a protective talisman. When confronted, they frantically repeat the slogans in the impotent hope that it will ward away whatever doom in encroaching.

Both the rote recitations of multicultural faith and the denunciations of dissenters have become increasingly ritualistic. You can actually feel your eyes glazing over when someone starts babbling about “diversity as a strength” or a hysterical egalitarian shrieking about “toxic spewing of hate.” They have become empty words, unable to be defined even by the people uttering them.

Unfortunately, even empty posturing has political consequences. Our immigration policy is governed by “huddled clichés” (to use the late Lawrence Auster’s phrase) to the exclusion of serious discussion of the economic, social, or political impact of mass immigration. You are not allowed to “notice,” as John Derbyshire points out. As in Nineteen Eighty-Four, ignorance quite literally has become a strength, as if you mention an inconvenient truth, your political career and your personal life can be destroyed instantly.

More importantly, the ritualized PC cringe and the mouthing of the magic slogans of diversity sets the limits for permissible debate even with in the political parties. Nowhere is this sad truth more evident than in the contemporary Republican Party, which cultivates and even treasures a culture of aggressive stupidity when it comes to racial issues. At any conservative gathering, even the “far right” meetings of a typical “Tea Party” chapter, the monochromatic white crowd will fantasize about whoever is the next conservative Great Black Hope, accuse leftists of being Nazis and racists, and come up with new strategies about preaching Constitutional values in Spanish.

A perfect example occurred recently when the irreplaceable Jared Taylor questioned a group of Republican congressional candidates about immigration. Taylor wanted to know if whites should be worried about becoming a minority. The result was quite literally spellbinding – the Republicans acted as if they were extras in White Zombie with their wills enslaved to some dark voodoo master. They woodenly recited phrases about why color doesn’t matter and why immigration strengthens the country.

The moderator felt the need to give an impromptu speech on the family values of Hispanics, promoting one audience member to shout in frustration that they voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The moderator’s response was a shrieking cackle of fearful laughter that would not be out of place from an Italian horror movie of the 1970s. It wasn’t amusement – it was hysterical, unreasoning terror akin to that of a person who just saw his mirror reflection blink.

This is an instructive reaction. It wouldn’t take much to deflate all of this. On the rare occasion someone is allowed to challenge a worshiper muttering prayers to the gods of diversity, the question is simple – “What are you basing that on?”

Perhaps the best example for Republicans is “Hispanics are natural Republicans with strong family values.” What do they base this on? Is it abortion rates? Well, no – Hispanics have higher abortion rates than whites. Illegitimacy rates? Nope – those are higher too. Support for “limited government?” Hispanics explicitly support big government. The only response left is the kind of denial of reality found that sad little Republican’s mad cackle of existential despair.

The System is increasingly revealing the hard fist beneath the velvet glove of multiculturalism. And the arguments of the System’s opponents are increasingly relying on blunt intimidation about destroying people’s financial well-being or simply attacking them.

That is a problem in and of itself. But we have it in our power to chip away at the multicultural ideology without veering into the forbidden territory that will cause an audience’s mind to snap shut in fear. Like Socrates, put the burden of proof on your opponent.

This is best used in response to a completely faith-based statement or a pleasing lie. The average person won’t be able to defend something like “America is dominated by white privilege,” but a professor might. But even a professor can’t really defend something like “All groups contributed equally to America.” And even (or especially) a Republican Congressman can’t really assemble evidence to defend a statement like, “Most Hispanics support limited government.”

No one likes hard questions, like the father in the story who is asked by his child if he is lost. “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” When people are angry or emotional, they make mistakes.

Never again should anyone be allowed in any climate allowed to simply recite multicultural slogans in lieu of an argument without being challenged. Having been protected from dissenting thought either through repressive legislation (as in Europe), blatant intimidation (as on college campuses), or simple cultural rot, my guess is you will find few will even know how to respond.

If you are discussing these issues with a colleague, you can use the friendlier, “Why do you say that?” And it’s amazing what you can get away with if you couple something with a shit-eating grin. But in this culture, we need the confrontations that can be captured on video.

Go to those public meetings with your Congressman. Attend those speeches by your liberal professors. Check out what those leftists are protesting. Then just wait for an empty recitation of multicultural faith, select your opportunity, and ask The Question.

“You said all cultures are equal. What are you basing that on?”

And in the silence that follows, know that everyone in the audience is wondering, perhaps for the first time, the exact same thing.



  1. The_Brahmin
    Posted April 29, 2014 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Large, listed, multi-national corporates of the West are the amongst the loudest promoters of the cult of diversity. If you have a friend in any of these companies (DJIA, FTSE100 type), just ask him or her. They have diversity councils reporting to the board, diversity manuals, corporate affirmative action and so on. God help your career if you fall foul of these corporate diversity satraps.

    The politicians of course are pontificating on diversity all the time but then its being implementing far more effectively by the large western corporates who are basically interested in moving products, services and balance sheet risk across the globe. Truly, the globalists are champions of diversity. It fills their coffers even if it destroys culture, heritage, identity and national sovereignty.

    American religion (which by the way is a post-modern joke and the American Christian right is the stupidest voting bloc) is tirelessly promoting diversity, reaping headcount for their own version of Jesus!

    The diversity party has just started. The African Pope is just around the corner, waiting his turn. Hordes of ‘diverse’ meek will inherit YOUR earth.

    • Armor
      Posted April 29, 2014 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

      “Truly, the globalists are champions of diversity. It fills their coffers even if it destroys culture, heritage, identity and national sovereignty.”

      What are you basing that on?
      (I thought the problem was racial animus, not financial interest).

    • Dahud
      Posted May 1, 2014 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      I fully understand why the media, government, and the universities are so obsessed with diversity but I’ve never been able to understand why corporate America is so gung-ho on increasing diversity as well ? Aren’t our corporations still mostly controlled by a bunch of old White guys who only care about their profits ?

  2. Posted April 29, 2014 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    Wonderful advice in this article. And a superb turn of phrase here:

    “It wasn’t amusement – it was hysterical, unreasoning terror akin to that of a person who just saw his mirror reflection blink.”

  3. SWPL2
    Posted April 29, 2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    I really enjoyed this piece. Very thoughtfully laid out.

    Even a well-intentioned, meek phrasing of the question, “What are you basing that on?” would likely get you savaged by the p.c. crowd. I’d recommend wussing it down even further.

    From college to grad school and every office job thereafter, p.c. orthodoxy (especially with regard to race and politics), is jammed down your throat. You start believing that you’re completely alone. I think the value of sites like this is realizing that you’re not completely off your rocker.

  4. C. Oliver III
    Posted April 29, 2014 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    I stand with Nietzsche insofar as our Truth and Moral Projects are rooted in biological and psychological need. We can marshall evidence and find smaller truths that support our Truth. We can make better or worse arguments. However, it is folly to believe that reason, science or some type of objective standard underly are worldviews. The racial realist is such because it in some way satisfies needs. Whether those needs are to be daring or separate from mainstream, are based in fear of otherness, romanticize the past or many other possibilities I could not say. But as these views are not shared by the majority, they do not appear to be needs of the white race, but rather the individual race realists who hold these views.

    • MountainWilliam
      Posted April 29, 2014 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

      However, it is folly to believe that reason, science or some type of objective standard underly are worldviews. The racial realist is such because it in some way satisfies needs. Whether those needs are to be daring or separate from mainstream, are based in fear of otherness, romanticize the past or many other possibilities I could not say. But as these views are not shared by the majority, they do not appear to be needs of the white race, but rather the individual race realists who hold these views.

      Nah, the reality of race is just the truth (insofar as evolution is “truth,” or gravity is “truth”). Consult the literature and see for yourself. Like many scientific truths, it takes a while for everyone to catch on, particularly when an idea is attacked by rabid anti-scientific egalitarians at every turn, but I imagine it will be incontrovertible in the next decade or two. Now, what you do with said truth is another question…

  5. Rune Lauritzen
    Posted April 30, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    Pretty good. But this should have been written like a Socratic dialogue.

  6. Posted May 1, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Splendid technique! I’ll start using it right away! This is reprinted, commented on, and quibcagged here:
    A simple question that liberals have a very hard time answering:

  7. Francois
    Posted May 2, 2014 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    I have been asking lately to anyone coming up with “diversity” what they exactly meant.
    And it s always quite funny, they re just shy about saying blacks.

    There are two simple ideas i have been using this past year in conversations with non ethnocentered people: one is to say a multicultural social organization only results in a multiconflictual society.

    The second is about gay mariage, and after listening politely to these prude progressists seeing phobics everywhere, i simply ask:
    So for you, being against giving the sacrement of mariage to a same sex duo( yes duo, nothing can couple if it is the same)it means you are a conservative?
    -oh yeah! Them effing conservatives are ridiculous… Blablabla
    -well then, if i was to follow your logic, to be called a progressist necesarily means that you got f..ked in the .ss?

    They usually change topic after a long blank 🙂

  8. Peter Quint
    Posted May 2, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Life is a continuous IQ test; the correct answer to each questions is does it contribute to the survival of the white race.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace