1,876 words
There are a lot of labels that those on the Dissident Right are throwing around, both as an alternative to the term Alt Right and in an attempt to delineate their own ideological positions. Together, they comprise a hodgepodge of political traditions and ideologies, including traditionalist, Neoreactionary (NRx), reactionary, propertarian, New Right, Dissident Right, White Nationalist, paleoconservative, civic nationalist, American nationalist, or sometimes simply nationalist. I personally mostly use reactionary, traditionalist, and nationalist, but I have the advantage of being able to simply appeal to Dutch nationalism if necessary, with no further explanations needed, as most Dutchmen know what I mean by that and to what traditions, values, and history I appeal.
The group that has most consistently set itself apart is, of course, the National Socialists. Fascist is vaguer, because then you have classical Fascists, clerical fascists, Romanian fascists, and so on. However, most people in these circles do not identify as either National Socialist or fascist, even though they may take some ideas from them.
Neoreaction (NRx) used to be a much bigger group in these circles, but a lot of its base shifted to the Alt Right over time and is now looking for different labels, like the rest of us. Curt Doolittle settled on propertarianism, and Moldbug dropped out entirely. NRx did succeed in the sense that their ideas have been one of the major influences on current non-mainstream Rightist thinking. This includes the concepts of The Cathedral, the inner and outer party (the “uniparty”), the value of manorialism, IQ shredders, and many others we often use today as an integral part of our discourse.
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is another influence on Rightists, specifically sex realism and all of its attendant aspects (hypergamy, the disposability of men vs. women, the 80-20 attraction pattern, and so on). MGTOW is also one of the fastest-growing anti-mainstream forms of thinking, rapidly catching up with Rightist Websites and YouTube channels in terms of traffic.
Thus, there is a general chaos of ideas. No one seems to be grounded in a specific philosophical tradition. Burkean conservatism? Not even mainstream conservatives call themselves that anymore. Nineteenth-century reactionary in the tradition of De Maistre? No one has even heard of De Maistre other than historians, much less appeals to him. Traditionalist in the sense of Julius Evola and René Guénon? While some of their ideas have been incorporated into our thinking, the term “traditionalist” as used by most people seems to be more in reference to traditional family values. The New Right? Again, some ideas were incorporated, but only some Frenchmen seem to identify with the label. Eurasianism? It has little influence outside Russia. Indeed, it seems that one of the only common influences among all these groups is Friedrich Nietzsche.
My conclusion is that we have a sort of rational, synthesized, and streamlined Right-wing ideology that is amorphous and nameless, but which is generally shared by all outside the mainstream Right who do not identify as National Socialist or Fascist, and which incorporates a wide array of differing ideologies, worldviews, and ideas. The labels we apply to ourselves are just a way to attempt to find a name for this ideological synthesis, a new ideology if you will; something which used to be covered by the term “Alt Right,” but which has fallen out of favor because of the numerous strategic mistakes associated with it. Still, the term effectively describes the nameless ideology of current dissidents: an amalgam of alternative thinking to the mainstream from a Right-wing perspective.
Nostalgia holds us in its grasp. We only look backwards, despite much rhetoric about the need for a new ideology for the future. I have a friend who is an engineer and who is also on the far Right, and he has absolutely no sentimental or nostalgic feelings about politics. His view is simply a clinically rational analysis, pure Darwinian logic applied on the societal level. The Church of Creativity probably came closest to describing this worldview in The White Man’s Bible. Its essence is that our race is our religion, and that all methods and values that most effectively ensure its survival and dominance are justified. This is the logic of nature, after all: kill or be killed, the right of the strongest, and so on. Therefore, religion, social values, law, and morality are all tools that need to be shaped with racial survival in mind. In this view, art serves merely to keep morale up and glorify our achievements, and religion is a tool that should be used to regulate society in a Durkheimian way. Libertarian economics should be applied internally to weed out the unsuccessful and internally improve the race, while socialism should be used when in conflict to ensure group survival. Technological progress is an arms race to ensure survival and dominance; recall how Europeans came to rule the Earth through gunpowder and steam engines. If other groups can gain such a comparative technological advantage, they will not hesitate to use it.
I find this unromantic and coldly rational vision of the engineer quite disturbing (coincidentally, the author of The White Man’s Bible, Ben Klassen, was also an engineer). It is technocratic racialism. But it is also fairly irrefutable. The logic of applying our scientific understanding of nature to society does indeed work. If we examine all of history up until the Second World War, we see that all human societies followed such animalistic logic. Groups aim to spread their genes as far and as widely as they can, and they need as many resources as they can get to accomplish this. So history is a process of consolidation and expansion, where unsuccessful races are wiped out or assimilated. There are, of course, occasional setbacks, like the fall of Rome, the Black Plague, or the many calamities in China which occurred whenever another dynasty fell. In this sense, Spengler’s view of cyclical history holds true. But there is also a linear history that has no grand narrative; there has been fairly constant population and productivity growth around the world – again, with some setbacks. But it is a linear upwards curve which has become exponential over the past century. There were considerably more people, in more urban environments which were more productive, in 700 AD than in 700 BC. This was again the case in 1700 AD. And this holds true universally, even in Africa, although growth there has been markedly lower.
This meant that nations grew ever more powerful and more capable of warfare. So what we saw in Europe was a consolidation of small feudal systems into nation-states whose borders were mostly defined by the furthest extent to which members of that ethnic group had spread. Thus, Germany was formed by a number of feudal states which already considered themselves ethnically German. After the formation of these nations, wars erupted across borders, mostly with the protection of their own ethnic group as a justification. This process was interrupted by colonialism. Territories with resources that were easier to gain were discovered. Fighting peoples with less advanced weaponry had a much better risk-reward ratio than fighting other Europeans, and thus the scramble for America, Africa, and Oceania began, and continued until the World Wars. European genetics spread across the globe.
The World Wars were the logical capstone to this process. All the easy land had already been taken and settled by European competitors by 1914. Nature does not pause, so the next logical step for these empires was to engage each other so that one would ultimately be victorious, acquire all the resources, and spread its genes further. (For a non-European version of this process, see the Bantu expansion into Africa.) And one power did indeed end up as the world hegemon: the United States. The US, however, has a mind-parasite that prevents it from following natural principles, and it has no ethnic group of its own to propagate, so it propagates “ideas.” Nevertheless, it does follow the logic of empires: conquest, dominance, and turning others into satrapies.
Life is a continuous process of genetic propagation. All life is in competition. The food pyramid is a result of this. New species evolve new strategies to outcompete others. Humans have been the most successful at this. And among humans there is competition also, to continuously outcompete each other on both the racial and individual levels. (For an explanation of this, see The Alternative Hypothesis video and article about the “European Revolution“.) This is the logic of life.
It is often said in these circles that growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer cells. Still, cancer is life – even though it kills its host. It is part of nature. It follows the logic of nature. On a long enough timeline, only one race of people will survive on the Earth, although it might take millennia. The most successful and ruthless will win. Currently, I would put my money on China. And that group will conquer the stars, because we must conquer the stars, if we do not want to die along with this planet.
Another possibility is that there will be a repeat of colonialism. Some number of nations and races on Earth will remain, but they will expand into the stars separately, creating their own colonial empires. But even then, this situation will end with its own type of “World War” – and a hegemon will arise.
This worldview leaves very little room for a romantic view of mankind. And that is where I object to it. I find the logic of this technocratic engineer hard to refute, but it is no grand narrative to inspire people. It is very inhumane. But cladding this skeleton of cold, hard, Darwinian logic with romantic flesh, and developing associated morals, values, and forms is what we as the Right should be doing, rather than clinging to old ideas. I think NRx undertook great steps towards this. Science is just a means to measure reality. You ignore what it shows at your own peril. Nevertheless, humans are irrational creatures, and therefore a complete political system requires illogical parts. Art is an irrational activity. For example, modern architecture has made that particular branch of art rational and efficient. Still, most people despise modern architecture and long for the beauty of the past – even if it is costlier. This is what we might call the romantic part – the Soul of Man.
We already have the rational part of a new ideology: Darwinian science. Let’s build the irrational part; namely, the contribution the humanities can make. What forms, morals, and systems do we need? I personally think religion has a big role to play in this. One needs to merely read Durkheim to understand its importance. We need to build a new and coherent philosophy out of this nebulous soup of ideas that floats around in dissident circles.
This realization that genes want to spread, and that all culture and civilization is merely a carrier for the successful propagation of a group’s genetics, is something all Rightists should keep in mind. However, if someone can refute this logic, then I would be happy to hear it. It is not a pleasant thought.
(One can also see this podcast for more discussion of these ideas.)
23 Comments
Man does not live by STEM alone. I understand why parents want to encourage their children to go into STEM fields, because of the sickness of today’s academia, and I understand that visiting museums or listening to classical music isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time. But we lose an awful lot when the Humanities are disregarded and wrecked. For many of us, we lose a vital part of what it means to be human. No matter how materially prosperous we might be, we’re now living in the ruins of a world in which the Humanities are one of the many victims. It isn’t pretty in more ways than one.
STEM, especially the “E” part is verified legit.
Why, just look at what the SJWs over at RationalWiki (sic) have to say about engineers:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo
Engineering = inherently conservative
Interesting. Something that always intrigued me was that in the introduction to Mein Kampf, 3 out of the 16 men named as killed during the Beerhal putsch were Engineers. It seems engineers have been disproportionately conservative and reactionary for a long time.
I can’t confirm if this is true or not, but it seems that left-handed people are inclined towards the mathematic. In my field, a type of engineering, I disproportionately encounter left-handed people.
Are right-wingers disproportionately left-handed?
The reason I wonder is that left-brain people are also more likely to show sociopathic tendencies. Say what you will, but sociopaths are winners of a sort (see Jews). Is that the type of ruthlessness required to deal with the JQ? A resource of people ready to be tapped?
More questions arise.
My theory as to why engineers are disproportionately right-wing (see: religious and traditionalist) whereas scientists are disproportionately left-wing (see: secular and pozzed) is this,
Engineering involves performing real-world tasks, making use of holistic reasoning, whereas science involves a myopic zooming in on a very specific task. Engineers are holists; scientists are nominalists.
Most left-wing social positions can be easily justified if you’re only looking at them on an issue-by-issue basis. E.G., “why is sex before marriage necessarily bad, its a choice”, “why is atheism necessarily bad, its a choice”, “who cares if my neighbors come from a different country?”, etc.
However, when you start to zoom-out and look at the big picture of how all these things inter-connect, the left-wing positions, when they’re all enacted simultaneously, and in the same society, spell out the recipe for social collapse and disaster.
“If Darwinian selection has collapsed, then we should be becoming more mutated and, therefore, more left-handed and higher in all of the correlates of left-handedness, including low intelligence.”
https://vdare.com/articles/are-southpaws-really-sinister-increased-incidence-suggests-we-re-headed-for-mouse-utopia-collapse
This is not that odd. In fact, I would say this is expected. One of the leading characteristics of the left is ideology. Ideology is -by definition- the denial of reality. If an ideology would correspond to reality, it would no be an ideology!
Since engineers deal with reality… the conclusion writes itself.
Man, you are wearing a soul several sizes too small for you. This kind of hipsterish “too cool for your boring old humanism” is not what anyone, even you, needs to prevail in the bleak time of trial. Political renaissance is downstream from cultural renaissance.
Very important subject, thanks! Because there is so much fighting over it in WN.
However… upon some contemplating: … well for me it´s about White Racial Preservation; survival. And then what? Maybe I DON´T CARE ! Maybe there is no answer. Maybe we will never be happy and satisfied: so why make that an issue, something that needs solving in order to proceed with WN? Maybe not at all. Let´s leave that question open… let´s be open to the possibility that there is no answer, no satisfying answer. We will have to live our lives out some way or the other and it may be pointless and empty. So… I don´t care. But what I care about is TO SURVIVE AS THE WHITE RACE.
The next Rightist philosophy is simply the most foundational of all:
Ensuring the biological perpetuity of the White race, and the security and continuity of Western civilization itself. Our chief goals should be 1) the total and permanent expatriation of all nonwhites from Europe, and 2) within White diasporic states (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Uruguay – perhaps Southern Brazil), the formation and secession of all-White apartheid racial states, as well as the promotion and protection of White interests pre-secession, and, for those Whites unable to relocate themselves to the apartheid states, post-secession. I call this agenda “White nationalism”.
Beyond that, I favor basic American conservatism as most appropriate for American Whites: Constitutionalism, limited government and balanced budgets, capitalism, private property rights, the nuclear family, anti-Sexual Revolutionism, national security, law & order (mass incarceration, hanging criminals, concealed carry, “Home is Your Castle doctrine”), strict infectious disease control measures, Western High Culture and traditional pedagogical methods in schools, elimination of affirmative action, America First foreign policy (including special alliances with other First World states).
Looking back the thing which did so much damage to the entire movement of the Dissident Right was the victory of Trump himself. During the election the vanguard led with ‘meme magic’ but what really mattered was that this vanguard shared its collective mind with this huge (and previously inaccessible) mass of earthy conservative who were on the edge of being revolutionary.
If Trump had lost these masses – embittered and angry – would have move beyond the old and maybe become fellow soldiers of the future. Then this movement would still be united and rising.
Instead Trump won and those masses fell away from the path because they had ‘succeeded’ and proved to themselves that ‘there’s no need to worry, everything will be alright’. After all in the American imagination ‘there no place like home’ is there.
Charlottesville is condemned as a foolish disaster, moronic from the get go. Maybe it was simply a case of not changing the plan when circumstances had changed. If Trump had lost maybe there would have been tens of thousands of radical right protestors there and more at events afterwards. Then we might have only remembered it as a beginning.
Now, these conservatives – dull as they are – still cling to Trump, even though they know in their hearts he’s betrayed them.
I agree with this analysis. Imagine the unity and energy on the Right if Hillary were in office. Putting Republicans in office basically coopts most of the Right into being team players following Republican leaders who constantly betray them to the Left.
The best case scenario in 2020 is a hard Leftist getting elected with a narrow margin attributable to voter fraud and immigration. Most white people would regard this presidency as illegitimate. This would give WNs huge opportunities to polarize the country and push ourselves into the vanguard role, as opposed to backing Trump, who simply betrayed us.
Absolutely, I completely agree.
Even better a hard leftist of colour to twist the knife. Many still fear accelerationsim, but shock therapy is needed stat!
For those who fear speeding things up look at South Africa, the terrible melancholy case of a boiled frog. If the black government had tried this sort of thing back in the 90s when the whites still had their instincts, things might have been rectified quite dynamically. Now it is far to late – their elites utterly corrupted and the vitality of their people long gone. Their destiny is as refugees I fear.
For those afraid of speeding up remember there is a historical time window for action. If that is not utilised you have played it safe only to become the wretched play things of history. Even the most mindless followers of Trump still have spirit left, and it could still fuel the cause.
On another note it would be interesting to see the elites facing off against a radical lefist they themselves helped create. The one thing I respected Obama for was that – once he had be stung by Benghazi – he refused to be engaged on any of their foreign policy nonsense. No jewish trickery there had any effect on the magical negro incarnate. Imagine someone like that working against their oligarchical economics, culturally untouchable, and the end result of their own manipulations.
Delicious.
What do you mean by “oligarchical economics”? Such anti-market violations as corporate welfare, implicit bailout guarantees, Federal Reserve QE subsidization of the stock market, and mass immigration (another form of corporate welfare – ie, artificially expanding the labor supply to suppress worker wages)? Or the slight turn to freer markets under TRUMP, which has resulted in the best economy in half a century, one in which millions of REAL people – long term unemployed, disabled, non-decrepit elderly, formerly parasitic minorities (yes, there are still a lot of those, but there has been real, measurable movement from welfare to work) – have opportunities to better themselves (without state-provided parasitism)?
Abolish the former, but thank God for the latter.
Most REAL people don’t care about racial preservation. They care about their own circumstances. Given the “death” or perhaps disappearance of God, most Whites have been thoroughly desacralized. The result of this is not explosive Nazism, but apathy and individualist cynicism: “lookin’ out for #1”. And most of the few “idealists”, alas, seem to be racial diversitist utopians.
“Accelerationists” are fools, at least in the American context. Trump is in fact exactly what we need, it’s just that he’s too weak and stupid to carry it off. But his approach – combine pro-growth (ie, pro-capitalist) economic policies to win masses of voters with anti-immigrationism – is what I and many of my 45-60-something friends have been wanting for decades. It’s what Reagan should have been (and some of us thought was going to be). It’s what Buchanan was (despite the neocon/neoliberal calumnies he endured; his 1996 campaign was the MOST free market of any of the GOP candidates, though few understood this at the time).
Not even the most covertly White nationalist President can focus solely on racial issues. In a duopolistic regime both parties will necessarily be broad coalitions. Most members of any GOP coalition will care more about the economy than “saving the White race”. This is, if not ethically admirable (any more than growing the National Debt left to future generations is), perfectly understandable, given that Whites are not really in any literal danger, except in a long term which is by its nature difficult for most people to grasp. Therefore, Trump or anyone else has to “come through” on economic growth, and especially job creation.
Of course, there is no contradiction – ethical, political, or economic – with promoting free markets and restricting immigration. That has been the position of many nationalist champions, including foreign moderates Enoch Powell and Jean-Marie Le Pen. It is what’s best for the country, any White country.
But at some point (and as I was saying variations of this no later than the 90s, the “point” has probably been reached) “losing to win” actually has to start winning.
I made your exact argument in 2008 wrt Obama, and I was correct. McCain would have been a Third Bush Term, giving us nothing more than some variant of illegal alien amnesty, and a possible pro-Israel war with Iran. This would have resulted in 75 Democrat Senators, 300 Democrat Congresspersons – and a huge Democrat Presidential win in 2012. Therefore, I said “Vote Third Party” (I cannot vote for a Democrat, esp a nonwhite one). Obama exceeded my wildest dreams. He lost his party Congress (recall how dominant they were in 2009); many statehouses; galvanized the breakout of a race-realistic alt-right; and gave us what I thought in 2016 would be our first anti-immigration/nationalist President (my only mistake was in thinking that an Obama win would give us a GOP President in 2012).
But I don’t agree with this:
“The best case scenario in 2020 is a hard Leftist getting elected with a narrow margin attributable to voter fraud and immigration. Most white people would regard this presidency as illegitimate. This would give WNs huge opportunities to polarize the country and push ourselves into the vanguard role, as opposed to backing Trump, who simply betrayed us.”
First, every Democrat victory since Carter’s has been attributable to immigration. That wakes up Whites? Not yet it hasn’t. Voter fraud? Republicans keep making that case. No one except them seems to care.
Meanwhile, we are now approaching a life or death moment for White America. The Democrats no longer even make a pretense of opposing “open borders” (as Obama did). The next Democrat will give us a massive amnesty. Delaying that as long as possible is a victory in itself. Moreover, how many LEGAL invaders will the next Democrat allow?
A Trump loss may galvanize the tiny portion of Whites who are WNs, but most Whites will be hugely demoralized, and just retreat further into escapism (which I often find myself doing these days, though for me it’s not video games or TV, but classic literature). “Enjoy what’s left” {of America while’s it’s still civilized and somewhat ours} will become the mantra of legions of Whites. Whites will hunker down, working longer hours with heads down, just hoping to accumulate enough to retire someplace White; they’ll spend more time on hobbies or sports or hiking/fishing or with the family; they’ll become more Christian; rightist activists will become more (safe but useless) libertarian.
Worst of all is that a huge Trump defeat will spell THE END of Republican race-tinged civic nationalism. We will be right back to 2012, with GOP pundits, instead of being chastened by restrictionist Trump’s victory, crowing “I Told You Sos” and proclaiming the end of anti-immigrationism as a political strategy in “today’s diverse America”.
No, the best scenario is Trump CRUSHES a Hard Leftist, preferably a nonwhite, has some Congressional “coattails”, and starts mobilizing conservatives to “get on with building the damn Wall”.
No, it’s not losing to win because that implicitly assumes that one is winning now, or at least holding steady. The present situation is one of continuous losing, but concealed and obfuscated, and the priority must be to break the paradigm and create a new game. Only a radical upset can do that. As it is this movement exists in large part thank to Obama, so leave the jury out on that.
The reason that radical right canvassing for Yang – and even Tulis Gabbard – is so positive is because that’s a movement waking up and breaking out of the right-left system. Instead of blind ideology they show no hesitation in using ostensible opponents as hammers against the real enemies. Not defeatism, but a will to victory purified of any conservative hangups and twaddle. This is a good herald of what could be.
Trump’s crushing victory would be a catastrophic outcome because it would validate him in his current strategy of endless promises with no delivery. The cryptocracy which has tamed Trump would win because they would be able to fully re-consolidate their old system, under a slightly different surface configuration.
If you ever got your wall it will be traded for amnesties and legal immigration such that it would be rendered a meaningless symbol.
People think that they’re in a good place when they’re not and that is the problem. Its like that old meme of the overly calm dog siting in a burning bar. People want to take the easy option and not rock the boat, because it could be worse – well that leads utterly and inevitably to defeat, because as Trump has shown there will be no saviors within the current system.
To return to the example of South Africa, after the end of apartheid were the people fighting the new system? – no of course not, a thousand stars of light were shining in the heady 90s and every white South African knew that everything would turn out alright in the end. Any objective perspective would have said that things will end in disaster. The current situation from predictable from the start, its only a wonder it took so long to get this stage.
A bad defeat will lead to demoralisation of much of the conservative movement? To be very realistic I say good. Many of these conservatives who think they are still on the path are the gatekeepers, and policers blocking this movement. Political establishments rely on the grassroots to enforce conformity.
If they are not clear minded and spirited enough to join up you want them to fall into dormancy and not be a factor against you in the real fight.
a huge Trump defeat will spell THE END of Republican race-tinged civic nationalism.
I think you’re right.
We’re doing well right now. We just don’t recognize it.
Race-tinged civic nationalism, with an actual president supporting it, is about as much as we could reasonably hope for at this historical moment. We have a president who is judged by most of his core voters on how well he secures the border. That may not sound like much now, but it was close to unthinkable a decade ago.
A Trump victory in 2020 would be gigantic, in my opinion.
Also, in my opinion, most Yang fans will have trouble remembering his name a year from now.
A huge defeat of Trump because he failed to secure the border would of course be spun by the Republicucks and Cuckservatives as a defeat for populism, but it would obviously be a defeat for mainstream Republicanism. Trump won as a populist. He will lose as a Republican. I think that would be good for populism.
What is bad for the Republican Party is what is good for populism.
The Republicans, as an institution, are principally responsible for suppressing Right-wing populism in America. We are never going to see a real populist alternative emerge until the Republican establishment is broken. We need to break the party, to free the voters and mobilize them around an alternative.
I had hoped that Trump would provide a beachhead for a stealthy populist takeover of the party. But the party swallowed Trump instead.
National Populism will make more gains with a wrecked Republican Party under a Left-wing Democratic president, preferably a non-white one.
But we are going to have to be realistic about the end game. If we are going to save the white race in North America, we are going to have to give up on saving the United States as presently constituted. So be it.
And if we are no longer concerned about preserving the White House china, we can afford to let the bulls loose. So agitate, polarize, accelerate, and unleash the underworld.
It is progress that people are judging Trump on immigration. And if he is punished for failing on immigration and voters are not coralled into voting for him again by typical GOP “At least he is not Hillary” shenanigans, that would also be progress.
I have to reply to myself…
Greg wrote:
What is bad for the Republican Party is what is good for populism.
Trump’s Republican party is the only existing vehicle for white populism. Its destruction would not make our world better.
White populism elected a president. Most of his supporters will vote for him again. Your idea is that we should be on the other side, or on some alternative side that, after its creation, will unleash the underworld.
I think we should stick with the cards that recent history has dealt us. It may be a winning hand.
Progress for us is measured by the growth of white racial consciousness. There can’t be any doubt that, by that index, history is moving slowly in the right direction, and Trump is helping it move, whether he knows it or not.
***
Anglin linked to this today:
Tucker on Dumping Illegals
https://youtu.be/U8XJPwmX3jo
Other than the suggestion that white nationalism is bad, there is nothing here that any of us would disagree with. As Anglin pointed out, he made the same points yesterday.
We’re forgetting how remarkable it is that mainstream Trump supporters, including media figures that millions of people listen to, are often speaking on our behalf.
Nature is not competition; competition is a human idea imposed upon nature. You can entertain this Darwinian view of reality all you like, but don’t attribute it to nature itself.
The idea that modern evolutionary biology is about racial competition is nonsense.
Scientifically speaking, group competition is not what happens.
Read George Williams’ classic Adaptation and Natural Selection, which thoroughly killed “group selection.” (Yes, I know there have been repeated attempts to revive the corpse: they all have failed.)
Saw this essay in the ‘Recommended for You’ panel. Great essay. I, too, am inclined towards a ‘spiritualization’ of the White Race, sort of like the Mystical Body of Whiteness. I’ve tracked down a copy of Klassen’s ‘The White Man’s Bible’ to learn more.