This series has been awesome. Really stellar work. This is the kind of ethnographic political science study of the Right that I've seen some "extremism studies" academics wish they had the comprehension to put together. But of course, they just don't get it from the outside looking in.
>I would disagree with Taylor on a few major points however. As Richard Hanania and Walt Bismark have stated, the declining White population of the USA (as long as Hispanics are defined as non-White) has not led to the permanent Democratic majority as many feared, and Trump got a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than previous Presidents. Places like Texas have become plurality Hispanic whilst still staunchly Republican.
Hmm, is this because Hispanics have changed? Or is it because the Republican Party has changed? I don’t really think Hispanics are converting to the GOP for good reasons, it’s because the GOP is becoming the party of the lower class. Not to mention, the Overton window has shifted to the left. Albeit, it seems to have moved right on immigration, and yet Hispanics still support it, but this could change if limiting legal immigration were to become the party consensus. The Hispanic wave of 2020 could also be a result of 2020 being an unusual election. The main issues in 2020 will never be main issues again.
>The classification of Hispanics as ‘non-White’ is also very dubious. Non-Black Hispanics aren’t different in any meaningful sense from previous waves of White immigrants to America like the Irish, Germans, and Italians. As Hanania points out in ‘The Origins of Woke’ (2023), the fact Hispanics are seen as non-White is purely down to the statistical classification of the Civil Rights era, and was created almost as an accident. WASPs have been a minority in the US for quite some time, but other White groups became White, and grew to identify with American history and culture. Indeed, I would argue that Whiteness is mostly a social construct, but a positive one, identifying with the greatness of European civilisation.
The classification of Hispanics as nonwhite is dubious, because Hispanics aren’t a race. There are White hispanics and Black Hispanics. But Americans always knew that most Hispanics were not actually white. The reason Mexicans were traditionally given the benefit of the doubt has to do with A) the conditions of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and B) the historical lack of immigration from south of the border relative to European making distinguishing whites and mestizos not worth the time, money, and effort. It’s clear that mestizos were not actually believed to be White as the government did not consider people of 1/2 or 1/4 Native American ancestry to be White.
And no, Hispanics are not the same as Italians, Germans, and Irish, and we can see this by comparing the English fluency and violent crime rates of Hispanic immigrants in the early 20th century with those of their European immigrant peers. There was always a gap. Hispanics today, again, aren’t a race, and so their average IQ is not very meaningful. But we know that Central America and the Caribbean have pretty abysmal IQ scores. Mexico may not be so bad, 85-90, but Central America is now the main source of immigration from the south. Also, it’s worth noting that immigrants of the past were heavily selected. Large swathes of European immigrants, usually the less skilled or successful ones, returned home. Hispanics don’t have this pressure as we have a very generous welfare state.
>If you look vaguely White (Southern Italians are like Hispanics in their skin tones), are not of a non-Christian religion, and identify as White, to me you are White. Instead of emphasising difference, I believe there should be an attempt to expand the definition of Whiteness, as the Critical Race Theorists are correct that Whiteness is a mindset and identity. The problem in the US with immigration is purely economic and material, and a sense that the law is not being followed. Compared to Europeans getting Muslim immigrants, American’s are very lucky to only have to deal with White Catholics. Asians also, despite being non-White, are also perfectly able to assimilate into American culture. It is really only a White vs Black divide, as Richard Hanania has pointed out, who would promote a healthier American racial classification by simply asking citizens ‘are you the descendent of slaves?’ and ‘are you Native American?’
Uhh, yeah, I don’t know what Southern Italians and Hispanics you’re talking to, but I can’t relate. Southern Italians look, to me, similar to Spaniards and Portuguese. Hispanics are that, plus brown people. Don’t take my word for it though, just look at the origin of the term White. It was Spaniards (who are already of swarthy complexion) calling themselves White in contrast to Indios, Mestizos, and Negros (blacks). I have a short post on why the definition of Whiteness hasn’t changed as much as people think: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/white-ethnics-have-always-been-white?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I think you’re entitled to think what you want to think, but I don’t think Asians should be becoming White any more than Whites should be becoming Asian. Taylor probably doesn’t want everyone to become white because, like you said, he is a cosmopolitan. He grew up in Japan. He admires foreign cultures and finds beauty in the diversity of the world. I agree with this, and furthermore I think Asian civilization is constructed privy to the Asian mind. Yes, Asians are very intelligent, but they have other differences from White people. They’re more collectivistic, for example. If you’re really gonna believe in the whole “psychology” business (like, the theory stuff, not the psychometrics) then you can probably extend racial mental differences even more, like Jung was doing with “collective unconscious”
> I think you’re entitled to think what you want to think, but I don’t think Asians should be becoming White any more than Whites should be becoming Asian. Taylor probably doesn’t want everyone to become white because, like you said, he is a cosmopolitan. He grew up in Japan. He admires foreign cultures and finds beauty in the diversity of the world. I agree with this, and furthermore I think Asian civilization is constructed privy to the Asian mind. Yes, Asians are very intelligent, but they have other differences from White people. They’re more collectivistic, for example. If you’re really gonna believe in the whole “psychology” business (like, the theory stuff, not the psychometrics) then you can probably extend racial mental differences even more, like Jung was doing with “collective unconscious”
Just to clear up some confusion about what I said here. Asians can never be White. They are too physically distinct. However, when they migrate to White countries, they are generally 'model minorities', work hard, are law abiding, and don't endlessly complain about 'racism', which makes them different to other non-White groups.
It was my expansive definition of Whiteness + Asians, who are different from Blacks and Muslims.
I get the distinct impression that Asians are assimilating to white progressive norms. They want to get ahead in elite white society and those are the norms they have so they adapt to them. It doesn’t happen instantly, but I’ve known so many people progress from fresh off the boat to full prog that it seems a reliable trend to me.
I would say I belong most comfortably in the “Neo-Alt Right”. I would say the Neo-Alt Right is antisemitic but on more traditional political and racial grounds than the religiously and economically antisemitic Groypers. Less “Zionism” and more “Judeo-Bolshevism”. In this sense the Jewish threat is more of a thing that has already happened than a thing which is actively happening. Also, some members of the HBD crowd are also members of the Neo-Alt-Right I’d say, if belief in the JQ is the qualifying feature. Sean Last, Joseph Bronski, and Ryan Faulk are all examples of HBD “old guard” guys who have dipped their feet in the JQ, mainly analyzing the impact of Jewish elite growth during the mid 20th century in the civil rights movement and the academic blue wave. Although some, like Ryan Faulk, are also Holocaust Revisionists.
Speaking of which, I do think that NJF is sympathetic to the Hitler regime, but Holocaust revisionism obviously serves a political purpose aside from that. The Holocaust is in some ways the *real* myth of the 20th century. In schools we are taught about it over and over, have to read several books about it, have many many movies about it, and the moral of the story always ends up being that racial views and bigoted European culture caused this. Albeit, nowadays the Holocaust is waning in significance and “European Colonialism” is growing in significance. I guess the myth of the 21st century is the terrible blood-curdling ways in which Europeans invented the modern world and taught brown people how to use a spoon and fork.
The second reason is just a general skepticism of “history you learn in school” that comes from being on the right long enough.
I do agree with you that the Holocaust is the ‘founding myth’ of the Boomer Truth Regime.
However, what’s frustrating about Holocaust Denial is that it’s just so unnecessary. You can make a case against the Boomer Truth Regime entirely through the ‘standard account.’
- The USSR under Stalin killed just as many people.
- The Holocaust was just one genocide, why don’t we hear about the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, nearly as much?
- The German Expulsions were the most far reaching act of ethnic cleansing in European history, and absolutely a genocide, yet have been written out of the history books.
- Various Jewish groups DID fund elements of Wokeness in reaction to the Holocaust.
HBD is a neutron bomb for the whole post-war liberal order. Unlike various other flavors of fringe rightism, it has the twin virtues of being true and of having extremely high explanatory power.
That said, at least in America, it’s at least 10 and maybe 20 years from anything like mainstream acceptance. It will require the Boomers dying off and the further demographic transformation for casual rightists to accept its tenants.
I appreciated your series of articles and hope to comment more on them in the future. That said, I was hoping there would at least be a mention of what might be called the "Amarnites" which are sort of an extreme racialist offshoot of the BAPsphere that merges with the Neo-Alt Right. They, of course, aren't necessarily homogenous but some of their distinguish characteristics from what I've seen are: 1) embracing being "comically evil" and thus rejecting any sort of optics (they regularly use Nazi symbology, praise Hitler, discuss TND and share pictures of anime girls), 2) hatred of "Third Worldism" in any form meaning they strongly oppose any kind of support for nonwhite countries (excepting Japan) at the expense of white ones such as being pro Palestine or being pro-China, 3) consequent to 2 emphasizing anti-blackness over anti Semitism (though they are almost invariably both), and 4) Nietschzean aristocratic values including a strong misogynistic streak inspired by BAP meaning that they usually are anti-Christian. The best example of this tendency is Sentinel Groyper (whose been banned a few times) and while somewhat removed, Martin (Russian_Cosmist) is another prominent account in these circles.
You are wrong about the effects of Hispanic immigration to Texas. Here is a list of recent presidential election results:
Recent Presidential Elections
2020
46.5% 52.1%
2016
43.2% 52.2%
2012
41.4% 57.2%
2008
43.7% 55.5%
2004
38.2% 61.1%
2000
38.0% 59.3%
The trend is clear. Texas’s saving grace right now is that it has attracted a lot of republican voting transplants from states like California. Even with this red voting influx, the state is still being swamped by blue voting Hispanics, and unless drastic action is taken soon will not be a red state. I don’t think I need to spell out what this would mean for US federal elections.
As for Hanania’s contention that eventually everyone but blacks will become white…I think you and others need to be careful when you read something like that from Hanania, especially as you don’t seem to be American. I personally think Hanania is projecting his need for inclusion into the American mainstream onto a country that he barely seems to understand. Understandable considering he’s first generation and it’s not completely inconceivable that he could be a target if truly hardline immigration restrictionist get their way.
You mention Jews a lot in this segment, so to drive my point home about inclusion and Hanania’s conception of “white” as a civil rights innovation. Are Jews white or not? Are they as interchangeable as Irish or German derived Americans?
California whites voted majority GOP up through Romney, but because they didn’t put up 70/30 numbers they got swamped by Hispanics.
Hanania realized that “invade the world, invite the world” was a necessary bargain he had to made to keep his income stream after being outed as a Nazi. He may even have internalized it since he had to do so anyway.
I don’t think you divide things correctly here. White racialist politics has one basic division: eliminationist and non-eliminationist. If your aim is an white ethnostate, then you are an eliminationist, since the only way to achieve your aim is to forcibly remove or eliminate non-white living legally in USA and Europe who do not wish to leave. Eliminationists include the Neo-Nazis, the Counter-Currents crowd, and so forth. If you feel that white interests can and must be protected/advanced within a multiracial society, you’re anti-eliminationist. HBD advocates and most race realists seem to fall into this latter group. Taylor, to his credit or discredit, seeks to welcome both camps under the Amren tent, just as he does with Jews and Anti-Semites. I think it’s a mistake. Eliminationism is an insane and odious idea that tends to drive away decent people. White advocacy will not begin to grow until it is separated from the Nazis/eliminationists.
Ah, I'd not heard those terms before. Then again, I'm not really involved in the race-oriented scene that much, so yeah, maybe that would have been a better way to divide it/include. But this article is finished now so I'm going to keep it the way it is. I'd be interested for you to do your own analysis though.
Thanks for the reply, and for your hard work on this series. Overall, I really enjoy it, particularly your information on the other currents of which I’m much less familiar, as well as British writers I don’t know at all.
Opposition to immigration is basically the same logic* as eliminationist, but obviously not letting someone immigrate is a way easier proposition than mass ethnic cleansing.
*Some view the right to immigrate as demanded by classical liberalism on deontological grounds, others because they think it represents no threat or helps with implementing classical liberalism. Think Bryan Caplan or Richard hanania.
Others think that multi-racial (especially third world) societies are incompatable with classic liberalism or even functional societies. This would include Lee Kuan Yew or Elon Musk posting about The Great Replacement on X.
The fundamental logic is whether demographics are destiny.
You wrote about HBD but you didn't mention Steve Sailer who created the concept, researched it and has argued for it continuously since the early 90's. I guess he is less visible now since Unz Review has become a dump but he was hugely influential for decades.
An oversight of my part. A friend of mine who read the article also asked why he wasn't included. I knew who he was, but I didn't know he was that influential.
I have edited the article to add him. You still may not think I give him enough attention, but I do mention him in passing.
I would disagree with you about hispanics, kind of. It's actually the opposite problem: many (for lack of any other choice) identify as "white hispanic" on the census, because there is no "brown" or "mixed" option, for some stupid reason. Most hispanics who come over are some mixture of white and aztec/mayan. I agree, though, that culturally they aren't too dissimilar to the italians of the past, but I think viewing them as white is a stretch, and changing the understanding of white to an ideology is just not an accurate way of describing reality.
Are demographics destiny? That’s the dividing line.
If you believe that you’re going to lean towards anti immigration.
If you don’t the you can be pro immigration.
The obvious impact of Hispanics is that they will make our politics more like Latin America. Elections happen in Latin America. Parties naturally trend towards trying to assemble 51% electoral coalitions. But the state is a lot more dysfunctional. The government tends to promise a lot if can’t pay for and go through periodic crises.
Places like TX are further behind that trend then CA because their whites are very far to the right, but it’s the trend.
Trump has a very LatAm vibe to him.
Charles noted this in The Bell Curve and suggested limiting Hispanic immigration.
The big discovery of the 2016+ era is that legal voting eligible Hispanics are anti-immigrant. The GOPe blamed Romney’s 2012 loss on not supporting amnesty, but the real reason is that Hispanics wanted Obamacare. There really is no tradeoff between winning the Hispanic vote and letting more of them in, you can have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t know. I think there is a continuum on the immigration question among which reasonable people can situate themselves. It’s not a yes or no question in the way that whether or not you support forced evictions is a yes or no question. I support legal immigration but I want it limited and conditional and I want it seen as a privilege or gift, not as a right. Also, some immigrants are better than others, the host country has a right to pick and choose.
I mean the immigration issue today is 99% "should we de facto let millions of brown third world poors in every year." That's the default going on right now. If we can't solve that, it won't much matter whether we want more H1Bs or whatever.
Seems fair, though I no longer share that faction's antisemitism. I wrote about this in my latest piece. I write for Counter-Currents occasionally and am proud to be a part of that, but I disagree with the party line on Israel & Palestine over there.
Generally enjoyed the article, if a bit angry in tone.
"When the Racialist Right is attacked by the Woke left, they are ultimately attacking all people opposed to the Woke regime, and all straight White men."
This isn't entirely correct. A lot of the 'racialist right' are abject losers who blame a lot of their misfortune on a skewed interpretation of racial differences which make up for their own shortcomings.
Ethnographic differences between groups are a fact. This can be made manifest in a whole lot of ways, but the reality is that they also aren't a political MacGuffin, and a lot of the people who think they are will also be the kinds of people who have very little to their status *other* than their race (this applies to a lot of black nationalists as well).
People who catch substantial flak from normies on race are frequently unsubtle buffoons who're doing us a Darwinian favour by rendering themselves politically inert the moment they poke their head from out the trenches. Yes, it's an unpopular topic, but at the end of the day these people are often blunt and brash in all the wrong ways, and frequently aren't very impressive speakers (or impressive people, full stop) either. A lot of the time normies will shit on them for the same reason losers get bullied in school (it's satisfying), when the same normies can be approached with a more reasoned perspective and actually be receptive.
Yes, the left will use anti-white politics as a cudgel. I just don't think it's a good idea to make a habit out of chasing ghosts.
Jared Taylor had to deal with the early American 2010s, which were very different times to the mid 2020s. Even then, his demeanour helped him a lot and he got a lot further than he would have if he was just white trash ranting about bell curves.
You aren't "viciously repress[ing]" anybody. The way to deal with the left is to marginalise them through strategic politicking, and curbing their institutional power. The state is a scalpel, not a hammer.
How come their deplatforming of opposition, counter-rallies, and legal action was so devastatingly effective?
Why, despite the promise of the anti-SJW movement, did Gen Z become more Woke?
Ultimately, if you don't actually beat these people down, all victories will be temporary. They will be trying to subvert society even when you think they're gone, which is how the 'Long March Through the Institutions' happened.
Of course, as long as we're out of power, we need to play their game through psychological status signalling. Representative democracy is a bad system because cultural extremists are able to dominate everything through lobbying.
But if we ever get power, everything should be done to ensure they are never able to get into power again. If they do, they will extract revenge on us, like what Civic Platform is doing in Poland right now. I see no benefit in allowing Woke leftists free speech, we tried that since the 1960s, and look where it got us. These ideas are a cancer on society.
Most of Gen Z isn't actually 'woke' in a committed sense, they just are by cultural osmosis. Most importantly, 'wokeness' is also associated with the political movements that promise economic policies that they vibe with on account of the fact that our current economic situation isn't offering enough opportunities to the kids who actually could do something with them. If we fix the property ladder & cost of living crisis, things would get much saner much quicker. The family units most likely to induce conservative beliefs are ultimately economic in nature, and need to be sustained. Without that sort of stability, you won't have time for high-minded ideas and just absorb the logic of your generation's hegemonic cultural influences. These people aren't the sort of people who form the ideological vanguard of leftism; it's bread before circuses, at the end of the day.
Can you explain why the initial polls of Gen Z being less Woke, and quite reactionary, faded by the late 2010s, if you are going to discount big tech censorship?
As Karl Popper said, you can't tolerate intolerance. When leftists use that phrase, they are appropriating Popper to really push Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance', which believes tolerating 'reactionary' opinions is repressive.
However, Popper was talking about maintaining a pluralistic society of open discussion and debate. By this definition, all the insidious NGOs that weaponised their status and influence to ad-boycott social media companies that refused to censor, are toxic to a free society, and should be kept at bay through whatever means we have the power to do so. If we get state power, they should be illegal.
So how come, if that's the case, we're not seeing a revival in Old school Marxist economic leftism? Why isn't it disproportionately working-class young people? Why is it middle class student activists focused on issues like feminism, CRT, and LGBT ideology?
I'm not sure this is actually true. Giving people too much stability causes them to engage in destructive cultural behaviour out of boredom; this is why the 1960s student counter-culture happened, many of those kids simply had everything handed to them. You didn't see a counter-culture in the 1930s.
It's such a Sohrab Ahmari-style move to bring everything back to economic leftism. Ultimately, the Woke left only (occasionally, not necessarily) uses economic leftism as a means to impose their cultural leftism by expanding the size of the managerial state. But the overwhelming majority of economic leftists are also Woke, and will always choose Woke over a cross-cultural working-class coalition, even if they are occasionally critical of identity politics.
I've read Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. extensively and come to the conclusion that identity politics are a pretty earnest extension of their frameworks, which is part of why I despise them. Sure, it's not what the men themselves probably intended, but they're dead now and it's the ideas that count.
'Old school Marxist economic leftism' is by and large left in the past because it is in fact no longer relevant, whereas the leftist intellectual vanguard writ large has come to understand identity politics in a modernist style well ahead of the right (in an almost inevitable move) and had a head start on weaponising it. Trying to pretend there's some sort of Marxist halcyon based on economic reductionism is a cope move made by multipolarity bros and LaRouche disciples who think they can tail Conservative movements via economic populism. This has not worked, and will never work, because at the end of the day social and economic issues are historically intertwined and cannot be easily untangled from one another. You cannot take the social right and economic left and fashion them together out of thin air.
I'm not bringing everything back to 'economic leftism', I'm simply making the point that people who lack the basics will generally not have the sort of steady attitude necessary for political conservatism if they spend all their time in wagecuck hell so they can live in a shoebox for 1k a month. You cannot meaningfully be conservative if you don't understand the way that property ownership is the most easy and reliable way to produce conservatives.
You are correct in that unbothered stability likewise produces undesirable outcomes - there needs to be an element of social risk/reward that justifies a virile and dynamic environment. That being said, it seems that the cost of living crisis/housing bubble doesn't seem to do that - not only does it fail to offer reward, there's surprisingly little risk! You can't 'risk' anything if chances are you're boned from the start.
The people that rectify this situation will have political prestige that will be measured over the next generation. It is an essential political fight that we must win - if the left does it, we're set back decades.
This series has been awesome. Really stellar work. This is the kind of ethnographic political science study of the Right that I've seen some "extremism studies" academics wish they had the comprehension to put together. But of course, they just don't get it from the outside looking in.
Julian Waller praised my work on this. Even though he's an 'enemy' I found some of his research interesting as well.
>I would disagree with Taylor on a few major points however. As Richard Hanania and Walt Bismark have stated, the declining White population of the USA (as long as Hispanics are defined as non-White) has not led to the permanent Democratic majority as many feared, and Trump got a larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than previous Presidents. Places like Texas have become plurality Hispanic whilst still staunchly Republican.
Hmm, is this because Hispanics have changed? Or is it because the Republican Party has changed? I don’t really think Hispanics are converting to the GOP for good reasons, it’s because the GOP is becoming the party of the lower class. Not to mention, the Overton window has shifted to the left. Albeit, it seems to have moved right on immigration, and yet Hispanics still support it, but this could change if limiting legal immigration were to become the party consensus. The Hispanic wave of 2020 could also be a result of 2020 being an unusual election. The main issues in 2020 will never be main issues again.
>The classification of Hispanics as ‘non-White’ is also very dubious. Non-Black Hispanics aren’t different in any meaningful sense from previous waves of White immigrants to America like the Irish, Germans, and Italians. As Hanania points out in ‘The Origins of Woke’ (2023), the fact Hispanics are seen as non-White is purely down to the statistical classification of the Civil Rights era, and was created almost as an accident. WASPs have been a minority in the US for quite some time, but other White groups became White, and grew to identify with American history and culture. Indeed, I would argue that Whiteness is mostly a social construct, but a positive one, identifying with the greatness of European civilisation.
The classification of Hispanics as nonwhite is dubious, because Hispanics aren’t a race. There are White hispanics and Black Hispanics. But Americans always knew that most Hispanics were not actually white. The reason Mexicans were traditionally given the benefit of the doubt has to do with A) the conditions of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and B) the historical lack of immigration from south of the border relative to European making distinguishing whites and mestizos not worth the time, money, and effort. It’s clear that mestizos were not actually believed to be White as the government did not consider people of 1/2 or 1/4 Native American ancestry to be White.
And no, Hispanics are not the same as Italians, Germans, and Irish, and we can see this by comparing the English fluency and violent crime rates of Hispanic immigrants in the early 20th century with those of their European immigrant peers. There was always a gap. Hispanics today, again, aren’t a race, and so their average IQ is not very meaningful. But we know that Central America and the Caribbean have pretty abysmal IQ scores. Mexico may not be so bad, 85-90, but Central America is now the main source of immigration from the south. Also, it’s worth noting that immigrants of the past were heavily selected. Large swathes of European immigrants, usually the less skilled or successful ones, returned home. Hispanics don’t have this pressure as we have a very generous welfare state.
>If you look vaguely White (Southern Italians are like Hispanics in their skin tones), are not of a non-Christian religion, and identify as White, to me you are White. Instead of emphasising difference, I believe there should be an attempt to expand the definition of Whiteness, as the Critical Race Theorists are correct that Whiteness is a mindset and identity. The problem in the US with immigration is purely economic and material, and a sense that the law is not being followed. Compared to Europeans getting Muslim immigrants, American’s are very lucky to only have to deal with White Catholics. Asians also, despite being non-White, are also perfectly able to assimilate into American culture. It is really only a White vs Black divide, as Richard Hanania has pointed out, who would promote a healthier American racial classification by simply asking citizens ‘are you the descendent of slaves?’ and ‘are you Native American?’
Uhh, yeah, I don’t know what Southern Italians and Hispanics you’re talking to, but I can’t relate. Southern Italians look, to me, similar to Spaniards and Portuguese. Hispanics are that, plus brown people. Don’t take my word for it though, just look at the origin of the term White. It was Spaniards (who are already of swarthy complexion) calling themselves White in contrast to Indios, Mestizos, and Negros (blacks). I have a short post on why the definition of Whiteness hasn’t changed as much as people think: https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/white-ethnics-have-always-been-white?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I think you’re entitled to think what you want to think, but I don’t think Asians should be becoming White any more than Whites should be becoming Asian. Taylor probably doesn’t want everyone to become white because, like you said, he is a cosmopolitan. He grew up in Japan. He admires foreign cultures and finds beauty in the diversity of the world. I agree with this, and furthermore I think Asian civilization is constructed privy to the Asian mind. Yes, Asians are very intelligent, but they have other differences from White people. They’re more collectivistic, for example. If you’re really gonna believe in the whole “psychology” business (like, the theory stuff, not the psychometrics) then you can probably extend racial mental differences even more, like Jung was doing with “collective unconscious”
> I think you’re entitled to think what you want to think, but I don’t think Asians should be becoming White any more than Whites should be becoming Asian. Taylor probably doesn’t want everyone to become white because, like you said, he is a cosmopolitan. He grew up in Japan. He admires foreign cultures and finds beauty in the diversity of the world. I agree with this, and furthermore I think Asian civilization is constructed privy to the Asian mind. Yes, Asians are very intelligent, but they have other differences from White people. They’re more collectivistic, for example. If you’re really gonna believe in the whole “psychology” business (like, the theory stuff, not the psychometrics) then you can probably extend racial mental differences even more, like Jung was doing with “collective unconscious”
Just to clear up some confusion about what I said here. Asians can never be White. They are too physically distinct. However, when they migrate to White countries, they are generally 'model minorities', work hard, are law abiding, and don't endlessly complain about 'racism', which makes them different to other non-White groups.
It was my expansive definition of Whiteness + Asians, who are different from Blacks and Muslims.
I get the distinct impression that Asians are assimilating to white progressive norms. They want to get ahead in elite white society and those are the norms they have so they adapt to them. It doesn’t happen instantly, but I’ve known so many people progress from fresh off the boat to full prog that it seems a reliable trend to me.
Groyper sounds like a goy who gropes white women on subway trains.
I would say I belong most comfortably in the “Neo-Alt Right”. I would say the Neo-Alt Right is antisemitic but on more traditional political and racial grounds than the religiously and economically antisemitic Groypers. Less “Zionism” and more “Judeo-Bolshevism”. In this sense the Jewish threat is more of a thing that has already happened than a thing which is actively happening. Also, some members of the HBD crowd are also members of the Neo-Alt-Right I’d say, if belief in the JQ is the qualifying feature. Sean Last, Joseph Bronski, and Ryan Faulk are all examples of HBD “old guard” guys who have dipped their feet in the JQ, mainly analyzing the impact of Jewish elite growth during the mid 20th century in the civil rights movement and the academic blue wave. Although some, like Ryan Faulk, are also Holocaust Revisionists.
Speaking of which, I do think that NJF is sympathetic to the Hitler regime, but Holocaust revisionism obviously serves a political purpose aside from that. The Holocaust is in some ways the *real* myth of the 20th century. In schools we are taught about it over and over, have to read several books about it, have many many movies about it, and the moral of the story always ends up being that racial views and bigoted European culture caused this. Albeit, nowadays the Holocaust is waning in significance and “European Colonialism” is growing in significance. I guess the myth of the 21st century is the terrible blood-curdling ways in which Europeans invented the modern world and taught brown people how to use a spoon and fork.
The second reason is just a general skepticism of “history you learn in school” that comes from being on the right long enough.
I do agree with you that the Holocaust is the ‘founding myth’ of the Boomer Truth Regime.
However, what’s frustrating about Holocaust Denial is that it’s just so unnecessary. You can make a case against the Boomer Truth Regime entirely through the ‘standard account.’
- The USSR under Stalin killed just as many people.
- The Holocaust was just one genocide, why don’t we hear about the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, nearly as much?
- The German Expulsions were the most far reaching act of ethnic cleansing in European history, and absolutely a genocide, yet have been written out of the history books.
- Various Jewish groups DID fund elements of Wokeness in reaction to the Holocaust.
HBD is a neutron bomb for the whole post-war liberal order. Unlike various other flavors of fringe rightism, it has the twin virtues of being true and of having extremely high explanatory power.
That said, at least in America, it’s at least 10 and maybe 20 years from anything like mainstream acceptance. It will require the Boomers dying off and the further demographic transformation for casual rightists to accept its tenants.
I appreciated your series of articles and hope to comment more on them in the future. That said, I was hoping there would at least be a mention of what might be called the "Amarnites" which are sort of an extreme racialist offshoot of the BAPsphere that merges with the Neo-Alt Right. They, of course, aren't necessarily homogenous but some of their distinguish characteristics from what I've seen are: 1) embracing being "comically evil" and thus rejecting any sort of optics (they regularly use Nazi symbology, praise Hitler, discuss TND and share pictures of anime girls), 2) hatred of "Third Worldism" in any form meaning they strongly oppose any kind of support for nonwhite countries (excepting Japan) at the expense of white ones such as being pro Palestine or being pro-China, 3) consequent to 2 emphasizing anti-blackness over anti Semitism (though they are almost invariably both), and 4) Nietschzean aristocratic values including a strong misogynistic streak inspired by BAP meaning that they usually are anti-Christian. The best example of this tendency is Sentinel Groyper (whose been banned a few times) and while somewhat removed, Martin (Russian_Cosmist) is another prominent account in these circles.
I'd not heard of these guys, thanks for the heads up. Are there any resources about them?
Good article but a couple of points.
You are wrong about the effects of Hispanic immigration to Texas. Here is a list of recent presidential election results:
Recent Presidential Elections
2020
46.5% 52.1%
2016
43.2% 52.2%
2012
41.4% 57.2%
2008
43.7% 55.5%
2004
38.2% 61.1%
2000
38.0% 59.3%
The trend is clear. Texas’s saving grace right now is that it has attracted a lot of republican voting transplants from states like California. Even with this red voting influx, the state is still being swamped by blue voting Hispanics, and unless drastic action is taken soon will not be a red state. I don’t think I need to spell out what this would mean for US federal elections.
As for Hanania’s contention that eventually everyone but blacks will become white…I think you and others need to be careful when you read something like that from Hanania, especially as you don’t seem to be American. I personally think Hanania is projecting his need for inclusion into the American mainstream onto a country that he barely seems to understand. Understandable considering he’s first generation and it’s not completely inconceivable that he could be a target if truly hardline immigration restrictionist get their way.
You mention Jews a lot in this segment, so to drive my point home about inclusion and Hanania’s conception of “white” as a civil rights innovation. Are Jews white or not? Are they as interchangeable as Irish or German derived Americans?
Correct.
California whites voted majority GOP up through Romney, but because they didn’t put up 70/30 numbers they got swamped by Hispanics.
Hanania realized that “invade the world, invite the world” was a necessary bargain he had to made to keep his income stream after being outed as a Nazi. He may even have internalized it since he had to do so anyway.
That's my reading of Hanania as well.
I don’t think you divide things correctly here. White racialist politics has one basic division: eliminationist and non-eliminationist. If your aim is an white ethnostate, then you are an eliminationist, since the only way to achieve your aim is to forcibly remove or eliminate non-white living legally in USA and Europe who do not wish to leave. Eliminationists include the Neo-Nazis, the Counter-Currents crowd, and so forth. If you feel that white interests can and must be protected/advanced within a multiracial society, you’re anti-eliminationist. HBD advocates and most race realists seem to fall into this latter group. Taylor, to his credit or discredit, seeks to welcome both camps under the Amren tent, just as he does with Jews and Anti-Semites. I think it’s a mistake. Eliminationism is an insane and odious idea that tends to drive away decent people. White advocacy will not begin to grow until it is separated from the Nazis/eliminationists.
Ah, I'd not heard those terms before. Then again, I'm not really involved in the race-oriented scene that much, so yeah, maybe that would have been a better way to divide it/include. But this article is finished now so I'm going to keep it the way it is. I'd be interested for you to do your own analysis though.
Thanks for the reply, and for your hard work on this series. Overall, I really enjoy it, particularly your information on the other currents of which I’m much less familiar, as well as British writers I don’t know at all.
You can further divide by immigration.
Opposition to immigration is basically the same logic* as eliminationist, but obviously not letting someone immigrate is a way easier proposition than mass ethnic cleansing.
*Some view the right to immigrate as demanded by classical liberalism on deontological grounds, others because they think it represents no threat or helps with implementing classical liberalism. Think Bryan Caplan or Richard hanania.
Others think that multi-racial (especially third world) societies are incompatable with classic liberalism or even functional societies. This would include Lee Kuan Yew or Elon Musk posting about The Great Replacement on X.
The fundamental logic is whether demographics are destiny.
About group IQ:
Every group with an IQ below yours are barbarians whose presence is incompatible with civilized society.
Every group with an IQ above yours are secretly conspiring to exile you from civilized society.
You wrote about HBD but you didn't mention Steve Sailer who created the concept, researched it and has argued for it continuously since the early 90's. I guess he is less visible now since Unz Review has become a dump but he was hugely influential for decades.
An oversight of my part. A friend of mine who read the article also asked why he wasn't included. I knew who he was, but I didn't know he was that influential.
I have edited the article to add him. You still may not think I give him enough attention, but I do mention him in passing.
Thanks.
I would disagree with you about hispanics, kind of. It's actually the opposite problem: many (for lack of any other choice) identify as "white hispanic" on the census, because there is no "brown" or "mixed" option, for some stupid reason. Most hispanics who come over are some mixture of white and aztec/mayan. I agree, though, that culturally they aren't too dissimilar to the italians of the past, but I think viewing them as white is a stretch, and changing the understanding of white to an ideology is just not an accurate way of describing reality.
Are demographics destiny? That’s the dividing line.
If you believe that you’re going to lean towards anti immigration.
If you don’t the you can be pro immigration.
The obvious impact of Hispanics is that they will make our politics more like Latin America. Elections happen in Latin America. Parties naturally trend towards trying to assemble 51% electoral coalitions. But the state is a lot more dysfunctional. The government tends to promise a lot if can’t pay for and go through periodic crises.
Places like TX are further behind that trend then CA because their whites are very far to the right, but it’s the trend.
Trump has a very LatAm vibe to him.
Charles noted this in The Bell Curve and suggested limiting Hispanic immigration.
The big discovery of the 2016+ era is that legal voting eligible Hispanics are anti-immigrant. The GOPe blamed Romney’s 2012 loss on not supporting amnesty, but the real reason is that Hispanics wanted Obamacare. There really is no tradeoff between winning the Hispanic vote and letting more of them in, you can have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t know. I think there is a continuum on the immigration question among which reasonable people can situate themselves. It’s not a yes or no question in the way that whether or not you support forced evictions is a yes or no question. I support legal immigration but I want it limited and conditional and I want it seen as a privilege or gift, not as a right. Also, some immigrants are better than others, the host country has a right to pick and choose.
I mean the immigration issue today is 99% "should we de facto let millions of brown third world poors in every year." That's the default going on right now. If we can't solve that, it won't much matter whether we want more H1Bs or whatever.
How would you classify me, Mr. Arcto?
Aren’t you a classical liberal White Nationalist?
If so, Neo-Alt Right.
Seems fair, though I no longer share that faction's antisemitism. I wrote about this in my latest piece. I write for Counter-Currents occasionally and am proud to be a part of that, but I disagree with the party line on Israel & Palestine over there.
Outstanding. Thank you for laying all of this out, and including your own preferences at the same time. Hugely helpful.
Generally enjoyed the article, if a bit angry in tone.
"When the Racialist Right is attacked by the Woke left, they are ultimately attacking all people opposed to the Woke regime, and all straight White men."
This isn't entirely correct. A lot of the 'racialist right' are abject losers who blame a lot of their misfortune on a skewed interpretation of racial differences which make up for their own shortcomings.
Ethnographic differences between groups are a fact. This can be made manifest in a whole lot of ways, but the reality is that they also aren't a political MacGuffin, and a lot of the people who think they are will also be the kinds of people who have very little to their status *other* than their race (this applies to a lot of black nationalists as well).
People who catch substantial flak from normies on race are frequently unsubtle buffoons who're doing us a Darwinian favour by rendering themselves politically inert the moment they poke their head from out the trenches. Yes, it's an unpopular topic, but at the end of the day these people are often blunt and brash in all the wrong ways, and frequently aren't very impressive speakers (or impressive people, full stop) either. A lot of the time normies will shit on them for the same reason losers get bullied in school (it's satisfying), when the same normies can be approached with a more reasoned perspective and actually be receptive.
Yes, the left will use anti-white politics as a cudgel. I just don't think it's a good idea to make a habit out of chasing ghosts.
Okay, what about Jared Taylor? Why was he so aggressively censored and smeared despite his erudite talking points and gentlemanly demeanour.
The 'anti-fascists' are just scum, that need to be viciously repressed in order for any society to have a degree of pluralism.
Jared Taylor had to deal with the early American 2010s, which were very different times to the mid 2020s. Even then, his demeanour helped him a lot and he got a lot further than he would have if he was just white trash ranting about bell curves.
You aren't "viciously repress[ing]" anybody. The way to deal with the left is to marginalise them through strategic politicking, and curbing their institutional power. The state is a scalpel, not a hammer.
How come their deplatforming of opposition, counter-rallies, and legal action was so devastatingly effective?
Why, despite the promise of the anti-SJW movement, did Gen Z become more Woke?
Ultimately, if you don't actually beat these people down, all victories will be temporary. They will be trying to subvert society even when you think they're gone, which is how the 'Long March Through the Institutions' happened.
Of course, as long as we're out of power, we need to play their game through psychological status signalling. Representative democracy is a bad system because cultural extremists are able to dominate everything through lobbying.
But if we ever get power, everything should be done to ensure they are never able to get into power again. If they do, they will extract revenge on us, like what Civic Platform is doing in Poland right now. I see no benefit in allowing Woke leftists free speech, we tried that since the 1960s, and look where it got us. These ideas are a cancer on society.
Most of Gen Z isn't actually 'woke' in a committed sense, they just are by cultural osmosis. Most importantly, 'wokeness' is also associated with the political movements that promise economic policies that they vibe with on account of the fact that our current economic situation isn't offering enough opportunities to the kids who actually could do something with them. If we fix the property ladder & cost of living crisis, things would get much saner much quicker. The family units most likely to induce conservative beliefs are ultimately economic in nature, and need to be sustained. Without that sort of stability, you won't have time for high-minded ideas and just absorb the logic of your generation's hegemonic cultural influences. These people aren't the sort of people who form the ideological vanguard of leftism; it's bread before circuses, at the end of the day.
Can you explain why the initial polls of Gen Z being less Woke, and quite reactionary, faded by the late 2010s, if you are going to discount big tech censorship?
As Karl Popper said, you can't tolerate intolerance. When leftists use that phrase, they are appropriating Popper to really push Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance', which believes tolerating 'reactionary' opinions is repressive.
However, Popper was talking about maintaining a pluralistic society of open discussion and debate. By this definition, all the insidious NGOs that weaponised their status and influence to ad-boycott social media companies that refused to censor, are toxic to a free society, and should be kept at bay through whatever means we have the power to do so. If we get state power, they should be illegal.
So how come, if that's the case, we're not seeing a revival in Old school Marxist economic leftism? Why isn't it disproportionately working-class young people? Why is it middle class student activists focused on issues like feminism, CRT, and LGBT ideology?
I'm not sure this is actually true. Giving people too much stability causes them to engage in destructive cultural behaviour out of boredom; this is why the 1960s student counter-culture happened, many of those kids simply had everything handed to them. You didn't see a counter-culture in the 1930s.
It's such a Sohrab Ahmari-style move to bring everything back to economic leftism. Ultimately, the Woke left only (occasionally, not necessarily) uses economic leftism as a means to impose their cultural leftism by expanding the size of the managerial state. But the overwhelming majority of economic leftists are also Woke, and will always choose Woke over a cross-cultural working-class coalition, even if they are occasionally critical of identity politics.
I've read Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. extensively and come to the conclusion that identity politics are a pretty earnest extension of their frameworks, which is part of why I despise them. Sure, it's not what the men themselves probably intended, but they're dead now and it's the ideas that count.
'Old school Marxist economic leftism' is by and large left in the past because it is in fact no longer relevant, whereas the leftist intellectual vanguard writ large has come to understand identity politics in a modernist style well ahead of the right (in an almost inevitable move) and had a head start on weaponising it. Trying to pretend there's some sort of Marxist halcyon based on economic reductionism is a cope move made by multipolarity bros and LaRouche disciples who think they can tail Conservative movements via economic populism. This has not worked, and will never work, because at the end of the day social and economic issues are historically intertwined and cannot be easily untangled from one another. You cannot take the social right and economic left and fashion them together out of thin air.
I'm not bringing everything back to 'economic leftism', I'm simply making the point that people who lack the basics will generally not have the sort of steady attitude necessary for political conservatism if they spend all their time in wagecuck hell so they can live in a shoebox for 1k a month. You cannot meaningfully be conservative if you don't understand the way that property ownership is the most easy and reliable way to produce conservatives.
You are correct in that unbothered stability likewise produces undesirable outcomes - there needs to be an element of social risk/reward that justifies a virile and dynamic environment. That being said, it seems that the cost of living crisis/housing bubble doesn't seem to do that - not only does it fail to offer reward, there's surprisingly little risk! You can't 'risk' anything if chances are you're boned from the start.
The people that rectify this situation will have political prestige that will be measured over the next generation. It is an essential political fight that we must win - if the left does it, we're set back decades.
Much appreciating this series. At the risk of seeming naive thought...HBD? Def...