My predictions for 2011 were all fulfilled: over the past year there was indeed more debt, more taxes, higher taxes, more inflation, more immigration, more liberalism, more legislation, more surveillance, and more bureaucracies. Turbulent as it was, 2011 consisted of more of the same, and it was turbulent precisely for that reason. My predictions for 2012 are as follows:

More Debt

Efforts to solve the financial crisis—now entering its fifth year—will be made, but they will consist of finding ways to kick the can down the road, hold on to credit ratings, levitate the markets, resuscitate consumption, and prevent civil unrest, rather than on actually eliminating the problem. It seems that the only politically viable option is covertly to devalue the debt. The news services will keep the middle class on the edge of their seats dramatising the never-ending Euro crisis, which may provide some jolts.

More and Higher Taxes

Although debt reduction through currency devaluation will remain the preferred method of crisis containment this year, the political establishment is acutely aware of the need to pacify the populace. The White middle class has proven timid and, following the Tea Party experience in the United States, members of the establishment are satisfied that their most profitable constituency (the White middle class is the establishment’s open wallet) can be successfully neutralised by simply calling them racists. The establishment, however, worries about the lumpen proletariat. The Tottenham riots in London in August this year, albeit triggered by a police incident, offered a preview of the civil unrest that an economic shock could bring: the rioters did not demand equality or rights, they wanted iPhones and plasma television. So, more and higher taxes will be levied on the middle class (‘the rich’ in political parlance) in order to fund pacifying handouts for coloured immigrants and their descendants (‘the poor’). Some of the increases in the fiscal burden will be hidden, but some of them will be open, and will be justified in terms of the need for ‘the rich’ to do their bit for society. The system’s contrived pseudomorality will seek to bring tax avoidance further into convergence with tax evasion.

More Wasteful and Counter-Productive Government Measures

See above. In general: good spending will be cut, bad spending will increase. With the shutting down of the space shuttle programme and assorted NASA cutbacks, Americans in 2011 saw Obama end the space age in the United States.

More Money Printing

The money printing will continue, and efforts to conceal its true extent will also continue. Because banks have so far hoarded much of the money that has been printed since the crisis began, the true consequences of the money printing have yet to be felt. Consumer depression will also contain demand and therefore price increases, although the latter only partially. I suspect that parts of this containment will start to fail in 2012, even if consumption and consumer confidence is low. However, even if there is higher inflation, we are years away from the hyperinflationary apocalypse dreamt of by some. We will not see price tags printed on electric paper exponentially revising prices upwards in real time as we make your way to the till.

More Colonisation

Despite the millions of unemployed, ‘immigration’ policy will continue to focus on pacifying voters through deceptions. In the United Kingdom, wholly unsurprisingly, the same Conservative Party that promised drastically to cut ‘immigration’ has governed over a record increase over the past year. Instead of the tens of thousands annually that the promised, the Conservatives have governed over a quarter of a million settler colonists arriving in Britain. Of course, new measures were designed to work like sieves. The modern Conservatives will carry on being more Labour than Labour, the same way that Democrats and Republicans in the United States will carry on increasing their redshift values.

More Scams

A desperate consumer culture co-existing with an economic crisis means only one thing: glory for the Golden Age of the Scam. The ever-diminishing opportunities for legitimate wealth creation mean an ever growing necessity for illegitimate wealth redistribution. Corporations will focus more than ever on a model of planned obsolescence, slave labour, and government handouts. More small and medium entrepreneurs will drop out of the economy and get on the government teat. Cheap consumer products will break on the same day we buy them, forcing us to buy more expensive versions next, which will break after a week. True quality will still only be found in obsolete technology and goods, found in museums, eBay, attics, and antique shops.

More Obamanation

Obama is likely to win a second term, albeit by a narrow margin. The Anglo-American media will back him. All-White Republican candidates will pull their punches, any one of them afraid of being the one who ends the Afro-American dream. Should Obama lose, Afro-Americans will be enraged. If by a narrow margin, as I think likely in this scenario, accusations of racist electoral fraud may well surface. Obama’s post presidential career, whether it begins in 2013 or in 2017, will see him rise to the status of a secular saint. The Left’s historical revisionists will labour to recast him as an American Nelson Mandela, victim of racism, bad luck, and an insuperable legacy of mismanagement by his blue-eyed predecessors. Some way will be found to enumerate allegedly great or visionary achievements that were derided or underreported at the time.

On a Positive Note, However . . .

There will be positive developments on the fringes. Marxists will of course benefit from the continuing crisis because it is easy for them to point to banksters and Big Business as exploiters of the labour force. Yet, in this they share common ground with dissenters on the alternative Right, who are also likely benefit from the disturbances of 2012. Opportunities will continue to grow outside of the mainstream, and traditionalist dissenters will continue shifting away from quantitative gloom-and-doom analyses in favour of a more positive, subjective approach; away from simple forensics in favour of aggressive deconstruction and the active pursuit of new and original solutions, new ways of thinking, speaking, and operating.

In Sum

…more of the same, with some jolts, shocks, and possibly even a few changes along the way in the economic sphere that, although apparently dramatic, will not be fundamental, together with exciting opportunities on the fringes and beyond. The place to be will be on the outside.

From Stephen McNallen, speaking in 2008, for those who follow this festival:

A relevant fake news story (is there any other kind?) from the Onion:

Awful Man Offers Witty, Acerbic Take on Everything

ROCKVILLE, MD—Local resident Alan Bower’s particular brand of sardonic, no-holds-barred commentary about everything around him has firmly established the 31-year-old policy writer as an absolutely terrible person who is always ready to crack a joke, sources reported Monday.

According to friends of the modern-day Oscar Wilde, Bower has a singular knack for sucking every last bit of genuine enjoyment out of any situation with his hilarious, nonstop incisiveness…

Though Bower’s lightning-quick, whip-smart criticism occurs without pause, brother-in-law Peter Ulster, 34, said the deft ironist still manages to surprise those who know him by expertly dismantling their enthusiasm from an inexhaustible variety of angles.

“With Alan, you never see it coming,” Ulster said. “You’ll be discussing something you really enjoy—like, say, surfing or whatever—and you think he’s engaged and agreeing with you, and then bam! He pulls the rug right out from under you with a spot-on remark about how it’s a pretty feeble attempt to recapture one’s long-past youth. He’ll get you every time with that one.”

People want to be liked, not summed up with perspicacious contempt.

Alan Bower (the subject of this story) is so repulsive because he tells people what they do not want to hear, with obviously malign intent. Too, Alan ruins everyone’s good time; he seems like the hipster archetype taken to its logical extreme, where nobody cares about much of anything save themselves, and even then, not too much.

I see something of Alan in many people on the alternative right (not really the right term, IMHO, but it’s descriptive enough for the moment). I don’t see this attitude accomplishing much. I am not criticizing people for acting like this––that would be hypocritical, as I’ve done it as well––but pretending this attitude doesn’t exist, or would vanish within days of certain taboos being lifted, is dishonest at best.

There's a great sketch by the British comedy duo Mitchell and Webb, where they play two members of an SS division. During a lull in the fighting on the Eastern Front, the Mitchell Nazi turns to the Webb Nazi and says, "Have you looked at the badges on our caps recently?" before announcing, "They’ve got skulls on them!!!"

I was reminded of this scene when I read Alex Kurtagic's otherwise excellent article Women on the Left and saw that his composite photo of female right-wing paragons included an undue amount of Nazi eye candy.

Of the 16, I estimate that at least five—Hannah, Magda, Leni, and the Mitfords—were there as totems of the Third Reich, while a large proportion of the others, were peripherally connected with that political movement, either as contemporaneous fellow travelers or connected to the holocaust revisionism that continues to the present day. In other words, whatever one's view of the Nazis, the list was swastika-shaped and definitely had skulls adorning its cap.

It was my discovery of the European New Right that finally convinced me that one could be both a serious intellectual and a political rightist. My initiation came when I discovered Alain De Benoist’s and Charles Champetier’s manifesto for the French New Right eleven years ago. I had never seen rightist ideas presented in such a way before and I knew I had come upon something powerful. Previously, I had been more or less a left-wing Chomskyite. I had long found the left dissatisfying, particularly its victimological ressentiment and its PC bluenoses. Yet, when I looked at the bulk of the American right and saw the jingoist flag-wavers, Bible-bangers, Israel-firsters, plutocratic apologists, conspiracists, and knee-jerk militarists, I would wonder why would anyone could possibly want to be associated with that, for God’s sake? Murray Rothbard’s championing of the legacy of the “Old Right” notwithstanding, I considered the right to be an intellectual wasteland. Fortunately, the European New Right rescued me from such a narrow perception. It was from the European New Right that I learned one could be a progressive without being an egalitarian, a conservative without succumbing to vulgar economism, and a traditionalist without being a yahoo.

A major problem with bringing ENR ideas to North American audiences has been the fact that much of the scholarship produced by ENR writers has yet to be translated into English. For instance, De Benoist is the leading intellectual of the ENR and one of its founding fathers, yet only only two of De Benoist’s dozens of books, On Being a Pagan and The Problem of Democracy, have undergone an English translation and the latter appeared in English only this year thanks to Arktos Publishing. Two original English works surveying ENR thought have also appeared. One of these is by Tomislav Sunic and the other is by Michael O’Meara. If you are a college student and you want to shock and offend your politically correct professors and peers, then the distribution of copies of these works on campuses would certainly be an easy way to do so.

Because of the efforts of Arktos, more and more works of the ENR are gradually being made available in English as well as older works originally written by long-forgotten conservative revolutionary figures of the interwar era. Arktos also makes available works by leftist thinkers offering genuine insight and other writers whose ideas fall way outside the paradigm of what passes for “the right” within the context of U.S. style “conservatism.” Suffice to say we will not be seeing any of the plutocrat-funded and neocon-managed publishing houses of America’s “conservative movement” issuing the works of Lothrop Stoddard, Antonio Gramsci, Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, Michael Cremo, Andrew Fraser, or Pentti Linkola. Arktos has also issued an English version of Ernst von Salomon’s It Cannot Be Stormed. Salomon was a conservative revolutionary author whose success continued well into the post-WW2 period and earned the denunciation of TIME magazine in the process. I’m still waiting for English translations of Ernst Junger’s Der Arbeiter and of the works of Ernst Niekisch (hint, hint).

Several contemporary works by leading ENR writers, such as De Benoist, Sunic, and Guillame Faye have been given extensive review on Brett Stevens’ website. (See here, here, and here.) Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality is particularly helpful not only as an introduction to ENR ideas on a more abstract level, but as a source of critical insights that shed extensive light on the realities behind some of the more important political and cultural phenomena of our time. As Stevens observes in his review of Sunic:

Liberalism dehumanizes its adversaries. According to Carl Schmitt as channeled through Sunic, the left abhors war — so it phrases every political action as a police action. The bad guys become inhuman because they are immoral, not nice, not egalitarian, etc. and thus can be exterminated not in a war but in the right-thinking people detaining or removing the bad ones.

De Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy subjects the most sacred of all modern pieties, the ideal of liberal mass democracy, to rigorous and unrelenting criticism. The only other contemporary work that I am aware of that offers such a thoroughgoing assault on modern democracy is Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. I gave Hoppe’s work an extensive review when it first came out ten years ago. The twentieth century’s two leading critics of modern liberal democracy, with its tendencies toward mob rule, were arguably Carl Schmitt and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Schmitt attacked liberal democracy from the perspective of a traditional conservative in the mode of Hobbes or Burke, while Kuehnelt-Leddihn offered a critique rooted in a synthesis of Catholic traditionalism and a monarchist variation of classical liberalism reminiscent of Lord Acton.

Hoppe’s work is clearly influenced by and somewhat derivative of Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and employs arguments one might expect a conservative Catholic and liberal monarchist to make. De Benoist’s observations on democracy more closely resemble and are influenced by those of Schmitt. While Hoppe and Kuehnelt-Leddihn defended classical eighteenth and nineteenth century liberalism against modern egalitarian democracy and its social democratic manifestation, De Benoist like Schmitt before him sees liberalism as the root of the problem. De Benoist offers not classical liberalism but classical democracy as conceived of by the Greeks as the answer to the “problem of democray” in its modern form. Whereas Hoppe postulates the concept of a society ordered completely on the basis of private property as the alternative to modern democratic institutions, De Benoist offers suggestions that at times resemble the notions of “participatory democracy” or “direct democracy” advanced by certain strands of the Left. These contrasts should make for interesting dialogue and debate on the alternative right.

Guillame Faye’s Why We Fight differs from much of the literature of the ENR in that while Faye incorporates the essence of the broader New Right philosophy into his analysis, he also demonstrates a greater concern for on-the-ground practical politics, strategic formulations, and particular policy prescriptions in a way that is atypical of ENR thinkers with their general focus on arcane theoretical abstractions, historical interpretations, or “metapolitics.” Faye’s geopolitical outlook in some ways resembles a melding of the “Eurasianist” idea advanced by Alexander Dugin and the anti-Islamism of Western European euronationalism. This puts Faye at odds with other strands of the ENR which leans towards at least a tactical solidarity with the Third World and regards Islam as a potential traditionalist ally against globalization and Americanization.

I am inclined to regard Faye’s view as appropriate for Europeans and the latter view as more relevant to North Americans. Islam is geographically far removed from North America, and poses no immediate demographic threat. Islamic terrorism directed towards the United States and its allies is for the most part the inevitable “blowback” generated by U.S. foreign policy or, more specifically, the exercise of Zionist influence (whether Jewish or Christian) over American foreign policy in the Middle East. An alliance with Russia against both Americanization and Islamication may serve the interests of Europeans, but America would be best served by a simple renunciation of globalism and a return to old-fashioned isolationism. Indeed, domestic U.S. Muslims may well be valuable allies against domestic Zionism.

The European New Right clearly has much to offer to ordinary conservatives looking for ideas of infinitely greater substance than what is typically found on talk radio, FOX News, or the subcultures of American right-wing populsim. But the philosophy of the ENR might well prove to be the bridge that also helps many disaffected leftists to eventually find their way to the alternative right. The thinkers of the ENR have developed a critique of globalization, imperialism, and Americanization every bit as thorough and radical as that offered by neo-Marxists like Immanuel Wallerstein, indeed even more so. Likewise, the ENR possesses a critique of consumerism, recognition of ecological issues, anticlericalism and critique Christianity that avoids the shrill bigotry of the “new atheists” that at times resembles but is more substantive than that offered by the Left. The ENR emphasis on the sovereignty and self-preservation of all peoples might even appeal to non-white nationalist, separatist, or autonomist movements.

Writers of the ENR have also advanced an intelligent and sincere but measured social and cultural conservatism that lacks the “homosexual-atheist-abortionist-under-every-bed” hysteria of the American right-wing. ENR thought upholds masculine and feminine identities without sinking into crass misogyny, and De Benoist has even controversially called for solidarity with Third World nationalism against US imperialism in a way that resembles a rightist version of Chomsky, and advocated a federated European “empire” of autonomous ethnic, cultural, and national identities that is reminiscient of the Holy Roman Empire (which, as Voltaire said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire). Meanwhile, the ENR-sympathetic Telos journal has postulated a critique of the modern liberal-managerial “new class” that greatly resembles Bakunin’s early critique of Marxism.

If we are going to build a rightist opposition in North America that is worthy of the legacy of Nietzsche, Pareto, Schmitt, Mencken, Ortega, and Junger, and is not merely a movement of useful idiots for the neoconservatives, military-industrial complex, and right-wing of the U.S. ruling class as so-called “movement conservatism” often is, then it would appear that the ideas of the European New Right are thus far the best thing going.

Matthew Lyons is a leftist writer of  the "watchdog" variety and has in the past worked as a co-author with Chip Berlet. He currently operates a blog called "Three Way Fight" which previously featured a critique of AlternativeRight.Com from a hard left perspective. More recently, Lyons published an extensive critique of the ideas and work of yours truly on the socialist New Politics website. I have since produced a three part response. See Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. Lyons has posted a very brief reply to my reply. Readers of AltRight may find the exchange interesting or at least amusing.

I’m quite grateful to Alex, not just for interviewing me but publishing his ongoing series of portraits of the radical Right. Interviews like these help us understand the men and women in our movement in ways that simply reading their arguments and essays do not.

There’s much of interest for AltRight readers in my conversation with Alex, including my tale of being expelled from Canada, which reads a little like an episode from his dystopian novel, Mister. I also bring up an important theoretical point regarding what it would mean for our side to “win.” I hope we can begin a conversation about this matter here.

Alex Kurtagic: The Left would like the apolitical man in the street to imagine that our winning the argument would mean a return to the bad old days: women would be summarily fired from their jobs and told to make babies; Blacks would be re-enslaved and lynched; Savitri Devi’s works would be standard university textbooks; people would be forced to carry bagfuls of gold coins to conduct their business transactions; television programming would consist of 24-hours solid of political speeches; court witnesses would swear on a copies of Mein Kampf; science would be abolished (except for eugenics) and society would be plunged into a dark age of brute force, ignorance, fear, and superstition. What does, in fact, a future where we have won the argument look like?

Richard Spencer: Oh sorry . . . while I was reading your last question, I became lost in a rapturous fantasy. No, what you describe is terrible! I would never want to live in this fascistic, masculine, gold-standard nightmare world.

The newest installment of my ongoing series of interviews with personalities involved in politically incorrect writing and publishing features Richard Spencer. We learn about his previous experiences in the paleoconservative movement, his evolving career in the alternative Right, his thinking on the key issues of our time, his adventures with the Canadian border authorities, and his plans with Washington Summit Publishers and the National Policy Institute. To read the interview click here.

At about this time last year I started reading Matt Yglesias’s blog and responding to his posts in the comments section.  Austin Bramwell in the American Conservative had rendered an interesting opinion of this eminently credentialed elite opinion shaper, saying he “has the most depth” among a good sampling of younger bloggers. I began reading his blog out of curiosity.

Yglesias is less philosophically minded than I had expected. Philosophy was his major at Harvard, but Yglesias seems to mostly find philosophy irrelevant. I suppose Harvard’s analytic bent makes philosophy seem irrelevant to public policy wonks. He doesn’t discuss first principles and only reveals his values obliquely. He makes utilitarian arguments from a perspective colored with liberal platitudes.

His writing is dry and his sense of humor is odd and he is a fan of gangster rap. I don’t know what a hipster is exactly but I feel like the term suits him well—hipsters are like porn in that way, we all know it when we see it. He compensates for a lack of style in his writing with snark. Mencken, who said the Jews were “the most unpleasant race ever heard of,” would have probably called Yglesias an all-too-typical member of his tribe.

Engaging some of the other commentators on his blog was the first time I had sparred with liberals on a written level.  What struck me was how ignorant well over half of them were. They were ignorant about basic rules of logic and matters of knowledge. None seemed to understand simple facts.  All denied the consensus that statistical differences between racial groups are a) mostly intractable at this point because b) there are biological limits represented by various “averages.”

I would like to thank all of those who have already contributed toward Alternative Right during our 2011 fundraising campaign. It is gratifying to know that you appreciate the work we—the authors, the editors, and the developers—do here.

So far we are just under two thirds of the way to our goal of $25,000.  This means we are most of the way there, but not quite. A final push is needed to wind up the campaign.

As I mentioned not long ago, one of the things I liked most about Alternative Right when it first launched was that it was the most modern and aesthetically accomplished website of its kind. Another thing I liked was the fact that it was driven largely by a dynamic crop of younger writers, whose articles appeared alongside those of experienced professional academics and authors, like Paul Gottfried, Kevin MacDonald, Derek Turner, to name but a few. The liveliness of the website and its continuously growing readership over the past year attest to its winning formula. And I am sure many of our political enemies are exasperated—even if they try not to say it—by the fact that our camp is capable of presenting its arguments in an elegant, vibrant, and intelligent fashion.

We live in a society unique for its velocity. Constant upgrades and innovation—technological, intellectual, aesthetic, lexical, informational—are key to survival in our ever more crowded, ruthless, and intensely competitive world. To remain relevant, to attract readers, and to be taken seriously, we have to both be and look as good or better than the competition. We cannot afford for those who are behind to catch up with us, and we cannot afford those who are in front to leave us so far behind that we are not taken seriously anymore. This means we must ensure we have the means to update the website’s design, update the software, add new features, add new modules, improve functionality, improve content, and upgrade servers, so that the website can cope adequately both with its steadily growing traffic and the occasional spike. This also means we must ensure that we can continue to attract both new and recognised talent.

One of my stated aims as an editor has been to make inroads into the mainstream. By making inroads I mean making more of the many frustrated citizens who look for an alternative aware that we exist, and that they will find here not only discussions, analyses, and information they will not find in the establishment’s media, but an edgy, serious, and professional website. The latter is essential if the former is to succeed, as obvious visual and intellectual excellence makes new readers more likely to share a link or recommend the website to a friend. Moreover, because people are sensitive to status, a website with obvious status markers exasperates the Left, who hate the idea of other people taking pride in rejecting their ideology. On the internet, status is displayed through sophisticated design, language, and technology.

Related to this is the need to offer professional and business opportunities outside of the dictats of political correctness. If we want to see more from authors and publishers who do not sell out to the system of White disprivilegement; if we want to make it possible for others to join them; and if we want new, talented writers not to feel they have to sell out in order have successful and remunerative careers, it is up to us to make it materially possible. Realistic career prospects are necessary if we are to reverse the brain-drain that has been engineered by the Left in its efforts to simulate legitimacy and outthink its opponents: without such prospects, our ability to recruit men of real talent and ambition will be limited.

One of the biggest factors preventing frustrated citizens from publicly and visibly speaking out against immigration and multiracialism in Western societies is the threat of economic sanctions—the fear that they will lose their jobs and therefore lose their markers of social status as a result of a politically incorrect remark or attitude. Indeed, economic sanctions is one of the establishment’s most commonly used tools to maintain submission. If we are able to offer legitimate professional and business opportunities outside the politically correct economy we can rob that tool of its effectiveness. In the media age, educating and opinion-making via the internet, such as we do here at Alternative Right, play a vital role in this process.

Richard and I understand that donors like to know that their money will have concrete and measurable results. What are, then, our plans for Alternative Right in the coming months?

One of them is a dedicated reviews section, covering books, the arts, and entertainment; this searchable tool will help many readers decode the perfidy of modern culture, high and low, as well as alert them to what is worth supporting. People are generally very engaged with popular culture, which, as we know, contains an ideological message but which is also consumed uncritically as entertainment; therefore, while it may be unpalatable to many of us, we have to ensure our perspective on what is being fed to the public is out there, turning up frequently in Google searches and landing readers on this website.

Another plan is to make Alternative Right iPhone friendly. This will enable mobile users to access Alternative Right’s content in an easy-to-navigate format. This is also a status marker, which reflects positively on the website, as it projects conscientious and technologically savvy design and development.

Yet another plan is for donors to have access to a private forum, where they will be able to interact with the authors of Alternative Right, participate in scheduled Q & A sessions, and get the inside scoop on events and developments relating to this website, its editors, and contributors. This will enable us better to connect and strategise.

This is for starters. We have numerous plans and ideas beyond these. The idea is for Alternative Right to converge technically with, and eventually surpass, the most advanced mainstream websites, and for it to provide more and even better content in the radical traditionalist mould. The more active we can be, the more material we can get out there, the higher the quality of our content and presentation, the more we will be able to build a wide and discerning readership, and the more we will be able to offer a like-for-like alternative perspective on what is pumped out by the present media, political, and academic establishment. Remember: revolutions begin with scribbles, so what we do, our opinion making here on the internet, impacts on attitudes and behaviour out there in the real world. By gradually showing the young, educated, professional classes and university students that they are not alone, that there are many other young, educated, professionals who share their frustrations with the establishment and its tired system, we can gradually drain the Left of brains, funding, and expertise—and also have some fun in the process. We have to get to the stage where it is embarrassing for ordinary citizens to say that they support the ideas of the Left—where Leftism is considered stupid, boring, and déclasé.

$9,000 is a small sum in the greater scheme of things. The Left, the neo-cons, would love to know that we cannot raise even that small sum from our tens of thousands of readers. Every hour that the thermometer on the right stays still is an hour that our enemies are smiling, their ovoid heads filled with smugness and self-importance. Gentlemen like Tim Wise, who only some months ago, blogged to tell us we are engaged in a battle the meaning of which we do not remotely understand,

Because you’re on the endangered list.

And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly, without hurting your precious feelings, or those of the so-called “greatest generation” -- a bunch whose white members were by and large a gaggle of miscreants who helped save the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.

So to hell with you and all who revere you.

By then, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Nothing, Senõr Tancredo.

Nothing, Senõra Angle, or Senõra Brewer, or Senõr Beck.

Loy tiene muy mal, hijo de Puta.

And

You will have gone all in as a white nationalist movement—hell you’ve all but done that now—thus guaranteeing that the folks of color, and even a decent size minority of us white folks will be able to crush you, election after election, from the Presidency on down to the 8th grade student council.

If you care to wipe the smile off his face, if you care to see him rage in his little office, if you care to crush his hate-filled visions of White fear and capitulation, make that thermometer on the right explode—today,—right now; push the mercury skywards, don’t let it stop, and turn up the heat in Tim’s fevered brain—give him a pounding headache and then rattle his cage until he screams. Let him see that we will not suffer his taunts in silence; that when we’re bitten, we bite back, harder and deeper than his ilk ever dared; that we will continue to push forward and upwards, fearless and relentless, and that nothing will stop us—not now, not ever.