Bon sang ne saurait mentir. With these words Guillaume Faye ended his spirited post-prandial address to attendees of the 2012 American Renaissance conference.  The words are true:  Good blood cannot lie. Individuals and, indeed, entire races who are of good blood, though they may think it unseemly to boast, nevertheless produce a shower of blessings that are there for all the world to see. The reverse, I conceive, is also true: Mal sang ne peut que mentir. Bad blood cannot but lie. In denial about the inferiority of themselves and their kind, those of bad blood become of necessity liars. Indeed, they must come up with really extraordinary lies in order to convince us that the multiculti shower of bastards they are foisting upon us is actually a shower of blessings.

Trouble is the liars are legion, and the people, by and large, believe their lies. The truths which AmRen members defend are 1) that human quality is determined more by heredity than by any other factor and 2) that European peoples have received from their ancestors a unique bio-cultural heritage, which they have a right and a duty to preserve.

Defending these truths is a challenge today not because factual evidence for them is wanting, or because they are counterintuitive. On the contrary, evidence for these claims abounds, and they are nothing if not intuitive.  The problem, as many of the speakers pointed out, is that these basic truths are perceived to be immoral in themselves, or at least fraught with immoral consequences.

Therefore, if we wish to have any success, the first thing we have to do is learn how to make moral, rather than scientific or libertarian, arguments. This, as Alex Kurtagic said in his speech, is how the Left managed to sell its poison to the masses, by claiming moral high ground.  We must do the same.

With all due respect to Jared Taylor, whose talk was otherwise erudite, witty, and at times rousing, his formulation of a pro-European identitarian-hereditarian morality left much to be desired. “We have a right to be ourselves and to be left alone. What could be more moral than that?” he said. The fact is, that according to our opponents we do not have a right to be ourselves, for we are the incarnation of evil. As Carl Schmitt has taught us, those who view their opponents as hostis generes humani (the enemy of the human race) will not abide by the maxim of “live and let live.” To ask our enemies and their millions of willing dupes to leave us alone is to say “Dear friends, would you be so good as to permit us to persist in being our evil selves? We solemnly promise not to become any more evil than we have been heretofore.”

While watching the video of efforts by left-wing thugs to disrupt Richard Spencer’s recent talk on affirmative action at Providence College, I was reminded of a conversation I had sometime in the late 1980s with a former member of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society who had been involved with the movement to oppose the Vietnam War since its inception circa 1962. He recalled how in the early days of the antiwar movement, protest organizers were thrilled if they could get fifty people to show up for a rally. To publicly oppose the war at the time was physically dangerous, and such rallies were always at risk of being physically attacked by vigilantes shouting epithets like “communist” at the protestors. If organizers of the rallies could get police protection at all, they were happy to have it. Not only were public demonstrations in danger of such assaults, but so were quiet and peaceful meetings of those who opposed the war held in church basements or on university campuses. Of course, we all know that the anti-Vietnam War movement morphed into a mass movement just a few years later.

So it is indeed ironic that half a century later it is those who challenge the established dogmas purveyed by the Left who similarly experience the disruption of their efforts to peacefully speak and organize, who become the targets of epithets like “racist,” “sexist,” or “classist,” and who are threatened with physical violence. Incidents of this type are exceedingly common. It is now widely known that conservative speakers on university campuses, even entirely mainstream neocon-friendly “movement conservative” types, are routinely shouted down and threatened by leftists. As most readers are probably aware, right-wing organizations outside the mainstream, such as American Renaissance, have endured even worse attacks. At times, simply attending an anti-illegal immigration rally can be all that it takes for one to become the victim of a physical assault.

A number of observations could be made concerning the demeanor and behavior of the disrupters of Richard’s presentation at Providence. One is the obvious fact that they are so certain of their own moral superiority and the nobility of their crusade that they feel ordinary rules of civilized discourse or common courtesy no longer apply to them. Another is that far from their image of themselves as enlightened, free-thinking rebels, they come across more like brainwashed zombies similar to members of the LaRouche cult or the Moonies I used to encounter selling flowers on the streets of Washington, D.C. years ago. Their level of intellectual prowess seems to amount to little more than thinking that merely throwing labels at people and ideas they find disagreeable counts as a valid refutation of the opposing viewpoints.

Judging from the hysteria of their reaction, one would think that Richard was advocating genocide rather than arguing for the fairly standard right-of –center position that affirmative action is a bad idea, a position that even some minority scholars and analysts hold. It is also rather difficult to see how Richard was arguing for “white supremacy” given that the data he was presenting actually showed Asians to be the top performers with regards to SAT scores. As Richard pointed out in his talk, it was he who was the moderate and the protestors who were the extremist nutjobs.

For the diversitarians, affirmative action is not merely a policy preference, but a sacred article of faith, like the Holy Trinity or the Immaculate Conception. Affirmative action is a political tool the liberal establishment utilizes to maintain the loyalty of one of its core allies and constituent groups, the black elite and the middle class professional sectors of the black population. Affirmative action is an entitlement used as a reward for political loyalty from these sectors. It is doubtful that AA is of much benefit to genuinely impoverished or disadvantaged blacks, many of whom do not even finish high school, much less attend college or obtain professional-level occupations. And as Richard pointed out, if the goal of AA was to help the poor and disadvantaged in the first place, AA would be class-based rather than race-based.

Indeed, “black conservatives” like Thomas Sowell and Elizabeth Wright have documented a myriad of ways in which policies implemented by the welfare state and civil rights bureaucracy that has meta-morphed in recent decades have severely undermined the organic economic, cultural, and family life of urban black communities, and contributed exponentially to the social pathologies often found in those communities. Likewise, the black libertarian economist Walter Williams has produced rather extensive evidence indicating the contribution of efforts at intrusive economic micromanagement to high unemployment rates among urban blacks.

Additionally, there is some evidence that black children who are educated in culturally specific Afro-centric schools perform much better than black children who receive conventional public schooling. The reasons as to why this is so are inconclusive but what is interesting is that the efforts of either conservative and libertarian black scholars like Sowell, Wright, or Williams, or of Afro-centrists with a nationalist or separatist outlook, are routinely attacked or dismissed by white liberals and the captains of the civil rights industry alike. Indeed, such people are often reviled by the Left. The obvious reason for this is the fanatical egalitarian-universalist ideology that has come to dominate the Left, an ideology that just happens to coincide with the political and economic self-interest of those who push it. It is an ideology that seeks a society where all resources are controlled and managed by the state and administered according to a spoils system the ostensible purpose of which is the imposition of bureaucratically-managed “equality.” The ultimate outcome of totalitarian humanism taken to its logical conclusion would be a totalitarian state organized as a kind of caste system whereby individual rights are assigned on the basis of group identity and group rights are assigned on the basis of the position of the group in the pantheon of the oppressed or on the victimological family tree.

Given these considerations, it might be apt to compare our present day lefto-fascist, stormtroopers-on-granola with the Red Guards of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Red Guards were, of course, bands of youthful vigilantes who scurried about China during the 1960s smashing up cultural artifacts deemed “old” (e.g. conservative, traditional) and engaging in vigilante violence against persons deemed “reactionary” (mostly dissident intellectuals and those labeled “bourgeois” or originating from politically incorrect cultural or class backgrounds.) We see a similar though milder version of this today in the West today with attacks on expressions of traditional culture (like Christmas celebrations), historical artifacts considered to be reactionary (like Confederate Civil War monuments or streets named after Confederate generals), and vigilante actions against people given labels like “racist,” “fascist,” “sexist,” or “classist.”

I suspect that these “antifa” types, these Red Guards-on-tofu, would be every bit as murderous and destructive if the authorities would sanction it, as Chairman Mao did during the Cultural Revolution. We’ve seen hints at this already with the nonchalant attitude of the authorities towards threats of murder and arson against innocent people made by the Antifa in response to American Renaissance’s planned gathering in 2010. Plenty of other incidents have occurred where destructive or violent behavior by those claiming to act in the name of noble causes like “anti-racism” and “anti-fascism” have been overlooked or dealt with leniently by authorities convinced of the purity of their motives or restrained by political pressure.

The great irony presented by the Antifa is that despite all of their posturing as radicals and revolutionaries, they’re essentially doing the establishment’s bidding. The attitudes they subscribe to are not fundamentally different from those of the liberal elite overlords of the wider society. The Red Guards-on-tofu are simply a smellier, more ill-mannered, undisciplined, more in-a-hurry version of the liberal establishment itself. Wouldn’t it be an even greater irony if indeed the growing counterculture of the alternative right were to grow into a large influential movement as the leftist counterculture and antiwar movements did in the 1960s, with the Antifa and their ilk assuming the role of the “hardhats”?

I've just created a blog about the AmRen fiasco, "Whiteout," which will offer daily commentary on the attacks on Jared Taylor and the 2011 American Renaissance conference, as well as, more generally, the attempts by public officials and left-wing groups to stifle free expression regarding racial differences and European identity. Enjoy! 

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Jared Taylor’s 2011 American Renaissance conference has been thrown into jeopardy. Last year, it was former (current?) FBI agent Jeffrey Imm who provided the intel and various Internet “anti-fascists” who provided the bomb threats that scuttled the biannual event and led to a much-reduced rump AmRen gathering in Northern Virginia.

This time around, it was the Obama of Mecklenburg County, Charlotte City Council member and mayor pro tem Patrick Cannon, who browbeat the Airport Sheraton Hotel into reneging on its contract with Jared and AmRen. I doubt there will ever be justice for our side on this matter, but Cannon’s actions appear to amount to a flagrant abuse of his status as an elected official, if not an outright First Amendment violation. The antifa can’t believe that they didn’t have to lift a finger, as an elected official eagerly did their dirty work!

(My interview with Jared about the 2010 fiasco can be heard here. Matt Parrott has a wrap up of this year’s debacle here.)

I’ve recently become the executive director of The National Policy Institute. My first project was to create NPITV.com, which will web-stream events, like the AmRen conference, of interest to conscious European-Americans, as well as offer other programming that’s too hot for the mainstream media. NPITV was to debut by web-streaming AmRen 2011.

Everything’s up in the air at the moment, but I can assure you that, 1) I will be in Charlotte come hell, high water, and anti-fascists throwing bricks, and 2) NPI will make every effort to web-stream the conference, even if that entails broadcasting from an “undisclosed location.”

Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor are both to be commended for setting us straight about the non-relation between Arizona killer Jared Loughner and American Renaissance. Despite a damning report from Homeland Security linking Loughner to this publication, no evidence showing such a connection could be produced. Moreover the description of the AR “organization,” (it is actually a newsletter whose editorial board holds annual conferences) as anti-Semitic was denied almost as soon as the report was issued. Leftist, predominantly Jewish groups such as ADL and the SPLC came to Jared Taylor’s defense against the rumor that he was running a neo-Nazi hate group.

Homeland Security went wrong, when it described Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona congresswoman whom Loughner shot as “the first Jewish female elected to such a high-position in the US government.” Although the report was correct that the social liberal and pro-immigrationist Giffords held views that were the “opposite” of those of AR, the congresswoman, notes Jared Taylor, has come after multiple Jewish, female predecessors in Congress. These others, not surprisingly, have been even more liberal than Rep. Giffords.

Despite the empty charges brought against AR, a publication to which Loughner did not subscribe, the war against the newsletter continues to be waged, thanks to the neoconservative camp. FOX went into high gear at 8:00 AM Sunday morning, reporting that an extremist organization that hates Jews, Blacks and Israel was somehow involved in Loughner’s crimes. The young woman who made this assertion claims never to have heard of American Renaissance, but assured her listeners that she and her fellow-investigative reporters were doing “research.” From her remarks it seemed that she and FOX were about to reveal something big about a rightwing-extremist “hate group.”

On 21 March at a demonstration in Bolton, Greater Manchester Police arrested 74 protestors from the rival English Defence League (EDL) and Unite Against Fascism (UAF). Most of the arrested were UAF supporters. According to the police:

"We have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation...It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable...they acted with, at times, extreme violence."

A UAF spokesman responded with that organization's by now characteristic combination of aggressive assurance and petulant whimpering: "As soon as we arrived at the square we received hostility from police officers. We were certainly not the violent ones, we had come with the intention to protest peacefully against racism and fascism. However, the police stormed into our side of the square and started picking out UAF leaders and arresting them before anything had even happened."

I have never been to Bolton, don't like the look of the EDL and am not defending fascism. I also acknowledge freely that there are many on the left who are agreeable and fair-minded. But anyone who has ever seen self-described 'antifa' activists being, well, active will guess that UAF is being economical with the actualité.