Robert T. Burnham

Essentially every article one reads regarding the current Eurozone mess focuses on one end of the chain of irresponsibility or the other. Half of the finger-wagging is directed at the stingy Germans, who are deemed recklessly irresponsible for their reluctance to shovel their savings into the endless money pit that is southern Europe in order to socialize the losses of various bankers who have profited enormously from the previously artificially inflated credit-worthiness of the PIIGS. The other half is typically directed at the PIIGS themselves, most notably at  Greece since it seems to be the pig on the spit at the moment. This half of the self-indulgent finger-wagging is intended to admonish them for not tightening their belt enough . . .  with a fair amount of hand-wringing about the proles and their inconceivable unwillingness to either sell their country's assets at fire-sale prices, or to accept a descent into abject poverty via austerity measures imposed to reduce an astronomically high level of completely unserviceable debt to a slightly lower level of completely unserviceable debt.

Before I went to sleep last night, the first, excited news programming started to appear. Excited is the proper word. The mainstream media is like a many-headed Hydra whose appetite knows no bounds. It devours information and following a process of digestion through which this information is filtered, exaggerated, and perverted into a barely recognizable abstraction of its former self, it is excreted from the other end as “news”. The primary purpose of this news, of course, is to garner the attention of the masses and convince them to buy something or other, or to support this or that policy or objective of those wielding genuine power . . . often to the detriment of the masses themselves. As a consequence of this insatiable hunger, the Hydra greeted the Norwegian tragedy with unconcealed excitement and an intense flurry of activity . . . destined to ensure that not a single morsel of information—regardless how trivial, unsupported by facts, or irrelevant to the actual, human tragedy—goes to waste. As an example of this frenzy one can take a look at the BBC coverage, where they already have eight tabs of largely redundant information at hand for the viewer; including a “Live” tab and a “Latest” tab, which confuses me, of course—because one would think that the Live tab would always be a little bit more up-to-date than the Latest tab—since it is, well, live.

Before writing anything else, let me state clearly and without any reservations that I am shocked and saddened by the events unfolding in Norway. Regardless of the eventual justification that those involved proffer for these actions; whether they be the actions of a single person or of an organized group. The killing of innocent civilians is always and everywhere a despicable means of achieving ends. I can think of no instance where it was justified. Unfortunately, numerous instances of massive, civilian killing—on a scale that makes recent Norwegian events pale in significance—have been and will for the foreseeable future be accepted—even celebrated by some—as justifiable acts of forces of good. Witness Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin. But for the victims and their family and friends, such abstractions are of no consequence to their real, immediate, and life-changing pain and loss. I offer them my heartfelt sympathy, while at the same time I am overcome by a genuine feeling of anger and the hope that those responsible are found and appropriately dealt with.

As the breaking news from Norway unfolded—via breathless and energetic exchanges between various, well-coiffed and manicured talking heads in London and elsewhere—I was as surprised and dismayed as many to hear that the current suspect is a blond Norwegian man. The blond part of his description being as prominently displayed by the various news entities as his hair and skin color would be concealed if he had happened to be of a more swarthy complexion. Indeed, one could almost hear the collective sign of relief, accompanying a certain degree of perverse pleasure, on the part of the chattering class to the revelation that it was . . . or could be . . . or could be presented as . . . a native, white, right-winger who perpetrated this crime. And of course, every morsel of news—every crumb of information that could be construed to connect Mr. Breivik with the “extreme right” and with “neo-Nazis”, has been devoured and put to good use. The fact that so much of this “information” is unsubstantiated and may in fact be reversed over the next few days or weeks is irrelevant. They say you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. In this case, the perverse inversion of this principle is being put to good use, in much the same way that the MSM applied the “far-right, neo-Nazi, extremist” label to the deranged Mr. Loughner; the shooter of Arizona congresswoman Giffords. The objective, of course, is to use guilt by association as a instrument to undermine growing popular support for the objectives of righist movements; since more conventional means of argumentation—such as the use of “facts”—are tragically beyond the means of the MSM. Or more to the point, since facts tend to overwhelmingly and inconveniently support the objectives and arguments of the right. I suppose it's possible that either Mr. Breivik or Mr. Loughner were also members of book clubs, or possibly attended Tupperware parties. In neither case will we hear suggestions voiced that people who read books or use plastic storage containers could pose a higher risk to polite society.

So now the witch-hunting can begin. But as the forces of all that is good and just in the world (e.g. the agents of liberalism in both its leftish and rightish permutations) begin to sharpen their knives in preparation for the brutalization of their ideological opponents via character-assassination, misrepresentation of fact, stereotyping and prejudice, and guilt by association; it seems wise to point out certain “facts on the ground” as they say.

Let us assume for a minute that the almost incredible story which seems to be coming together is true. Namely, that a lone, 32 year-old, native Norwegian man with ties to the “far-right” could and did coordinate and carry out a large-scale bombing and a shooting massacre by himself. For reasons that have nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with practicality and human capability, I am finding this interpretation difficult to accept, which only adds to the argument that people should refrain from jumping to conclusions regarding the perpetrator(s) and their cause(s). It seems so convenient in a Machiavellian way. How can one avoid harboring thoughts of false-flag operations? The forces working frenziedly to build their new world order on the rubble of our collective civilization—a civilization that they are actively working to destroy—find themselves faced with growing popular opposition to their vile and usually underhanded acts of genocide on a multi-continental scale. Could one find a more ideal poster-boy for evil than a apparently handsome, blond-haired, blue-eyed, Nordic (in the absolute sense), Christian, heterosexual (I'm assuming), gun-owning, right-wing conspiring, man? Well yes—they could find two or more of them—and put together a movement. That would be even more ideal...but they're not done with the story-telling, so let's not give them too many ideas.

Even if this proves to be true—not only on the surface but in its entirety—it cannot be stated clearly enough that no sane person and no organization that can even conceivably be placed in the “far right” category could or would support such despicable actions. Ignoring for a moment the human aspects of these tragedies, the incredulousness, incomprehension, and frank willingness to consider conspiratorial explanations one observes on the right side of the fence in such times illustrates the extent to which we not only categorically reject such acts of terrorism, but the extent to which we are aware that any such associations with legitimate concerns of western peoples (e.g. the ideological positions of the “extreme right”) are completely counter-productive.

We must not allow ourselves to accept slanderous insinuations applied with a broad brush without protest. The perpetrators themselves—as was the case of Jared Loughner and Timothy McVeigh—are directly answerable for their acts. Their guilt is not shared by some nebulous movement or movements with whom they might share a handful of ideas that the state doesn't approve of. Rather than members of the right-wing feeling shame as a consequence of whatever common ideological ground that may exist; members of the collective monstrosity that is the MSM, the political and functional apparatchiks, and those holding real power who have put our entire civilization in distress are the ones who should be burdened by guilt and shame. That they would use the deaths of children as a weapon to conceal their own, incalculably brutal crime and attack those who dare oppose it is a testament to their mendacity.

When I was finishing The Real National Interest (TRNI), it became clear that a follow-up article would be needed; because there is a complimentary aspect of state policy; common to all nations of the West, whose justification isn't entirely clear from the ethnocentric perspective referred to in the original article.

It might be useful to first restate the hypothesis posited in TRNI: That American Near- and Middle-East policy is logical and comprehensible when viewed from the perspective of its actual purpose: to destroy or marginalize potential threats to the state of Israel. These threats being other nation-states or coalitions thereof. And that “terrorists” are not only not a threat to Israel (or any other state)—they are to a large extent useful catalysts for the aggrandizement of state power. Thus the goal of American policy in this region is to destroy nation-states; and if the dissolution of a given state actually results in the propagation of terrorist activity—all the better.

When a modern, secular state such as Iraq is replaced by a largely anarchistic, proto-feudal and unstable pastiche of clashing religions and ethnicities, sharing nothing in common but a tendency towards religious fundamentalism and intolerance for “the other”, the region (one can no longer refer to it as a state in any meaningful sense) loses the capacity to act outwardly—to project a common will to power—and instead becomes consumed by internal conflicts that feed upon themselves, and that are relatively easy for external forces to influence, inflame, and maintain.

And when readers of the original article suggest that “hand[ing] Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood” is a failure of US foreign policy, they are precisely missing the point. In fact, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the greatest boons of our adventures over there. People need to consider what Islamic fundamentalism actually is: It is not only a retrograde religion—it is cultural and civilizational retrogression! Islamic fundamentalism creates societies of unemployable men and ignorant and civically “invisible” women, who are collectively incapable of maintaining, much less producing, the level of technological development necessary to create a functioning, modern state. Indeed, Islamic fundamentalism is the indoctrination of teeming masses into a societal model taken en bloc from the first millennium AD.

In Western countries, boys and girls go to school and learn things like math, biology, physics, chemistry, history, and their language. One can argue convincingly about the pathetic state of education in many western countries—but the intent is as described. In Muslim countries dominated by fundamentalists, boys go to madrasas and learn how to recite the Koran forwards and backwards by heart. Girls . . . well, girls get to stay at home and be quiet and out of sight—OR ELSE. The extent to which reciting the Koran can help put a man on the moon (or more to the point—design and build a modern, main battle tank capable of taking on, say, the Merkava) is unknown to me, but I have a feeling it's rather limited.

So in conclusion, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is an effective means of transforming what might otherwise be a temporary state of political disarray into a permanent state of 6^th century, ineffectual feudalism. That these teeming masses are at times inclined to strap dynamite to their chests and blow up stuff in a futile expression of their inability to accomplish anything on a meaningful, political level is icing on the cake.

This leads me to the larger point about the state policy exhibited throughout the West: wholesale immigration of various, culture enrichers—many of them Muslim. People are often incredulous when they note the current degree of anti-Semitism prevalent in these new arrivals—and they ask the logical question of whether or not this immigration isn't mortally dangerous for the Jewish populations of the countries being culturally enriched. The suggestion being that the Jewish community—by supporting (as they unquestionably have) wholesale Islamic immigration into western countries—is actually engaging in an insane and ultimately self-defeating policy. I do not believe this is the case, and indeed, I think that this policy meshes well with the Zionist project of Greater Israel (which is being facilitated by the foreign policy that was the subject of TRNI). There are three aspects that characterize the successful nature of this external political project—the transformation of the West into a multicultural soup comprised in no small part of Islamic ingredients:

Firstly, there is the “secular” political benefit of destroying ethnic homogeneity of Western states. This being the ability of a group exhibiting high intelligence, an ingroup/outgroup moral code, a strong sense of self, and the willingness to act in its own interests, to control a motley collection of other groups that are lacking one or more of the same characteristics. In order to affect this transformation, one makes use of the materials that are available. Since France is a long swim—even for a Mexican—one turns to France's southern “neighbors” . . . making use of a little, good ole collective guilt over colonialism in the process. Indeed, one can already see this playing off of various parties taking place in Europe – where Jewish, crypto-Jewish, or philo-Semitic politicians like Geert Wilders co-opt nativist movements in a fashion that remains beneficial to Jewish interests, while Leftish Jewish groups join hands with Muslim organizations to condemn European racism.

Secondly, Jews have historically gotten along fairly well with their Semitic cousins. They did well for themselves oppressing the Visigoths in Spain, while acting as agents for their Moorish masters. Sure, there's some bad blood between them right now over the whole Palestinian thing, but that won't last. My personal theory in this regard is that the Zionists figure that giving Europe to Islam is a small price to pay for securing their Biblical homeland in its entirety. If the Jews in Europe are frightened by near-term anti-Semitism, all the better. They're having trouble convincing them to make Aliyah in its absence. And after a century or so, they'll be able to move back to what's left of Paris and enjoy the pleasure of manipulating the various, competing ethnies in the former, romantic capital of the world via petty politics, corruption, and manufactured intrigue.

Thirdly, the infusion of Islamic populations—and Islamic fundamentalism as described above—is part of the dysgenic process by which the populace of the Western world will be transformed into a permanently manageable herd. The Germany of 1933 was an unpleasant lesson (as was the Spanish Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition) of precisely what happens when one visits too much abuse on a homogenous and intelligent host population. Point #1 above deals with the whole “homogenous” part. The second part of this, final solution is to reduce the level of intelligence and knowledge of the host population to the point that it is no longer capable of engendering effective resistance. A friend of mine used to refer to this as the “São Paulo Model”. I used to scoff at it. I'm not so sure anymore. Certainly, the dumbing-down of education and culture is unquestionably useful in making the citizens of Western countries manageable and manipulable. This is a goal that is beneficial not only to alien powers. Limiting access to education is a tool used often and historically to control certain populations; women in Islamic countries being a useful example. But overwhelming intelligent populations with sub-intelligent ones seems like a logical extension of this—and a permanent one at that. No need to worry about controlling “evil” books and ideas when there's no one willing or capable of reading or thinking them.

Some might suggest that this is all too conspiratorial. But it doesn't have to be a “conspiracy” in the sense of an entire ethnic group getting together in auntie Ruth's basement to make plans that they put secretly into motion. More likely, it's an organic movement in a common and commonly beneficial direction, of a people united in their perception of self as “the oppressed outsider”. Some might also suggest that the Jewish community might feel unhappy or disappointed by the end product of these machinations. Aren't they happier within a French France or an English England than they will be in these countries, once the demographic time-bombs they've helped build explode? Maybe. But one of the greatest failures of Western man has been his ridiculous tendency to project his sentiments and sensibilities on others. The idea that the Negro (or the Japanese, or the Indian, and so forth) is just like him—but in a different, physical wrapper—is pathetic and fundamentally wrong. Is it not logical, in fact, that a people who are themselves products of thousands of years of history in crowded, chaotic, multi-ethnic cities would be more at home in such an environment than in the quiet, orderly, homogenous, “boring” communities that we Europeans find most comforting?

The proles may be on the verge of forgetting about it, but we're now into the 13^th week of what was supposed to be a brief, airborne operation to assist a rag-tag group of freedom fighters in their noble cause to rid the world of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The justification for the mission—for those who are, like me, often having difficulty keeping the various and changing justifications for our various and lengthening wars missions to promote peace and democracy straight—was to hasten the overthrow of Hitler version 48.1.9 and prevent unnecessary civilian deaths due to the alleged tendencies of Col. Gaddafi's forces to do nasty stuff to civilians in rebel-occupied areas. The actual results of the mission, predictably, have been…

• the prolongation of what would've probably been a relatively brief conflict, had Libya's professional military not been interfered with in their attempts to crush the aforementioned rag-tag rebels; and...
• an unpleasantly high number of civilian deaths—no small number having been caused by our new-found, rebellious friends, who seem to delight in doing nasty stuff to loyalist civilians who come under their control.

I was prompted to finally put pen to paper by a recent article at AltRight, which started out quite well, but in the end didn't really deliver much substance. Instead, introducing a relatively plausible explanation of past U.S. foreign policy (particularly during the reign of Bush the Younger); alluding to imperial overstretch and failure of the overarching policy of creating a “vertically-integrated hyper-empire”; and pointing out the relatively obvious discontent of the peoples of various places in the world who have been enjoying the pleasures of American aircraft bombing their infrastructure into the stone age in the name of peace and democracy for the past umpteen years. Where this leaves us in terms of a foreign policy in the post-Bush era is left for us to figure out on our own (although apparently it has something to do with chaos theory).

I'll hasten to point out that the general trend of American foreign policy doesn't seem to have actually changed much—to the chagrin of the hippie douchebags who drooled over themselves while voting for their Mocha Messiah and his pledges for Change®.

Actually, Messrs. Shishkin and Spencer, and a large army of other pundits (OK – one other guy) all seem to be rather missing the point of it all, so I'd like to offer my own interpretation of things.

Based on the feedback to date on Jaenelle Antas's and Matt Parrott's articles, the topic of women in “the movement” is pregnant with interest. I myself found much to agree with—and room for criticism.

I will quickly address a criticism towards Mr. Parrott's article before moving on. I reject his thesis that women have been somehow the silent heroes of our culture by the guileful manner in which they have maintained segregation within society during the tumult and physical dislocation of the last 60-odd years. I'm not going to engage in some kind of tit-for-tat, who-did-what-to-whom argument, in the completely fabricated "War of the Sexes" that has caused so much irreparable harm to our society. The stake should be driven through the heart of this beast—and now. But it needs to be pointed out that much of the social engineering that encouraged “White Flight” was made at the behest and with the wholesale approval of women—whose ideological tendencies are evident enough in any election cycle.

I think a good deal of white flight was actually not—as many would suggest—a pattern of scared Whites running from Blacks. Rather, there was a legitimate “American Dream” that emerged in the 1950's... with the automobile, cheap gas, a booming economy, and all these soldier boys back home. The idea of having a piece of the countryside—a back-yard to call your own—BBQ'ing with the neighbors, etc.—the typical home in the 'burbs. This was all part of the dream. That it allowed one to get away from the “inner city” problems (to be euphemistic) was a convenient accident. Woman's non-confrontational nature and willingness to live an open lie (i.e., explicitly promoting integration—while living segregation) encouraged her to contribute to the development of and make use of proxies for race, etc.

To suggest men were absent is to ignore the realities that a) men were typically making this facade financially possible; b) were often unable to be more overt in their opposition due to their financial vulnerability (e.g., risk of losing a job in corporate America due to association with politically-unacceptable beliefs); and c) were and remain constantly on the defensive—as the policies (often supported explicitly by their own wives, sisters, and mothers) were expressly intended to disenfranchise THEM.

In my prior article I made reference to the “…religious nature of the Secular Humanism…” that fuels the emotional fervor of the disparate social elements that one might broadly classify as the Left. This is actually a misuse of the term and I should begin this article by correcting myself and acknowledging that I am referring instead to the pastiche of incongruent ideological, moral, cultural, and political elements that should more rightly be defined as Egalitarianism. I posit—and I am not the first to do so— that Egalitarianism is indeed the regnant religion of this era. It is important to grasp that it is, indeed, a religion in order to best understand it and its followers; to comprehend the danger inherent in it; to possibly identify any weaknesses that may be exploited; and to predict its progression through the organic and finite life of such belief systems. I shall begin by establishing the case that Egalitarianism is, indeed, the state religion for the West.

What is Egalitarianism? There is no use in trying to define it as some cogent and definable set of beliefs. It is rather a tumor in the mind of the collective body of Western man, diffuse at the extremities and interconnected with an infinite number of outlying elements—some of which, ironically enough, are actually shared with various elements of Rightist thought. However, the center of the tumor is thick with notions of the overarching equality of men, the outright rejection of even the possibility of natural differences between human populations, convictions of the inherent evil of Whites and especially of white men, sentiments of the moral superiority of colored races and of women, support for the uses of state power to correct inequality wherever it may be found—as its presence can only be the result of the abuses of appropriately colored or sexually oriented groups by the aforementioned white, heterosexual men, conviction in the unquestionable good of “freedom” and “democracy," the importance of tolerance and cultural relativism, and lastly, the firm belief in Progress and the perfectibility of the temporal world. The logical incongruities obvious to even the casual reader between most of these notions—e.g. the idea that all races can at once be completely equal, while at the same time, Whites can be more evil than the others—do not hinder the true believer in the least. Indeed, the faith in these principles, regardless of their inability to coexist in a coherent philosophy, is one of the first indicators of the religious nature of this system of beliefs.

To a significant extent these beliefs—most particularly the notions of the unquestionable equality of man and of the original sin (of the White man in this case)—are ironically inherited from the Christian religion that is to no small degree despised by the modern, secular Egalitarian. It could in fairness be said that modern, secular Egalitarianism is in fact the transmogrification of Christianity into a religion that is now true to its theoretical principles to an extreme degree but that is now paradoxically devoid of its deity in the supernatural sense, the male God-figure having been killed off. What has replaced Him within the context of the religion in question is not entirely clear to me. But certainly one can identify Christ-figures such as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and elements of religious taboo.

Regarding the former, note that the dear reverend is the only man for whom a National Holiday exists in the United States. And this at a time when Easter (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and Christmas (His birth) are themselves becoming completely devoid of acceptable, public religious meaning. With regard to Easter—ostensibly the most important Christian Holiday period—this process is essentially complete. With regard to Christmas, the process has reached such a level of maturity that in many cities of the United States, references to the Tannenbaum as a “Christmas tree” are considered gauche. Anyone who still doubts whether Christianity has been replaced as the State religion of the West need only ask himself one question: Is it more socially acceptable in today’s polite society to be a Satan worshipper or a racist? Marilyn Manson does an entertaining job of pretending to be the former. It would be interesting to see how many albums he would be allowed to sell if he pretended to be the latter.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

This quotation, widely attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, probably has much more pedestrian origins. Nevertheless, it and similar quotes conveying a chronological evolution of the reaction of one’s opponents came to mind when reflecting on the suppression of the last two American Renaissance conventions. These suppressions of freedom to meet and assemble were orchestrated by what are likely a pitifully small handful of pasty, self-hating, White, neo-hippy morons and their ironically ethno-nationalist friends of color. However, reflecting on the history of peaceful and uneventful conferences that had preceded these two, one wonders if this transition from ignorance and derision on the part of the instruments of the Establishment to a position of ambivalence or tacit approval of means of suppression is wholly accidental.

I myself doubt this and I would take the aborted attempt to associate American Renaissance with the deranged Jared Loughner as well as the perversely innovative Deratany lawsuit as examples of a diffuse but intelligible trend towards silencing undesired voices in the West’s political and ideological spectra. Thus, the disruption of the American Renaissance conferences; as well as other disruptive/suppressive events, including antifa chest-thumping about their amazing bravado and derring-do in the face of an elderly, bookish Englishman and a comely lady are examples of an escalation that seems to have tragic, historical parallels.

There are a few things that are notable here: