District of Corruption

Matt Parrott joins Richard to discuss the vulgar spectacle of the Republican primaries and what it means for Radical Traditionalists.

In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?

I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.

Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).

The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.

Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.

What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions.

Not only does LDS culture encourage conventional gender roles and teach traditional sexual morality, but LDS members in America are also overwhelmingly White. And because faithful Mormons tend to have large families, Utah is one of the only places in the world today where White people are actually reproducing in great numbers.

You can almost see the Establishment liberal's arms flailing madly, much like Robby the Robot's, as he contemplates the connotations of such a circumstance. "White, religious, conservative... and fecund too?! Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!!"

Now that one of Mormondom's own is likely to win the GOP's nomination for the presidency, we are probably about to be treated to ever more grotesque displays of our ruling class's deep-seated anti-White effusions. As Richard has pointed out recently, Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness clearly gives our betters an incurable case of the shakes, the sputters, and the willies all at once. It matters little that Romney is in truth a rather bland moderate, who should have no real impact in any significant way on any important issue should he manage to win occupancy of the White House this November. It isn't so much who Romney is, but rather what he represents, that makes writers like Lee Siegel view him as sinister and dangerous.

After all, they remonstrate, just LOOK at the guy! Not only is he square-jawed, well-dressed, and otherwise Aryan-ly and Stepford-husbandly handsome, but get a load of his extended family! Look... just look... at all of those unmistakably, undeniably WHITE children of his! Danger, danger..."

In today's drearily ubiquitous, hysteria-drenched Naziphobic, aggressively multiculturalist heterodoxy, a White politician with a large, attractive, well-heeled all-White family, who adheres to a conservative creed whose co-religionists are also predominantly White, can be little else but a calculating crypto-Fascist, poised to orchestrate a chilling production of Auschwitz, Part Deux: The Finaler Solution, should he manage to wrest power away from the Righteous Mulatto Messiah (Peace be upon him), who now rules us wisely and benevolently from on high.

President Obama, of course, being darker-hued and flatter-nosed, obviously deserves at least four more years in the saddle, or so our betters reflexively think; Herr Hope'n'Change's elegant, eloquent Brownness can save us from the catastrophic racism and genocide sure to commence should Middle American red-state bigots elect Romney, who's obviously up to no good...after all, just look at how White the man is And listen to how White his voice sounds, too!! (Shiver.)

It goes without saying, of course, that the Mormon Church isn't anything close to being a sinister secret cabal of Nordic supremacists seeking world domination. In fact, while the sect is growing by leaps and bounds, a great deal of its growth is taking place in the largely non-White "Third World," primarily Central America, South America, and Polynesian Oceania.

Yet... if we examine the history of the Saints, we do, indeed, find much in their past doctrines that is un-kosher by today's narrowly delineated standards of what meets muster for acceptability in consideration of racial matters. If Romney gets the nomination, as he probably will (once the temporary bump in the road of his South Carolina primary loss gets smoothed over), we can expect to hear ad infinitum how Blacks were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood for most of the Mormon Church's history, as well as how the Book of Mormon's weird account of ancient American pseudo-history pits the noble and civilized Nephites, who were blessed by God by being given "white and delightsome" pigmentation, against the sinful and savage Lamanites, who received divine punishment for their ungodly deeds by being cursed with unattractive and displeasing dark skin. (The wording of these passages has been changed by Church authorities in recent years, in order to tone down the blatant racialist appeal of bygone days.)

The inevitable anti-Romney whispering campaign to come will no doubt include a repeated, insistent drumbeat recitation of these facts regarding Mormon lore, in tandem with a lurid and sensationalistic reminder—as if anyone really needs reminding—of the church's widespread 19th-century practice of the "principle" of plural marriage, a practice still kept alive by many breakaway fundamentalist Mormon church bodies today, and, indeed, one of the reasons for the church population's astonishing fecundity through the years.

Through such shameless demagoguery and fear-mongering, much of the gullible, brainwashed, intellectually stupified electorate—most of whom are, ahem, White—will no doubt be persuaded that Romney's kind just don't belong in the corridors of power, because..."oh, well, because we need cultural diversity, and because Hitler was evil, and because Martin Luther King was good, and because the White cheerleading squad in that movie <i>Bring It On</i> stole their routines from the righteously sassy black girl squad from the inner-city, and because Denzel Washington and Will Smith are so badass, and, because of my internalized and indoctrinated White guilt and White shame are so easily exploited by those who rule over me..."

Thus Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness—the very thing that, unlike his wishy-washy flimflam platform, he can't change about himself—may just ultimately be his undoing. Only in White America!

I’ve read rumors of it for a couple of days; it now appears to be quasi-official—Patrick Buchanan is out at MSNBC . . . or at least his future is decidedly “murky” at the network.

Sarah, Maid of Albion, writes: 

It appears that the new policy of US Cable News channel MSNBC is to punish, and where possible suppress, free speech.¹ Regular conservative contributor, ex adviser to three American presidents and two time presidential election candidate, Pat Buchanan has been permanently suspended and may not be allowed back on air.  MSNBC have taken this action because they do not like what he said in his new book “The Suicide of a Superpower” which analyses and explains the reasons behind the decline of the once great nation of America.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin is quoted as saying : “I don’t think the ideas that Buchanan put forth are appropriate for national dialogue on MSNBC. He won’t be coming back during the book tour.” Asked if Buchanan would be be back at all, Griffin replied “I have not made my decision.” 

The Liberal elite in America is outraged that Buchanan's brilliantly researched book directly links the decline in America's power, the dire state of her economy and near collapse of social cohesion on multiculturalism, mass non-European immigration and shrinking of the white majority. These are views which are an anathema to those who currently have their jackboots on the throats of the Western media, and views which they will go to any length to prevent being expressed, especially by individuals with the profile of Pat Buchanan.

To paraphrase George Orwell, we have reached a point within our society where to speak the truth is an act of revolution, it is an act which puts you and your livelihood at significant risk, because, if you speak the truth the liars and the tyrants will try to crush you. It is no longer just the little man, or woman, who speaks out of turn on a tram or a football terrace who they seek to destroy, they are now going after the titans.

However, we have seen it all before, in the last century and further east, in cultures which were our current leaders spiritual homes, where the truth became a crime, as it is now becoming throughout the west.

It seems easy and trite to say that the Soviet Union did not die, it just moved west, but in fact, in many of the ways that matter, that is the truth.  It is the same beast, it wears a different mask, but the same snarling jaws lurk behind it.

But before we relegate Pat to the history books, it’s worth remembering that he’s weathered countless attempts to to derail his career for the past 20 years—all of which have failed. These include a press-release-per-month issued from the ADL, as well as William F. Buckley’s more equivocal purge (if that’s the right word) in his “search” for anti-Semitism in the early '90s.² Buckley, in one of his many efforts to ingratiate neocons and placate organizations like the ADL, ended up declaring that Pat was not quite an anti-Semite, simply “iconoclastic” . . .  Even this description reveals much about the Conservative Movement’s twin shibboleths of Majority advocacy and Israel, as well as Buckley’s own jealousy. Whatever the case, at the end of the day, Pat was simply too much of a good guy, to much of a friend to Washington insiders, and too much of a serious writer to be purged. So, I wouldn’t bet against Pat overcoming this latest turn of events.

If the Beltway and New York media do succeed in collectively shunning Pat, however, we will have entered a new phase of PC (and Majority dispossession.)

From a cynical standpoint, one might say that Pat wasn’t just tolerated by the mainline media for his experience and political acumen; he was kept on board as one of the last avatars of a traditional, Christian, and European America—if only to capture a particular viewing demographic and give Rachel Maddow something to express righteous liberal outrage over.

The absence of Pat would mean that the mainline media no longer tolerate a single voice that projects traditionalism and Majority nationalism. Not a hint. Nothing. Nada. (In such a case, we’re lucky that Pat’s book and writings remain.) 

Thinking about Pat’s significance in the mainstream, I’m left with this thought. In 2001, Pat warned White Americans about demographic displacement and a general cultural decline. In 2011, Pat sounded the same themes; in many ways, Suicide of a Superpower was a sequel or reworking of the earlier volume.

In the decade that separates the two books, NOTHING WAS DONE.

The self-styled “Conservative Movement,” with which Pat identified throughout his early years, engaged in Middle East war-mongering for democracy and other pointless pursuits. No serious pro-White movement arose in response to Buchanan’s dire warnings—or at least none was successful.

A third “Death/Suicide” volume in 2021 probably would be greeted with less outrage than confused contempt. The Brazil-America of the foreseeable future—one with a large-and-growing African and Hispanic underclasses, an egalitarian civic creed, and an increasingly totalitarian state—will, no doubt, exist under dramatically reduced economic circumstances. But there’s no reason to believe that it would be any less self-confident and nationalistic than the country is today. Such a nation would view Pat’s defense of a paleo-America not as "conservative" and "right-wing"—but as heretical and absurd. At some point, Barack Obama and Rihanna will replace Davy Crocket and Vince Lombardi as representatives of the real America.  

______ 

1 — I don’t want to quibble with dear Sarah, but it’s not really an issue of “free speech.” MSNBC is a private entity that can air what it pleases. Certainly, if we were in charge of major media outlets, we’d be “suppressing free speech” left and right—and featuring programming like Jonathan Bowden on Everything, The James Edwards Channel, and our daily soap opera, As the World Eternally Recurs. The issue is political correctness.

2 — Clearly, Buckley wanted to re-orient National Review towards the neocons and their patrons. The magazine did, however, endorse Pat in '92, no doubt, at the behest of then-editor John O'Sullivan.  

On Saturday, December 10, 20,000 people gathered for a mass rally in Moscow; they were protesting alleged fraud in the December 4 parliamentary elections. Some of the allegations were mathematical in nature.

The Washington Post reports: 

"Obviously, he [Putin] doesn’t agree with Gauss,” one commenter wrote, referring to pioneering mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss, who lived 200 years ago. Disenchanted Russians argue that United Russia’s reported election results are so improbable as to violate Gauss’s groundbreaking work on statistics.

The article does not say what exactly the problem with the election result is and what work of Gauss is relevant. It only says that he lived 200 years ago. This should be enough to trigger an alert, as science has advanced a bit over the past 200 years . . .

I decided to take a closer look at the allegations. 

In the piece entitled “Mathematics against Election Committee: Gauss against Churov [the head of the committee],” a blogger complains that the distribution of the percentage of the vote for the United Russia Party among election precincts is “non-Gaussian.” This, he writes, is evidence of election fraud because Gaussian distribution arises “always . . . in every case, when there is not one factor, but many”:

Whatever is measured in large quantities. Make a plot of how many millions of men in the country have the height of 165, 170, 175 centimeters and so on—and you will also get a symmetric bell curve with the top corresponding to the most typical height in the country. 

If you do not know what the Gaussian distribution is, the blogger gave a good example: distribution of people by height. Most men are of average height; the greater the deviation from the average, the smaller the number of men. There are some very tall people, but none of them is twice the average height.

The heights of people are definitely Gaussian-distributed, but what about incomes? They are influenced by many factors and measured in large quantities. However, they are distributed as if most people were 170 centimeters tall, but often you would meet a three-meter guy. Rarely you would encounter a five-meter man, more rarely—a ten-meter one. Sometime, from a distance, you would see a hundred-meter person. And there would be several hundred-kilometer chaps in the country. This distribution is very far from Gaussian, but for some reason it does not attract the wrath of our mathematicians, or our Berezovskies. 

The banner says “We don’t trust Churov [the head of Election committee]! We trust Gauss."

In a recent article in Significance, I argued that since there are so many distributions in nature and society that are not Gaussian, there is no reason to believe that vote distributions must be. To support this conclusion, I gave a mathematical model, which produces a non-Gaussian distribution of the percent of votes for a party among election precincts. 

A commentator challenged me to show non-Gaussian distributions in U.S. elections.

I took up the challenge.

I decided to look at 2008 Republican primaries (mostly because this was the last election I voted in). The primaries differ from national elections, as different states hold votes on different dates. Moreover, some candidate drop out during the process. All of this complicates the analysis. But 21 states do hold elections on the same day, “Super Tuesday.” Since almost half of the nation votes on this day, the elections function like a national primary.

The most complete elections results database I could find is Dave Leip's “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.” It does not have precinct-level results for the election in question, but its results are listed by county for 19 out of 21 Super Tuesday states (the exceptions being Alaska and North Dakota). I computed the distribution of the percentage of the vote for four major candidates among 1,162 counties.

As you can see in Figure 1, Mike Huckabee's distribution has two equal peaks at 15 and 35 percent. The drop between peaks is half the peaks' height. John McCain's distribution has one peak at 35 percent and another at 80 percent. Between these peaks, the distribution drops almost to zero. Mitt Romney has one peak at 25 percent and another at 90 percent. Ron Paul has an exponential distribution.

Apparently, American elections also “violate Gauss’s groundbreaking work on statistics.” (The least you could say is that these distributions are no more “Gaussian” than the distributions observed in Russian elections ( Figure 2).) 

Figure 1. The results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries in 19 Super Tuesday states. The distribution of the percentage of the votes for four major candidates among 1,162 counties. I used a 5 percent bin. All counties with the vote for the candidate of no more than 5 percent went to the first “5 percent” bin. Those with the vote of more than 5 percent but no more than 10 percent went to the second “10 percent” bin, and so on.

Figure 2. 2011 Russian parliamentary elections. The distribution of the percentage of the votes for parties among election precincts. The x-axis shows percentage of votes for the party; the y-axis—the number of precincts. The bin is 0.5 percent. The Brown line is for United Russia, Red—Communist party, Green—Russian United Democratic Party "Yabloko," Black—Liberal Democratic Party, Blue—A Just Russia. This picture traveled across hundreds of blogs during the past couple of weeks.

Another issue brought up by the bloggers is that there are spurious peaks at 50 percent and other multiples of 5 (see Figure 2). But when you examine precinct-level results, you notice that in many precincts, very few people voted, as little as one person in some of them (!). When two, four, six, eight, or 10 people vote, you can easily get a result of 50 percent, and never 49 or 51 percent.

The database mentioned above has precinct-level statistics for the 2000 U.S. presidential elections in California. In Figure 3, I plotted the distributions of the percentages of the vote among election precincts. You can see obvious peaks at 50 percent in both Al Gore's and George W. Bush's distributions. There are also less pronounced peaks at 20, 25, 60, and 75 percent. However, there are other obvious peaks at 34 percent (1/3) and 67 percent (2/3). These, obviously came from the precincts where three (or another small divisible of three) people voted. (I do not see such peaks in Russian election results. This problem requires additional study.)

Note also, that the distributions in Figure 3 are far from Gaussian. If there is something resembling a bell curve in Figure 3, this is a combined curve made up of Gore's distribution below 50 percent and Bush's distribution above 50 percent. If I use the same methods of “proof” used by the bloggers to allege large-scale fraud in the Russian elections, I can “prove” that Gore stole millions of votes from Bush in California! Surely, the Washington Post would want to report on this! Of course, such “proofs” are nonsense, since the distributions should not necessarily be Gaussian in the first place.

It's worth pointing out that my study does not prove that the recent Russian elections were honest. It does, however, prove that in making the case that the Russian elections were fake, the bloggers used fake math.

Figure 3. Results of 2000 presidential elections in California. The distribution of the percentage of the vote for three main candidates among 21,970 precincts. I used a 1 percent bin.

Back in 2008 I was excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy in the then forthcoming presidential elections.

His formula appealed to my individualism and my loathing for the system of fiscal predation and debt slavery. I also liked his rejection of neo-conservative foreign policy and his apparent rejection of America’s colonisation by Third World peoples.

I did not think he would fix everything, but he seemed a step forward.

Things look different in 2012.

I now think a Ron Paul presidency would accelerate existing trends, even if he successfully reformed the monetary system and ended America’s foreign wars.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve, rebasing the dollar, and ending wasteful wars, and government programmes would be a good step towards putting the American economy on a sounder footing.

To truly achieve this, however, he would have to decree a debt amnesty and institute a neo-mercantilist economy based on savings, investment, manufacturing, and exports.

And this, whether because of ideology or because of its impracticability, I doubt he would be able to do. At least within his allocated four years.

Yet this is not the main problem.

The main problem is the fact that, as a rationalist believer in free markets and sovereign individualism, he represents not fundamental change, but rather a more pure expression of the worldview that led the United States to its present predicament.

Americans suffer today not because they abandoned these values, but because they pursued them like no one else.

Ron Paul has grass-roots support because in American terms he is traditional. On the surface, his outlook is materialistic and secular, and the latter would appear untraditional; but this is not so, for his is a materialist theology, and in this sense he is consistent with both the English ethic of capitalism and Karl Marx, with whom he shares a common ideological origin.

Moreover, we can also conceive his campaigning brand of economism as a form of evangelical puritanism.

Ron Paul’s quantitative conception of life relies on rational arguments and empirical evidence, not on transcendent authority or spirituality, or millenarian tradition.

The modern secular bias may see this as a strength, but it is a weakness: arguments can be defeated with other arguments, data with other data. It is always possible to produce both abundantly in support of any point of view, irrespective of their relationship with the empirical world.

The radical Left has been doing this successfully for decades and having the data against has made no difference to the reigning intellectual paradigm.

Many think Ron Paul is anti-establishment because he attacks the Federal Reserve and wants to reduce the size of government. This is to ignore that the establishment has multiple facets, and his represents one that looks like change simply because it has not been dominant for a while and the popular imagination associates it with a time of prosperity.

And I say imagination, rather than memory, because many of Paul’s supporters are young and they were not around when government was small, money was sound, and taxes were low.

Many have turned to Ron Paul because, believing him to be anti-establishment, he is appealing in a time of instability, when it is clear the dominant paradigm has failed.

Yet, like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Ron Paul’s quantitative, rationalist, individualist outlook makes sense only in prosperous, stable, racially homogeneous societies.

In times of austerity, instability, and racial heterogeneity it poses an existential threat because the collectivism and authoritarian bias of competing non-White groups enable them better to exploit the opportunities opened to them by crises and uncertainty.

The White man wants to have a civilised reasoned debate, but neither Blacks nor Hispanics are interested in that.

As Jared Taylor amply illustrated in White Identity, Blacks want and practice Black Power, Hispanics want and practice Brown Power—legal or illegal, logical or illogical, whatever advances their cause, rationality, civility, equality, constitutionality, history, or logical consistency be damned.

What is more, the Anglo-American White is an island, fiercely concerned with his independence. He resists group memberships and when he does accept them they are always loose, distant, contingent, expedient relationships based on legal, contractual, or philosophical abstractions. In contrast, the coloured man from everywhere else is much more ready to combine with others of his kin, and the relationship is nearly always essential, biological, inescapable, not soluble through argumentation.

In times of crisis and uncertainty, Whites argue with each other, while the 'wretched of the Earth' unite against them.

Worse still, in times of crisis and uncertainty, people have demonstrated quite willing and capable of sacrificing freedom in exchange for security.

Thus, crises and uncertainty benefit whoever is more rigid, harsh, and intolerant, since authority and strength, or at least its appearance, provide a sense of security, and security is always preferable to uncertainty even when that security is unpleasant.

With his grandfatherly manner, open, free-for-all proposition, Ron Paul’s ideological purity would be no match for the brutal disturbances ahead.

In fact, since the crisis we face already means every White man for himself, squared, Paul would sanction the very condition that opens the way for a more frank and ruthless level of racial and economic predation.

It would be every White man for himself, cubed.

And every coloured man for his collective, also cubed.

In some ways, the Ron Paul phenomenon represents an act of denial: the tacit wish that things are not as far gone as they seem and that by electing the right Republican candidate, a return to traditional American values of small government, sound money, free markets, and sovereign individualism will put America back on course. It also represents the erroneous belief that America has ended up where it is because it went off course, when in reality it is where it is because it is exactly on course.

What we are witnessing is not a deviation, but a fulfillment of potentialities that go back even before the founding of the Republic.

Having said this, Americans desiring change would do well not to ignore Ron Paul or the tactical value of his campaign, for with his grass-roots support he offers an opportunity to attack the system from within, even if he represents a puritanical expression of the system.

The attacks on him by establishment opponents amount to more than a squabble between two Leftist factions, even if that is what it is, for they imply a recognition by the reigning establishment faction that he represents the thin end of a wedge able to operate on an area of shared discontent between an ill-informed public and the non-authorised, alternative Right.

The Ron Paul campagin against the Fed, war on Iran, neo-conservatism, big government, and the nanny state provide popular, socially acceptable critiques that contribute to weaken and discredit the dominant faction. In turn, he provides a popular but weak alternative made inappropriate by the ever-worsening crisis.

The reigning faction both fails to understand how Ron Paul could benefit them in the long run and fears, correctly, that a free-for-all opens the way for fundamental change in our direction. After all, free-for-all conditions, laissez faire competition, also opens the way for non-authorised factions to act without restriction.

From this standpoint Ron Paul offers both denial and possibility.

Ron Paul has a real chance of winning next week’s Iowa caucuses. And not surprisingly “the Smearbund” (as Murray Rothbard termed it) has returned—along with discussion of those newsletters, which have haunted the Congressman for 15 years.

The GOP establishment will tolerate Paul so long as he remains a folksy and charming long-shot. (He’s even useful in that he keeps Constitution-thumping die-hards within the Republican fold.) But the second it looks like the man might actually win, the gloves come off.

To be sure, most of the smears of Paul’s brand of Old-Right libertarianism are unfair and ungrounded; and they usually amount to a variation on theme—“You don’t want to invade [Insert Middle Eastern Country], ergo you endorse [Insert cruel dictator]! Such logic is invariably accompanied by allusions to Hitler, “the lessons of Munich,” yadayadayada. (This past week Dorothy Rabinowitz shrieked that Paul is a “propagandist for our enemies.”)

That being said, the claim that Paul’s newsletters from the ‘90s are “racist” (at least as that word is commonly defined) is, in fact, quite fair.

One can defend most of what is written on libertarian, non-racial grounds, as Justin Raimondo did in his powerful 2008 piece from Takimag. But the fact remains that the newsletters were “racist” in the sense that race is real—it has a remarkable analytic and predictive capacity—and the newsletter authors (whoever they might be) were willing to “go there.”

The central irony of "The Majority Strategy" (what VDARE calls "The Sailer Strategy" and what could be called "The Francis Strategy") is that the GOP has been winning elections by means of it for years, while denouncing it and even consciously trying to undermine it. In other words, the GOP is the White People's Party, whether it likes it or not.  And it will win in its current form so long as America's historic Majority believes (corectly or not) that the Party stands for its interests.  

The Democrats also have a winning forumla; it's called "The Minority Strategy." Quite unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are willing to talk about their Strategy.  

The Future of the Obama Coalition

New York Times

By Thomas B. Edsel

November 27, 2011

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

The implication of an explicit Minority Strategy and implicit, unspeakable Majority Strategy is that no White ruling coalition will  be allowed to exist in these United States.  

Herman Cain had something like a “Palin moment” in an interview released yesterday by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

According to his campaign, he was going on little sleep… Jet-lagged or not, it’s obvious that Cain was ignorant of the most basic facts regarding Washington’s latest foreign intervention. But who could blame him? One gets the sense that, much as with his time spent on the Federal Reserve Board—and much as with the many Blacks appointed as CEOs to fulfill Rainbow quotas in the new South Africa—Cain has come a long way repeating mindless catchphrases that White people like to hear.

There’s also no reason to believe that a revelation that the candidate knows precious little about world affairs will derail the Cain phenomenon—which is much bigger than details like whom Washington was fighting in its last war. 

Matt Parrott:

The insecure and self-conscious Whites fear that their own animosity towards Obama might be racist—but Cain’s animosity can’t be . . . because he’s Black! The Tea Party’s cardinal agenda is to thwart ongoing efforts by Cosmic America to redistribute White America’s wealth and privilege: It’s integrally racist and pro-White. Cain absolves White America of the dissonance they’ve been trained to experience when taking their own side in a fight . . . because he’s Black! 

The BBC reports:

Next month the Dutch parliament is expected to approve a ban on halal and kosher methods of slaughtering animals for food.

Those who proposed the ban say it is simply an issue of animal welfare, but it received strong support from the right-wing Freedom Party.

Many see it as a violation of their religious freedom, and among the Jewish community it is a worrying echo of a similar ban brought in by Hitler.

One of the Muslims interviewed moaned that the Dutch desire Muslims to be Muslims at home, but not in society. I think that is correct. And, what is more, I venture that many would also define 'home' as 'not in the Netherlands'—meaning, overseas, far away, where the Muslims came from originally and ought to have remained.

It is disappointing that the Nethelands' chief Rabbi, Benjamin Jacobs, hauls in Hitler and the Holocaust to bolster his complaint (see video in the BBC report). Could he not have voiced his displeasure without doing that?

Be that as it may, this ban on halal butchery shows what is still possible to achieve in contemporary politics, despite the state-sponsored policies of immigration and multiculturalism.

Animal welfare has preoccupied both the liberals and traditionalists, and because this common ground exists, it has been possible for anti-immigration politicians to use arguments processable by their opponents to slow down the damage caused… by their opponents.

This is not the only example of how the very ideology of the Left can be turned against them—with Leftists' approval.

Another has been criticism of Israel's human rights record, which has resulted in academic boycotts of Israel. Although progress on that front has been somewhat slow.

Yet another should be opposition to the debt racket ran by the banksters of Goldman Sachs and their ilk. There have been screams of disgust from both extremes of the political spectrum, but no tactical coalition has been formed in order to achieve fundamental reform in this area.

I bears noting, however, that policies or practices that indirectly exclude non-European immigrants and their descendants are, from the point of view of tactical politics, not entirely reliable, and ought to be formulated with care.

In December 2005, for example, Soulidarieta, a charity group with alleged links to Identity Bloc, began distributing pork soup to the needy at locations close to soup kitchens. Alsace Solidarity launched a similar initiative in Strasbourg a few weeks later. The traditional soup was designated 'Identity Soup' by its chefs.

Within less than two months officials banned the handouts in Strasbourg and the police closed down offending soup kitchens Paris. This, at the urging of an anti-racism group, the rather Orwellian Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, whose lobbyists urged the then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to impose a country-wide ban.

Strasbourg's mayor, alerted to the racial subtext, pontificated: 'Schemes with racial subtexts must be denounced'.

The weakness of this scheme was that the Left does not care about traditional cuisine or traditional anything, the way that they think they care about things like animal welfare and human rights. Thus, although the anti-racists' complaint was eventually rejected in the courts, it was easy initially to impose a ban. 

It seems it has been less easy to argue against banning halal butchery, even if there is a racial subtext, when animal welfare is concerned. Note that a supporter of the Dutch ban is Marianne Thieme's Party for Animals, a party that for modern standards is considered to be of the 'centre-Left'.

Perhaps there are lessons for identity politicians here.

MacMillan has made available to us an excerpt of Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower audiobook. The atmosphere in this recording is, as you may expect, dark, grim, apocalyptic—one cannot help but imagine how this will sound on the other side of the catastrophe, once what we know today and once knew is gone, and this audio, surviving perhaps in fragments, found in some archeological site, petrified but somehow partially recovered and translated, provides the titans of the next manvantara with a glimpse of what it must have been like for people in the vanished American civilisation to live in the final slope of the Kali-Yuga.

You can hear the clip here.