When Spengler wrote about Cæsarism as a manifestation of decline in a mature civilisation, and later when Francis Parker Yockey wrote about the ‘resurgence of Authority’ in ‘the Age of Absolute Politics’, most imagined a future where liberal democracy in the West gave way to some form of fascism.

It turns out that this view is also shared by egalitarians.

Julian Savulescu, of Oxford University’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, argues that the human biological and psychological makeup is incompatible with the type of society we live in and that unless we find ways genetically to enhance our species humanity faces extinction within the next one hundred years. Humans are overly aggressive and tend to favour the short-term over the long-term. In his view, to avert disaster we will need to reduce our commitment to liberalism, engage in more extensive surveillance of individuals, emphasise moral education, and adopt long-term strategies, as opposed to strategies centred on quarterly profit reports or election cycles. Among the long-term strategies he advocates the use of drugs on embryos to suppress psychopathic tendencies and further down the line eugenics to do the same and breed more intelligent and peaceful humans.

Such as position would not be at all out of kilter with Lothrop Stoddard or David Starr Jordan.

Where Savulescu differs from his predecessors in the eugenics movement is that his conception of morality is in line with our egalitarian cultural climate. A study funded by his centre, led by philosophy doctoral student Sylvia Terbeck, co-authored by him, and published in the Psychopharmacology journal, reports the results of experiments conducted with White subjects who were tested for racial bias while on Propranolol, a drug normally used for heart disease, anxiety, and panic. The study showed that the drug suppressed racial bias.

News sources yesterday were ablaze with jubilation at the thought that a cure for racism may be in the pipeline.

Yet, as I pointed out elsewhere (click to read more about the study), it is curious that, as seems usual with experiments involving racial bias, the subjects where all White, and that we know not of any follow-up study, or plans for one, to test the effects of the drugs on racial bias among people of colour.

You can see where this is going.

So long as we see no further studies involving racially diverse subjects, we will be justified in thinking that in a cultural climate that is egalitarian, the Age of Absolute Politics means Whites medicated for their racial consciousness.

It may be that Savulescu’s brand of liberal fascism envisions all humans cured of their racial consciousness, but we can take it for granted that a eugenic programme designed to breed a high-IQ, docile Homo equalis will not be adopted worldwide. It will be adopted by Western nations only, and since racial consciousness is deemed a psychopathology exclusive to Whites, Western governments will target us White folk for a cure to our Whiteness. One can imagine the drug, or a variant of it, being first tried, and then required, in 'institutionally racist' organisations with an overwhelming majority of Whites, such as the police. 

Our bread already comes fortified, and our running water already comes fluoridated, these having been deemed by governments in the West positive measures designed to improve health. Are we now to expect a future where Whiteness is actively bred out, first by means of anti-'racist' drugs in our food or water supply, and later through genetic engineering?

It seems a new front has opened in the race war.

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!

Richard Spencer joins James Edwards on "The Political Cesspool" radio program to discuss "The Majority Strategy" and The National Policy Institute's upcoming conference.

Registration for "Towards a New Nationalism" can be completed here.  

The chart Spencer references: 

Spencer's discussion of these data, "Evangelicals and Immigration," can be read here.  

Peter Brimelow's discussion of John McCain's share of the White vote can be read here.  

Recent discussion about the Royal Wedding here in the United Kingdom reminded me of a very different—and perhaps even more extraordinary—kind of wedding, about which I learned round about this time last year. It gave one much to think about, eliciting a wide range of feelings. I reproduce below the article that appeared in the Daily Mail:

My Masai Mr Right: Why is this middle-class woman giving up a life of luxury to live in a mud hut with an African warrior?

By Kathryn Knight

Like many young women in love, Colette Armand believes she was hit by a coup de foudre when she first saw her future husband. 'The attraction was instant,' she says. 'We had an immediate connection.'

Photographs testify to the strength of their bond, showing a beaming young couple clearly delighted by each other's company.

That, however, is where the conventional nature of their romance ends. For Colette's intended is a Masai warrior whose home is a mud hut on the vast African plains.

Meitkini's tribe have no possessions and no running water, and their food is either plucked from the ground or killed with a spear.

Nonetheless, after a courtship of three years, Colette, 24, is preparing to abandon all the comforts of her western lifestyle to join her life permanently with his  -  even though, to date, she hasn't shared so much as a kiss with her 23-year-old fiance, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between men and women who aren't married.

What's more, she has to accept that, in the future, she may have to share her husband with other women, as Masai tradition permits any number of wives.

'In time I may have to accept that he will marry again,' she says. 'I hope he chooses not to take another wife, but if not then I will compromise.'

Colette admits that she never expected her life to end up on such an unusual path.

The daughter of a nurse and a businessman, her father's job, as director of a large mining company, took the family all over the world.

Academically gifted, at 17 she was studying literature at the Sorbonne in Paris. At 21, disillusioned with her studies and with a failed romance behind her, she decided to take a gap year  -  'I realised I needed to have an adventure and try and find myself.

 

'I had always wanted to go to Africa, so I found a job working for an organisation that runs orphanages in Kenya,' she says.

 

'In the space of a week I quit my studies, withdrew all my savings and got on a flight to Nairobi. I didn't tell anyone what I was doing, except my mum, who was hysterical. She thought I was throwing away all my hard work. But I'd made up my mind.'

So, within 24 hours, Colette had swapped the comfort of her apartment for a rug on the
Meitkini's tribe have no possessions and no running water, and their food is either plucked from the ground or killed with a spear.

Nonetheless, after a courtship of three years, Colette, 24, is preparing to abandon all the comforts of her western lifestyle to join her life permanently with his  -  even though, to date, she hasn't shared so much as a kiss with her 23-year-old fiance, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between men  floor of the orphanage, which had no electricity nor running water.

'Yes, it was basic, but the funny thing was that I felt instantly at home,' she says. 'Working with the children helped give me perspective. Most of them had been abandoned because they were disabled, which was very humbling.'

Among them was Mumbe, a nine-year-old boy who, prior to Colette's arrival, had never spoken a word. 'One day, he turned to me and said "mummy",' she recalls. 'It was a huge shock, and everyone at the orphanage thought I had magical healing properties.'

So much so that word spread, and a few days later, one of Colette's supervisors told her that the head of a local Masai tribe wanted to meet her. The tribe lived several hours drive away over dusty, uneven terrain.

'When I got there I was taken to meet the chief, Kehmini, who was incredibly welcoming. I was lucky that the tribe spoke quite good English, so I could communicate well. Kehmini then invited me to stay, and showed me to a hut that would be my home while I was there,' she recalls. 

Even after the privations of the orphanage, her first night was spent in insomniac discomfort. 'There are no doors on the hut, so I was terrified a snake would slither in,' she recalls. 'I lay there listening to every movement.'

The next morning she was further shocked by the harsh realities of life in the Masai. 'The only water came from a small muddy tributary that's home to snakes and crocodiles,' says Colette. 'I was too scared to bathe, so I had to resort to having a makeshift wash in water boiled on the fire  -  which is what I ended up doing for months to come.' 

Nonetheless, she quickly grew to love the simple rhythm of life with the tribe. 'A typical day starts at 4am and ends at 6pm, when everyone sits around the campfire, and cooks and talks. You go to sleep at seven. In the morning, the men go out hunting and the women look after the children and work in the fields. The beauty of sitting under a vast African moon by the campfire, or watching the sun rise over the plain, is hard to describe.'

The tribe quickly took her to their heart, and after two weeks Colette was told the community had decided to sacrifice a goat as a welcoming gift  -  a huge honour.

'They slaughtered it in front of me, which was horrible, then put its warm blood in a cup for me to drink. It tasted disgusting, but I had to do it as I would have hugely offended them otherwise. I just closed my eyes and tried not to be sick.'

On other occasions, it was animal life of a different kind that was hard to stomach. 'One night I left the hut in the small hours to answer the call of nature, only to see a black mamba snake rearing its head just a few feet away. They are deadly, and I was terrified. My screams woke the whole camp, and men came running with sticks and managed to carry it away. I was still very shaken.'

But for all these privations, Colette soon realised she had no desire to leave  -  a feeling enhanced when, a few days later, she first saw her future husband while she was picking coffee beans in the fields. 'Meitkini was the chief's brother, but I hadn't seen him before as he'd been away hunting for several weeks. When I first saw him he was striding towards me carrying a lion he had helped kill, and he looked like this incredibly masculine force. I was smitten.

Later, when I was introduced to him by the chief and we started talking, it was like speaking to my double. He was clever and articulate, and there was an immediate connection. From then on I was in love.'

Meitkini, she says, felt the same way, but Masai relationships do not adhere to the same conventions as they do in the West. 'The Masai don't marry for love but for power and social position, so it is a slightly alien concept. It was a long time before we were able to acknowledge our feelings for each other, and we couldn't express them physically, as Masai rules forbid physical contact between unmarried men and women. It was frustrating, but I had to respect their culture. I was a visitor and it would have been a gross insult to behave any other way.'

Instead, Colette waited, hoping the tribe would grow to trust her. 'Five months later, Kehmini told me the community had accepted me and would be happy for me to live there permanently. It was a huge honour.'

Yet there was one final hurdle to overcome  -  Colette felt an overwhelming urge to finish her studies back home before she could commit to her new life in Kenya. 'It was tough because I loved him, but the intellectual side of me wanted fulfilment too.' Colette recalls.

'I talked to Meitkini about it and he told me he would wait for me.' Matters came to a head when, in October 2008, with civil unrest sweeping the country, a passing UNESCO charity worker told her that, as a white woman, she was in huge danger and urged her to leave Kenya for a while. 'I was scared but also upset  -  I didn't want to leave Meitkini, but he said I should take the chance to return to England and study for a while. There were a lot of tears.'

But there were happier tidings too: before she left, the tribe's chief gave Colette and Meitkini his blessing to marry. 'He said the whole tribe felt something special had happened between us and that we were destined to be together.'

Colette returned to England, moving in with friends into a small flat in south-east London, and quickly being accepted onto her PhD course. But life in the West no longer felt familiar.

'For three weeks, I barely left my room. I felt like a stranger in my own culture  -  the sheer noise of city life gave me a splitting headache. I realised I now thought of Africa as my home, and I was determined to go back.'

Unsurprisingly, her conviction has proved incomprehensible to many of her friends, who cannot grasp why Colette wants to turn her back on the luxuries of western life. 'Obviously, some of them have found it hard to understand  -  they just cannot conceive of what my life is like there. At the same time they can clearly see how happy I am, and none of them have tried to talk me out of it,' she says.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of her mother, who is still unable to accept Colette's decision and remains estranged from her daughter. (Her father's opinion isn't known, as he walked out on her mother when Colette was 12, and hasn't seen his daughter since.) 'The fact that I'm going to marry a Masai is a scandal in the family and, as a result, she and I don't speak. It's sad, but we're very different people,' she says.

And so Colette is making the final plans for her wedding. It will be a two-day affair, with Masai travelling from miles around to celebrate their union, and an ox slaughtered in honour of the happy couple. That, however, is where the festivities will end, and afterwards Colette will be back in the fields at dawn, planting grain or harvesting coffee beans.

'It's a simple life, and one that would be anathema to most people in the West, but it makes me happy,' she says. 'I have no problem with giving up my western ways. When I'm there I feel so alive and free. Living with the tribe has taught me to live in the present. It taught me what matters.'

I wonder how she is doing now . . .

America’s historic majority isn’t actually more enamoured with laissez-faire capitalism than other peoples around the world, or more “Center Right,” as is commonly asserted. What is unusual about White Americans is that some 50 percent of them consider themselves “middle class.” (This number is, no doubt, significantly higher among those who vote regularly and are politically engaged.)

Whatever the details of their demands, the fundamental cause of the recent protests in Wisconsin is the growing recognition among the American Middle that the lifestyle to which they are accustomed—think a house in the ‘burbs, a reliable pension or 401k, and the ability to live it up on easy credit—is vanishing before their eyes. (The fact that the state of Illinois, for instance, is financing its pensions with new debt issuances reveals the total unsustainability of “set for life” employment.)

In this way, the public-sector employees who have taken to the streets over the past 10 days have quite a bit in common with the Tea Party, despite the two being cast as sworn enemies by the media—the lazy free loaders vs. the Astroturf of corporate capitalism. Both the Tea Party and the Wisconsin phenomena represent genuine, grassroots protest movements of Whites caught somewhere between the stages of denial, anger, and bargaining in mourning the death of their “American Dream.”

As part of a series of interviews I have been conducting elsewhere with dissidents involved with writing and publishing, I have conducted a major interview with Professor Kevin MacDonald. 

Much has been written about him, but all of it, and even what he has written about himself, has focused on his intellectual background and current thinking on ethnic competition, immigration, twentieth century Jewish intellectual movements, and Leftist bias in Western academia. I wanted to find out more about the man behind the monster. What is it like to be a controversial professor? What is he like as a person? What about his pre-academic life? In his replies, we discover many previously unknown facts about Professor MacDonald, we obtain something closer to a full-length portrait of the man, and are even treated to never-previously-seen photographic images from his past. Whether you are a friend or a foe, what you will find there will illuminate, enlighten, and entertain—not to mention shatter some popular misconceptions. You can read the interview here.

One of the great ironies of what Peter Brimelow calls the “Sailer Strategy”—the idea that to win, to the GOP should expand its support within White America and not worry about the much-hyped “new demographic”—is that it is already working, in spite of the designs of the Republican leadership.

Every year, the GOP falls over itself with “outreach” efforts to Blacks and Latinos, each new program more embarrassing than the last. And yet at election time, the GOP relies on White, Middle America to send its gaggle of cowards, sociopaths, neocons, and used-car salesmen back to Washington.

This irony leads me to conclude that the phenomenon Peter and Steve describe bodes quite poorly for White America. As the White vote—particularly the White, male vote—becomes more and more reliable, the Republican Party (as it’s currently constituted) would seemingly become less and less likely to do anything on White people’s behalf, like halt mass immigration.  “Taking back America” will essentially mean the opportunity to hoot and howler at the TV set as a FOX News blonde announces the latest round of Republican victories; it will not mean White Protestant hegemony, or even smaller government.

[The tenth in a series on inclusiveness. Read parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX.]

I've said that inclusiveness has a religious quality. To say it is a kind of religion is not to say it works well as one. Religion defines the place of man in the world, but inclusiveness reflects the modern outlook, which has difficulty dealing with such issues. It likes unitary theories that lead to clear conclusions, so it tries to dissolve the world into man or man into the world. Neither makes sense, so moderns--including liberals--oscillate between the two and settle on neither.

Cartesian egos

At bottom, liberalism views the individual person as the Cartesian ego--a disembodied subject with no qualities other than the ability to have experiences and make choices. If we accept that understanding, and view the external world from the radically subjective standpoint that results, it becomes something we construct from our sensations for the sake of our goals.

Such an understanding affects our attitude toward the world. It makes every particular tie to things outside ourselves seem an intrusion that has somehow gotten hold of us and is dragging us down. The result is a compulsion to destroy attachments that make claims on us. Hence the need for sexual liberation, abolition of social roles, mass third-world immigration, multiculturalism, and so on. Society must be destroyed as a network of particular persons and relationships in a particular setting and turned into an abstract neutral schema for the satisfaction of desire.

The role of the other

The matter cannot rest there, because the Cartesian ego is so odd philosophically. It is not part of the world of experience, and it is unclear how something with no positive qualities could be embodied. The result is difficulty understanding our place in the world. Am I the only reality, because the subjective outlook is so privileged, or am I not real at all, because I have no enduring tangible qualities or connections? With respect to ourselves, such difficulties lead to insecurity, narcissism, and identity crises. With respect to other people, they lead to an obsession with the non-Western other.

Non-Westerners are defined as such by the fact they do not have the free-floating Cartesian ego as their self-understanding. Since they do not view themselves in that way, they can be seen as embodied and part of the world of experience. That gives them a very special though ambiguous significance. From one perspective the Cartesian outlook turns whites into abstractions who hardly exist at all, while nonwhites remain vibrant concrete realities. From another, it makes nonwhites a colorful background--part of the Stuff White People Like--that accessorizes the narcissism of white liberal Cartesians. There is no way within the liberal outlook to choose between the two, so particular liberals flop back and forth depending on mood and circumstances.

Horizontal transcendence

The problem often takes a religious form. The absorption of traditional religion by inclusiveness reflects in part an effort to maintain religious values in a scientistic world. In such a world God is unthinkable, so people fall back on themselves. Their concerns and desires are what they know--indeed, they are That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived--so why not treat them as divine?

The problem is that radical self-centeredness is not a satisfactory religion. We need a moral and spiritual order beyond ourselves that enables us to place ourselves and make sense of our situation. One possible solution is horizontal transcendence: standing in awe before other people as ineffably and unclassifiably other, disclosing to us a reality that cannot be reduced to our own purposes and categories, and imposing peremptory moral obligations on us through their needs and desires.

On such a view, those most radically other than ourselves become natural exemplars of the holy. However, the solution is unstable because in fact the non-Western other is evidently no more holy than we are. One can respect someone's good qualities and human dignity, but it is silly to overlook whatever flaws and limitations he has, or take him more seriously than ourselves or those to whom we have a more immediate connection.

Once again, the outcome is a messy compromise, this one between self-involvement and sentimentality about third-world peasants. Something of the sort is a very common solution among spiritually-inclined liberals, especially those among them who find it natural to express their souls in peasant-themed home decor, fashion accessories, and cooking styles.

Paleocons and other traditionalists have been saying this for decades: Westerners are more altrusitic and trusting than other kinds of people. Now there is science to prove this. The article mostly concentrates on the Western bias inherent in most kinds of behavioral psychology, but the results are particularly amusing.

Dr. Henrich and co-authors Steven Heine and Ara Norenzayan argue that life-long members of societies that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic — people who are WEIRD — see the world in ways that are alien from the rest of the human family. The UBC trio have come to the controversial conclusion that, say, the Machiguenga are not psychological outliers among humanity. We are.

"If you're a Westerner, your intuitions about human psychology are probably wrong or at least there's good reason to believe they're wrong," Dr. Henrich says.

....

Others punish participants perceived as too altruistic in co-operation games, but very few in the English-speaking West would ever dream of penalizing the generous.

Remember this the next time some clown advocates for some ridiculous government welfare program.