The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersGuillaume Durocher Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

After a great deal of delay and kvetching, Brexit is finally happening. This doesn’t mean all that much in the grand scheme of things. While leftists may hysterically accuse Boris Johnson of being “racist” – seemingly only for speaking humorously of burqas as resembling letter-boxes – the Prime Minister and his multicultural team can be counted on to pursue a policy of Globalism in One Country. The main significance is this: getting liberal/globalist elites to respect democratic outcomes even if they don’t like them. This is an important precedent.

In truth, Britain’s position within the EU but outside both the Schengen Area of free movement of people and of the Eurozone was arguably optimal. This granted London considerable influence over a major economic bloc while staying out of the zanier schemes. The only real downside of EU membership was in preventing any legal way of keeping Eastern European Gypsies out of the country.

Despite “Remoaner” hysteria, leaving the EU is not the end of the world either. I’m sure Britain will be able to get on fine outside the EU and indeed both the British and the Continentals have strong incentives to get along. Perhaps Britain will reinvent itself as a global tax haven. After all, Europe’s share of global GDP has been rapidly declining over the past decades.

Britain’s departure is a major economic blow to the EU. Brexit will leave a €7.5-billion hole in the EU budget, Britain being the biggest contributors besides the Germans. Britain was one of the EU’s few dynamic major economies (along with Germany and, to a more limited extent, France) and the only one with a semi-serious tech sector. The bloc will be reduced to 450 million inhabitants and will become a distant third in terms of GDP behind China and the United States of America.

On the positive side, Brexit may make the EU a more cohesive Union. Without Britain, the bloc is already taking a hard protectionist turn. Indeed, the Latins and Eastern Europeans are all protectionist, while Germany has a discovered a newfound interest in ‘industrial policy,’ leaving the free-trading Dutch and Nordics a small minority. While European foreign and defense policies are mostly empty talk, the EU is a genuinely powerful trade bloc, with real clout on market regulation (witness those annoying GDPR privacy popups), antitrust, anti-dumping, and trade negotiations.

Still, I would not expect miracles. Despite lack of British participation, the Continentals have yet to make anything coherent of the Eurozone. During the Cold War, Western Europeans were subject to much more significant geopolitical pressure – economic, military, and cultural dependence on the United States, a massive Soviet military threat, humiliating energy dependence on the Mideast manifest in the Oil Shocks – without this leading to any serious attempt by the Europeans to recover their sovereignty and power. The postwar European democracies were satisfied with the Pursuit of Purchasing Power. The threats of today really are less immediate or downright minor in comparison.

Charles de Gaulle at a press conference, ever pedagogical.
Charles de Gaulle at a press conference, ever pedagogical.

Brexit happening seems a good time to recall a farsighted Frenchman who predicted that none of this would work: Charles de Gaulle. President de Gaulle twice vetoed Britain’s candidacy to join the then-European Economic Community (EEC), causing an uproar in Atlanticist circles.

De Gaulle had long thought that the so-called “Europeanists” were not sincere and/or coherent in their claim to be building a strong and independent federal Europe. He said in a May 1962 press conference:

France’s proposals [on Europe] have raised two objections, which incidentally are perfectly contradictory even though they are presented by the same people. . . . These critics tell us: “You want to create a Europe of nations, while we want to create supranational Europe.” As if a simple phrase were sufficient to confound these powerfully established entities that are the nations and the States. And then, these same critics simultaneously tell us: “England has submitted its candidacy to join the [European] Common Market. So long as they are not in, we won’t be able to do anything political.” And yet, everyone knows that England, as a great State and a nation true to itself, will never consent to being dissolved in some utopian construct.

Prescient words!

The British comedy show Yes, Minister! has a scene very humorously making the same point.

Six months later, De Gaulle vetoed Britain’s entry of the EEC, citing British ties to the United States, economic relations with the Commonwealth, and general differences with those he called “the Continentals.” In January 1963, De Gaulle said that in the event of British membership:

We can expect that the cohesion of all the members, which would be very numerous and very diverse, would not last long and that, in the end, there would emerge a colossal Atlantic Community under American dependence and leadership, which would soon absorb the European Community.

This eventuality may appear perfectly legitimate in the eyes of some, but it is not at all what France wished to do and has done, which is a genuinely European construct.

In short, De Gaulle accused the British of being a kind of American Trojan Horse . . . and who could blame him?

In 1967, De Gaulle again vetoed British membership citing basically the same concerns. Britain could not join the EEC unless Britain either changed or “if the Continentals forever gave up on creating a Europe which is European.” Historically, the latter view prevailed.

As a rule, the early “European federalists” were never interested in creating a strong and independent Europe. Like Jean Monnet and Walter Hallstein, they were just Atlanticist networkers, whose personal prosperity depended on these deracinated and foreign circles, rather than on Europe’s native power. I cannot tell you how revolted I was when I tried to read the memoirs of both Monnet (600 pages of nothing) and Hallstein (who claimed, in 1970s, when the EEC was barely an entity at all, that the Europeans were “halfway” to federation and just needed one last push to get there).

Anyway, Britain’s departure from the European Union opens the way for the Continentals to try, a bit more earnestly, to create a truly sovereign and independent “European Europe.” This is not an absurd ambition. London was in some ways Europe’s only top-tier “global city.” Paris, Berlin, and Brussels really are secondary nodes. There’s a charmingly provincial quality to European politics which must be preserved. While in the Anglosphere Jews and Asians have massively displaced White Gentiles among their cultural and economic elites, the same is not really true in Continental Europe, certainly outside of France. Time will tell.

• Category: Economics, History • Tags: Brexit, Britain, Charles De Gaulle, EU 
🔊 Listen RSS

After the article on the Great Replacement in Belgium, I present you the following translation of an article by Polémia on the situation in Switzerland. The Swiss situation is unique, if only because of the country’s objective excellence and exceptional quality of life, and the extraordinary practice of direct democracy. Thus we have the rather rare situation of citizens actually being allowed to vote on whether and in what conditions new people should be allowed into their country.

Make no mistake: the scale of demographic change is also tremendous in Switzerland, but mainly because of European immigration and even Europeans find it very difficult to accede to Swiss nationality (there is no birthright citizenship). Thus Switzerland provides a model how people might preserve a nice country in the future: a highly-selective, citizenist little republic founded on gentrified democratic localism.

* * *

Switzerland has experienced very significant immigration over the past decades. This immigration is a source of fears or even rejection on the part of a portion of the Swiss people. These fears concern basically two issues: competition on the labor market by Europeans and the challenge to the [Swiss] cultural model posed by non-Europeans; all the more so in that, recently, the integration of the non-European population is failing to be realized.

In the face of this, the Swiss authorities’ responses oscillate between openness and firmness. A firmness which is occasionally demanded by the people in the form of the referenda which are regularly organized in Switzerland. Selective immigration is not an empty slogan in this country, even if a part of the political opposition would like the government to go much further on this issue.

Very significant migration flows

Since the Second World War, Switzerland has experienced two significant waves of immigration. The first coincided with the industrial growth of the 50s and 60s. The second began in 1975 and has continued ever since.

After the Second World War, the Swiss government granted many residence permits to mostly European workers in a context of industrial recovery. Immigration was then suddenly stopped with the repatriation of almost 300,000 foreign workers during the economic crisis caused by the first oil shock of 1973. Every year since then, Switzerland has welcomed a rising and significant number of foreigners, in proportion to its population.

Whereas 92,000 immigrants permanently moved to the country in 1981, they were 146,000 in 2018. Net migration (immigrants minus emigrants) has always been positive for the 1962-2017 period. On average 163,000 more people entered the country every year than left during this period. . . .

A growing immigrant population

The foreign population is constantly increasing in Switzerland. It rose from 14% of the total population in 1980 to 25% today. The Swiss Confederation is among the countries with the highest proportion of residents born abroad.

Whereas the country had 285,000 resident foreigners in 1951, there are now 2.1 million. The country’s population meanwhile numbers 8.5 million.

Europeans (Italians, Germans, Portuguese, and French) represent the biggest contingents of the foreign population residing in Switzerland (80%).

The population of immigrant origin (foreigners born abroad, naturalized citizens born in Switzerland, or naturalized citizens and foreigners born in Switzerland with at least one parent born abroad) was estimated in 2017 to make up 37% of the population.

Among the resident non-European population, Asians[1] (165,000), Africans (109,000) and Turks (67,000) form the largest contingents. According the Pew Research Center, around 6% of the population is Muslim, around 400,000 people. According to Pew’s forecasts, the Muslim population could in 2050 make up between 8% and 12% of the Swiss population.

European immigration

Competition on the labor market between foreigners and citizens as well as the scale immigration have been criticized both with regard to European and non-European immigration. Several agreements on the free movement of EU citizens have been signed between Bern and the European Union since 2000, but they remain contested, in particular by the SVP (Swiss People’s Party). This party has, for many years, sought to annul these agreements. This has raised concerns among people living across the Swiss border, notably many Frenchmen.

Non-European immigration

While non-European immigration concerns only a minority of the population in Switzerland, several warning signs are showing that integration is proving difficult or even a failure for a portion of immigrants.

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: EU, Immigration, Switzerland 
🔊 Listen RSS

Following the publication of my review of Yukio Mishima’s guide to Hagakure, Andrew Joyce, a fellow contributor to The Occidental Observer, has published a thorough and highly critical account of the Japanese writer’s life. I was going to draw attention to Joyce’s piece, which has already been republished by The Unz Review.

Here is a partial summary of Joyce’s points:

  1. Despite being married, Mishima had a completely degenerate gay sex life and neglected his children.
  2. Mishima’s right-wing politics were adopted late and were vague, insincere, and ultimately a kind of posing.
  3. Mishima’s spectacular last day, far from being a serious traditionalist/militarist political statement, was merely the ultimate enactment of his perverse and self-destructive psycho-sexual fantasies.

Joyce concludes:

Members of the Dissident Right with an interest in Japanese culture are encouraged to take up one or more of the martial arts, to look into aspects of Zen, or to review the works of some of the other twentieth-century Japanese authors mentioned here. Such endeavors will bear better fruit. Above all, however, there is no comparison with spending time researching the lives of one’s own co-ethnic heroes and one’s own culture. As Europeans, we are so spoiled for choice we needn’t waste time with the rejected, outcast, and badly damaged members of other groups.

I invite you to read Joyce’s piece in full.

All this having been said, I still encourage people to watch Paul Schrader’s film on Mishima and to read Mishima’s guide to Hagakure (or better yet, Hagakure itself). I will myself, when time permits, try to read Mishima’s later more political fiction (e.g. Runaway Horses) and other nonfiction. A work of art is no less compelling, a logical argument no less persuasive, whatever the author’s personal deficiencies or proclivities.

On TOO, Joyce’s piece has received an informative, nuanced, and detailed comment from a certain Ryuji Tsukazaki, who seems to be fluent in Japanese. I reproduce Tsukazaki’s comment in full:

This essay probably needed to be written. But to any readers who think it seems a little unfair aggressively negative – it is.

The assertion that Mishima “seems hardly political at all” is just silly. It’s true that rightists who read his fiction often find it disappointing. Taken as a whole, his literary oeuvre certainly contains more weird homoeroticism than it does right-wing nationalism. But Mishima also wrote a lot of non-fiction, which was mostly explicitly political. Some titles that come to mind right away are “In Defense of Culture”, “For Young Samurai”, and “Lectures on Immorality”. (These are all my unofficial titles. I don’t think any of them are officially translated.) They are treatments of Japanese political culture, identity, and morality in the post-war era. It’s impossible to tie them to gayness or sadomasochism; they’re obviously sincere. Mishima also took part in debates on campuses during the late 60s student riots (he wrote essays about them too).

Despite the assertion that he became political “in the 60s”, perhaps because he was afraid of growing old – his most explicitly political work of fiction, Patriotism, came out in 1961, halfway through his career, when he was 35. “The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea”, another major midcareer work of fiction, isn’t explicitly political, but very clearly touches on themes of authentic masculinity, loyalty, and patrimony.

“he argued that Japanese right-wingers “did not have to have a systematised worldview,”” I don’t know the context of this quote, or what he said in the original, but it’s actually hard to argue with – especially because Japanese right-wingers have never HAD a systematised worldview. The desire for metaphysical, moral, and/or ideological formal systemization is very European. Prewar Japanese historical figures will often be described as fighting for democracy and human rights in one context and as fierce right-wing militarists in others (Kita Ikki and Toyama Mitsuru come to mind). If Mishima’s assertion bothers you, don’t sweat it – it’s not about you, it’s about the Japanese.

“Mishima is a pale shadow of ultra-nationalist literary contemporaries like Shūmei Ōkawa…” I have to niggle about this. Shumei Okawa is neither literary nor contemporary. He was active in the prewar era only, and I’m unaware of any fiction he wrote. The others you mentioned may be superior to Mishima as ultranationalists but not as men of letters.

As I said, this essay did need to be written – it’s hard to look deeply into Mishima and feel comfortable with Western rightist idolization of him. He was nothing so simple and appealing as le based Japanese samurai man. And it’s true that his life and work was driven greatly by his sexuality. It’s untrue that he was politically insincere or shallow. He was nothing like a European fascist, and he couldn’t be called a traditionalist. Nonetheless, he prioritized the authentically Japanese over the modern or Western; he prioritized the healthy over the sick, and the strong over the weak; and the masculine over the feminine or androgynous. He brought up these themes repeatedly in his writings, fiction and nonfiction.

“Mishima was a profoundly unhealthy and inorganic individual” – this sentence stuck out to me as undeniably true. And I think it’s also true of many other important writers and thinkers. When Nietzsche wrote that wisdom appears on earth as a raven attracted by the scent of carrion, he was doing nothing so simple as attacking wisdom. Blond Beasts rarely write groundbreaking philosophy or provocative fiction; conflicted people who hate themselves and/or the world they were born into do that more. (Nietzsche himself could be described as an unhealthy and inorganic individual, though not to Mishima’s level.) Mishima’s disturbed sexuality and weak, sick childhood were catalysts that forced him to really grapple with masculinity and identity on a personal and intellectual level. When we read about him we should be aware that he was not an ubermensch and that he was a pervert. I don’t see that as reason to dismiss him.

Bold Initiative, Elite Power Grab &/or Empty Virtue Signaling?
🔊 Listen RSS

The European Union has presented an astonishing plan to make Europe the first “climate-neutral continent” by 2050. Your humble servant is not sure what to make of this, even after consulting some of the EU’s copious documentation on the topic.

At a time when all the major economies – the United States of America, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and even Trudeau’s Canada – have made clear they do not care about climate change and will not be making any individual economic sacrifices for alleged global benefits (that’s the tragedy of the commons for you), the EU has apparently decided on a radical change of lifestyle for its 450 million citizens.

One remains puzzled even at the way these things are decided. Until recently, the EU had a more realistic goal of reducing emissions by 80-95% relative to 1990 by 2050. Then, some obscure committees, working according to the time-honored principle of government-by-lowest-common-denominator, suddenly pulls this kind of rabbit out of a hat and all of society is expected to submit accordingly.

When “the EU” decides this kind of thing, what this means is that the bureaucrats of the European Commission, the politicians of the European Parliament (elected, but more or less irresponsible in the strict sense), and the relevant ministries of the 27 national governments have agreed to something. The latter is important: Germany, France, and even, astonishingly, the eastern European countries are basically on board (the latter are apparently playing hard-to-get in order to shake some more shekels out of Brussels). When so many national governments agree to something, presumably the proposal is rather serious.

The EU’s plethora of bureaucracies and committees have only a weak democratic mandate to be instituting such far-reaching changes to our way of life. Over the past decade, poll after poll has indicated that, to the extent one can generalize, Europeans care about two things: the economy and migration. On the economy, the EU’s recent performance has been decidedly mediocre – essentially condemning the youth of southern Europe to emigration – while on migration the EU simply ignored citizens’ concerns, enabling a huge wave of migration and associated murder, rape, and Islamic terrorism against innocent Europeans.

The media, and a fraction of the youth, have suddenly been seized by a passion for climate change in the past year or so, and Europeans now apparently consider climate a major issue. The EU Parliament has symbolically declared a “climate emergency.” The Declaration’s preface includes a denunciation of the Schmittian definition of sovereignty: “whereas no emergency should ever be used to erode democratic institutions or to undermine fundamental rights; whereas all measures will always be adopted through a democratic process.” The Parliament however did not bother to make clear what it means by “emergency,” if anything (other than, presumably, a quick way of making some headlines).

Theoretical question: in the absence of a technological miracle, do you really think our capitalist welfare democracies would be willing to vote for the lower purchasing power/standards of living necessary to have zero emissions? Hmm?


I still have no idea how the EU thinks the elimination of carbon emissions will be achieved. In theory, every ounce of fossil fuel burned in Europe will have to be made up for by the regrowth of some forests (or some other carbon sink).

Does this mean flights will be banned or severely limited? I scarcely believe the Metropolitan Class would be willing to sacrifice their twice-quarterly excursions to Dubrovnik, Tenerife, etc.

Does this mean we will no longer have fossil fuel cars? In the big cities, yes. Any proles who cannot afford a Tesla will anyway presumably not be able to afford property in our Inclusive Global Cities. Electric cars’ current range of 450 kilometers is actually not bad for day-to-day purposes and can be expected to improve over the next 30 years.

Does this mean we will increase nuclear power production to both make up for the decline of coal/gas and increase power generation for the electrification of cars? No, nuclear power should stay the same (one indication this is about “virtue” not climate).

Use of renewables in the EU has steadily increased from 8.5% of total energy in 2004 to 17.5% in 2017, mostly due to increased use of wind and solar power. Although actually, the constant use of solar/wind visuals in renewable propaganda is rather misleading: biomass (mostly wood and agriculture byproducts, it seems) continues to make up 60% of the EU’s “renewable” energy.

The EU has successfully decoupled carbon emissions from economic growth over the past decade. However, if the EU has overshot its 2020 target of reducing emissions by 20%, this in no small part “thanks” to its failed management of the financial/euro crisis, which prolonged recession. I remind people that we are now officially halfway between 1990 and 2050, but the EU has only reduced emissions by 22%. This means we would need to quadruple the speed of reductions to be successful. And this is not likely to be easy given the reality of diminishing returns and seuils incompressibles. There has been no progress in reducing carbon emissions in transport and there is no forecast spontaneous decline.

Zero emissions will only be possible either through some technological Deus Ex Machina or through a significant reduction in Europeans’ purchasing power. The ever-consensual EU denies there is any economic trade-off, claiming that becoming carbon-neutral will make EU businesses more competitive and give them a first-mover advantage (presumably thinking that China, say, will surely not be able to copy our innovations).

Whatever one makes of all this, climate is going to be the general-purpose pretext for the administrative class to further tighten the proverbial Iron Cage at all levels of society.

If you spend any time in administration or government, you quickly realize how action is pre-set and hamstrung at every level by innumerable Unfunded Mandates. In theory, mayors, regions, and national governments are empowered to take decisions by the democratic mandate of their election. In practice, they are often reduced to mere administrators, their hands tied by goals fixed by national laws and EU and even UN committees. Once your diplomats agree, everyone beneath them is bound in perpetuity.

This concerns things as varied as macroeconomic policy, social housing, energy use, equal outcomes (not opportunities!) for women, etc.

Only in this way can your bottom-up democratic system of government consistently follow your non-negotiable top-down globalist imperatives.

• Category: Economics • Tags: EU, Global Warming 
🔊 Listen RSS

Yukio Mishima (trans. Kathryn Sparling), The Way of the Samurai: Yukio Mishima on Hagakure in Modern Life (original title: Introduction to Hagakure) (New York: Perigee, 1977)

For as long as I have known about him, I have been fascinated by the Japanese writer and artist Yukio Mishima. I think the first time I heard of him was when my favorite history professor, an older fellow specializing in East Asia, spoke in exhilarating terms of Mishima, all the while naughtily adding : “He was basically a fascist.”

I’ve many times watched Paul Schrader’s masterpiece of a film Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. You’re either the kind of boy who is challenged, energized, and inspired by this sort of film, or perhaps you’re not a boy. I tried reading some of Mishima’s novels in French translation. I can’t say I much enjoyed, though I deeply wanted to. Then again, I’m not really one for novels.

I recently purchased Mishima’s Introduction to Hagakure, the nonfiction guide he wrote to the samurai classic. This is a somewhat rare book in the sense that you can only get it second hand (sometimes quite expensive) or download abominable electronic versions, Penguin and other publishers having mysteriously not republished the work in many years.

I have not been disappointed. Mishima’s guide to Hagakure is an excellent book: at once concise (barely 100 pages, not counting the extracts from Hagakure included in the annex to my version of the book), clear, and cogent. Mishima both explicates the book, draws out its contemporary relevance, and highlights the most striking and paradoxical passages. I heartily recommend this book.

What is Hagakure?

My reader way be wondering: What is Hagakure and why would I need an introduction to it? Hagakure is a collection of sayings and anecdotes by Jocho Miyamoto, a retired samurai, as recorded by one of his followers. Taken together, this somewhat disparate collection ultimately forms a coherent and powerful expression of the samurai ethos. Perhaps surprisingly, the book contains a great deal of practical life advice for samurai – savoir-vivre – which the modern man will also benefit from: how to prepare for the next day, how to hold a meeting, how to criticize others, how to advance in one’s career, etc.

The point however is not a kind of selfish and shallow self-help. Hagakure is uncompromising in its moral demands: one must be the best one can be, one must selflessly serve others (one’s lord and the whole community), and one must be absolutely ruthless when necessary. In this, one must be motivated by dignity, by one’s pride and self-respect as a man, to make our brief time on this Earth as noble as it may be. There is no maudlin sentimentality or nagging here.

Hagakure was kept as a more-or-less secret book of samurai lore by the Nabeshima clan, which dominated a territory in the far southwest of Japan. This may be because the work is heavily critical of the central authorities – considered urbane and decadent in contrast with the rustic Nabeshima – and occasionally downright impious. Jocho demands one serve one’s lord even if it might displease gods or Buddha, adding that such supernatural entities will anyway smile upon such loyalty. Jocho had been apparently taught by Zen masters in his youth and in retirement become a Buddhist monk, although it is quite difficult to get reliable information on the matter.

Hagakure became a popular text in Imperial Japan (1868-1947), during which the new central government attempted to economically modernize and politically unify the country, all the while preserving elements of traditional Japanese culture. The book’s exaltation of local patriotism and loyalty was projected onto the Emperor and the Japanese nation-state as a whole.

While the Imperial authorities had banned the samurai as a caste, considering their privileged status as a break on modernization, Hagakure’s samurai values were celebrated as representing yamato-damashii, “the unique spirit of the Japanese.” Hagakure was widely promoted as a classic during the Second World War, was suppressed with the American postwar occupation as a source of Japanese militarism, and again became a bestseller in the 1970s with Mishima’s famous harakiri.

Hagakure really is quite readable. While I recommend Mishima, I would only say he makes things a bit too easy: read Hagakure directly! The read’s challenges, the work of piecing things together, will rework and do good to your soul.

Hagakure: Mishima’s Lifelong Companion

Mishima’s guide provides a good deal of insight into the various literary influences upon the writer – most prominently French and German literature and the Hellenic ideal, in addition to Japanese sources. The most prominent of these is of course Hagakure. According to Mishima, Hagakure came to be his constant companion and a source of spiritual renewal:

It was after the extraordinary popularity of Hagakure, after its wartime preeminence as socially obligatory reading had ended, that its light began to shine within me. Maybe Hagakure is after all fundamentally a book destined to paradox. During the war, Hagakure was like a luminescent object in broad daylight, but it is in pitch darkness that Hagakure radiates its true light. . . .

The book that was to provide constant spiritual guidance must form the basis of my morality and it must enable me to approve completely of my youth. It must be a book that could support firmly this loneliness of my and my anachronistic stance. What is more, it must be a book banned by contemporary society. Hagakure conformed to all these specifications. (6)

Mishima later says:

I have come to be more and more deeply possessed by Hagakure. But I, who follow the way of the artist and entertainer condemned by Hagakure, have been tormented by the conflict between the action ethic and my art. The suspicion I had harbored for years, that there was inevitably something cowardly lurking beneath the surface of all literature, was articulated. In fact, to tell the truth, my firm insistence on the “Combined Way of the Scholar and the Warrior” I owe to the influence of Hagakure. Although I knew full well that there is no discipline so easy to speak of and so difficult to perform as the Combined Way of the Warrior and the Scholar, I decided that nothing else could offer me the excuse to live my life as an artist. This realization, too, I owe to Hagakure.

I am convinced, however, that art kept snugly within the bounds of art alone shrivels and dies, and in this sense I am no believer in what is commonly called art for art’s sake. If art is not constantly threatened, stimulated by things outside its domain, it exhausts itself. . . . All at once I recognized in Hagakure a philosophy of life, and somehow I felt that its beautiful, pristine world could stir up the quagmire that was the world of literature. For me, the meaning of Hagakure is in the vision of this pristine world, and although it is the influence of Hagakure that has made living as an artist so unusually difficult for me, at the same time Hagakure is the womb from which my writing is born. It is the eternal supplying source of my vitality – by its relentless whip, by its command, by its fierce criticism, because of its beauty, which is the beauty of ice. (10-11)

• Category: History • Tags: Japan, Mishima, Samurai 
🔊 Listen RSS

The following is a translation of an article by the lawyer Paul Tormenen for the identitarian think-tank Polémia. The numerous sources cited are detailed in the original article. This piece provides a solid overview of the tremendous demographic transformation which Belgium is undergoing and of the striking differences between European and Islamic migrants, the latter being markedly socially conservative and prone to unemployment. Entire neighborhoods such as Molenbeek have become unrecognizable and begging Gypsies have become a familiar sight on street corners.

At the same time, the numbers show that, as of today, a majority of immigrants to Belgium are of European origin and can be expected to integrate smoothly. Even if we concede that the Europeans are likely less fertile than the Muslims and Africans, this is one reason why I do not believe “race war” is likely to happen any time soon, notwithstanding the reality of Afro-Islamic criminality and periodic murderous Islamist terrorist attacks.

* * *

If Belgium experienced waves of immigration in the 20th Century, the current wave is unique in its magnitude and the fact that it is “endured” by a part of the population. The ethnocentric demands and the radicalization of a fraction of the immigrant population has provoked differing reactions among the [French-speaking] Walloons and the [Dutch-speaking] Flemish. In Belgium, as in other European countries, the migratory and identitarian questions have become central to the country’s political life.

From the 20th Century to Today

A first wave of immigration was organized during the interwar years, due to the pressure of the Belgian leaders of heavy industry. Labor migration was started up again in the 1960s. These immigrants were notably called upon to work in the mines and were essentially of European origin (Italy, Spain, Greece). After 1964, bilateral agreements were concluded with Muslim countries (Morocco, Turkey, Algeria) in order to facilitate the hosting of foreign workers. Without regard for any cultural factors, familial immigration was also promoted in order, according to Belgium’s leaders, to tackle the country’s aging population.

Since the end of the 1980s, Belgium has been experiencing a new migratory wave. Whereas the annual flow had been relatively stable between the 1950s and 1980s, with yearly arrivals of between 40,000 and 60,000, family reunification and asylum requests significantly increased the arrivals of foreigners. Over a million of them thus entered Belgium legally between 2000 and 2010.

Belgian migratory trends. Dotted line: immigration. Thin line: emigration. Solid light blue line: net migration.
Belgian migratory trends. Dotted line: immigration. Thin line: emigration. Solid light blue line: net migration.

Between 2009 and 2011 alone, family reunification, which accounts for about half of residence permits, enabled 121,000 foreigners to legally settle in Belgium. A Belgian senator, Alain Destexhe, speaks of family reunification’s “domino effect,” because of the different ways it gives for family members to come from abroad.

Since 2007, the annual number of foreigners arriving in Belgium has always been over 100,000. In 25 years, the immigrant population (of foreign or Belgian nationality) has doubled. Annual growth of the foreign-origin population is estimated at between 1% and 5%. As of 1 January 2018, of Belgium’s 11.3 million inhabitants, 16.7% were born abroad (1.9 million people). These figures do not take into account unidentified illegals, nor the asylum-seekers who are registered on the waiting lists.

The concentration of foreigners is especially visible in the big cities. For example, in Brussels, foreigners are almost as numerous as Belgian citizens. The city of Antwerp now has more immigrants than natives.

Origin of the foreign-born population in Belgium. Light blue: EU-15. Mid-blue: 13 new EU states (Eastern Europe). Dark blue: non-EU Europe (including Turkey). Red: North Africa. Orange: Sub-Saharan Africa. Light Green: West Asia. Dark Green: East Asia. Purple: Latin America. Pink: North America. Grey: Other.
Origin of the foreign-born population in Belgium. Light blue: EU-15. Mid-blue: 13 new EU states (Eastern Europe). Dark blue: non-EU Europe (including Turkey). Red: North Africa. Orange: Sub-Saharan Africa. Light Green: West Asia. Dark Green: East Asia. Purple: Latin America. Pink: North America. Grey: Other.

Asylum-seekers: a secondary flow

In addition to illegal immigration, Belgium is, like France, experiencing the “secondary flows” of asylum-seekers. More and more asylum-seekers in Belgium are not fresh arrivals on the European continent. Their request for asylum was rejected in another country and they try their luck in Belgium. This phenomenon, which shows the bankruptcy of the European asylum “system,” is due to tougher migratory policies in the Scandinavian countries and Germany. It is estimated that one third of asylum-seekers practice this kind of “desk-hopping.” More broadly, between 1991 and 2015, some 517,000 asylum requests have been made in the country.

The origin of the immigrants has changed

If Europeans still make up the majority of the foreign population, Turks (155,701 people as of 1 January 2016) and Moroccans (309,166) represent significant contingents. Among the foreigners who have recently acquired Belgian citizenship, these two nationalities are in the lead.

According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population represents 7.6% of the Belgian population, almost 796,000 inhabitants. Depending on the migratory policies that are chosen in the next years (whether zero migration or a controlled opening of borders), the American think-tank estimates that the Muslim population could make up between 11% and 18% of the population by 2050.

The cost of immigration

In 2018 alone, 23,400 people in Belgium asked for international protection [under asylum]. The annual cost of asylum-seekers into terms of basic welfare has risen from 120 million euros in 2014 to 200 million euros in 2018. One must add to these figures the cost of welcoming asylum-seekers, which more than doubled between 2014 and 2016, rising to 524 million euros.

Employment rate of Belgian natives, EU migrants, and non-EU migrants (the latter overwhelmingly come from the Middle East and Africa).
Employment rate of Belgian natives, EU migrants, and non-EU migrants (the latter overwhelmingly come from the Middle East and Africa).

More generally, the employment rate of immigrants from outside the European Union is 20 points lower than that of natives. Whether as a cause or consequence of this, 80% of those receiving social assistance are of non-Belgian origin, according to a Belgian academic, Bea Cantillon.

Employment patterns of representative samples of Belgian natives and non-EU migrants between 30 and 64 years of age between 2008 and 2014. Each line represents one individual. Green: working. In Orange: unemployed. Red: inactive (not seeking work). Source: Eurostat.
Employment patterns of representative samples of Belgian natives and non-EU migrants between 30 and 64 years of age between 2008 and 2014. Each line represents one individual. Green: working. In Orange: unemployed. Red: inactive (not seeking work). Source: Eurostat.

Belgium will become Arab”

This prediction did not come from a dangerous conspiracy-theorist. It was expressed by a journalist, Fawzia Zouari, in the pages of the magazine Jeune Afrique [“Young Africa”] to sum up “the Islamization of minds,” in particular among of the young generation of Muslims. Though the Muslim population remains a minority, its importance is indeed growing and especially is becoming visible. Islamization is visible in several ways: in beliefs, behaviors, religious practice, and political life.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Belgium, EU, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

I recently wrote on the role of inspiration and perspiration in men’s careers. I also gave the example of Charles de Gaulle, who definitely hewed closer to the side of perspiration. Through the occasional bold move and the blessings of Fortune, the Frenchman’s decades of labor were rewarded with great moments of glory. Adolf Hitler and the evolution of the Third Reich provide another and very different example of political leadership. With Hitler we have an example of a man who, for the life of him, could not hold down a day job and who was forever possessed by and ran after his passions.

People have no idea just how artistic, Bohemian, and indeed feckless Hitler was by temperament. This is something which all those who frequented Hitler knew and which all the historians of the period know but which is scarcely mentioned in the documentaries and Hollywood films which shape public consciousness. Hitler was, in effect, a lifelong NEET (Not in [formal] Education, Employment, or Training). The Third Reich seems quite unique in having such a dictator at the helm.

In one of Mein Kampf’s more relateable passages, Hitler explains that when he was young he couldn’t bear the idea of spending his whole life in a pre-defined social and professional box, going back and forth from the office, as was the case of his father, a customs official. He later told his press secretary, a despairing Otto Dietrich, that a moment’s inspired idea contributed more to the world than a lifetime’s worth of office work.

Young Hitler (on whom, see Brigitte Hamann’s excellent Hitler’s Vienna) was obsessed with art, architecture, and politics, passions which would never leave him. He was an insatiable bookworm and incorrigible loudmouth. He could produce professional architectural sketches and decent touristic paintings. He would draw sketches, read books, and talk politics and art with whoever would listen (in this case, his youthful friend August Kubizek) into the wee hours of the morning. This set the pattern for the rest of his life: most of the time he was thoroughly incapable of going to bed at a reasonable time. He certainly wasn’t interested in finding a job. As a result, when Hitler’s family savings ran out he ended up a homeless vagrant.

Hitler’s service in the German Army during the First World War seems to have done him a lot of good. After the war, he thrived not by buckling down doing some anonymous job, but by “finding his voice”: in the scandalous conditions of postwar Germany, with a defective Weimar Republic manifestly incapable of challenging the iniquities of the Treaty of Versailles, there was finally a ready audience for his scathing political analyses. In truth, his time in Vienna – in which he witnessed the farce of multiethnic democratic politics first-hand – had prepared him well. Once Hitler found his “calling,” he of course had his spectacular and erratic career, featuring prison, mastery of Germany and Europe, and total oblivion.

One cannot understand the rise of Hitlerism and its tremendous socio-cultural (and not merely political) transformation of Germany without watching Hitler’s speeches and trying understand the mindset of those who were enraptured by him. Hitler relentlessly chased after those things which emotionally resonated with him: national honor, power, and a certain aesthetic, within the framework of the Right-wing fin-de-siècle German-speaking culture which he had imbibed as a youth (let us say that Darwin, Nietzsche, and Drumont were permeating the air). Hitler presented a vision for Germany’s rebirth under a zealous nationalist elite, according to scientific principles, which resonated with a critical mass of Germans. Nationalism was all the more compelling in Germany, a nation which, unlike most, was objectively one of both great accomplishment and potential.

I must say, the stories of the Third Reich’s various bureaucratic problems make me more sympathetic toward today’s bureaucrats and officialdom with their little miserable problems.

I have not seen a good overall assessment of how Hitler’s erratic management style affected German government and the war effort. Certainly, it drove his civil servants mad. Chancellor Hitler was only able to stick to regular office hours while President Paul von Hindenburg was alive, evidently trying to make a good impression. Later, he would stay up until three or four or five in the morning every night, meaning that important decisions often could not be taken before 11AM.

After 1937, incredibly, there were virtually no cabinet meetings at all, a situation which reinforced Hitler’s own position at the center of the political system, but left his ministers and their bureaucracies in the dark regarding each other’s activities. There was no well-defined way of taking decisions, Hitler would simply send out “Führer Orders” according to his mood and whatever issues people around him raised. This system also gave tremendous power to the man who controlled access to Hitler: his secretary, Martin Bormann. This was known as the arbitrary and fickle “politics of the antechamber.”[1]

All this is strikingly at odds with Hitler’s image at the time.[2]

On other hand, the Third Reich was by some indicators notoriously well-organized, far better than either the Weimar Republic or the Western democracies, notably in terms of social welfare and unity, economic recovery, military preparedness, and mass participation. Hitler, being an artist at the head of a gifted country, would generally stick to his areas of interest and was often wise enough to let his subordinates take care of the details. The country’s staying power in the face of adverse military conditions was simply remarkable, although obviously ultimately vain.

The bureaucrats of course found ways around Hitler’s management quirks. Senior civil servants would send circulars around the ministries to discuss important topics of shared interest, so as to come to common conclusions on necessary action to be presented to the Führer. Interest groups within the Reich – women, corporations, youth, workers . . . – were organized and had representation in various Party bureaucracies, which then provided their input to government. These practices in many ways foreshadow the various “consultation” procedures and perpetual “advocacy” of interest groups that we find in advanced states today, democratic or not.

Hitler had a habit of creating ad-hoc positions to address a particular problem and not following up. The result was a plethora of officials and bureaucracies competing for influence. Some of these officials, lacking a well-defined mandate, would complain that they had little to do but show up at the sites of bombings in German cities and give consolatory speeches.

One wonders if the Reich would have been more successful if there had been more regular modes of decision-making. Certainly a cabinet, with the bureaucrats behind them, would tend to avoid overly ideological and impractical schemes. It also seems that isolated bureaucracies, operating more or less independently from their peers, would be more likely to engage in creeping radicalization, according to their own internal logic.

• Category: History • Tags: Hitler, Nazi Germany 
🔊 Listen RSS

When, sooner or later, one must pass away,
When one has more or less lived, suffered, loved
There remains nothing left of us than the children we leave behind
And the field of Effort which we have sown.

– Charles de Gaulle[1]

Charles de Gaulle remains the most celebrated French statesman of the twentieth century. Whatever you think of his legacy – and this is open to legitimate debate[2] – he was, among democratic politicians, a truly epic figure. He would prove a source of inspiration for the more thoughtful American statesmen, such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, the latter eagerly reading de Gaulle’s powerful youthful opuscule on leadership, The Edge of the Sword.

Within France, De Gaulle “saved France’s honor” during the Second World War, securing a place among the victor nations, including an occupation zone in Germany and a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Returning to power in 1958, he established the presidential Fifth Republic – an unusually stable regime by French standards – extricated France from Algeria, and armed the country with nuclear weapons. His foreign policy of relative independence from the United States and an independent path in the Third World, notably Africa and the Middle East, would become the consensus view among French politicians and diplomats for a generation. His vetoing of British entry of the then-European Economic Community (EEC), not once but twice, will seem rather prescient in light of Brexit. This was occurring as France was experiencing an unprecedented demographic and economic renewal.

Today, De Gaulle remains the supreme political reference among the center-right and many patriots in France, with countless village squares named after him, as well as a Parisian airport and an aircraft carrier. Whatever one makes of De Gaulle’s historical legacy, we can all learn from his personality as a man and his personal career. And this turns out to be a rather humbling undertaking.

Learning about De Gaulle always seemed to me to be a rather forbidding enterprise, like approaching some misty, unconquerable mountain: who knows what mysteries and hidden strengths there were! Certainly, again among democratic politicians, he appeared as a titan of modern times, a man of rare depth and will. He always seems in control and undoubting, with an uncanny understanding of things.

We must scrape away at this Gaullist mythology, which the man himself did so much to create. If we look at the detail of his life, one realizes just how extraordinarily humble his beginnings were and how precarious his position almost always was. This makes his achievements all the more impressive.

That is to say, throughout his life, De Gaulle’s position was often extremely insecure, facing setback after setback. And yet, through all this, he unbelievably persistent, always bouncing back, always trying again and again. He, again and again, had every reason to be discouraged or lose confidence, but he never gave up.

De Gaulle as as a POW in German-controlled Lithuania, 1916 or 1917.
De Gaulle as as a POW in German-controlled Lithuania, 1916 or 1917.

In World War I, De Gaulle did not play the heroic role of liberator against the German foe which he had dreamed of as a youth. He fought bravely, was wounded several times, and was captured by the Germans. As a POW, he tried to escape five times. The means he used were worthy of cartoons: tearing up bedsheets to make rope to escape by the window, hiding in piles of laundry, wearing a fake moustache . . . He was recaptured every time. One has to imagine this gaunt, skinny, dirty, half-starved, and very tall Frenchman striding across the German countryside.

In the interwar years, his career did not progress particularly fast. He advised and trained the officers of the newly-formed Polish army. He lectured on history at the French military academy of Saint-Cyr. He served as nègre (ghostwriter) for Marshal Philippe Pétain, the famous hero of the Battle of Verdun, but soon fell out with him, unhappy about the edits his staff wished to bring to their shared book:

“Style makes the man.” One may comment on a man’s work, ask him to change his work in this or that respect, but above all let him make the changes himself, otherwise the edits will have the effect of removing everything personal from the work, that is to say everything vigorous. They will turn book into a university thesis, turning the style into a drafting [rédaction], which may be of interest in its way, but which will have no soul and die as soon as it is read.”[3] 332

How neatly De Gaulle has summed up my distaste for the products of committees!

In the 1930s, De Gaulle constantly wrote and lobbied for France to have a professional army (rather than conscripts) and dedicated tank divisions (rather than having support tanks sprinkled among infantry divisions). One sees these efforts in the seemingly innumerable letters he wrote in support of politicians who wanted to modernize France’s military.

While De Gaulle was frustrated by the French Republic’s conservative and defensive approach to military matters, General Heinz Guderian, the German officer promoting a similar tank strategy, enjoyed ample support from Adolf Hitler in favor of tank warfare. The results were visible in May-June 1940, when the famous German Blitzkrieg tanks steamrolled the Anglo-French forces through their astoundingly superior mobility. De Gaulle’s own tank battalion fared well at the battle of Abbeville, but this scarcely enough to turn the tide.

At this point, as a very junior general and undersecretary in the government, just shy of fifty years old, De Gaulle in effect defected to the British. As leader of the “Free French” in London, De Gaulle’s experience was also extremely humbling. Scarcely anyone or any territories joined him (namely the colony of Chad, a huge expanse of Central African desert under the black governor Félix Éboué). He had to accept the British bombing of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir – killing 1,300 French sailors – which Winston Churchill feared would fall to the Germans.

The Free French attack on Dakar to claim French West Africa was a total failure: the local French colonial and military authorities preferred to remain loyal to the (legal and effective) government of Vichy. When the British and Free French conquered French Syria, scarcely any of the French soldiers serving Vichy joined De Gaulle. The Americans excluded him from the liberation of French North Africa and the D-Day landings in Normandy in 1944. After that however, De Gaulle was able to rapidly form significant forces and be recognized as the leader of France. Thus did De Gaulle secure France’s seat at the victor’s table: all through pigheaded determination and never giving up, despite remarkably humble beginnings and repeated humiliations. Fake it till you make it!

And then fickle the French rejected him as early as 1946. Then begins the “Crossing of the Desert” (la traversée du désert), a quiet period during which De Gaulle wrote his memoirs and agitated against the Fourth Republic and its feckless parliamentary politicians.

• Category: History • Tags: Charles De Gaulle, France 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Wow, you sure know your Nietzsche and FBI crime statistics. Your future employers will be super impressed by your general knowledge!”

It seems that more and more young Western men are finding it difficult to find their place in the world. In the United States, men’s wages have stagnated over the last four decades, while women have been closing the gap. Perhaps not coincidentally, there has been a steady increase in both male and female involuntary celibacy (“incels)”, with a growing percentage of childless and never-married Americans. Half of Americans are either single, divorced, or never married.

The media helpfully observes that, with the economic decline of men, women are less and less able to find a man who meets their financial expectations. Simple observation would suggest that men have evolved to provide and women have evolved to care (or, as Schopenhauer and Gandhi pointed out, to spend). As a result forced economic equality between two different, to not say unequal, sexes translates into sexual and romantic misery for more and more Americans.

So much for the overall trends, but let’s not worry about them too much. The question is: How can you make the most of your personal situation and thus, improve both that situation and the society’s?

Personally, I had no understanding of the realities of professional life growing up. I hope this article can help at least a few men on their career paths.

First of all, forget the idea that your “education” is in any way supposed to prepare you for life or the workplace. Personally, I lean towards Michel Houellebecq and Ed West’s view that the schools need to be emptied and child labor reinstituted. The best thing would be to shut down most of the universities and, even, senior high schools, using the savings to provide tax cuts for companies hiring young people.

Do not think your academic (under)performance reflects anything of any relevance to the professional world. Study only as much as you like: either passionately because you find the subject to be of intrinsic value or just as much as is necessary to get any rubber-stamp diploma you might need. Either is fine.

On finding a job: get the necessary qualifications for whatever field you are looking into, be willing to move (ideally to somewhere where you have some relatives, family friend, or potential mentor, this can help enormously, both socially and professionally, or simply in terms of feeling at home), and go out and meet people. Find the people and organizations with money!

On actual professional advice, I tell everyone the same thing: read Hagakure. This book of samurai savoir-vivre has all you need. In short, never complain, criticize only to improve others or rectify a situation (never to injure), serve, and listen. Your little sacrifices and good faith will radiate to others, leading them to in turn listen to you, serve you, and promote you.

Try to join a field or company which is booming, the sooner you get in the faster you will rise. Don’t be afraid to “game” the system. It took me a long time to understand that professional success has little to do with merit or actual economic productivity. A promotion is often a question of being in the right place at the right time. In politics and bureaucracies, everyone is just waiting for their superior to die off or be taken down by a scandal.

If I were to sum up how I think a man’s career progresses, much boils down to two factors: Inspiration perspiration. By inspiration, I mean sincere and spontaneous pursuit of a goal of intrinsic worth, one which interests us as such, about which we are passionate, regardless of any immediate economic gain. By perspiration, I mean something more prosaic: reliability, serving others, hopefully having a useful skill, without any particular bells and whistles.

A “traditional” career path is realized through perspiration, game-changing is achieved through inspiration. Most people, being uninspired, will rise up either as useful practitioners or boring (“reliable”) bureaucrats. A few – a Jeff Bezos, a Julian Assange, a Donald Trump – will take the chance and change the game altogether. All really successful careers, ones that don’t immediately burn out in a glorious blaze, will in fact have episodes of exhilarating inspiration and longer periods of more humdrum perspiration.

My instinct is to tell young men to follow their inspiration as much as possible, but there is something to be said for a more straightforward career path, especially if one gets in on things early. This is ideal if you have a family tradition or a mentor in the field in question. It makes sense to study to be a doctor or an engineer if you have some spontaneous attraction to the field. You must enjoy what you do on some level.

I understand that if a young American joins the U.S. military at 16 or 21, he may retire with a pension at 36 or 41: certainly twenty years of service in the world’s most powerful fighting force (or its bureaucracy) will provide a man with character and insight into the ways of the world, and leave him the bulk of his life, if he so wishes, with the leisure to engage in patriotic politics.

I know people who managed to get their PhD immediately, secured a professorship, and produced three children before the age of 35, all the while providing copious, meticulous, and erudite written work for Western identitarian publications.

Then there is government, a career path long promoted by noted twitterati Second City Bureaucrat. In France, securing a senior post in the civil service is a preferred route, making one virtually unfireable. French civil servants are furthermore free to engage in politics and seek elected office: so long as they do nothing illegal (e.g. “hate speech”), their job will always be waiting for them at the end of their political sabbatical. Jean-Yves Le Gallou, Henry de Lesquen, and Florian Philippot all took this route, their civil service position giving them a secure base to work for the Front National or other nationalist parties, or indeed to setup an identitarian think-tank.

Similarly, the international civil servant Anne Kling works for the Council of Europe (not a body of the European Union), all the while producing important Judeo-critical and nationalist books (I have reviewed and summarized Kling’s work on Jewish lobbies in France at The Occidental Observer). Anyone who gets into the EU bureaucracy at a young age will soon be rolling in dough – paying virtually no taxes – if he is not bored to death in the meantime.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Careers, Employment, Feminism 
🔊 Listen RSS

The speed of social change in the modern era, and in particular in the contemporary West, is so rapid that we all are liable to feel a bit lost.

A recent example of this was provided by none other than Hillary Clinton, that most “progressive” representative of global oligarchy. You see, the 71-year-old Clinton, whose presidential campaign was premised on making history as the first female presidency, still believes in biological sex:

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

Hillary’s squirming on the topic caused visible glee in the foul-mouthed comic artists at The Daily Stormer. Meanwhile her daughter Chelsea also believes that men claiming to be women have a human right to play in women’s sports.

There’s something truly surreal about these kinds of developments. One wonders where to start.

This sort of insanity has been a long time coming. The truth is that Western civilization has been steadily feminizing for at least the last two centuries. The decline of men has become a topic of conversation on the outer edges of the mainstream media. Men’s decline has been at once biological, economic, social, and moral.

Witness the testosterone levels:

Sperm counts:


In Western Europe, the decline of men has been systematized through the use of quotas in favor of women. In June 2000, France voted a law requiring political parties to have 50% female candidates. Today, the European Commission has a stated objective of having at least 40% female managers, an objective that can only be reached by systematically discriminating against men in promotions. The EU wants to impose a similar legal quota for publicly-traded European companies, to have 40% women on all corporate boards. This would also apply to fields, such as tech and sciences, where there are few female applicants to begin with.

At the risk of discouraging people, and I think we should always be realistic, I believe the decline of men has not bottomed out yet. In Western Europe certainly, the process of evicting excess “white males above 50” – a common phrase in France – has not been completed. While there are certain protections in the United States, I suspect that “woke capital” and pious H.R. departments will become more aggressive in discriminating against men, in the name of equal outcomes between the genders, itself tendentiously equated with equal opportunities.

The predominance of women is not without consequence for liberty and excellence. A 2015 Pew poll found that women were almost 50% more likely to support government censorship of “statements that are offensive to minority groups” than were men. Women, particularly left-wing women, are more politically intolerant: one survey found that 30% of Democratic women had blocked, unfriended or stopped following someone online for their politics, as against only 8% of Republican men. The London Times reported in May 2016 that female students overwhelmingly supported censorship of university publications if these were “considered offensive to certain groups.”

Naturally, any number of truthful statements may be painful or “considered offensive to certain groups.” Most pointedly, any suggestion that men and women have meaningful biological and psychological differences, and therefore to some degree should have different social roles, will be considered “offensive.”

This highlights the self-reinforcing nature of the Western societies’ feminization.

Any rational and fact-based discussion about gender equality and the right roles for the sexes is impossible in our society. It is impossible because we cannot even bring ourselves to recognize the reality of biological sex – hence the increasingly-widespread insanity of allowing male-to-female transsexuals participate in, and thereby dominate, women’s sports. In the face of such insanity, all our ancestral wisdom and modern science – not to mention my own scribblings – are quite useless: there’s no helping people who are too dishonest or cowardly to see what is in front of their own nose.

However, for the sake of our young white boys – who are already being scapegoated for the inevitable failures to achieve equality and who need to take up their place in society as proud and confident men – I will provide a brief account of sex differences and what gender relations might look like in a healthy society.

Biological sex differences beyond the mere reproductive apparatus, known as sexual dimorphism, is the norm in much the Animal Kingdom. This reflects the differing evolutionary strategies of males and females. Almost every difference imaginable is possible, according to that particular species’ differing evolutionary strategies for males and females. Typically, while females carry and (where applicable) nurture offspring by default, males are more competitive and have to prove themselves in some way to get the female’s approval; whether this means rams battering their horns against one another or birds preparing elegant nests or showing off their spectacular plumage. (On which see David Attenborough’s innumerable nature documentaries, which typically boil down to animals struggling to get food, not get eaten, and find a mate.)

• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Feminism, Political Correctness