Print this post Print this post

2014: The Year in White Nationalism

still-life-with-a-glass-of-champagne-johann-wilhelm-preyer2,115 words

On the whole, 2014 was a good year for White Nationalism, European ethnonationalism, and allied trends. Of course, we New Rightists are subtle dialecticians, for whom better is always better, but worse is better sometimes too.

Better is Always Better

1. In France, the Front National took 24.9% of the votes in the 2014 EU election – more than any other party – and 24 of France’s 74 seats in the European Parliament. The FN also won 12 mayoral races. Marine Le Pen is now the front-runner in the 2017 French presidential election. In my view, France is now the key to European liberation. If France goes nationalist, halts immigration, and begins emigration of non-whites, the usual suspects will be screaming for war. But France has an independent nuclear deterrent and the most autarkic economy in Europe. She cannot be treated like Serbia or Austria. If France goes nationalist, and stays nationalist, other European nations will follow.

2. In Denmark, the populist/immigration restrictionist Danish People’s Party won 26.6% of the votes in the European Parliament elections, making them the single largest party.

3. Hungary is ruled by its largest political party, Fidesz, which is to the Right of every other ruling party in Europe. Party leader Viktor Orbán has pledged to create an “illiberal” state, i.e., one that is socially conservative and economically protectionist. In the 2014 elections Hungary’s third-largest party, Jobbik, which is to the Right of Fidesz, won 20% of the vote in the last parliamentary election (to Fidesz’s 44%).

4. In Ukraine the nationalist/populist Svoboda party and its more radical offshoot Right Sector played a prominent role in the revolution that brought down Moscow-backed crook Viktor Yanukovych. My hope is that nationalist forces eventually create an independent Ukraine that puts national identity and social justice ahead of globalization and EU/NATO integration.

Unfortunately, the Russian seizure of Crimea and the Russian special op in Eastern Ukraine has driven Ukraine closer to the EU and NATO and bottled up the Right-wing revolutionary impetus in a national unity government, both predictable consequences of Russian aggression.

5. Communism in East Germany started unraveling in Saxony, when the streets of Leipzig and Dresden were filled with protesters. The Communist regime had been hollowing out for decades because more and more Germans came to disbelieve the ideology and promises of the state. But state terror kept them silent, and state propaganda led them to feel that they were alone. However, in 1989, when the power of the state’s repression wavered just a bit, the streets filled with people, the dissidents discovered that they were not alone—indeed, they were the majority—and the hollow system imploded

Germany today is, of course, ruled by liberal-democratic/multiculturalist version of the same egalitarian lie. But this regime too is increasingly hollow, and the next revolution may be beginning in Saxony as well, as tens of thousands have taken to the streets of Dresden to protest Islamization, multiculturalism, and immigration in protests organized by PEGIDA, which stands for Patriotische Europaeer Gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West.

6. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats, another Right-populist, anti-immigration party, won 12.9% of the vote in the 2014 general election, taking 49 seats in parliament (14% of the total), making them the third largest party. This gave them the power to force a new general election, in March of 2015, which they hoped would be a referendum on immigration. The establishment parties, however, have banded together to stop the election. If peaceful reform remains blocked, revolutionary violence may follow.

7. In Austria, the Freedom Party under Heinz-Christian Strache won 19.72% of the vote and 4 seats in the EU elections, its best performance since 1999.

8. In the UK, the Euro-skeptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) received the most votes (27.49%) of any British party in the 2014 European Parliament election and gained 11 extra MEPs for a total of 24.

9. On November 9, in a non-binding referendum on Catalonian independence, 80% of voters favored independence, 10% favored greater autonomy within Spain, and only 5% favored the status quo.

10. On September 18, Scotland had a referendum on independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. It was defeated 55% to 45%.

I think that the New Right should cheer on all such secessionist movements, because if we believe in ethnonationalism, it is important to establish precedents for the peaceful dissolution of multicultural societies on ethnic lines.

Now, of course we all have points of disagreement with these parties and movements. But let’s take those objections as read and instead focus on the forest rather than the trees: all of these developments are positive signs that Europeans are awakening to the dangers of immigration, multiculturalism, and globalization; they are awakening to the importance of identity; and they are recognizing that the best solution to these problems is national self-determination.

Sometimes Worse is Better

In the United States, the only good news for White Nationalists is bad news. Anything that weakens the United States as a global power and increases racial tension, polarization, and consciousness domestically has to be counted a good thing by White Nationalists. Three events in 2014 have particularly gratified my Schadenfreude:

1. ISIS: The rise of the Islamic State has not only prevented the US from exiting Iraq, it is a refutation of US policy in Syria, and it has certainly given whites a new reason to resist Islamization.

2. Obamnesty: Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty and the utterly ineffectual Republican response can only increase racial tensions and cynicism toward the system.

3. Dindu Agitation: With their campaigns to canonize as martyrs of white racism worthless black criminals like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner (who invariably claim they “dindu nuffin”) and to whip up more black crime, including full-scale riots, the American media and the Obama administration have done more to raise white racial consciousness and destroy the system’s credibility than decades of White Nationalist efforts.

Black lives don't matter to blacks, so why should they matter to me?

Black lives don’t matter to blacks, so why should they matter to me?

Past the Peak

In 2014, a number of bad trends seem to have peaked and are now on their way out.

1. Oil Doom: The production of Peak Oil doom has itself peaked, and its value is collapsing. Pretty soon you won’t even be able to give this stuff away on the internet. I never thought I would talk like this, but it is true: “Peak Oil” was premised on a false understanding of markets and technological growth. It was also fueled by a perverse sort of optimism on the part of people who are alienated from modernity and eager to believe that an inevitable historical trend will bring it to an end. Of course everything ends. But ironically, like the people they criticize, Peak Oil doomers are characterized by overweening optimism and hubris in their assumptions that they can know how and when the end will happen.

2. Dollar Doom: Although I admit that my evidence is anecdotal, in my sphere of acquaintances, there is a growing skepticism about Austrian economics-driven dollar doom predictions, and this is not entirely due to my own efforts. It seems to be a ripple in the Zeitgeist.

I think orthodox economic price theory (supply and demand, marginal utility, etc.) is 100% correct, but I am increasingly skeptical of orthodox monetary theory. In fact, I think that it has been empirically refuted by the fact that the dollar supply has been vastly increased over the last 7 years without hyperinflation. Admit it, there is something fishy about hard money advocates funded by a guy who made a business of trading precious metals for soon-to-be-worthless dollars.

White Nationalism needs to completely separate itself from free market/libertarian dogma and explore the wealth of critiques of capitalism from the Right, for example, Social Credit and Distributism. Individual liberty, private life, private property, and private enterprise are all values. But the preservation and perfection of our race and its civilizations are higher values that trump individual and economic interests whenever they conflict.

3. Putin- and Russophilia: At the beginning of 2014, Vladimir Putin was my sentimental favorite in any confrontation with the United States, the EU, NATO, Israel, and international Jewry. I published pro-Putin pieces at Counter-Currents/North American New Right, and I defended their authors and Putin in discussions.

Then the Ukrainian Revolution happened. At first, I looked at all sides of the issue. I even translated and published some of Guillaume Faye’s pro-Russian articles. And eventually I came down on the Ukrainian side against Putin. (And, for the same reasons, on the Russian side against Putin.) Why? Because I am an ethnonationalist, and we believe in self-determination for all peoples, and that is not a principle I am willing to sacrifice on the dubious argument that the only way to oppose US hegemony is to turn a blind eye as the Russians bully their neighbors and try to put their empire back together.

At a certain point, it became clear to me that White Nationalists and the European Right in general were being targeted for some outrageous Russian propaganda. It was rather breathtaking to hear people who 6 weeks before were (wink-wink-nudge-nudge-) neo-Nazis suddenly decrying Ukrainian “Nazis,” praising Putin who claimed to be fighting against fascism and anti-Semitism, and explaining to me that I should not like the Ukrainian “Nazis” because they are mere puppets of the international Jew. When I pointed out the falsehoods and contradictions of this position, I was shocked that people were willing to turn the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a polarizing shibboleth over which they were willing to behave obnoxiously or dishonorably, sacrifice collegial relationships, and harm the greater White Nationalist cause.

For example, on two occasions in 2014, Richard Spencer’s Radix published articles dealing with Ukraine—one by John Morgan, the other by Matthew Raphael Johnson—that subsequently simply disappeared when higher authorities deemed them insufficiently pro-Russian. To put things in perspective, Radix has never had a problem with people who ignore or whitewash the Jewish problem. They have never had second thoughts about publishing philo-Semites and Jews. But being pro-Russian is a litmus test. This is an embarrassment to all involved. There is a lot of taste and talent at Radix. I hate to see it being misspent, and I hope they will get back on track in 2015.

I am proud that Counter-Currents has taken a leading role in debunking White Nationalist delusions about Russia, Putin, and Ukraine. We’ve won that battle.

4. Duginism: I am interested in Traditionalism and the European New Right, so naturally I was interested in learning more about Alexander Dugin. Thus Counter-Currents hosted a good deal of discussion about his work, particularly when The Fourth Political Theory was published in English. But when it became clear that Dugin is an enemy of biological race realism and ethnonationalism, I lost interest. Then Dugin’s stance on Ukraine convinced me that he is intellectually dishonest, at which point I took an interest in actively combatting his influence. Duginism has peaked in the West, and again I am proud of the role that Counter-Currents has played in exposing this bearded exotic for the charlatan and distraction that he is. (For my views of Dugin, click here and here. For Adriano Giuliano Malvicini’s series of articles on Dugin, click here.)

One Prediction for 2015

Pretending that blacks are equal to whites is probably the most destructive and expensive folly in human history. For whites, blacks are the totemic non-white “others,” to be humored and patronized at the expense not just of whites but of all other non-white groups as well (except Jews, of course).

Two recent examples.

First, fear of criticizing a black president, primarily from the Left, has allowed Barack Obama to drive healthcare prices up and quality down for millions of Americans and to turn what began as a drive for socialized medicine into the greatest windfall in history for private insurance companies. It is an utter fiasco, but most progressives are too intimidated by Negro sanctity to admit it.

Second, on December 20th, the Dindu Agitation campaign jumped the shark when another worthless black (and a Muslim too, as a bonus) named Ismaaiyl Brinsley murdered his black girlfriend, murdered two New York City policemen (one Asian and one Hispanic), and then killed himself—all to strike a blow against whitey.

The police backlash against race-hustlers like Al Sharpton and New York’s communist, race-mixer mayor Bill De Blasio was swift, and even Pedro and Charlie are wondering why, exactly, they rank beneath America’s sorriest race in the social hierarchy.

Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I am seeing the roots of a new consensus that may make 2015 the year of Peak Negro Patronizing, when blacks will begin losing their sacrosanct status as racial martyrs and touchstones of progress in the eyes of liberal whites. When whites start saying “no” to black stupidity and mischief, many new things will become politically possible.

Happy New Year from Counter-Currents!

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

40 Comments

  1. Posted January 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

    You really need a better grounding in the basics.

    Are we going to behave that way? That’s what you think? I have no grounding in the basics? I’m certainly not an economist but neither are you. I’m here to hash out the issues. Is that your goal or do you want to lecture me?

    You know the point I’m trying to make and it isn’t related to elasticity. In fact I would say that my demand for bananas doesn’t have anything resembling an elasticity function attached to it. That is to say, there would just come a time when I got rung up for bananas, a gallon of milk, and a pound of grass fed beef from Whole Foods and the price would be some absurd dollar amount. At this point I would check my receipt, balk, and vow to never buy those little yellow devils again.

    The truth is that most goods just don’t fluctuate outside of the band of elasticity for the normal consumer. Although the notion wasn’t what I was getting at exactly. The real point was that there was no diminishing marginal utility for me. Just like money (when considered as a commodity) has no diminishing marginal utility either. Do those with gold and money lust ever stop? Are they sated? No. Demand is infinite and utility is infinite in some sense as well.

    (a) What you said is true of you with respect to bananas and the general range of prices bananas take. You are not the market. Other people differ. Many people do look at the price. Some of them are affected by even very slight changes.

    Ok.

    (b) The demand curve for necessities tends to be very steep. It’s considered “inelastic” – for most people, it varies little in relation to price changes. No economics textbook fails to cover this.

    No they don’t fail to. But again I think you’re missing the point a bit.

    Reading Keen, I was very surprised by his argument that the market demand curve couldn’t be derived by aggregating individual demand curves (unless extremely unrealistic assumptions were made).

    Well I’m writing a review of his book because I think it is a much better introduction to the subject than Mankiw or any other undergrad Intro books I’ve read. Hopefully it’ll clarify some things and we can work thru it.

    And the assumptions are:

    1) There is only one consumer (or identical copies of one consumer)
    2) There is only one product/commodity (or all consumption is homothetic or ‘neutral’ which is impossible)

    Forget the math though. It is not really important for the argument. The book is free on the internet so you can download it and I can tell you the exact pages the argument is on.

    though they typically claimed market demand could be derived via other means.

    Natch. And they usually use even more absurd conditions. It’s serious gymnastics.

    Fundamentally, though, he’s committing the same sin that he accuses mainstream economists of when he ignores very basic economic realities like downward sloping demand in favor of mathematical models that produce sine wave-like demand curves.

    He doesn’t say sine waves. He says words like ‘stochastic’ or ‘chaotic’ or something of that nature. 3rd order calculus shit that creates strange shapes. The exact phrase is:

    Economics can therefore no longer wave its preferred totem, but must instead only derive supply as a point determined by intersection of the marginal cost and marginal revenue curves.

    Worse still, once we integrate this result with the fact that the demand curve can have any
    shape at all, the entire ‘Totem of the Micro’ has to be discarded. Instead of two simple intersecting
    lines, we have at least two squiggly lines for the demand side – marginal revenue and price, both of which will be curves – an aggregate marginal cost curve, and lots of lines joining the many intersections of the marginal revenue curve with the marginal cost curve to the price curve. The real Totem of the Micro is not the one shown at the beginning of this chapter, but a couple of strands of noodles wrapped around a chopstick, with lots of toothpicks thrown on top.

    But I can definitely see the point of that critique and I’d argue that due to his excitement about the subject and tendency to write polemically ensure that he is easily misread. He doesn’t really mean to suggest that demand takes a different pretty shape. Only that they are sloppy ‘curves’ (in the mathematical sense) rather than ‘lines’. And I want to stress that these are still maps – not the terrain.

    And, I believe (and I think he does), that there is a bit of truth in the ‘Law of Demand’ but not in the way that economists would have you believe.

    Lastly, as ‘New Rightists’, I would hope that we both start with the assumption that homo economicus doesn’t exist; man is not some utility maximizing creature that rationally pursues self-interested gain at all times. That puts us at least partially in the Post-Keynesian camp. But that Bethamite fantasy man is essential for developing the ‘Law of Demand’ so, consequently, we should be wary of a marginalist microeconomics that assumes him.

  2. Verlis
    Posted January 10, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    My demand for bananas for example. I buy one bunch a week. That’s it. I don’t even look at the price. Sometimes I don’t even check if they are organic. It certainly doesn’t slope downward in a smooth linear fashion. Especially not for necessities.

    You really need a better grounding in the basics.

    (a) What you said is true of you with respect to bananas and the general range of prices bananas take. You are not the market. Other people differ. Many people do look at the price. Some of them are affected by even very slight changes.

    (b) The demand curve for necessities tends to be very steep. It’s considered “inelastic” – for most people, it varies little in relation to price changes. No economics textbook fails to cover this.

    Reading Keen, I was very surprised by his argument that the market demand curve couldn’t be derived by aggregating individual demand curves (unless extremely unrealistic assumptions were made). I couldn’t follow his mathematical reasoning to be sure of what I was reading, but the reviews of his book that I read seemed willing to concede his point – though they typically claimed market demand could be derived via other means. Fundamentally, though, he’s committing the same sin that he accuses mainstream economists of when he ignores very basic economic realities like downward sloping demand in favor of mathematical models that produce sine wave-like demand curves.

    I’m confused. The quote you quote from the paper is saying that you CAN study the macro economy separately from the micro.

    Yes, you got me. I misread the passage I was quoting.

  3. Verlis
    Posted January 9, 2015 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    I’m making two assertions really and you haven’t answered either of them. Firstly I’m saying that all the fundamentals of microeconomics are wrong; starting with the downward sloping demand curve. Secondly, even if some of the totems of microeconomics were true they wouldn’t scale up; that is they would be subject to aggregation fallacies.

    Daniel, when Greg said he believes “orthodox price theory 100% correct” the theories he is agreeing are those that form part of the cumbersomely titled “new neoclassical synthesis,” the basic mainstream of academic economists that unites the New Keynesians and the New Neoclassicals. So it is by no means “absolutely false” when I point out that within this mainstream synthesis the microeconomic aspects are the more reliable. (Reliable in the sense that their theories are good approximations of economic events, not “reliable” in the sense of 100% ultimate economic truth.) Post-Keynesians and their affiliates, like this Stephen Keen fellow that excites you so much, don’t form part of this synthesis.

    Please, for your own good, back off on your true believer acceptance that the demand curve isn’t downward sloping. Keen’s angle of attack is that the derivation of a market demand curve from individuals is mathematically untenable. That may be so (though I bet you don’t understand the math any better than I do), but it’s beside the point. Emphasis is placed on individual demand in order to emphasize the importance of marginal benefit to the individual and how it affects individual decision-making; but one can ignore all this and simply look at the real world to see that demand generally slopes downwards (not necessarily at every point along the curve, though).

    The “totems” (that’s straight from Keen) of microeconomics may not scale up, true, but hello, don’t you suppose that might be why I urged Greg to be wary of “orthodox theory” at the macro level? The macro level is where the greatest disagreement among adherents of the mainstream synthesis lies.

    Lastly, that link you posted was not a “helpful intro” to the macro/micro distinction at all, except in that it “helpfully” concludes: “The idea that the macroeconomy cannot be studied separately from the microeconomy is deeply ascientific.” Poppycock. Consider physics. The findings of physics as they relate to life on earth and our solar system don’t scale up to the level of the entire universe nor do they scale down to the quantum level. So what? It’s still eminently useful and informative.

    • Posted January 10, 2015 at 12:28 am | Permalink

      Daniel, when Greg said he believes “orthodox price theory 100% correct” the theories he is agreeing are those that form part of the cumbersomely titled “new neoclassical synthesis,” the basic mainstream of academic economists that unites the New Keynesians and the New Neoclassicals. So it is by no means “absolutely false” when I point out that within this mainstream synthesis the microeconomic aspects are the more reliable. (Reliable in the sense that their theories are good approximations of economic events, not “reliable” in the sense of 100% ultimate economic truth.)

      Ok.

      Post-Keynesians and their affiliates, like this Stephen Keen fellow that excites you so much, don’t form part of this synthesis.

      Not just them. Marx does too. Anybody but Krugman basically. I dunno. I’m excited by it all. Anything to shake up the status quo and get people talking.

      I like this guy a lot: https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/

      Please, for your own good, back off on your true believer acceptance that the demand curve isn’t downward sloping.

      When somebody can demonstrate to me that the demand curve can’t take any shape (not necessarily ‘not downward sloping’) satisfactorily I’ll give it up. I’m not attached to anything except pursuit of the truth. That’s why the debate needs to be had. Truth doesn’t need fervor. I’m sorry if I come across the wrong way. It’s my shitty way of trying to be funny.

      Keen’s angle of attack is that the derivation of a market demand curve from individuals is mathematically untenable.

      Not exactly. I think he takes up multiple ‘angles’ against the idea. And not even that it is untenable but that it cannot be generated in isolation. Specifically in isolation from the distribution of income.

      Can we say that for some goods for some individuals the demand curve is downward sloping? Sure. Keen acknowledges that and so do I. But sometimes when I’m reading Mankiw or some other orthodox guy I can’t help but laugh. Like when they are talking about how my marginal utility decreases with each new banana I think to myself “I can’t fucking remember the last time I ate a banana.” Then I start thinking that actually, when I eat bananas regularly, I eat one per morning and the utility I derive for each banana is approximately the same.

      The point is that the whole idea of generating a demand curve from individual demand curves is silly. It doesn’t make sense. Too many variables in play.

      That may be so (though I bet you don’t understand the math any better than I do),

      I don’t right now. I only made it to algebra II. Certainly no math whiz but I’m good at it when I try. I’m going to really put my mind to at least learning enough to understand what the math guys are doing. I really want to study the subject over the next few years. Any help would be appreciated.

      but it’s beside the point.

      Sure.

      Emphasis is placed on individual demand in order to emphasize the importance of marginal benefit to the individual and how it affects individual decision-making; but one can ignore all this and simply look at the real world to see that demand generally slopes downwards (not necessarily at every point along the curve, though).

      Except that it doesn’t really (individual demand or aggregate). My demand for bananas for example. I buy one bunch a week. That’s it. I don’t even look at the price. Sometimes I don’t even check if they are organic. It certainly doesn’t slope downward in a smooth linear fashion. Especially not for necessities.

      People are sometimes forced into buying less and sacrifices are demanded of them by the market gods (e.g. when gas gets outta control). But now that gas is under control you think people have really started buying more than they need? They can give the shit away but people will only take so much. The concept of utility is flawed. The foundations of microeconomics are flawed. Are there some superficially trite things that are almost true? Yeah.

      Is demand somewhat related to price. Yes. The way the orthodox assert it is? Like a perfectly little lined totem? No.

      The “totems” (that’s straight from Keen)

      He’s actually quoting some Swede. And it’s the perfect example of how mental maps get out of control and start misrepresenting the terrain. People stop being people and start being ideologues.

      of microeconomics may not scale up, true, but hello, don’t you suppose that might be why I urged Greg to be wary of “orthodox theory” at the macro level?

      Possibly. Maybe I read too hastily. Good on you though.

      The macro level is where the greatest disagreement among adherents of the mainstream synthesis lies.

      Of course. Because the micro doesn’t scale up. Because it isn’t even really accurate at the individual level. Therefore macro is in chaos. At least that’s my general impression from my survey.

      Lastly, that link you posted was not a “helpful intro” to the macro/micro distinction at all, except in that it “helpfully” concludes: “The idea that the macroeconomy cannot be studied separately from the microeconomy is deeply ascientific.” Poppycock. Consider physics. The findings of physics as they relate to life on earth and our solar system don’t scale up to the level of the entire universe nor do they scale down to the quantum level. So what? It’s still eminently useful and informative.

      I’m confused. The quote you quote from the paper is saying that you CAN study the macro economy separately from the micro. Then you seem to say that one can study micro and macro phenomena independently using physics as an example. Like you are disagreeing with what’s in the quote but I think you are agreeing. I lost you. Or I’m misreading you. Or I’m misreading the quote.

      Anyway… Conservation of angular momentum doesn’t scale up to the planetary revolution around the sun level?

      As far as scaling down goes last time I read some decent physics I got the impression we were stuck at the electrons are best represented as being in ‘energy states’ and not really subject to gravity and such.

  4. Posted January 8, 2015 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    The reason I cant think straight is that apologists like you for Russia make my skin crawl, you will say anything or blame anyone who makes the Russian and Pro Russian separatist’s case look better. 290 odd people who had nothing to do with the Ukraine either for or against have been blasted out of the sky, and Putin cannot even say sorry we made a mistake, No, nothing to do with us, nothing to see here, move along. I am prepared to accept that they thought they were targeting a military plane, but they pulled the trigger, don’t you think they should at least check or be certain it is, or take the responsibility when it isn’t.

  5. Posted January 6, 2015 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
  6. Posted January 5, 2015 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Re: Austrian economics, it is clear that the Hayek/Mises doomsday predictions were alarmist, prompting many of its former students (many of whom are Republican and Pro-White) to discard pure capitalism as an essential part of their worldview. I think this is easier for younger white nationalists, since we do not carry the baggage of the Cold War in needing to define themselves in opposition to left economic-socialism.

    On Putin supporters/Russophiles, I think it is a mistake to ‘take sides’ in the Ukrainian conflict from a WN perspective – Svboda and Right Sector aren’t going to succeed in establishing a NS ethnostate, and neither will Putin oversee a Traditionalist ‘anti-west/anti-oligarch’ white Ukraine. I would only point out that within broader WN/Traditionalism there is a sentimentality towards Orthodoxy and Russian people and culture that does not necessarily implicate one in her geopolitics, any more than being a Francophile makes one ‘pro-Hollande’.

  7. Lew
    Posted January 4, 2015 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Only the American central bank can print or write to a hard drive somewhere an unlimited supply of the world’s reserve currency. It’s a distinct advantage. If the NSA is running a little short, just print up a few billion. Other countries, even America’s rivals, have to use dollars and a world finance system controlled by Americans or be shut out of commerce.

    If people want to understand money, I’m not sure it makes sense to start with arcane theory as if you’re trying to solve a science or logic problem where the proper application of rationality will control the outcome. Rather, I think you start by examining the motives of the people who print the money including Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen and Fischer.

    • Posted January 6, 2015 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Lew,

      Read the Bank of England papers I linked to and then come comment again.

      Fed Reserve printing isn’t that meaningful. Almost all currency is created by banks; not the central bank.

      This means the money supply is endogenous. The Fed is just the tail that (unsuccessfully) attempts to wag the dog.

  8. Posted January 4, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    The landmark paper: Money Creation in The Modern Economy

    Another excellent primer: Money in The Modern Economy: An Introduction

    You must certainly peruse these when you have a chance Greg. The Bank of England agrees (right in the header of the first paper) that the money supply is endogenous.

    I hate to be an ass but unless there are any actual neo-Keynesian economists in the New Right I’m going to end up the expert here.

  9. Verlis
    Posted January 4, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    I think orthodox economic price theory (supply and demand, marginal utility, etc.) is 100% correct, but I am increasingly skeptical of orthodox monetary theory.

    Be careful here. With respect to the kind of monetary theory you’re talking about, there really isn’t any orthodox theory. Instead, there are a number of competing schools. In general, the most reliable theories of economics lie in the area of microeconomics. Macroeconomics, in contrast, is far less well understood. Money (or ‘the money supply’), as it relates to the functioning of the aggregate economy, is an issue in macroeconomics and it’s far from settled, so you’re quite right to be skeptical of what any particular school (Austrian or otherwise) has to say about it.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 4, 2015 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      It is interesting to see just how “orthodox” is the idea that inflation is the automatic consequence of increasing the money supply faster than increases in productivity. I find it cropping up everywhere from the New York Times to the Nation. Hayek made a few tweaks to this idea, but it is pretty much Austrian orthodoxy too. This is the main premise of the dollar doomers, and I think it has been empirically refuted. If true, that means that the deeper premises of monetary orthodoxy should also be reexamined.

      • Verlis
        Posted January 6, 2015 at 12:06 am | Permalink

        Greg, you used the term “monetary theory,” but here you’re talking strictly about inflation. Monetary theory covers a lot more ground than merely inflation, and it is contentious. With respect to inflation, I would only say the hyperinflation doomsayers have been refuted – but that’s been the case since they arrived on the scene some forty years ago.

        Daniel,

        “Absolutely false”? Dream on.

        • Posted January 6, 2015 at 11:28 am | Permalink

          “Absolutely false”? Dream on.

          I’m making two assertions really and you haven’t answered either of them. Firstly I’m saying that all the fundamentals of microeconomics are wrong; starting with the downward sloping demand curve.

          Secondly, even if some of the totems of microeconomics were true they wouldn’t scale up; that is they would be subject to aggregation fallacies.

          I look forward to debating you on the subject once I’ve written my papers on it.

    • Posted January 4, 2015 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      In general, the most reliable theories of economics lie in the area of microeconomics. Macroeconomics, in contrast, is far less well understood.

      This is absolutely false. In fact, the discipline’s own assumptions about itself make it so.

      Macroeconomics has steadily and almost entirely disappeared after Keynes. Macroeconomics is applied microeconomics in the minds of economists. Because microeconomics is wrong macroeconomics is a mystery to them. It’s the reason nobody saw the economic crisis coming except non-orthodox economists. Money and credit do not figure prominently (at all really) in the orthodox understanding of the economy. There is also complete failure to understand that micro doesn’t scale up because aggregation doesn’t ‘work’. These two facts alone mean that economists are wrong on both counts; macro and micro.

  10. Demosthenes
    Posted January 2, 2015 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Johnson, happy new year to you and the Counter-Currents staff. If you will be giving a talk in NYC or New England this upcoming year please let the audience know so that we may attempt to make the trip. I’d be disappointed to know that I missed a chance to listen to a lecture. Why is Golden Dawn in Greece excluded from the year round up? I still believe the Greek nation has a better than even chance of experiencing a revival, but as you say if France revives itself all the better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6agS4yfauZE

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 2, 2015 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Golden Dawn had a bad year in 2014, but let’s hope they fare better this year.

  11. European Observer
    Posted January 2, 2015 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Two observations:

    1. Despite the surge in popularity, Marine Le Pen will only have the chance to win the presidential elections if she is against a socialist candidate in the second round. Otherwise, the socialist voters will tilt the balance in favour of the centre-right candidate as it already happened to her father in the 2002 elections.

    2. The author seems to share a widespread misunderstanding about the nationalist nature of the recent independence movements in Scotland, Catalonia and elsewhere in Europe. He infers from them being directed against their central government (true), that they are less immigrationist and multiculturalist than them (false).

    The opposite is true: These movements have been systematically using a pro-EU and pro-diversity rhetoric to undermine the legitimacy of the central power by showing they are more cosmopolitan, inclusive and that Madrid and London are the real ‘narrow-minded provincials’.

    It is a nationalism bereft of a true sense of nationality, a nationalism which is limited to opposition to their ancient homeland rulers, a dichotomy often only for economic reasons which does NOT extend to other peoples.

    In short, these nationalism stop where they should have actually started, with extra-European mass immigration, and are thus useless to a white nationalist movement if their drive is not redirected.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 2, 2015 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      No, I am not assuming that the Scottish and Catalonians are better on immigration or the EU than the nations they wish to leave. They are pretty much the same. So those issue are a wash. My hope is that (1) the simply shuffle the deck and destablize existing centers of power, and (2) that they provide recent examples of peacefully dissolving larger political units on ethnic lines.

      • European Observer
        Posted January 5, 2015 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Have to disagree again:

        1. A fragmentation of Europe’s political landscape into smaller national units will invariably lead to more power concentrated on the EU level (“divide et impera”). And Bruxelles is, of all, staunchly pro-mass immigration.

        2. Unlike European autochthonous minorities, the recent African and Asian immigrants settle dispersed across the countries, mainly in urban centres. Hence, the model of secession Scotland or Catalonia had provided would have had no impact on the relationship between Europeans and extra-European immigrant population. The latter would simply continue to live on in smaller entities.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted January 5, 2015 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

          1. More sovereign European states does not automatically imply more power in Brussels. Stop using phrases like “divide and rule” as substitutes for thinking. Both Spain and the UK are EU members already. If Scotland were independent, that might actually strengthen anti-EU parties in England. At worst, there would be no net increase in EU power, just an increase in the number of EU states. But there are other benefits.

          2. Secession need not have any net effect on immigration to be a positive.

          You are framing the whole issue of secession wrongly by focusing on EU power and immigration. There are other reasons for supporting secession. Again, the mere fact of a peaceful partition of a nation on ethnic lines makes our work easier.

          • European Observer
            Posted January 5, 2015 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

            1. Scottish independence might have strengthened anti-EU parties in England, but at the certain cost of making Scotland a Labour home turf – a zero-sum game from the viewpoint of a white internationalist.

            2. The point is that “mere fact of a peaceful partition of a nation on ethnic lines” would not serve as a model in Europe, as a partition of European countries on a line between European natives and the non-European immigrant population is neither feasible nor desirable.

            Overall, there is far greater white nationalist potential in the loss of EU legitimacy through the Euro crisis and the popular backlash against the foreseeable rise of Islamic terrorism than in those Western European independence movements which seem already past their absolute peak anyway.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted January 7, 2015 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

            1. I am not sure what a “white internationalist” is, but it sounds unsavory.

            2. Scotland is already in the EU as part of the UK, so if England leaves the EU, that is definitely a plus for white enthonationalism

            3. Nobody is talking about partitioning European countries between Europeans and Muslims. This is such a flagrant straw man that I have to question your good faith.

  12. Greg Johnson
    Posted January 2, 2015 at 4:43 am | Permalink

    A good number of excellent comments were accidentally deleted today, for which I apologize.

  13. AFinnNotAHuckleberry
    Posted January 1, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Happy New Year to Counter-Currents as well!

    I agree on Russia, among other things. I think the whole Russia-Ukraine -conflict has been a terrible tragedy for all sides. And it’s certainly baffling to see White Nationalists falling for old Soviet propaganda strategies and start screaming “nazi” and “fascist” at the Ukrainians. It’s another dividing issue that unfortunately raises a lot of animosity. But who are the higher-ups at Radix? I have my suspicions, but I’ll restrain from making any assumptions without knowing any better.

  14. Olof
    Posted January 1, 2015 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    “In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats, another Right-populist, anti-immigration party, won 12.9% of the vote in the 2014 general election, taking 49 seats in parliament (14% of the total), making them the third largest party. This gave them the power to force a new general election, in March of 2015, which they hoped would be a referendum on immigration. The establishment parties, however, have banded together to stop the election. If peaceful reform remains blocked, revolutionary violence may follow.”

    I am Swedish and I can tell you that the idea that revolutionary violence may follow is completely off the map. A more realistic assessment would be that “angry comments on Facebook may follow, but then most people forget and vote for the establishment, pro-immigration parties in the next election”.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 2, 2015 at 3:14 am | Permalink

      It may seem unkind, but I was being ironic. It does seem a bit of a stretch for Sweden today. But when peaceful reforms are blocked, violence is the only way forward. The Swedish establishment knows this, and they are betting that Swedes will go quietly to extinction offering only ineffectual protests in a rigged democratic system.

  15. Targate
    Posted January 1, 2015 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    While it may be true that “blacks” in the aggregate or abstract are not equal to whites, it is clearly true that some individual blacks are superior to individual whites. And then, of course, we run into the question of by whose measure. Each of us are, of course, entitled to our own measure.

    But I find the argument from superiority to be flawed. An argument from compatibility is possible. But there are counter-examples. An argument from biology is clearly self-contradictory. The only argument that seems legitimate to me is one of preference. The rest all seems to be rationalization, which can be framed to makes a good argument…but can just as easily be countered.

    In the end, my observation is that the case for “new rightism” is an aesthetic preference. Even more so, I see the point-of-view of this website deals in abstraction from the concrete experience of real, human beings. To treat individuals as pawns in some great race game may feed the psychological needs of its purveyors, but it does little to enhance the lives of real human beings. Culture is a rich creation. But it seems to me that it pales in comparison to love, which is both real and transcendent.

    So we can wrap ourselves in pseudo-intellectual argument until we are blue in the face. But I leave you with a New Year’s wish from a decidedly middlebrow pop group of some repute: “All you need is love.” Which is what I wish you all in 2015. Love and be loved.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted January 1, 2015 at 5:26 am | Permalink

      “All you need is love.”

      It is exactly such naive ideas – undoubtedly derived from Christianity – that make us vulnerable to attacks by the savages of this world. Have you ever read The Color of Crime by Jared Taylor or do you know what is happening to the Boers in South Africa?
      Love – and protect – your own people but keep the savages at a distance.

    • Dan O'Connor
      Posted January 1, 2015 at 5:40 am | Permalink

      ” it is clearly is true that some individual Blacks are superior to individuals Whites. ”

      That is not possible because non-Whites belong to and identify with a totally different historical , ancestral , kinship , mythological, legendary, traditional , cultural stream –including red haired blue-eyed Afghanis who also can never be us because they belong to a totally different historical stream . Genetics alone is not enough , but you can’t have the historical stream without the same genetics . White people will only realise that we ARE our past when we have been totally uprooted from it and no longer have a collective past . Identity stops becoming a meaningless abstraction and social construct when you are losing it
      Ask yourself this question . Who on the planet can be relied upon to be the most likely to put the interests of the Chinese people first ? Africans ? Arabs ? No, the Chinese . Why ? Because of genetics .
      Speaking of ” love ” . It is totally abnormal and unnatural to put the interests of the ” other ” on an equal footing or above one’s own . It is a pathological altruism, a death march . Whites are the only group in history to support policies which make their own group economically , culturally , politically ,territorically and demographically weaker . The only race that is not allowed to organise to defend its interests and future .
      The preservation of one’s own kind is the highest and foremost law of nature
      Love your people .

      • AngloAmerikan
        Posted January 4, 2015 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        Great comment! I was once accused of being a White supremacist but it is not about superior/inferior or physical attributes, it’s all about the unchangeable historical stream. Everything that has happened in the past is immortal, it cannot be changed, it cannot be replicated, it is god-like, certainly sacred, in this sense.

    • Kristian
      Posted January 1, 2015 at 6:31 am | Permalink

      Yes, yes.. Wasnt that song written by that multimillionaire who also wrote that song about “imagine no possessions”? ..talk about wrapping oneself around pseudo-intellectual arguments.. Lol, as they say on the internet.

  16. Bruce
    Posted December 31, 2014 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    For some reason Catalonia and Scotland have a right to secede but Crimea and Donetsk do not. Good job being a consistent ethnonationalist.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted December 31, 2014 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      As Colin Liddell put it so nicely, the people of Donetsk and Crimea might well have chosen to secede, but Russians with guns took away their right to decide.

      • Realist
        Posted January 2, 2015 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        I sure as hell don’t agree with your comments on Russia. You sound like a neocon or one of the warmongers at the State Department. You’re watching too much Fox News.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted January 2, 2015 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

          These sort of evasions, as well as reverting to censorship and character assassination, are the reasons I think the Putin shills have peaked.

          • Witness
            Posted January 9, 2015 at 4:16 am | Permalink

            But there’s something even more surreal than what I pointed out before: the article cheers the cultural marxists and plutocrats that want to tear apart Catalonia while praising the advance of the Front Nationale in France. The inconsistency is astounding. What does the Front think of separatists in France? What does the Italian new right think about venetian separatists?

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted January 9, 2015 at 11:19 am | Permalink

            This article is about what I think. Not about what Marine Le Pen thinks.

  17. Daniel Antinora
    Posted December 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    I think orthodox economic price theory (supply and demand, marginal utility, etc.) is 100% correct,

    you won’t when you’re done with my essays on the subject.

    but I am increasingly skeptical of orthodox monetary theory.

    rightfully so since it’s wrong. the endogenous folks/neo-Keynesians are more correct. the bank of England released a landmark paper this year admitting that money isn’t created by central banks. the paper describes currency creation in detail.

    In fact, I think that it has been empirically refuted by the fact that the dollar supply has been vastly increased over the last 7 years without hyperinflation.

    hyperinflation only comes into play when trying to settle international accounts.

    White Nationalism needs to completely separate itself from free market/libertarian dogma and explore the wealth of critiques of capitalism from the Right, for example, Social Credit and Distributism.

    Iintend to put the nail in the free market coffin.

    Individual liberty, private life, private property, and private enterprise are all values. But the preservation and perfection of our race and its civilizations are higher values that trump individual and economic interests whenever they conflict.

    amen. I intend to send you my work soon.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted January 1, 2015 at 1:31 am | Permalink

      I look forward to it.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above