Tag Archive for: globalism

America and the Future of Globalism

If globalization is the economic integration of nations in a world where technology has all but erased once formidable barriers to long-distance communication and transportation, globalism is its cultural and ideological counterpart. In theory, the same dynamics might apply. As economies merge, cultures merge as well. As we move deeper into the 21st century, a global melting pot blends everything and everyone together. A planetary civilization marches united into a future of peaceful coexistence, ecological restoration, human life extension, and galactic exploration.

If people were saints and reality utopia, this idealized version of globalism could be embraced without reservation. Globalism, like communism or neoliberalism, is beautiful when described in these abstract terms and not rooted in the real world. And there is a legitimate moral imperative for us to try to come to terms with what civilization will look like as technology continues to shrink the world. Technology makes globalization, in some ways, inevitable. But what ideology regulates globalization is a choice.

This is the lens through which to view the identity struggle that currently grips the United States and other Western nations. It clarifies what is at stake and points to the consequences of getting it wrong. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not hard to explain, people are not saints and reality is not utopian. Thus, the institutions currently defining policy in America are doing almost everything wrong. Their malpractice is pushing America into decline at the same time as it is alienating allies and empowering malevolent regimes. It must be corrected.

In two fundamental areas, the consensus of America’s elites, relentlessly escalated in policies imposed both by unelected administrators and elected officials, is horrifically wrong. The first of these concerns energy in particular, and more generally, environmentalism. These policies, which nations elsewhere on earth will not accept—to the point of being willing to go to war to stop them, if necessary—are going to strip Americans of freedom and prosperity if we continue to pursue them. That process is well underway.

In the name of saving the planet, Americans are being denied access to affordable energy, despite the fact that “renewables” are not only incapable of replacing oil, gas, coal, hydro, and nuclear power, but are even more destructive to the environment. In an attempt to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, Americans are being driven out of rural areas and into cities. In turn, America’s cities are prevented from expanding outward in order to prevent “sprawl.” Instead, people evicted from rural areas, along with millions of migrants from foreign nations, are packed via “infill” into multifamily, high-density apartments.

To express the scope of this transformation would require volumes. It is designed to eliminate America’s middle class and destroy small businesses. It extends into every economic sector—energy, water, food, transportation, housing, media, medicine. It is regulatory tyranny that only billionaire individuals and multibillion-dollar corporations can navigate. It centralizes power and cannot be administered without monitoring and micromanaging individual behavior. It is a dystopian nightmare, and it is quietly and systematically smothering what remains of free and economically independent Americans.

The other fundamental mistake America’s elites are promoting is the destruction of the meritocracy that, perhaps more than anything else, made America great. In the name of eliminating racism, sexism, and disproportionate outcomes for people with other identifiable group characteristics, merit and qualifications are being replaced by identity quotas. This, too, is rolling its way through America’s institutions.

Meritocracy, in the broadest sense of the word, is closely related to normality. It is normal to want the best-qualified people to fill positions. It is normal for social organizations, including businesses and government agencies, to best cohere when everyone is not only chosen for their competence, but for their acceptance of shared values and behaviors. Replacing normality with a celebration of abnormality, and replacing competence with quotas, as America’s institutions are doing, undermines the efficiency and the happiness of everyone involved. What’s left are implacable bureaucracies, vast and empty organizations without souls.

These mistakes are going to kill America. Energy poverty, environmentalist tyranny, “equity” over competence; these choices are fatal. But these are merely surface phenomena. The bigger problem is that there is a collective soul that has defined western civilization, developed over millennia, and now warped and abandoned by America’s elites. It is dismissed as an anachronism and an impediment. But it is the source of America’s greatness and restoring it is the only solution to America’s current misdirection.

A recent essay by Cauf Skiviersa provocative writer who was recently banned by Medium (you’ve been warned)—includes a paragraph that describes the foundations of Western civilization. For brevity, it’s as good as any. He writes:

The foundations of the West are anchored in the triad of Christianity, Greek philosophy, and Roman law. These pillars were not erected by a single, all-directing force, but rather were forged out of disagreement, wars, jealousy, and love. None of the elements necessitating any particular racial impetus. Much to the contrary. Christianity dispelled the notion of a ‘chosen people,’ extending salvation indiscriminately through faith. Rome, too, was built upon the bedrock of the Rule of Law, applicable to all. Greek philosophy was not concerned with the ‘lived experience’ of Athenians or the ‘spoken truth’ of Milesians, but rather with universal values.

The relevance of this paragraph is in its appeal to everyone, everywhere in the world. Salvation indiscriminately through faith. The rule of law applicable to all. Universal values. What this heritage gave rise to was a nation that even now remains an inspiration. A nation where individuals enjoy personal and economic freedom. A nation where the government does not intrude on where people live or how they develop their property. A nation where private enterprise and private ownership are respected and protected.

But our values—our piety, our idealism, our respect for individuality—have brought us to the present struggle to define our identity. We no longer agree on what’s normal. We no longer agree on what’s fair. Every right and every traditional value we cherish is threatened.

Fixing the surface phenomena—the orchestrated abolition of affordable energy and meritocracy—is conceptually easy. The most powerful coalition of special interests in American history must be opposed with equal resolve by an American people united against the tyranny that must govern a society that’s economically broken and indifferent to competence.

Fixing the foundations of the West, however, is a harder job. The goal, and the opposition, is harder to define. Will we settle on values that restore a healthy society? Can we overcome woke hysteria without overreacting our way into a version of repression that is just as dark as the tyranny it displaces? Can we recognize enough of the enlightened and evolving values of this century without succumbing to decadence and decay? If we can do this, we offer the foundations of a world civilization.

How America resolves its own identity struggle will largely determine what kind of culture we live in centuries from now. To say, probably accurately, that no nation on earth is trying with more integrity than America to figure out how we should live in a way that is sustainable and equitable while preserving individual freedom and economic independence is discouraging but also must be an inspiration. We have to get this right.

Whether nations eventually merge together or remain separate members of a community of sovereign states depends on how globalism is ultimately defined. America’s elites offer a future of green poverty and woke decadence. In doing so, they are squandering the greatness that other nations once admired and emulated. Instead of setting an attractive example, inviting other nations to join a global civilization, America’s elites are imposing a repugnant vision on the world. They must be stopped. There are alternatives. It is not too late.

This article originally appeared in American Greatness.

Green Globalism is the Ultimate Expression of White Supremacy

There has been broad recognition of late that the American Left projects their own flawed proclivities onto their political opponents. They accuse the Right of not caring about the American worker, but the functional consequence of every policy they devise has been destructive to American workers. They accuse the Right of being corporate puppets, when every major corporate special interest caters to the Left. They accuse the Right of having no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law, while they attempt to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, ignore the First and Second Amendments, and refuse to prosecute criminals. They accuse the Right of being fascist, yet their allies in Antifa and Black Lives Matter have cells operating in every major city.

Maybe the biggest projection of all is the common leftist accusation that the Right is dominated by white supremacists. The first thing to observe here is that the American Left – its leadership, its donors, and its corporate partners—“diversity, equity and inclusion” notwithstanding—is itself dominated by whites. And apart from their rhetoric, they certainly aren’t doing anything to help nonwhites. From welfare to affirmative action to avoidable cost-of-living increases, every policy the Left implements has the effect of disproportionately marginalizing and impoverishing nonwhites.

But are these white leaders on the Left supremacists? Yes, they are, because the American Left, and the globalist green agenda it is cramming down our throats, has only one logical ultimate goal: To conquer the world. It’s pretty hard to be more “supremacist” than that.

Recognizing this reality relies on fairly simple logic:

If life on Earth will come to an end unless all nations achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050, but so far the only nations attempting to achieve this goal are white Western nations, then to save the earth, those nations that are not complying must be forced to comply. In the short run, for example, this means preventing emerging nations from acquiring the investment and technical support to develop an energy economy based on fossil fuel. But within a decade or two, with another generation of Westerners reaching adulthood firmly convinced the world will come to an end if “net zero” is not achieved, the green agenda will be a marketable justification for world war.

It is possible to make this prediction without predicting the outcome. By 2040 or 2050, if not much sooner, the rest of the world will have had quite enough of Western meddling in their energy economy. Powerful nations like China and India will continue to develop whatever resources they wish, at the same time as they will invest in “environmentally incorrect” energy infrastructure in African nations and elsewhere, where the people are desperate to lift themselves into prosperity. This will be a source of increasing international tension, as the white Western globalists invoke the climate emergency and repeatedly attempt to thwart these efforts. At a time that may or may not be by choice, the West will have goaded the rest of the world into open conflict. How it may end is anybody’s guess.

Meanwhile, disparaging actual white supremacists, who represent a vanishingly small fraction of American and European far-right agitators, is a useful rallying cry for the Left. But to think this accusation has any strategic relevance is small thinking.

To paraphrase a memorable line from the movie “Forrest Gump,” supremacy is as supremacy does. And what the white-ruled regimes of the world (including the United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the rest of the nations of Western Europe) are doing is using the “climate emergency” and its attendant green globalist agenda to control and eventually conquer the world.

Another example of small thinking is when right-of-center Americans decry how globalists are undermining American sovereignty. Because they’re right, but if that’s the entire scope of their criticism, they’re missing the bigger picture. White, Western globalists are undermining every nation’s sovereignty.

I remember a few years ago speaking with a liberal friend who, like me, had been critical of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But when I asked my friend, hypothetically, if he would support America invading Brazil to save the Amazon rainforest, he lit up with enthusiasm. Without hesitation he proclaimed wholehearted support for such an adventure.

This is the populist face of green white supremacy. Few ever consider what may be the real reasons for America’s bipartisan neocon imperialism, such as protecting the hegemony of the U.S. dollar and safeguarding the expansionist interests of Western multinational corporations. Say it’s for the earth, and onto the imperialist war wagon they will jump. By the millions. Just be sure to paint the wagon green.

The environmental movement has always been dominated by whites. With rare exceptions, every trailblazing leader was white, and the movement today is overwhelmingly white. In the early days, they did amazing work. Greenpeace used to have just one mission: Save whales. The Rainforest Action Network was formed to protect rainforests. Even the EPA in its early years was committed to getting genuine pollutants out of the environment. No reasonable person questions the importance of environmentalist values, so long as they are balanced against human priorities. But just as the environmentalist movement has now been co-opted by the Left, and incorporated the entire leftist agenda into what was once an undiluted and important focus, the Left itself has been co-opted by globalists.

These people are overwhelmingly white, from the environmentalist power brokers that lead that corrupted movement today, to the plutocrats that define and implement the globalist agenda. What a terrific new bludgeon the climate emergency provides them. White globalists now have a moral justification to control the world: All resource consumption must be monitored and managed, or life on earth will come to an end. A threat so existential and so certain—because “the science” is beyond debate—must be met and overcome using any means necessary up to and including a genocidal war. It is better to kill a few billion people than to let the planet burn up. That’s a regrettable yet easy choice.

It is in this context that the American Left, which is now synonymous with the globalist establishment, accuses their political opponents of being white supremacists, or “adjacent” to white supremacists. It is the greatest projection of them all.

Whites who oppose the green global agenda, along with everyone else who opposes it, must realize they are fighting together against what is possibly the most potent supremacist movement in world history. A movement driven by an ideological green polestar that brooks no compromise and will countenance anything to fulfill the mission. The answer is to expose this movement for what it is; overtly supremacist, proclaiming a planetary crisis to camouflage an agenda of conquest, and dominated by white Westerners.

There is nothing redeeming in the green globalist war on conventional energy. We’re not talking about coordinating fishing quotas so Asian trawlers don’t strip mine every shred of living protein out of the oceans. We’re not talking about restoring mangrove forests on tropical coasts around the world to again buffer tsunamis. There are plenty of legitimate avenues for international cooperation by sovereign nations. But using an alleged “climate emergency” to take over and ration the energy consumption of the entire world is illegitimate and immoral. To promote it while fully aware of its inevitable consequences is evil.

If affordable fuel were permitted worldwide, all nations would prosper, and in the process all nations would experience what we have already seen in the West and throughout much of Asia; voluntary urbanization and voluntary population stabilization. Our shared challenge would then become how to use our surplus wealth to nurture and adapt to the changing environment, and make sure we still have enough babies to assure the vitality of our civilization. Isn’t that a better choice than jumping on the green war wagon?

In the ideological civil war within Western nations, the current ruling class, for all its proclamations against “white supremacy,” is itself the faction that is attempting to impose an explicitly supremacist agenda on the world. Green imperialism is still imperialism. Their opponents, decried as MAGA, or worse, are today’s inheritors of the ideals that inspired America’s founders—competitive free enterprise, private property rights, freedom of speech, individual rights, and the sovereign right of the people to choose their government.

This article originally appeared in American Greatness.

Flawed Globalist Ideology Underlies Opposition to Trump

There is a reason that nearly every powerful special interest in the United States is doing everything in its power to defeat Donald Trump, and it has nothing to do with the media’s fraudulent portrayal of him as a racist. Nor does it have anything to do with his allegedly abrasive personality.

If the president were willing to put the United States citizens under a total lockdown, allow millions of economic refugees to swarm across the borders, ship more jobs to Asia, and then impoverish whatever was left of middle America under the pretext of fighting “climate change,” he would be cruising to reelection.

Put another way, if Trump were a globalist, instead of a nationalist, there would not be well-funded militants destroying our cities while benefiting from a news blackout. There would not be NPC drones like ABC’s David Muir spewing anti-Trump pablum night after night, and money from Big Tech and Wall Street billionaires would be pouring into his campaign, instead of supporting his opponent.

In January 2018, in a speech of striking clarity, Trump described his vision of American nationalism. Addressing the assembled heads of state and business elite at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Switzerland, Trump’s speech amounted to a declaration of war on the globalists. For example, he said:

“The United States will no longer turn a blind eye to unfair economic practices, including massive intellectual property theft, industrial subsidies, and pervasive state-led economic planning. These and other predatory behaviors are distorting the global markets and harming businesses and workers, not just in the U.S., but around the globe. Just like we expect the leaders of other countries to protect their interests, as President of the United States, I will always protect the interests of our country, our companies, and our workers.”

These words did not constitute a threat to globalist ideology because Trump’s version of nationalism is toxic, but because it exposes the globalist vision itself as flawed and dangerous. What globalists want will not deliver peace or prosperity to the world, much less America. What globalist billionaires and globalist corporations want, however, will make them wealthier and more powerful than ever.

These words constituted a threat to globalist ideology not because Trump’s version of nationalism is particularly toxic, but because he exposed the globalist vision itself as flawed and dangerous. What globalists want will not deliver peace or prosperity to the world, much less America. What globalist billionaires and globalist corporations want, however, will make them wealthier and more powerful than ever.

In 2016 the World Economic Forum released a brief video called “8 predictions for the world in 2030” which remains an accurate summary of the globalist vision for the future. Here are the key points:

1) You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. Everything you’ll want, you’ll rent, and it will be delivered by drone.

2) The United States won’t be the world’s leading superpower. Instead, a handful of countries will dominate.

3) You won’t die waiting for an organ donor. We won’t transplant organs. We’ll print new ones instead.

4) You’ll eat much less meat. An occasional treat, not a staple. For the good of the environment and our health.

5) A billion people will be displaced by climate change. We’ll have to do a better job at welcoming and integrating refugees.

6) Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide. There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels history.

7) You could be preparing to go to Mars. Scientists will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space.

8) Western values will have been tested to the breaking point. Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten.

The essence of this list, or agenda, can be distilled into the following: Private property will be abolished, the United States will lose its sovereignty, food will be rationed, state-supported refugees will arrive by the millions and be dispersed into every American city and town, energy will be rationed, and America’s traditional values and institutions will be obliterated.

This is a deeply flawed vision of the future. It fails on every practical level, but is marketed relentlessly by all the same institutions that attack President Trump. And on the surface, it has a powerful moral appeal. Consider these lyrics from John Lennon’s globalist anthem: “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too.” This sounds great, until you face the reality of other powerful nations who aren’t about to cede their sovereignty to Western corporations, or deliberately undermine their cultures or their economies.

This means that “climate refugees” will not be pouring into China, or Japan, or Russia, or any other powerful and independent nations. It means those nations will continue to consume cheap and abundant fossil fuel, allowing them to allocate a higher percentage of their GDPs to more productive investments including research, industrial development, infrastructure upgrades, and military spending.

Deliberately hobbling the American economy, unilaterally, in the name of fighting “climate change” will elevate the price of everything imaginable—energy, water, food, housing, transportation, and every product and service that requires those basics for its own production. At the same time, adding tens of millions of “climate refugees” to America’s population without any regard to whether or not they come with productive skills will place additional burdens on an already handicapped economy.

Even worse, this agenda embraces a new dominant ideology, already well established, that attacks the core values that made America great. It justifies American submission to rationing and mass immigration through the underlying claim that American imperialist capitalism is responsible both for the “climate crisis” and the economic misery in other nations. It goes on to reject the most fundamental premise of capitalism, which is individual ownership of property. “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”

But just as abandoning the fate of the world to rising nations such as China—an implacable police state bent on enslaving the world—is obviously flawed, abandoning capitalist values to a society where “you’ll own nothing” is also a recipe for misery. Taking away the ability for individuals to own property takes away the incentive for people to work hard and strive to improve conditions for themselves and their families. Behind the obvious historical fact that communism and socialism have never worked and have led to nothing but murderous tyranny and economic devastation in every place they have ever been tried, is one simple truth of human nature: people need to have an incentive to achieve, or they won’t bother.

Thus far, America’s influential elites, from Big Tech and Big Media to at least some significant percentage of academia and the corporate community, have been unable to embrace the alternative vision President Trump represents. This is a failure of imagination as much as evidence of corruption. Because there is an alternative future that doesn’t involve American decline.

In this alternative to the agenda of the Davos set, instead of despoiling the landscape with millions of wind turbines, we would have clean fossil fuel, hydroelectric power, and nuclear power that is deregulated and allowed to create cheap abundant energy in America and around the world. This would cause a rapid rise in the standard of living and quality of life in developing nations, which would lead to rising literacy and lower birth rates. In Africa, India, and elsewhere, economic development also fosters voluntary population migration into revitalized and inviting urban centers, taking pressure off ecosystems and wildlife.

This scenario, where sovereign nations are encouraged to develop conventional energy and make big infrastructure investments, has been completely derailed by the Western obsession with fighting climate change. The result is environmental destruction caused by burgeoning populations pouring into protected wildernesses in search of firewood and game meat. And that is a cold, devastating fact. Anthropogenic climate change as an existential threat to humanity, on the other hand, is a theory; a mighty convenient one at that.

President Trump’s policies have encouraged industrial development, especially in the United States, but also around the world. The globalists’ agenda calls for tightly controlled development, massive migration, and socialist redistribution, all under the supposedly benevolent management of multinational corporations and international banks. But even if their intentions were entirely innocent, their plans, should they ever come to fruition, would spell catastrophe.

The irony of globalist ideology is that its ostensible goal, peace and prosperity for all mankind, is better served by Trump’s version of nationalism. What Trump envisions—peaceful competition between nations, all looking out for their own national interests—offers humanity a path into the future that can be realized without trauma, especially if America remains united and prosperous, and able to exercise leadership. What globalists offer is tyranny, masquerading as enlightenment.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

The Case for a Muscular Civic Nationalism

America today faces challenges that cannot be overcome without national unity. Desperate economic hardship and existential international threats are beyond the living memory of most Americans, but they could be coming back. The Pax Americana, in effect since 1945, may be coming to an end. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 America has been a hyperpower, dominating the world economically and militarily. All of that is now in question.

Every aspect of American power is threatened. America has a new peer competitor, China, controlled by a regime determined to attain superiority over the United States in all aspects of national power: technological, economic, and military. As Chinese power grows, America’s response is increasingly inadequate. American corporations are more than just reluctant to abandon Chinese markets, some of them, such as Google, appear to be more responsive to China’s security concerns than they are to America’s.

America’s culture of tolerance of individual rights and free enterprise has morphed into a dysfunctional encouragement of anti-American dissent that reaches well beyond appropriate responses to grievances. In pursuit of worldwide profits and power, America’s corporate elites have abandoned the culture that nurtured them. In pursuit of utopian ideals, America’s colleges and universities have trained American students to despise America for its failure to be perfect. All the while, America’s politicians in both parties have pandered to America’s most vocal, embittered, and unrepresentative activist factions.

This is America as it enters the third decade of the 21st century. What ideology, what form of revitalized patriotism can heal America? What agenda will awaken a national spirit of unity sufficient to meet and navigate what may be a perilous future?

As it is, America’s corporate and political elites disparage nationalist sentiment, even conflating it as inherently racist. Is this motivated by a benign desire to hasten America’s evolution as a people? Is the genuine intention to make America a better, more open society? Is that what is behind the popular condemnation of nationalism and the endorsements of globalism, a peaceful world without borders? And if that is truly the benevolent core of this consensus, what parties to this consensus may have hidden agendas?

A discussion of this topic need not dwell on the threats confronting America today. They’re real enough. The military threat is expertly described in the 2020 book The Kill Chain, a visceral recitation of China’s rise and America’s negligence. The economic threats are equally obvious; for global economic analyses we’ll never see on ABC Nightly “News,” the forbidden fruit of Zero Hedge, or the suppressed musings of Felix Rex are as good as any.

Perhaps the most palatable reason America’s corporate and political elites have decided to cater to violent mobs, and America’s cultural elite have tried to transmute all of it into some new version of radical chic, is because there isn’t a more attractive alternative. What unyielding and persuasive ideological counterpoint exists in America that feels safe enough for the establishment to embrace? In the discussion to follow, the thesis to be explored is how civic nationalism can be defined in a manner that goes well beyond its current, barely intellectualized, tepid iteration, bereft of passion, uncertain of purpose, and devoid of popular support.

The case must be made that civic nationalism, colorblind but uncompromising in its adherence to traditional American values, is the only hope to unify Americans, which in turn is the only way a revitalized American civilization can hope to counter the rise of China.

To use an allegory from the 1930s, civic nationalism offers an American unity that could galvanize this nation with fireside chats instead of Nuremberg rallies. It is an inclusive version of American patriotism that rallies all Americans to meet the challenges of the future with pride and unity. It may very well be America’s only hope.

Absent civic nationalism, America’s ruling class is adrift. The wealthiest look east and see even more wealth to be had, rationalizing their anti-American greed with heaping helpings of outdated free-trade liberalism. American politicians look to the Left and see righteous passion, while on the Right there is only defensive mutters or divisive bellicosity. The smartest among America’s ruling class see racial tension and have no answer but to let it fester and grow. Perhaps their thinking goes something like this: We’ll sell America to China, and when the masses realize what’s happened, they’ll blame each other instead of us.

How else to explain what’s happening, as mass unrest continues across America? Paul Joseph Watson, one of those inconvenient YouTubers who is not quite impolitic enough to get banned, but provocative enough to deliver insights (along with insults) you may not find elsewhere, featured this quote from an unidentified guest in one of his recent videos:

People who support Black Lives Matter, people who support the Left; a lot of them think they are in possession of radical political opinions. But how radical is your opinion when the cops and the national guard are kneeling and doing the Macarena, dancing with protesters, and every major corporation has put out a message and donated money to this cause? To the people who are spray painting and burning cop cars and smashing windows, how radical are your opinions, really, when these actions are allowed to take place? Because this is a tactical decision. It’s not like the cops and the national guard couldn’t crack down on this if they wanted to. It’s that it’s being allowed to happen, and if you think otherwise you’re a fool.

This sums it up quite well. The mayhem erupting across the nation since George Floyd’s death on May 25 has been allowed to happen. It is orchestrated by well-funded organizations that are collecting millions from mega-donors and mega-corporations, and egged on by months if not years of propaganda. The unrelenting havoc in the wake of George Floyd’s death is not a precipitous spasm of unrest that will eventually pass. It is a deliberate escalation of an ongoing insurrection.

The primary goals of this insurrection supposedly are to protect black lives and to oppose fascism, with a strong LGBTQ contingent also represented. The ongoing rampage has impacted almost every large American city. Despite dozens of deaths, thousands of injuries, and probably billions in property damage, compounded by the COVID shutdown, this insurrection has plenty of support. Blithely ignoring the destruction, the “peaceful protesters” have received sympathetic treatment from Democrats, and their slogans have been turned into marketing campaigns by major corporations. The media’s coverage of the insurrection has been predictable.

“America is irredeemably racist” is the message spread, with rare exceptions, by every establishment media property, online and offline. So desperate is the media to stoke this message that when a young man who probably just had a few too many drinks uttered a few anti-Asian slurs at a family in a California restaurant—no context was ever provided, despite it being very unlikely that “people being Asian” was the only thing that made this man angry—it was a top story on every major television network in the country. Similarly, when a young woman and her dog felt threatened by a black birdwatcher in New York City’s Central Park, her alleged overreaction was national news.

These are unpleasant events. They are examples of bad judgment, a failure to communicate, a loss of civility. They are not national news. The very idea is ridiculous. But on and on and on this story goes, desperate for fodder. America is a horrible nation, filled with horrible white racists.

Why? Who benefits by making white people out to be so rotten? Who benefits by convincing nonwhites, especially blacks, that whatever challenges they face as individuals and as a community are solely the fault of white people?

The “racist” stigma has been deployed by politicians and activists to manipulate American public policy for decades, because regardless of justification, it worked. But the perception that America is rotten to the core, comprehensively and indelibly defined as racist, used to be a notion largely restricted to academia. No more. Now it’s everywhere. ABC’s David Muir, with his carefully fabricated gravitas, intones yet another variation on the theme literally every newscast, often several times per newscast. The rest of the gang follow suit, from CNN’s Don Lemon to NPR’s Judy Woodruff.

But America is not an irredeemably racist nation. America in the 21st century is the least racist nation on earth. And yet this destructive lie is the currency of Democrats, the obsession of the media, and the marketing message of global corporations. The duration and weight of this lie, its steady growth despite a steadily vanishing basis for it, go well beyond its obvious goal of convincing Americans to vote President Trump out of office. What else is going on?

Finding a Scapegoat for Present and Future Problems

Behind the mere momentum and opportunism propelling the false and divisive narrative of endemic white racism, there is a formidable alignment of special interests. Foreign adversaries, China and Russia in particular, want the United States weakened by violent internal conflict, and fomenting racial polarization furthers that objective. Multinational corporations benefit by convincing Americans that fighting racism is a national imperative, because it makes it easier for them to stigmatize and silence as a racist anyone who objects to them exporting jobs and importing cheap labor.

Also propelling and profiting from the “America is racist” narrative, of course, are socialists, who have realized that as long as any group disparity exists between whites and blacks, they can argue that racism is the cause, and redistribution of wealth is the cure. But there is an even more insidious motive perpetuating the lie of endemic white racism—the need for a scapegoat.

Anybody familiar with the momentum of history must wonder how long the United States Treasury can continue to electronically materialize trillions of dollars to finance federal spending deficits. They must wonder how long American society can continue to function with every small business in the nation destroyed by the shutdown. They look with fear upon the millions of American youth who are disenfranchised by globalization robbing them of the ability to make a decent living, and environmentalism run amok robbing them of the ability to afford a home.

If the last few months have demonstrated nothing else, it is that anything can happen. Who would have thought one year ago that a global pandemic would strip away our constitutional rights as if they never existed? Who would have thought six months ago that our nation would be convulsed with violent riots, and major cities would become virtually ungovernable? And the other shoe has yet to drop. America’s economy remains precariously intact. There are (at least) no new foreign wars. Statues have toppled, select urban streets are still on fire, but widespread, horrific chaos is not yet here. Will it come, and if so, when? It could happen fast.

This is the scenario that confronts America’s billionaires and the political and corporate strategists who serve them. What happens when Americans aren’t just upset and financially squeezed, but desperately hungry and financially broken? What happens when small business owners and their workers aren’t just on a pandemic hiatus, but permanently ruined with no hope? What happens when the only businesses left standing are multinational corporate franchises? What happens when the inner cities are unlivable, the suburbs are besieged, and supply chains for essential products are broken? What happens when the Chinese cold war goes ice cold, and Americans quit their addiction to China’s exports cold turkey?

When people’s lives and livelihoods are destroyed en masse, they look for someone or something to blame. That’s human nature. And perhaps unwittingly, perhaps as a precaution, but regardless of intention or conscious planning, America’s corporate and political elite are preparing the target and hedging their bets, with the full complicity of the establishment media. It goes like this, “when the shit hits the fan, and all hope is lost, don’t blame the people who got rich selling America to China, blame white people. It’s their fault.”

By doing this, not only will the fury of a disenfranchised citizenry be turned upon itself in a fratricide that will be horrific to its participants but relatively harmless to the elites, the ideology of the socialists will be co-opted and used by corporate and political elites to further centralize their power. This is already happening, in slow motion. And the more crises that hit America, the more the narrative will intensify. Whites are the problem. Whites are to blame.

Understanding the True Political Conflicts in America

Stoking racial hatred is a dangerous game. Encouraging identity politics is only a winning strategy if the identities being nurtured or disparaged continue to be the chosen targets. But it doesn’t take an expert in political jujitsu to redirect all this poisonous swill. Most Americans have already realized that both of the mainstream political establishments do not represent them. A majority of Americans already understand they cannot trust the establishment media. Only two more axioms have to be broken to change the game: First, that this is not a battle between capitalists and communists, it’s a battle between nationalists and globalists, and second, that in this battle, whites and blacks are not enemies, but allies.

The elites are making race and racial oppression the central topic in American politics, and for good reason. Because if you take race out of the equation, there is very little of substance separating the grassroots on the Left from the grassroots on the Right. Why? Because communists and corporations in 21st-century America are working together to advance big government globalism; they both support an authoritarian, collectivist, micromanaged society.

On most of the big issues of our time, including the rejection of traditional moral values, the centrality of “climate change” as a transformative economic and political agenda, and the need for affirmative action, racial redress, and open borders, they share a surprisingly congruent agenda. Only on the issue of private property do they diverge, and even that may be illusory when considering the realistic prospect of publicly held corporations with activist directorates owning virtually the entire economy.

So where are the actual divergences in American politics, if not the distinctions between Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal? The following chart attempts to depict the more relevant political dynamics in America today. The vertical axis represents the split between supporters of nationalism vs supporters of globalism, and the horizontal axis represents the split between supporters of ethnically homogeneous societies and supporters of multiethnic societies.

On the above chart, for ease of explanation, the quadrants are numbered. In quadrant No. 4, which represents the multiethnic globalists, you find everyone supposedly at odds with each other in conventional political paradigms. The establishment Democrats and establishment GOP (indistinguishable from “Conservatism, Inc.”) are joined by America’s Social Democrats, along with multinational corporations and corporate media, academia, and foundations and think tanks on the “Left” and the “Right.” All of them envision a multiethnic, globalist future.

Diagonally opposite and diametrically opposed to the multiethnic globalists are the ethnic nationalists (quadrant No. 1). As in any of these quadrants, there exists a continuum of passion, from the most hardcore extremists to merely insouciant rebels and provocateurs. But at whatever level of extremism, here is where you find white nationalists, black nationalists, Chicano nationalists, and various other smaller cadres of ethnic nationalists.

Why Civic Nationalism Offers a New American Consensus

Civic nationalists, occupying quadrant No. 2, are beleaguered, inadequately defended or explained, and under attack from all sides. The ethnic nationalists consider civic nationalists to be naïve, incapable of recognizing that cultures are inextricably connected to race, or that some cultures are incompatible. They believe that multi-ethnic national solidarity – as expressed in civic nationalism – is impossible. Virtually all ethnic nationalists consider themselves to be oppressed, which tinges their animosity towards their counterparts among the civic nationalists with the additional insult of betrayal.

Multiethnic globalists, for their part, also view civic nationalists as naïve, but for the opposite reason. They consider civic nationalists merely by virtue of their nationalism to be pairing up with “white nationalists,” possibly unaware of their complicity, or possibly even deliberately camouflaging their own racist tribalism. After all, how can it even be possible to be a nationalist if you aren’t a racist?

But the whole point of civic nationalism is to reject racism while embracing patriotism. It expresses the quintessentially American ideal of the melting pot. It expresses—not nearly forcefully enough—America’s history of assimilating immigrants into the mainstream culture. Our tradition of assimilation offends ethnic nationalists, who are skeptical that it can still work, but it has also become problematic for multiethnic globalists who typically must defer to identity politics.

The exploration of what it means to be multiethnic but monocultural is one of the prevailing challenges for civic nationalists, and to-date they are not up to the task. They are so busy defending charges of secretly harboring feelings of ethnic nationalism that they don’t have time to distinguish themselves from the multiethnic globalists. But these are fatal distractions to civic nationalists, if it means the bigger questions aren’t answered.

What is American culture? What defines the American civilization, and how can it be defended? What is America’s tradition of assimilation, if not the preservation of a unique core culture that nonetheless constantly evolves and incorporates dazzling new ideas from around the world, while retaining the foundational values of individual freedom, free enterprise, and European Christian heritage?

It is a tragedy that America’s civic nationalists are a barely recognized and often stigmatized movement. For one thing, once you escape the corridors of the chattering classes or the cadres of extremists, small in number but vocal and politically connected, you find that civic nationalists describe the majority of Americans. To the extent their exposure to unrelenting globalist, anti-nationalist, anti-American, anti-white bombast coming from academia, media, entertainment and politicians hasn’t corrupted their hearts, most Americans love America. They love it just the way it is, imperfect but always evolving and improving, offering opportunities to everyone willing to work hard, a big, sprawling nation with all kinds of different people who are united by the American dream.

That dream—individual freedom and economic prosperity—is threatened as never before, but instead of speaking up louder than ever, civic nationalists are hunkering down. Many of them are afraid to defend their biggest champion, President Trump, who epitomizes the American dream and would be far more popular if he weren’t demonized by the establishment at every turn. To be fair, Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy. But Donald Trump personifies the nightmare of the globalists—an American president who embraces civic nationalism.

Now more than ever, civic nationalism is a movement that must find new adherents and persuasive advocates across American society because, in troubled times, it is America’s only hope for unity.

The Toxic Realignment That Must Not Happen

Where will Americans turn, if the social contract is broken by economic devastation, or an even more serious pandemic, or any other sort of seismic hiccough that inaugurates not weeks or months, but years of turmoil and suffering? What happens if America descends into a new depression, requiring a decade or more of mass hardship that dwarfs anything in living memory?

Here is where the riots and the racism narrative become even more useful to globalists. Here is why the BLM and Antifa militants, with their passionate denunciations of racist America, are being allowed to carry on. Here is why a full-spectrum campaign is being waged to push whites into either paroxysms of self-hatred and guilt, or reactionary anger, and here is why, at the same time, nonwhites are being pushed into blaming whites for literally anything in their lives that isn’t right. Just before the deluge, get them busy fighting each other.

What better way to prevent a populist rebellion against globalism, or, in a related and even more sinister twist, a realignment that embraces conspiracy theories? Referring to the previously discussed chart of political alignments in America, what constitutes ethnic globalists (quadrant 3 on the chart)? Is there such a thing? Perhaps not yet, but If history is any guide, the phenomena of “one tribe takes over the world” is the rule, not the exception. Across the millennia of recorded history, the story of humanity is one of empires, almost invariably dominated by a single tribe, rising and falling in their attempts to dominate the world.

Civic nationalism recognizes the potential for today’s version of imperial competition, the so-called clash of civilizations, to unify people in America. No longer scapegoating each other for the challenges they face as individuals and groups, they are unified as Americans facing international challenges. And within a domestic culture of lowered tensions, Americans might respond more judiciously to foreign adversaries and reject jingoism. But there is another, darker outcome.

By continually stoking the fires of racial resentment, it is possible that in a severe economic downturn, America’s warring tribes might redirect their aggression away from each other and towards the globalists themselves. After all, if a people have been conditioned for a generation to find a scapegoat for whatever miseries they’ve faced, they will probably find the narrative of predatory globalist bankers at least as compelling as blaming straight white guys who live in the same modest apartments and condos as they do, and whose material comforts have been equally compromised by bad times.

History provides a hideous and fairly recent example of how a powerful nation with a sophisticated populace nonetheless were seduced by a demagogue into falsely attributing their failures to a small group of people. The evil perpetrated by the German Nazis against the Jews of Europe is a horrific example of a reactionary paroxysm that could not have occurred if it hadn’t been stoked by decades of preparatory hatred.

What if the ethnic nationalists of the United States, created as much by the incessant establishment drumbeat of victim and oppressor as by their own antagonistic pathologies, stop fighting each other, because they found a common foe?

The conventional establishment analysis of anti-Semitism in America focuses almost exclusively on its embrace by white nationalists, and the response has been to expose and deplatform any online content that includes criticism of the Israeli lobby in the United States, or assertions that Jewish individuals own a disproportionate share of America’s media, entertainment, and financial sectors.

The problem with this focus on possible anti-Semitism on the part of white nationalists is that it ignores  far more pervasive anti-Semitism coming from so-called social justice warriors and Democratic Socialists. And that omission, that selective focus, exposes a deeper problem: In the radicalizing environment of a social and economic collapse, the American corporate establishment may not effectively counter an anti-Semitic narrative from spreading, because in their attempt to co-opt America’s Left, they fed an anti-Semitic beast that got too big to control. They are funding Social Democrats who, in their obsessive hatred for “Zionism,” are a heartbeat away from publicly hating the disproportionate influence of Jews in American media, politics, and finance. Many of them already do.

Some of the Left’s highest-profile leaders, certainly including members of the “Squad” in the U.S. Congress, have openly spouted anti-Semitic rhetoric. Some members of the BLM movement and its sympathizers also have been openly anti-Semitic, and every time one of their voices is canceled, they become more susceptible to conspiracy theories. If America’s economic and political stability continues to deteriorate, the schizophrenic strategy of the corporate establishment—embracing anti-Semitic Leftist groups at the same time as they crush any expressions of anti-Semitism—will fall apart.

The nightmare scenario that the multi-ethnic globalists are flirting with is a toxic realignment in which American nationalism captures a majority no longer divided by race, because they are instead unified by hatred of global elites. In the worst case, the perception could spread that the crash was planned in advance, and that a specific tribe of individuals is to blame. If that happens, the populist momentum that will fuel it will come from Leftists. It will come from the same people who in the spring and summer of 2020 occupied a section of downtown Seattle, fought pitched battles with police for months on end in Portland, and spread violence and vandalism from coast to coast.

The conspiracy theories that give rise to toxic mobs don’t have to be anti-Semitic. That’s just one possibility that history has taught is impossible to ignore. But a populist rebellion against globalists can apocalyptically target any group perceived as exploiting the people or lying to them. Global elites. Bankers. Television news anchors. Tech Barons. Stock traders. Anyone living in a gated community. Race or creed may have nothing to do with it. It may simply be the upper class, the one percent. That’s still a tribe. It still becomes us vs them. Where were you, when the dam finally broke? If you were a propertied landowner, living on high ground, perhaps you were in on it. And if so, now you deserve to lose everything. Such is the reasoning of a disenfranchised mob.

Only Civic Nationalists Can Counter Conspiracy Theorists

To understand the potential of civic nationalism to peacefully unify Americans even in the face of great economic and geopolitical challenges, one must return to the shared agenda of Social Democrats and corporate globalists. The rejection of the traditional nuclear family, the climate change agenda, the rejection of a meritocracy in favor of race and gender quotas, enforced equality instead of equality of opportunity, and mass immigration.

The common thread in all of these policies is that they will harm middle- and low-income Americans, regardless of race. Children need a father and a mother. Climate change policies that enrich corporations and empower leftist bureaucrats will impoverish everyone not wealthy enough to be indifferent to the crushing cost. Abandoning meritocracy in favor of quotas will destroy America’s ability to compete and innovate at the same time as it will breed cynicism and alienation. Mass immigration drives down wages and bankrupts social services.

Civic nationalists are the only ones who can explain that of course Democrats, establishment Republicans, and corporate globalists want to distract us by turning us all into racists and anti-racists who consume one another in endless conflict. Without this massive distraction, how would globalists get away with destroying America’s standard of living while enriching themselves? While we are kneeling before BLM activists, the globalists are taking away our freedom. While pregnant women form a skirmish line to protect Antifa militants, the globalists are taking away our prosperity. It’s a good scam. Define everyone as either a victim or an oppressor. Get everybody fighting. This devious, epic, diabolical fraud and hidden agenda must be exposed at every opportunity. But there is also a positive message, promoting hopeful solutions, that is desperately necessary in order to avoid radicalization.

A muscular civic nationalism incorporates opposing alternatives to every one of these pillars of corporate globalism and promotes them without apology and without reservation. The traditional family is the backbone of society. Fossil fuel, hydroelectric power, and nuclear energy are absolutely necessary to grow a healthy and prosperous economy, not only in America but even more so in the aspiring nations of the developing world. Immutable colorblind standards are the only fair and legitimate way to allocate opportunities in all aspects of society. Immigration must be strictly regulated to protect the interests of American citizens, not global corporations.

With these principles forming an uncompromising foundation, civic nationalists have the credibility to reject racism and anti-Semitism. They have an appealing, prosperity-oriented narrative that will attract wavering adherents of ethnic nationalism as well as reluctant globalists. They offer common sense and hope. They offer calm unity. They can reject extremism of all types, whether it’s classic racism or teaching transgender ideology to prepubescent students in the public schools. And they love America.

Emphasizing these policies—pro-family, pro-conventional energy, and pro-meritocracy—have not been the common currency of civic nationalists. Instead, with good reason, they’ve been stereotyped as waffling on immigration, lukewarm on climate realism, AWOL on expressing the problems with race and gender quotas, and, if anything, antagonistic to pro-family sentiments. No wonder they are barely relevant. And no wonder Trump’s enemies get away with accusing him of catering to ethnic-nationalists and conspiracy theorists. They claim nobody else is out there, and in one important respect, they’re right. The civic nationalist movement, despite its potential to become the center of gravity in American politics, lacks a critical mass of leaders with the voice and visibility to give it an undeniable presence.

America’s Civic Nationalism and Foreign Affairs

An important criticism of nationalism of any kind in America is that it allegedly ignores the interconnected community of nations and steers America towards isolationism. A related criticism is that America cannot abandon the multilateral agreements and security guarantees that have guaranteed relative stability in the world for the last 70 years. Underlying these criticisms is an argument in favor of globalism, something with too much legitimacy to be merely dismissed. But a distinction must be made between globalization and globalism. Globalization is a phenomenon. Globalism is an ideology. Even more to the point, globalism can be understood in various ways, including ways that embrace nationalism.

The phenomenon of globalization is unrelenting, fueled by trade, migration, capital flows, technological innovations, revolutions in transportation and communications. It can’t be stopped, but it can be managed. American nationalists are correct to point out that for Americans, in recent decades, the benefits of globalization have been largely illusory if not negative. While free movement of capital and people has made multinational corporations more profitable, it has hollowed out American industry and depressed American wages.

At the same time, the American consumer has paid far more  than his foreign counterparts for drugs and medical treatments, effectively subsidizing the development of these cutting edge therapies in order for American manufacturers to sell them at competitive prices in the rest of the world. The American taxpayer has paid for a military establishment that guarantees open sea lanes and global security. The American worker has paid the price for job creation and economic growth overseas. The American household is overwhelmed with debt, borrowing against the bubble value of their home in order to pay for overpriced tuition and imports from foreign manufacturers. The American economy has been turned into a gigantic, overleveraged mass of collateral for foreign debt.

For the rest of the world, there’s been upside to all of this. And for dispassionate economists, if the overall economic growth of the world exceeds the negative impact all of this has on American economic growth and median household income, that’s a worthwhile exchange. But it’s also short-sighted. Liberal free trade policies work until they don’t. How does it benefit global stability when the economy of the United States implodes after decades of unsustainable, debt-fueled growth, leaving nothing but a hollowed out nation, riven by social conflict?

Navigating this rebalancing, where the United States continues to provide global leadership in a community of nations, but no longer sells its national assets to fuel half-trillion-dollar annual trade deficits, is something that globalists have to come to terms with because it is inevitable, and nationalists have to come to terms with because complete isolation is impossible.

A Civic Nationalist Approach to Globalism 

To manage globalization, what sort of globalist ideology to reject or embrace is a choice. The conventional globalist ideology is that borders should be erased, and that people and capital should move freely. In this manner, according to this version of globalist ideology, all people on earth, overall, will be better off. An alternative version of globalism is that a community of sovereign nations is the only fair and realistic way to manage globalization. It holds that unrestricted movement of people and capital destabilizes nations, punishing the cultures that historically have been successful.

A civic nationalist doesn’t have to be an isolationist. Civic nationalism can promote the vision of a community of nations, competing and cooperating, with each managing globalization on its own terms. For Americans, civic nationalism can recognize that American leadership in the world remains essential not only to promote Western ideas of individual freedom and free enterprise but also as a purely pragmatic matter. When America is socially unified and economically and militarily strong, it deters war, sets an example for emerging nations, and generates the wealth necessary to invest in the developing world.

Much of what passes for foreign aid in the developing world is wasted. Without wholesale changes in priorities, calls to end foreign aid and foreign investment are justified. But here is where the primary foundations of civic nationalism in America can also find expression in foreign aid and foreign investment. If America needs upgraded infrastructure and more cheap, reliable, conventional energy, imagine how much greater the need in African nations. And yet today the preponderance of foreign aid and foreign investment go to expensive and ineffective solar energy projects and other “sustainability” initiatives that arguably do more harm than good, while, in a gross and hypocritical inversion of logic, untapped hydropower and conventional power grids are not considered “sustainable” options.

Much of today’s globalist approach to foreign development has not only been fundamentally misanthropic, but misguided. Investment in developing nations that emphasize cost-effective conventional infrastructure and power generation will yield profitable returns, reducing if not eliminating the need for government involvement.

This, too, is an alternative view of globalism that America’s civic nationalists should embrace without reservation. It would pay financial dividends to American investors, manufacturers, and civil engineering firms, and it would offer developing nations a viable way out of poverty. It would even spare these nations further environmental degradation, as population growth eases through prosperity, and these economies move from burning wood, eating endangered game, and practicing inefficient subsistence agriculture to, for example, developing nuclear power and adopting modern agricultural techniques.

By exposing these misanthropic experiments in foreign aid and foreign investment and abandoning them in favor of initiatives that will deliver rapid and genuine prosperity, civic nationalists can present new ways to manage globalization that entice developing nations. As it is, the practical effects of globalist policies in the developing world are exploitative. Like their domestic equivalents, their only benefit is to subsidized investors, misguided (or wholly corrupt) nonprofits, and state bureaucrats. Civic nationalists can break this cycle, and offer a hopeful vision to aspiring communities at home and around the world.

The Constituency of Civic Nationalists

On the surface, the coalition that constitutes multiethnic globalists in America presents seemingly insurmountable power. After all, they have the corporations, the entire establishment uniparty, the colleges and universities, the public schools, the media and entertainment complex, and most of the billionaires. But this coalition is not invulnerable, for reasons that have already been explained in part. As noted, the blatant anti-Semitism of the American Left threatens to short-circuit their marriage of convenience with the corporations and billionaires that currently indulge them with money and supportive marketing campaigns.

There is another constituency that currently enjoys a marriage of convenience with America’s corporations and billionaires, and that is the labor movement. Despite their reliance on rhetoric that attacks corporations and billionaires, for the most part, America’s union leadership shares the same agenda as their supposed adversaries. Immigration is the prime example. To counter the systemic racism that defines white America, to partially redress the colonial theft of North America by whites, and to partially atone for supposedly causing catastrophic climate change which disproportionately harms people in the “global south,” America’s leftist dominated unions clamor for mass immigration. But how is this in the interest of the American worker?

There’s a reason President Trump has enjoyed support from millions of union workers across America. This is another example of support that invalidates conventional political antagonisms. Trump is supposedly “right-wing” and labor unions are supposedly organized to fight exploitation by right-wing interests. But none of that is applicable. Trump is American, and is promoting America First policies that benefit the American worker. Trump is a nationalist, and nationalist policies resonate with workers, and ought to resonate with any union that cares about Americans.

The labor movement in America is destined to split. Those unions that truly support the American worker will embrace the foundational economic premises of civic nationalism—specifically, development of conventional energy, expansion of practical infrastructure, strictly regulated immigration, and America First trade policies. Those unions that cling to the corporate globalist narrative will become nakedly internationalist and anti-American and anti-white, and they will continue to pretend that economically unsustainable “renewable” energy and open borders will further the interests of the planet and humanity. Labor unions, if they are true to the interests of the American worker, can play a critical role in the ascendance of civic nationalism.

Another constituency of the civic nationalists is every parent in America. It is hard to imagine any special interest more deserving of indictment than the teachers’ union. If you want to know what animates the thousands of rioters and their millions of sympathizers, look no further than the twelve years of anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist indoctrination they got in America’s public schools, thanks to the teachers’ unions. Along with what passes for a college education these days in America, the publicly funded, unionized education establishment from kindergarten through high school has brainwashed a generation.

Any parent or community leader who recognizes that children and young people need to acquire basic skills and a work ethic, and that those priorities have been abandoned thanks to the influence of teachers’ unions, is ready to embrace civic nationalism. Any parent who recognizes that race-baiting and identity politics are dead-end curricula, offering nothing but excuses for failure and rationalizations for government handouts, is ready to embrace civic nationalism. Breaking the ideological monopoly that America’s teachers’ unions have on its public schools is a goal that millions of Americans will share, and should be a top priority of civic nationalists.

Civic nationalism appeals to additional powerful constituencies. Corporations that still aspire to serve Americans first but have been marginalized by the Left are plentiful if you know where to look. The nuclear power industry is a prime example, ready to help expose the lies that have stopped its progress in America for decades. The American oil and gas industry is another one. It is one election away from being systematically shut down, with catastrophic consequences to the economy and national security. Civil engineering firms that want to rebuild America are ready to embrace civic nationalism.

The list of potential advocates of civic nationalism is bigger      than people imagine.  EcoModernists  who recognize the environmental benefits that will result from investment in conventional infrastructure in America as well as in developing nations. Members of law enforcement who have had it with, for example, “catch-and-release” laws in progressive, criminal-friendly cities. Members of the military who realize that if more naval officers had been assigned to fire safety, and fewer officers had been preparing PowerPoint presentations on transgender sensitivity training, the ”Bonhomme Richard” might be ready for redeployment instead of an incinerated hulk.

A Common Fate, a Common Vision

The appeal of nationalism ought to be obvious. It is natural to yearn to be part of something bigger than oneself. This is why racial division is the most potent weapon that globalists have to divide Americans. Why should a black American revere the history of America, if the emphasis that is continuously thrust at him is the legacy of slavery? Why should a Chicano accept the sovereignty of America over Aztlan, if all he’s taught is how the land was stolen from Mexico? Why should Native Americans accept the white majority, if the entire North American continent was stolen from them? Why, indeed, should Asians move to America and assimilate, if assimilation has become a dirty word, whereas their cultures of origin remain proud and confident?

This is where a muscular civic nationalism offers the only viable hope to unify America’s ethnicities into a coherent national culture. It’s a cliche, but nonetheless true that America’s white majority historically has been slow to accept immigrants who were different. But to America’s exceptional credit, assimilation eventually happened, every time. Today there are ethnic groups that at one time were not assimilated that now are considered to be part of America’s white ethnic group: Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Irish. Moreover, millions of Americans are considered “white Hispanics,” and additional millions of Asians have blended into the American mainstream. The secret you’ll never hear from race-baiting propagandists like ABC’s David Muir is the fact that 17 percent of American marriages are now between couples of “mixed race.” America’s ability to assimilate is ongoing, despite all attempts to divide us.

This all begs the question: What is “white?” Is it skin color, or cultural affinity? A civic nationalist has to confront this question squarely. Americans don’t have to be white. But they do have to be  American. This means adopting America’s values and traditions, and feeling part of an American culture that has its roots in white European civilization. That’s just historical fact. Racists, whether they are those white nationalists who fit the overhyped stereotype, or the suddenly fashionable black nationalists, or the racially obsessed mainstream American globalist establishment, care very much about skin color. Civic nationalists do  not  care about skin color. They care about preserving American culture, and welcome anyone who shares that goal.

So why shouldn’t black Americans embrace civic nationalism? Because it would mean they are selling out and becoming “white?” This is a stigma that school-aged studious blacks are apparently tagged with. This element of some inner-city cultures holds that to carry your books home to study after school is to become “white,” and is somehow a betrayal of black identity. This is an absurd and destructive notion that should be opposed by any black person serious about the success of their community.

Equally important, for a white person to kneel to BLM activists is not only an act of cowardice and ignorance, but it reinforces two lies. First, it is a lie that white people have no right to suggest anything to black people. This is a ridiculous lie, because blacks are the swing vote that will decide the fate and future of the nation. Second, the chief obstacle to black achievement is not racism. Rather, the primary barrier to black achievement in America is a thug culture that undermines if not terrorizes black communities, expressed in broken homes, substance abuse, gang violence, contempt for education, and rejection of law enforcement.

If white people truly care about black people, they will challenge these lies. And if they do, they will have plenty of help from black conservatives, who unfortunately are ignored by the establishment media, but whose messages are bubbling up through the internet and in churches and education reform organizations and elsewhere.

The notion of shared fate can be colorblind, and a civic nationalist has to emphasize this while at the same time not succumbing to the premises and the language of the Left. For example, “colorblind,” “assimilation,” and “meritocracy” are not code words for racism. They are noble concepts to live by, they are the inclusive premises of American civilization and America’s vitality, and they must be defended at all costs.

Americans can unify as a single, colorblind culture. There is no reason why any American citizen, of any color, cannot read the founding documents of America and be inspired by them. There is no reason why any American, regardless of his ethnic background, cannot appreciate America’s unique commitment to individual rights and free enterprise and private property, and understand its transcendental value. There is no reason why Americans of all races cannot view America’s history not as “deeply flawed,” but instead as an illustrious story of evolution from an inspiring beginning to what it is today, through perpetual refinement—a nation of unparalleled opportunities for everyone willing to work hard.

America’s destiny, according to civic nationalists, can be to remain a leader and an example to the world, while caring for its own citizens in a way that doesn’t alienate the world, but inspires other nations to do the same. America’s destiny can be to invest in practical, prosperity-oriented projects at home and abroad, to maintain technological and military preeminence, and to blaze a trail into the solar system. This is a vision that civic nationalists need to let every American know they can share.

What Does the Future Hold?

The multiethnic globalists are on a path that leads, ultimately, to the destruction of America as a sovereign nation.

There is no guarantee they will succeed, or if they do, that it will be a smooth transition. The conflagration they’re inviting by fomenting racial conflict, especially in the event of economic collapse, may not be kind to the corporations, the billionaires, the bankers, or anyone else perceived as party to the chaos, including Malthusian environmentalists who oppose everything that might create sustainable prosperity.

But then again, they might win.

Examples of nations where the elites successfully consolidated their power have taken many forms throughout history: Centuries ago, feudalism united the elites atop the peasantry. In the 20th century, with stupefying brutality, we saw Spanish and Italian Fascism, German Nazism, Soviet Communism, Japanese Militarism, Chinese Maoism. Today there are plentiful examples, including President Xi’s fascist, racist, expansionist Chinese empire, or Maduro’s pathetic, brutal regime in Venezuela.

Here in America, perhaps the best vision of where we’re ultimately headed if the globalists get their way is a society that lies somewhere on a spectrum between Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Whatever national identity Americans once knew will no longer exist. We will become undifferentiated human matter, as much a commodity as the products we consume, Pavlovian in our political rectitude, under a watchful corporate Panopticon.

Americans have been betrayed by their elites. The globalist agenda of open borders, unfettered movement of capital, the rejection of traditional values, the rejection of meritocracy, the deliberate overreaction to “climate change,” and the heedless accumulation of debt to fund the development of foreign economies—including the Chinese military—has been accepted and promoted by virtually every major institution in America: unions, corporations, academia, K-12 public education, the media and entertainment business, the Democrats, and most of the Republicans. They lied about all of this, and in so doing elevated the cost-of-living at the same time as they deprived Americans of good jobs.

There is an irony, here, because for multiethnic globalism to succeed in the long run, America’s elites needed to treat American citizens better in the short run. They have not. Now they are hiding behind racial tension, stoking it, funding it, allowing it to happen, evidently hoping to suppress the truth of their betrayal, hoping to deny us consciousness of our potential for colorblind national unity.

Absent the achievement of national unity through a civic nationalist political realignment, Americans face ongoing and worsening civil strife and economic decline. Civic nationalism is the only alternative to this bleak future for Americans. It can offer compassion, inclusion, optimism, an agenda of hope, and economic revival.

The choice is ours to make.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

The Opportunity of the Emergency

How the global COVID-19 pandemic began is incidental to how it has instantly transformed the entire political landscape of the planet. And whether this pandemic was planned or accidental in no way changes the manner in which it suits the agenda of two mega-adversaries. One searing example from history offers dramatic evidence of how these sorts of arrangements work.

In the summer of 1944, Nazi Germany was down but not out. In Eastern Europe, Russian forces were massed on the banks of the Vistula, prepared to liberate Warsaw. In anticipation of promised aid from the Russians, the Polish resistance struck hard against the German occupation forces. But the Russians stayed on the other side of the river as the battle raged. For over two months they went toe-to-toe with the Germans, as the Russians did nothing to prevent the Germans from reinforcing their troops and liquidating the rebels. Only once the Polish resistance was crushed did the Germans withdraw, and the Russians moved in.

In this case, the mega-adversaries were German Nazis, fighting a war of mutual annihilation against Russian communists. But neither of them were willing to allow a democratic government to take control of post-war Poland.

The mega-adversaries today have different labels and employ different tactics, but the same basic dynamic applies. On one side there are ruling elites, and on the other side there are populist insurgencies. The elites rule a pair of superpowers, the USA and its Western allies versus China, that are locked in conflict that is gradually building in scope and intensity. And in both of these superpower spheres, populist insurgencies are themselves also building in scope and intensity.

The most obvious example of this is the ongoing momentum of Donald Trump’s populist movement in the United States, but throughout the West, there are other rising challenges to the elites. In France, the Yellow Vest Movement, united only by their opposition to globalization, had gripped that nation for over a year. In Germany, the new political party Alternativ fur Deutschland, committed to immigration reform, is now the second largest political party in that nation. In October 2019, Brexit was reaffirmed by voters in Great Britain in a stunning landside victory for the conservative party.

The list goes on; populist nationalism is on the rise in almost every nation in Europe. But in China, insurgencies pose equal challenges to the elites. The obvious example in China is their brutal repression of the Muslims living in the vast Xinjiang province to their northwest. The Chinese are also engaged in a decades-long project to repress the Tibetans, and less publicized but just as bad, they are erasing the indigenous culture of Inner Mongolia.

If that was all that China was doing, that would be quite enough, but China’s treatment of its own citizens has provoked insurgencies that have proven increasingly difficult to contain. For over a year, the Chinese were unable to stem the violent protests in Hong Kong. And across China, despite their brutal police state tactics, mass protests were escalating against the state’s blithe indifference to environmental protection. During the summer of 2019, one of the biggest protests rampaged across Wuhan, of all places, as tens of thousands opposed the proposed construction of a waste incinerator in that city.

There is no doubt that Western elites are on a collision course with China’s regime. But in the short run, they share a common interest: Suppressing populist uprisings, and making a few more bucks before a cold war (hopefully cold, not hot) descends again on the world.

In the effort to suppress populist uprisings, it is hard to imagine a better crisis than a pandemic. Travel, everywhere, is banned. Even small gatherings of individuals are prohibited. Elections everywhere, the U.S. presidential election in particular, are severely disrupted. Across America, Freedom of Information Act requests are stopped in their tracks, and background checks for firearm purchases are delayed.

And with the impact of the pandemic and the response to the pandemic dominating the news cycle – as it should – there is no room for any political agenda that challenges the status-quo.

How long will this last? Trump’s legendary mass rallies are now a thing of the past. Expect zero mass demonstrations from far-left activists at the Democratic convention; it’s unlikely they’ll even physically convene. Around the world, God given human rights are suspended. Was it necessary? For the most part, most would say yes. But for elites from the Beltway to Beijing, it’s also mighty convenient.

Follow the Money to See the Full Opportunity of the Emergency

If human rights are a casualty of the pandemic, everywhere, for central planners and multinational monopolists, they’re the opportunity of the century. At the global level, America’s central bank is set to pour something like six trillion dollars into the economy. That money will bail out banks and big corporations; it will also bail out small businesses and, in the form of actual direct payments, it will provide assistance to individual American households. But that’s not all.

In a process that calls to mind Gollum’s first, ill-fated journey south into Morder, hundreds of billions of these magically materialized dollars, if not literally trillions, will find their way into China. Because unless America’s roughly $400 billion dollar annual trade deficit with China disappears overnight, that’s where our currency ends up. And then what happens?

Here’s where the identity of interests between American elites and the Chinese regime becomes explicit. Because China has used the dollars earned via years of trade surplus with the U.S., which cumulatively now amounts(not plural) to over $5 trillion, to come over here and buy everything in sight. That not only includes whatever intellectual property they can’t just steal, but the hard assets of corporations, along with prime real estate which drives prices out of reach for ordinary Americans.

China not only buys up America’s tangible and intangible assets from American citizens who are only too happy to accept boatloads of cash, it induces companies to relocate to China. This mutually profitable enterprise allows wealthy American business owners to take advantage of a cowed workforce, enslaved by Western standards, to push out products at a fraction of what it costs in America to hire free workers. Worse yet, China is buying influence in America.

There’s a reason that the American press isn’t calling for sanctions or worse against China, when every time Vladmir Putin so much as sneezes, they have a conniption. It’s because with notable but rare exceptions, China has bought the American media, and Russia has not. It ought to shock American sensibilities that our media could be so crass, so for sale, but they are, and it isn’t just because the Chinese buy ads in American newspapers and air on American television networks. It’s because American companies that are doing business with China – at the expense of the American worker – are also buying ads in the American newspapers and air on American television networks. In other words, there are plenty of American companies whose interests align with China’s.

What’s happening next shouldn’t be hard to imagine. America will continue to log catastrophic deficits with China, and China will turn around and buy American assets at prices depressed by the recession. This will go on until China, and the American sellouts who cater to China, have wrung all profit out of this game.

China has been engaged in hybrid war with the United States for a very long time. They have bought or stolen our critical assets and bribed our elites. They have flooded the nation with fentanyl to wipe out hundreds of thousands of American lives. They have repeatedly bought diseases of increasing severity to our shores. As this latest economic cataclysm plays out, expect them to use their massive stockpiles of gold to attack America’s weakened currency. In that, they may not succeed, but they will further their ongoing goal of disrupting and dividing us.

Like the Nazis and the Communists in WW2, America’s elites and China’s elites are locked in a clash of civilizations. But it suits their common purpose today to displace the populist uprisings in their respective nations. In America, government at all levels will become more expansive and more authoritarian than ever before. From an accelerated transition to energy micromanagement (think Green New Deal) to mandated medicine (think mass vaccinations and immunization passports), things are never going to be the same again.

At least for now, we still may bellyache to our heart’s content, confined, Matrix-like, within our socially distant cocoons of cyberspace.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

The Undifferentiated Human Matter of Replacism

Just over a year ago, an English translation was published of the 2012 book You Will Not Replace Us. Written by Renaud Camus, a French author and political thinker, it was intended as a condensed summary of lengthier volumes he’d already published on the subject of culture and demographics.

The phrase “you will not replace us” gained notoriety in August 2017 when it was chanted by an assortment of right-wing protesters who had shown up in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest the planned removal of Confederate monuments in that town.

There is no excusing the violent extremists who were among those present in Charlottesville, much less the unforgettable and tragic outcome. And it is unlikely that many of the protesters in Charlottesville had any idea that a relatively obscure French writer had coined the phrase they were shouting as they marched across the University of Virginia campus.

But Renaud Camus, whose literary career began in the 1980s as a “pioneering gay writer,” in more recent years has become, as described in The Nation, “the ideologue of white supremacy.” In March 2019, The Washington Post referenced Camus’ book as the inspiration behind the mass murder of Islamic worshipers that had just happened in Christchurch, New Zealand. In September 2019, the New York Times described Camus as “the man behind a toxic slogan promoting white supremacy.”

It’s always problematic to discuss anything questioning the demographic transformations sweeping the West. It’s easy and politically acceptable to celebrate diversity, and even gleefully to anticipate the permanent political ascendancy of the global Left in Western democracies, as the demographic character of the electorate inevitably shifts as a result of mass immigration. But to ask whether or not this shift is desirable invites accusations of racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism. It even invites accusations that to open this discussion is to encourage extremist violence.

Given these stigmatizing constraints, the only reason to bother exploring the potential downside of “diversity” is that behind the term “diversity” is possibly the most unexamined, voluntary, abrupt and profound transformation of a civilization in the history of humanity. And what if suppressing this discussion, pretending nothing of consequence is happening, and censoring voices of caution is actually what encourages extremism and violence?

In a New Yorker article written about Camus in 2017 by Thomas Chatterton Williams, entitled “The French Origins of ‘You Will Not Replace Us,’” the Frenchman is described as “a kind of connective tissue between the far right and the respectable right,” who can “play the role of respectable reactionary because his opposition to multicultural globalism is plausibly high-minded, principally aesthetic, even well-mannered.”

That description offers a broader perspective on Camus than one of someone merely motivated by xenophobia or racism. Camus is reacting against globalism as an economic nationalist and as a cultural preservationist. He claims that what he calls a “Davos-cracy” has deemed cultures secondary to having a critical mass of consumers, and that it considers all humans interchangeable. The phrase he’s selected to drive his point home, and repeated throughout his book, is “Undifferentiated Human Matter,” or UHM.

Replacers, Replacists, Replacees, Replacism, Anti-Replacism

Camus begins his book by declaring “replacing is the central gesture of contemporary societies.” But he isn’t just talking about people, he’s talking about everything. Claiming “the world itself is fast becoming just another amusement park,” he describes the process of replacism in all encompassing terms. In an extended explanatory passage, he writes:

“Faux, simili, imitation, ersatz, simulacrum, copies, counterfeiting, fakes, forgeries, lures, mimics, are the key words of modern human experience. Stone masonry is being replaced by ferroconcrete, concrete by plaster, marble by chip aggregate, timber by PVC, town and countryside by the universal suburb, earth by cement and tar….literature by journalism, journalism by information, news by fake news, truth by fallacy, last name by first name, last name and first name by pseudonyms….history by ideology, the destiny of nations by plain politics, politics by economics, economics by finance, the experience of looking and living by sociology, sorrow by statistics, residents by tourists, natives by non-natives, Europeans by Africans….peoples by other peoples and communities, humanity by post-humanity, humanism by transhumanism, man by Undifferentiated Human Matter.”

What Camus is defending is more than preserving an indigenous ethnic majority in his country. He is defending, as he puts it, “an order, a prosperity, a sense of generosity in terms of social benefits and safety nets, the sound functioning of institutions which have been achieved through centuries of nurturing efforts, trials and tribulations, cultural transmission, inheritance, sacrifices and revolutions. What makes countries, continents, cultures and civilizations what they are, what we admire or regret, are the people and the elites who have fashioned them….man is not, or not quite yet, some undifferentiated matter that one can spread indiscriminately, like peanut butter or Nutella, anywhere on the surface of the Earth.”

Rejecting most conventional terms, Camus has built his own nomenclature around what he believes are fundamental mega-trends that are not adequately described with existing vocabulary or commonly understood polarities: liberalism vs conservatism, globalism vs nationalism, capitalism vs socialism. Instead, he has come up with the ideology of “replacism,” with three protagonists, “the replacists, who want to change the people and civilization, which they call multiculturalism, the replacers, mostly from Africa and very often Muslims, and the replacees, the indigenous population, whose existence is frequently denied.” He then divides the “replacees” into two groups, the consenting replacees, and the unwilling replacees.

Is France Actually Destined to Replace its Population?

The concept of demographic replacement brings with it an assortment of tough questions, largely ignored, dismissed, or even censored by the establishment media and mainstream politicians. In France, the government collects no census or other data on the race or ethnicity of its citizens, which means any tracking of alleged “replacement” of the native population has to rely on estimates. Estimates, however, reveal dramatic shifts in just the past two decades.

An article published by the Brookings Institution in 2001 estimated that five percent of the French population was non-European and non-white. From what information can be found since then, that percentage has changed at a blistering pace. According to World Population Review, “when statistics were released in 2008, it was reported that 11.8 million foreign-born immigrants and their immediate descendants were residents in the country; a figure which accounted for around 19% of the total population of the time.”

While a rise from 5 percent to nearly 20 percent in less than a decade is a stunning statistic, it may actually understate the magnitude of the so-called replacement, because it doesn’t take into account birthrates. For example, a chart on the Wikipedia page “Demographics of France,” quoting data available (in French) from the “Institut national de la statistique,” reports that in 2014, an estimated 29 percent of all births in France were to parents where at least one was foreign-born. Moreover, of the 71 percent of births in that year to parents who both were born in France, it is probable that a significant portion of those were to second- or third-generation immigrants of non-European origin.

A 2017 article appearing in the Washington Times, referencing a study published (in French) by the “Institute des Libertes,” offers projections based on known population demographics and birthrates in France. The study predicts that within 40 years, or barely after mid-century, the white population in France will become a minority. This forecast extrapolates from a white birthrate in France of 1.4 children per woman, compared to a Muslim birthrate of 3.4 per woman. If these birthrate disparities persist, France is destined to become a Muslim majority nation within just a few decades, even if immigration were stopped entirely. Among the younger generations of French, that threshold will be reached much sooner.

Is Integration Possible in France and How is Mass Immigration Justified?

According to Camus, several false narratives are being spread in France by the “replacists” to dismiss the significance of the current migration by saying it is nothing new. Camus argues that it is preposterous to say that “France has always been a country of immigration,” because “for about fifteen centuries the French population has been remarkably stable, at least in its ethnic composition.” To the extent there was immigration, it was always thousands of people, of European stock and Christian faith, compared to millions today who “have almost all been African and more often than not Muslim.”

Whether or not Camus is a white supremacist is debatable, but his skepticism towards the possibility of integration is unambiguous. He writes “Their African culture and Mahometanism make it a much stronger challenge for them to become integrated into French culture and civilization, all the more so because most of them show no desire whatsoever to achieve any such integration, whether as individuals or communities.” Sadly, without honest, balanced, and well-publicized research into this very question, it is impossible to dispute this assertion.

Other popular narratives, according to Camus, also designed to justify mass immigration, include the claim that France was liberated from the Germans in 1944 by Northern and Central Africans recruited by the Free French. Anyone familiar with the battles of World War II would dispute this based on the fact that the main invasion was at Normandy by American and British forces. While units of the Free French army did land along with other Allied forces in Southern France two months after D-Day, this later invasion was launched after the Germans had begun to withdraw their forces to fight in the north, and in any case, only about one-third of the Free French troops were of African origin.

Another popular myth that Camus claims is promoted by France’s multiculturalists, or replacists, is that North African workers reconstructed France after World War II. This is clearly inaccurate since France’s post-war reconstruction was completed well before the 1970s, which is when mass migrations began from Africa into France.

Possibly what might be considered by replacists to be the most compelling argument in favor of mass migration is that it serves as recompense for the depredations of the French as colonial occupiers. But if the colonial era were so horrible, Camus asks, why is it that millions of Africans “appear to nurture no plan more clearly and cherish no higher ambition than to come to France and live with the French?”

Camus makes an important distinction between European colonialism and mass migration into Europe from Africa, one that calls into question both mainstream claims—that integration is possible, or that mass migration is justified. As he puts it, “France and Europe are much more colonized by Africa, these days, than they ever colonized it themselves.” His point is that the Europeans imposed a military, administrative and economic occupation on its overseas territories, but “this type of colonialism, developed in a political framework, is much easier to end—all that is required is for the conqueror’s army to withdraw.” What is happening in France today is what Camus refers to as “settler colonialism,” which is far more difficult to undo, if not impossible.

If the immigrant vs native French interactions Camus writes about are typical—“making life impossible or an unbearable ordeal to the indigenous people….through aggressive gazes, overbearing posturing to force passers-by down from the sidewalk….the creation in the citizenry of a general feeling of fear, insecurity, dispossession and estrangement….unprecedented forms of hyper-violence up to full-blown terrorist acts and massacres….which in the process secure under their rule additional chunks of territory for themselves”—then eventual integration may be very unlikely, and his characterization of mass migration as a foreign occupation may be more descriptive.

The Case for “Undifferentiated Human Matter”

To criticize the double standard applied by most online and offline media on topics relating to race has been dismissed as “whataboutism,” as if double standards don’t matter, as if differing sets of moral criteria should apply depending on what group or worldview is being examined. This double standard is in effect throughout the West, enforced in matters ranging all the way from online censorship to offline criminality. Camus notes countless Christian church desecrations in France, rarely prosecuted, and compares those to the heavy sentences levied onto protesters who unfolded a banner on the roof of the “Great Mosque” of Poitiers during its construction.

In France, Camus writes, “non-European youngsters by the thousands can post horrible and very disturbing messages on Twitter or Facebook about European or White people in general without the slightest threat to have their social network accounts suspended or be interrogated by the police; while opponents to mass migration are the permanent target of the most finicky censorship.”

Camus marvels at the fact that contemporary Western Civilization is the first in history to be lenient “towards those who want its eradication while it relentlessly persecutes those who would put up efforts to defend it and work for its salvation.” But what is Western Civilization? Is it bound up with ethnicity, or is it something more intangible yet more profound?

In France, the very notion of “race” has been deleted from Basic Law texts. The conventional explanation for this transformation, implemented in the 1970s, was that it reflected the revulsion the French people felt towards Nazism and their horrific experience under German occupation when Jews were being deported to German death camps. Undoubtedly, this is true, but Camus focuses on how the termination of the concept of race fulfills the goals of the replacists.

Mocking the mainstream scientific dogma that proclaims races do not exist, Camus takes the position that “race” embraces “social, literary, or poetic, or taxonomic creations of such considerable impact that proclaiming they do not exist is tantamount to seriously testing the meaning of the verb to exist.” He uses “race” interchangeably with “a people” and argues that conflating biology with culture is to suggest that Europe does not exist, that European civilization did not exist; no such thing as French culture; no such thing as French people—that there are only people with a French passport.

“In industrial and post-industrial societies, especially those where the main industry is the industry of Undifferentiated Human Matter, where man is the producer, product and consumer at once, there is no such thing as a genuine product.”

The “Anti-Racist” Paradox: The True Agenda of the Anti-Racists

If everyone is undifferentiated human matter, and races—biological or cultural—do not exist, how can racism exist? And if races do not exist, why must anti-racists so aggressively enforce a drive to achieve perfect equality among races; why must they insist that all races are equal?

This logical flaw is inexplicable, according to Camus, until you consider how the meaning of anti-racism has changed. Anti-racism no longer means a stance against racism as it is historically understood, it now denotes a stance against the existence of races and a willingness to have them disappear. Camus considers this evolution of the term anti-racism, impelled by the paradoxical concept that races both do not exist and are all equal, was a critical enabling condition for the Great Replacement.

As he puts it, “Paradoxically, without the non-existence of races, the change of race would not be possible . . . since there are no races, there can be no substitution of races . . . change was obvious, and rather unpleasant, but it was not taking place. How could it occur, since it was scientifically impossible?” But why? Who benefits?

It is here that Camus’ opening remarks, “replacing is the central gesture of modern societies,” comes back into play, addressing a phenomenon of which mass migration is only a part, albeit a very, very big part. If the native French are being replaced by settler colonials, then who is orchestrating this, and why? Camus claims “what we are dealing with here is a delegated form of colonization, a colonization by proxy, and that the forces that want it, and who organize it, are not the forces who actually accomplish it.”

This two-fold colonization, orchestrated by the very rich and implemented by the very poor, is part of the destruction of culture that began before the mass migrations. As he writes, “no people that knows its own classics would accept numbly and without balking to be thrown into the dustbins of history . . . this numbness had to be created.” Here and elsewhere, Camus is not talking about a conspiracy, but rather “powerful mechanisms” created by the combination of ideals and interests. The main ideal; equality. The main interests: “normalization, standardization, similarity, sameness.”

What Camus calls a “powerful mechanism” can indeed explain the rise of globalism without resorting to conspiracy theories. For global investors and multinational corporations to achieve maximum growth and profit, the prerequisites are standardization, free trade, open movement of people and capital, and a growing mass of consumers in every economic zone—dependent, destitute, it doesn’t matter. But to justify this, to make it a virtue, even a populist cause, the ideology of equality and anti-racism are in-turn prerequisites.

This erasure of high culture, this popular contempt for a cultivated class that might perpetuate reverence for traditions and greatness, this devolution, suits the ideology of the anti-racists. But it is useful as well to global commercial and financial interests. In an irony of history, Lenin’s useful idiots, the leftist movements in Western nations, are now serving not the international communists, but global capital.

It isn’t just France, of course, where traditional culture and proud national histories are being deconstructed and disparaged by the Left. In the name of anti-racism, the history of Western Civilization is now being taught in America, increasingly, from elementary school through graduate school, as an unending saga of oppression and exploitation. In the name of equality, SAT scores, and even grades, are being dispensed with in schools and universities, double standards are established based on racial quotas in academia and business, because race does not exist, yet all races are equal. All this paves the way for an erasure of peoples, the replacement of culture and identity with undifferentiated human matter.

The Genealogy of Replacism

On page 138 of the English edition of You Will Not Replace Us, Camus offers a family tree of sorts that pulls together the historical events and ideological evolution which led France, and by extension the West, to its present state. It not only attempts to illustrate the origins of replacism, but also the cultural devolution that he believes made replacism possible. Shown below is a graphic representation of what Camus describes in painstaking detail. Here is the “marital status” of replacism. “Son of Anti-Racism and High Finance (themselves, respectively son of Egalitarianism and Anti-Fascism, and daughter of Taylorization and Ultra-Liberalism, granddaughter of Industrial Revolution and Capitalism), marries Petite-Bourgeoisie, daughter of Democratization and Welfare State, grand-daughter of French Revolution and Proletariat.”

The logic of this genealogy makes a lot of sense. Replacism is ideologically justified by anti-racism at the same time as it serves the interests of High Finance. “Taylorism,” loosely synonymous with “Fordism,” is the system of factory management that evolved in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to break production into standardized repetitive tasks, greatly improving both the efficiency of manufacturing as well as making it possible to hire far less-skilled workers for less money, and making them easily interchangeable. Ultra-liberalism is Liberal ideology as originally conceived, devoted to the virtues of free trade and free movement of capital.

By marrying replacism to petite bourgeoisie, Camus is showing the synergy between a loss of higher culture and the replacist agenda. By depriving Western Civilization of its “cultivated class which is indispensable to culture in the old sense of the word,” by allowing respect for Western Civilization to slowly disappear, indeed by demonizing all vestiges of privilege, and by glorifying the most popular, largest common denominators of human experience, by democratizing education to the point where everyone and nobody is educated anymore, by mass-producing simulacrums of culture designed to appeal to the most universal and primal ambitions, there is no longer a people, there is no longer a unique culture, there is no longer history, tradition, pride, identity, the nation becomes an economic unit and nothing more.

Another fascinating aspect of the genealogy that Camus has described is that it is not just logical, but perhaps some of what he is describing is also inevitable. In hindsight, where would the human path have deviated from these outcomes? Is it much of a stretch to say the industrial revolution was inevitable, or the innovation of mass production and standardization? Is it unreasonable to suggest the rise of workers and unions to the abuses that characterized the first hundred years of industrialization may  have been inevitable? Is all that Camus really has to say mere sentimentality, mere nostalgia, is this just a primal scream of a book and the movement it represents merely the last mad roar of a primitive nationalism whose time has come and gone?

Nostalgia and sentimentality may well inform the millions who merely wish that things could go back to the way they were, but for Camus, at least, stronger emotions and reason inform his motivation. First of all, he would probably deride it as thoughtless and typical for his critics to think that objecting to the destruction of Western Civilization, in all of its traditions and values, is mere reactionary nostalgia and sentimental longing for the past. But he also would remind us of the threat we face, not only at the hand of the replacists, but when the replacers eventually confront the replacists.

Replacism, for all its deplorable sameness, for all its drive to conquer and merge all cultures in the name of anti-racism and in the interests of high-finance, at least has a new world to offer. It may be grotesque and shallow, hedonistic and common, replete with addictive gadgets that pass for fulfillment and while away lifetimes, but there is profit, there is order, bread, circuses. There is still civilization, after all, cheapened, flattened, filled with undifferentiated human matter. But what if the replacers have a different agenda entirely?

Camus believes the combination of leftist morals and traditional right-wing business interests gives a unique power to replacism. He writes, “as if the ruthless power in the upper district of Metropolis, had, to top it all and make it worse, the capacity to project to the world the gentle image of the soft social order found in the Alpine pastures of The Sound of Music. He describes replacism as a totalitarian ideology devoted to promoting the replaceability of everything, man included. But he also claims that the only totalitarian ideology in the world capable of rivaling replacism in the world today is radical Islam. What a choice.

Neither Conspiracies Nor Scapegoats Account for Replacism

The phrase “conspiracy theorist” or “conspiracy theory” recently has been weaponized by globalists throughout the West. Wielded along with the more established word weapons, “racist” and “denier,” “conspiracy theorist” is now used as a verbal bludgeon to silence anyone who questions globalization or replacism.

Camus has much to say on this and the related topic of scapegoating. He writes, “The theory of conspiracy theory is one of the most effective, catchy and brilliant inventions of the ideological power and its executive clique, the media, to discourage any reflection on its own workings, on the nature of its power and on the crimes it might have committed. The theory amalgamates all conspiracy theories into one, whose model are the most eccentric views about the attacks of September eleventh against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. But just as being paranoid does not mean you have no enemy, accusing everyone whose views differ from yours of being an adept of some conspiracy theory does not mean there is no plot and no conspiracy.”

Having made that assertion, Camus backs away from alleging there is a conspiracy. Dismissing attempts by others to blame replacism on the European Union, Wall Street, the International Monetary Fund, or Jews, he suggests, in fact, it is “some enormous, bizarre and complex process, so intricate that no one can understand perfectly how they work and why, and no one can master and stop them once they are started.”

This makes more sense than it may initially seem. It returns to the idea of a logical and almost inevitable flow of history. Only at pivotal historical moments can that flow be willfully directed through the exertions of a united people, because so much of its momentum is mechanical. And clearly that is what Camus is calling for, when he writes “it is for us to break the machines which churn out men like others churn out cookies, or Nutella, or surimi.”

Camus explicitly challenges the theory, not his, but prevalent among some right-wing factions, that Jews are providing the money and brains behind replacism. He correctly notes that in Europe they are the first victims of the Great Replacement. He discusses at length how “the change in the population of Europe has made daily life very difficult, if not impossible, for a number of Jews who are almost permanently exposed to very strong Muslim aggressiveness, modern anti-Zionism flourishing both as a form of exasperation and as an excuse, a more decent cover, for very classical Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism.”

While identifying Muslim immigrants as the source of revived anti-Semitism in Europe, Camus dismisses the role of “classical occidental European anti-Semitism,” referring to it metaphorically as “a derelict shop in the dilapidated historical downtown, now entirely driven out of business, and fashion, by the enormous shopping malls in the banlieues.” He notes that many Jewish communities in Europe that survived the Holocaust are not going to survive the Great Replacement, with thousands of Jews now being driven out of France every year.

The experience of European Jews today in the face of mass immigration of Muslims has led Camus to conclude that while there are some prominent Jews involved in promoting the Great Replacement, such as George Soros and others less known, he believes that in recent years the proportion of replacist Jews and anti-replacist Jews is now almost reversed, with anti-replacists predominating. And he makes a claim, similar to sentiments observed by Churchill a century earlier, that “Jews are very much divided on that issue [replacism], which makes them no different than any other community.” It may be fair to say that Camus sees the Jewish community, certainly in Europe, as a microcosm, split on the polarizing issues of our time in a way reasonably proportional to the rest of the Western elites.

And perhaps in this we will come a recognition that Zionism is only one form of nationalism, and Jews and Gentiles alike throughout the West will begin to coalesce in support of preserving the peoples and cultures of all Western nations. Camus writes “Israel belonging to the Jewish People, with Jerusalem as its capital, is the model and the essential reference, at least in Western culture and civilization, to all sense of belonging. If those three did not belong to each other, it would be the end of all belonging. If Jerusalem were not Jewish there would be no reason for Paris or Saint-Denis to be forever French, for London or Winchester to be English, or indeed for Washington or Concord to be American.”

The Flight 93 Civilization

If you believe even half of what Camus has to say, Western Civilization is all but doomed. It is to be replaced either by a generic replacist world consisting of undifferentiated human matter, or an Islamic world, which would take shape in the aftermath of a cataclysmic conflict in which the replacers overthrew the no longer useful replacists. What can be done?

Towards the end of his book, Camus calls for “remigration” of immigrants out of France and back to their nations of origin. To accomplish this, he views the European Union, currently controlled by replacist interests, as something that could potentially be taken over by anti-replacists. As he puts it, “The continent is being invaded, the nations which are part of it should stick together and resist, not try and find salvation one by one, in dispersion and isolation.” But he reemphasizes how what threatens European civilization is bigger even than colonization, writing “when we Europeans started to be subjected to another, more brutal and direct colonization, we were submitted to an Islamisation of our Americanization.”

American cultural power, such as it is according to Camus, populist, egalitarian, flattened, Petite bourgeoise, is almost—stress, almost—a proxy for globalism sweeping away the unique cultures and peoples of the world. Camus might say that America, when it comes to replacism, is as much a culprit as a victim.

Which brings us to America, where, just as in Europe, resurgent nationalism—unwilling replacees—contends with a daunting coalition of replacists, replacers, and willing replacees. The eventual outcome hangs by a thread, and no matter what the outcome, so much can go wrong.

In 2016, an influential essay entitled “The Flight 93 Election” compared the presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with the choice passengers faced on the doomed Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. As he put it, “2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.”

Written by Hillsdale College research fellow Michael Anton, who went on to serve for a time as a senior adviser in the Trump White House, this essay addresses all of the same issues of replacism, in the broadest context of the term. The dispossession of the American people, culturally, economically, and eventually, through actual physical replacement. Anton manages to make his points without inviting quite the opprobrium that Camus has attracted, but his words—a breath of fresh air to many but an unforgivable transgression to others—were so frank and so incendiary that he initially wrote under the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus.”

What Camus has dubbed the Davos-cracy, Anton called the “Davoisie,” as he implicates America’s conservatives as “sophists who rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways, and endless, pointless, winless wars.” Anton went on to reserve an entire section of his essay for the “other” issue, writing that “The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes.”

Anton’s description of America under a Clinton administration is almost synonymous with how Camus describes France under Macron, differing only in the particulars. “A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent… We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.”

Three years after Trump’s stunning upset victory, the power of the Left in America remains pervasive and growing. Under the twin ideological poles of anti-racism and climate action—which is a proxy for economic replacism—they have more or less consolidated their hold on academia, and continue to expand their influence in government at all levels along with most major corporations. Imagine if Trump had lost.

Characterizing the U.S. election of 2016 as a last chance to have a chance, a last chance to avoid certain death, was accurate. Now the battle is joined but the odds remain stacked against the anti-replacists. The Davoisie in all its power is doing everything it can quiet the passengers and regain full control in the cockpit. The Flight 93 Civilization remains fitfully airborne, but for how long?

The Inchoate Rebellion Against the Ruling Class

Across the United States and Europe, a rebellion is brewing that lacks coherence or unity. Indeed many of the rebellious groups are battling each other at the same time as they share a rage against the Davos-cracy. In France, the Yellow Vest Movement which has gripped that nation for over a year has attracted far-left and far-right demonstrators.

While the Yellow Vest Movement in France was sparked by rising fuel taxes, the duration and intensity of the protests bespeak years of frustration. What unifies the participants is the punitive cost-of-living in France, but there is no apparent agreement on the cause. To speculate as to the cause, for the Right, immigration is the primary factor; for the Left, global capitalism is the main reason. In fact, they’re both correct.

The unemployment rate among immigrants in France in 2018 was 15.3 percent, nearly twice that of non-immigrants at 8.3 percent. This ratio is virtually unchanged for over a decade. While it is now almost impossible to find reports connecting the Yellow Vest protests to anger over immigration—which means nothing—even President Macron has agreed to new, tougher immigration enforcement. In November 2019 the New York Times quoted Macron as saying “The bourgeois live in areas with few immigrants and do not encounter immigration in their daily lives. It is France’s working classes that live with the difficulties of immigration, and have thus migrated to the far right.”

On the other hand, huge sectors of the French economy have been devastated since the introduction of the Euro in 1999, and this consequence of globalization would have happened with or without immigration. Two searing, pessimistic visions of where this is leading are found in books by the bestselling French author Michel Houellebecq. His 2015 book, Submission, describes a bloodless transition in France from a secular republic into an Islamic theocracy. His 2019 book, Serotonin, includes chapters describing how France’s agriculture industry, which for centuries was a vital, productive, diverse ecosystem comprising hundreds of thousands of independent farmers, was within just a few years nearly wiped out by foreign imports and corporate takeovers.

It would be simplistic and inaccurate to characterize the Yellow Vest Movement as either Right or Left, just as it would not be accurate to describe Marine Le Pen’s National Rally political party as right-wing. The Yellow Vest Movement is a populist reaction to replacism, for mostly economic reasons. The National Rally candidates are a nationalist reaction to economic and cultural replacism.

This illustrates how Camus has invented a term, replacism, that not only transcends conventional definitions, but creates space for new combinations of political ideologies to form. Why should the anti-replacists be capitalists instead of socialists? Capitalism has been the justification to impoverish the middle class and fill the nation with foreigners. Globalist (or international) capitalism has been rejected by all within the otherwise inchoate Yellow Vest Movement. Is there such a thing as nationalist capitalism? And if not, is the battle taking shape one between national socialists and international socialists? That would make sense.

The Rising of the Bronze Age Mindset

If Renaud Camus now plays the role of “respectable reactionary,” a book that has quietly sold its way into influence and infamy is Bronze Age Mindset, self-published in 2018, written by a pseudonymous author “Bronze Age Pervert,” which he typically shortens to “BAP.” Bronze Age Mindset is a book that disrespects pretty much everything about modern life. Instead, the author exhorts readers to aspire to become the piratical, fearless figures of Bronze Age antiquity. Talk about reactionary!

The author, who in his book periodically dispenses with grammar, recently surfaced to publish a response to a review of Bronze Age Mindset written by Michael Anton. Both the review and the response are valuable reading for anyone trying to understand the evolving mindset of the anti-replacists. Because closely linked to the reactionary resistance to both cultural and economic annihilation is, obviously, a rejection of the so-called ruling class. This sentiment, and little else, unites the Yellow Vest Movement in France. A feeling of being betrayed by the ruling class also informs movements in the United States that are otherwise bitterly opposed to one another. BAP writes:

“What you are witnessing is the unraveling of the postwar American regime—or what is mendaciously called by its toadies the ‘liberal world order’—in a way that is far more thorough than the disturbances of the 1960s, and with consequences that will be far more dire. The ‘altright’ doesn’t exist and has nothing to do with the media representations of it as a form of ‘white nationalism,’ or even—and here is what is crucial to understand—just ‘white males’ or just the ‘right wing.’ The same phenomenon is taking place on the left, and there is much more crossover than older people realize: there is much more involvement also by nonwhite youth and particularly by Latino, Asian, and multiracial youth in this phenomenon than people want to admit.”

In BAP’s essay, entitled “America’s Delusional Elite is Done,” he accuses the conservative intellectual establishment of failing to oppose “the violent racial hatred and other forms of unprecedented insanity coming from the new left,” including “the destruction of the family, and the new push to groom children on behalf of transsexualism and other supposed sexual identities.” He points out that “this one crucial matter extends the appeal of the ‘frog people’ far beyond that of any one racial or ethnic group.”

So where Camus saw cultural deconstruction as a prerequisite to ethnic replacement, to be resisted, BAP sees resistance to cultural deconstruction as something that is unifying various ethnicities. Economic globalism and cultural deconstruction may have left France open to ethnic replacement and ethnic conflict, but in the United States, these same two mega-trends could form a reactionary and multiethnic solidarity. The difference is that the Yellow Vest Movement unifies a diverse assortment of factions based, so it appears, purely on economic grievances. In the United States by contrast, among the still gestating Bronze Age resistance, the economic factors are present but equally unifying are the cultural grievances.

In the long run, France and the United States face very different challenges with respect to mass immigration. Compared to America, France is a nation poorly equipped culturally to absorb and assimilate millions of immigrants, and—can we say this?—the immigrants entering France are not easily assimilated, insofar as they are mostly African and mostly Muslim. Moreover, France’s mostly secular native population will not find much common ground with the social conservatism practiced by Muslims, whereas a far higher percentage of white Americans are Christian, practicing variants of Christianity that overlap almost completely with those of immigrants to the United States from Latin America.

Until very recently, America’s dominant culture emphasized the importance of assimilation, and even in its atrophied, discredited current state, America’s ability to assimilate its immigrants remains robust. Asian immigrants entering the United States typically come from successful, developed nations, bringing a strong ethic for higher education and entrepreneurship. America’s Muslim immigrants constitute a far smaller fraction of America’s immigrant population, and on average they have more education and skills than the waves of Muslim immigrants entering France. For these reasons, America is far more likely than France to eventually absorb its immigrants while leaving its culture relatively intact.

But BAP isn’t done. Perhaps he offers further encouraging words to those conservative nationalists whose demographic awareness has made them give up when he writes the following: “Conservatives pretend to be able to recruit Latinos to their cause with the degraded ideology of Jack Kemp but Latinos see David French call forced ‘drag queen’ visits for schoolchildren ‘part of free life,’ and want nothing to do with it. We are far better at recruiting Latinos, and as the example of Bolsonaro among many others shows, this new, energetic and popular form of the right is a Latino movement, and it is the future.”

And where is the Davos-cracy in all of this leftist debauchery and conservative cowardice? BAP is one with Camus in implicating the “large monopolies that promote mass immigration, mass surveillance, and the most bizarre type of speech restrictions, not only on its own employees, but now on American society at large.” In America, the NeverTrumpers and Libertarians, and all of what Michael Anton may have been the first to refer to as “Conservatism Inc.,” have been worse than useless, they have been puppets of the Davoisie.

Finally, BAP’s observations are in accord with Camus on how the meaning of “equality” has been entirely perverted by the replacists. BAP writes:

“It is indeed possible to oppose this vicious and exterminationist hatred on purely liberal and racially egalitarian grounds. But this didn’t happen, which puts the lie to the claims that traditional conservatives care about equality under the law or about any of the ideals they claim to espouse. We are now faced with a left that has embraced a dialectic of racial and class destruction in a context where belief in absolute human equality is professed at the same time that no one believes in it anymore.”

In the 21st Century, the United States and Europe, France in particular, faces increasingly radicalized, politically disenfranchised, economically abandoned, embittered masses. What mindset they adopt, what alliances they form, may be the surprise of the century.

The Solution to Replacism—A Community of Nations

Camus considers an “orderly and peaceful” remigration of millions of French immigrants back to their nations of origin to be the only way to preserve French culture. It is hard to imagine how this could ever happen. But it is probably true that either assimilation or remigration will be necessary in France in order to avoid either civil war or submission to Islam. Houellebecq’s book of that name is not in the least far fetched, although if it were to happen it prefigures a larger eventual clash, since an Islamicized West would still have to deal with China and other Asian nations that remain committed to preserving their own cultures.

Which begs the question: What does it take for a nation to be willing to fight to again assimilate its immigrants? In France, the economic challenges caused by globalization have already sparked the Yellow Vest Movement, which led to dramatic recent shifts on immigration policy by Macron. But can France, and the other Europeans, recover a sufficient belief in their own history and traditions and identity to demand others assimilate to their ways, instead of the other way around?

In his 2017 book, The Strange Death of Europe, British conservative author and journalist Douglas Murray suggests that those forces still extant in Western societies that resist the leftist derangements of our time—the secular and the religious—put aside their differences and unite to save their civilization. That’s an interesting idea not only because it might enable a critical mass of resistance to arise, but because it represents a new synthesis of Western culture that might help defuse the mutual resentment of Right and Left. They’d better get busy.

Nothing BAP discusses, either in his book or in his essay addressing Michael Anton’s review, offers a solution. BAP describes his work as that of a Samizdat, those Eastern Bloc dissidents who reproduced and distributed censored and underground publications critical of the regime. Anton, for his part, adheres to the ideals of the American Founding Fathers. To which BAP responds, “he [Anton] should admit that this form of government would today be called white supremacism or white nationalism, as would Lincoln’s later revision of it, as would indeed the America of FDR and Truman, not to speak of Theodore Roosevelt.”

Indeed it is. By the Left.

So where does Camus cross the line? How is Camus the “ideologue of white supremacy?” Why did Michael Anton have to use the pseudonym “Publius Decius Mus” when writing candidly about the Davoisie’s embrace of mass immigration into the United States? Why is Bronze Age Mindset written by “Bronze Age Pervert,” instead of whoever lives behind that name?

Camus answers this repeatedly in his book. Anti-racism has come to mean anti-white. Examining the phenomenon uncovers endless examples and makes a strong case for the truth of this statement. Neo-commissars variously described as Chief Equity Officers now infest public and private bureaucracies in departments of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” They manage aggressive staffs, expensive and empowered, micromanaging everything from micro-aggressions to the precise ethnic proportions represented in the personnel headcounts of every institution in America. This is authoritarian, totalitarian fascism, bureaucratized and masquerading as anti-fascism. It is explicitly racist, yet it markets itself as anti-racist. That is already a reality in much of America, and it’s spreading fast.

In Europe in general, and France in particular, the same applies. If you question the future of your nation, based on utterly indisputable facts—consistent and immutable voting patterns by ethnicity, leading societal indicators by ethnicity, demographic reality—you are branded a “white supremacist” and the consequences are swift. In ascending order: Unwelcome in polite society. Banned or suppressed online. Fired from your job. Denied various public and private services. Prosecuted and fined. Imprisoned.

And yet the movement of anti-replacists isn’t necessarily “white,” at all. The Yellow Vest Movement isn’t white, and it is ideologically heterogeneous. The rising Bronze Age reactionaries in the United States aren’t ethnically pure, and their ideology remains very much in flux. For these reasons, practical nationalism—centrist but honest, faithful to culture and tradition, having expectations of immigrants instead of the other way around, willing to protect national industries in defiance of the libertarian Davos-cracy, able to put the national interest first—still could have a future in the West. And it may have nothing to do with “whiteness” at all.

The alternative, prosecuted by the Left and condoned by a cowardly Right establishment, is Balkanization based on race and gender, even though race and gender “are a social construct.” It is enforced equality according to race and gender, even though all races and cultures are already equal, and in any case, “race and gender are social constructs.”

The alternative, prosecuted by the Davos-cracy, is to flatten the world, erase borders in the interests of commerce, and reduce humanity to undifferentiated human matter. How does this square with the “celebration of diversity” that informs every coopted institution of the Davos-cracy, from mainstream media to monopolistic multinationals? It doesn’t until you return to one of the first points Camus makes, where he emphasizes that replacism isn’t merely to turn humanity into undifferentiated human matter, but to create simulacrums of culture replacing genuine culture. The iconic buildings and monuments and historic plazas of Paris or London will be faint and boring ruins compared to the neon recreations of those same places around the planet, in cities turned into theme parks. The commodification of high culture is the essence of replacism.

Understanding this fact, that replacism is a wholistic repatterning of all national cultures and a wholesale erasure of national economies, is crucial to refuting the claim that to be anti-replacist is to be a white supremacist. The journey into the future, with technology and globalization whipping forward faster than anyone can fully track or comprehend, changing everything in decades, then changing everything yet again, and again, will not be weathered without the strength of national cultures that embrace and cherish and share a common faith, tradition, values, patriotism, being part of something.

Absent intact and confident national Western cultures who know where they came from and who they are, the immigrant waves that retain the most confidence in their collective identity will overwhelm those cultures that do not. And that may not end well for anyone or anything, including the Davos-cracy, including modernity itself.

To the extent Renaud Camus fights a lonely battle, with the smug opinion-makers of the world stigmatizing him and everyone like him as a “white supremacist,” chances are France will become a nation of undifferentiated human matter, or an Islamic state, or some hybrid of the two. But France will no longer be France.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

Political Realignment is Coming to America

Just over three years ago, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, characterized half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” And for over three years, Trump, along with everyone who supports him, has been subjected to passionate hatred from nearly everyone who would rather have seen Clinton elected.

It’s therefore tempting to return the favor, and hate back, but that would not only be a tactical mistake – since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar – but also inaccurate. There are a surprising number of liberals, progressives, and even socialists, who are not only anti-Clinton, but are begrudgingly, and increasingly, capable of seeing positive sides of the Trump presidency.

A very early indication of this was in back in October 2016, when John Pilger published in the London Progressive Journal an influential article entitled “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” Pilger, notwithstanding his socialist leanings, is a world renowned journalist and filmmaker of undeniable courage and integrity.

In an eloquent tirade notable for its many, many examples of how Hillary Clinton is a murderous establishment puppet, this observation by Pilger summed it up, “She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted ‘exceptionalism’ is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.”

Sound familiar? And wow, how that system has tried, and continues to try to take down Trump. Pilger saw this coming. About Trump, he wrote, “In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.”

A “media hate figure.” Ain’t that the truth. And liberals eat it up. And along with Trump, they hate us. Or do they? John Pilger isn’t alone. There are millions of liberals, progressives, Democrats, and even socialists who have seen through the establishment’s programmatic hatred, despite (or perhaps because of) it coming from every quarter – entertainment, academia, corporations, politicians, and all mainstream media, online and offline.

Their skepticism is indeed aroused, and not just over Trump.

Loving the Bull

Many Trump supporters cheered his election not because of his pugnacity (about time), or his policies (also about time), but because when you hate the China Shop, you love the Bull.

Trump has exposed the Democrat vs Republican, right vs left, liberal vs conservative paradigms as, if not obsolete shams, at the least, models that have lost most of their dialectic vitality. They remain real and represent important differences, but they are overshadowed by a new political polarity, worthy of urgent and vigorous dialectic, globalism vs nationalism.

Until Trump came along, the globalist agenda crept relentlessly forward under the radar. Issues that can now be explicitly framed as globalist vs nationalist – immigration, trade, foreign policy, even climate change – found deceptive expression when shoehorned into the obsolete paradigms.

It suited the uniparty establishment to engage in phony, ostensibly partisan bickering to keep up appearances. It suited them to pretend that immigration and “free” trade bestowed unambiguous global economic benefits, while claiming that to oppose it was economically ignorant and “racist.” It was convenient to pretend ceaseless foreign interventions were based on moral imperatives, while silencing the opposition as “isolationists.” It was easy to get away with promoting climate change policies based on supposedly indisputable scientific evidence, while stigmatizing opponents as “deniers.”

Suddenly all of that is revealed as almost Ptolemaic in its contrived complexity. Here is Trump’s Copernican breakthrough: if you want open borders, absolutely free movement of capital and jobs, and an aggressive international “climate agenda” enforced by the American military, you are a globalist. If you do not, you are a nationalist.

The impact of the globalist agenda have been acutely felt in America already, but the pain is spreading and intensifying. Unskilled immigrants are taking jobs away from the most vulnerable Americans, and every year, they continue to arrive by the millions. Manufacturing jobs which are vital to America’s economic vitality are being exported to any nation with cheaper labor, costing Americans still more jobs. Policies that are supposedly designed to save the planet have made it virtually impossible to cost-effectively build anything – houses, roads, reservoirs, power plants. In states where the globalist agenda is well advanced, the gap between rich and poor is at record levels, and the cost-of-living is prohibitive.

The rest of the world faces the same onslaught from globalists. With rare exceptions, such as the administrative clerisy and the minute fraction of economic refugees for whom the rudest of welfare benefits in developed nations far exceeds their lot in their nations of origin, the only beneficiaries are the investor class and multinational corporations. Economic development, utterly dependent on cheap fossil fuel, is denied because fossil fuel is denied. African cities that might become inviting metropolises fueled by natural gas and nuclear power are instead hellholes of misery, as a burgeoning population forages into wilderness areas for food and fuel, stripping it of life.

The problem with the globalist vision isn’t just that it denies people their cultural identity as it MacDonaldizes the world. The problem is that it’s not working economically or environmentally. It is an epic disaster, unfolding in slow motion. If globalism isn’t stopped, it will engulf the world in war and misery.

And guess what? There are liberals, progressives, and socialists, who get it. The see how their lives are being destroyed. They see through the platitudes, they see the hypocrisy. They can tell that globalism is not working. They’re looking for new ideas.

Modern American Nationalism Transcends President Trump

Donald Trump may have accelerated nationalist movements around the world, but how they find expression in the decades to come depends on how they are shaped by his followers, including belated, reluctant followers, including many who had been his critics. For many years, there are a lot of smart Democrats who have been rejecting the tactics of globalists, even if they have not been critical of globalism itself.

In California, a crucible of American culture, two respected Democrats offer examples of brave commentary that constitutes rank heresy to establishment globalists. In Berkeley, of all places, Michael Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and co-writer of the EcoModernist Manifesto, has worked through his organization Environmental Progress to tirelessly campaign for reviving nuclear power in America. Shellenberger in recent years has turned his attention as well to California’s homeless crisis, calling for emergency measures that cut through a web of stultifying, counterproductive laws that have prevented effective solutions.

Another Californian, quite possibly the most intelligent Democrat who’s ever lived, is Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University, described by the New York Times as “America’s uber-geographer.” For over a decade, Kotkin has patiently explained how urban containment (because suburban sprawl supposedly causes excessive “greenhouse gas” emissions”) is strangling our cities and preventing equitable economic growth. Backing up everything he writes with data, Kotkin has exposed the hidden agenda behind extreme environmentalism, and how it benefits a coalition of special interests – investors, tech billionaires, the professional consultant class, and public sector unions – but condemns everyone else to a feudal existence.

Nationalism Can Be a Model for World Peace and Prosperity

What is nationalism? Why does that word have to connote something extreme? Why can’t it simply acknowledge the practical reality of borders, language, culture and history, and the ongoing right of citizens to determine their own destiny and compete in the world?

Why is it that to the establishment in America and throughout the western democracies, “globalism” is still held up as an ideal, and the inevitable destiny of humanity? Why can’t that inevitability be restricted to the technical facts of globalization – communications, transportation, trade, finance – without also requiring a surrender of national sovereignty? Why can’t nationalism be compassionate, benevolent, economically enlightened, and inclusive?

Nationalism can be all those good things. It can be a model for world peace and prosperity.

As for “climate change” mitigation, why are rational criticisms such as those produced by the luminous Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg castigated as denying reality? Shall the reasoned skeptics of the world be swept away by an orchestrated crusade fronted by children? Shall the 16 year old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg’s vapid denunciations of world leaders actually be taken more seriously than Bjorn Lomborg’s impeccable cost/benefit analyses?

Although mass movements of people proceed more slowly, a philosophical realignment is arguably already upon us. In terms of applied political theory, the prevailing opposition today is nationalism vs globalism. Like all polarities, these labels are fraught with ambiguities and contradictions. For that reason, there are virtues to some aspects of globalism just as surely as there is a dark side to nationalism. Moreover, the 20th century polarities of Left vs Right and liberal vs conservative are still potent. But to have a meaningful political discussion today, those 20th century labels are subsumed within the new model.

To be a left wing socialist liberal, most of the time, is to be a globalist. But not always. Not any more. Remember this, the next time hatred comes your way. Realignment is coming.

Don’t recriminate. Recruit.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *

Towards A Nationalist Economic Policy

Suggesting that managed inflation and currency devaluation are pathways to greater national prosperity is bound to invite howls of derision. But critics may be ignoring factors, which, if acknowledged, might point towards consensus. At the least, it might provoke a more useful discussion.

With that in mind, here are four economic realities in America today:

1 – Despite that the word “fiat” is often used as a term of derision, all currencies are fiat unless backed by redeemable commodities. China is stockpiling gold amidst rumors they may try to tie the Renminbi to gold. Good luck with that.

2 – Throughout history, nations with the ability to sustain capital formation through financial innovation are the ones that succeeded. Prudently managed fractional reserve lending, a financial innovation, enables far more liquidity in the economy.

3 – The biggest engine of liquidity is not printing currency – there’s only about five trillion in actual printed US dollars extant in the world – it is debt formation, backed by collateral, that finances massive projects and asset acquisitions.

4 – American has been on a borrowing binge since the 1980s and total market debt – consumer, commercial and government – now stands at nearly 3.5 times GDP. This level of debt is unsustainable.

On this final axiom there should be agreement. As for the others, concerned observers might agree to disagree. Suffice to say that the economic disruption, and unintended consequences, that would accompany transition to a commodity backed currency would dwarf what we may expect in most other scenarios for the American dollar. So how do Americans unwind nearly $80 trillion in hard debt?

If one accepts the premise that this debt is unsustainable, and that further debt accumulation is no longer possible, than broadly speaking, to facilitate the inevitable rebalancing there are only two possible outcomes – inflation or deflation. The problem with deflation is there is no model of deflation that doesn’t include a complete collapse of liquidity and a near cessation of economic activity. A deflationary collapse would not simply wipe out a few big banks. It would wipe out all banking, big and small, multinational and local, because the value of the collateral that backed all their loans, no matter how healthy their reserve ratios had previously been, would have collapsed.

There is a model of inflation, however, that permits America to continue to prosper economically. It is vital to make the distinction between inflation caused by wages increasing faster than asset values vs inflation caused by asset values increasing faster than wages. Understanding this distinction, and recognizing what is at state in the choice between them, cuts to the heart of what constitutes nationalist economic policy vs globalist economic policy.

Globalist Economic Policy

For at least the last 20 years, American wages have not kept pace with inflation. Examining the core elements of this inflation offers clues to why most Americans are worse off economically than they were 20-30 years ago. And the primary driver of inflation outpacing wage growth is the financialization of the American economy. This is the reliance on creating overvalued assets (asset bubbles) to serve as expanded collateral to enable increased consumer borrowing.

Allowing consumers more capacity to borrow took momentary pressure off of consumers to earn higher wages. This served the interests of multinational corporations and international banks whose profits were optimized when they exported jobs and imported workers. By importing cheap products from overseas and stimulating borrowing on inflated home equity values, for a time, most Americans weren’t suffering the consequences of an economy running on debt instead of productivity.

It’s worth considering all the ways that financial inflation was imposed on ordinary Americans, forcing them into debt. Already reeling from the globalist tactic of exporting jobs out of their country, and importing workers (and welfare recipients) into their country, Americans also had to contend with higher prices for everything that couldn’t be imported – which are those items that use up most disposable consumer income – rent or mortgages, and utility bills. Why?

The answer to this exposes the other primary strategy of globalism, synergistic with the tactic of exporting jobs and importing low wage workers, which is climate change mitigation in all of its almost endless permutations. In the name of protecting the planet, artificial scarcity has been imposed on Americans from coast to coast, and in those regions where state and local governments are overran the most with globalists, that scarcity is most acute.

In the name of fighting climate change, globalists – oops, environmentalists – challenge the ability of entrepreneurs to do anything. To the extent new housing developments are permitted, after years, not months, and millions, not thousands, in fees, they must be confined within the boundaries of existing cities.

It is impossible to overstate how misanthropic this policy is in terms of its effect on ordinary Americans. At the same time as millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, continue to pour into the country, draconian environmental laws are cramming all new housing within the footprints of existing cities. Tranquil neighborhoods are being demolished to make room for millions of newcomers. People are being literally piled on top of each other. But the investor class sees their real estate portfolios soar. Collateral grows, enabling more borrowing, enabling more spending.

Renewable energy, also mandated by law in the interests of supposedly cooling the planet which is supposedly warming catastrophically, also creates artificial scarcity. The cost of renewable energy far exceeds that of conventional energy, which itself costs far more than it should because of permitting delays, lawsuits, and excessive regulations.

Renewable energy requires costly upgrades to the power grid. It requires storage assets to make up for the daily intermittent nature of wind and solar power. The lifecycle costs to manufacture, operate, decommission, and periodically replace wind and solar power arrays are grossly underestimated, especially when considering how these systems have to be oversized to account for seasonal fluctuations in renewable energy output. Power management systems at the grid level and within the home, extending to every “wired” appliance, also add stupendous costs. But public utilities earn far higher revenues when they deploy renewables, which, since their profit percentages are regulated, is the only way they can increase their profits. And everyone up and down the supply chain, from green entrepreneurs to high tech companies, exploit mandated market opportunities that would not otherwise exist.

Climate change panic has turned our schoolchildren into manipulated puppets and morphed a generation of environmentalists from sincere activism to militant hysteria. These minions support every piece of legislation and every lawsuit, despite the impact: higher prices for everything, artificial scarcity, and inflated collateral to keep the borrowing party going. Other significant sources of inflation, college tuition and health care in particular, have other primary causes – in particular, unionization and the inefficiencies and higher costs that come with unionization – but the pretext for demanding higher wages and benefits in the first place, or even the drive to unionize itself, stem from the reality of unaffordable homes and unaffordable energy.

Nationalist Economic Policy

It is important to emphasize that nationalist economic policy is not “conservative,” nor is it Republican. The only reason nationalists, or conservatives, for that matter, vote for Republicans is because Republicans are not Democrats. While far too many Republican politicians are still just members of the establishment uniparty, at least they haven’t had their vanguard completely taken over by international socialists and climate change zealots. But to suggest that a nationalist economic policy is further evidence of yet another betrayal of alleged Republican, “fiscal conservative” principles is to miss the point entirely.

A nationalist economic policy should have one goal: unwind American debt in a manner that will avoid a deflationary collapse while at the same time shifting the weight of ongoing inflation from financial asset inflation to wage inflation. To do this, both of the key premises of globalism have to be broken. Immigration must be limited to reduced quantities of highly skilled immigrants, and climate change alarmist legislation must be replaced with practical policies designed to promote private sector development of cheap and clean fossil fuel throughout the United States and around the world.

Reducing the supply of labor via more restrictive immigration policies will cause wages to inflate. Increasing the supply of housing and energy by reforming absurdly restrictive environmentalist laws will cause prices for these commodities to level off or at least not rise as quickly as wages. And this might be enough to slowly allow the real value of debt in the economy to erode via inflation. But why stop there?

Fiat currencies maintain their value based on the underlying economic strength of the nations that issue them. The US Dollar is the reserve and transaction currency of the world because no other large national economy has anywhere near America’s industrial diversity, demographic vitality, wealth of natural resources, top universities, broad and deep leadership in high technology, political stability, and military strength. What if devaluing the dollar would actually increase America’s underlying economic strength, and what if the only way to devalue the dollar were to continue to engage in federal deficit spending, and incrementally lower the federal reserve lending rate?

Cue the howls.

About a year ago, it was leaked to the press that President Trump was asking his economic advisers “what’s better, a strong dollar or a weak dollar?” Literally everyone, from the entire media establishment to every anti-Trump pundit, took this opportunity to ridicule Trump, as if he should have already known the answer to this question. But there is huge disagreement among experts on this question, and Trump, as usual, was displaying common sense by asking to hear both sides of the issue.

Trump’s gut instincts appear to favor devaluing the dollar. A devalued dollar means it costs relatively more to import raw materials than to extract them domestically (note to environmentalists – it’s also less hypocritical). It also means it costs relatively more to import manufactured goods than to manufacture them domestically. This not only creates jobs, it further bids up the cost of wages. These policies will also help mitigate potential negative impacts on Americans of yet another rising mega-trend, automation.

Everything Trump’s doing, restricting immigration, developing oil and gas wells and pipelines, trying to repatriate money, and negotiating better trade deals, is designed to shift the model of inflation that we’re dealing with from a bad inflation model to a good inflation model.

As for deficit spending, it’s very principled to talk about deficit spending as if it’s an evil, and it’s certainly something that’s created a problem, but at least in the short run, it is not possible to eliminate deficit spending. If wages are increasing faster than the cost-of-living, than spending on entitlements including Social Security can be indexed to stay at or below the rate of inflation, slowly reducing its share of the federal budget. Immigration reform can reduce that burden on federal and state/local budgets. Maybe military spending can settle in at somewhat a somewhat lower percentage of GDP than it did during the last cold war. We can certainly use federal money more efficiently, and probably save a few hundred billion there. But precipitously eliminating the federal budget deficit is impossible, and continuing deficit spending might actually help devalue the dollar, stimulate “good” inflation, and diminish the real value of government and consumer debt.

International Globalism vs. Nationalist Globalization

Ultimately the choice of economic policies for the U.S. comes down to only one; inflation where wages grow at a faster rate than assets appreciate. The reverse of that is the financialized economy we’ve lived with, which has enriched the globalist political donor class but impoverished everyone else in America. The catastrophic third option is deflation, which carries a high risk of cascading implosions of collateral, putting the economy into a depression era tailspin.

There is no policy without risk and without downside. Inflation, for example, will victimize holders of fixed income investments no matter what. It might as well be wage inflation rather than asset inflation, particularly since asset inflation can lead to property tax increases that are particularly harmful to people on fixed incomes. And it’s a bit disingenuous for budget hawks to attack economic solutions involving inflation, when these are typically the same folks who want to throw America’s seniors onto 401K plans. Such a strategy would imply a supreme confidence in every American individual’s ability to manage their own personal retirement portfolios, including, presumably, inflation hedged investments.

Americans, along with citizens in every nation, have a choice. They can become commodities in a global marketplace, where the assets they’ve earned and accomplishments they’ve logged have no meaning and no merit. Or they can assert their sovereignty, preserving their culture, their wealth, their independence, and the privileges they’ve earned as citizens. They can compete with other nations, they can coexist with other nations, they can cooperate with other nations, but they can survive with their identity and traditions intact.

In America’s case, the challenge is particularly complex, because of America’s leadership role in the world. The American military doesn’t have to engage in nation building. It can be more judicial in deciding when to engage in police actions. But no matter how much those activities are attenuated, America’s military still has to pursue international terror networks, wherever they are, and America’s military still has to deter Chinese expansionism. Like it or not, America is in an undeclared cold war with China, and has been for decades. This is a war that can only be kept cold through deterrence, and deterrence, while fabulously expensive, is cheaper than a hot, horrific war.

Globalization, to clarify, is not the same thing as globalism. Technological advances make globalization inevitable. Intercontinental travel is now available and affordable for literally billions of people. The internet has made mass communication available from anyone, anywhere on Earth, to anyone, anywhere else on earth. Electronic transfers of funds occur instantaneously from anywhere to anywhere. Trade between nations has never been easier. And multinational corporations and banks have lost their national identities and operate as global entities.

Globalism, by contrast, is an ideology. In the crudest, most accurate terms possible, globalism can be described as the naive belief that turning global governance over to an unelected cadre of corporate and financial elites is the best possible future for humanity. But it’s not, because globalists want to cram humans into congested cities like cattle, erasing cultural and national identities and traditions. They want to ration availability of energy, water, land and raw materials, justifying it in the name of saving the planet. And they’re willing to relentlessly demonize, marginalize, ostracize and silence anyone who questions their agenda, stigmatizing them as racists and climate “deniers.”

Perhaps some globalists are truly naive, while others are cold and cynical. If so, naive globalists apparently think that rampant population growth among the impoverished nations constitutes less of a burden on the planet and its peoples than empowering these nations with cheap fossil fuel which would induce them to voluntarily check their population growth. And perhaps cynical globalists simply don’t care. They just want the power that globalism offers them, and if renewable energy fails to deliver a sustainable civilization and chaos ensues, so what? The great cull would be a violent but very effective shortcut for the elites to establish their breakaway civilization, their privileged Elysium.

The reality of accumulating debt and persistent federal spending deficits will eventually push Americans to a crossroads. Most everyone agrees about that. Hyping the tropes that keep donor dollars flowing into libertarian think tanks is not the same as offering constructive alternatives. Those critics who wish to offer up a solution more realistic that what is proposed herein are emphatically invited to do so.

This article originally appeared on the website American Greatness.

 *   *   *