Ngo Area

Over the weekend the journalist Andy Ngo got attacked by Antifa at a rally in Portland, Oregon:


He ended up in hospital with his face bashed up and bleeding on the brain. There were also reports that milkshakes laced with corrosive liquid concrete were being prepared in advance and handed out to people to throw.

This was allowed to happen because the Mayor of Portland long ago decided Antifa could own the streets, assault people on a whim, and he would order the police to stand by and let it happen. However, if Antifa met with any sort of opposition, the police would be sent in to break things up and the mainstream media ordered to run the narrative that Antifa weren’t to blame. This has been the way of things for Antifa in Portland for at least two years now. The difference this time is they battered someone who enjoys a lot of support from the wider world, whereas up to now they mainly targeted nobodies.

Of course, half the blue checkmark journalists who scream that Trump is waging a war on the free press were quick to defend Antifa’s actions, lay the blame on Ngo for being a provocateur, and declare that he’s not really a journalist. Unfortunately, the right have responded to this in the way they always do, by pointing out the hypocrisy in their one millionth attempt this year to shame the utterly shameless.

As I’ve said before, the right needs to understand what it’s up against. The Portland Mayor and Portland Police are the problem, so there’s no point appealing to them for help, and the same goes in other cities where the administration and police provide protection for lawless mobs who further the interests of the ruling classes. The right needs to work out who its true enemies are and fight them using their brains, not going toe-to-toe in unwinnable street battles or sending some poor sod like Andy Ngo in on his own to get his head kicked in.

Antifa are vulnerable, in part because they are made up of absolute whimps who only attack in groups, but also because they are reactionary as hell. If the right try putting on a march somewhere, Antifa show up in numbers and get it shut down. Well, what’s stopping the right arranging several dozen marches only one of which is a real one, or perhaps none at all, and letting Antifa play whack-a-mole? Charlottesville is generally considered to be a disaster for the alt-right because they provided the bogeyman the left has always warned about, i.e. gangs of neo-Nazis leaping from the shadows, and also because what passed for the alt-right leadership decided to turn this into the battle of Gettysburg. What they should have done is launch the tika-torch defence of the statue and then just melted away, and popped up somewhere else a month later or the next night. You don’t need to agree with the politics of the torch-bearers to acknowledge that it was spontaneous, surprised everyone, was visually effective, and sent liberals into utter meltdown.

That’s what the right needs to get good at, guerrilla tactics which take minimum effort but force their opponents to burn energy and resources in response, only when they arrive everyone’s gone. The North Vietnamese were spectacularly good at this, getting whole American divisions to hack their way through thick jungle chasing ghosts, and popping up somewhere else to hit the stragglers at their most vulnerable. But this will need a change of mindset, to stop appealing to mainstream institutions for help and inclusion and to understand the fight hasn’t just got dirty, it’s been dirty for a very long time.

Share

118 thoughts on “Ngo Area

  1. Someone will campaign on a Law and Order Platform, even in Oregon, even in Portland.
    Most voters hate street violence, so I’d expect the Law and Order party to do well.

    Whether the Republicans will find such a character, who is bound to eat pees off a knife, and not have gone to a good school, is a different matter.

  2. “”….Most voters hate street violence…””

    Yes they do. But Hitler was also running from law and order platform and liberals have conditioned decades for anti Nazi resistance. Every last commie greatest dream is to be “V”

    Dumb voters can vote what they want but smart and good people do no let things go to gas chambers this time. And probably lot of a normies too.

    This is how Nazi Trap works. When there is Ultimate Evil then ultimate measures are justified. Jesus went to the cross instead of capitulating Devil election victory.

    Nazis are the new Devil and no true believer gives power to Devil because dumb cattle likes him.

    Some sort of Civil War in the US is absolutely unavoidable.

  3. Rules for Radicals includes the injunction to mock our enemies. With that in mind, the inestimable Mark Steyn has coined the wonderful term “Klantifa” for those self-proclaimed Antifa thugs. It has historical resonance too, since the original Ku Kluk Klan was also organized by Democrats to scare their enemies into silent passivity.

  4. @Damian – “Which ensures a country is either ripe for invasion or civil war – as argued by Yuri Bezmenov in his 1980’s interviews.”

    For mine, we are seeing now exactly what he predicted was happening in his Love Letter to America.

  5. “the inestimable Mark Steyn has coined the wonderful term “Klantifa” for those self-proclaimed Antifa thugs. It has historical resonance too, since the original Ku Kluk Klan was also organized by Democrats to scare their enemies into silent passivity.”

    Embarrassing. It would seem that conservatives like Steyn have learned nothing over the decades. They are just going to keep on losing. There’s no hope for them.

  6. @thud – “you have to admit though its sorely tempting to want to put the fear of God into the wimpy little commie fuckers.”

    Don’t forget its open slather on the lefties here as well and that no one will be counting the body bags either. Anyone that in your opinion is a Left Winger is also deemed a legitimate target and subject to the agreed rules of engagement.

    The rules of engagement for defending your clients lawful rights to peacefully assemble, protest and petition are as follows. You are entitled to use all reasonable force that you consider necessary, including lethal force, in defending your clients representatives, yourself or your fellow workmates, or any member of the public from any form of demonstrable and unwarranted threat or demand from any other citizen, lawmaker, organisation, police, military or other party. There is a general understanding that the level of appropriate engagement is a “time is of the essence” type decision that must be made in a matter of seconds and that in having done so, you are fully authorized to engage accordingly.

    If required, questions can always be answered later and after the protest is finished.

  7. I genuinely don’t understand right-wingers who think “success” looks like Charlottesville, or a “better” version of Charlottesville. I don’t see how that could achieve either short-term objectives – Unite the Right could never prevent the removal of Confederate symbols no matter how “well” it went – or longer-term ones like reducing left-wing influence over education, “civil society” organisations and the media.

    If the Right, broadly construed, wants an electoral future then demographics suggest it should be trying to neutralise racial issues by constructing a society with fair opportunities for all – people of very different skin colour or ethnic background can still believe in the importance of traditional values, role of the family, personal liberty, low taxes, a small state etc. They’re less likely to do that if they feel “traditional values” are opposed to them, that the state is their only protection from poverty, that liberty is meaningless since they lack opportunity, and if voting “conservative” means voting for someone who marches with or supports people carrying Nazi flags or chanting white supremacist slogans. I can see how inflamed racial tensions have some short-term electoral advantages, energising a component of white voters who feel under attack by policies like affirmative action. But I can’t see how that leads to a pro-conservative majority in the long run, and nor how stoking up racial tension, to produce a country that is uncomfortable with itself and constantly on edge, is consistent with the kind of value system most conservatives would sign up to or the kind of country they would like to live in.

    I appreciate the alt-right perspective on this is rather different to “mainstream” conservatism and the alt-right would posit this as just more evidence that mainstream conservatives aren’t even trying to “win” anymore. But I’m not sure how much this is to do with different views about the feasibility of victory, or a more fundamental disagreement about what “winning” looks like. At the furthest extremes there are guys whose vision is an essentially all-white America where minorities and mixed race people have been deported or subsidised to move overseas and immigration policy has explicit racial restrictions. Yet aside from the fact that most conservatives would not wish to live in such a country, any objective analysis has to conclude it’s a political and practical nigh-impossibility. Whatever steps its proponents take (marching, internet forum posting, running with their own party or trying to take over an existing one, armed violence) they are doomed to fail according to their own definition of “success”.

    I wonder if part of the attraction of the politics of the street and the boot to some on the Right is a jealousy of the success that radicals, anarchists and communists on the Left have had with it – at least in terms of dominating street politics. But they haven’t succeeded in creating a Trotskyist or anarchist America, and it isn’t at all clear to me that radical left-wing protest and violence has overall proven a benefit to the mainstream American Left. It may well have been an electoral hindrance rather than one of the factors of its socio-cultural domination.

  8. If the Right, broadly construed, wants an electoral future then demographics suggest it should be trying to neutralise racial issues by constructing a society with fair opportunities for all – people of very different skin colour or ethnic background can still believe in the importance of traditional values, role of the family, personal liberty, low taxes, a small state etc.

    In the US, the only people who want that are white people (mostly men) and a handful of ethnic minorities. The rest seem to want racial strife and identity politics. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the entire Democrat lineup for presidential candidature supports open borders and reparations. And while they won’t beat Trump, it’s still going to be close and demographics are not in the right’s favour. Sorry, but the good old days are not coming back – at least, not via the ballot box.

    But I can’t see how that leads to a pro-conservative majority in the long run

    I expect the only way we’ll see a genuine conservative majority in the US is after some sort of peaceful (or not) separation of the two sides.

  9. “I genuinely don’t understand right-wingers who think “success” looks like Charlottesville, or a “better” version of Charlottesville.”

    To me success would be more like a constitutional overthrow of the sitting federal government and its officers. Once the millions of marchers congregate at Lincolns memorial, a petition is raised that a citizens Militia now be formed by all able bodied men in attendance including the Brown Shirt guards, whereby they are also armed and their commander in chief (may or not be Trump) charges the existing incumbents of the swamp with being tyrannically and despotic and unconstitutional. He then advises that at this point in time and in accordance with the peoples wishes that patriots that have been working undercover with the traitors in leadership positions are now undertaking the transfer of power from these despots back to the people. The Militia will then be authorized under the Constitution to do what it is necessary to secure the capitol and arrange for the surrender of all standing armies and other para,military groups to the Militia.

    Job done.

  10. In the US, the only people who want that are white people (mostly men) and a handful of ethnic minorities. The rest seem to want racial strife and identity politics

    Um, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the ‘antifa’ lot, the ones who want ‘racial strife and identity politics’, are 100% white. Values are not linked to skin colour, in the USA or anywhere else.

    Remember, the surge of in minority ethnic voters turning out for the first time to vote for Obama in 2008 also led to victory for the conservative side in the referendums held on the same day (like the anti-same-sex marriage amenedment in California) due to those voters tending to be more conservative.

    Most people, of all demographics, just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. That’s a fundamentally conservative value. There’s a minority of identity poltiics agitators who are trying to stir up resentment and fear in order to get themselves into positions of influence, but if you try to make this about race in anyway then you actively help their ‘it’s them or us!’ narrative.

  11. Values are not linked to skin colour, in the USA or anywhere else.

    No, but values are very much linked to culture which is in turn derived (in part) from both biology and the society around them. Perhaps you noticed, but instead of integration from some groups we got Rotherham.

    Um, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the ‘antifa’ lot, the ones who want ‘racial strife and identity politics’, are 100% white.

    Oh yes, there is no shortage of white people willing to stoke racial tensions via identity politics. Look at how they overlooked and excused Rotherham, for example.

    Remember, the surge of in minority ethnic voters turning out for the first time to vote for Obama in 2008 also led to victory for the conservative side in the referendums held on the same day (like the anti-same-sex marriage amenedment in California) due to those voters tending to be more conservative.

    Oh yes, the Obama years were known for the roll-back of liberal excess and the upholding of conservative bans on gay marriage.

    Most people, of all demographics, just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace.

    The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, too. Should we therefore pretend suicide bombers are not a concern?

    There’s a minority of identity poltiics agitators who are trying to stir up resentment and fear in order to get themselves into positions of influence, but if you try to make this about race in anyway then you actively help their ‘it’s them or us!’ narrative.

    Who’s making it about race? You seem upset that I’ve pointed out the only people really interested in Reagan-era conservative policies are white people (mostly men) and a handful of ethnic minorities, while damned near everyone else wants Bush-style non-conservatism or full on progressive lunacy. There simply is no giant ethnic minority voting block which a genuinely conservative Republican candidate can tap into to reverse things like gay marriage, overbearing government, and assaults on free speech. It doesn’t exist.

  12. No, but values are very much linked to culture which is in turn derived (in part) from both biology and the society around them.

    Culture derived from biology?! Rubbish. There simply aren’t enough biological differences between different groups of human for that to be even remotely plausible.

    Culture on the other hand yes but…

    Perhaps you noticed, but instead of integration we got Rotherham.

    … that wasn’t inevitable. It was a failure of policy. It didn’t have to happen.

    Oh yes, the Obama years were known for the roll-back of liberal excess and the upholding of conservative bans on gay marriage.

    Because those voters, once they had elected Obama, mostly went back to not voting, while the mad lefties kept turning up. If they could have been encouraged to turn up, and the habit of voting along racial lines could be weakened rather than strengthened, then things could be different.

    The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, too. Should we therefore pretend suicide bombers are not a concern?

    You’ve skipped from race to ideology here, so this is beside the point.

    There simply is no giant ethnic minority voting block which a genuinely conservative Republican candidate can tap into to reverse things like gay marriage, overbearing government, and assaults on free speech. It doesn’t exist.

    Exactly: so the strategy of the right should be to dismantle the idea of ‘ethnic voting blocks’ entirely and appeal to voters with conservative values whatever they look like, not to try to set up a rival ‘white voting block’, a tactic which may have some short-term success but is ultimately doomed.

    Don’t fight on the enemy’s terrain. Identity poltics is the left’s terrain. Trying to turn identity polticis against them by making a ‘white identity’ and stoking ‘white grievance’ only makes them stronger.

  13. To me success would be more like a constitutional overthrow of the sitting federal government and its officers. Once the millions of marchers congregate at Lincolns memorial, a petition is raised that a citizens Militia now be formed by all able bodied men in attendance including the Brown Shirt guards, whereby they are also armed and their commander in chief (may or not be Trump) charges the existing incumbents of the swamp with being tyrannically and despotic and unconstitutional. He then advises that at this point in time and in accordance with the peoples wishes that patriots that have been working undercover with the traitors in leadership positions are now undertaking the transfer of power from these despots back to the people. The Militia will then be authorized under the Constitution to do what it is necessary to secure the capitol and arrange for the surrender of all standing armies and other para,military groups to the Militia.

    Job done.

    Sounds like you’re channling one Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica.

    All the senators, of course, were greatly disturbed, and Nasica demanded that the consul should come to the rescue of the state and put down the tyrant. The consul replied with mildness that he would resort to no violence and would put no citizen to death without a trial; if, however, the people, under persuasion or compulsion from Tiberius, should vote anything that was unlawful, he would not regard this vote as binding. Thereupon Bardon – sorry, Nasica – sprang to his feet and said: “Since, then, the chief magistrate betrays the state, do ye who wish to succour the laws follow me.” With these words he covered his head with the skirt of his toga and set out for the Capitol. All the senators who followed him wrapped their togas about their left arms and pushed aside those who stood in their path, no man opposing them, in view of their dignity, but all taking to flight and trampling upon one another… Now, the attendants of the senators carried clubs and staves which they had brought from home; but the senators themselves seized the fragments and legs of the benches that were shattered by the crowd in its flight, and went up against Tiberius, at the same time smiting those who were drawn up to protect him. Of these there was a rout and a slaughter, and as Tiberius himself turned to fly, someone laid hold of his garments… And of the rest more than three hundred were slain by blows from sticks and stones, but not one by the sword. This is said to have been the first sedition at Rome, since the abolition of royal power, to end in bloodshed and the death of citizens;

    He probably thought he’d solved the problem in 133 bc, when he murdered Tiberius Gracchus.

    Of course, Lucius Opimius probably thought the same thing 12 years later, when he killed Gaius Gracchus, and some 3,000 of his supporters.

    Then the senators went back into the senate-house, where they formally enjoined upon the consul Opimius to save the city as best he could, and to put down the tyrants. The consul therefore ordered the senators to take up arms, and every member of the equestrian order was notified to bring next morning two servants fully armed… Most of his audience, then, were not disinclined to accept [Gaius’] terms of peace; but Opimius declared that the petitioners ought not to try to persuade the senate by word of messenger; they should rather come down and surrender themselves for trial, like citizens amenable to the laws, and then beg for mercy; he also told the young [Fluvius] plainly to come back again on these terms or not come back at all. Caius, accordingly, as we are told, was willing to come and try to persuade the senate; but no one else agreed with him, and so Fulvius sent his son again to plead in their behalf a before. But Opimius, who was eager to join battle, at once seized the youth and put him under guard, and then advanced on the party of Fulvius with numerous men-at-arms and Cretan archers… The bodies of Caius and Fulvius and of the other slain were thrown into the Tiber, and they numbered three thousand; their property was sold and the proceeds paid into the public treasury. However, what vexed the people more than this or anything else was the erection of a temple of Concord by Opimius; for it was felt that he was priding himself and exulting and in a manner celebrating a triumph in view of all this slaughter of citizens.

    Once the habit was developed of solving political problems by force, it proved to be permanent. The civil wars which ensued lasted a hundred years, and witnessed the transformation of Rome from a Republic into a Dictatorship.

  14. Culture derived from biology?! Rubbish.

    Oh, so you’re a proponent of the blank slate theory? Heh.

    There simply aren’t enough biological differences between different groups of human for that to be even remotely plausible.

    That’s true if you miss the bit where I said “in part”. Of course culture is not derived purely from biology, but it is equally stupid to say biology plays no role at all.

    If they could have been encouraged to turn up, and the habit of voting along racial lines could be weakened rather than strengthened, then things could be different.

    I seem to remember Black Lives Matter turning up and policemen being shot.

    You’ve skipped from race to ideology here

    Good luck convincing your political opponents of the difference as they’re chucking you in jail.

    Trying to turn identity polticis against them by making a ‘white identity’ and stoking ‘white grievance’ only makes them stronger.

    As far as the US is concerned, identity politics is here to stay. You’d better get used to it. As I remarked some time back, American Jews are going to have to figure out whose side they’re on pretty quickly: moaning about Trump’s white supremacy while voting for a party which puts a Somali and Palestian into congress isn’t going to be sustainable for very much longer.

  15. @Jonathan,

    My scenario differs in that it is not motivated by the executive but by the people, this is a key and constitutional difference.

    Plus my job as an independent contractor was to solve this firstly security and right to gather and secondly the bigger constitutional problem once and for all for my client, and I would then have a commercial risk to succeed. So this is how I would do it without risking my firms reputation or survival on the outcome.

    Power to the People.

  16. Oh, so you’re a proponent of the blank slate theory?

    Obviously not. But normal biological variation so dwarfs inter-group variation that there’s no plausible link to culture.

    That’s true if you miss the bit where I said “in part”. Of course culture is not derived purely from biology, but it is equally stupid to say biology plays no role at all.

    No, it’s not, because, as said above, no group of humans is sufficiently different in distribution of traits from any other group to make any difference to culture (that’s not to say that there are no such differences — the Dutch are taller than other groups — but that there is still variation between the groups — you still get Dutchmen as short as the shortest in any other group, even if there are more Dutchmen at the taller end — such that there’s no way ‘being tall’ could make Dutch culture substantially different to other cultures, and same with any other trait, unless you have a counter-example).

    As far as the US is concerned, identity politics is here to stay.

    It will obviously always exist, in the sense that it will appeal to some people. But there’s no reason it has to remain the dominant force, and the focus of the right should be on countering the identity poltics narrative.

  17. But normal biological variation so dwarfs inter-group variation that there’s no plausible link to culture.

    Ah, you seem to think I’m saying that every aspect of biology – eye colour, for example – must contribute to culture. That’s so dumb I’m surprised my spam filter let it through.

    But there’s no reason it has to remain the dominant force, and the focus of the right should be on countering the identity poltics narrative.

    Which they’ve been trying to do now for, what? 3 generations? How’s that working out?

  18. Ah, you seem to think I’m saying that every aspect of biology – eye colour, for example – must contribute to culture. That’s so dumb I’m surprised my spam filter let it through.

    No, you’re saying that there are some aspects of biology that contribute to culture. But there are in fact none.

  19. Which they’ve been trying to do now for, what? 3 generations? How’s that working out?

    They’ve never tried. This is like claiming the fact drugs are still available means that prohibition doesn’t work, when in fact prohibition has not been tried.

  20. Yes, blank slate theory. Heh

    You must mean a totally different thing by ‘blank slate theory’ than I understand it to mean.

  21. You must mean a totally different thing by ‘blank slate theory’ than I understand it to mean.

    The idea that personal characteristics (and subsequently culture) are solely down to nurture, and have nothing to do with nature. In other words, each child is born a blank slate and biology has nothing to do with how their character will develop or, if there are lots of them, how their group characteristics will develop.

  22. The idea that personal characteristics (and subsequently culture) are solely down to nurture, and have nothing to do with nature. In other words, each child is born a blank slate and biology has nothing to do with how their character will develop or, if there are lots of them, how their group characteristics will develop.

    Okay, that is what I understand it to mean. So I’m confused. That is all correct, except that ‘group characteristics’ don’t exist; as I explained, there exists no characteristic where between-group variation isn’t so swamped by between-individual variation that it could plausibly affect culture.

    I used the example of height but the same is true of strength, speed, intelligence, etc etc etc. For example even though the average intellligence of a given group may be higher than that of another group, the stupidest members of each group will be about equally stupid and the most intelligent ones about equally intelligent, so the between-group variation in averages won’t have any effect on how the cultures of the two groups develop. You won’t get a ‘stupid culture’ and a ‘clever culture’ because of those variations.

  23. You won’t get a ‘stupid culture’ and a ‘clever culture’ because of those variations.

    You’ve really not travelled much, have you?

  24. @Jionathon

    More like this.

    For eight hours the biggest gathering in Washington has been packed with over 3,500,000 marchers that have walked across the country, these are the people for whom Bardon is the saviour of his nation. They are waiting, tense with national fervour. Five cars are now being ushered through the crowd to the podium. In the first sits Bardon; in the next two open cars are the stalwart bemedalled bodyguards; then comes our car with Bardon’s secretary. The basement between the podium is surrounded by Bardons Brown Shirts. Wherever we go the shout resounds, “Bardon, Bardon!” and hundreds of outstretched hands greet us.

    From within we hear roar upon roar of applause and the thumping and the blare of a bands and the thud of marching, feet. The door leading to the podium opens and two of us step on to the platform. I have never seen such a mass of people; such a display of flags, up to the top of the high roof; such deafening roars. It is primitive, mass worship.

    Through the broad gangway patriots are marching with banners, and as each-new banner comes there is another round of shouting. Militia men now march in with the revolutionary flags of old, symbolic of the rebirth of the Constitution.

    Then Bardon comes. Pandemonium! Three and a half million people jump to their feet. “Bardon, Bardon,” shout is overwhelming. The people are drunk with nationalism. It is hysteria. Bardon steps forward. Two adjutants take off his Brown coat. There is a hush.

    Bardon begins in a calm, deep voice, which gets louder and louder, higher and higher. He loses his calmness and trembles in his excitement. In the beginning of his speech his arms are folded, and he seems hunched up, but when he is carried away, he stretches out his arms and he seem to grow in stature.

    “Friends, patriots, Americans, we have gathered here because we love America, we love our way of life and we expect to live as freemen which is our God given right as Americans.

    We are also here because we are faced with an enemy that has taken away all that we hold so dear, our very way of life that we enjoy has been taken away from us, I ask that we remember the great words of the brave patriot, Patrick Henry, that we owe so much to:

    Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    To you the people I say this, the very future of America now sits in your hands, and I urge you the people to join me in saying:

    Give me liberty or give me death!

    Crowd chant in unison……….

    Give me liberty or give me death!

    In the bag.

  25. @Bardon

    My scenario differs in that it is not motivated by the executive but by the people, this is a key and constitutional difference.

    So you represent the tyranny of Marius and Cinna, rather than the proscriptions of Sulla. The end is the same.

    More like this.

    That text had an intensity that was positively erotic. I suggest you introduce Helga, unknowing great-granddaughter of a Nazi scientist, sweeping in from her father’s farm in Oklahoma to challenge Bardon for control of his movement. Will her good looks and machiavellian mind wrest supremacy from his hands? Or will Bardon triumph over her political challenge… and her heart?

  26. @Bardon

    That blurb was just for the first book of the series (Bardon the Great), mind you. Sequels set to include:

    Bardon the Magnificent (makes America great again)
    Bardon the Destroyer (crushes Mexico)
    Bardon the Just (puts Canada in her place at last)
    Bardon the Healer (fixes Obamacare)
    Bardon and the Beast from the Swamps (destroys Washington DC)
    Bardon and the Serpents of Lust (purifies Hollywood)
    Bardon the Merciful (implements Brexit)
    Bardon and the Absentminded Nap (conquers France)
    Bardon Forever (voted Dictator in Perpetuum)

  27. In the US, the only people who want that are white people (mostly men) and a handful of ethnic minorities. The rest seem to want racial strife and identity politics.

    But this is a cataclysmic and potentially, if they don’t get a grip on it, ultimately terminal failure of the Right. One that a thousand Charlottesvilles, no matter how “successful” they are, cannot solve. One which they could only possibly make worse – because once it comes down to those white people who are not appalled by 21st-century sectarianism plus pretty much precisely zero minorities, then a quick peek at the demographics tells you that the project is doomed. It’s a dead end.

    It would also take a pillock to argue against the fact that there is both historic and ongoing racial injustice in America, so I presume that is not your view. One might reasonably disagree on how important that is compared to other problems facing America, what role government should take in addressing it, what solutions are fair or effective, but there is undoubtedly fuel for the fire and that fuel runs deep through the veins of US culture and history.

    For comparison, the British Right has historically had great success at adapting to changing social, cultural and economic circumstances and finding ways to manage, contain and over time defuse potential flashpoints that could have blown up in a way that destroyed their project – where they have failed it has often been through narrow-minded nationalism rather than the pragmatism that served them so well.

    With the rise of the working and lower middle classes in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Right were very good at managing the expansion of the right to vote. Unlike the vast majority of European states, and despite over a century of deep social inequalities and injustices, the UK never faced a socialist, communist or anarchist revolution in this period because the critical head of pressure never built up. The inevitability of full franchise was thus reached without any radical breaks being necessary and the Right even benefitted from the emergence of a certain strain of working-class conservatism.

    On the other hand, even century-old grievances can still burn if you do not take the fuel away. Ultimately nobody persuaded the native Irish that they were, and were valued as, “British” in the same way you could be Welsh or Scottish and simultaneously British. That’s a failure to achieve cultural change on the Unionist side that stemmed in large part from pig-headedness, unwillingness to confront and solve ongoing problems faced by millions of people, and failure to adapt the governance model.

    You can still find Socialist Worker Party groups meeting in London pubs plotting the overthrow of capitalism but it is hard to take them seriously because they have no traction and zero imminent chance of success. The timebomb they were relying on, the plunging of the majority of workers into such terrible poverty they would have to rise up, has been defused. So while they preach on the streets that capitalism put your Victorian great-great-grandad into appalling exploitation as a factory worker and have a perfectly plausible point when doing so, it really does not resonate today. Whereas if Cromwell massacred your ancestors and two hundred years later your Anglo-Irish landlord is oppressing you, the issue was still a live one, maybe worth taking up arms for. The Right really needs to manage and ultimately shut down the racial/identity issues so that the candidates calling for slavery reparations etc are like the crazies ranting down the pub – people even the supposed beneficiaries of such a policy can point at and laugh and ask if they’re really serious. Marching with self-described neo-Nazis (and yes a whole bunch of other folk) in defence of pro-Confederacy, ultimately pro-slavery, iconography is clearly not going to achieve that, and doesn’t even seem to me to be remotely linked to spreading the gospel of people from all backgrounds coming and working together through shared patriotism and sense of national unity, a leaner and more efficient state, the importance of family, more freedom to choose what to do with your life, or whatever other aspect of conservatism you’re hoping to spread.

  28. It would also take a pillock to argue against the fact that there is both historic and ongoing racial injustice in America, so I presume that is not your view.

    It isn’t my view, but I am persuaded by the argument that the problem is insoluble and, ultimately, people are going to have to live separately. Whether that occurs peacefully or not I don’t know, but I cannot think what solution is out there that has not already been tried and made things worse.

    doesn’t even seem to me to be remotely linked to spreading the gospel of people from all backgrounds coming and working together through shared patriotism and sense of national unity, a leaner and more efficient state, the importance of family, more freedom to choose what to do with your life, or whatever other aspect of conservatism you’re hoping to spread.

    You’re right, it’s not linked. What you’re describing is basically old fashioned conservatism which, pleasant though it is, nobody really wants. Seriously, when was the last time a US politician ran on that platform, let alone won? It’s yesterday’s war and it’s lost, it’s over, done. So the right needs to concentrate on what comes next, and in most cases it’s limiting the damage the left and assorted auxiliary armies can do to them while they somehow figure out how to rediscover that most essential of all human rights – the freedom not to associate with people.

  29. It isn’t my view, but I am persuaded by the argument that the problem is insoluble and, ultimately, people are going to have to live separately.

    Your solution is racial separatism? Seriously?

  30. Your solution is racial separatism? Seriously?

    No, the solution is people are free to associate with whomever they like, not be forced to associate with people who hate them. This does not mean different identify groups are forbidden from associating, it means they cannot be forced to.

  31. No, the solution is people are free to associate with whomever they like, not be forced to associate with people who hate them.

    But that’s already the case. Nobody in the USA has to associate with people who hate them. The disagreements are over things like what the laws should be on things like abortion, or whether employee health plans are required to cover contraception, or what public money can be spent on. You can’t solve those by living separately unless you have separate law codes, separate taxation systems, separate exchequers for each side — effectively separate nations. and you’re suggesting the separation of along racial lines, which basically means racial separatism, doesn’t it?

  32. @Jonathan

    Thanks there is so much work for me to do, your encouragement has inspired me to break through to the next level.

    I do see myself as a modern day Frederic the Great more so than any other leader.

  33. Lol

    As I understand it, in the USA, most Republicans don’t know any Democrats, and most Democrats don’t know any Republicans. They live in different places, they read different newspapers of web-sites, they even watch totally different TV channels.

    Where are these Americans who are being forced to associate with people who hate them? Where do they live? Not in the cities or on the coasts —they’re all Democrats. Not in the country or in the middle — they’re all Republicans. So where?

  34. Where are these Americans who are being forced to associate with people who hate them?

    The entire identity politics movement is about forcing people to associate with those they don’t want to, and to associate with people who actively hate them, in the name of “inclusion”, “tolerance”, and “acceptance”. For example, Christian bakers are not permitted to refuse custom to gay activists who travel miles to their shop in order they be forced to celebrate their way of life.

    For society to function, people have to be allowed to live separately and disassociate from other people who are different from them, if that’s what they want to do. This is how it’s always worked. Like I said earlier, you haven’t travelled much. Or maybe you have but you’ve blundered around with your eyes closed. But I have travelled, and lived in lots of weird and wonderful places, and people like to segregate and stick with their own kind (be they of the same race, religion, culture, whatever). Forcing people to associate with people they don’t want to via mass immigration and anti-discrimination laws is something new, a western developed world experiment being carried out on a national scale. It will inevitably fail, and once again people will return to (hopefully peaceful) separation – as they’ve always done.

  35. @MBE- “You can still find Socialist Worker Party groups meeting in London pubs plotting the overthrow of capitalism but it is hard to take them seriously”

    This struck a chord for me as I often wondered what became of this group. I remember they were having a march in London and the NF had also planned a march for the same time and there was a point where both marchers would be very near each other. We decided to wait at this location and to cheer both sides along and spectate on any action that arose.

    I honestly cant remember the outcome but I do remember the Old Bill stopping my mate and I and giving us a grilling and full search. This was well after the much hated Sus Laws had been repealed as well. Just as well we didn’t have anything on us at the time. Knowing that we were innocent and that they had nothing on us, other than say a steel comb, we complained about their unjust policing tactics quite vociferously to them at the time. Maybe it was because my mate was a punk, red leather jacket, leopard skin trousers, docks and a dyed bond hair do Billy Idol style, although there was no law against that either.

    The Socialist Workers Party, they were the days.

  36. “It will inevitably fail”

    It depends on what the initial objective of multiculturalism was in order to judge whether it was successful or a failure.

    If it was implemented in order to drive a wedge through a homogeneous society and as an intentional strategy of tension, then it has been very successful in achieving its aims and objectives.

  37. @Bardon

    Yes, SWP are still about, have some friends somewhat involved in the past, and friends of friends (and weirdly a former client) much more deeply involved.

    A lot left whem there was some unpleasantness regarding an alleged rape by a senior leader (not even tbe first commie party to collapse after turning out to be a rape cult) and other more moderate parties became available in the form of Left Unity and the reenergised Corbynite wing of Labour.

    But there are still some SWP folk fighting the good fight, though I don’t think they hit the street quite so forcefully these days.

  38. @MBE

    Please convey my best wishes and continued support to your comrades and their cause from the office of Palazio Bardonici.

  39. once again people will return to (hopefully peaceful) separation – as they’ve always done.

    Personally I think this is a very narrow definition of conservatism and not one it would be easy to build a coalition around. It would also entrench a lot of structural injustices, which is why it is unlikely to be passively accepted by those it disadvantages – in that sense it doesn’t strike me as a meaningful “solution” to racial tension.

    Aside from the ideology, I struggle to see the practicality. There are people whose ancestors came as migrants two or three or more generations ago (including many white people but let’s put that to one side) and who aren’t going anywhere, there’s a growing number of mixed race people with one foot in multiple camps, demographic change as something that can be put back in a box. Even if people self-segregated into different communities living side by side, they would not be completely autonomous and the next level up of government would still need to tackle thorny issues. How the communities relate to each other, how they share scarce resources between them, what overarching laws and rights apply to both communities when cultural views of eg abortion or corporal punishment of children may be polar opposites. That government level would surely become deeply sectarian.

    I would argue that perhaps the more “authentically” conservative approach would be to identify the potential long run threat to the stability of society and undertake a programme to neutralise it. The British Right successfully prevented the threat of class-based identity politics tearing society apart, despite the existence of deep and long-lasting social divisions, when many European polities failed to preserve social order. They even made the “working-class Tory” a substantial electoral force. Maybe that model doesn’t work so well with racial tension but it does suggest that solutions to difficult problems can be found. For example, if an analysis suggests that multiculturalism is a key factor destabilising society then a plausible programme might be one that rolls back multiculti in favour of national unity/integration of minorities/finding a vision of the country that encompasses everyone and all people can feel proud or patriotic about.

    That goes beyond the small state etc ideology into the deeper meaning of conservatism as managing potentially explosive social change in a way that preserves key institutions and maintains a relatively peaceable continuity. Might not be your bag, certainly not something many alt-right people seem interested in, but to me this seems both a very basic and also very compelling version of “conservatism”.

  40. The entire identity politics movement is about forcing people to associate with those they don’t want to, and to associate with people who actively hate them, in the name of “inclusion”, “tolerance”, and “acceptance”. For example, Christian bakers are not permitted to refuse custom to gay activists who travel miles to their shop in order they be forced to celebrate their way of life.

    But that’s not forcing people to associate. That’s people deliberately travelling out of their way to associate with those they don’t like.

    In normal life the paths of those Christian bakers and the gay activists would never cross. they live in different places, they move in different circles. They are as separate as you could possibly want them to be, unless and until one or the other of them makes the effort to deliberately contact the other.

    How could you possibly stop that sort of thing happening, short of having separate nations with border controls, so you can ask people the purpose of their visit and turn them away if they answer ‘to antagonise people I disagree with’, and deport them if they do start deliberately antagonising people?

    And don’t say, ‘you could have a law that shopkeepers can refuse service to whoever they like’. That’s exactly one of those things the disagreement is over, like abortion laws and health care and who can be in the school netball team with the other girls. You can’t just say the solution is to live separately if they can’t compromise over what laws they live under.

    Or, for that matter, if they can’t compromise over who is President. Would people who are apoplectic that Trump is the President really be okay if they never met a Trump supporter, but he was still their president? Were people who hated Obama all right with the fact he was president, even if they never met an Obama supporter? Of course not.

    If you follow the logic of separatism, then you have to go all the way. Two two sides want, basically, incompatible legal and political systems. Either they have to learn to live together, somehow, or they have to split into separate nations. There’s no workable halfway house where they just agree not to meet with each other because they would then still have to live under the same set of laws, which one side would find intolerable and try to change them to something which the other side would find equally intolerable.

    It’s either learn to integrate, or separate entirely: no in-between state is stable.

  41. @Jonathan

    “Bardon the Merciful (implements Brexit)”

    More like.

    Bardon the Lionheart (awakens the British lion from its slumber until it roars once more)

  42. @MBE – “it doesn’t strike me as a meaningful “solution” to racial tension.”

    I think that the premise of your position, which is a noble one, is that the state somehow has a positive and meaningful role to play in decreasing racial tension in our society. I would say that the opposite applies, it is the state that has intentionally socially engineered this undesirable situation that we now find ourselves in, it is the state that hasn’t pulled up the drawbridge and have left the castle gates open right up to this present day.

    It is the state that has introduced this legal falsehood that all men are equal, which they are not, we are from the same family and other men are our brothers and not equals. Brothers are different and some are better than others, some are total pricks, they will always be our brother, but never our equal.

    The notion of equality in any sense, including race, is a communist demoralization strategy which is best exposed by a communist convert.

    Malcolm Muggeridge, on equality, brotherly love, and unity

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihuBRfTF-IQ&list=PLdATle8Po3QKuWNVS00fdjYzpRgBFWRnZ&index=33

  43. @Bardon the Lionheart (awakens the British lion from its slumber until it roars once more)

    At this stage, it’s more like grabbing-the-sick-but-obstreperous-cat-while-it’s-asleep-and-applying-a-triple-dose-of-tick-ointment.

  44. Either they have to learn to live together, somehow, or they have to split into separate nations.

    Yes, that’s my point. Multiculturalism has failed and there is no learning to live together. So they have to live separately. I have this radical idea that maybe the USA should split into 50 separate states united in a federation whereby some things such as monetary and foreign policy are handled at the federal level but otherwise the individual states get to decide stuff. So if Californians want gay marriage great, but they don’t get to impose it on Georgians.

    I have another radical idea that European countries should be run primarily for those whose descendants have been there for a while, uniting them in a common culture. This is instead of dishing out passports to anyone who wants to come and calling the locals racist when they object. Immigration is fine, but it depends on two things in order to work: 1) the *genuine* consent of the locals and 2) absolute numbers.

    So yes, segregation is the way to go. The French live in France, the Koreans in Korea, the Alabamans in Alabama and the Nigerians in Nigeria. If anyone wants to carve out a piece of territory for themselves as some Scots want to do, go for it. If anyone wants to emigrate to another place great, but it’s at the discretion of those into whose community you’re moving.

  45. But that’s not forcing people to associate.

    Yes, it is. Under Colorado law, the baker had no choice but to associate with the gay couple who despised him. He had no right to say “listen, I don’t want to do business with you because I don’t like who you are and what represent”.

  46. @Bardon

    I’m not saying it as a “should”, because you need a theory of morality and the purpose of the state and I’m not sure I would be on the same page as others about that. But I’m saying two things: 1) reducing racial tension and overcoming, rather than embracing, racial identity politics would be politically expedient for the Right if they want to produce a winning coalition under future demographic conditions, 2) doing so is not a compromise or fudge of conservative values, but is rather completely in line with a pragmatic, unifying and nation-building strand of traditional conservatism (and addressing some of the deep racial unfairness that exists in America today would be in line with traditional conservative, particularly Christian, ideas of justice).

    It doesn’t have to be about complete equality in the communist sense. With the class-based identity comparison, I would note that class consciousness was very strong in the 1910s and 1920s and that structure was pretty rigid and extremely ubequal. Yet conservatism in the UK was able to offer a good enough deal to the working classes, a group of people it could alternatively have dismissed as “natural class enemies” and sought to disempower and deprioritise, to prevent open class warfare, socialist revolution or long periods of Labour government. So addressing some of the underlying issues facing those people turned out to be a good strategy. And by the 2010s class identity had very much faded away, partly a result of Thatcher’s strategy of establishing a “property-owning democracy” and partly due to underlying changes in the structure of work and the economy, so the class politics that in the early twentieth century had been seen as a severe threat to the natural order was now neutralised as an issue. (Perhaps if Tories don’t sort out the housing crisis they’ll end up facing a similar problem of renters vs porperty owners in the future, but that’s another battle.) I don’t believe racial identity politics is an unsolvable issue for the Right but it isn’t susceptible to any quick fixes. Taking a position of “you people will never support our values so we will not even attempt to represent you or look after your interests and we will noisily ally ourselves with those outright hate you and deem you inferior” is about the worst way to get started on that path and will only extend the time it takes to tackle the issue.

Comments are closed.