A sociologist by the name of Michael Kimmel spoke last semester at my alma mater, Rutgers University, on the topic of his book, Angry White Men. Mr. Kimmel is a walking stereotype of the same ilk as Elliott Gould’s character in the old film American History X. I came prepared to shout him down if necessary, as I did at a more sinister campus event earlier this year and as I should do again in the wake of a still-employed professor’s recent anti-white screed.
Before I could even mouth the word “skype”, Kimmel passed an anti-white judgement with such ease that my breathless indignation quickly gave way to genuine curiosity. I was even more puzzled when I grew to like him – at least pity him – as the evening wore on. He seemed truly, fractally incapable of seeing the cup as half empty – or even just less than full – with regards to the degree to which humans might meaningfully differ, along the fuzzy contours of race or otherwise. I could pile all the evidence in the world in front of him, and it would have not put so much as a dent in his (verbalized) conviction of universal human interchangeability.
But here’s the thing: Michael Kimmel’s faculty for grasping reality isn’t defective, at least not any more so than the rest of us. I don’t mean to suggest that he’s turtling his head away from the threshing blade of social proof, nor that he’s trying to pull one over on us when he presents natural equality as self-evident. My hot take is that anybody who ascends to the peak of the global power structure is, sure as any other law of nature, fated to skew toward such an egalitarian intuition of distributive justice. As such, I do not believe it is possible for us to win the war we think we’re fighting – all winners, and their courtiers, are fated to gaze only leftward.
In our nebulous movement, we tend to view the left-versus-right dichotomy as a Sisyphean war of emotion in which we have only to rally enough people, fight that much harder and augur enough dusty old archetypes – and then the pendulum will slowly swing in our favor. This is even less true now than it was 75 years ago when our National Socialist antecedents blundered deceptively close to undermining the globalist-universalist agenda. That entire revolt was the dying gasp of a dodo bird. It was a dodo bird because of its spectacularly shortsighted, scarcity-motivated view of power. I say this not because I am a defeatist, but because I believe we must do everything in our power to understand what we’re really up against so that we can aggressively pursue a satisfactory outcome instead of continuing to spin our empty prayer wheel.
In a recent essay on his personal blog, Patrick Casey of Identity Evropa argues (correctly) for the preeminence of soft power over hard power as the means by which ‘having power’ might lead to ‘being in power’. However, he makes the mistake of putting the cart before the horse when he says that “our ruling class is able to wield soft power very effectively because it has cultural hegemony.” This Machiavellian view of power is the bane of our movement, as it excuses us from ever asking where cultural supremacy comes from in the first place. For woe, this is a hard question that most in our movement are desperate to avoid asking because it disrupts our ‘lost cause’ fairytale. The ruling class are no Hitlers, and they did not arrive at their cultural supremacy through one-off historical fluke nor through – not solely, at least – the single-minded accumulation of capital, be it interpersonal or financial, as a means of pulling strings to achieve some currently unpopular ends. In reality, cultural supremacy flows from having good ideas that appeal to all by cherishing the welfare of all – and in a way that is inseparable from soft power itself. At the very least, these ideas must be tolerable to all. (This is so because power is in its most stable and durable form when it is underwritten by overwhelming, if not unanimous consensus.) Notwithstanding the negative feedback loop of our movement’s trademark fear-motivated scarcity mentality (which prevents us from grasping the primacy of cooperation) real power comes from helping people, or at the very least feeding them what they think they want in a way that fosters dependence. Even if there were indeed some kernel of self-serving psychopathy which drives success under capitalism, it is necessarily expressed as something indistinguishable from the selfless service of others in distributing ‘rights’ alongside everything else humans tend to value.
Even if we were to somehow dislodge global capital and effect a restoration of ‘hierarchy’, racial solidarity and nationalism, I’d bet my firstborn that we’d soon enough come full circle to embrace the very ideals of global universalism we once repudiated. The reason for this is that to be globally hegemonic is to have a million ten billion different ‘little people’ tugging at your sleeves every second of the day, utterly dependent on you whilst also being the ballast of your mandate to rule. When you’re high up in the ivory tower of power, all these writhing masses of ‘little people’ – not the least of which includes us on the beleaguered alt-right – start looking equally helpless and equally useless. You start perceiving them to be, well, interchangeable. You start seeing them as your billions of children eager to accuse of favoring one over the other in a way that puts your right to rule at chronic risk. To consolidate your hegemony, you empower them with the same myths of infinite human potential and of being the center of the world and of each one being entitled to the same can of Coca-Cola for the same $1. If they don’t have $1 – you give it to them. What’s more is that this siphoning of power into a vanishingly small clique of global elites is potentiated by a winner-takes-all global marketplace accelerated by runaway technological advances in automation and interconnectivity. In other words, where in the past there may have been one great guitarist in every village, there is now just a handful of the best guitarists – and an even tinier handful of the most talented and/or well-connected distributors – who corner the entire global market. If you even want to be a hanger-on in this global marketplace, you’ve got to negotiate a formidable skill premium. This is one aspect of why global elites are at such a pitiful loss to discern human nuance beyond their own highly nuanced cosmopolitan context – the demands of cognitive efficiency bias them in a favor of a one-size-fits-all view of the writhing consumer masses. (This also favors their desire to maintain their power distance over their closest contestants to power, which is evinced by their addiction to belittling their fellow whites, with such anti-white identity politics arguably serving to expand runaway socioeconomic inequality rather than close it.) It is simply not possible for people to command global power without gazing leftward, nor is it a fluke of history that the political left has the entire tech sector in its pocket. The left’s cultural supremacy is not an accident. Moral genius is the alt-right’s only path to power, and we will have to get our shit together the way Japan did industrially in the 1980s if we are to secure the necessary preconditions for the preservation of all that we hold dear to us. The dual prongs of globalism and capitalism – with each one implying the other – cannot be strictly-speaking unraveled, nor the heirs to their mantle of power usurped.
You might then wonder, well, why can’t we engage in collective action to keep globalization at bay, such as by boycotting foreign goods and labor and cross-cultural interactions, and convince everybody to embrace nationalism such that it becomes OK to be white and to pursue solely white interests? We certainly can, although it is much easier said than done on any meaningful scale, made all the harder by our scarcity mindsets which buckle under the allure of greener pastures harder than did the Swadeshi policies under India’s so-called License Raj. The best and brightest on the national level will, with few exceptions, scale their methods and ambitions globally to meet local demands everywhere. What’s more is that they will undoubtedly end up sharing more in common with – and have more to gain from – the national elites of other countries than they do with their own nominal compatriots.
To come, I will explain how anti-white scapegoating exists for the purpose of exacerbating – rather than mitigating – socioeconomic inequality in the US and, indeed, in the world at large.