You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

“In the long run, despotism can no more tolerate liberty of thought than it can liberty of action.”- Lothrop Stoddard

It has become socially responsible to hate white people. It is the only kind of racism that will be tolerated in our society today, and it’s state-sanctioned to boot! For many people, this would be an incredibly distressing realization, so they are apparently content to ignore all the warning signs. Signs that the civilization bequeathed to them by their forebears is being stripped away, one amnesty, one bureaucracy, one black Heimdall (“the whitest of the gods”) at a time. We are witnessing a funeral in real time, each shovelful of Somalis and Guatemalans bringing us that much closer to our burial. The “Coalition of the Fringes” and all of its competing interests, the kind of which, if and when its constituent parts become a majority, will spill over into the public domain and the political arena in increasingly brutal ways as various groups vie for power, wants to dispossess European-Americans of the country they founded and built. Do you honestly think my Spanish-speaking waitress at IHOP (sorry, IHOB) cares about Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution? She might—see the “Pancakes in the Age of Enlightenment” scene from Swingers—but the odds are long (plus, the waitress in that scene is white).

The Founding Fathers chose to ground our system in republicanism first, before hybridizing it with elements of democracy (sort of like the English language itself, which is Germanic in structure but owes a linguistic debt to a multitude of languages, chiefly the Romance languages) for a reason, as a republic is meant to be a safeguard against demagoguery and moral panic. Our republic is constructed to ensure that our nation does not degenerate into ochlocracy (“mob rule”), which Polybius, an astute Greek observer of Rome and Roman life, described as the pathological version of democracy. Plato chronicled the descent of democracy into ochlocracy before ultimately reverting to despotism, as a strongman becomes “necessary” to clamp down on the unruly chaos fomented by the mob. This is the life cycle of basically every Third World country, with various socialist dalliances sprinkled on top—inevitably yielding the same result. The intricate system of checks and balances that constitutes the American government is there specifically to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It is the best system created by man to date; though demagogues like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama brought tremendous harm upon not just our country but giant swathes of the globe, the Republic itself has proven surprisingly durable.

It is not indestructible, however. As Edward Goldsmith notes,

“Democracy, in the sense of self-government, only becomes possible once the people become bound by a common culture and once a strong public opinion develops to oppose any deviation from the established code of behaviour.”

Our common culture and established code of behavior are at present unraveling in the form of social disintegration. The more isolated someone is, the fewer bonds they have, and the easier they are to control. The maintenance of the modern super-state depends on an ever-increasing crack-down on the truth, and a deliberate, coordinated effort to sever all communal, familial, and nationalistic ties via rigorous exposure to propaganda generated by the media, and state-sponsored policies meant to atomize people; this includes the bloated welfare state that supplants the role of family in individuals’ lives, incentivizing women to “marry the government” and absolving men of their financial and moral obligations. To again quote Goldsmith:

If a society disintegrates beyond the clan or village level, it ceases to be a viable social unit. Such disintegration can qualify as pathological…The largest unit of organization is the family and above this, no effective co-operation is possible. According to [Edward] Banfield, such a society will display a number of related characteristics. For instance;

“No-one will further the interest of the group or the community except as it is to his private advantage to do so. In other words, the hope of material gain in the short run will be the only motive for concern of public affairs…the law will be disregarded when there is no reason to fear punishment…an office holder will take bribes when he can…but whether he takes bribes or not, it will be assumed by society that he does.”

Clearly such a society will not be capable of running itself, i.e. of constituting a self-regulating system. Rather, it will require a bureaucracy and other external controls to keep it together. Similarly, a society in which the families themselves have disintegrated and in which the largest unit of effective organization is the individual or the incomplete, single-parent, family, is even more clearly pathological.

These pathologies and the resultant social disintegration are a direct result of the commitment to mass immigration without assimilation and their litany of destructive entitlements. The Democratic Party now consists of rich “well-intentioned” white people (Derbyshire’s “Goodwhites”) and Jewish “fellow whites,” and the various minorities they infantilize if they’re even given consideration as human beings. Mass immigration, for one, harms the most vulnerable members of society, who include the Goodwhites’ beloved minorities and the reviled white working class. Arnold Ahlert explains that regarding immigration policy:

The sea change in worker skill levels was driven by the Immigration Act of 1965 which replaced a National Origins Formula designed to maintain the existing population demographic in the nation as of 1924, to one based on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with U.S. citizens or residents. As a 2014 Migration Policy Institute report reveals, “skills” has become a virtually meaningless term with regard to the overwhelming majority of illegals (my note: and legal immigrants as well—only 6.5% possess skills deemed necessary to the economy). One-in-three do not even have a high school education, and the resultant influx of low-educated, low-skill workers “will devastate the black community, which is already struggling in the wake of the recession that began in 2007 and the subsequent years of malaise,” wrote U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow in a letter to Obama [in 2014]. Once again, Americans might ask themselves whose interest it serves to import and/or legalize a population of low-skill, undereducated people more inclined to use welfare than American citizens, and whose marginal jobs skills will put them in competition with Americans who need work the most.

Will they ask themselves that question, though? Of course not. But the answer is an easy one: Conservatism, Inc., which gets its cheap labor, and Progressivism, Inc., which gets its cheap votes and its cheap labor. Now how many of these people, immigrant or domestic, are actually working is another story. Nevertheless, as architects of “compassionate” policies, the Left is perpetually falling short, but what matters above all else is controlling the electorate and keeping up appearances. As William Voegeli notes, “[Liberals’] lack of interest in the results of their policies renders them unfit to govern.” The already-marginalized blacks and other minorities will see the further reduction of their economic standing as yet more proof of “racism,” instead of questioning the mass immigration project, thus continuing to stoke their anti-white resentment.

Democrats’ (and crony capitalist RINOs’) policies don’t just further disadvantage minorities, either. The white working class is utterly neglected and scorned. These policies are most harmful toward the white majority who are forced to subsidize their own marginalization, declining quality of life, and ultimately, dispossession. Plus, the paternalism of the Left in particular excuses all black and brown shortcomings, both those perpetuated by the economic conditions the Left had a major role in producing, thus exacerbating blacks’ and browns’ biological predispositions, and the poor decision-making and violence acted out in huge disproportion to their population share (which is also largely a product of biology, but nonetheless, as sentient beings with free will, still makes them culpable for their actions and behavior). Gregory Hood elaborates:

The central myth of American race relations is the assumption that whites benefit from the presence of “black bodies.” In reality, blacks impose a terrible cost on whites. White nationalism—or separatism—is simply a large-scale expression of how most whites already lead their lives. They move as far away as possible from blacks and their attendant financial costs, emotional distress, and physical danger. Whites want only to be left alone. Blacks require constant subsidies…White liberals value the non-white pets they can use to demonstrate their superior virtue to other whites. And leftists don’t really seem to consider their non-white mascots to be fully human. They act as though they are utterly helpless victims of “racism,” thus denying them both agency and moral responsibility.

Questioning this now-established orthodoxy is a one-way ticket to being branded a “racist,” which keeps most people in cowed silence in abject fear of such an accusation, and precludes any superficial deviation from the Cult-Marx line. The self-contained epistemology of critical theory and Leftist historical revisionism, in addition to the re-definition of terminology to suit political purposes, has the net effect of closing certain avenues of inquiry which would undoubtedly refute their egregious fabrications. In a page straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, however, they are eager to paint any contradictory evidence as “discredited,” “debunked,” or “pseudo-scientific.” When even states the following, you know the post-modern mind-rot has spread terrifyingly deep and wide:

[In the twentieth century] nascent disciplines emerged such as the now-repudiated anthropological “science” of race and the racially tinged science of criminology, which used race to predict and explain criminal behavior and justify policies of “social hygiene.” In the twentieth century, the racial ideas of scientific racism and criminology continued, especially in Germany. There they culminated in Nazi racial theory, which advocated a removal of categories of people defined as biologically debased, such as Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. As such racial thinking was repudiated in the twentieth century, concepts of culture and cultural relativism, as well as concepts related to the self, psychic states, and personal identity, developed. Behaviors viewed as pathological for society relied less on innate racial attributes. While they continued to be associated with specific social categories, the new link between populations and pathology emphasized cultural learning and personal experience rather than biology.

All of the destructive concepts (and the dis-crediting of sound ones) in that passage are directly attributable to the neo-Marxist, mostly Jewish, Frankfurt School, the “New York Intellectuals,” assorted psychoanalysts, cultural anthropologists, and other critical theorists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but that is a discussion for another time. What we’re meant to take away from that passage is that race is a social construct and all other roads to the contrary inevitably lead to Nazism, the “culmination” of the study of the “science” of race. The investigation of underlying causes of, say, criminality, especially biological causes, is tantamount to genocide. Genocide is based on racism. Racism is bad. White people are bad. No one finds these statements to be incongruent? Funny how people who believe in cultural relativism can somehow simultaneously cite Western civilization as uniquely evil, neglecting all evidence to the contrary. As Ricardo Duchesne informs us:

The most powerful moral assault on European pride and identity is the idea that Western civilisation achieved its greatness, industrial economic take-off in the eighteenth century, and subsequent mass affluence in the twentieth century, by exploiting and under-developing the rest of the world. This is one of the biggest lies inflicted on millions of European students in the last half century. The truth is that the diffusion of European technology has been the ultimate factor responsible for development outside the West…The question should never have been how Europe underdeveloped the Third World, but why did Westerners come to hold themselves morally culpable for the poverty of other nations when it should have been evidently obvious that without diffusion of their technologies no development would have been possible anywhere outside Europe.

The first word that comes up on predictive text on my iPhone after I type the word “white” is “supremacy.” Try an experiment: search the phrase “white couple” on Google images and see what the results are. Then search the phrase “black couple” and see what you get. Is there an agenda? You tell me. THE ALGORITHMS HAVE SPOKEN. So have the disgruntled People of Color and their bourgeois enablers—“whiteness” must be eradicated.

So this begs the question: if race is a social construct, then why are the Darker Pigmented and those who have declared “allyship” endeavoring to ultimately eliminate the “biologically debased” whites in the interest of “social hygiene”? Avowed Marxist Rudy Martinez, writing for Texas State University’s The University Star, published a piece entitled, “Your DNA is an Abomination,” whereby Martinez ruminated on whites’ “defective DNA”:

Ontologically speaking, white death will mean liberation for all … accept this death as the first step toward defining yourself as something other than the oppressor. Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist. You are both the dominant apparatus on the planet and the void in which all other cultures, upon meeting you, die.

Martinez’s rhetoric is, let’s say, interesting. It sounds just a little genocidal, don’t you think? This is quite ironic for a zeitgeist so consumed with Nazis and ensuring that NEVER AGAIN will there be a targeted mass slaughter based on immutable characteristics. In fact, for Mario Consoli, the anti-Nazi racket has been so successful:

The victors of the Second World War succeeded not only in preventing a resurgence of fascism and National Socialism, but also of the traditional cultural and spiritual values that have permeated the life of Europe for countless centuries...Traditional European values, such as love of homeland and family, heroism, honesty, sense of duty and spirituality, are equated with fascism and Nazism…Standing accused in the dock along with Mussolini and Hitler are Plato and Dante, Machiavelli and Nietzsche, Caesar and Napoleon, Rome and the Holy Roman Empire…Today the Holocaust is a lead weight meant for all time to tie down the feet of Germany and all of Europe.


Stretching back in time, from the Nazis to the anti-Jewish pogroms and expulsions, the evils of anti-Semitism are the gun to the head of Europeans for all time. Never mind the evils of anti-Gentilism (Loxism) perpetrated by the Jews in exaggerated retribution. The definition of a pogrom is “an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another.” The word pogrom itself literally means “devastation,” and is related to the Russian pogromit, “to create a desert.” From our Cult-Marx brethren at, a pogrom will result in “plunder…persecution and dispossession.” It also, from the YIVO Encyclopedia, “usually implies central instigation and control, or at minimum the passivity of local authorities.” The victims of these neo-progroms, perversely, are those portrayed to be the perpetrators. That sounds an awful lot like Soviet Russia or the modern UK, Germany, or Sweden.

On the first day of Soviet occupation, one-tenth of the male populations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were sent east to the gulags.

Speaking of pogroms, what of Martinez’s beloved Reds? The University Star ran a piece of his in June 2017 celebrating the Russian Revolution and how it continues to inspire (this rhetoric would’ve been right at home nestled in the pages of the New York Times). The Red Army raped upwards of two million women on its westward march to Berlin, and that is most likely a conservative estimate. There was no #MeToo back then. It was often impossible to escape the women’s screams at night in occupied territory, as nine, ten, twelve soldiers at a time raped and violated, according to one witness, “everyone from eight to eighty,” often, if they were German, in the most savage manner possible.

In a move that would delight any neo-Marxist globalist, on the first day of Soviet occupation, one-tenth of the male populations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were sent east to the gulags; many never made it there, and the deportees were simply massacred. Estonia lost one quarter of its population over the course of World War II, a loss that was so profound, it has only in the 21st century returned to its pre-war population—and much of it at present consists of ethnic Russians brought in during the Soviet years. Many Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians (among others) were spread around the “Stans” and replaced by ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, and other groups in an attempt to undermine feelings of nationalism and, ultimately, dissolve the distinctions between the various “republics,” other than as smaller functioning governing bodies, and their constituent ethnicities in the USSR. It may interest you to know that for such a small nation with no geographic impediments to occupation, the Estonians were extremely difficult to subdue; the Forest Brothers waged a guerrilla war against the Soviets that lasted for eleven years after World War II. The final partisan wasn’t captured until 1956.

Unlike the Jews, six million Poles were actually killed in World War II; Poland’s Catholic clergymen suffered immensely, with over three thousand killed by the Germans, to say nothing of the extensive Soviet liquidations, such as the Katyn Massacre. The Poles were absolutely decimated during World War II. Faith proved to be a major obstacle to consolidating power, as it often served as a vehicle for nationalism or sub-nationalism, especially in the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, so the Soviet apparatus only did what any good Leftist totalitarian regime would do by expunging dissidents, confiscating money and property, and ruthlessly implementing top-down central control.

The Soviets also committed themselves to infiltrating social clubs and organizations, even the Boy Scouts, by attaining leadership positions in order to purge ideological foes and politicize these organizations, essentially rendering the ideology of The New Soviet Man inescapable. The parallels with the modern West are disconcerting, to put it mildly. There was no respite even in one’s personal life—for example, one in three East Germans was a government informant, so the odds that your spouse or one of your siblings, offspring, parents, or friends was reporting directly to the Stasi were quite good; in the interests of self-preservation it was best to never voice any displeasure with the regime, even to those closest to you. In Soviet Russia, during the Stalin era, 200,000 people were sent to the gulag for telling what Mark Steyn characterizes as “ideologically unsound gags.”

Without getting too much into my personal background, I have seen this mindset play itself out (thankfully in a much less lethal form), and what it does to people, the kinds of behaviors it convinces people are acceptable, is shocking. From Democratic Socialism to Communism to Cultural Marxism, all permutations of Leftism are truly foul ideologies, and for many, it does not come from a place of compassion; for those under its sway, even the well-intentioned, the psychological depths it will drag them to would chill your blood. I’ve seen its face and it is far uglier than most people have any comprehension of. Civil discourse and reasoning with these people is impossible; no amount of factual evidence on the contrary can convince them their positions are faulty. Once the extreme Leftists masquerading under the guise of “tolerance” and “virtue” and their puppets have reached the verdict that you are an obstacle to their gaining or maintaining power, nothing—nothing—you say or do will dissuade them from trying to destroy you. I’ve even seen one group, in relative isolation, go so far as to implement rudimentary uniforms (in a non-military or “official” setting, mind), and craft a sort of in-group lingo in order to differentiate themselves from the out-group. This group naturally featured the people in charge, but it also included quite a few members of equal “rank” as the out-group who mimicked the uniforms and lexicon of the in-group. I will say it was darkly fascinating to observe in person. Of course the in-group abused their privileges and the people in charge made express threats to imperil the professional standing of a number of the out-group if they spoke out, disagreed with the policies being implemented, or otherwise did not conform to their belief system.

Too many people live in dim ignorance, and many whites are painfully self-conscious of their “privilege” and will go to great lengths to try to appease the unappeasable.

The fervor with which they denounce anything that contradicts their orthodoxy, no matter how firmly rooted in science and reason it may be, approaches the religious zeal of the jihadi, or the medieval Christian fanatic. Virtually nothing today remains uncolonized by the spores of Cult-Marx dogma. As our institutions are corrupted, the meaning and language of our laws tortured to incoherence or simply ignored, and judicial activism and ballot-box stuffing subverts the will of the people, it is more important than ever that we understand exactly what it is we are up against.

One of the most insidious developments of the post-moderns was to enfold race into their paradigm and to weaponize it; quoting Jose Medina, “Part of what the race-war discourse did was to retrieve the untold history of a people which could be used as a weapon against the official history that legitimized their oppression.” What this did was essentially allow for historical wrongs to be used as a modern-day cudgel, and of course for those wrongs to be distorted and to have either existed in a vacuum or else be imbued with modern sensibilities. Such a tactic isn’t effective on the guilt-free or knowledgeable, but too many people live in dim ignorance, and many whites are painfully self-conscious of their “privilege” and will go to great lengths to try to appease the unappeasable.

The darker effect of the weaponizing of the racial oppression dialectic, however, is that ever-larger numbers of non-whites are internalizing this propaganda and are acting it out in increasingly violent ways. As the people of Europe are colonized by African and Middle Eastern migrants—75% of whom are fighting-age males—and their governments implement laws to crush any criticism of the native Europeans’ dispossession, and as the rest of the West also fervently tries to dissolve itself through an abandonment of principles and mass Third World immigration. If this all comes to a head, it has the potential to get very, very ugly.

We may even be witnessing an extinction-level event.

John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.