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

The fundamental divide of our time is hereditary nationalism versus globalism. The defining struggle is the nation-state and the right for all people to have self-determination versus the supra-national corporatocratic Leviathans. A plethora of dystopian and totalitarian futures are presently on the table, but so is the return to the nation-state with real, enforceable borders and a people united in purpose, spirit, and common ancestry.

Nationalism itself is exclusively the province of the Right —borders (for Western nations at least) now being anathema to the Left— and is calibrated along the civic nationalist-to-ethno-nationalist axis. Civic nationalism is a very enticing siren song, but it is a lethal illusion. Most non-Whites do not share the same values as Whites, and a truly “Proposition Nation” is doomed to fail. In the Western context, the Left has inadvertently tipped its hand by attempting to de-construct “Whiteness,” with the implicit acknowledgment that Western civilization and the White race are inextricable. This does not mean it is exclusive to Whites, as we have “fellow travelers” of soul and spirit, but it does mean that, to quote Sam Francis:

In so far as White Americans still care about their culture — the Constitution, religion, science, art, language, literature, aesthetics, social institutions, and morals — they must care about the race that created them and sustains them and without which they cannot exist. [The new racial rhetoric of publications like American Renaissance] does not, as far as I can recall, argue that race by itself is sufficient to create and sustain our civilization, but it does insist, clearly and unequivocally, that race is necessary.


The spread of “liberalism” has proven to be little more than the intentional knocking down of the foundational pillars of Western civilization, and the “dismantling of Whiteness” necessarily takes on an increasingly genocidal character in such an environment. Witness the consequences of the “championing of democracy” in South Africa and Rhodesia. Does it look like reconciliation and national harmony, or does it look like ethnic cleansing under the guise of redress of past wrongs? Returning to Francis:

A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of White, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social, and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against White civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the White race and its civilization by non-White peoples.

In a country that has been utterly fractured demographically, the only tie that binds is a shared hatred for Whites—and reinforcements arrive daily. Our immigration policy is geared specifically to demographically swamp the Whites that built this country, and it also serves another ideological purpose: Victor Davis Hanson points out that the bulk of the immigrants—legal and illegal—that arrive in America are low-skill and have low educational attainment, and when they fail to immediately achieve parity, the Democrats can start screeching about inequities and systemic racism. The academy has become both a forward operating base for anti-White indoctrination and genocidal rhetoric, as well as but one arm of the multi-billion-dollar “diversity” and grievance-mongering racket, which has burrowed itself like a tick into every corporation, every law firm, every federal department of something-or-other, and every university, engorged with self-righteousness and others’ capital, buttressed by a multiplicity of bloated “non-profits” and advocacy groups.

In today’s colleges and universities, things are worse than ever; the race-baiting of the Obama administration exacerbated an already strained campus environment:

During the Obama administration, the Education Department…received 1,073 complaints about racial harassment in higher education. Generally, the number of complaints a year is up, compared to prior years. Since 2010, the smallest number of complaints in a fiscal year is 137 (in 2010). In the five years prior to the Obama administration, the number of complaints never exceeded 95 and was generally smaller than that (in the 50s).

As college becomes a veritable “rite of passage” for today’s youth, it means a growing number will be forced to endure at least four years of relentless pro-Cultural Marxist indoctrination. There is a very good chance they have been marinated in it from an early age as well, given the state of the teaching profession and its unions. Once on campus, Steve Salerno gives us a disturbingly far-from-comprehensive overview:

New York’s Hunter College promotes coursework for poli-sci majors in “the abolition of Whiteness.” Stanford examines “abolishing Whiteness as a cultural identity.” Elsewhere, to cite just a few examples, classes at Grinnell and UW-Madison confront “the problem of Whiteness.” New Mexico’s St. John’s College takes on the “depravity” of Whiteness. Moreover, academic theorists crusade to purge Whiteness from STEM courses, because critical thinking and research are regarded as tools of “White hegemony.” Engineering students at Purdue must contend with the school’s indictment of “racist and colonialist projects in science,” while a UC-Irvine professor condemns even “technical prowess” as a White male construct. A Linfield college Gender Studies professor even condemns her peers for putting “stellar” colleagues in leadership roles, because stellar individuals, she notes, tend to be White and thus have benefited unfairly from “a logic of meritocracy that is built on this racist assumption that everyone has had the same access and opportunities.” UCLA pays students a stipend to act as professional social justice activists who will diagnose, expose, and combat “Whiteness” and “the patriarchy” in all campus manifestations.


So it’s not just anti-White, anti-Western Marxism, but misandry as well—selectively applied, of course. If their protected classes of various colored peoples “act out,” the behaviors will be explained away as reflecting some iniquity of the White Male Patriarchy. The University of Texas just launched “MasculinUT: Healthy Masculinities Project by Voices against Violence in the Counseling and Mental Health Center,” yet another program dedicated to the feminization and excoriation of all things “male.” The Left wants men to basically be sea-horses. It is gestation in this milieu that produces creatures such as recent New York Times hire Sarah Jeong. As Heather Mac Donald informs us:

There is a multi-million dollar diversity bureaucracy on most college campuses today that is dedicated to the very propositions that Sarah Jeong embodies—things like “Whiteness” is a source of all evil in the world, lethal to people of color; a contempt for objectivity and truth-seeking; a belief that all females exist in a state of oppression by “rape culture.” This diversity bureaucracy hits students with this ideology from the moment they step foot on campus, putting them in the throes of a very terrible delusion. American college students are the most privileged human beings in history, simply by virtue of their access to vast educational opportunities and yet college presidents on down tell them that they are the subject of ubiquitous racism on the college campus itself.

Regarding the uniform defense of Sarah Jeong’s anti-White tweets by the Left and the “Muh Principles” Conservatism, Inc. drones, Rod Dreher addresses the former group:

What’s awesome is how progressives are defending Harvard Law graduate Sarah Jeong’s racism because she’s “punching up.” A graduate of Harvard Law School. Punching up. My God, the left today is a demented, privileged joke.

Not only that, but Sarah Jeong’s race—Asians—are the highest-earning race in America, with a median household income over $13,000 greater than that of the Whites she’s “punching.” The Left defines racism as power plus privilege. Jeong is the walking embodiment of privilege and yet somehow her defenders on the Left have arrived at the conclusion that she is a champion of the oppressed. Universities such as UCONN with their “Social Justice Organizing” minor are becoming more blatant in their commitment to churning out a steady supply of “professional activists” and agitators. As Heather MacDonald explains:

[Universities] are hatred machines. There is a conveyor belt from the academy into the world-at-large into corporations, into the media…Sarah Jeong was treated with a big yawn by mainstream media and by liberal institutions because her ideology is banal. It is simply the state of the art right now, whether it’s the New York Times, CNN, or the Washington Post.

When the students hit the job market, they can expect to be advantaged or disadvantaged based on race just as in the college admissions process. The cost of compliance is prohibitive; in 1991, what amounts to a whopping 4% of GDP ($225 billion) was spent on enforcing and complying with the various procedures and regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a number that grew to $347 billion by 2005 and $540 billion by 2008, to say nothing of the opportunity cost of being forced to hire an under-qualified candidate based solely on race or ethnicity. The US government offers a certain percentage of its contracts to companies that are minority-owned—with no consideration given to price or quality. Despite the fact that both the 1964 and 1991 Civil Rights Acts explicitly ban racial quotas, and the fact that Affirmative Action is unconstitutional, the practice not only continues, and has not only become even more entrenched, but it has expanded as well. The EEOC is but one arm of the vast federal Leviathan that lavishes minorities with entitlements, advantages, special legal protections, and various programs and benefits over and beyond what the average White American can expect to receive. The average negative budgetary impact of a single black individual over the course of their lifetime is $750,000! For Hispanics, it is $500,000, but for Whites, it is a positive $220,000. The average White will, in the course of their lifetime transfer close to $400,000 in taxes to a single black individual. As of 2012, 54% of all native Hispanic households and 55% of all native black households used some form of welfare, as opposed to 23.1% of Whites and 21.8% of Asians.

As presented in Edwin S. Rubenstein’s “Affirmative Action and the Costs of Diversity,” Harvard economist Richard Freeman noted that young black male and young White male college graduates had achieved income parity by the 1970s. Black college-educated females out-earn White college-educated females by 125%. Women, in general, earn 57.3% of Bachelor’s degrees, 57.4% of Master’s degrees, and 52.1% of PhDs. Single women under thirty out-earn the men in their peer group in 147 of the 150 largest cities in America, and female CEOs have much higher median earnings than their male counterparts.. Yet we incessantly hear about “racism,” discrimination, and pay gaps. For once, the Left is right, but the only thing is they got their races and sexes mixed up.


John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

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