2020 has been the year of the revaluation of values. Many things once thought acceptable are being re-evaluated with a new mindset. One thing once thought acceptable is the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This article asks: is it time to rename him?
The name ‘Schwarzenegger’ evokes many sentiments in the modern Western mind – similar sentiments to Arnold’s former nickname “The Austrian Oak”.
Physically, one thinks of the superbly well-crafted physique that won multiple world bodybuilding titles as well as the role of Conan the Cimmerian. Mentally, one thinks of the preternatural will and ambition that took a teenage Austrian boy to Hollywood superstardom and from there to a successful term as Governor of California.
Linguistically, the name evokes other sentiments. ‘Schwarz’ is German for ‘black’, and ‘neger’ is German for… well, you guessed it. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s name literally means ‘black nigger’.
A white man going around calling himself “black nigger” cannot be acceptable under today’s moral standards. It’s no different to a white man conducting his daily affairs entirely in blackface. The name Schwarzenegger must be cancelled.
Perhaps Schwarzenegger could instead be called Arnold von Osterreich, a name that respects the black community while still evoking Arnold’s heritage. American President Donald Trump should pass a law renaming him as soon as possible in the hope of appeasing the black rioters currently rampaging through American inner cities.
Note: this article is a pisstake! If you really thought that we support the renaming of Arnold Schwarzenegger, you’re stupid!
All over the West, destruction reigns. Statues are coming down, cities are being renamed, history is being rewritten. The destruction can seem so mindless, but there’s one thread running through it all. This article discusses that thread: the concept of ‘white erasure’.
White erasure, in short, is the genocide of white people. This occurs in four sequential stages.
The first is the demonisation of white people. This is achieved by preventing people from speaking favourably about white people (by calling it “racist”), while encouraging people to speak disfavourably about white people. Speaking disfavourably about white people involves insinuating that all white people are racist, and that their history is one of evil.
There are many examples of this in today’s world. Most notable is the outrage generated by the expression of innocuous statements such as “It’s Okay To Be White” or “White Lives Matter“. In both cases, the men making these statements were slammed as racists by their national mainstream media, the first even being compared to Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant.
The latter case is especially incredible, as the statement about white lives was made days after a racist terror attack in Reading, England, that claimed the lives of three white people. The end point of the demonisation of white people is that anyone claiming that white people have a right to exist is a racist.
The second stage is minimising white influence in the institutions. This occurs in a variety of ways depending on the institution in question. In all cases, however, it begins with a commitment to diversity, where diversity is defined as a minimum of white people.
In the universities, it starts with offering scholarships to non-white people on the basis that they are not white. The usual argument given is that non-white people are poorer than whites, and therefore deserve help more, but this ignores the fact that working-class white people are also poorer than the white average, and there is no help for them.
A similar phenomenon exists in government. It’s now considered extremely important that the government supports diversity, so much so that even the conservative parties are judged on how many non-white members they have. Again, diversity here is not defined as viewpoint or ideological diversity but simply as an absence of white people. A black person who thinks the same way as middle-class whites is better than a working-class white who thinks differently.
The third stage is minimising the proportion of white people in the population. This is achieved in two major ways: mass non-white immigration and the suppression of white birth rates.
Mass non-white immigration inevitably leads to a lower and lower proportion of white people in the local population. The Brazilianisation of formerly white societies causes white people to fall back into gated communities, ceding public spaces. It has also led to the idea, now popular in Europe as well as in the New World, that Western countries are not inherently white ones. They are the common property of the whole world.
The suppression of white birth rates is achieved by the manufacture of an economic environment in which raising a family is all but impossible. In order for it to be possible, the minimum wage has to pay enough that a man can afford shelter and food for a family of at least two children, a wife and himself – on one wage. This seems ridiculous now, as it is a long way from the case today, but it was once standard.
Mass immigration plays a direct role in this, by destroying the negotiating position of the white working classes. The more desperate they are, and the more imported cheap labour they have to compete with, the lower the wage they will be able to negotiate. The lower the wage, the more precarious their condition, and the fewer children they will be able to afford to bring into the world.
The fourth stage is changing the environment to remove any trace of white influence or presence. This is a multifaceted approach, which simply seeks to erase any sign of white people.
This is all over the world today, especially in the frenzied and ongoing efforts to pull down all statues of white men. The logic is that all white men are guilty of the collective historical sins of the white race, and therefore no memorials to them can be left standing. Everything that reminds of white people is to be erased.
The problem is, as Solzhenitsyn put it, that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. This means that there are no men who are perfectly innocent. Every historical figure is guilty of at least some sins. So sins can be found in any historical figure, as long as there is sufficient will to uncover them. Anyone can be cancelled.
Another major component of this stage is the movement to rename colonial streets, cities or territories. The idea here is that the “real name” of a place is the indigenous one, such that even native speakers of English are obliged to use it when speaking English. The ultimate goal of this is to remove all trace of white people, as if they had never been present.
The most difficult thing to grasp about all this is why white people are doing it to themselves. It isn’t easy to understand why – it seems at least masochistic, if not outright suicidal. This has caused a number of conspiracy theories to arise, including the usual anti-Jewish ones.
The brutal reality is that this is how life is at the end of an empire. The Roman Empire went through it, when the Christian mobs destroyed all the temples and holy places of the Greco-Roman religion. Their gods destroyed, the citizens lost touch with their conceptions of good and evil. A Dark Age, lasting centuries, was the result. It may be the same for us.
History goes in cycles, and the measure of the swing of the Great Pendulum of history to the left is the measure of its swing to the right. The last five hundred years has seen white people assert themselves upon the world with only the scantiest resistance. The next five hundred might see the world assert itself upon white people.
White erasure may end with a Holocaust of white people, or it could end with their gradual replacement, or it could lead to a resurgence of will that strikes a death blow to Clown World. There’s no way to know yet.
This article is an excerpt from Clown World Chronicles, a book about the insanity of life in the post-Industrial West. This is being compiled by Vince McLeod for an expected release in the middle of 2020.
Most of us are still getting our heads around the bizarre attempt to redefine racism as “prejudice plus power”. Well, hold on to your pants, because there’s about to be another effort to redefine a simple word to suit a political agenda. This essay has the details.
If you’re in Generation X, the definition of racism is simple enough. If you dislike someone because of their race, and not because of personal characteristics that are worthy of hate, then you are a racist. You have judged a person prematurely on account of your bigotry, which is prejudice. Prejudice is bad because it doesn’t give other people a fair deal.
We had just gotten our heads around how racism was a bad thing when the definition changed.
Now, or so we’re aggressively told, racism is defined as prejudice plus power. This new definition asserts that only structural and institutional racism counts as actual racism, and that racism that isn’t backed by institutional power is merely prejudice. In practice, this means that non-white people can’t be racist because their racism isn’t “backed by institutional power”.
This is clearly bullshit, but enough morons have fallen for it to make it possible for the next move to be made.
In recent months, keen observers have noticed another attempt at redefining language, this time relating to crime. Some criminal actions are made out to be horrific atrocities, whereas other criminal actions, much worse than in the first group, are made out to be perfectly and understandable courses of action that no reasonable person would complain about.
For instance, 472 people have been shot and killed by American Police officers in 2020 so far. At that rate, some 30 have been killed between the death of George Floyd and the writing of this article. The crucial difference between the death of Floyd and the hundreds of others is simple: Floyd was a black man killed by a white one. As such, the severity of the crime is much greater than if it had been different.
The new logic is that a criminal act isn’t really a criminal act unless it’s coming from a place of power. In the same way that racism isn’t real racism unless it’s committed by those deemed to have power, now crime isn’t really crime unless it’s committed by those deemed to have power.
This is why no-one cares about the fact that American blacks kill 4,000 other American blacks every year. These might be killings, but they’re not really murders because they’re not coming from a place of institutional power. As such, they’re not worthy of any outrage.
It’s also why no-one cares about children getting beaten to death. Children are almost always the same race as their parents, and consequently there is seldom a racial power differential between parent and child. Absent such a differential, crimes aren’t considered severe enough to warrant attention. No-one knows who Sofia Taueki-Jackson is, and no-one cares.
In the new paradigm, not having power means that you can basically do whatever the fuck you like for whatever reason. Someone else is always to blame. No matter how wretchedly unenlightened your conduct, someone else is always to blame. There will always be a chorus of slaves willing to make excuses.
The morality can be summed up thusly: to have power is to be immoral, to be powerless is to be moral.
This morality explains why the authorities of the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone have been filmed taking action to enforce the zone’s borders and immigration policy. The authorities of CHAZ are powerless, therefore they get to enforce immigration laws (in any case, if they are not weak then they represent those who are). This is why it’s moral for them to enforce borders but not moral for America to do it.
Enforcing immigration laws is only a bad thing if you have power. If you don’t have power, then it’s fair for you to violate other people’s boundaries. This is (of course) never explicitly stated, but it’s implied. Only the strong are obliged to hold to moral laws. The weak can do what they like, and all blame can be safely deflected onto the structure of society.
This logic is self-contradictory, because such a system does nothing to abolish hierarchies or power differentials – it merely grants ultimate authority to those who decide what power is. If power is defined as wealth, then the powerless are the poor. If power is defined as white privilege, then the powerless are the non-whites. If power is defined as social status, then the powerless are the degenerate and the outcast.
In reality, under such a system, all power lies in the hands of those who can most effectively claim to represent the powerless. And those people will be those who were powerful in the beginning, and who are powerful in all times and places: members of the ruling class who are able to persuade others to follow and obey them.
Understanding the new definition of crime requires the recognition that the Western World is now fully in the grips of slave mentality. We have given up on the concept of self-mastery entirely, and now indulge baser instincts in a manner little different from animals. This won’t change until the world goes through a revolution that reasserts master morality and an honour culture.
Underneath all the talk about politics today lies a great confusion. People talk about what politics is supposed to achieve, but they have generally forgotten who it’s supposed to achieve it for. For our ancestors, the political subject was obvious, but for us it is not. This essay explains.
The first and original political subject was the tribe. In the biological past, humans had no conception of nations or kingdoms. One was born into a tribe of roughly 50-150 people, and these people were your blood kin. As such, their interests were your interests, in almost every case.
Every member of the tribe was in the ingroup, and everyone not in the tribe was in the outgroup. This made politics very simple. If you encountered a stranger, they were the enemy, and it was acceptable to do anything to that stranger if it furthered the interests of the tribe. This tribal mentality still exists today, only it has become much weaker than it used to be (in most cases).
The second political subject is the state. This came into being when civilisation did. With the advent of civilisation, it was possible to have two strangers share the same space without chimping out and attacking each other. This meant that it was possible to have towns and cities made up of people from different tribes, perhaps even competing ones.
With the advent of towns and cities, it was necessary to have an administrator class that dealt with any disagreements that arose. The bringing together of different tribes meant competing schedules of moral values. These administrators, employed to smooth over differences between tribes, became the state. Their different approaches for settling quarrels became ideologies.
One way of dealing with the tensions created by identification with the tribe was to identify with the state instead. In practice, this is much the same as identifying with an ideology. Thus, a judge who was from a particular tribe would not necessarily rule in favour of his own tribesman. This was a radical new way of thinking when compared to the tribal solidarity model. It required a new political subject.
Thinking in terms of the state provided this new subject. If people were able to abandon their previous allegiances to their tribes, they could band together and build a mighty state that challenged the world, such as Rome or America. The memetic hybrid vigour brought about by multiple tribes all agreeing to work together under a state banner proved to be immensely powerful.
Not every civilisation succeeded in making this transition, however. If a state was not capable of creating an egregore powerful enough to persuade people to abandon their tribal allegiances, the divided loyalties caused by those remaining allegiances would pull the state apart from the inside. Corruption reigns in every state where tribal allegiances continue to hold sway.
The third political subject is the individual. This political subject arose as a way of settling firstly the tensions between those who identified with the tribe and those who identified with the state, and secondly the tensions between those who identified with different states or ideologies. In the world of 2020, the individual is the default political subject.
The logic is that, by identifying with the individual ego, people would no longer be drawn into conflict on account of competing tribal or ideological loyalties. Only caring about oneself might seem selfish and egotistical, but it has the bonus effect of settling tensions between groups. If people only care about the next hit, they will not take collective action.
It is true that what Adam Curtis called the Century of the Self led to a great peace. In recent decades, Hitlers and Stalins have been impossible on account of that no-one would follow them. Collective efforts demand individual sacrifices, and people who identify with the individual ego will not make them. However, this identification brings its own problems.
The fourth political subject is the consciousness itself.
The limitations of identifying with the individual ego are now obvious. Although doing so was a logical move forwards from the horrors of state-worship, the human animal is still fundamentally a social one, and it has social needs. Identifying with the individual ego might make warfare between nations less likely, but it sharply increases the emotional and spiritual suffering of the people, who find that their lives no longer have any meaning.
Some philosophers, like Alexandr Dugin, have suggested a return to Dasein as the basic political subject (Dugin frequently refers to Heidegger’s Dasein in The Fourth Political Theory). This is much the same thing as having consciousness as the basic political subject. In either case, it solves most of the problems of the first three political subjects.
Identifying with the consciousness allows the best of all worlds. Not only can a person meet their social and spiritual needs through connection to other conscious beings, but they can also do so without necessarily getting set against them because of tribal or ideological loyalties. Identifying with consciousness means that one is automatically allied and opposed to every other person.
There’s one problem with this otherwise elegant solution: most people have never learned to distinguish between consciousness and the contents of consciousness. They don’t know the difference between the True Self and the False Self. As such, most people operate either on the level of crude instinct (and thus tend towards tribalism), the level of conditioned responses (and thus tend towards fetishising the state or an ideology) or on both levels at once (and thus tend towards soulless globohomo consumer whoring).
As is so often the case, it appears that our great challenge is primarily a spiritual challenge. Identification with the consciousness might prevent us from getting drawn into tribal or ideological conflicts, and it might prevent us from getting bogged down in mindless anomie. But it will only be an option for those with the spiritual acumen to meditate and perform self-inquiry.