A Fair Hearing is an anthology of prominent alt-right (or more generally dissident right) thinkers and writers. It was produced to give a fair overview of the nascent alt-right movement and its various overlapping communities in contrast to the typically hysterical, counter-factual, and willfully deceitful coverage that is all too familiar in the mainstream media. The political and ideological bias that is ubiquitous within journalistic circles precludes any possibility of a detached and objective portrayal of the legitimate concerns and grievances of ethnic Europeans the world over. Though, such bias is hardly restricted to the media.
Well, as the old saying goes, if you want something done right you have to do it yourself. Given the unrelenting hatred for ethnic European interests present in virtually all Western institutions today, the alt-right is forced to not only argue their case with little access to the vast resources available to the left but also to create new institutions from scratch, such as the publisher Arktos which was founded in 2009, in order to actually accomplish anything in the real world like making these ideas available to a wider market. As far as I can tell, there are essentially no previously existing institutions of relevance which are not completely converged by the suicidal anarcho-tyranny that is left-liberalism. Companies and institutions like Arktos are important because it is these institutions which will eventually be needed to replace the old and decadent institutions inherited by our generation. Consistent with Moldbug’s vision of an antiversity, newly formed institutions like Arktos will provide the foundation for the re-emergence of Western civilization from the ashes of decadence and moral degeneracy.
All of the essays in this book are thought-provoking and address existential issues of our time. However, to cover all of them individually would make for an overlong review. As such, I am going to focus on the key topics and quote a few of the essays which were most relevent to those topics. A complete list of authors and topics can be found here.
Before I begin the review proper and in the interest of full disclosure, I must make it known that I personally contributed the essay The sexual prisoner’s dilemma by Roderick Kaine. However, none of the authors (excepting the two editors) had any knowledge of each other’s contributions prior to the publication of this book. Other than my essay, all the other content was new to me when I received my copy. Therefore, it should not be taken that any of the authors (myself included) agree with every single argument or sentiment present within the text. Though I surmise that whatever points of disagreement may exist are likely minor given the broad overlap in thought between the contributors.
Understandably, the biggest theme in the alt-right is on the question of race and almost all of the essays mention it to a greater or lesser extent. Levels of adherence to strict egalitarianism that can only be described as religious, and which fly against all evidence, generally lead to many bad outcomes for people of European descent. The policies and laws which hurt whites today can only be justified by a belief that the different human races are exactly the same in all ways. However, as Sam Dickson notes in from generation unto generation:
It is preposterous to believe that after 100,000 or so years of separate evolution under highly different conditions all human races crossed the finish line as the same exact animal. It is laughable to look at a picture of a Norwegian standing next to a Pygmy and believe that race is just a “social construct.”
Indeed, there are many measurable, consistent and replicable differences between racial groups in terms of intelligence, behavior, and psychology that are just as robust as salient physical differences. Genetics itself unambiguously demonstrates the differences between races runs deep, though every attempt at obfuscating that fact is made. From Jared Taylor in race realism:
Racial differences in ability explain why sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines showed low levels of achievement before contact with the outside world. Neither group had developed a written language, a mechanical device, a calendar, the wheel, or had domesticated an animal. Differences in ability also explain why blacks continue, on average, to achieve at low levels even when they live outside of Africa. Whether in the Caribbean, North America, or Europe, they show the same patterns of high crime, poverty, and illegitimacy, and they make limited contributions to science and high culture.
Studies of brain size and of the genetics and physiology of intelligence likewise support the view that race differences in intelligence are rooted in biological differences and are not greatly affected by environment. Cross-racial adoption studies also support this view.
In Sweden, immigrants are 18 times more likely than Swedes to be convicted of gang rape. Young nonwhites living in France celebrate New Year’s Eve by burning cars. Britain has been rocked by sex-grooming scandals in which nonwhite immigrants exploit white girls. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan gets a rapturous reception from Turks living in Germany when he tells them they must not assimilate. In the United States, immigrant Hispanics receive government food assistance at four times the rate of native whites and public medical assistance at three times the white rate.
Over the past half century, American society has made a tremendous effort to bring blacks and Hispanics up to the level of whites. It has spent trillions of dollars on public schools, early childhood education, and welfare payments. It has instituted racial preferences to advance blacks and Hispanics over better qualified whites. It has promoted the view that if nonwhites are disciplined or imprisoned at higher rates than whites it is not because they break rules at higher rates but because white society is unfair.
A similar pattern is noticed by Bill Matheson in Irreconcilable differences:
The phenomenon of lawless and seedy inner-city culture, and ghettoes appearing wherever there is a high concentration of blacks, is an acknowledged norm from coast to coast. The black thug, and black petty criminal, are stereotypes that blacks and whites alike understand as valid. Black comedian Chris Rock’s famous routine, comparing black people with “niggas” asserts that:
Every time black people wanna have a good time, ignorant-ass nigga fuck it up. Can’t do shit! Can’t do shit, without some ignorant ass nigga fucking it up, can’t do nothing. Can’t keep a disco open more than three weeks; grand opening, grand closing. Can’t go to a movie the first week it comes out, why? ’Cause niggas are shooting at the screen. What kind of ignorant shit is that? “Hey, this is a good movie, this is so good I gotta bust a cap in here!”
What is telling, although it was not Rock’s intent, is that he says “every time.” While it is obviously not every time, what Rock is referring to is a chronic problem, a universally-acknowledged pattern of poor impulse control and lack of foresight among blacks.
We have the entirety of black Africa, in which there is not a single successful nation, and in which the wheel, a written language and two-story architecture were never independently developed, to compare with the entirety of European civilization. We have instances where established, clockwork European systems have been taken over by blacks, in various African nations, and in places like Haiti and Detroit, and the precise same results—dysfunction and failure—materialize.
One thing that wasn’t specifically noted was just how much more violently behaved blacks seem to be compared to every other race, even compared to other races which are substantially more violent than whites. Diversity is almost always a problem regardless of which 2 or more races are involved, if not always for the same reasons, but it seems that the recent descendants of Africa are a preeminent problem with respect to poor race relations because of their general criminality and impulsive violence. As bad as diversity is , it would work a lot better in the absence of blacks. Either way, Richard Spencer reveals that
American whites, or those from the declining middle class, spend the majority of their lives working jobs they don’t like simply to earn enough money to move away from dangerous, nonwhite neighborhoods where it is impossible to raise a family.
Being forced into close proximity to diversity combined with with explicit government bans on freedom of association causes great externalities to be paid for by the average white. The only legal way to get away from unwanted diversity is to pay, pay, pay.
Ironically, the dismal reality of race as it actually exists is ubiquitously inverted in all forms of entertainment and modern revisionist history. As Gregory Hood notes in The New Kulaks: Whites as an Enemy Class
Racial (and gender) identity for nonwhites is commonly promoted, even when the said accomplishments available are often overblown or invented wholesale.
When I read this my immediate thought was peanut butter. No really. George Washington Carver is often touted as an example of a great black inventor and scientist by revisionist historians. In reality, he was more of a promoter of crop alternation, a concept discovered by others, which can improve soil quality and crop yields. As part of that, he would peddle products derived from crops that would be used in the rotation, such as peanut butter, although he wasn’t very successful commercially. For the most part, he did not appear to actually invent many of his products, this is a brief description from his Wikipedia page:
Carver was given credit in popular folklore for many inventions that did not come out of his lab [such as peanut butter]. Aside from [three unsuccessful] patents and some recipes for food, Carver left no records of formulae or procedures for making his products. He did not keep a laboratory notebook. Carver did not explicitly claim that he had personally discovered all the peanut attributes and uses he cited, but he said nothing to prevent his audiences from drawing the inference.
So he was mainly a salesman who didn’t bother to correct positive rumors. I don’t view anything all that wrong with what he did; everyone has to make a living. I even think what he was trying to promote, crop rotation, was an objectively good thing for society and he probably really is a good role model for blacks in some ways. Especially in comparison to modern ghetto culture.
However, it is disingenuous to place him among the great scientists of history. Compare his contributions (or pretty much any other minority or female “scientists” praised by leftists) to the inventions by old white males and it isn’t even close. For one of many examples, the invention and development of the steam engine; all done by old white males. This invention led to the possibility of industrialization, (relatively) speedy transportation across great distances, was a necessary precursor to the invention of the internal combustion engine, and a form of it is still ubiquitously used today in electric power plants. Not to mention work on steam engines was foundational to the field of thermodynamics. I like peanut butter and all, but there is no comparison here. Yet, celebrating meager or invented contributions by minorities is championed while great and transformative inventions by Europeans are considered shameful, or at least something that should not be mentioned too loudly.
The theme of elevating minorities, and especially blacks, above their actual contributions, is widespread. In the case of real people, it is usually mulattos and not full blacks who are championed.
[Bill Matheson] Most people can recite the names of great black intellectuals such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Malcolm X. But what is discovered when the faces of these trailblazers and prodigies are revealed? Very often it is skin that reflects a great deal of light, narrow noses, pronounced brow ridges, sometimes blue eyes. In most cases we are not dealing with blacks, as we are being led to believe, but with black/white hybrids.
However, the process is even more common in fiction where no basis in reality is needed (or wanted):
[Bill Matheson] [The] casting decisions of Hollywood and its counterparts, in which nearly every scientist, doctor, dedicated father, etc. is brought to life as a person with obvious black ancestry. The impression one gets from consuming popular media is that blacks are 50 to 60 percent of the U.S. population, and comprise America’s greatest thinkers and productive and managing class (rather than about 13 percent of the population, and America’s most impoverished and intellectually ineffectual class).
And still beyond this we have a media establishment dedicated to depicting white men as petty criminals, sociopaths, slobs and fools—which is just as statistically and experientially false as media institutions’ depiction of blacks. The ultimate result is a U.S. population actively engaged in the Orwellian practice of doublethink—simultaneously believing two things that cannot both be true. We all know that it is never wise to visit any black area after dark, and at the same time, we “know” that blacks are fine scientists, novelists and family men, just like on TV.
In the modern West, whites are dehumanized and undervalued as a result of the hypocritical application of double standards with respect to egalitarianism. The “sins” of our long-dead forefathers are overblown and incorrectly described as a feature somehow unique to ethnic Europeans which is used as a cudgel to bludgeon our identity.
[Jared Taylor] If we accept the principle of biological equality, this can only be because blacks and Hispanics are being exploited and oppressed by whites… Continued unequal levels of acheivement are not taken as evidence that biological equality is a flawed theory, but as proof that white racism and oppression requires even stronger counter-measures. Any orthodoxy that refuses to recognize racial differences in ability has no option but to blame and penalize whites—unjustly—for all differences in outcomes… We thus arrive at the one exception to the obligatory view that all races are identical: whites are uniquely defective.
With the belief that whites are “uniquely defective” firmly in place, we are denied any ability to appreciate the contributions made by ethnic Europeans which have substantially improved the predicaments of peoples all over the world. It is inconceivable that modern Africa could have a population of 1.2 billion if it weren’t for the technologies developed by Europeans, and the transfer of those technologies as a result of colonialism. It turns out there is a right-wing reason to hate colonialism after all. However misguided the sharing of that technology may have been in retrospect, a just view demands some sorely lacking appreciation of those developments by the non-white beneficiaries.
[Gregory hood] The attitude toward white people in what used to be Western civilization is best characterized as hateful schizophrenia. The white race is denied any objective existence, as it is ostensibly a social construct. Whites are told “whiteness” is an oppressive concept and everyone—including whites themselves—would benefit from its abolition. At the same time, when it comes to the increasing number of programs and official and unofficial privileges determined by race, “whiteness” suddenly becomes very objective, with inherent characteristics ascribed to whites and whites treated differently under law because of their race.
[Whites] must attone for the moral sins/failings of ancestors (most of the claims being preposterous, or at least common among contempories) while not allowed to appreciate the positive contributions of ancestors.
As shown by Hood, whites are collectively denigrated across the West:
Stripped of identity but simultaneously held responsible for all the world’s evil, whites are dehumanized individually and collectively, characterized almost as evil spirits who must be banished with the arcane vocabulary of anti-racist academic jargon. And behind all the contradictory claims and bad faith arguments, there is one sobering truth which describes the contemporary status of whites—the very word “white” has become an insult….
Countless think pieces from both leftists and ostensible conservatives analyze how the Republican Party is “too white” or even “white nationalist,” and strategize ways to deconstruct it.
Ice hockey, NASCAR, and the Winter Olympics are all deemed too white, among innumerable other examples. What is most striking is how it is the officials who govern these institutions that confess this and boast of their efforts to change it. The BBC, according to its former Director-General, was “hideously white.”
Columnist Brendan O’Neill argued in the UK Spectator in 2016 that the term “white men” had become “the most dehumanizing insult of our times.” …
Occasionally, the progressive use of the term “white” takes on a far more visceral, explicitly hateful connotation. “Your DNA is an abomination,” as one columnist put it at Texas State University… Vulgar anti-white tirades are tolerated by social networking companies such as Twitter, while experiments show that simply replacing the word “white” with “black” leads to instant bans.
I refer to the later technique of replacing the “acceptable” target of racial animosity with a protected group as polarity shifting and have done that with several mainstream leftist articles myself. It is instructive how different an article appears after this transition and it puts into stark relief just how spiteful the mainstream is against whites. This problem is very, very serious and if it is allowed to continue unabated then it is only a matter of time before despicable rhetoric becomes a terrifying reality.
Hood also mentions that leftists have pioneered a number of techniques to enforce their hegemonic narrative. Since there is no justice or truth in their beliefs and ideology, they have been forced to rely on deception and social manipulation:
If [the] extraordinary group hatred [against whites] is challenged, the proponent can easily claim that he is simply attacking the system of oppression that is whiteness, not white people as such. (After all, there’s really no such thing as white people—unless we are discussing the social evils they perpetrate.)
This resembles a “motte and bailey” tactic, which describes using an ostensibly rational position to confuse an opponent about a radical position. Leftists can always claim they aren’t attacking white people as people, merely the institutions white people benefit from. But since practically every cultural, social, financial, and religious action performed by white peoples is allegedly poisoned by “white privilege,” every kind of attack against whites becomes justified.
Scott Alexander did an excellent rundown and description of the motte and bailey technique (see also), which is a subset of something that has been collectively described as post-modern discourse. In essence, post-modern discourse is a very feminine valuation where the emotions of participants are paramount in any and all discussions, truth-be-damned should anyone feel upset. This contrasts the prior and masculine “modern discourse” which welcomed challenge and debate, almost like a ritualized combat or sport, where ideas could and should be challenged in order to dismiss false premises and get closer to the truth. As should be obvious, in our feminized age, the former style has become far more prevalent which has enabled self-serving manipulation to prosper, typically at the expense of white (and especially white male) interests. Since there is no truth in them, leftists enforce post-modern discourse styles wherever they are able so that the deceptive techniques like the motte and bailey, as well as shaming tactics, can be used to deflect criticism and discourage any attempt at dismissing their beloved lies. When that fails, thought-criminals are routinely harassed and often suffer the loss of employment. A whole series of books could be written just listing and describing examples of this.
Which leads to the thesis of Hood’s article: Whites are the new Kulaks. The elites in the West are preparing for the complete dispossession and likely extermination of white European racial stock which is reminiscent of the fate of the middle-class and self-sufficient farmers in the USSR after the Russian revolution.
Reframing resistance to forced narratives about the evils of one’s people as “fragility” suggests the whole point of the concept is simply to shame whites, not work with them. Indeed, the entire exercise is made in bad faith. Deconstructing a group’s identity as entirely negative is a precursor to politically, economically, and physically destroying that group.
We have seen this before, and arguably organized by the same architects. “Kulaks” is a term that was assigned to middle class farmers in early twentieth century Russia. Specifically because they were (like whites in multi-racial America) a notably self-sufficient class, kulaks became the eternal scapegoats of the Bolsheviks, relentlessly denigrated in the state media as small-minded and greedy fools who stood in the way of utopian progress. This narrative was eventually used to justify the Soviet government brutally “liquidating” this class.
There will be some who think these warnings are exaggerated. However, you only need to look at countries where whites are only a relatively small minority, such as South Africa (WARNING GRAPHIC), to see where it will lead if we allow the current course of the West to continue uninterrupted. Its been reported that as many as 70,000 white South Africans have been murdered since Nelson Mandela and the Afro-Marxist ANC took control of the country. There is little reason to believe similar things wouldn’t also happen in traditionally white countries if and when their home-grown Afro-Marxists take control.
One ray of hope, if you can call it that, is in the event power is seized by minority groups in white countries, there will not be outside coherent Leftist countries able to influence the outcome of a resistance. It is likely things would have gone a lot differently if it weren’t for American and European interference in the Rhodesian Bush war and in apartheid South Africa. Such a seizure of power in America or Europe presupposes the near-complete breakdown of the Western nations responsible for anti-white influence in Africa.
Hood’s essay also ends with a message of hope:
The system is both far stronger and far more fragile than it appears. Anti-white hatred is mainstream in practically every institution of American society. But the system ultimately relies upon whites’ naiveté and collective willingness to accept the alleged moral necessity of their own extirpation. It all ends as soon as whites decide they want it to. It all ends the very second whites begin taking their own side.
The growth of the alt-right and related groups is evidence that whites are (finally) waking up to our dire circumstances and beginning to resist. This is hopeful, but it is still a very uphill battle and we have a lot to do. It, however, leaves the question as to why it has taken so long for whites to collectively start waking up. Sam Dickson has an excellent analysis:
It is difficult for the contemporary generation to understand the fantastic optimism of the 1950s and 1960s. America had emerged from World War II as the only intact industrial nation. The standard of living was perceptibly rising every year as the United States economy hummed along providing the manufactured goods needed by a devastated Europe. The average white’s standard of living perceptibly improved year by year. It was easy to be soft and accommodating when the expectation was that next year there would be more money and more comfort.
Liberals—and most Americans at large—had a happy belief that with just a few years of JFK’s Peace Corps, LBJ’s War on Poverty, racial integration at home and decolonization abroad, everything and everybody were going to be just fine.
Poverty would be abolished.
Ghana would be like Norway in only a few years.
Well, the System had its way, the hypotheses have been tested, and the hypotheses have failed—more dramatically than most of us would have predicted.
Consider integration. Enormous resources and energy have been devoted to implementing this program. In cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, busing programs were enforced over large geographic areas to establish a “good” 70 percent white, 30 percent black mix in the schools…. no studies have shown any significant improvement in black academic performance, SAT scores and IQ tests as a result of the dramatic and draconian mixing programs.
The standard of living is declining and has been declining since the late 1970s. And it is going to decline even more . . . a whole lot more. Most whites—whether they admit it or not—know that they are losing ground and that their children are being elbowed aside by less qualified minority group members as well as by Northeast Asian immigrants.
Fewer scholarships. Fewer spaces in college. Dramatically reduced chances of qualifying for a lucrative profession. All of this impacts the collective consciousness of whites in the United States.
The hypocrisy of the System is blatant…. Now the fact that the agenda is not really about helping qualified minority members get “an equal chance” but is really punitively anti-white can no longer be hidden.
[Younger generations of whites] are much less likely to believe in reform within the System. They recognize the System as their enemy, and the enemy of their race.
Whites are now waking up, slowly but surely, and they are noticing that if trends continue there soon won’t be any white nations, and soon after that no whites.
[Jared Taylor] Egalitarian orthodoxy therefore leads to assumptions and policies that could eventually result in the disappearance of whites. Orthodoxy leaves whites no moral grounds to maintain white majorities of any kind, whether in nations, neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, or families. It leaves them no moral grounds to resist displacement by people unlike themselves or to resist mixed marriage. Whites are only about 15 percent of the world population, so if they let nonwhite immigrants into their countries in large numbers and condemn whites who make a deliberate choice to marry within their own race, it is only a matter of time before they disappear.
The situation is dire and the threat existential. It is becoming clear that radical solutions may be the only ones that can work for whites. They might not seem plausible today, but all such things, historically, seemed eminently implausible until they weren’t.
[Bill Matheson] This suspicion and hatred of whites, based on the assumptions that blacks’ and whites’ central nervous systems are interchangeable, has only been deepening and expanding in the twenty-first century. For this reason it is probably impossible to reinstate any kind of hierarchy that would allow whites to be the explicit managers and authority figures, and therefore allow such things as electricity generating stations and water treatment plants, food production and supply lines, and Western laws and judicial systems, to remain functional. By process of elimination, the only realistic solution is not just the current cultural separation, but a political and territorial separation. All evidence suggests that if the white species cannot manage its own systems, its systems will cease to exist. Furthermore, we cannot survive shackled to a group that (a) loathes us, (b) lives off of our productivity and (c) downgrades our overall capacities and functionality through increasing hybridization.
Augustus Invictus, a lawyer by trade, argues in Physical Removal: More Than a Meme that given the current state of things, such as what the other authors have described above, leftists are the enemies of a free society and it is just to remove them from it. He even demonstrates that the Japanese internment camps during world war two provide an important precedent. It is hard to imagine this ever coming to pass, but it is a guilty pleasure to imagine all the same.
The idea of physical removal is a meme among the alt-right and is typically treated as a joke. However, it is rooted in the sincere political thought of libertarian theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe argues, simply, that in a true libertarian order—that is, a free society built on individual property rights—those with abhorrent behavior naturally become outcasts and are “physically removed from civilization.” Hoppe contrasts this with a society in which the state ultimately dictates social rules, such as the West in the post-World War II era. In the latter situation undesirables are not only allowed to remain and disrupt and plot against the existing order, they are protected and allowed to multiply.
Hoppe writes: “There can be no tolerance toward democrats [i.e., advocates of democracy] and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society.”
Grouping together “democrats and communists” under the single banner of “leftists,” the essence of Hoppe’s argument is this:
Proposition 1: For a free society to exist, those who undermine that free society must be physically removed.
Proposition 2: Leftists undermine a free society.
Conclusion: Leftists must be physically removed from our society.
The emergence of the alt-right as a movement for racially aware whites should no longer be surprising at this point. As other groups become more aggressive and more open in their hatred of whites, it is natural that more and more are starting to take their own side and prepare for what may ultimately end in violence. Up until this point, the amount of forbearance generally shown by white populations has been truly astounding. However, the time where that strategy can be pursued without dire consequence is rapidly coming to an end. Many are beginning to believe that peaceful coexistence and close proximity are simply not possible. And judging by the actions of those on the left this is far more real than a mere belief. It still can be hoped that peaceful separation in some form will be possible, but at the end of the day, some force may be necessary. Whites will defend themselves, with complete moral justification, against aggressors intent on eliminating them. A fair hearing gives an important account of this rising consciousness from many perspectives and authors. Ignore these trends at your peril.
As important as race is, the current deep malaise in gender relations in the west is just as critical if not more so than the issue of race. Technically, a healthy birthrate can and would ensure that whites would not be replaced by recent immigrants. (Though even if that existed it would not eliminate the need or desirability of strictly limited or non-existent immigration). Additionally, even if by some magic the problems of diversity and immigration were resolved tomorrow, we would still be left with the problem of below-replacement birthrates throughout the West.
This issue results quite obviously from the advances of feminism and its propagandists in the last century. It encourages women to forsake the dearest attribute of their sex: child-bearing and to pretend to be men by working full-time, boring and unfulfilling careers. Like other types of leftism, it is based on fostering bitterness, resentment and victim mentality. Unfortunately for the women gullible enough to believe in the lies of feminism, they typically only reap the fruits of resentment: misery. As Bre Fauchaux explains in How the alt-right is good for women:
Women who attend liberal-dominated universities and colleges come out of those institutions with life-philosophies that are not conducive to family creation….
Stay-at-home mothers are too often portrayed in Hollywood and elsewhere as having depression-inducing, isolated existences, and being burdened with deranged, rude, and generally unpleasant children. The same media then glamorizes the single lifestyle and holds up nights out with the girls and sexual licentiousness as noble pursuits. Why have a family and settle for a mundane existence when you can meet different men every night after having a few vodka cocktails with the girls?
Women in large numbers are starting to realize that their best interests are not served by spending their fertile years pursuing careers and one-night stands, only to find themselves, at forty-five years old, surrounded by cats instead of families. The alt-right provides a practical alternative to the bleak future the left has prepared for Western women.
Bre is a woman with a realistic understanding of the poor outcomes that result for women who buy into that narrative. She also realizes correctly that men and women are built differently, both physically and mentally. Some jobs, careers and other pursuits are only suitable for men as a result of those differences.
What many women do not want to admit is that politics, like combat and hard labor, is the natural domain of men. Most women tend to be indifferent to the intense debates over policy, ideology, science and history that men gravitate to. Additionally, most women simply are not emotionally able to weather the personal attacks and cope with the harsh rhetoric that can accompany such debates.
Very true. The disinterest in fields described can be directly attributed to biologically based differences in intelligence and other psychological traits as is carefully detailed here.
Bre goes on to correctly identify the primary cause of reduced family formation in the west: the poor behavior of western women.
Most relationships flounder due to the abandonment of what was once considered normal female behavior. Women indoctrinated into feminist egalitarianism do not show their men respect, and as a result, men do not cherish their women, which causes women to be even less respectful, and so on and so on. The breakdown of gender relations can be tied to many factors, but the initial lack of respect for men, due to the tenets of feminism, is largely to blame.
Unlike in race relations, this issue cannot be resolved by building walls or escalating the conflict. The only solution is a reconciliation of some sort. A people can’t continue to exist without having a proper foundation in the family. Men are unfortunately limited in what they can do because the culture, the laws, and often the women themselves are generally against them. One thing they can do, however, is shrug. That is, refuse to participate in or pay for the systems that are destroying the family. Men are finding ways to minimize their exposure to taxation and extortion from women. The only effective way to do that is to refuse to marry or have children, and thus not need to work as diligently as they otherwise would. While effective for individual men, this is disastrous for civilization. [This topic is covered extensively in Smart and Sexy: the evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes. For excerpts and reviews, see this page]
In evolutionary psychology, the strategy of high investment by men in women and children is termed the “Madonna” mating strategy and it is the basis of civilization. As I detailed in my own essay the sexual prisoner’s dilemma:
Humanity as a whole benefits greatly when most men are able to engage in the Madonna mating strategy. For the individual man, there is no downside to investing heavily in children that he knows are his own. The more he can invest, the more evolutionarily fit his children will be, and the more likely his genes are to survive into the future. Therefore, he has a very strong incentive to be much more productive than he otherwise would be and to look for any method or technology that might increase that productivity.
The increased productive labor and technological development of the entire population of men pursuing the Madonna mating strategy combines synergistically to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Everyone benefits from the sort of civilization that can only result from the combined cooperative efforts of all men.
To a large extent, the solution to this problem is going to have to come from women themselves. As a group, they will need to recognize their excess and work towards reducing it so that harmony between the sexes can be restored. Its hard to say how long that will take, but the barbarians are at the gate so they don’t have much time. On the part of men, they will need to be firm but forgiving. Firm in the sense that the terrible policy demands and bad laws that have resulted from feminism need to be reversed, and the women themselves need to support that for that sake of all our futures. Women need to learn to be fair. If they don’t, then clearly they aren’t ready for reconciliation and the West is ultimately doomed.
The Jewish question
This is perhaps the most polarizing issue present in the book. However, it is quite true that Jewish leaders are often found in organizations promoting the leftist ideologies that are destroying the West. It is easy enough to verify, for example, that much of media and entertainment that promote degeneracy has substantial Jewish ownership, or that the democratic party gets most of its funding from Jewish businessmen. Finance, or usury, is also a very Jewish occupation and many things have been written on the evils that can bring into the world. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against a Jewish owned pharmaceutical company alleging that they engaged in unethical practices that has fueled the opioid crisis, something that disproportionately affects whites. A whole rather long and detailed book called The Israel Lobby was written about the outrageous amount of influence Jews and Israel have over American foreign policy. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been lost because of our Israel approved foreign misadventures. Those same wars are also largely responsible for the current “refugee” crisis threatening to destabilize Europe and destroy most white homelands. In short, Jews as a group often seem to be bad influences on our societies. This is true, and it is not wrong to notice the truth.
Unfortunately, as a result of intense propaganda following WWII, recognizing this has become one of the biggest taboos in our society. Many people will be turned off at the slightest mention of it. Thus content being created for more mainstream audiences, like this book, need to take that into account. There are several essays which discuss Jewish political activism and its negative consequences for ethnic Europeans. However, the essay which best puts the rest of those in context with specific examples and sources is The Alt-Right and the Jews by Kevin MacDonald. In my opinion, it would have been better to place this essay near the beginning of the book, and before other content which discusses this in anticipation that people on the fence about it can read some of the evidence provided by MacDonald before seeing the other essays which are either light on sources or are more personal experiences. This is a rather minor gripe, and I could be wrong about it. Of the contributors, it is also true that with the possible exception of Richard Spencer, MacDonald has received the greatest amount of unfair maligning by the mainstream media. Perhaps they thought it best to set his essay to later in the book for this reason. That perhaps is a valid consideration, but I still think it would have been better for his essay to appear prior to any other discussion of Jewish influence. My suggestion for anyone not familiar with Jewish political activism is to read MacDonald’s essay first and then move on to the other content.
Though it is right to see and know truth, like the negative consequences of Jewish activism, I sometimes feel that elements of the alt-right over-emphasize it or resort purely to blaming the other on this issue when at least some personal responsibility on the part of the average person is necessary. The sad truth is that deceivers will always find those who wish to be deceived. That isn’t to say that all Jews are deceivers, or that all deceivers are Jewish. Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest liars I can imagine and she very clearly is not Jewish. This is a more general principle than merely discussing Jewish influence.
The reality is that many of the lies spread by mainstream propaganda aren’t really all that difficult to debunk. While not enough time to make a person an expert, a cursory look over available statistics and studies for about an hour on differences between races and genders is all it would really take to find some persuasive evidence that those differences are indeed real and probably biologically based. Then there is also personal experience, which strongly hints at the same thing and is much more available. At the very least, a person wanting to know truth would be forced to acknowledge that there are doubts about egalitarianism and further research is necessary. Yet most people do not take the time to do even an hours worth of research. Real commitment to Truth is a profound, if not spiritual, decision. It is also a deeply personal and individual process. The Earth is a rather sad place in no small part because 99% of people have zero commitment to truth, which opens them up to being easily deceived by institutional media and the powers that be. In my estimation there are two broad categories of disinterest in truth. One is just apathy, people who don’t really care one way or another and are only interested in their immediate personal concerns. The other type actively wants to believe in the lie. Women WANT to believe they are as strong as men. Blacks WANT to believe they built the pyramids. Plenty of whites WANT to believe that everyone is identical and if we just indulge the outrageous demands a bit more we will all be singing kumbaya any day now. At 2% of the population, neither Jews nor anyone else could have accomplished any of their goals if it weren’t for the great masses of people without commitment to truth. It may be right to notice the negative consequences of Jewish influence, but it is also right for those wanting to be deceived to take personal responsibility for the mistakes that got us here and to make a real commitment to truth going forward so we won’t have to deal with this level of corruption ever again. Those who want to be deceived deserve to have deceivers.
That said , lets go into the essays from A Fair Hearing which detail the very true negative aspects of Jewish influence. I’ll start with Kevin MacDonald’s essay The Alt-Right and the Jews. As already mentioned, interventionist foreign policy which is very bad for Americans (and Muslims in the middle east) is something strongly supported and pushed through by pro-Israeli lobbying by Jewish Americans:
Every American, and especially anyone with any sense of American nationalism, should be furious at Jewish involvement in this disastrous war [in Syria]— thousands dead, tens of thousands grievously wounded, trillions of dollars lost, with no end in sight. The instability caused by these wars, furthermore, is a main cause of the refugee crisis that is engulfing Europe (abetted by treasonous elites in Europe), and as usual, the entire organized Jewish community in Europe and the U.S. is encouraging generous refugee policies.
The media and entertainment industry, which promotes all sorts of sexual degeneracy, is also a very Jewish occupation:
Because of their very powerful role in the media, Jews are also central in the cultural promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism, premarital sex, pornography, and adultery. Survey data continue to show that Jewish attitudes on these issues are well to the left of most Americans.
Joe Biden in a speech: It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was “Will and Grace,” it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]… I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.
The racial grievances and identity politics of today, as well as the 1965 immigration reform that is completely changing the demographics of America, also owe a lot of their life to the backing of Jewish money and politics:
Activist Jews and the organized Jewish community had a critical role in changing the racial landscape of America. Given that alt-righters tend strongly to be race realists (i.e., they accept research findings that there are real average differences between races that are important for success in the contemporary world, such as IQ and impulse control), they realize that these actions of the Jewish community have compromised legitimate white interests in creating a culture of grievance and white guilt in which the genetically based tendencies of blacks are ignored….
As I covered in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique, opposition to research on innate race differences, and promoting the idea that race isn’t real, has been primarily a Jewish project, initiated by Franz Boas and advanced by later generations of Jewish scientists such as Steven Jay Gould….
Jews contributed from two thirds to three quarters of the money for civil rights groups during the 1960s. The AJCongress, the AJCommittee, and the ADL worked closely with the NAACP to write legal briefs and raise money in the effort to end segregation. Jewish groups, particularly the AJCongress, played a leading role in drafting civil rights legislation and pursuing legal challenges related to civil rights issues mainly benefiting blacks. “Jewish support, legal and monetary, afforded the civil rights movement a string of legal victories. . . . There is little exaggeration in an American Jewish Congress lawyer’s claim that ‘many of these laws were actually written in the offices of Jewish agencies by Jewish staff people, introduced by Jewish legislators and pressured into being by Jewish voters.”
Blacks aren’t really smart enough as a group to make the kind of inroads they have with “civil rights” laws and affirmative action (anti-white and sometimes anti-asian job discrimination). They needed help, and that mainly came from Jewish lawyers. In addition to creating the whole host of anti-white (and feminist) laws on the books today, certain Jewish groups are very active in targeting and libeling anyone, like those on the alt-right, who go against the narrative.
Another issue that concerns many alt-righters is that Jewish groups have been in the forefront of penalizing “thought crimes” related to white identity. Groups like the ADL and the SPLC (funded mainly by Jews) have successfully gotten people fired from their jobs for criticizing Jews or dissenting from other multicultural orthodoxies. In late 2017 it was announced that the ADL would partner with the premier tech and social media companies, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter, to combat “online hate”—which invariably centers on pro-white movements and attitudes.
Both the ADL and the SPLC are organizations whose sole purpose of existence is to create lies and slanders then spread them as far as possible. The mainstream media is only too happy to help and often cites them as authoritative sources rather than deeply biased political organizations they are. It is exceptionally ominous that the companies which control 90% or more of what content people see online are partnering with those sleazeballs.
Jared Howe, in Regarding the insidious libertarian-to-alt-right pipeline relays a story of related targeting by Jewish entryists in the libertarian movement, then goes over how a similar process occurred when the neocons first entered the republican party.
By degrees, I became aware of what I came to understand as “entryism” destroying libertarianism. Entryism is the process of insincere people entering a movement in order to control its direction and blunt its effectiveness. Once, while writing about the economy, I said that the government had exerted so much control over it at every level of production that a reduction in the size and scope of government would still resemble fascism, thus we would need to “pass through the eye of fascism” on our return to free markets. These words were used against me by Graham Smith, a “voluntaryist” libertarian well-known in our circles, who wrote several scathing and accusatory articles about my supposed affinity for fascism, all of which relied heavily on out-of-context, liberally interpreted statements I had made on social media.
Graham Smith is Jewish, and as time went on, I began to notice that Jewish individuals within the libertarian community—even when they claimed to be on the right—seemed to universally advocate for open borders, indiscriminate inclusivity, ethnic relativism, ostracism of pro-white advocates and race realists, and outreach to communists… What was undeniable, in my experience, was that the Jewish libertarians were determined to make the liberty movement fundamentally left-wing….
[The subversion of the Republican party began in] the mid-1960s, when a group euphemistically referred to as the “New York Intellectuals” defected from the Democratic Party and joined the American right. These new conservatives or, as they would come to be known, neoconservatives—or neocons—were former communists who splintered off from their radical comrades and became the loudest voices critiquing the so-called “new left.” What is seldom examined, much less understood, is that this fresh strain of “conservatism” was actually a strain of Jewish leftism firmly rooted in the ideas of Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, and their critique of 1960s radicalism was actually a left-wing factional dispute—a Trotskyite critique of Stalinism, the latter having come to America in the form of the “new left.”
There is no doubt that pre-Trump the republicans had devolved into leftism-lite. Jewish leftist “rightist” influence surely played a role in that development.
Howe ends his essay by surmising that leftist entryists (and really this is also true of open leftists as well) are creating the very thing they fear through their despicable and dishonest behavior.
The leftist entryists and propagandists are creating the “fascists” they claim to oppose….The young white men who were drawn to these ideas during Ron Paul’s presidential runs were interested, above all, in knowing what is true. The Insidious Pipeline is actually a progression in one’s understanding of certain fundamental aspects of our world. The process begins with intensive examinations of economics and state power, and then, if one is intellectually honest, advances to a study of what underlies and defines these things—human biology.
A strong commitment to truth, regardless of whether it is good or bad, is an inoculation against the lies of the left. The truth is knowable and with it discernment is possible, and with good discernment it is not possible to be tricked. Everyone should commit to truth and know it as well as they are able.
A lot of what you find online about Jews seems like it is written by moronic troglodytes. And in my experience, it is difficult to properly moderate online communities in a way that both allows honest discussion of this issue without it being completely turned into a shitshow by said troglodytes. A Fair Hearing provides great discussion of this issue which is calm, intelligent and well worth the effort, even if you aren’t so sure. If only more people could take their cue from authors like Jared Howe and Kevin MacDonald it would be a lot easier to have honest discussion about undesirable influences in our culture. Jewish leftism is undoubtedly one of those influences, though we need to keep in mind it is not the only one. Perhaps the most important problem is a far too widespread willingness to be deceived on the part of the average white. The rise of the alt-right is a hopeful sign that that is changing.
Metapolitics a concept put forward by Daniel Friberg, founder of Arktos, and is covered in his essay The Metapolitical Warfare of the Alt-Right. Basically, it is just creating as effective propaganda as possible in as many different mediums as possible so that as many people as possible can be educated on the grim realities faced by ethnic Europeans today. This includes things like this and other blogs, subreddits, books, both fiction and nonfiction, podcasts, videos and yes even trolling and memes. If things are to change, messages have to be crafted carefully for greatest effect.
What is metapolitics? Simply put, it is a war of social transformation, taking place at the level of worldview, thought, and culture. Whoever would hold political power must cultivate a public consensus regarding his premises and policies. Before there could be a President Obama there had to be a Civil Rights Movement, a hippie counterculture movement, and decades of conditioning in popular media and academia. Andrew Breitbart’s famous slogan, “Politics is downstream from culture,” is a reference to metapolitics…. The strategy of the alt-right is clear: to engage in metapolitical warfare through memes, podcasts, blogs, books, alternative media outlets, “trolling,” and real-world activism…
Metapolitics is instrumental in developing perspectives that dissipate the politically correct haze we are lost in today, and to exterminate the baseless feelings of guilt and self-hatred weighing European peoples down.
But metapolitics does not simply undermine and deconstruct: it creates, encourages, inspires, and illuminates. At least half of the efforts of the alt-right are aimed at education. There is a lesson in the fact that our speech, which is to say our arguments, are being censored and banned across the online world, to say nothing of the corporate media. Whether the topic is human biodiversity, history, socioeconomics, or political philosophy, members of the alt-right dominate in live discussions and debates, and are able to offer extensive text, audio and video both debunking popular myths and presenting persuasive original analysis.
Friberg is correct that the focus on metapolitics is exceptionally important. The relative neglect on this point has led to decades, and even centuries, of failures on the part of the right while the left has been very effective at shaping language and culture in such a way that they basically get whatever they want. Though it is a bit cliché to reiterate this, the book 1984 did an excellent job demonstrating the sort of abuse of language the left has historically been adept at. George Shaw covers this at length in his essay titled Dismantling anti-white newspeak.
Soviet communism was not defined by double-talking politicians or official euphemisms, but by its subjects being terrorized into believing, or at least endorsing, absurdities…. Ask yourself: what is the common thread running through the official absurdities of the modern West—namely that males are females and vice versa, that homosexual marriage is equal to traditional marriage, that race is a social construct, that “diversity is our strength,” that whites succeed in our own civilization only because we are “privileged,” that basic border enforcement is “racism”? The effect produced by these absurdities, collectively and individually, is less white people…
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is a system of communication whose purpose is to limit thought both by limiting vocabulary to a few simple terms, and by controlling the definitions of the terms that people are allowed to use…
The actual sounds and meanings of Newspeak terms are nearly irrelevant. A Newspeak term is a vessel for delivering absurdities past our logical defenses, and into the area of thought where ideas are presupposed. As such, the vessel only needs to be emptied of alternative meanings, infused with its particular lie, and then presented, and adopted, as a completely valid and self-contained concept. Take the foremost example of our age: racism. We say the word not as a thing that objectively exists, but as a sin that we oppose because we are good. “Racism,” like “ownlife,” is not a neutral descriptor, but a thing experienced as evil. Literally a taboo or a superstition. The trick managed by the social engineers, in Orwell’s hypothetical case or in our real-life case, is to trigger an instantaneous dread at the sound of certain syllables, and to thereby ward citizens away from “problematic” behaviors or avenues of thought.
Indeed the abuse of language and reason by the left is extremely detrimental to our society. However, with an eye for metapolitics these manipulations can be outed and perhaps reversed. I previously took a stab at doing just that by trying to redefine the term “white privilege” based on what it actually is: benefits accrued by whites as a group for consistently pro-social behavior. Something that is notably lacking in a number of other races. I got the idea from the very metapolitical neoreactionary article : the typology of magic. The more those on the dissident right can steer language, the more effective our messages will be.
Another aspect of metapolitics is the eruption of troll and meme based propaganda onto the scene since the beginning of Trump’s ascendancy. It is difficult to say just how much impact these efforts have had, but my subjective appraisal is that it has been quite important to the reversal of the fortunes of the right in the last few years. Alex McNabb in The Art of the Troll:
Trolling will rarely get an individual liberal to reconsider his views, but that isn’t the point. The alt-right troll correctly perceives leftists as hopelessly delusional misanthropes who make a number of wrong assumptions about the nature of the world, and it is the troll’s sacred duty to rub their dumb noses in it for all to see. While the liberal or progressive may never repent, there are others watching the exchange, and it is the troll’s mission to demonstrate the strength of his rhetoric and arguments to them while making his opponent look like a pitiful laughing stock….
Basic liberal views on most topics are fact-free presumptions mistakenly held to secure the social approval of their peers, and dragging these moronic, half-formed notions into the spotlight and dissecting them with a critical, Socratic analysis so that others may learn is the key to exorcising these retarded demons forever.
Every time an alt-righter baits and banishes another hellish phantasm of unexamined liberal biases, a crowd of onlookers is immunized from future depredations….
The seeding of “White Student Unions” and flyers proclaiming the acceptability of whiteness are among the purest examples of this genre [viral trolling], providing a biting social commentary on how the left-of-center political establishment actually feels about white Americans, and how rabidly they attack even the most innocent advocacy for this demographic. Imagine styling yourself as a progressive “anti-racist” and holding the majority ethnic group of your own country in such seething contempt that you attack a statement as uncontroversial as “It’s Okay to be White.” The mere fact that this is actually considered “trolling” at all in American society says a lot about how political conditions have deteriorated…
It wasn’t decades of debate and argument by Neocons, libertarians, or basic Reaganite conservatives that turned the tide against leftwing ideological hegemony. It was the alt-right, it was trolls like Mike Enoch and myself operating in little tag teams to shred tissue-thin liberal arguments and leave leftists powerless and apoplectic with rage.
McNabb has a very imaginative and colorful style which makes reading his work a true pleasure. My biggest complaint about this essay was that it was too short. Once finished it leaves you with strongn urge to to have more. However, what you get here is fairly valuable for anyone wishing to do their part in the culture war. He provides very solid advice for the average shitlord on how to successfully expose the great hypocrisy of the left so that all can see. This was definitely one of the most practically minded essays present within the book with its focus on what you, dear reader, can directly accomplish yourself.
The level of rage generated amongst the left from truly innocuous statements like “It’s Okay to be White” places their true colors in full relief for all the people who are “moderate” or otherwise have kept their heads in the sand for the last 20 years. Often those people don’t really want to know and longer form articles or books won’t reach them, but a slick image meme might. I am not much of a troll or a memer myself, but I have tried it out a couple of times.
Images have a way of quickly demonstrating the absurdities of the left, like the extraordinary naivete (or diabolical evil) of encouraging children to grope people with HIV using a cartoon-like muppet character. This sort of content is invaluable for getting people to experience that first real moment of “What the hell! There is something really wrong with these leftist beliefs.” Once had, all of the much more rigorous content provided by the dissident right becomes far more personally available for that person.
A fair hearing is an important book that provides a critical opportunity for the alt-right to make its positions and reasoning more widely known, and available in one place, without needing to be filtered through the lying gatekeepers of the mainstream media. There are a number of essays which were quite good and which I was not able to discuss. Some essays are more compelling than others, but all had some value which will not leave you disappointed. Moreover, all of the writers here produce content and if you were not previously familiar with them this is a good opportunity to expand your knowledge of people active in the alt-right worth paying attention to. It is definitely a book I would recommend.