Source: Bigstock

If dissident rightists spend more time criticizing the official right than criticizing the left, it’s because we know there can’t be a real right in this country if conservatives constantly play by the left’s terms, yield to its ignorant criticism, and espouse left-wing views under the name of conservatism (neoconservatism; the Straussian schools). That the left is an enemy goes without saying. It goes without saying, too, that the left will continue to win the culture war unless the right gets serious about fighting it.

The latest evidence of the futility of the struggle so far is the official right’s inane responses to mass shootings, more and more a feature of our glittering dark age. Cants David French:

It’s time to declare war on white-nationalist terrorism. It’s time to be as wide awake about the dangers of online racist radicalization as we are about online jihadist inspiration. And it’s time to reject the public language and rhetoric that excites and inspires racist radicals. Just as we demanded from our Muslim allies a legal and cultural response to the hate in their midst, we should demand a legal and cultural response to the terrorists from our own land.

According to W. Bradford Wilcox,

It is well past time for all Americans, esp[ecially] conservatives like me, to recognize the threat posed to our country by Alt Right ideas, memes & speech. & to do all we can to stand against racial, ethnic & xenophobic bigotry that is an affront to the American way of life. And that also means calling out the president when he engages in racist or xenophobic talk or tweets.

Like French, Wilcox is a type, and his name seems rather fitting, recalling the stuffy product of T.S. Eliot’s satirical imagination, J. Alfred Prufrock. Takes similar to his and French’s can be found in any mainstream conservative publication, these persons being as predictable and irksome as mosquitoes in summer, and on the hard issues, little different from the left to which they provide a facade of opposition.

By contrast, there are the sober, empirical, data-focused writers. Daniel Greenfield reports:

According to the data at Mass Shooting Tracker, widely utilized by the media, as of this writing, of the 72 mass shooters, perpetrators in shootings that killed or wounded 4 or more people, whose race is known, 21 were white, 37 were black, 8 were Latino, and 6 were members of other groups.

51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.

Three mass shooters were Asian, two were American Indian and one was Arab.

These numbers are if anything vastly understated. As many as half of the mass shootings that took place in 2019 thus far remain unsolved, but they often took place in black areas and claimed black victims.

“In the two-week run-up to Gilroy,” writes Colin Flaherty,

there were 36 other mass shootings from coast to coast—and 34 of those shooters were black. One was white and one Hispanic. These results echo a ‘New York Times’ story from 2016 that stated, much to the surprise and chagrin of the reporters, that whenever there are three or more victims of gunfire, 75 percent of shooters in America are black.

Now whites constitute 61% of the country’s population, followed by Hispanics at 17.8% and blacks at 12.7%. As with all violent crime, most mass shootings are committed by young men. But whether we adjust for age and gender or not, white people are underrepresented among mass shooters. So are Hispanics. Blacks, however, are highly overrepresented. Of course, since whites are a kind of scapegoat these days—whereby other groups form an alliance, albeit thin and transitory, via enmity for whites—the left-wing media present mass shootings as a distinctly white phenomenon. “White-nationalist terrorism” and “Alt Right ideas, memes & speech,” we’re to believe, are about to turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany. Such an egregiously biased perspective, if it does anything, will likely lead to more “white-nationalist terrorism.”

No doubt it is contrary to the biases of many on the right, where people are very concerned about immigrant crime, that Hispanics aren’t overrepresented among mass shooters. However, this is consistent with the findings of two data wizards, Ron Unz and the pseudonymous blogger La Griffe du Lion, who have each argued that, once we adjust for age and gender, crime rates among Hispanics are comparable to those of whites. “But what about MS-13?” the innumerate will wonder. Of course it’s a problem, but in a statistical sense, MS-13 is no more representative of Hispanics per se than the KKK is of whites. The great anomaly, with respect to racial differences in crime rates, is young black men.

Although the truth of a proposition is logically independent of a person’s character and his actions, a man who does something as wicked as a mass shooting thereby discredits his views in the eyes of ordinary people. Nevertheless, logical minds must recognize that the opinions of a man such as Patrick Crusius aren’t necessarily wrong or groundless just because he killed 20 people and injured 26 others. After all, it’s clear from his manifesto that Crusius had some legitimate concerns. He was worried, for example, about white demographic replacement, about the political dispossession of whites, and about a future Democratic one-party state.

For David French and other mainstream conservatives, it’s immoral to speak of a Hispanic invasion. To be sure, it’s important to realize that Hispanics are not invading America in the sense of intending to take it over and replace the white majority. These persons want to better their lives. Still, regardless of intent, the situation at the southern border amounts to an invasion, nor are Crusius’ concerns illegitimate, despite his evil deed.

In 1980, with a population of 14.8 million, Hispanics made up just 6.5% of the total U.S. population. By 2015, there were 56.5 million Hispanics in the U.S., accounting for 17.6% of the total population. Today it’s not unusual for as many as 100,000 immigrants to enter the country in a single month, mostly through the southern border. Most immigrants (77%) are in the country legally, while almost a quarter are illegal. The vast majority of immigrants are Hispanic. Although the compatibility concerns of cultural distance nationalists like Amy Wax are controversial, anybody can see that immigration is a grave problem for American workers. If there’s a vast surplus of any skill, that skill decreases in value. And while Kevin Williamson and others are right that many Americans—and working-class whites and working-class blacks in particular—have a poor work ethic, so that companies sensibly don’t want to hire them, wages won’t rise, or motivate such persons to become more hardworking in order to earn more money, so long as the job market is teeming with people who have the same skills. Certainly, this is a problem for engineers and computer programmers just as it is for construction workers and landscapers. Especially since, amid the coming loss of many jobs to automation, it’s not at all clear how the American workforce as a whole is to manage.

We should also be concerned about the possibility of whites becoming a minority demographic. For it’s largely white men who, as a voting bloc, afford a bulwark against the intersectional Democrat’s reckless and irresponsible agenda. In response to the accurate claim that all other groups tend to vote for the left, some people say, trivially, that correlation is not causation. But the claim doesn’t imply that race causes one to vote for this or that party. Nor that in the future more Asians, say, won’t vote Republican. Rather, race, like gender, income, and other factors, is a reliable predictor of how one votes; and as things are, there’s no reason to disagree with the belief that an America that is not an intersectional nightmare requires a white majority (though such a majority hardly suffices to ensure that the nightmare won’t happen). Nor does this position entail “racism.” Besides, given all the racism against whites today, what could be more imprudent than whites not striving to maintain a majority in their own country? What’s keeping the antiwhite left from passing all the antiwhite policies it likes? Mainly the fact that there’s still a white majority to oppose the endeavor.

Having been blamed for all “the white-nationalist terrorism,” President Trump decided to come out in support of “Red Flag” gun laws. “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” he says. “That is why I have called for red-flag laws, also known as extreme-risk protection orders.”

Given the rampant lawlessness and dysfunction in our culture, one can see why so many would support these laws. But what, we must ask, are the objective criteria for being “a grave risk to public safety”? The “tip” of some busybody neighbor? The “concerned letter” of a high school guidance counselor or “mental health worker”? Do we want progressive bureaucrats to have the power to confiscate our guns, making us more vulnerable to criminals and to the Big State itself? Trump’s advocacy here is terribly ironic since Bandy Lee and other “expert” psychiatrists have long been diagnosing him from afar as crazy, and demanding his impeachment, contra medical ethics.

Besides, there’s a huge black market for guns and, as with crack and heroin, people who want them badly enough find a way to obtain them. Stephan Plainview writes at VDARE:

Brazil…has a murder rate comparable to the United States…. After Brazil implemented harsh restrictions on gun ownership, their murder rate involving firearms went up and over half of the weapons used were illegally owned.

Switzerland, on the other hand, has about two million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people.

In 2016, the country had 47 attempted homicides with firearms. (US had 40,000 in 2018.)

The country’s overall murder rate is near zero.

It’s obvious, then, that the problem is not guns but American culture. Why is America so violent and so dysfunctional, compared to other countries with a high level of economic and technological development? If, like many conservatives, you think the decline of religious belief is the answer, then you have to explain why it is that the Swiss are less violent than Americans but also less religious. So too with the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Nordic peoples, among others.

Perhaps the best explanation, or anyway the most significant factor, is multiculturalism, which by its very nature erodes trust and solidarity and produces intractable conflicts between different groups. Furthermore, current immigration laws do pose a long-term threat to whites. There’s deep hostility toward whites in the media, in the universities, and in Hollywood, and it’s to be expected that some young white men will react to this state of affairs with violence. Indeed, in a tragic sense, it’s a healthy sign that they’re doing so, because it suggests that whites are not absolutely complacent, stupefied, and defeated.

That last sentence shouldn’t be understood as a general endorsement of violence. However, I don’t share the common wishful thinking that “argument and tolerance” can solve all political problems. With history in mind, I see that where reason doesn’t avail, only violence can. In any event, we now face the opposition of the state itself, of what Nietzsche called “the coldest of all cold monsters.” Says President Trump: “I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies and social media companies to develop tools to identify mass shooters before they strike.” As if Zuckerberg & Co. needed any encouragement!

Here, surely, is a path to leftist censorship and statist tyranny. Again, what are the objective criteria for identifying a potential mass shooter? Consider that today Gavin McInnes—of all people—is widely considered to be a fascist. So are Trump’s supporters, most of them quite ordinary Americans. Readers of alternative right-wing media—that is to say, of this webzine, VDARE, The Unz Review, Lew Rockwell, and other essential outlets—know only too well that there are certain perspectives and opinions that are excluded from the conservative country club. Will these contrarian websites be deplatformed and shadow banned? For many liberal bureaucrats and Big Tech people, the right is all the same: so much white supremacy, racism, misogyny, oppression, etc. Trump is calling for statist and Big Tech monitoring precisely when we need him to fight the culturally hegemonic left that deplatforms conservatives and, like the American Psychological Association, pathologizes our views. Anyone who cares about conservative values and free expression should be very, very worried.