Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Gregory Hood

Review: “Right Wing Critics of Conservatism” by George Hawley

Western Civilization, the #TruConservatives tell us, consists of nothing more than classical liberalism. And American conservatism, insofar as we are offered a definition, is a vague belief in “limited government” and “the Constitution.” These are combined with “Judeo-Christian values,” said to be eternal but actually evolving at a stately pace a few years behind the leftist avant-garde. Knowledge is dangerous for any respectable conservative because if you explore the history of one of your heroes before 1965, you’ll find views on race and identity as bad as anything within that gross Alternative Right.

 

Western Civilization, the #TruConservatives tell us, consists of nothing more than classical liberalism. And American conservatism, insofar as we are offered a definition, is a vague belief in “limited government” and “the Constitution.” These are combined with “Judeo-Christian values,” said to be eternal but actually evolving at a stately pace a few years behind the leftist avant-garde. Knowledge is dangerous for any respectable conservative because if you explore the history of one of your heroes before 1965, you’ll find views on race and identity as bad as anything within that gross Alternative Right.

At the same time, even those on the far Right are often unwilling to identify as such. Instead, they (or we) are “beyond Left and Right” and part of some exciting new paradigm, even though we inevitably find ourselves falling back on those old labels from the French Revolution to describe the politics of today.

Do any of these labels matter anymore? And how can we examine an American conservative movement which constantly reinvents its own history and redefines its supposed “principles?”

The invaluable new book from Professor George Hawley, “Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism,” is an indispensable beginning to confronting these questions. Hawley first came to my attention with his research on voting patterns, demographics, and the impact of the immigration issue in elections. His book on the White Vote, that dominant and yet almost unexamined demographic in American elections, is a starting point for anyone interested in Identitarian politics because it provides the hard numbers behind the voting behavior of European-Americans. It also dispels many of the goofy myths propounded by GOP “strategists” entranced by visions of Detroit Republicans.

Hawley takes on a much broader topic here. In so doing, Hawley has to not only describe the history of the American conservative movement, but define what he means by “Left” and “Right.” Hawley easily dismantles classification schemes based on a person’s view of human nature or the old “individualism vs. collectivism” canard. Borrowing from Paul Gottfried, Hawley says, “The political left will be defined as containing all ideological movements that consider equality the highest political value.” In contrast, the Right is defined as: “[E]ncompassing all of those ideologies that, while not necessarily rejecting equality as a social good, do not rank at the top of the hierarchy of values. The right furthermore fights the left in all cases where the push for equality threatens some other value held in higher esteem.”

This largely fits with what I’ve argued in the past, that the Left “refers to those who hold equality as their highest value, whereas the [Right] refers to those who recognize hierarchy.” This System also avoids the trap that American conservatives are constantly stumbling into, where the Left is simply “anything I don’t like” and the Right is “whatever version of post-1965 Republican slogans won’t get me called racist.”

As Hawley notes, this means thinkers as diverse as Murray Rothbard, Wendell Berry, Pat Buchanan and Alain de Benoist can all be meaningfully characterized as on the “Right,” though they have little else in common. It also implies action – you are only on the Right if you are part of something which “fights the left.”

Though Hawley does not say this, this suggests there are many “Rights,” as each right wing movement has its vision of The Good, The Beautiful, and The True it will fight for. We can talk about the Islamic State or Polish nationalists as both being “right-wing,” even though they would gladly slaughter each other. Though every right wing movement will hold its own source of excellence or morality as supreme, in truth there are as many as there are peoples, faiths, and ideologies. The principle of hierarchy (and opposition to degeneracy, however defined) itself is the closest we can come to defining a singular, universal “Right.”

With this framework, we are able to do what “movement conservatives” can’t and see how “the conservative movement” wasn’t some primordial truth handed down from antiquity but an artificial conglomeration clumsily pieced together for temporary political needs. Hawley identifies the prewar “Old Right,” exemplified by figures such as Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, and others as libertarian, antiwar, and suspicious of egalitarianism, democracy, and Christian religious belief. In contrast, the postwar conservative movement pieced together by William F. Buckley Jr. was a creature of the Cold War, with a diverse group of thinkers lumped together to oppose international communism, even if this meant, in Buckley’s words, “[accepting] Big Government for the duration… [and] a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.”

The ideological coherence (such as it is) of the conservative movement today is an effect, rather than a cause – the conservative movement was a tactical creation, something put together to oppose the Soviet threat. And the work of many of the key thinkers present at the beginning, men like Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver, has been all but ignored despite the occasional rhetorical tribute.

This is critical for the modern American Right because it implies a new crisis and could create a new realignment. It has now been almost two decades since the hammer and sickle fell and insofar as there is any wishful thinking about a global revolution led by Russia it’s one coming from the Right. Though there’s been a half-hearted attempt to substitute “Islamofascism” as a way to get the old band back together, we face utterly new challenges based on identity, not ideology. The brutal demographic realities behind the migration crisis could prove to be the key catalyst for a new movement.

Hawley tells the familiar story of the purges which have defined the American Right, a story many of you are already familiar with. The expulsion of the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand and the Objectivists both served as one-offs. However, the conservative movement’s determination to police itself over race is a continuing, and one suspects, never ending drama.

Hawley observes: “The question is why the conservative movement made this about-face on the issue of race. It is worth remembering that during the pivotal years of the civil rights movement the major voices of American conservatism – including Barry Goldwater and National Review – were openly against legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. Some of the most prominent early conservatives defended the social order of the antebellum south.” Hawley accurately characterizes the conservative acceptance of civil rights as a “surrender” and suggests the opposition to candidates such as David Duke was in many ways driven by “embarrassment.” Even National Review couldn’t find many problems in Duke’s platform, just that he used to be in the Klan.

Even after Duke faded, respectable conservatives are constantly forced to confront dissidents who become a little too vocal about racial realities. The purges of Peter Brimelow, Sam Francis, John Derbyshire, and Jason Richwine are all addressed.

Hawley also recognizes race may not be the only issue the conservative movement will retroactively interpret. He slyly observes, “It is not implausible to imagine that within a few decades the movement will try to disassociate itself from the anti-gay marriage stance it promoted during the Bush years, and perhaps even claim that acceptance of gay marriage represented a victory for conservatives.”

There’s also a great deal of attention given to a story paleoconservatives know well, but the younger Alt Right may have never heard of – the battle between Harry Jaffa and M.E. “Mel” Bradford. Hawley identifies Harry Jaffa, a student of Leo Strauss, as one of the first nominally conservative thinkers to argue “equality” itself was a conservative virtue. This is what allows conservatives today to argue with a straight face that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually a “true conservative,” even though, as Hawley accurately observes, conservatives all but unanimously opposed him while he was alive. Jaffa is thus fondly remembered at outlets like The Federalist for pushing the American Right in a pro-Lincoln direction with “all men are created equal” as the defining idea of the country. We might even call Jaffa the Founding Father of Cuckservatism.

Bradford, a Southerner, rejected Jaffa’s push to reinvent the likes of Abraham Lincoln as a conservative hero and instead attacked the “cult of equality.” Hawley writes: “Bradford was concerned with the issue of rhetoric, and he excoriated conservatives for allowing the left to define and redefine America’s most important political values. In order to remain respectability, conservatives have conceded key points to their ideological opponents.”

Plus ça change…

Bradford was famously prevented from securing a post at the National Endowment for the Humanities in the Reagan Administration, despite support from the President himself and Bradford’s hard work in the election campaign. Though Jaffa himself actually supported him, Bradford was vocally opposed by conservative commentators such as George Will (now a leading figure in the #NeverTrump movement) and was ultimately replaced with pudgy simpleton William Bennett. And these kinds of bureaucratic struggles have a huge impact. Egalitarianism and universalist posturing was boosted within the American Right, Bradford died in relative obscurity, Jaffa was lionized and Bennett gets more money to blow at the casinos. (Hopefully Trump got some of it.)

These kinds of struggles continue today. As this is written, protesters are storming the parliament in Baghdad, the latest episode of our more than decade long disaster in Mesopotamia. As Hawley notes, “The mainstream conservative movement was in nearly complete agreement with these policies [the invasion of Iraq].” Yet the “unpatriotic conservatives” who opposed it, were duly purged and were proven correct by the aftermath still struggle for access to the mainstream media and funding from major institutions. Meanwhile, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer still scream at me from the telescreen every night about what great foreign policy experts they are.

Hawley profiles a number of castaways from different schools of thought, including localists, mainstream and radical libertarians, atheists, and paleoconservatives. Identitarians and white nationalists are also analyzed, though Hawley does feel the need to virtue signal against us, presumably to avoid suffering the fate of his subjects. Overall though, Hawley is fair and informative and his book serves as an excellent introduction to the various subcultures which have ultimately created what we call the Alt Right.

He also slips through some questions which suggest he’s at least confronting the arguments rather than just pathologizing them like some shitlib at The Daily Beast. “Why, for example, is Zionism generally considered an acceptable political position, but an individual who wanted to create a republic restricted to white Christians would be barred from mainstream debates?” he asks. Why indeed.

Hawley does make some mistakes, but much of this is simply a product of when the book was written, before the Emperor descended from the Golden Throne on the escalator at Trump Tower. A typo in which “Young Americans for Liberty” should have read “Young Americans for Freedom” is actually revealing of the focus, as Hawley devotes far more coverage to libertarian and anti-state activists than nationalists. As he argues in his conclusion, “Moderate and mainstream libertarianism is the right-wing ideology most likely to enjoy greater influence in the coming decades,” citing the triumph of figures like Justin Amash. Hawley also speculates about Rand Paul securing the GOP nomination. But all it took to destroy Paul was a New York real estate developer saying he was having a “hard time tonight,” suggesting the fabled “libertarian moment” was always a pipe dream.

Donald Trump is not even mentioned in the book. But of course, before the “Mexicans are rapists” speech, why would he be?

For many on the Alt Right, libertarianism is a kind of gateway drug, a safe way of attacking egalitarianism, the establishment conservative movement, and “the System” more broadly. Most are gradually redpilled. Eventually, you move on, unless you can find a way to be paid for being part of the “liberty movement.”

Hawley writes, “(M)any, perhaps most, of the energetic young activists on the right are decidedly libertarian in their views, and today’s young activists will eventually take on prominent leadership roles in the conservative movement’s leading institutions and within the GOP.” It is more accurate to say that many energetic young activists start as libertarians, but they don’t stay there. It’s questionable whether libertarianism can ever really be a movement for itself as opposed to either a phase in a person’s ideological progression. After all, groups like Students for Liberty now proudly proclaim they don’t care about freedom of association, because homosexual rights, and fighting nationalism is the most important thing. Meanwhile, many of the same people now fantasizing about building Trump Walls and eventually reclaiming Constantinople were screaming about using shiny rocks as currency only a few years ago.

Hawley quotes SFL’s cofounder Alexander McCobin as saying: “We know what’s up for debate, and so we also know what’s not. The justifications for and limits on intellectual property? Up for debate. Racism? Not up for debate.” But as Richard Spencer argued, libertarianism itself was a kind of mask on white identity for some time. That is being abandoned as we get closer to the real thing. Those libertarians who put egalitarianism first, like Cathy Reisenwitz, eventually just become SJW’s. The majority move in our direction.

Who, after all, has a greater impact these days – Students for Liberty, with its multimillion dollar budget, or The Daily Shoah?

Hawley deserves praise for providing a useful introduction for anyone who wants to familiarize themselves with Radical Traditionalism, the European New Right, or the Conservative Revolution without being completely overwhelmed with jargon and occultism. The chapters “Against Capitalism, Christianity and America” and “Voices of the Radical Right” are required reading for anyone on the Alt Right seeking to understand why American conservatism could never succeed. It’s also sobering reading for anyone who wants to understand the history of the pro-white movement. Richard Spencer and the saga of the First Identitarian Congress in Budapest are also outlined.

Still, one can’t help but wish Hawley had just waited a few more months to write this book. So many of the things he suggests as distant possibilities here are actually occurring. For example, Hawley writes, “If the mainstream conservative movement loses its status as the gatekeeper on the right, white nationalism may be among the greatest beneficiaries, though even in this case it will face serious challenges.” According to the hall monitors of the Beltway Right, that’s precisely what’s happening right now.

And ultimately, Hawley recognizes change, of some kind, is coming. He refers to the “calcified” nature of conservative thought, pointing out the rhetoric has not changed since Goldwater. “Only on the issue of race have we seen a dramatic change in the mainstream conservative movement since the 1960s, at least when it comes to public statements,” Hawley writes. Rhetorical blasts against “elites” have become so predictable and stale they no longer have any meaning. Conservatives are simply running out of things to say.

There are also broader historical patterns conservatives are confronting.

First, the Bush Administration “badly damaged the Republican Party’s brand,” and the legacy of that era is something the Beltway Right still seems utterly unwilling to confront. Hawley also brings up the scandals from the Bush years, including Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay. (The book was written too early for a reference to the nightmarish case of Dennis Hastert). Bush’s failure to reform Social Security showed conservatives are incapable of meddling with the welfare programs most Americans have grown to accept and rely upon. The Iraq War also fatally discredited the GOP’s perceived foreign policy expertise in the eyes of many Americans.

Second, organized religion is declining in America. The Religious Right is discredited and leaderless. Jerry Falwell is dead and so is D. James Kenned. Ted Haggard is disgraced after a gay prostitution scandal. Homosexual marriage is a reality nationwide. Open borders shill Russell Moore is busy trying to prove Nietzsche right by pushing for more nonwhite immigration. Though Hawley doesn’t go into this, it’s striking how the once powerful Religious Right has been reduced to trying to keep trannies out of bathrooms in the South. (And failing at it.)

Third, and most importantly, is the growing nonwhite population. Hawley argues even if the GOP utterly reversed its position on immigration to try to win Latinos and Asians, “nonwhites are considerably more progressive, on average than whites… even if immigration is completely removed from the table.” Hawley says unless the GOP can create a huge shift in the voting patterns of nonwhites (unlikely given their progressive attitudes) or win a larger share of the white vote, the Republican Party will be unable to credibly contest national elections.

And this is where the Alt Right comes in. This is a reality the conservative movement cannot assimilate. It is an existential threat. The GOP can’t appeal to minorities without entirely abandoning conservative policies. And it can’t appeal to whites as whites without abandoning its universalist pretensions and infantile sloganeering. Though Hawley doesn’t say it, this fact alone is why the American Right’s future lies in Identity. All other alternatives have been exhausted except slow death. And make no mistake – running out the clock while squeezing out a few more shekels is what passes for a strategy within Conservatism Inc.

Reading and studying what Professor Hawley has written is an important first step for all of us. With the rise of Trump, the explosion of interest in the Alt Right online, and the flood of recent mainstream media coverage, there’s a real sense momentum is on our side. Yet we should not be deceived. Dissident forces on the Right have risen in the past and reached levels of power and influence far exceeding what we have today. All have been crushed.

We must understand their ideas, their history, their successes and their mistakes so we can avoid their fate. We don’t want to just end up as footnotes in some future edition.

No Comments on Review: “Right Wing Critics of Conservatism” by George Hawley

The Cuckening

We aren’t the ones who have the weird hang up, sexual, moral, or otherwise. We simply claim the right every people takes for granted, the right to advocate in defense of our own. For some reason, this common sense suggestion throws our entire political and cultural system into turmoil. And in the end, that tells us more about the inherent perversion of the System that rules us than anything else.

At CPAC, I once overheard the late Andrew Breitbart marvel in front of some of his groupies how progressives would think nothing of calling someone a “homophobe” and a “faggot” within the same sentence. “The inversion of values” is key to the leftist vision of morality. A “badass” and strong woman is one who complains the world isn’t fair enough. A man who isn’t a feminist is “afraid” and therefore weak, as are Whites who don’t want to hand away their countries to other peoples. Men who are aggressive and physically strong are actually “delicate” and acting out of fears of inferiority.

Despite being published at American Renaissance, my article “ What is a Cuckservative?” didn’t mention “cuckolding” as a racial phenomenon but as a general psychological problem. More importantly, the figure generally credited with benefiting from the American Right’s impatience with the “cuckservatives” in Conservatism Inc. is Donald Trump. However, Donald “I love Latinos” Trump shows no signs of White racial consciousness, a staunch position on immigration, or even especially “right-wing” beliefs. He simply doesn’t apologize every time he opens his mouth, and this alone has driven the controlled media insane with rage.

Nonetheless, Jeet Heer at The New Republic thinks he’s got the alt-right pegged (no pun intended) because the term “Cuckservatives” pushes “psycho-sexual” buttons about race. He writes:

Racism and sexism have always been connected, with one of the prime justifications for racial hierarchy being the supposed need to protect white women from black men and also, more implicitly, to keep black women sexually submissive to white men. A cuckservative thus conjures up one of the supreme nightmares of the white supremacist imagination, the fear that white men will assume a submissive role (or position) in the sexual hierarchy.

The problem is that the alt-Right term really became aware of the existence of “cuckolding’ as kink when The Daily Beast promoted it as the “intellectual sex fetish” in 2010. The article was widely circulated as confirming what we all imagined about left-wing academics. As author Anneli Rufus wrote:

Cuckolding is rapidly emerging as the alt-sex fetish of choice for American intellectuals. Just check out the online forums like OurHotWives.org/forum, where letter-perfect postings celebrate cuckoldry as a cerebral pursuit, transcending ordinary voyeurism and S&M as a dangerous game involving jealousy, misery, gratitude, shame, sharing, sublimation, lust, and trust.

As anyone who set foot in a college classroom knows, it’s not surprising academics utterly obsessed with rooting out the racially and sexually “problematic” implications of every cultural product find bizarre ways to act out their intellectual perversions in sexual form. Only a few days ago, New York Magazine unironically published a preening article by a Michael Sonmore about how letting his wife sleep around allowed him to more fully realize what it was to be a feminist. Some charge that this is a hoax, but that’s the point; in today’s culture, we have no way to know.

Though I felt no need to mention it, awareness of the racial subculture of all this is also eagerly promoted by the Left. Again, Rufus notes:

But there’s also a somewhat uncomfortable racial angle to cuckolding. Cruise the galleries at cuckolding Web sites and you’ll see the same dynamic again and again: white husband, white wife, African-American other man. In cuck slang, these black men are dubbed “mandingos” or “bulls.” Some sites, such as InterracialCuck.com, CuckoldHoes.com, and BigBlackBull.com, cater solely to this.

“It harks back to the notion of the forbidden,” says Paul, who doesn’t pursue this fetish-within-a-fetish himself, “and to that monstrous old stereotype in which all black men have two-foot cocks.”

These sexual obsessions pop up in the literature of various minority activist groups, from Malcolm X’s self-hatred about the “White rapist” blood in his body to the rapist Eldridge Cleaver strange tales in Soul on Ice (required reading at some colleges) about White men begging Blacks to have sex with their wives.

As Louis C.K. (who is now a “cuck” meme himself, after a particularly lame anti-White segment) once said of homosexuality, “I hadn’t been told people did that.” For most of us, had we not been told, it never would have occurred to us that this existed. However, even just within the last few days, VICE provides us with a video feature about “America’s fastest growing fetish: interracial swinging,” entitled “Mandingo.” As we live in a country where pornographers who specialize in such practices are then recruited to produce children’s programming, it’s hard not to notice how it is being encouraged, rather than being “forbidden.” It’s also easy to connect this practice of signaling superiority through ostensible degradation with modern leftist politics and moral philosophy.

White nationalism, or even racial realism, is often defined as an “extreme” ideology, and, indeed, there are undercurrents within it about rejecting mainstream thought, religion, morality, and culture. Yet in another sense, what is often termed the “far Right” is really just an energetic defense of normality. What leftists call “fascism” is liberty for most of the population, and what they call “freedom” is “fascism” for most of us. The state and the commanding heights of the culture are never “neutral,” and it seems reasonable such institutions should be used to promote healthy ideals that lead to better lives for our people. This means we should promote strong families, pride in one’s identity, and positive aesthetics, rather than degeneracy, self-loathing and a cult of victimization.

Most people, even today, would simply call this “common sense,” hence the somewhat justified paranoia of the antifa that the masses will turn “far Right” overnight if every spark isn’t swiftly stamped out. Even the most militant ideals are simply an acknowledgement that a great deal of force will be required to dislodge a system that is being upheld with a great deal of brute power.

Despite the eternal faux rebelliousness of the Cultural Marxist Left, they are the Establishment. And today, it’s not White Nationalists having nervous breakdowns over lurid tales about “our women” copulating with Negroes. It’s progressives breaking into hysterics over about how all normal sex is rape, how using English pronouns constitutes oppression, and how police in America are murdering innocent Blacks for no reason other than “hate.”

Generally speaking, the current American “far Right” isn’t composed of grim-faced political soldiers marching in militaristic uniforms, ready to purge for the Fatherland. The traditional institutions needed to serve as the basis for that kind of a movement no longer exist. The alt Right is ironic, subversive, and cynical. It’s about turning the tactics of the Left back on itself, deconstructing the tropes and narratives forced upon us.

It’s composed of people who spent their formative years listening to tenured mediocrities with six-figure incomes shriek at them about “privilege,” suffering through speeches by “conservative” politicians about how “Islam means peace,” serving abroad and risking death to bring “democracy” to hostile Third Worlders, and watching reports about raceless “youths” attacking people in the streets. The response from the Right to all of this is less, “Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?” and more often, “Are you serious?”

This is what neither the Beltway Right nor the liberal press quite gets about the whole cuckservative debacle. Robert Stacy McCain seems to suggest the Hillary Clinton campaign is behind #cuckservatism, and this is bad, because “If we can’t defeat Team Hillary, America is doomed and deservedly so.” And Taylor Millard at Hot Air, attacking the “Cuckservative Lie,” says it is all “idiotic thought and tribalism at its worst” because (you guessed it) “all men are created equal.”

Here, we have both the essential premises of the Beltway Right—that our fate is tied to that of the GOP as currently constituted and and that the Enlightenment, egalitarian rhetoric of the American Founding is a good thing. Rhetorically, this is the equivalent of waving a totemistic statue from some savage tribe in front of a 19th century Englishman, or for that matter, preaching Biblical fire and damnation on a 21st-century college campus. Nobody cares, because no one is taking it seriously as a source of authority.

Despite many tactical disagreements, the alt Right is largely united in the contention that the current Republican Party leadership is essentially a group of glorified corporate lobbyists hostile to their own White base and far more patriotic towards the Jewish state than their own. Yes, we know racializing Republicans will break the Party as currently constituted. That’s the point. And ironically, breaking your stupid movement will actually do more to “conserve” the limited government ideals you claim to believe in than campaigning for Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

Furthermore, neoreactionaries, White nationalists, Identitarians, and even some racial realists are gradually coming to the conclusion that the American Founding was fatally flawed and that what the United States was able to accomplish was chiefly because the Founders didn’t take the egalitarian propaganda seriously. It is self-evident that all men are not created equal. Jefferson’s goofy slogan is now being exploited to destroy the very people who came up with it, as was inevitable.

It’s unclear why “tribalism” (I’d call it loyalty) towards our fellow European-Americans ( and Europeans worldwide) with whom we share kinship, identity, and interests is somehow wrong. It’s even less obvious why service to a self-defined “proposition nation” composed of mutually hostile ethnic fiefdoms and ruled by people who want to destroy us is a sacred duty.

Conservatism Inc. keeps invoking ritualistic phrases that no longer elicit the usual response. We don’t think it’s clever to talk about “liberal fascism,” “Democrats are the real racists,” or that “Martin Luther King was a Republican.” We think it’s shallow, self-deluding, and most of all, pointless. Such phrases actually further the interests of an increasingly hostile elite anyway. And these hoary clichés simply won’t suffice for a generation that has been propagandized with lies their entire lives. If alt-Right activists and thinkers were the type who believe what they’re told, they’d be Social Justice Warriors.

The term “cuckolding” works because it speaks to something primal. At its core, it’s less about sexuality and more about a creature that actively works against its own interests, knowingly or unknowingly. The term comes from the cuckoo bird which tricks birds of other species into taking care of its eggs. The bird doesn’t know it is devoting time and resources to a competitor, indeed, the very competitor that just destroyed its own offspring. Clueless, it serves the interests of its enemy.

Some cuckservatives know full well what they are doing and are either cowardly or filled with inverted moral righteousness about their actions. Others, just like the victims of the cuckoo birds, might be ignorant. Yet in the end, the result is the same. European-Americans are being used to further the interests of every group except their own, even as they are targeted on specifically racial grounds . And however Whites define themselves, the words of Sam Francis remain true:

At a time when the self-declared enemies of the white race define themselves in racial terms, only our own definition of ourselves in those terms can meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as the Tutsi people have been slaughtered in Rwanda, they will do so not because we are “Westerners” or “Americans” or “Christians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” but because we are White.

“What do you want us to do?” conservatives may ask. The answer is simple. Stop pretending it is illegitimate for European-Americans to work in defense of our own interests. Stop pretending to be offended about “tribalism,” when you accept the “tribalism” of non-Whites and glory in the tribalism of Jews. And above all, stop apologizing.

We aren’t the ones who have the weird hang up, sexual, moral, or otherwise. We simply claim the right every people takes for granted, the right to advocate in defense of our own. For some reason, this common sense suggestion throws our entire political and cultural system into turmoil. And in the end, that tells us more about the inherent perversion of the System that rules us than anything else.

No Comments on The Cuckening

The Evil of the Telescreen

The telescreen can never be turned off; only turned down. 

The telescreen can never be turned off; only turned down.

Fate found me in a government building sans a book or a cellphone.  A television blared from the center of the room, commanding all attention.  For the first time in many years, I watched regular television programs, marooned in a state waiting room, surrounded by strangers.

Like many others, I have a television that is only used for DVD’s or the inevitable Netflix account, giving me a certain amount of freedom as to what I want to see.  As I get most entertainment and news from the Internet, I never quite realized how bad the “normal” and “apolitical culture” has become.

The first show was an episode of “House” in which the eponymous doctor attempts to help a marriage counselor with a mysterious illness.  The male counselor is suffering from low testosterone among other problems, and House puts him on a dose of the male hormone while they attempt to figure out the source of his illness.

Initially, the testosterone makes the patient feel better, act more decisively, and feel more sexually attracted to his wife.  However, he starts making decisions without her and demanding his wife respect him as the “Man of the House” (the title of the episode).  The wife is shocked by this behavior, wondering where her compliant, submissive husband went.  Watching a video of one of her husband’s earlier business seminars, she is disgusted by the way her husband used to preach a creed of take no prisoners capitalism.  “I never would have gone out” with a man like that, she sniffs.  In the end, the patient is saved – but before he is discharged, he asks for the testosterone to be lowered.  He admits it makes him feel better – but making his wife happy is more important.

The next show was NCIS, starring heroic law enforcement officers working for the Department of the Navy.  Two of the male protagonists in this episode were married to the same woman, and the plot now centers on her third husband.  There is a terrorism plot against the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are all going to a football game (insert your joke here.)  When the plot is predictably foiled, the dying terrorist tells the law enforcement agents, “You don’t even know what you’re defending.”  It is revealed that the terrorist–an employee of the Homeland Security Department–was sponsored by someone in the military industrial complex, presumably to prevent defense cuts. Thus, as always, the real terrorists are those who promote fear of “the other.”

There is a Narrative.  It is never fully defined but we all know what it is.  Heterosexual white males are holding everybody down.  Racist forces are numerous, powerful, violent, and everywhere.  Hate crimes are rampant, homosexuals are brutally oppressed, and every wife in the country puts on make up in the morning to hide the black eye she got from her husband.

The defining characteristic of the Age of Obama is not anything the President did or any historical event overseas.  It is that Obama seemed to open a door to the anticulture of the egalitarian Left to fully take over the mass media.  It seems genuinely incredible that there was a time when parents used to protest things like sexual content or obscenity on television.  More than that, it is only in the recent past there has been a shift were the “default” culture is socially egalitarian, explicitly anti-Christian, and explicitly anti-white.  It is not media bias that is the program – it is the moral vision presented by sitcoms, talk shows, and the daytime pap consumed by your average White Americans.

This propaganda is all the more insidious because it is diffuse.  Despite the extreme concentration of the American mass media, most Americans cannot recognize propaganda as propaganda unless it specifically comes from the government.  More than that, unless it comes with militaristic trappings and the aesthetics of fascism, most Americans will not see social conditioning as sinister or even intentional.  It will be simply be interpreted as freedom in action.  Unlike in They Live, there isn’t just one television signal we can blow up to reveal the horrible truth.

A sign of successful propaganda is that the intended target can’t remember where he heard it, but he swears it is true.   This is easy to accomplish when degeneracy serves as a kind of background noise for the entire society.  Millions of half-formed impressions, snippets of conversation, and barely remembered storylines will far outweigh any coherent argument or even cogent slogan in defense of positive values.  The prevalence and uniformity of the media is such that for a huge segment of the population, “creating awareness” and “education” are nothing but a tremendous waste of time.

But there is a bright side.  It also means that “Come the Revolution” (as the Left used to say), most people will believe whatever they are told to believe.  It means that even when public opinion is nominally against the Dissident Right, a vast swath is simply unthinking allegiance to whatever they vaguely remember from Oprah that morning.  And it means that culture is a creation, not a source, of power.  It means that victory is not impossible.

This is nothing but a silver lining for the dispossessed Dissident Right and the European peoples they fight for.  But just try to watch some TV for fifteen minutes – and after that, I’ll take any glimmer of hope I can get.

No Comments on The Evil of the Telescreen

Wolves Among the Ruins

The great issues of the day will not be decided by comments on Disqus threads, but by deeds of blood and toil.  And it won’t be glorious crusades or the violent daydreams of those wishing to live in the world of Road Warrior, but people struggling to live by their ideals and build something genuinely new in the here and now. 

The real discussion about egalitarianism, democracy, feminism, religion, and economics is taking place online, not in the affirmative action degree mills that pass for universities.  But as the Hávamál (the words of the High One) says, “Each word led to another word, each deed to another deed.”  While words matter, without action, they don’t count for much.

The great issues of the day will not be decided by comments on Disqus threads, but by deeds of blood and toil.  And it won’t be glorious crusades or the violent daydreams of those wishing to live in the world of Road Warrior, but people struggling to live by their ideals and build something genuinely new in the here and now.

Jack Donovan recently visited a heathen tribe calling itself the Wolves of Vinland in Virginia.  While one senses the group would vigorously protest being called on the “Right” or even “political,” it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a group actually showing how the metapolitics and ideas of the Dissident Right function in the real world–especially those ideas discussed in Donovan’s own book “The Way of Men” and his speech “Becoming The New Barbarians.”

There’s no LARPing, invented aristocracies, or grandiose titles, but men (and, as Jack slightly neglects, women) living with desperate sincerity.  Nor is there any pretense that they are actually Vikings or “jarls” of some glorious past – this is real paganism expressed through blood and ash in the here and now.

The group doesn’t seem to be for everyone, and pagan blood rituals, boxing, and a “barbarian” ethos is hardly going to appeal to the Orthosphere anytime soon.  But for all the talk about Archeofuturism, a new tribalism, or the European New Right’s return to paganism, there seem to be few other groups actually executing these ideas in the real world – even if some of the “Wolves” themselves are blithely unaware about the implications of what they are doing.  And more importantly, it’s something that can be done right now – without waiting for a “collapse,” or a metapolitical shift.

There’s no reason others cannot do this and history will not be made by the right wing version of the Culture of Critique.  Right now, there’s a banner raised in Vinland for those heathens looking to be a part of something bigger than themselves and who are worthy of it.

But there’s nothing keeping everyone else – young and old, Christian and atheist, rich and poor—from forming “tribes” of mutual support networks.  Even if you are just some dad in the suburbs, you can start tribalizing and building the mutual support network that will transform your life.  After all, the state has written off European-Americans and if we don’t take care of each other, no one else will.

The next Vinland saga is being forged right now – and when you die, you’re never going to say you didn’t read enough blogs.

Step forward.  Come forth.

Read the full article at Jack Donovan’s website here.

No Comments on Wolves Among the Ruins

Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

What marriage used to be was a community celebration, a way for families to ensure common bonds within a shared religious tradition and ensure the transfer of property, the security of women, and a healthy environment for children.  This is why marriage ceremonies still contain practices that infuriate feminists like the father “giving away” his daughter to her new husband.

“Spouses in happy marriages have affairs,” is the headline for Hanna Rosin’s newest masterpiece on Slate. In the midst of an adoring interview with one Esther Perel, we are assured that now that we all agree on the need to celebrate premarital sex, we also have to “reexamine monogamy,” as serious moral scholars like gay activist Dan Savage have urged.

Rosin is right, though not in the way she thinks. Marriage is already destroyed – and was destroyed long before “gay marriage.” A real marriage is a communal, tribal, and public commitment that joins two families and in essence, creates a new people that will form part of the larger folk community. Today, it’s just another greeting card word designed for individual self-gratification, as trivial as a fat celebrity’s drug overdose. Why pretend otherwise?

Born in Israel, Rosin made her reputation writing on “religious issues,” i.e. bashing white Christians.

One of her books is God’s Harvard, a predictable hit piece on Patrick Henry College. After sneering at how the goyim practically worshipped her because, in their words, she had the “blood of our Savior coursing through your veins,” she spends most of the book obsessing about the blond hair and blue eyes of the fearsome Christian stormtroopers campaigning for the GOP and fighting to save the country she unfortunately left as a child. Like most of these “conservatives in the mist” type stories, it tells us more about the paranoia and loathing the author feels for Americans than it does about the ostensible subject matter.

After the long, national nightmare of George W. Bush ended, Rosin skillfully moved on to the next social causes du jour, feminism, homosexuality and the ever multiplying varieties of sexual mental disorders, er, displays of individual courage and bravery against oppression. Part of her crusade was against the Bernstein Bears, recounting how the children’s book about talking bears caused her to “[throw] the book away in a fury” and how she reacted to the author’s death with “Good riddance.” This unstable woman achieved her magnum opus with the celebratory The End of Men, which noted that women were triumphing in the new economy, while men were simply being left behind.

What kind of man could be married to Rosin (who does not have her husband’s last name?) Well, this guy.

David Plotz

The beautiful irony here is that Rosin has ensured her job security at Slate by being married to this magnificent specimen of manhood, Slate editor David Plotz.

Thus ensconced in a high position as part of the Chattering Class, Rosin can inflict feminist talking points on Americans, all the while decrying oppression and honoring her own bravery. Of course, as someone married with children, she might not actually mean it – like racial diversity, this could be yet another example of something that the masses are supposed to endure, but not the SWPL elites. This week, she checked off the latest box on the feminist platform, encouraging infidelity.

Along with Perel (who has an accent that is a “combination of French and Israeli”), Rosin leads the reader on what the old Communist functionaries would call a “guided discussion” on marital fidelity. While not necessarily recommending an affair, Perel heaps scorn on the “imperfect arrangement” of marriage. She uses that wonderful culture of critique phrase “we have this idea that” in order to criticize marital spouses who think “our partner is our best friend, that there is one person who will fulfill all our needs!”

But of course, the reason we think that is because perfect emotional fulfillment and the dream of “love” is all that’s left. What marriage used to be was a community celebration, a way for families to ensure common bonds within a shared religious tradition and ensure the transfer of property, the security of women, and a healthy environment for children. This is why marriage ceremonies still contain practices that infuriate feminists like the father “giving away” his daughter to her new husband.

Marriage wasn’t a “choice” in the contemporary sense, like deciding what garbage food to have for lunch, what corporate brand to patronize, or what variation of egalitarian clichés you are going to embrace as your “spiritual life.” It was a serious lifetime commitment before God (or gods) who were worth worshipping and an entire community that you were a part of. Financial practices such as the dowry and the bride price were a part of this institution, with serious monetary consequences in the case of divorce. Violating that commitment through adultery was punished by community scorn as well as legal consequences. Now real consequences for adultery only live on under the Universal Code of Military Justice, which needless to say, leftists and feminists are also trying to abolish.

What really killed marriage was its transformation into a celebration of individual love and personal choice. Once it’s conceded that love is simply a question of opinion for the two people involved, how can one oppose liberalizing divorce laws? Love fades. Why not legalize interracial marriage? After all, the heart wants what it wants. And once, racial considerations are dismissed as irrelevant, as Slate reasonably asks, why not polygamy? In fact, why “privilege” this social construct known as the family at all? And of course, smoothly pivoting from arguments about why gay marriage is about “love,” the homosexual movement is now admitting that is their real position, logically enough. Get ready for a tenured parasite to lecture you about your “family privilege,” cisgender scum.

If everything is just a matter of choice, marriage becomes purely a contract (as Perel says). And since what a person “wants” can change so often, why tie yourself down at all?

Perel asks, “Why did infidelity continue to rise even when divorce became available and accepted and nonstigmatized? You would think an unhappy person would leave. So by definition they must not be that unhappy.” Well, no. Infidelity continued to rise because once marriage transitioned entirely to a lifestyle choice with the normalization of divorce, marriage became about satisfying feelings instead of building a family and contributing to the larger community. If divorce had consequences, both social and legal, infidelity would decline. Instead, people are allowed to have it both ways, provided they have a partner who is sufficiently beaten down that he or she can’t leave – or is afraid of losing all their possessions in a divorce settlement.

Perel herself, let it be said, practices what she preaches. She is a “couples therapy expert” who has a nominal husband and children in the midst of her speaking to TED seminars and the like. She crows, “For me, this is my fourth marriage with my husband and we have completely reorganized the structure of the relationship, the flavor, the complementarity.” What makes the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th contract renegotiation, er, “marriage,” so different from the one prior is left unsaid. And how any self-respecting man can continue with this farce is best left unexamined.

So why have an affair? Perel emphasizes this from a female perspective, even a political perspective. “Today, female infidelity is the biggest challenge to the male-dominated status quo.” Edgy, man. Affairs make people feel more “alive” and let women get away from having to take care of the kids and other non-sexy things. “This is the one thing I know I am not doing for anyone else. I am not taking care of anyone, this is for me.”

Or, as she puts it, “And all that is part of the feminist deliberation. I deserve this, I am entitled to this, I can have this! It allows people to finally pursue a desire to feel alive.” Keep in mind, this is not a parody by Roosh – this is in her own words.

Of course, none of this is actually new. All the pretentious rhetoric about the “next frontier” of egalitarian is actually the same old hypergamous evolutionary programming in action. In short, alpha fucks, beta bucks.

Every word of psychobabble, every feminist treatise, and the rant of every shrieking harpy on a college campus can be quickly summarized as, “As a woman, I should not suffer consequences for my sexual choices, nor be held accountable for any commitments I make. My feelings at the time are the most important consideration.” The end result of feminism is denying that woman are moral agents even capable of choice – like blacks, homosexuals, and illegal immigrants – they exist only as victims, moral mascots to be subsidized by kulak white males.

Not surprisingly, what can broadly be called the Red Pill subculture is reacting with scorn to the idea of marriage. Who can imagine dedicating his life to the likes of Perel, or even making the slightest commitment? Indeed, why would he even buy her a drink when all he needs to do is a recite a script and act dangerous enough such that she feels alive, and then ignore her texts? Most women may or may not deserve a good man – but certainly no feminist does.

The end result is that Perel is beating a dead horse. We are already living in her world, and unfortunately, there are still enough useful idiot beta males who are going along with it and subsidizing it. The smarter (or more cynical) males are dropping out entirely. But this is a retreat, rather than a solution.

What is needed is a new tribalism at every level. The current sexual climate has to be attacked at its core, not just with out of context Bible waving or moral stuffiness. Marriage should return as a tribal institution, something negotiated between families and communities. If marriage is to be reduced to a “contract,” let it be a contract of a more ancient form, complete with the return of dowries, bride prices, and prenuptial agreements negotiated by the patriarchs of the families. Such an arrangement is the only thing worthy of the word marriage, rather than the individualist farce which is taken less seriously than membership in a sorority.

Of course people will still cheat – both men and women. We might even be willing to accommodate this in some way with brothels or tolerated prostitution. But such practices should be seen as unrespectable and shameful. Degenerates who meet the market in human depravity are an unfortunate necessity. More importantly, to publicly disgrace a spouse or bring it into the family home should be regarded as a horrific act. Rather than the reforms favored by a Dan Savage, we should look at the marital reforms implemented by Caesar Augustus.

The alternative is to simply embrace the decadence, but feel free to give the likes of Perel what they really want. Men who want to take their chances in the modern climate are free to do so, but they should read the interview with Perel and gaze into the abyss.

As for the women who don’t want to return to a more honorable practice, they should be treated accordingly. They want temporary emotional satisfaction, momentary excitement, and no commitment. If they want to embrace sexual anarchy and simply burn it all down, better for men to oblige them than to try to save them from themselves. After all, it’s called Tinder for a reason.

No Comments on Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search