Much of who we are is decided before we are born.
We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.
Much of who we are is decided before we are born.
We spend the rest of our lives filling in the gaps. For some it’s easier than others; you fill the gaps in with family, church, heritage or in our deracinated age, brands. Fitting in is easier for some of us than others, but as long as we stick to the script, keep our heads down and recite “all men are created equal,” we do just fine as good Americans.
For White people, buying into American identity is easy. It’s the default setting; it’s your pre-packaged default. You’re not “White,” but American, and anyone can be an American as long as they recite the pledge of Allegiance, for then the only colors they’ll see are Red, White, and Blue. At least, that’s what so many White Americans are desperate to believe.
White America deludes itself so much that it’s hard to know where to begin untangling the multitude of delusions. It puts its faith in institutions that have long since devoted themselves to their dispossession. Yet they cling on , born ceaselessly into the past , ever more endangered of becoming it. So they while away the hours, identifying with trivia instead of trials. Nowhere is this more evident than White America’s, and especially White American Men’s, devotion to the National Football League (NFL) and other ubiquitous “sportsball” related enthusiasms.
Football, especially in its professional form, has come to be a crux of American identity, and more importantly, White identity. The NFL’s audience is 83 percent White and over 64 percent male, while Blacks make up more than 70 percent of its players. But players and fans alike all stand up before every game to sing the national anthem and take their oaths to America.
The America represented by the NFL is usually nothing more than a sterile shopping mall. Just a quick look at the last Super Bowl is more than enough to confirm this. But to many of its fans, it represents something more: it is an identity. One in which America isn’t divided by black or White, but by Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys , who still come together every week to reaffirm their “American” identity at the beginning of each game. To its White fans, professional football is the outward celebration of the American creed, that all people are created equal and that the American dream as enunciated by “Dr.” King has come to pass.
Many have likened the NFL to the gladiator games of ancient Rome.
In some ways that’s fair, but for White America their meaning is more than that. The average White American male probably identifies more with his favorite NFL team than he ever has his race, or even his religion or family. The NFL is an outward celebration of the America he’s been told to believe in. He worships the strength of others, because he’s been told that his own strength is evil. He cheers for others because he’s been told cheering for his people is “problematic” or “oppressive”. Finally, he worships and adores some rag tag team of convicts and thugs because it’s the only avenue for an identity he has.
We still spend Sundays in Church, only now the church comes in through our screens every Sunday night. And just as in Church, sacrilege and heresy will not be tolerated.
Colin Kaepernick was born to a mother that didn’t want him and a father he would never know.
He was adopted by a nice White Midwestern family from Wisconsin who lost two of their previous children. Kaepernick excelled at sports, achieving notoriety in baseball and American football. I’m sure his adopted parents were at almost every game, beaming with pride at how well their “son” was doing. In addition to his prowess on the field, Kaepernick was a “devoted Christian” who made numerous references to his “faith” and offered a mocha-shaded version of “Tebowing” after a touchdown, to Russell Moore’s delight no doubt.
Kaepernick has probably gone his whole life trying to “fit in” and figure out who he is. Lucky for him, his athletic ability fetches top dollar in today’s America, and being a pro-athlete, especially a Black or mulatto pro-athlete, is about as close to deification as we come in secular America. But I’m sure he never really fit in with his “family” or the doughy Midwestern identity they represent. Of course, it wasn’t the only card he was dealt.
Being a mulatto in America gives you a lot of options. Just ask Barack Obama.
Blackness has come to be the standard of masculinity and coolness in today’s America . Her sons grow up worshipping Black athleticism while her daughters grow up lusting for it. More than that, to be Black in America is to have a grievance, to be a victim. In the Current Year there is no more powerful moral narrative than that of the victim.
Despite being raised in White America, and achieving relative affluence, Kaepernick chooses to identify with lower class Blacks rather than the effete American elite or his slovenly White fans, who one surmises he despises. Like Barack Obama, or Roger “Too” White II in Tom Wolfe’s A Man In Full, Kaepernick has discovered the power of Blackness to shape narratives in today’s America.
When Kaepernick refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance he wasn’t rejecting America, but attempting to claim it. Already, the usual suspects in the press are going into overdrive to defend him, to wrap his actions up as his right as an “American.” We’re already hearing the comparisons to Muhammad Ali who has gone from a pariah to a patriot in just a few decades.
Sure, White America was shocked by Kaepernick. That’s because his refusal to salute the flag makes him take a pause from his Bud Light fueled soma-coma long enough to make him feel something. He feels an anger, though it’s misplaced. Conservative media are already crowing about how anti-American this is, or how ungrateful Kaepernick is to Our Great Country^tm.
The truth is, Kaepernick and others like him make these demands because they can. Because they have an identity made up of more than cheap beer and chicken wings. Kaepernick’s fiancée is a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, and a vehement Black nationalist. Also, if reports are to be believed, Kaepernick has renounced his feel-good Christianity in favor of Islam.
It’s useful to be in the rising tide of color.
Kaepernick was born as close to a blank slate as any liberal could hope for. He even got the all-American smiling happy family in the Midwest. But for him, it was not enough. The call of blood is stronger than any adopted bond. By embracing his Blackness, he has become more of who he is than he’s probably felt at any other time in his life. That’s why “losing endorsements” or other pecuniary repercussions do not matter to him as long as he has an identity.
White Americans are in many ways orphans themselves. America is one big foster home where they bounce from surrogate family to surrogate family, hoping to find the one that will take them in. The truth is, they either gave it up or were tricked into giving it up generations ago. Today they just grope and yawp for anything that reminds them of what they had, be it star spangled beer commercials or negro athletes decked out as Captain America.
White America is angry about Kaepernick.
But really he’s just ahead of the curve. He’s found his tribe, and it ain’t the San Fransisco 49ers, but something more real, something based on blood.
White Americans are willful orphans to their identity. It’s time for them to come home.
There are profound differences between men and women. From how we interact together and apart, to the very telos of who we are. In our egalitarian and “liberal” world, these…
There are profound differences between men and women. From how we interact together and apart, to the very telos of who we are. In our egalitarian and “liberal” world, these differences are glossed over and the logic of our system pushes us towards an ever encroaching bland, androgynous uniformity. The “sexual revolution” may be ongoing, but nature will reassert itself with a vengeance.
Fundamentally, men and women differ on the reproductive level. Not just in how children are conceived, but in our capacities to have children. Men produce thousands upon thousands of sperm in comparison to women’s production of eggs. This makes our reproduction strategies very different.
As outlined by F. Roger Devlin in his masterful work Sexual Utopia in Power, this creates different incentives for each sex. Amongst women, there is a drive to “hypergamy” or a striving to find the best mate for her children. Among men, a wide number of women with which to spread his legacy. While this is the biological imperative, our civilization has found ways to contain and express the masculine and feminine urges among our population.
For Europeans, the masculine and feminine have always had a complimentary role. At least ideally. Through monogamy, shaming, and other practices the ur-sexual drives of men and women were contained in order to build long-term “K-selected” reproductive strategies. One needs only look at places like Africa to see an unbounded human sexuality(coupled with a high time preference).
More than in just the scientific literature, sexual differences were incorporated into some of the very archetypes of European man’s myths. Take Helen and Penelope from the Illiad and the Odyssey respectively. Both represent extreme ends of European understanding of femininity.
Helen was the face that launched a thousand ships. She forsook her husband for another prince, Paris of Troy. A prime example of hypergamy. The punishment for such a breach was a war unlike any other. In part because Helen’s very act struck at the heart of what made civilization function.
Penelope, on the other hand, waited many long years for the return of her husband Odysseus from that very same war. Warding off legions of suitors, and maintaining the domestic economy, Penelope stood as an example of faithfulness and virtue.
Even among men, there are such differences as those of Aeneas of the Aeniad and Odysseus in the Odyssey. With Aeneas, building a new home for his defeated people, and Odysseus struggling to return to his. Both fight against nature, and the gods in order to establish or regain their own legacies and homes.
Aeneas even spurns the love of Carthaginian Queen Dido, who later sets herself on fire on his leaving. Hell hath no fury indeed.
Aeneas goes on to establish a new city, Rome. Which will later be the basis of the great Empire. In this, he expresses the primal masculine goal to leave a legacy and to have his name abound centuries after his own passing.
Odysseus strives against gods, monsters, and nature itself to return to his hearth fire and homeland. All the while still expressing the masculine urge to explore and wander.
Of course, these are just archetypes. But they illustrate the essential points Devlin hammered home about the nature of male and female sexuality and civilization. But our differences go much further than that.
Most young people socialized in our age know nothing, or next to nothing about interacting with the opposite sex. This is one of the reasons we see a plethora of blogs, magazines, and other products designed to tell us “what women really want”, or “how to pick up girls” in the case of men, or “how to land that high-status male” in the case of women. But, this is not the full picture either.
Women today are being encouraged in vast numbers to become “career women”. To forgo early marriage and childrearing, to focus on a career and to break the “glass ceiling”. Men, on the other hand, have started to lag behind and turn inwards. We see this reflected in a variety of ways. Whether it is the rather extreme margins of “Men Going their Own Way”(MGTOW) to the sort of “hikkomori” phenomenon we see in places like Japan(I’m sure a western equivalent is not too far behind).
Many “conservatives” like to complain about the sexual revolution. But their fundamental critiques are usually quite flawed. They like to complain about the “sexualization” of our media etc. In many cases imploring our young men to “man up”, but to what?
The rise in no-fault divorce and other legal ramifications of the sexual revolution have altered how many of our young people relate. An unbounded hypergamy among women and a decreasing chance for a stable family life for many young men have left many of our people adrift.
Indeed, we have seen a rise in “sex substitutes”, especially among our young men that has become a problem. These include pornography and almost anything else that keeps our young men from engaging with women. For the losers in the sexual marketplace, dropping out is usually more attractive than playing a rigged game.
What these trends are moving towards is not a “sexualized” society as many conservatives complain of. But, an increasingly de-sexualized and androgynous future. The feminist push towards careerism and barrenness is essentially an attempt to masculate women, even against their own will(as this latest female draft controversy shows us).
Guillaume Faye in his Sex and Deviance describes the feminist endgame:
Dogmatic Western feminism thus neglects the mere defense of women and their right to their bodily identity on the pretext of their ‘mastery’ of their bodies. It is a sort of ideological bath which aims to abolish feminine specificity. To masculinise women and feminise men, thus constructing the androgyn.
From our armed forces to grrl power television, to even our fashions we can see such a change. Just look at this movement’s current apotheosis, Hillary Clinton. Whose close-cropped hairstyle and pantsuits remind one more of a man than a matron.
The egalitarian, androgynous goals of feminists and others are of course a pipe dream. A Tower of Babel waiting to crumble. Throughout the world, we see the death of the “sexual revolution” just around the corner. Egalitarianism has run up against its own contradicitons.
We saw this in Rotherham, where concern about “racism” took precedence over reporting rape. Indeed, we see this all throughout Europe in cases of refugee rape. Instead, we are treated to an ongoing anarcho-tyranny about the “toxic masculinity” of western man.
In its essence, that was all UVa. and other such cases were all about.
Crying screams from a system in doubt. An aged bundle of contradictions that will not be able to understand, let alone cope with the storm on the horizon.
As identitarians, we should acknowledge and be aware of the differences between men and women, as they are fundamental parts of who we are. What the future will bring, if we fight for it, is an understanding of those archaic values that propelled our people from the fields of Troy to the Sea of Tranquility. Only by imbibing and thoroughly understanding our differences, and re-asserting our men as men and women as women will we be able to stand as a complimentary “erotic” whole of the European ethos.
Sources:
Faye, Guillaume. Sex and Deviance (p. 118). Arktos. Kindle Edition.
Devlin, F. Roger. Sexual Utopia in Power. Counter Currents Publishing. San Fransisco.
Black Friday is part of the dark void at the heart of contemporary America. Every year it seems the advertisements creep in earlier and earlier, and our “holidays” come to…
Black Friday is part of the dark void at the heart of contemporary America. Every year it seems the advertisements creep in earlier and earlier, and our “holidays” come to resemble more of an all-day advertising pitch than a day of rest and reflection.
When the struggles of our ancestors are reduced to trivialities, the trivial is all we are left with to “celebrate.” Celebration in contemporary America means consumption. Where our forefathers stopped to give thanks for a good harvest, survival in battle, or healthy progeny, today we take time to read the sale clippings for tomorrow’s next marvel of planned obsolescence. As you read this, many of our own relatives have been in line for hours or more just pawing to get inside the local Wal-Mart, Best Buy, shopping mall, or wherever.
Watching news clips at the early hours of every “Black Friday” is a morbid fascination for this author. As of this writing, in Long Island, one Wal-Mart worker has already been “trampled to death” by a “mob of wild shoppers.” It speaks volumes that this is an expected happening every year. It takes “dying for a bargain” to new heights.
Within all of the madness, there are saplings of resistance to this bland corporate affair that deserve our attention. The outdoor performance clothing store REI has started a campaign it calls #OptOutside. Its CEO’s statement includes,
We believe that being outside makes our lives better. And Black Friday is the perfect time to remind ourselves of this essential truth.
Of course what this most SWPL of retailers does not realize is how shockingly “White” such a statement is. One report quotes a local California State Park Superintendent who hopes that the REI campaign will “get people to see our parks.” As Steve Sailer observes, nature reserves are “safe spaces” for Europeans.
Enjoying the outdoors and reminding ourselves of our connection to the soil below our feet, the very soil our ancestors won and worked, is a noble goal. By taking a step outside, and a step away from the mall, you begin to see the world anew.
Away from the maddening crowds, rampant advertising, and media/retail debasement of traditions, one has time to think and, if you have a family, it is a time to bond. It’s through these first small acts of resistance that we begin to know ourselves and build our future. We certainly won’t build it through buying it.
By now, you’ve probably heard of the dozens of “White Student Unions” cropping up across Facebook. They’ve been garnering (mostly negative) attention throughout the media both in campus newspapers and…
By now, you’ve probably heard of the dozens of “White Student Unions” cropping up across Facebook. They’ve been garnering (mostly negative) attention throughout the media both in campus newspapers and elsewhere. Berkeley’s Daily Californian ran an article where the President of the UC Students’ association referred to such groups as a “slap in the face.”
Why is that? According to the UC Berkeley White Student Union statement of purpose, the group only wants to create “safe spaces” for those of European descent. It also affirms a commitment to “diversity,” saying such things as “we like all people, we just also like being white.” The website Medium ran an article referring to these groups as ‘trolls’ and nothing more than racist propaganda.
This begs the question, do we as Europeans have a right to assemble for our own interests? The media/academic complex seems to answer with a resounding “no.” Trolls or not, these groups serve an important purpose and that is to deconstruct the language of “diversity” and “tolerance” and reveal the inherent will to power behind them, and expose the decades long use of such language in the dispossession of our people from our historical institutions.
In a way, what we are seeing is a form of identitarian situationism, which uses such acts to deconstruct and accelerate the consciousness of our people. Like the neverending “meme wars” on twitter and throughout the Internet, such acts raise the contradictions inherent in our opponent’s discourse and serve to consolidate our own identities against those of our political opponents.
Even such mundane acts as reporting FBI crime statistics have become revolutionary acts, as Donald Trump is learning. The more we push back and use the reigning liberal hegemony’s grammar against it, the more it’s foundational myths are undermined; in today’s world of rapid information sharing, such acts can awaken more of our people than ever before.
However, these are only first steps to realizing who we are as a people. By defining what we are not and pushing back against those who would say we have no identity or right to organize for our own interests, we begin to become who we are and will need to be.
You’re not waiting on a dystopia, you are living in one. Our postmodern landscape, with its hegemonic liberalism and endless advertising, dulls the senses to this fact. Young children and…
You’re not waiting on a dystopia, you are living in one. Our postmodern landscape, with its hegemonic liberalism and endless advertising, dulls the senses to this fact. Young children and teens are spending up to nine hours a day in front of screens. By abrogating their responsibilities to what are essentially plug-ins to the system, many of today’s parents ensure their children’s baptism into the bankrupt religion of our time.
More telling, though, is a recently published report on the mortality rate of middle aged White Americans. From the authors:
Between 1978 to 1998, the mortality rate for U.S. whites aged 45 to 54 fell by 2 percent per year on average, which matched the average rate of decline in the six countries shown, and the average over all other industrialized countries. After 1998, other rich countries’ mortality rates continued to decline by 2 percent a year. In contrast, U.S. white non-Hispanic mortality rose by half a percent a year. No other rich country saw a similar turnaround.
This is the Baby Boom generation and beyond. For most of our younger readers, these are our parents. What used to be Cheeveresque tales of depression and disgust amidst plenty has moved on to full on despair about where they—and by necessity we—are heading. The reason for the spike in mortality is explained by greater drug and alcohol use, which is correlated with high rates of depression.
Having given up a prosperous and more or less homogenous society, our elders have sunk into the somas of a melancholic sleep rather than confront who they are. Agnus Deaton, one of the study’s co-authors argues, “Half a million people are dead who should not be dead. . . . [Y]ou’re getting up there with HIV-AIDS”. But this isn’t some malevolent conspiracy against us, it’s what we are doing to ourselves, which makes it all the more ominous.
You can rail against dark conspiracies, and, indeed, our enemies are many and enmeshed in the culture, cubical, media swamp that is out there, but our own demons are far darker. Meanwhile non-White mortality rates are falling; that’s because, as it stands now, the future belongs to them. Our dystopia is their utopia.
There is another way though. We do not have to accept the systematic disinheritance of our people as a given. As Richard has spoken of before, we have to become who we are in order to face the monsters we are in danger of becoming. The world we inhabit is not inevitable; it is the end result of thoughts and deeds, and it is through thoughts and deeds that we can rise above it.
Just seeing the energy pulsate through the room at NPI’s “Become Who We Are” conference heartens this author that we can win, and that despair need not win out. Because while the last generation has given itself up to vices, silence, and silent tragedy, we can seize the moment and the time. A when we do, tomorrow will belong to us!
What Turner documents is not just a ‘displacement’ of Britain’s indigenous population by foreigners, but, more important, its debasement of those, who have inherited the land and cultural institutions of their ancestors. Martin walks like a man on a tightrope between the void of today’s West and the transcendence of participating in true art.
It’s an oft-repeated cliché among the so-called alternative Right to say that while Britain once ruled a third of the globe, today it barely controls the streets of London. Those hit the hardest by Britain’s transformation (or, more accurately, deformation) is the working class—once the backbone of British industry and patriotism. Today, fed on the twin somas of sports and what little popular culture has to offer, the working class languishes in a post-industrial dystopia.
Derek Turner’s novella Displacement is a portrait of this Britain—a Britain of displaced workers, alienated elites, and a growing non-native population. It takes place alongside other social novels in the history of the British isles from Disraeli and Dickens to Orwell. But what separates Displacement from many works in this tradition is its non-didactic and honest portrayal of those whom it depicts.
Displacement’s protagonist, Martin Hacklitt, is the forgotten man of today’s Britain—an intelligent youth of poetic disposition, who finds his release from the drudgery and baseness of everyday life through practicing parkour in the streets of London. Parkour, or free running, is a sport that attempts to replicate natural obstacles. Using tall buildings, walls, and other bits of today’s urban jungle, its participants seek to bend their bodies to the world around them and find a sense of liberation from their banal lives below. At least this is how those ‘French books’ Martin reads on the subject describe it.
Martin, a quintessential Englishman, balks at the heady prose and philosophizing of the French parkour books he reads, and sees in it a way to keep fit. Outside parkour along with his poetry, Martin’s other main concern is his love for his on-and-off-again girlfriend Kate. They began dating in high school, where Martin stood up for himself to a gang of bullies. However, by the time of the events described in the novella, the two had grown apart.
Martin is eventually given celebrity status by a chance photograph depicting him performing parkour acts, with the tabloids referring to him as the ‘London leaper’. Who he is quickly takes on an ideological dimension, with left-wing presses seeing in him some exotic, rogue outsider, whereas the conservative media describe him as an enemy to public order.
Kate, recognizing Martin from pictures in the tabloids, contacts him and hopes to set up an interview with a posh, that is, upper class, journalist. Kate’s swift return to Martin—learning of his his celebrity status—will have most Radix readers instantly reminded of hypergamy and the work of F. Roger Devlin, as it should. One of the strengths of Displacement is its chilly realism. Indeed, nowhere is that more apparent than here. For instance, Martin’s inner monologue upon meeting Kate again after a long lull is reminiscent of many one would find in the sort of true-life ‘beta’ stories in the so-called ‘manosphere’:
“Martin tries to take her hand and she withdraws it, but not abruptly. He will try again soon. It feels weird not touching her when she is so close. They always touched, held. But if she feels the same she is disguising it well. She looks so poised, he marvels, yet the speed with which she has rattled out her news shows she’s nervous. As so often over the intervening three-and-a-quarter years, he wonders how many boyfriends she’s had, and hates them all. But he cannot ask her that yet.”
Many readers, especially young men, will recognize some of the same thoughts that have gone through their minds in the context of today’s feminized and deracinated society. But Kate is no villain—merely misguided and far too drawn by the pull of our age. Turner holds his vitriol for the real antagonist of the story—the liberal journalist Seb.
Seb seeks to write a story on the London leaper. For him, journeying to working-class Deptford is akin to traveling to an exotic Caribbean island. He is constantly taken aback by the boorish behavior of Martin’s football-hooligan brother and his staunch old-Labour, old-Britain father, who is constantly trying to hijack Seb’s interview. In addition, he is attracted to Kate and hopes to use this project to get closer to her.
However, when the story is published, it is more or less a hatchet job. Martin’s working-class background is viewed through the gaze of contempt by Britain’s ‘Guardianista’ cultural class. To Seb, the final version of the article was not meant to be this stereotyped, and, exasperated, he tries to excuse his less-than-positive story on Martin’s roots to Kate:
“I knew it! I knew it didn’t do you justice – I mean that it didn’t do Martin justice. But I only had very limited space. You know how it works!”
Indeed, this language should sound quite familiar. One only has to look at Jared Taylor’s recent run-in with the New Yorker to find another journalist, who hoped that he captured his ‘complex subject’.
Seb eventually attempts to buy off Martin’s loyalty by inviting him to edit a volume of Postmodernist poetry, the theme of which is outsider work edited by outsiders. In doing this, Martin is unwittingly making a deal with the devil, compromising who he is to be taken in by the cultural establishment that rules Britain and, indeed, the entire West. His football-hooligan brother says it best:
“Funny, ain’t it really – by having these published all you poetry plonkers become insiders, don’t you?”
Martin’s brother hits the nail on the head for many bright, poor whites, who go on to be educated at Oxford and Cambridge in the U.K., or the Ivy League schools in the U.S., or who achieve some status of cultural distinction by the current ‘Apes of God’, as Wyndham Lewis called the modern cultural classes.
What Turner documents is not just a ‘displacement’ of Britain’s indigenous population by foreigners, but, more important, its debasement of those, who have inherited the land and cultural institutions of their ancestors. Martin walks like a man on a tightrope between the void of today’s West and the transcendence of participating in true art.
In the end, we see him compromised, but through his portrait, we also note an all-too-familiar tale of what happens to bright young boys from traditional working class today. Displacement gives those of us, who self-describe as Identitarian and thus find ourselves in the political fringes, a moving literary look into the heart of our forgotten people.
Read also: “Mad Men:” The Dispossessed Elite on TV, by Roman Bernard Is there anything more debased than a dying aristocracy? In last night’s Democratic debate we saw the decline…
Read also: “Mad Men:” The Dispossessed Elite on TV, by Roman Bernard
Is there anything more debased than a dying aristocracy? In last night’s Democratic debate we saw the decline of the late American WASP as represented in one man, Lincoln Chafee. Scion of one of Rhode Island’s first families, and Ivy League educated, Chafee boasts the pedigree of America’s dying rulers.
In him we see the worst traits of the former Anglo-American elite in full force. An identification with “The Other” that goes from praising Hugo Chavez to a strange proposal to switching to the metric system as a “symbolic” gesture to the world. Chafee’s obsession with “fair play” goes to the point of masochism, as we saw in his pathetic attempt to explain his voting record and his constant crowing about his “high ethical standards.” While the old WASP virtues of “fair play,” “tolerance,” and “open mindedness” are fine in moderation (and in an homogenous, high-trust society), they are a mere epitaph in the America the WASPs helped give away.
Chafee seems to have taken every advantage in his life and squandered it. As a young man, he turned his back on his privilege to become a horse farrier in Canada. As a governor, he chose not to run for reelection at the first signs he was growing unpopular. Like his class as a whole, Chafee took the family silver and exchanged it for fool’s gold.
“I think that was a bit rough,” was Mr. Chafee’s attempted defense of some past vote. What those words really are is the last gasp of a dying breed, which goes out not in tragedy but in farce.
America’s dying ruling class is becoming who they decided to be, and that is Lincoln Davenport Chafee, a punch line writ large.
Thousands of young, mostly White, men and women descended upon a hotel in Baltimore a few weeks ago. They went seeking an expression of who they are, and to unite in the real world, rather than remaining online, where many had met and started to organize.
No, these young people were not identitarians; they were “bronies.”
Thousands of young, mostly White, men and women descended upon a hotel in Baltimore a few weeks ago. They went seeking an expression of who they are, and to unite in the real world, rather than remaining online, where many had met and started to organize.
No, these young people were not identitarians; they were bronies.
Bronies, that oh so millennial phenomenon, of young men who watch and seem to find meaning in a young girl’s television show, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. This is but the latest in the market-driven choose-your-own-adventure narrative many young Whites engage in. Bronies are a more extreme, or maybe just more eccentric, version of a widespread consumer behavior. From Dallas Cowboys fans to Apple fanboys to partisans of the Marvel comic-book movies, almost every American engages in some kind of tribal brand loyalty.
But for Whites, especially millennials, choices made in the market have come to define their very being in a way their immediate ancestors would have found perplexing. Take, for examples, the incessant debates of Star Wars vs. Star Trek, or the almost religious devotion to the Harry Potter series, and we begin to see a pattern.
For many of our youth, especially our young men, identity has nothing to do with family, friends, or even nation, but consumption. To the Marxists, this is a sign of “false consciousness,” which subdues and re-channels natural class loyalties, especially amongst the working class, towards frivolities that act as both opiates and profit-making schemes for an oligarchical ruling elite. A classical Marxist reading of our era in this sense would be half right, for the real “false consciousness” is how market mechanisms are used to sublimate the identities of young Whites away from their ethnicity and towards manufactured consumer identities.
Of course, the drive to see one’s identity reflected through consumption is part and parcel of the egalitarian ethic that rules our age. At least amongst Whites, from SWPLs to rednecks, we find a consumption-driven identity that is made possible by the near constant marketing of products as not just utilitarian in nature but as “lifestyle” choices. In this way, what we consume becomes bound to who we think we are, and the prevalence of social media only encourages this, with every man turning into his own marketer.
The leveling mechanisms of the market have been long known to the dissident right. Sam Francis, in a 1991 address “Equality As a Political Weapon,” noted this phenomenon amongst the corporate wing of the ruling elite:
But equality is no less useful for large corporations, which require a nationally homogenized market of consumers that can be manipulated into buying their products and which find abhorrent and dysfunctional the persistence of local variations in their markets caused by smaller, localized competitors or class, ethnic and regional diversities of taste and demand.
That being said, what we see marketed to young Whites in many ways is different than how our system markets to others. From popular entertainment to various products, young minorities are encouraged to “embrace themselves”—so long as that means being a good consumer. But even this de-fanged identity is more than that is allowed for us in the public space.
Becoming who we are will inevitably mean rejecting who the system tells us to be.
Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search
