Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Vincent Law

The Conservative Julian

This is a startling story because it raises many parallels with the situation that we find in America. The old religion is dying; the idea of a liberal, democratic, and prosperous society built upon the premise of the American Dream has disappeared.

From 361 to 363 AD, Rome was ruled by emperor Julian. If you know your Roman history, at the time, Rome had already converted to Christianity with the Emperor Constantine, who had accepted Christianity on his deathbed. When Julian came to power, he brought with him an agenda of reforms that would restore the greatness of the Roman empire. In his mind, it only made sense to start with political and religious reforms. He blamed Christianity for the state of the Roman empire and he also blamed Constantine for the state of the administration and for having abandoned the traditions of the past.

“He restored pagan temples which had been confiscated since Constantine’s time, or simply appropriated by wealthy citizens; he repealed the stipends that Constantine had awarded to Christian bishops, and removed their other privileges, including a right to be consulted on appointments and to act as private courts… On 4 February 362, Julian promulgated an edict to guarantee freedom of religion. This edict proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, and that the Roman Empire had to return to its original religious eclecticism, according to which the Roman state did not impose any religion on its provinces. Practically however, it had as its purpose the restoration of paganism at the expense of Christianity.”

To his surprise however, he failed spectacularly in his efforts, all the more so considering that Christianity was not yet the predominant religion of the empire, rather still another sect among many. The pagan temples were simply already empty, abandoned or under new ownership by Christians who had simply moved in. To paraphrase the great authority on Rome, Edward Gibbon:

“Julian’s attempt to bring about a new form of paganism fostered a central pagan religion with the very virtues that he opposed in Christianity. For example, Julian attempted to introduce a tighter organization for the priesthood, with greater qualifications of character and service. Likewise, Julian’s persecution of Christians, who by pagan standards were simply part of a different cult, was quite an un-pagan attitude that transformed paganism into a religion that accepted only one form of religious experience while excluding all others–such as Christianity. In trying to compete with Christianity, Julian fundamentally changed the nature of pagan worship. That is, paganism became a religion, whereas it once had been only a system of tradition.”

This is a startling story because it raises many parallels with the situation that we find in America. The old religion is dying; the idea of a liberal, democratic, and prosperous society built upon the premise of the American Dream has disappeared. Americans more and more, wistfully look at the past with its assurances of a stable job with benefits, a loyal and feminine wife, and an assurance that future generations will have it better than you. Unfortunately, things are deteriorating, and have been for a while. Occasionally we get a pep talk from the Emperor-in-Chief about how we will revive the middle-class and restore American values back to their proper place on the bow of the HMS Progress. Jobs will come back and with them, the white picket fences will pop back up. Illegal immigration will be resolved, Ebola contained, race issues in America cordially concluded once and for all. We may as well be promised that women will no longer be taught to be empowered sluts, and frustrated beta males will be able to find wives again.

The truth of the matter, however, is that the genie is out of the box, pandora’s box opened and the toxic sludge of equalism with all its attendant derivatives (feminism, historical revisionism, racial self-abasement) continues to ooze out. It wont stop, and the old traditions won’t come back, even if a sympathetic emperor were to try and stem the tide. The nostalgia is not strong enough, the churches are empty, and the new visionaries continue to chant “progress” over a cacophony of equalist cant that drowns out the old truisms and traditions and labels them heretical.

Feebly clinging to the moderate ideologies of the last several decades is a sure way of ending up like Julian’s pagans. Turning the clock back 10, 20, maybe 50 years is a sure-fire way to get right back to where you started, as Julian found out. Reaction is not about trying to stave off “progress,” consigning oneself to fighting a rear-guard action against the forces of “reform” as they nip at the heels of a disorderly and retreating army. Conservatism in this sense is just a reaction to whatever current trend of progressivism happens to be most prevalent in a given society at the time. What good is it then to constantly dig one’s heels in, knowing that eventually and assuredly, the enemy will continue to press the advance and retreat will be inevitable? Conservatism is little more than a knee-jerk reaction and hardly an alternative at all. Don’t believe me? Trace the development of modern day conservatism and you’ll see a clear trajectory leftward and downward.

No Comments on The Conservative Julian

The Dogma of Free Trade

We are told that International Trade raises all boats. Hecksler and Ohlin, Ricardo, and even Krugman with his theory of monopolistic competition, all make an argument for the benefits of free trade.

We are told that International Trade raises all boats. Hecksler and Ohlin, Ricardo, and even Krugman with his theory of monopolistic competition, all make an argument for the benefits of free trade.

Of the many assumptions that these theorems hold, one of them that remains fairly consistent is the realization that certain sectors will be helped and others hurt by free trade. If your country is relatively abundant in a factor, according to H-O, you will focus on the abundant factor and will increase wages and employment in that sector to the detriment of the less abundant sector. (Read, white collar services vs. manufacturing.) Or as Ricardo puts it, there will be a comparative advantage in production of one good versus another and the country in question will focus on producing that one good. But what happens if you no longer produce goods in one sector that used to employ millions of your citizens?

Occasionally, the elites who teach the budding elites-to-be these “truths” will mention that something has to be done about the collapse of entire sectors and the re-allocation of wealth to another sector. In the United States, where high-skill work and services are the beneficiaries of trade liberalization it is not easy to see who would be its most vocal proponents.

What is a society supposed to do about all the old blue-collar workers? The question is indeed occasionally raised within the classrooms of the elite universities in the West. Invariably, the answer is this: they must be re-educated and acquire skills that are necessary in the new free trade economy. Nonwithstanding the difficulties of re-educating middle-aged and older generations of workers, and assuming that this can indeed be done on a mass scale, who will pay for the re-education?

Here’s the thought process:

A: Why, the government of course.
Q: And who will support them while they are being re-educated?
A: The government must step in, of course.
Q: Won’t this all cost money?
A: Yes, but the government will pay for it.
Q: Using the benefits accrued from engaging in international trade in the first place?
A: Now you’re getting it!
Q: Won’t someone have to be taxed or some wealth redistributed then?
A: No, no, no, we don’t want to tax the job creators out of the country!
Q: …So who will pay for all these unemployment benefits, and re-education programs?
A: Why not just borrow some money now and hope that it gets better down the road!

The entire free trade theory willingly recognizes that there will be winners and losers. But the net benefits we are told, will clearly outweigh any costs. But the costs are there, and often times will not be counted as easily as units of coal exported and units of cheap chinese junk imported. Unemployment leads to depression, destruction of the nuclear family unit, mass relocation, ghost cities, and disproportionate strain on different sectors of our society.
And only the elites and (the token scholarship minority) who get the top tier education can get their foot in the door of the lucrative booming “services” sector of the economy (read: consulting, finance.) It is precisely these folks who are told all throughout school that international trade is GREAT, outsourcing is SUPER, and that a rising tide lifts all boats. “By engaging in international trade we are actually helping all the brown peoples of the world!” – In case you had any doubts that altruism lay at the heart of the trade liberalization trend. Perhaps one of the most interesting paradoxes of the ruling liberal intelligentsia is their complete lack of empathy for their own kind, and their bleeding heart tendency to identify with just about every other culture that isn’t White. Their hatred for “the fly-over states,” the “red-necks,” their fellow, less well-off and more socially conservative Whites is a strange phenomenon and one worth delving into in another post.

But the fact that the educated classes of these less well-off countries who engage in free trade tend to lose out at the expense of relatively modest gains among the abundant sectors (almost always low-skilled labor) tends to be blotted out. This is a well known truth, first widely mentioned in the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, (a widely known and academically accepted theorem, part of the Hecksler-Ohlin Model) so why is it not mentioned more? (While the gap between rich and poor gets smaller worldwide, it is partly because many of the middle class get squeezed out of their non-efficient non-abundant sector jobs, while the vast underclass gets a small increase in living standards from opening up entirely to trade.) Perhaps because it doesn’t fit in with the convenient vision laid out by the proponents of free-trade.
And the numbers should alarm you, economist Alan Blinder (who by no means is anti-free trade or outsourcing) estimates that somewhere between 22% and 29% of all U.S. jobs are or will be potentially offshorable with in a decade or two…Which begs the question: what is the end goal then, what will this veritable end-game garden of Eden that we are barreling full speed towards, look like?

I would venture to say that it would look something like this; rich enclaves of white collar workers who’s stock’s soared with the increase in international trade and its attendant drop in short term costs for companies in the way of wages, benefits and environmental standards.
…And an ocean of ghettos surrounding the gated compounds of the lucky elites who made it, with the lower class living on the government dole until one of their kids is lucky enough to make it into a top twenty school and go off to Wall St. and work to pay off those federal loans that they were so fortunate to receive. Just a guess.

But I have some news for you. Are you White, middle-class, with both your parents still together, and no disabilities or cherokee blood to speak of? Well, congratulations then! You are somehow privileged and therefore you will be the recipient of the least amount of financial aid of any other group of students in the United States. State school is the only viable option for you, and you will constantly be told by the same class that sold the future of the middle-class down the river, that you are in some way responsible for the colonial history of your country and that you are inherently an oppressor who needs to check his privilege…

There is only one privileged class in this country and it is the class that “makes it” to the top-tier universities and then to one of the sectors that hasn’t been absolutely gutted by proponents of “the free market is always right” cult of economics. If you have the smarts and play by the rules, they’ll let you into their club, just always remember to toe the party line.

No Comments on The Dogma of Free Trade

Mugged by White Guilt

This article has everything stereotypically associated with the Liberal Intelligentsia of the West in it. And it should make everyone reading this stop and shudder because these indoctrinated leftist clowns are graduating from school soon, and coming to a workplace near you.

Original version published at Atavistic Intelligentsia

If you haven’t heard of this story, I present it to you with little fanfare.

This article has everything stereotypically associated with the Liberal Intelligentsia of the West in it. And it should make everyone reading this stop and shudder because these indoctrinated leftist clowns are graduating from school soon, and coming to a workplace near you. Here’s some juicy exerts:

Example 1: White Guilt

The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.

Funny enough, he seems to make a case for “the white man’s burden” in 21st century neo-liberal terms. Basically, “black people need our help because whites hold all the power, and until whites do something to help blacks, nothing will change.” Of course, formally, SJWs would shudder at the thought of this neo-colonial mindset, and yet here it is, spelled out in black and white..

Example 2: Refusing to Account for Personal Responsibility

Young people who willingly or unwillingly go down this road have been dealt a bad hand. While speaking with a D.C. police officer after the incident, he explained that he too had come from difficult circumstances, and yet had made the decision not to get involved in crime. This is a very fair point — we all make decisions. Yet I’ve never had to decide whether or not to steal from people. We’re all capable of good and bad, but it’s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.

What makes this funnier, is that talking with the DC police officer (I’m going to roll the dice and guess that he’s black), he gets told that socio-economic factors are not enough to remove the agency of choice or willingness to commit violent crime. But of course, the young SJW just brushes it off and blames it on “the system.” Which brings us to example 3…

Example 3: “Its the system, maaaan”

When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we can’t be surprised when we’re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.

A lot of Ivy League and top-tier university kids DO get a leg-up in life. And when they graduate, they will belong to the ruling class of this country and are the liberal left leaning intellectuals that are increasingly becoming a “Liberal Samizdat” in front of which we have to clap harder and harder to not be labeled “homophobes, racists, and sexists.” Even if the parents of these kids are rich conservatives, college will make sure that their children will end up like the mugged student: shrieking termagants begging for annihilation from the Uruk-hai.

Rush Limbaugh picked up on the story and chimes in: (Disclaimer: I’m actually not a big fan of Rush, but he’s spot on here)

Is this not pathetic? This is little glimpse here into the minds of our indoctrinated youth. You know, it used to be said that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Now, if you want to mug a liberal, you go right ahead because the correct reaction is love for the mugger, understanding of the economic plight of the mugger.

One has to wonder if the Christian ideals of turning the other cheek have not finally reached saturation point, and now permeate the consciousness of the millennial generation. If this is true, the irony is that most millenials reject Christianity for being too barbaric and backward, without realizing that as a generation they represent the culmination of thousands of years of Christian teaching in the West.

Whatever is going on, it is incredible. It seems that even an encounter with near death is not enough to change the belief of this SJW. Such fanaticism is usually reserved only for the extremist sects of most religions, and yet here we find it as well, only in its secular form. This leads us to conclude that progressivism is itself a cult, dedicated to its own message, divorced from reality and dependent on faith alone, with its own strange rituals and initiations that one must go through to join the church.

There is a ray of light in all of this I suppose. The feminists on campus decried the article on the grounds that it was “victim blaming.” (Unfortunately many comments were removed, but not before your humble narrator picked out the juiciest ones.) Deconstructing their logic is a difficult task to be sure, but I surmise that they realized the following: a woman placed in that situation should not be blamed, so I guess we can’t blame this male who got mugged either. Although they then continued to agree that the fact that we are all white and privileged is a problem, and that systematized racism was the culprit behind the mugging. I guess both parties, the mugger and the muggee were the victims. Well there you go, liberal double-think at its finest…and they said 1984 was a work of fiction.

No Comments on Mugged by White Guilt

Marcuse’s Blue Pill

The fundamental point that Marcuse raises is the idea of surplus repression. The fundamental premise is that civilization with its traditions and its competition based performance principle repress man and require more and more work from him despite the fact that we could all readily live lives of far greater leisure. Furthermore, man is now alienated from the product of his labor and does not take joy in the production of say a 1000 ipods as much as he would the production of one spear with which he could hunt for food.

Originally published at Atavistic Intelligentsia

If ever there was a writer that took up the cause of cultural Marxism and brought it to the forefront of popular culture it was Herbert Marcuse and his groundbreaking book, Eros and Civilization. Having just read it and written a midterm paper on it myself, I can tell you with all honesty that it is one of the most intentionally confusing, obscure and meandering books that I have ever come across. Its Marxist undertones however are readily apparent, even to the disinterested reader. Having read the book, I would venture to call the author, Marcuse, the father of the blue-pill. In it, while rambling on about Freudian pseudo-analysis of man’s true sexual nature, Marcuse advocates the overthrow of 50’s era Western society, along psycho-analytic grounds.

The fundamental point that Marcuse raises is the idea of surplus repression. The fundamental premise is that civilization with its traditions and its competition based performance principle repress man and require more and more work from him despite the fact that we could all readily live lives of far greater leisure. Furthermore, man is now alienated from the product of his labor and does not take joy in the production of say a 1000 ipods as much as he would the production of one spear with which he could hunt for food. Civilization acts as a source of surplus repression that denies man the expression of one of his most basic drives, the Eros or love drive. According to this theory, man tries to reach out and connect to the entire world, to expand himself and by doing so engage in erotic love, or love of a non-sexual nature. Making friends, building communities, when not motivated by the performance principle are all examples of Eros or non-genital love. The kind of work that society makes us engage in however, is non erotically charged, but repressive and makes us all deeply unhappy.

Ok, pretty basic Freud stuff so far, whats next?

Marcuse makes the claim that genital intimacy has been elevated above all other forms of sexual intimacy; apparently we used to possess as children what Marcuse calls pre-genital polymorphous perversity in which we love without focusing on genital heterosexual release as a primary goal.

Marcuse’s vision:

No longer used as a full-time instrument of labour, the body would be re-sexualised… (which) would first manifest itself in a reactivation of all erotogenic zones and, consequently, in a resurgence of pre-genital polymorphous sexuality and in a decline of genital supremacy. The body in its entirety would become an object of cathexis, a thing to be enjoyed – an instrument of pleasure. This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organised, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

Did you catch the last bit? The executive summary:

“Intentionally grandiose language and theorizing to drive home the final point about how the monogamic and patriarchal family is repressive. Didn’t quite follow the logic? Don’t worry, that’s the point, but at least you’re convinced that some sophisticated thought processes went on to arrive at the final point that the nuclear family unit is bad. ”

Wasn’t this the guy that coined the phrase, “drugs, sex and rock and roll?” Keep in mind that the work of men like Marcuse, Frankfurt school acolytes in general, formed the intellectual groundwork of the entire 60’s counter-culture movement. His platform was a promise of a utopia of sex on demand and every single perversity of every single individual fulfilled on the grounds of it being grounded in their childlike innocence. True red-pillers know that all the betas marching around in berets were the first to lose out on the sexual bonanza promised by the “sexual revolution” as they found out that, much to their horror, women’s unrestrained sexual nature is hypergamous, and beta boy waving the hammer and sickle was the first victim of the laissez-faire sexual marketplace. God has a sense of humor I suppose.

With Marcuse, tradition, with its guiding structures and underlying understanding of objective truth is seen as something repressive and worth overthrowing. But feeling, and exploration of our animal curiosities is the key to our happiness as individuals and as a society. Somehow this repudiation of society built on humanity’s development of a super-ego, through a Great Refusal, as Marcuse puts it, will suddenly return us to animals/children romping around free to engage in polymorphous perversity whenever we please, oh yeah, and we’ll get to keep all the benefits of industrial civilization as well.

Truth, however incomprehensible it may be to us, should be the true motivator of society, and even if it isn’t, it will always rear its ugly/blessed head and remind us that social projects are by their very nature attempts to defy human nature. I hesitate to say more about Marcuse, except to mention that this was the popular voice of the 60s calling for overthrow of patriarchy, black revolt, and discarding of traditional values, all in the favor of something called the pleasure principle, the idea that humans live to experience erotic pleasure and that any digression from this pursuit is damaging and to be avoided at all costs. Take that as you will. Personally the conflation of these disparate ideas seem to be a logical leap at best, but keep in mind that logical, systematized theory was never the modus operandi of Marcuse’s work. His was an emotional appeal, riding the populist indignation of worker exploitation to market completely disparate, unrelated and toxic ideals to upper-middle class white folks living in a baby boomer utopia and fundamentally divorced from reality.

The appeal to the counter-culture youth worked, and now we wonder why university students are the chubby-cheeked herbivores who march around in guy fawkes masks shrilly chanting “we r legiun, end raep cultur NAW!!!” If you ask me, guys like Marcuse had a lot to do with it. But I believe we may be nearing a tipping point, enough of us are waking up, and maybe it is high time for a counter-culture movement of our own.

No Comments on Marcuse’s Blue Pill

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