Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Category: Uncategorized

That’s Ms. Potato Head To You

The transsexual is, for theoretical purposes,  the ultimate consumer. The transsexual proves, or seems to prove, that even the most basic aspects of human identity are up for sale. Everything is a consumer choice, and nothing is sacrosanct. If Mr. Potato Head wants to become Mrs. Potato Head, he merely purchases the Mrs. Potato Head’s Silly Suitcase package and trades out his plain eyes for a pair with flirty eyelashes.

Transsexuality, Transhumanism, Transcendence, and Ecstatic Rites of Highly Conspicuous Consumerism

The New York Magazine profile on transsexual tycoon Martine Rothblatt opened with a photograph of him sitting smugly in his all-electric Tesla Roadster.

His interviewer presented him as a being who has transcended all gender roles and stereotypes, but it’s really not so shocking that a bright young Jewish boy became a lawyer, or a successful businessman, or bought a sports car, or learned how to fly a helicopter, or became obsessed with technology or science fantasy. Actually, I used to hang out with a Jewish college student whose dream was to help finance the first manned mission to Mars. Without the body mods and eccentric pronouns, Rothblatt is another Zuckerberg, or another Kurzweil, who is one of his good friends.

Like gays before them, when appealing to the general public, the transgendered generally engage in a maudlin pantomime of being victimized. Canadian transgendered activist Christin Scarlett Milloy, for instance, wrote a description of a baby’s sex being identified in the hospital that read like a dystopian horror story.

“Just because an infant may survive being left alone in a car on a hot day, while the parent runs to the store, doesn’t mean that parent made the right decision—in fact, they made a dangerous decision and just got lucky with the outcome.

Is it better to play the odds, or play it safe? Think carefully. Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby’s life.”

Rothblatt published a manifesto applying the narrative of racial segregation and oppression to his own desire to become a lesbian, titled The Apartheid of Sex.  

But there’s another side to many transsexuals, especially high-functioning transsexuals.

They also think they’re better than you.

They believe they are the future, and you are the past.

When asked by an OK Cupid user, “So do you have a penis? Or like what exactly are u?,” Milloy responded, “I’m your worst nightmare.” Milloy was so proud of this response that he saved a screen capture from his cell phone and posted it to his public Facebook page.

With a subtlety more appropriate to his superior station, Rothblatt hinted to interviewer Lisa Miller that “the naysayers and skeptics might be left behind to suffer on Earth,” when his transhumanist successors–or his own uploaded consciousness, or his wife’s robot doppelganger Bina48–finally settle other planets. There’s an undercurrent of ressentiment there, like a zealot fantasizing about sinners and non-believers suffering in hell or being left behind after the rapture to endure unfathomable torments at the hands of roving cenobites. 

“The people who laughed at me will get theirs.”

When Katy SteinMetz’s essay heralding “The Transgender Tipping Point” as “America’s next civil rights frontier,” made the cover of TIME in May 2014, media elites signalled that they were going add men who want to cut their dicks off and women who want to cut their tits off to the list of misunderstood angels whose sanity, motives, ends and means must never again be questioned. If the transgendered collectively make claims about themselves, the rest of us are expected to accept them. If anyone of consequence questions or criticizes the transgendered, he or she will be put to the Twitter-pillory and squawked about on talk shows until he or she is reduced to a morally untouchable and totally unemployable pariah.

But the profile on Rothblatt reminded me that, while social justice warriors and click-chasing content providers are selling you on the idea that the bearded ladies and ladyboys just want a little understanding, their choice of public toilets, and maybe a complimentary vaginaplasty, there is a current within the transgender movement that is also trans-everything-else.

Rothblatt’s enterprise is admittedly a techno-religious endeavor. He started a “trans” religion, using Judaism as a template, because he sees it as a religion focused on the acquisition and retention of information. Whereas early Futurists glorified technology as the product of the violent dynamism of the masculine spirit, Rothblatt’s futurism is more in tune with the contemporary progressivism that sees the reality of human nature and the limitations of the human body as obstacles to the perfection of humanity and the healing of the world. His transgenderism is part of a transhumanism that is fundamentally anti-human.

The goal of this transhuman, progressive futurism is to use technology to escape the gravitational pull of human nature, and become one with the machines that will deliver these harmonious post-human hybrid consciousnesses across space like a dust cloud of silicon glitter and plastic daisies. It’s a materialist’s conception of spiritual transcendence.

This transhumanism is the bleeding edge of progressive thinking, a sci-fi fantasy only half-imagined by most in the mainstream who claim to “fucking love science” and get warm fuzzies every time someone “challenges our ideas about” some fairly consistent feature of the human experience. It’s implied in every feel-good campaign to “end” or “stop” something as un-endable or un-stoppable as rape, sexual objectification, hunger, violence, or really mean thoughts–because the techno-nirvana of progressive transhumanism is to end death, strife, and pain by disappearing into circuitry.

“Nirvana” literally means “blown out,” as a candle would be blown out. Progressive transhumanism is the “blowing out” of human life to make way for a master race of presumably peaceful machines who will theoretically carry on the human legacy in some edited and altered form. It’s a prayer for species-wide genocide that’s regarded as both desirable and inevitable by an alarmingly large number of people who worship technological advancement for its own sake.

Occasionally, someone argues that the transgender acceptance movement is just one of those overblown media fads that will die out, but escaping the boundaries biological sex fits into this larger progressive transhumanist fantasy, so I expect to see more of it.  

It’s been a long time coming. Mutant dreamers like Genesis BREYER P-ORRIDGE and Orlan pioneered a kind of magical  self-transformation through plastic surgery, and H.R. Giger foresaw a more sensual melding of biology and mechanics in his work.

However, the everyday outcome of “better living through technology” has for the most part been reliably banal and consumeristic. As with the Internet, the promise of the fantastic yields electronic oceans of pornography and cat pics. The marvel of the smart phone captures gazillions of selfies and broadcasts an inconceivable number of mundane status updates like my own drunken, harmlessly racist approval of the latest Godzirra movie. The latest buzz is about wearable technology, and I’m not sure what that will be used for, but I’m pretty sure most of it will be stupid and make someone a lot of money. Rothblatt’s own pioneering project in robotics and artificial intelligence has been to upload and immortalize the consciousness of a quirky middle aged black woman from Compton. It’s tragically inane.

People spend billions every year on supplements and drugs to make themselves thinner, stronger or faster. The difference between getting an unsightly mole removed or getting a face lift or liposuction or hair implants is a difference of degree. More tactically oriented types become dead-ringers for cyborgs with pricey night vision optics. We’re all engaged in some kind of lite consumer transhumanism.

This brings me to the second reason I believe the unquestionable goodness of transsexuality is destined to become a part of progressive dogma package. People behind the 8-ball keep calling progressives communists, but modern progressives only make rote, symbolic gestures of anti-capitalism. They’ve accepted the reality that neverending technological and social progress will require a lot of money, and that corporations have in many ways lept over cumbersome governments in their embrace of the new and the breaking of taboo. Social justice activists partner with the companies that sell them the future. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all on board. Or maybe the other way around.

The transsexual is, for theoretical purposes,  the ultimate consumer. The transsexual proves, or seems to prove, that even the most basic aspects of human identity are up for sale. Everything is a consumer choice, and nothing is sacrosanct. If Mr. Potato Head wants to become Mrs. Potato Head, he merely purchases the Mrs. Potato Head’s Silly Suitcase package and trades out his plain eyes for a pair with flirty eyelashes. The transsexual makes man into a potato whose parts are interchangeable.

If you thrive on the wrong kind of attention and have some extra cash, you can put things where they don’t belong, like Jasmine Tridevil, the three-boobed woman.

According to the Potato Head theory of gender, where 1970s feminism meets 21st Century technology and consumerism, gender is little more than a “look,” and it is increasingly fashionable in some circles to describe yourself as “agender” or “non-binary.” This means that you’re probably an effeminate man or a woman who tries to look like an effeminate man, but you want a special snowflake awareness ribbon for playing in ALL of the Mr. Potato Head-brand silly suitcases.

A recent article in The Washington Post explained that the “non-binary” or “agendered” are on a “quest” to be seen as “just a person.”

Just a potato.

I’d rather be a man than a person.

To be a man is to be a man in a line of men that stretches back through human history, connected to other men by the experience of inhabiting a male body that is normally fixed not at birth but at the very moment of our conception–to be “XY.” Like heredity, it’s a non-disposable identity.

To be a mere “person” is to be a blank, a nothing, an empty hard drive loaded with a capricious collection of applications to be installed and uninstalled according to fashion or whim. The sexless, genderless person is the perfect, completely interchangeable cog in the global corporate machine. The potato-head has no nation, no honor, no loyalty, no connection, no people, no sex, no identity that cannot be altered for convenience. Just hardware with a few quirks, limitations, and abilities.

Personhood is an amoebic state of post-humanity that can conform to any trend or adapt to any workplace. If the human attachment to gender is made officially taboo, the person becomes as perfectly inoffensive as the abstract expressionist art hung in the world headquarters of every GloboCorp. It’s inoffensive because it doesn’t mean anything. It isn’t about anything–just a spread of random colors and shapes–so it can be about anything. Personhood solves the inconvenience, inefficiency, and troublesome complication of gender difference in the workforce.

When we cease to be men and women and ethnicities and races, we are all just berry pickers and knob turners, and the trans-humanists working on robotics are working to do away with those, too. When cashiers demand too much, they will be replaced by touch screens. That’s the end of progressive transhumanism, anyway–to become machines. Reducing men and women to “persons” is a transitional step to becoming “non-persons” or “post-persons.”

Advocates for a neutered world pretend to be humanists, but sexual dimorphism is a fundamental part of the human experience, and has been not only for all of human history, but for all of human prehistory. “Changing what it means to be human” by removing the human universals of differentiated sexes and genders is like “changing what it means to be mammals” by engineering mammals without female mammary glands or hair. At that point, humans are no longer human, but something else.

I’d rather be a human than a transhuman. I’d rather have a connection to the past than a religious devotion to the erasure of humanity. I don’t want to “solve” human nature or negate it through technological neophilia. I’m not willing to castrate myself like some cultic priest, some despiser of the body preparing itself to succumb the motherboard.

I prefer the epic human struggle and the dance between men and women to the dead, sexless hum of electronic evolution.

Perhaps that makes me a true humanist.

No Comments on That’s Ms. Potato Head To You

Gamergate and the End of Culture

Ultimately, #Gamergate matters because it is one front in a war that encompasses our entire culture. Indeed, it is a war that determines whether something called “culture” can even continue to exist. 

While the mortars fall in Ukraine, Israel, and the Islamic State, a conflict more Byzantine and intricate rages in the forums and chatrooms of the Hollow Empire–and the result may prove just as important as any geopolitical shift. I speak of course of #Gamergate, a scandal revealing a system of cultural control so breathtakingly asinine that its very existence, like that of Lindy West, justifies immediate revolution against any and all existing authorities of whatever kind. 

The story revolves around one Zoe Quinn, an alleged “game developer” who has one text based game to her credit. When I was fifteen, I successfully programmed a simple game featuring a spaceship that attacked increasingly fast enemies which descended from above. In other words, it was a far crappier version of Centipede, an Atari game which would have been regarded as impossibly dated before I was even born. Nonetheless, I hold that this modest credential entitles me to call myself a more legitimate “game developer” than Miss Quinn.

Miss Quinn has one game to her credit, a So This Is How It Ends entry in its own right called Depression Quest. You are a “human being” (so as to include all the people who can’t figure out what sex they are, though this still presumably excludes the otherkin) living with depression. And that’s it. The game–by which I mean a series of web pages–has the purpose of “spreading awareness,” and it accomplished that in my case. After five minutes of “play,” I certainly understood depression as I found myself calculating whether the ceiling fan could support a rope and my body weight.  

Perhaps what’s worse is that the game is flawed by its own standards, as the narrative rewards choices such as constantly talking about your problems with your significant other and with friends, none of whom seem unhappy or annoyed by this. If anything, Depression Quest actually understates the difficulty of living with depression, as it gives us the usual advice that if you just talk about emotions enough, your romantic partner will (somehow) fall more in love with you and your friends will appreciate your openness. It’s akin to a relationship game that suggests the best way for a man to pick up a girl is to constantly give her compliments and then apologize (maybe Friendzone Quest?). But we will get to Zoe Quinn’s relationship approach momentarily.

What Depression Quest really constitutes is what I call the first “anti-game.” An “anti-joke” destroys the premise of humor and can therefore be surprisingly funny by confounding your expectations. (Hey, what’s something that is brown and sticky? A stick.) An anti-game subverts the premise of gaming by not being entertaining. While the purpose of a game is to provide an enjoyable departure from reality, Depression Quest actually attempts to put you in a mundane reality that is less fun and interesting than your normal existence. Instead of entertaining you, the anti-game works to give you more socially acceptable (which is to say, progressive) attitudes.

How the hell is this a critically acclaimed project rather than an obscure website? Well, that brings us to the heart of Gamergate. Like the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Gamergate isn’t really about sex–but it is. In 2013, Zoe Quinn managed to get herself a boyfriend who shared her interest in social justice. It emerges that she was cheating on him with as many as five different men (hence the alternate name for the scandal–Five Guys). Her boyfriend responded by posting the entire sordid history of their relationship online. (As we’ve started with the jokes already, what does Zoe Quinn do after she’s been to Five Guys?  Finally get something to eat.)

Why does this matter to anyone? Because these men included gaming journalists who were promoting and reporting on her projects. Like any self-respecting and strong independent woman, Quinn had essentially slept her way into a career. And just as if it would be considered a gross violation of ethics if a Politico reporter was having a House of Cards-style affair with a politician she is ostensibly covering, the inappropriate personal relationship between various industry figures and an “independent” game producer raised questions about the entire state of the industry.

What followed were a series of claims and counter-claims between Zoe Quinn and her detractors. These can be broadly separated into two camps. The anti-Zoe forces are mostly independent investigators and online commentators. They include commentators like Internet Aristocrat and the TheInvestigamer, posters on forums like Reddit and /pol, and some borderline Beltway Right figures like Christina Hoff Summers of the American Enterprise Institute. Even Breitbart has seized on the cause, notably revealing a “Journolist” style collective effort to shape the Narrative.

Their fire is directed not just on Quinn but on “Social Justice Warriors” (SJW’s) generally, who are seen as totalitarian, humorless, and engaged in a hostile takeover of the gaming subculture. More importantly, as the behavior of Quinn herself shows, “social justice” is more about money and control over resources than anything else. Quinn systematically took down an effort by a group called “Fine Young Capitalists” to promote female game developers, ostensibly for social justice reasons but also to secure her own market share. The result lead to the individuals at FYC being “doxed” and receiving death threats.

In contrast, Quinn’s defenders are precisely what you would expect and their case can be summarized easily. Shut up, they explained.

Mainstream media outlets, largely ignoring the actual scandal itself, have described the furor simply as an example of “sexism in the gaming industry.” For example, the self-described “explainer” site Vox says the first thing you have to focus on in the story is the “treatment of women in gaming.” The heart of their case is that we should be talking more about the online abuse people like Quinn receive.  More broadly, we should be talking about how we can change the video game industry so people like her can feel better about themselves.

Which brings us to the other figure deeply involved in the scandal, Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian is the daughter of Armenian immigrants in Canada.  After moving to America, she achieved the new American Dream by becoming a member of the Parasitic Class—handsomely rewarded for attacking everything about her new society. For example, after acquiring the necessary academic credentials in deconstruction studies, she decided she wanted to start a video blog and started a fundraising effort on Kickstarter. After throwing in a couple whines that peopl
e were mean to her online, white knights rode to the rescue, and suddenly the effort to raise $6,000 brought home around $150,000–as well as the uncritical adulation of all mainstream media. Needless to say, she has also used to megaphone to sound off on Gamergate.

Of course, both Sarkeesian and Quinn have received a great deal of criticism online in recent weeks. And, let’s be honest, some of this criticism includes threats of violence or rape–though how many and if all of these “threats” are actually authentic is up for debate. More importantly, they are giving as good as they get, with even reasonable critics finding their YouTube channels or posts deleted by moderators pressured by SJW’s. This crackdown is even extending to /pol itself, as supposed SJW moderators are deleting posts because they are–you guessed it–linked to Quinn. Wikipedia of course, hardly a neutral source on politically charged topics, has been especially energetic in violating its own standards to present a SJW friendly take on Gamergate.

What is remarkable about the scandal is the fanaticism of both sides as the battle rages on. Many otherwise left leaning figures have simply had enough with SJW meddling and are making common cause with Right to fight against extreme feminism. Feminists and their media allies and enablers are moving the goalposts so rapidly that gaming itself is being redefined. And those who simply want to play and not think about any of this may be forced to take a position on one side or the other.

Racial realists and White advocates have a unique position in all this. There is not one overt activist or writer who has not experienced death threats, threats of rape (regardless of your sex), or outright physical attack. Unlike Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, who have quite literally made their careers on the basis of receiving online criticism, White advocates lose jobs, have family members and neighbors pressured by media groups or thinly veiled gangs, or suffer destruction of property, with the utter indifference or even approval of law enforcement. Entire companies, families, and lives have been destroyed over the accusation (true or not) of racism. And mainstream reporters actually urge on the baying mobs rather than serving as guardians like they do for Quinn or Sarkeesian.

Therefore, it is of relative indifference to me whether Quinn and Sarkeesian are depressed because people said mean things to them online. They gave as good as they got, they enjoy a larger megaphone than all of their critics, their pronouncements are as uncritically repeated by the mainstream press as any Southern Poverty Law Center press release, and more importantly, their very livelihood is dependent on such “abuse.” If it did not exist, they would have to make it up–and in some cases, they may have done just that. You might even call it their business model. 

But what are we to do with the idea of a “gaming” subculture that is under attack? To paraphrase Marx, the point is not to retreat from the world, the point is to change it. And yet, we have to understand why so many young men, especially young White men, retreat into a world of fantasy. Markus Willinger, author of Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ‘68ers, writes in “On Escapism,”

The world, as it presents itself to us, is empty and cold. Its communities have been dissolved; what remains are individuals rushing madly to and fro in the service of the global economy.

It may not be surprising, therefore, that many of us escape into another, much more pleasant world—that of computer and video games.

There one finds that which no longer exists in the real world—a community to belong to, solidarity, great heroic deeds, authentic chivalry, and true love. In fact, video games are, for many of us, the last possibility to somehow perform heroic deeds, experience epic battles, achieve victory in combat, and overcome defeat.

This is why many of us choose this path, and some even forget their real lives in favor of it. They don’t want to go back into the cold, senseless world that you’ve created, into which you’ve forced them. [78]

Now, the SJW’s are moving to take even that away. As Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “One must leave a way of escape to a surrounded enemy.” By denying it, the SJW’s have inadvertently encountered a level of resistance and fury far beyond anything they could have expected.

Yet even this will eventually fade unless it is grounded in something deeper. As Lawrence Auster frequently noted, the “unprincipled exception” to liberalism is never sustainable. Gamers protesting they should be “left alone” will fail unless they can actually ground their beliefs in something deeper and systematic. In contrast, SJW’s and progressives have already begun constructing the infrastructure necessary for an outright takeover of gaming. After all, schools like American University now offer courses combining social justice theory and game design. If we’re not careful, every game will look like “American Story: A Pitfall Adventure,” a game designed to teach you about the need for Obamacare.

Though both groups lean heavily to the Left, there is a real battle in gaming and the tech industry between those who owe their status to mastery of computer technology and those who wield the weapon of ideology. Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and their ilk represent the efforts of aspiring members of the managerial class to seize control of something they never could have created themselves. Even events like “The Fappeningand other scandals are really the low level skirmishes around a central battle for control over the commanding heights of the new economy as the managerial class struggles to assimilate the tech industry and its various subcultures. And unfortunately, our cultural commissars have been very successful so far.

Ultimately, #Gamergate matters because it is one front in a war that encompasses our entire culture. Indeed, it is a war that determines whether something called “culture” can even continue to exist. What ultimate victory for the “Social Justice Warriors” would mean is the end of culture.

This is not simply the traditional right wing claim (preferably expressed in all capital letters) that a world of Zoe Quinns will drive out Truth, Beauty, and genuine artistic achievement (although it’s that too.) A SJW World is a literal anti-culture, where creation itself is secondary to deconstructive social critique based on constantly shifting standards. Producing anything–be it a game, a painting, or a piece of music–is secondary to protecting an egalitarian narrative enforced by a Parasitic Class of professional scolds. East Germany was a cultural wonderland compared to what the liberal arts graduates of a typical American university can cough up. The end game of the managerial elite is the total control of human interaction, and through that, the control of economic resources.

For that reason, we see an increasing efforts to bring formerly uncontrolled spaces such as black metal under supervision, with bands policed for inappropriate beliefs or statements, and the music is made secondary to promoting an ideological agenda. As gaming has arrived as an art form, it has become a cultural battlefield almost as important as movies or music.  And this matters because the dreams and fantasies of a people color how they view the real world. Far better, all snark aside, to aspire to Skryim, than a real world that resembles a never ending Depression Quest.  

#Gamergate affects you even if you have never played video games, or think no one should play them. The struggle is about freedom of association in culture, something just as important as freedom of association in property. And the solution in both the flight from communities and the flight from reality represented by video games is the same—get serious about why you have the right to revolt against egalitarianism, and fight back. After all, they aren’t going to let you run anymore.

No Comments on Gamergate and the End of Culture

Viewing the Climate March as a Right-wing Anarchist

What I found there turned out to be less a hardened range of defiant faces rising above the mists, becoming one against an ocean of obstacles, and more a safe, beige sea of trendy soccer moms pushing strollers, dads carrying signs bearing pleasant slogans, and blown-up macros of polar bears.

For a month, I had been looking forward to attending the climate march scheduled to take place in NYC with the hopeful expectation that it would be the ideal meeting place for dashing, like-minded young men and women unafraid of threats, hearts aflame, transforming their frustration with the planet’s dissolving future into action. What I found there turned out to be less a hardened range of defiant faces rising above the mists, becoming one against an ocean of obstacles, and more a safe, beige sea of trendy soccer moms pushing strollers, dads carrying signs bearing pleasant slogans, and blown-up macros of polar bears.

The contrast between expectation and reality was almost presaged by the hi-fi vaults of Times Square, containing the insignia of passive consumer comfort. There were pockets scattered throughout the crowded streets made up of the few committed to decisive action, but they found themselves cut off, alone, without van or guide amid the teeming swells of children’s balloons and shopping bags.

This experience illustrated a phenomenon that I had only observed at a distance through computer and television screens: that of the inherent obstruction to political action posed by those strata of a society who benefit most from its arrangements. This is only slightly true, but becomes uniquely problematic when considered alongside the attitudes of our liberal-progressive middle class. There appears to be a disjunction between its historical, economic, and cultural predominance and its contemporary affinity for radical posturing, liberal social attitudes, and apparent commitment to social justice (however construed). This is interesting to our present analysis not for its marked discontinuity with historical trajectories or even the ideological forces which presuppose the formation of such attitudes, but rather the disintegrative effect it has upon those forces organized for radical opposition to cultural-legal norms they deem incommodious and seek to either change or eliminate.

The presence, for instance, of children at events intended for or naturally inclined toward civic opposition, accompanied by parents for whom these venues are simply more opportunities for amusement, and semi-political sloganeering, place a low ceiling on a crowd’s revolutionary potential, its general maneuverability, and its capacity to adapt to new conditions arising from its central purpose: confrontation with structural authorities (police, gendarmerie, military, etc.). This is owed to a combination of empathic regard for the safety of such obvious non-combatants and the sheer space they occupy—their extraneousness nothing else but a tactical predicament.

For those who profess passionate aliberal tendencies, this is a particularly frustrating obstacle to overcome. It’s worth considering here the alternatives to public demonstration that may be engaged for the purpose of strategy and organization in order to affect the widest margin of change:

  1. The formation and support of a dedicated core-group of professional oppositionaries trained to operate outside of the conventional strike/protest paradigm.

  2. Tactics designed for such groups which encompass cultural, artistic, and so-called ‘metapolitical’ activities designed to affect the value-structure of society, as well as more combative/deconstructive/reconstructive engagements.

  3. Strategy which focuses on confrontation with authorities or parauthorities directly, without announcement or legal approval, but with focus, spontaneity, and deft use of their surroundings to evoke spectacle and thus broaden the impact of such activities.

Reorganization along these lines might yield a more fruitful disinvolvement with the present social, political, cultural, and legal systems encased within the territorial limits of the state and the overall civilization of which the state represents. As a right-wing anarchist, I must stress that such a re-concentration of efforts is not inconsistent with the overall aims of either anarchism, or the affirmation of hierarchy as a social good, and, for that matter, the larger Traditionalist project. The apparent differences here are resolved as merely two vectors of approach—the anarchic rejection of the society into which the Traditionalist finds himself cast, and the hierarchic vision of a new social reality that he wishes to impose over the dilapidated structures of the old.

No Comments on Viewing the Climate March as a Right-wing Anarchist

STIHIE Country

Not even the White, working-class based music of country can escape the curse of multiculturalism. Listen to college-circuit favorite Corey Smith croon about how much he loves everyone–except his own…

Not even the White, working-class based music of country can escape the curse of multiculturalism. Listen to college-circuit favorite Corey Smith croon about how much he loves everyone–except his own people–in a song that tops John Lennon’s progressive nightmare “Imagine” in the disgust category.

I love black people. I love brown people.
I love Muslims and Jews, Hindus and atheists too.
Yes, I love everyone.
I love gay people. No, I’m not afraid people.
I may sing with a drawl, keep a little slack in my jaw,
but I love everyone.

No Comments on STIHIE Country

We Need a Bismarck

After the Protestant Reformation broke the religious unity of Europe, the links between royalty and the particular confession they supported served as a new focus for identity–for example, Protestant Prussia was distinct from Catholic Austria. The conservatism of post-Enlightenment Europe became the support of the transnational royal principle against the liberal ideal of nationalism. And perhaps the most important example of how these two differing ideologies can be reconciled in a way we can learn from today is the unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck.

But is it good for Whites?

When Scotland voted on secession from the United Kingdom, the Scots said “No, thanks.” The largely left wing, pro-Third World immigration “Yes” campaign was hardly a model for most Identitarians. Despite these failures, the disruptive potential of an independent Scotland was sufficient reason to support the campaign because of the opportunities it would’ve created all over Europe.

However, separatism and secession raise more questions than they answer for the New Right. The usual suspects are analyzing the vote from the viewpoint of their own Tribal interests, but Europeans concerned about the future of their own people face a more complicated situation.

There’s much to be said for the position of nationalism for all nations. Yet this runs into practical objections almost immediately. What, after all, constitutes a legitimate ethnic nationalist community? If Scotland is a nation, why not Wales or Cornwall–or for that matter, Mercia or Wessex? And if Welsh and Cornish independence is legitimate, then why is the territorial integrity of Ukraine so important and Novorussia somehow fake? And does this ultimately extend into a reductio ad absurdum where we go back to the dozens of petty German states as some kind of ideal?

Ultimately, even the most benevolent ethnonationalist runs into practical problems. The nature of tribal communities is to expand and conquer–and as supporters of hierarchy, we can’t deny this reality. Conflict is natural and inevitable–and the progressive effort to deny this reality has led directly to the contemporary Western Eloi who would rather die than face the responsibility of struggle.

Thus, even if we could establish an order that would render such competition non-violent, tribal conflict would still continue. In tiny Belgium for example, the Flemish, Walloons, and German speakers fiercely contend over money, language rights, and control over public institutions even as the country fills with Muslims from the Third World. If the Flemish succeed in achieving independence, even in the context of an entirely White Europe, new battles would ensue that can only be solved with political or physical struggle. An Identitarian utopia in some future Europa would get us no closer to an objectively “correct” answer about who gets to control the historically Flemish but now largely Francophone city of Brussels.

Every nation is to some extent an “imagined community,” conceived necessarily as both limited and sovereign. This is not to say that they are not based on cultural or biological realities, but every nation depends on an almost artistic conception. To belong to a nation is to feel attachment or even love for multitudes of people you will never meet. Nietzsche writes in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “It was creators who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.”

But what does this mean in practical terms? We can posit that a German people, for example, exists more or less objectively regardless of polities or ideologies. Yet is it somehow “better” if Austria is independent, or is that unjust or improper? What about Bavaria? After all, Adolf Hitler’s political career began when he denounced a speaker arguing that right-leaning Bavaria should secede from the Weimar Republic and form an independent state.

If we were to adopt this situation to the present, many on the New Right would actually welcome the idea that a more Traditionalist polity should break away from a larger leftist regime. And yet it is those nations and peoples who can combine a large population and a strong, united identity that will hold sway in any political order. Strong nations will always seek to expand–and conquer.

A conservative (or reactionary) counter to this idea would be the reactionary monarchies of Christian Europe that ruled over widely disparate peoples for centuries. In the distant recesses of antiquity was the European dream of Universal Monarchy, the ideal of a ruler of all Christendom. After the Protestant Reformation broke the religious unity of Europe, the links between royalty and the particular confession they supported served as a new focus for identity–for example, Protestant Prussia was distinct from Catholic Austria. The conservatism of post-Enlightenment Europe became the support of the transnational royal principle against the liberal ideal of nationalism. And perhaps the most important example of how these two differing ideologies can be reconciled in a way we can learn from today is the unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck.

Bismarck: From Anti-Nationalist to Founder of the Reich

Otto von Bismarck originally was known as an arch-conservative and opponent of nationalism when he appeared on the political scene. If the price for the unification of Germany was popular sovereignty, than he forthrightly opposed it. One Liberal leader of the time called him the very embodiment of the medieval spirit, and he was widely regarded as a champion of what was largely seen as Junker parochialism.

Bismarck also opposed the Revolution of 1848 and condemned the constitution produced by the Frankfurt Parliament as “organized anarchy.” This is the same kind of rationalization that led Frederick William to refuse a crown offered by an elected body, rather than by the unanimous grouping of the German princes. The eventual failure of the Revolution led to a reactionary movement that restricted democratic participation in the new government–and allowed the then massively unpopular Bismarck to attain power.

Over the following years, Bismarck made the strategic decision to embrace German nationalism in order to advance specifically Prussian foreign policy goals. In his own words, he was far more of a Prussian than a German. Perhaps more importantly, he cynically disregarded his own former legitimism when it conflicted with his policy ends. Writing to the reactionary monarchist General von Gerlach (an advocate of the ideals of Karl Ludwig von Haller), Bismarck said he still shared the “principle of the fight against the Revolution,” but also noted:

“I subordinate legitimism in France completely to my specifically Prussian patriotism. Without any regard to the person at the head of the time being, France counts for me merely as a piece, albeit an unavoidable one, in the game of political chess, a game in which I am called upon to serve only my own king and my own country… “

Similarly, Count Johann von Rechberg of Austria wrote to Bismarck “that all the Conservatives of Europe must join together to fight revolution and to defend the legitimate structure of Europe as a whole.” As Erich Eyck noted critically in Bismarck and the German Empire, “The ‘legitimate structure of Europe’ was the situ
ation created by the treaties of Vienna in 1815. But it was exactly this settlement which Bismarck was determined to destroy.” [71]

As he consolidated power for Prussia, Bismarck would outmaneuver Rechberg over Schleswig-Holstein , fight a war with Austria, and consolidate Prussian hegemony over the petty German states and kingdoms as the precursor to independence.

Bismarck used remarkable ideological and tactical flexibility in order to accomplish his goal–which in the end was a function of Prussian patriotism and his own efforts at self-realization rather than an expansive German vision. Knowing he needed the Tsar as a friend (or at least not as an enemy), he allowed Russia to brutally crush Polish revolutionaries, despite the protests of the West. He tempted Napoleon III with promises of territorial gains before defeating him in the Franco-Prussian War. He formed alliances and partnerships with powers that old-school European conservatives would regard as illegitimate and revolutionary. The reward was the Second Reich.

But what was the price? As William Lind notes, Western Civilization was eventually doomed by this kind of parochial and petty competition between dynasts and states, rather than ideological unity. In World War I for example,

…[T]he obsolete paradigm was dynastic competition, especially that between the Houses of Hapsburg and Romanov; the new paradigm was set by the mortal threat posed to all Christian, conservative monarchies by the notion of popular sovereignty and Jacobinical definitions of human rights. By fighting each other instead of uniting against the left, three dynasties doomed themselves and possibly us as well. Western culture’s last chance of survival may have been a victory by the Central Powers in World War I.

Yet the “Central Powers” only had a chance at victory because of German unification and German power. And Germany under the Kaisers was only a broadly conservative power because Bismarck prevented the German Empire from becoming the liberal, democratic state dreamed of by the revolutionaries of 1848, instead forming what Mencken called in his 1914 essay The Mailed First and Its Prophet:

[A] delimited, aristocratic democracy in the Athenian sense—a democracy of intelligence, of strength, of superior fitness—a democracy at the top. Its prizes went, not to those men who had most skill at inflaming and deluding the rabble, but to those who could contribute most to the prosperity and security of the commonwealth.

Politicians, it is true, sprang up in its shadow, as they must inevitably spring up     when any approach is made toward universal manhood suffrage; but the part that they played in the conduct of affairs was curiously feeble and inconsequential.

How do we resolve this bundle of contradictions? Bismarck arguably subverted the liberal principle of nationalism in order to create a dynamic state that Traditionalists can admire in many ways (at least compared to what we have now). He also unleashed a virus of state competition over territory that would culminate in the eventual destruction of the European order.

However, had Germany won either of the world wars, it seems more likely than not that Bismarck’s achievement would be regarded as the foundation for a Western dominated world order, with the White race in a secure demographic position. Nationalism can either create a New Order that could empower Identitarians; or serve as the trap that leads us to mutual destruction.

Tribe, Nation, or Empire

What can broadly be called Identitarian political parties are largely united in rejecting the European Union while simultaneously claiming a larger European union. As the youth organization of the surging Sweden Democrats put it in a video, “Europe Belongs to Us,” it is a Europe that is “against the European Union” and “for a Europe of Nations.”

Of course, as Richard Spencer argues in “Why We Need Europe,” even if the European Union disappeared tomorrow, our circumstances will not have really changed. The same people will run our politics, our banks, our media, and all the other mechanisms of power. The new “friend-enemy” distinction should be based on race and a recognition that Europe wants to come together. Historically, nations are the interloper–Europeans of the past would have regarded themselves as residents of a certain locale or region and then belonging to a larger Christendom rather than a middling concept like “Germany” or “France.”

The highest moments of Western Man came from the quest for unity. From Greeks uniting against the Persian invader, to the First Crusade, to the international forces resisting the Red Army at the end of World War II, Occidental unity gives us teasing glimpses of what could be possible. Europe is still but a broken empire. And yet in all of the quests for unity, it was specific polities, leaders, and nations that served as the core of a larger effort.

Whatever we may think or theorize about it, nationalism is not a spent force. Whatever Western revival is to come will be largely championed by nationalist movements. However, as with Bismarck and his Prussian patriotism, even the quest for power by one state or nation could quickly turn into a larger crusade for European unity–not the sterile bureaucratic tyranny of the so-called European Union, but the real unity of the Occident hinted at by our highest moments. On the other hand, it could lead to the kind of mutual destruction that led us to this point.

The way I view secession movements is opportunistic. I support whatever undermines the power of the governing elite and presents openings for nations to break free of the governing consensus. I support the unity of Spain and the breakup of the United Kingdom. I support the territorial integrity of Germany and France, the breakup of Belgium and Italy, and the absorption of Flanders by the Netherlands as part of the creation of Dietsland. I look with both skepticism and hope to Putin’s Russia and its territorial expansion. And I claim the right to change any and all of these positions as circumstances permit.

Because in the end, none of them are particularly important to me. Nations and nationalist movements are the means to an end–the goal is an Identitarian order that will lead to Western Unity and the upward development of the race. And an authentic local patriotism will be mean a movement both down and up–autonomy for cultural regions as diverse as Brittany and Bohemia yet still united in a greater European identity that encompasses and transcends them.

We who claim the mantle of Identitarians have a dual rule. Like the original pan-German intellectuals, we have to foster an identity that transcends what has come before. But to make it meaningful and not a pointless abstraction, this means acting locally above all–building tribes that are loyal only to t
heir own
rather than the established social order. We need to build autonomous white communities that serve as safe zones for the New Right. Let a thousand Oranias bloom.

Still, underneath all of that, we have to cultivate that dream of unity, of Imperium, even Empire–lest we fall into the traps of the past and the pointless European Civil Wars–military, religious, or cultural—that have brought us to the brink of ruin. There is no necessary contradiction between supporting both Tribe and Empire–but it has to be our Tribe and our Empire. Indeed, it will be less a centralized Empire than a gathering of tribes.

But make no mistake–we will get there as if by accident. We need a Bismarck to arise in a major European state. We need someone who, by pursuing the interests of their nation-state, can create something that will transcend their nation state. And unfortunately, this means that there will be a hierarchy even within the new Europe. If the driving force comes from Germany or France–or for that matter, the “wind from the east” predicted by forces in Hungary or even Russia, that will have consequences in the arrangement of power. And there will always be struggle and conflict within the new European Imperium.

The new Bismarck that will impose this order will likely not meet our standards of ideological purity. Mainstream politics will create the opportunity for victory–not the victory itself. Our role is to create the vanguard communities and intellectual movements that will allow us to take advantage of the opportunities when the time comes. It’s by building centers of power at the most local and restrictive level that we can lay the foundation for the most expansive Imperium the world has ever seen. And by cultivating the dream of Unity, we can ensure that when we get there, we won’t tear ourselves apart as the West has done so many times before.

No Comments on We Need a Bismarck

The Scottish Play

For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or even those of the World Cup. It might seem strange to write this with the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine, especially strange now on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence. 

For the past 200 years, Europe has been coming together. It might seem strange to write this in light of the ethnic hatreds of the last century’s World Wars, or those of the World Cup. Or in light of the ongoing ethnic conflict in eastern Ukraine. And especially strange today on the eve of a referendum for Scottish independence.

But the geopolitical trajectory of Europe is unambiguous. The European continent—including the British isles—were once a patchwork of competing principalities and states. Today, it is defined by broad national and imperial blocs: France, Italy, Russia, Germany, and Britain being the models. Europe’s history has been, to a great degree, a history of state formation: from a multitude to many to a few . . . maybe soon to one.

More important than this political development has been the birth of a homogenous European Man. He is a man who might call someplace—maybe a little place—“home,” somewhere with a language and way of life all its own: Wales, Bavaria, Talin. . . But he is demonstrably European in his character, values, and being, especially to outsiders. Who could deny that today the differences that separate a Scotsman from an Englishman, or a Russian from a Italian—though certainly real—are easily outweighed but what they share in common? Who could deny that the mass immigration of non-Europeans has intensified our awareness of this unity, allowed us to understand ourselves in ways that we might not have otherwise?

There is, without question, a cost to this historical process, for “European Man” is, to a large degree, the “Last Man” as Nietzsche imagined him: the homogenous consumer and worker, who sees little of value above comfort and acquiring more stuff. For better and for worse, we are all becoming “good Europeans”. . . and we must understand something like the Scotts’ bid for independence in this wake.

Describing the referendum, the American commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote:

The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind.

This can only be wishful thinking. It’s worth remembering that the Scottish National Party is not a traditionalist organization by any stretch. A perusal of its agenda reveals that it would be better described as “retro-liberal” or “Old Labor.” (For what it’s worth, the SNP wants to keep the Queen as the symbolic Head of State.)

Moreover, for every died-in-the-wool Scottish nationalist (or Anglophobe) who supports independence, there are legions who view breaking away from London in a very different way. Exiting the geopolitical world of the UK and “Anglo-sphere” would be a means of better implementing a post-historical, egalitarian welfare state . . . of becoming another “European” country, like Sweden or Iceland . . . of finding an “independent” path to the same liberal dispensation.

The SNP defines its “nationalism” as such:

to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland’s full potential as a independent nation in the mainstream of modern Europe.

Though the SNP desires to break from the UK (and NATO), it seeks to join the European Union. This seeming contradiction between secession and federalism reveals both the meaning and meaningless of Scottish “independence.”

Fittingly, as the vote looms, much of the discussion has been taken up with purely technical matters:

  • “What currency would the Scots use?”
  • “What about the highway, rail, and plumbing systems?”
  • “Would the financial district relocate?”
  • “Would we have to create a new suffix for Scottish websites—dot.Scot?

Technical matters like these are truly the only things at stake.

Born in 1978, I was a child during the last decade of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall existed as a powerful symbol of the ideological and imaginary “inside” and “outside” of that conflict. I envisioned that my world was “in” America and freedom and “out” of socialism and oppression. Some who were “in” Communism could escape and get “out” over here.

The events of 1989-91 turned the world “inside out” . . . and “outside in.” For the past 25 years, no European nation or state has been “outside” liberalism. Secession would change none of this. To choose another metaphor, a droplet of a liberal society (what an “independent” Scotland would become) has the same constitution as a whole gallon of one in the UK or EU.

No Comments on The Scottish Play

Edward Abbey and the Other America

The novelist and polemicist Edward Paul Abbey has not quite dropped through the
memory hole, much like one of his favorite poets and philosophical inspiration, Robinson Jeffers,
but one suspects his is a name that may not endure in the popular mind.    

Under Review
Wrenched (2013)
Directed by HL Lincoln

Why the surly hatred of progress and development, the churlish resistance to all popular improvements? … [B]ecause we like the taste of freedom; because we like the smell of danger.
– Edward Abbey, Beyond The Wall

The novelist and polemicist Edward Paul Abbey has not quite dropped through the
memory hole, much like one of his favorite poets and philosophical inspiration, Robinson Jeffers,
but one suspects his is a name that may not endure in the popular mind.

Filmmaker ML Lincoln has done a wonderful job bringing to the big screen one of America’s larger than life characters. A man who truly lived on his own terms and bowed to no master. No kneejerk liberal or kneepad Tory, as he liked to say about himself. Hard to pigeonhole, Ed was a
Democrat in the tradition of Henry Wallace but he
was also a life member of the NRA and deeply opposed to a multi-ethnic America, as he believed the working class would never get a square deal in competition with the masses of brown laborers. 

A multitude of reasons exist as to why he may yet be forgotten by future generations not old enough to remember him as the premier spokesman for the defense of the wilderness of the Four Corners area. Abbey would be a man without many mainstream supporters today, given his mocking condescension of organized religion, an inability or disinclination to portray “complex” female characters in his writing (which led to charges of misogyny by the chattering classes), his support of negative population growth (despite fathering five children with multiple wives). Perhaps the most salient reason he might be dropped by all but the most diehard supporters is that he was a race-realist; a tour of duty as a New York City social worker in the early 1960s disabused him of liberal pieties regarding racial differences.

Even a cursory review of his work will reveal enough real speech that would see him banished to outer darkness were he to appear on the literary scene in this century. He lived a portion of each year in Tucson and saw firsthand the effects of mass immigration on his desert home, which led to this (unpublished) letter to the New York Times:

The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of “Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!” from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play “let’s pretend” much longer, not in the present world.

Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.

Proud of his father who was a Wobbly, Abbey took after his old man’s politics and was certainly a man of the Old Left with regard to economic injustice and in securing a stronger position for the working man. However, un direct contrast with today’s social justice warriors, who demand an amnesty of the 12 million illegal invaders who have transgressed
our border, Abbey was a man in the tradition of Samuel
and Cesar Chavez and other Labor leaders who recognized that the key to raising wages for the working class was shutting down the flood of new laborers—something on which GOP businessmen and world-improving Democrats are not exactly keen.

I suspect Abbey would have shared the sentiment of the title character from Tito Perdue’s novel, Lee,

There’d be but one city soon, and four hundred million in it inspecting one another’s rumps. (He wanted a small world getting smaller, and a fine people living in subtlety off the ruins.)

While highlighting the “night work” that Ed did (torching billboards, monkeywrenching bulldozers, scheming to destroy Glen Canyon Dam), the filmmaker failed to bring into the discussion the ruinous impact our incredible population growth has on
the environment. As Abbey pointed out in Desert Solitaire

Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation’s population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn. Wilderness preservation, like a hundred other good causes, will be forgotten under the overwhelming pressure of a struggle for mere survival and sanity in a completely urbanized, completely industrialized, ever more crowded environment.

Abbey wrote that in 1968, when America still had a population less than 200 million.

One has to believe he wouldn’t be sanguine about prospects for saving what remains of the American wilderness as our country bursts at the seams with a population predicted to surpass 400 million by 2039

I very much wish Lincoln had called out The Sierra Club for failing to address the impact of population growth. That one of the oldest and most prestigious wilderness protection associations fails to lobby for immigration restriction and a negative population policy is a cardinal failure of that

Most of the USA is beyond redemption. It is overdeveloped and overpopulated. There is, however, a sacred part of this teeming republic that demands protection and that is the Four Corners. To my mind, there is nothing as spectacular, nothing so beautiful, nothing so enchanting as this part of the world. Read Desert Solitaire and The Monkey Wrench Gang if you want to taste the world Abbey wrote about 40-50 years ago.

Go to Canyonlands and tell me how much better it would be with derricks and pipelines. Go to Arches and let me know how it would be improved with strip mining. Go to the Grand Canyon and tell me how a gondola and a strip mall would enhance the wilderness experience. Better still, if you think in the affirmative on any of the above please drive to The Maze in July and bring back a field report. Don’t worry about water or gasoline or shelter or comfort stations. All will be provided. I’m addressing you, R. Lamar Whitmer. (Abbey wrote that you can always tell a shithead from that initial initial.)

Much credit to Lincoln for highlighting the bold Tim DeChristopher, who put his ass on the line to stop a last minute Bush administration Christmas gift to their friends in the energy business, which would have seen a great portion of Utah’s wilderness decimated. Few, indeed, are the people willing to suffer incarceration in the name of wilderness preservation.

Of course, the Four Corners is not the only part of the USA worth fighting for. Abbey was a leading spokesman for preserving as much of our precious wilderness as possible, for he knew its real value.

Doc Sarvis, while plotting the destruction of Glen Canyon Dam with Hayduke, Abbzug, and Seldom Seen, remarked,

The wilderness once offered men a plausible way of life . . . now it functions as a psychiatric refuge. Soon there will be no wilderness. . . . Soon there will be no place to go. Then the madness becomes universal.

ML Lincoln has done a tremendous service in helping keep the spirit of Abbey alive. I am hopeful this movie eventually is distributed to a wide audience and that Abbey’s message resonates with a new generation of Americans, who reject
what America has become and embrace, in the words of Jonathan Bowden, speaking on Robinson Jeffers, the idea of “a smaller America, a more natural America, a more ecologically sufficient America, and a more pagan America.”

The protagonist in The Monkey Wrench Gang, George Washington Hayduke, possessed the “conservative instinct to keep things
not as they are but as they should be.”

Abbey and Jeffers and Dave Foreman and Roger Clyne and others will be proven right, but it may take a long time for the evidence to be returned. Someday Phoenix will be a very lovely city for its remaining 100,000 residents. Someday Glen Canyon will be restored to its pristine state after the dam is overcome by nature. Someday we may finally realize that growth for the sake of growth is not the answer. Someday we may return to the primal values of our ancestors and carve out a sustainable future
for free men and women.

Desert Solitaire

By Edward Abbey

1 Comment on Edward Abbey and the Other America

Ali vs. Monoculturing

Courtesy of Muhammad Ali, we hear some strong arguments against the mixing of the races to form one big, unhappy monoculture.

Courtesy of Muhammad Ali, we hear some strong arguments against the mixing of the races to form one big, unhappy monoculture.

Watch the champion boxer (and Black nationalist) lay down truth while his low T, White liberal interviewer squirms:

And here’s him giving a fiery speech on the subject:

No Comments on Ali vs. Monoculturing

Dol Guldur

No other artist in any genre is able to capture the atmosphere of Tolkien’s world like Summoning

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”

The works of J.R.R. Tolkien have probably done more to instill a love for traditional European culture and identity than arguably any other literature. Painting a world full of majestic landscapes, magic, and a place where heroes still live and die would make any youth wish for Middle-Earth over Modern Earth.

It makes perfect sense that Tolkien would inspire many metal acts in their lyrics and their choice of band names. But few metal artists have been able to capture the epic majesty of Middle Earth with their music itself—with the glorious exception of Summoning.

Summoning began their career as a decent, melodic Black Metal band that fit within the style of the promising Austrian metal scene. That changed when they decided to push guitars to the back of their sound and embark on a keyboard-driven style that became the defining feature of their style on their second album Minas Morgul.

But it is on their third album and magnum opus Dol Guldur where Summoning hits their stylistic peak.

One of the main criticisms of their music from the metal crowd is that it is too heavy on the keyboard instead of the guitars. Unlike most Black Metal, the music isn’t aggressive or particularly fierce. It is more akin to a soundtrack for an incredible fantasy film that is too cool to exist. Also, unlike most Black Metal music, Summoning’s work is less dark and foreboding. This is more of the hero’s soundtrack than that of the cruel villains he slays.

Returning to the criticism that they’re too heavy on the keyboards, this is what gives Summoning the ability to weave a sonic landscape that allows you to escape the banality of the modern world for the enchanting terrain of fantasy. It helps that the music is minimalistic and repeats motifs throughout the (long) duration of a composition. It’s simple, but it works to create a trance-like effect for a listener wishing to experience another world with their choice of music.

On Dol Guldur, the songs are long and are bereft of choruses. Stereotypical, rock song structure is left far behind for more adventurous song structures that allow its atmosphere to take precedence over trying to rock. Keyboard riffs drive the music instead of guitar riffs, which gives the music a very different edge from that of their metal peers. Drums are programmed and the guitars serve as a kind of buzzing reminder of the danger surrounding us and that not all is beauty in this fantasy world. The highlight of the album would have to be the epic middle number “Khazad Dum”—a powerful 10 minutes that never at any point sounds cheesy.

No other artist in any genre is able to capture the atmosphere of Tolkien’s world like Summoning, and they do a masterful job of it on Dol Guldur. If you’re a fan of neoclassical like Winglord, you should easily dig this. Even if you hate Black Metal for being too harsh, you should give this is a try and realize there’s more to the genre than Burzum’s early works.

All of Summoning’s albums are worth a listen, but Dol Guldur is where you should start.

No Comments on Dol Guldur

The New Class

Most of this is exaggerated. The average tech worker owes no allegiance to the Identitarian Right or Dark Enlightenment ideas. And yet this sign of contradiction is significant. The tech industry does pose an existential threat to the managerial regime for three key reasons.

We still begin with Burnham. Even after the Second World War, the Cold War, the brushfire wars of the post 9/11 world and the rise of powers like China and India, the best guide to understanding the world is a book more than seven decades old. James Burnham’s theory of the managerial elite, a “new class” of “managers” that supplemented the capitalist ruling class of the 19th century, still captures the fundamental truth behind the global system of power. As Sam Francis, Burnham’s greatest student put it in Power and History:

The internal crisis of entrepreneurial capitalism compels the expansion of the state. Massive amounts of new capital cannot be mobilized from private sources and must come, directly or indirectly, from government. The managers, indispensable to the technical processes of modern production, find cooperation with the state and use of its coercive monopoly valuable for the continuance of production and for their own benefits. The redistribution of goods, services, and wealth is facilitated by state intervention, planning, and, ultimately, control of the process of production. Yet the expanding role of the state does not mean that the state itself controls the economy. Rather the result will be “a fused political-economic apparatus.” (p. 271)

In later works, Burnham posited that the new class would maintain democratic trappings to disguise the fact of their power even as they transferred the focus of loyalty away from the nation and traditional sources of authority. And as Sam Francis described, it is control over culture that ensures power over the process of production. Activists for diversity, anti-racists, and what are broadly termed Cultural Marxists work with (and are often funded by) capitalist institutions and government bodies to create an interlocking system of economic, political, and social control.

The great hope of Francis was that what he called the Middle American Radicals–those middle class whites dispossessed by economic globalization and the cultural New Left–could form a counter-elite and sweep aside the managerial class in a Middle American Revolution. Unfortunately, the American Beltway Right has mastered the art of racial dog whistling to fool the rubes–so when the Middle American Revolution finally came, it was Iraq War supporters smashing Dixie Chicks CD’s.  

Yet in the last two decades, a new class has arisen that is not fully under the control of the managerial elite. Neither does this rising elite necessarily share (or benefit from) the social values advanced by the managerial class. The new elite are those who have mastered computer technology, programming, and hardware and software development. And while “technocracy” is nothing new, the relative instability, social mobility, and meritocracy of the digital world makes it difficult to be fully absorbed by the managerial state.

The leading members of the digital elite are hardly closet members of the Identitarian Right. Bill Gates recently donated a million dollars for gun control and has blown tens of millions of dollars in failed attempts to boost “inner city schools” and African demographics. Mark Zuckerburg, owner of a social networking platform that will delete groups like “White History Month” but provide you every left wing group (or gender preference) imaginable, is a fanatical supporter of mass immigration. Even Steve Jobs was a fairly conventional Democrat.

Yet there is unease among the Thought Police. The commissars and pseudo-humans of Gawker, Valleywag, and associated media outlets conduct a sustained hate campaign against the tech industry’s mostly white programmers and “bro culture.” With unseeingly desperation, the media shrieks frantically about the “need” to impose the dead weight of affirmative action employees on internet companies. Salon is doing its best to make Peter Thiel as radioactive as the Koch Brothers because he doesn’t prostrate himself before university style political correctness–and because Thiel questions the wisdom of that most sacred (and useless) of institutions. Left wing activists protest the gentrification of San Francisco by wealthy tech workers. And SJW’s whisper that shadowy forces from Silicon Valley are backing the Dark Enlightenment.  

Most of this is exaggerated. The average tech worker owes no allegiance to the Identitarian Right or Dark Enlightenment ideas. And yet this sign of contradiction is significant. The tech industry does pose an existential threat to the managerial regime for three key reasons.

Technical superiority trumps ideology

Barack Obama received overwhelming support from the technology industry. The Christian Right is not going to win much of a following at Apple or Google. However, unlike in human relations, academia, or many private industries, there is nothing necessarily committing the industry to the Left, with the possible exception of gay rights.

Bill Gates may support egalitarianism with his charity, but not in his business decisions. He famously identified Goldman Sachs as Microsoft’s biggest competitor, not another software company. Ultimately, success in the industry is driven by who can attract the smartest people. The tech industry is ruthlessly inegalitarian and pragmatic–ideology can grease the skids when it comes to landing a contract or securing a positive court ruling, but it won’t make a computer program work.

This doesn’t mean political correctness or connections won’t benefit certain companies above others – as we saw with the disastrous rollout of the Obamacare website. However, unlike in education, law, journalism, government, and other industries and economic sectors, pure intelligence and technical skill ultimately trumps ideology, and there isn’t an ideological “veto” available to the Left.

The increasing efforts of the Left to “police” the tech industry (and related industries like gaming) reflect the awareness that if a “rabidly right wing” programmer or entrepreneur creates a good pro
duct, he will make enough money to be free of their control. Perhaps, more importantly, the very nature of the tech industry values elitism, intelligence, and hierarchy more than egalitarianism. This elitism currently expresses itself in SWPL style social preening–but unlike an English professor or nonprofit head, a programmer is not dependent on social justice rhetoric for his livelihood.

We must consider the possibility that some of those derided as “Urban Elves” are more open to our ideas than Palin supporting “right wing” patriots. More importantly, the wealth generated by the tech industry is relatively free of ideological control, and the instability of the industry ensures that such controls will be difficult to implement.

Technology renders the underclass superfluous

Walking through one of America’s largest cities, a friend cursed at the liberal Whites (mostly government employees and contractors) he saw because, “they may gentrify an area, but then insist on importing Third Worlders to essentially be their servants.” That may not be true for much longer. Currently, fast food workers are striking to secure a $15.00 an hour wage. We should wish them success.

Technology, particularly in the field of robotics, is progressing to the point where entire industries will simply be rendered unnecessary, especially if the cost of labor becomes prohibitive. While mass immigration (subsidized by the welfare state) keeps the price of labor low, the dysfunctional nature and political preferences of hapless and helpless Third Worlders flooding into European world may change the cost-benefit analysis. Why, after all, do we need any human fruit pickers or burger flippers at McDonald’s?

The most likely scenario is a world like that prophesied in Elysiumfantastic technology co-existing with teeming slums populated by an ever increasing lumpenproletariat. The film assumes a kind of duty for Whites to sacrifice themselves to spread the blessings of wealth and technology to the non-White masses. But there’s no reason to assume that a technological elite–particularly one convinced of its own intellectual superiority–will continue to recognize this supposed obligation.

Already, the scion of a Silicon Valley fortune is pushing a plan (endorsed by over a million Californians) to split up the state of California–including, not coincidentally, Silicon Valley becoming its own state. Thiel has endorsed various schemes such as “Seasteading” to form a kind of libertarian utopia, as have other figures in the industry.

This doesn’t necessarily translate to support for Identitarianism or Dark Enlightenment principles–but it does mean that people are looking for an escape, a way out of the Third World mass democracy that is the American system. We might be something like Eduardo Saverin fleeing to Singapore on a mass scale–an entire class deciding that they have no reason to prop up a system which offers them nothing.

Technology can avoid, subvert, or replace the existing System

There’s no greater proof of the power of media culture than “celebrity.” Every single person who reads this site is intensely aware of the personal lives and relationships of people such as Jennifer Lawrence—even if we seek to actively avoid knowledge of their existence. Their images are carefully created and protected by legions of professional media managers, public relations experts, stylists, and flacks–each one is a creation of the managerial elite as surely as a Supreme Court justice. And one wrong move or politically incorrect comment can utterly destroy them.

And yet, consider the Fappening–a shadowy group of hackers, paid in Bitcoin, devastate the reputation and social value of media creations that required tremendous amounts of social capital, infrastructure, and financial investment. In miniature, this is what can occur to more important individuals and institutions. Edward Snowden discredited the American Empire more than all the “anti-imperialist” scribbling of generations; for a time, Wikileaks constituted a power in its own right.

Entire markets, strategic assets, classified information, currency and resources–all of these things are online and within the reach of those who have the technical skill to acquire them. Ideology is utterly irrelevant–indeed, an obstacle. As technology increases, we will see even more uncontrollable possibilities, including the merger of technology with the human body and the ability to modify, hack, or artificially enhance physical or mental actions or capabilities.

Of course, this also opens up the possibility of near-complete managerial control–the media is already gleefully discussing pharmaceutical cures for “racism.” Who can doubt that technology could be used against the very consciousness of ideological dissidents? But all of this depends on the technological elite agreeing with and participating in the agenda of the current governing class. Judging from their checkered partnership when it comes to national security policies, there will be at least some dissidents. And no matter what system is implemented, there will be a workaround.

Technology also empowers tribalism in a way not seen since the Industrial Revolution. It provides workers more freedom about where to live and who to align with. It allows certain kinds of workers to break free of bureaucracies and supervisors, thus removing one of the ways the managerial elite can apply economic pressure. It allows the creation of new kinds of communities that can sustain themselves socially and financially and who only participate in the larger economy on their own terms and for their own interests.

The widespread acceptance of 3-D printers and other machines could theoretically challenge the concept of “scarcity” that underlies capitalism itself–or at least make it easier for people to opt out of constant participation in the consumer economy.


Power is shifting on a global scale–demographically, economically, militarily, and culturally. But ultimately, the biggest shift is the foundation of what we call power. Physical strength or elected office doesn’t convey power in the modern world. It’s technological expertise that grants control over the process of production. As such, it will be the new fulcrum of power for the next governing elite–unless those who use more old-fashioned means of acquiring power can survive what the System will throw at them.

Does this mean the managerial elite (and its anti-white policies) will be replaced? Not necessarily. Figures like Gates and Zuckerburg have essentially merged with the already existing ruling class. But the future is not certain and there is no guarantee that the next wave of industry leaders will make the same choice. It’s also not certain that second or even third tier figures will not choose to use their w
ealth and power to open up areas of political, social, or economic autonomy outside the existing system.

The great limiting factor of Identitarianism is not a lack of ideas or even official opposition–it’s simply a lack of resources. Technology represents a relatively uncontrolled source of wealth and social power and there are faint stirrings of opposition to the current order. How the course of technology and social development will play out is unknown.

But there is a Remnant that understands there is something deeply wrong with the System as it is and that the upward development of mankind is not possible without radical change. The Identitarian Right must present the alternative. Another world is possible—if we have the wealth, tools, and will to create it. 

No Comments on The New Class

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