Over at The Chronicle of Higher Education a rather hyper-sensitive blogger seeks to take the Alt Right to task. But not for the usual reasons.
You see, this time it has to do with appropriation, no not of internet memes or 80s New Wave bands, instead it focus on a famous English author: Jane Austen. It seems as if The Chronicle blogger has uncovered a nefarious scheme of internet racists who are using Jane Austen to further their “White supremacist” agenda of crafting an “ethnostate”.
Over at The Chronicle of Higher Education a rather hyper-sensitive blogger seeks to take the Alt Right to task. But not for the usual reasons.
You see, this time it has to do with appropriation, no not of internet memes or 80s New Wave bands, instead it focus on a famous English author: Jane Austen. It seems as if The Chronicle blogger has uncovered a nefarious scheme of internet racists who are using Jane Austen to further their “White supremacist” agenda of crafting an “ethnostate”.
From The Chronicle:
This view of Austen as an avatar of a superior bygone era is linked not only with fantasies of female retreat from the sexual whirl, but also with calls for white separatism. On the popular blog of the alt-right publisher Counter-Currents, the world of Austen’s novels is extolled as a prototype for the “racial dictatorship” of tomorrow. One commenter wrote, “If, after the ethnostate is created, we revert back to an Austen-like world, we males ought to endure severe sacrifices as well. … If traditional marriage à la P&P [Pride and Prejudice] is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen.”
Yet if shared heritage is the key to incentivizing gentlemanly comportment, why are there so many cads in Austen’s world? Also, Austen’s protagonists express little of the populist boosterism and preoccupation with ethnic heritage that foster an ethnostate. Fervent patriotism is invoked sardonically rather than earnestly proclaimed: Upon his first visit to his father’s estate in the small town of Highbury, Frank Churchill archly states that he will prove that he “belong[s] to the place” and is a “true citizen.” Emma playfully replies, “I do admire your patriotism,” and Churchill parries by saying that Emma has witnessed “the very moment of this burst of my amor patriae.”
Other alt-right partisans pay backhanded compliments by emphasizing Austen’s singularity as a celebrated female novelist. In a post that debuted in 2012 on Alternative Right and has since been lauded as an alt-right “classic,” the “manosphere” blogger Matt Forney mentioned Austen as an outlier from the norm of female mediocrity: “Virtually all great leaders, thinkers and artists were men. Aristotle, Galileo, Michaelangelo [sic], Napoleon: all men. Not to say that all women are incapable of artistic, scientific or military talent; every so often, we get a Marie Curie, a Jane Austen or a Joan of Arc.” Here the alt-right finds common ground with the literary gatekeeper Harold Bloom; in his best seller The Western Canon (1994), Austen is one of four women on a list of 26 most influential authors. According to this formulation, Austen is not a trailblazer for the female authors who followed in her wake, but rather a rebuke to women who have not reached her level of achievement.
What an intensive conspiracy. In fact, it’s fevered anger like this that brings to mind one of Austen’s earlier novels, Northanger Abbey which plays which pokes fun at the popularity of “gothic” novels its time by having its protagonist see murder and danger around every corner, much the same way progressive bloggers vent about the comment sections of Alt Right articles.
Indeed, the Jane Austen outrage didn’t just stop with The Chronicle but has now penetrated into other elite purveyors of liberal discourse via The New York Times and The Paris Review.
From The Times article “Jane Austen Has Alt-Right Fans? Heavens to Darcy!”:
But it has prompted the most sustained chatter among Austen scholars, a more reliably liberal bunch who, like Ms. Wright, emphatically reject white nationalist readings of her novels.
“No one who reads Jane Austen’s words with any attention and reflection can possibly be alt-right,” Elaine Bander, a retired professor and a former officer of the Jane Austen Society of North America, said in an email.
“All the Janeites I know,” she added, “are rational, compassionate, liberal-minded people.”
That’s right! Rational, liberal minded people! We all know those Alt-Right buffoons aren’t reading books. Just look at how few references to Harry Potter they make!
Further:
In recent years, scholars have tried to find diversity in the seemingly all-white world of Austen, digging into subjects like Miss Lambe, a character in her unfinished final novel, “Sanditon,” described as a “half mulatto” heiress from the West Indies. (Yes, there is a scholarly paper with the title “The Silence of Miss Lambe.”)
But Ms. Wells said scholars teaching Austen at schools with “substantially multicultural students” still wrestled with a truth that must, perhaps, be uncomfortably acknowledged.
“Her characters are white, and her world is white,” she said. “What do you do with that?”
Of course Jane Austen comes out of a White world. This is why the commentary on the original Counter Currents article were so relevant. Because Jane Austen as a European writer speaks to peculiar conditions of European man, the same way Langston Hughes and Chaim Potok speak to their respective black and Jewish readers. All of Austen’s work takes place in a world where European identity, and in particular, regency English countryside identity, were presupposed.
The Paris Review, not to be out done, rehashes many of the same points, but includes the fact that we have also appropriated Barbour jackets (welcome news to me!):
First the white nationalists took that haircut—you know the one, an arty variant on the Marine’s high-and-tight buzz, endemic to white guys in gentrifying neighborhoods circa 2013. Then the white nationalists took Barbour field jackets, depriving a whole generation of the joys of waxed canvas. Now the white nationalists have come for Jane Austen, in whom they mistakenly see a love of tradition, and it is up to us to say: enough. Let them claim some other, lesser Regency writer—an E. T. A. Hoffmann, maybe, or even a Sir Walter Scott—and leave us to read Persuasion in peace, the animals. Jennifer Schuessler writes, “Some alt-right admirers hail Austen’s novels as blueprints for a white nationalist ‘ethno-state.’ Others cite her as a rare example of female greatness … A post on the website Counter Currents called ‘The Woman Question in White Nationalism,’ for example, includes a string of comments debating how the vision of marriage in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice fit with the ‘racial dictatorship’ necessary to preserve Western civilization. ‘If traditional marriage à la P&P is going to be imposed, again, in an ethnostate, we must behave like gentlemen,’ one commenter wrote.”
This kvetching brings to mind a line from Whit “WASP Woody Allen” Stillman’s movie Metropolitan, which has its earnest young socialist protagonist Tom Townsend debate the merits of Jane Austen with conservative young debutante’ Audrey Rouget. Upon pronouncing the concerns of Austen to be ridiculous for our times, Rouget caustically responds with “Has it ever occurred to you that today from Jane Austen’s perspective would look even worse?”
No one knows this better than the Alt Right.
“Has it ever occurred to you that today from Jane Austen’s perspective would look even worse?” https://t.co/eTZ0jAPEup
— Richard ? Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) March 13, 2017
I’ve been following the World Cup since Pelé went out with a bang in 1970. Over the decades, the rhetoric that quadrennially accompanies the soccer championship has grown ever more strident in its insistence that the reason most Americans find soccer less than galvanizing as a spectator sport is that they . . . fear diversity!
In reality, soccer, both at the international superstar level and at the park league level in America, Ws whiter than football, basketball, or baseball.
For example, the last World Cup was won by Italy’s all-White team. In America, this would be considered scandalous.
This article was originally published on June 23, 2010, at AlternativeRight.com.
I’ve been following the World Cup since Pelé went out with a bang in 1970. Over the decades, the rhetoric that quadrennially accompanies the soccer championship has grown ever more strident in its insistence that the reason most Americans find soccer less than galvanizing as a spectator sport is that they . . . fear diversity!
In reality, soccer, both at the international superstar level and at the park league level in America, Ws whiter than football, basketball, or baseball.
For example, the last World Cup was won by Italy’s all-White team. In America, this would be considered scandalous.
Let’s look at ESPN’s list from earlier this year of the “Top 50 players of the World Cup.” The five best players in the world — Lionel Messi of Argentina (who is of Italian descent), Christiano Ronaldo of Portugal (a Tim Tebow-lookalike), Wayne Rooney of England, Kaka of Brazil (who is from an upper middle-class family), and Xavi of Spain—are White.
Out of the top 10, eight are White and two from West Africa. Out of the top 50, the proportions look similar. Judging from their pictures, I would say 10 are Black, one is mostly White but clearly part Black, and the other 39 look more or less White. None of the top 50 are East Asian or South Asian, and I don’t see any that are as Mestizo-looking as, say, Diego Maradona, the star of the 1986 World Cup.
In contrast, only one American-born White guy has been selected to the NBA All Star game in the last half dozen years. Most of the prestige positions in the NFL other than quarterback are dominated by Blacks.
Of the soccer top 50, 24 are White guys from the six sunny powers of Spain (9 of the top 50), Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. In other words, almost half of the global soccer superstars are Southern Europeans. As baseball discovered back in the days of Joe DiMaggio, it doesn’t really hurt your sport’s popularity to have stylish Mediterranean guys as stars.
Whiteness is even more predominant in American soccer participation rates. From the late 1960s onward, White middle-class parents started to notice that soccer was a fine sport for their children to play, especially now that football and basketball were coming to be dominated at the highest levels by, well, by . . . uh, you know . . . And at this point countless conversations I’ve had over the years with very nice liberal White soccer parents typically break down into uncomfortable gesticulations as they try to not quite come out and say that soccer in America has been, to a large degree, White Flight in Short Pants.
One way to measure how much soccer is played by white youths is to look at a byproduct: the demographics of place-kickers in American football.
Traditionally, American kickers faced the goalposts squarely and swung their legs straight ahead, but in 1964 Pete Gogolak, a Hungarian refugee soccer player, introduced sidewinder kicking to pro football. Kicking the football off the instep rather than off the toes proved to be a superior technique. Foreign soccer players flooded into the NFL, such as Jan Stenerud, Garo Yepremian, Efren Herrera, and Donald Igwebuike.
Since Mark Mosely retired in 1986, every NFL field goal specialist has kicked soccer-style. Yet, the imported soccer player kicker has virtually vanished. Although NFL rosters are now only 31 percent White, every single one of the 39 players who attempted a field goal or extra point in the NFL in 2009 was a non-Hispanic White.
There are few famous NFL place-kickers anymore, though, because they’ve all gotten so good—they were successful on 82% of their field goal attempts in 2009 versus 56% in 1969. Now, unless they score in a snowstorm, they are only talked about when they miss.
If the NFL wanted more white heroes to attract fans, the league could narrow the goal posts to decrease percentages so that kicking one would be more exciting. Apparently, however, creating more White stars is not a priority in the business of American spectator sports.
In contrast to White youngsters, African-Americans (with the exceptions of immigrants and preppies) don’t much like soccer at all, as can be deduced from how bad at place-kicking Black high-school football teams tend to be.
Trotsky observed that while you may not be interested in war, war is interested in you. Similarly, African-Americans may not be interested in soccer, but the American soccer establishment sure is interested in them. The U.S. World Cup team is about one-third Black (while it’s only one-ninth Hispanic, even though Latinos outnumber Blacks in America and are vastly more interested in soccer).
That’s how Americans think about sports. The solution to every sporting problem is to Get The Best Athletes. And how do you know who the Best Athletes are? They’re the ones with the most Athleticism. (In case you can’t tell, these are all American Sportstalk euphemisms for “Black.”)
FIFA could change the rules to make soccer more a sport of explosiveness and sprinting ability, like American sports. Americans are used to watching games where athletes rush about in a frenzy for a few seconds, then take a breather. We tend to be annoyed by soccer’s shortage of substitutions and timeouts, which leaves soccer players dogging it around the field to conserve energy.
Over the generations, rule changes in American spectator sports have tended toward more timeouts, more substitutions, and more specialization. For example, college football players used to play both offense and defense, but by 1960, the NCAA allowed specialized offensive and defensive platoons.
Soccer, though, hasn’t gotten with the program. This not only reduces the number of commercials that can be shown during soccer broadcasts to un-American levels, it also subtly penalizes players of West African descent who tend to be better at sprints than at endurance running.
This is clear at the world-class level in men’s track & field. Blacks of West African ancestry monopolize the 100-meter dash, accounting for all but one of the 200 fastest times in history. They’re almost as good at 200 meters, not quite as overpowering at 400 meters, and only modestly competitive at 800 meters. They aren’t world class at any longer lengths, although a Black Brazilian did once run a fast marathon in the 1990s. (Brazilian blacks appear to average more East African ancestry than American and West Indian blacks.)
Whites on the other hand, tend to have more endurance than West Africans. The American urge to fix soccer’s rules to make it more “exciting” is a compulsion, in effect, to make soccer a better game for Blacks. White American sports administrators have so succeeded in making basketball and football more “exciting” than soccer that they’ve largely succeeded in pushing Whites out of the NBA and NFL.
So, FIFA could change the rules to make the game more appealing to American spectators, which would benefit Black athletes. But it doesn’t want to. It thinks soccer is fine the way it is, as a White-dominated sport.
The rest of the world seems to agree.
Ego-inflating rhetoric is everywhere. At work, at school , and at the mall, Americans expect everyone to tell ‘em how special, talented and important they are. In our inverted world, the weak are somehow strong, everyone who survives a hangnail is “brave,” and every bean-counter who works for the Department of Defense is a goddamn hero.
Originally published July 2012 for Alternative-Right
Ego-inflating rhetoric is everywhere. At work, at school , and at the mall, Americans expect everyone to tell ‘em how special, talented and important they are. In our inverted world, the weak are somehow strong, everyone who survives a hangnail is “brave,” and every bean-counter who works for the Department of Defense is a goddamn hero.
At GloboCorp, the human resources department tries to convince every John and Juanita that they are absolutely essential to the success of the organization. Everyone’s creative talents are valued, and everyone from the janitor to the CEO is capable of making tremendous positive contributions. In his recent book about the value of work, Matthew B. Crawford argued that modern corporations devalue meaningful achievement when they pander to us and speak as though everyone were some sort of Einstein.
Americans like to be told that they are brilliant and brave, but as a people these aren’t our highest values anymore. Who can name five legitimate, recent war heroes? The hoi polloi don’t care too much about who is smart, either. They only care about science when they want to lose weight, win an argument on the Internet, or find out how the world is going to end. If you can name ten guys doing hard science right now, you’re probably a scientist.
Most people know they aren’t Einsteins, and they really don’t care. They have a more pressing concern.
What they’re really asking themselves is, “Am I hot, or not?”
Beautiful people are the brightest beacons in our floating world. Attractive models and actors get far more praise and attention than Medal of Honor recipients. People love technology, but they use it to keep up with the Kardasians. They pack into gyms, but strength and fitness are by-products of their desire to be desired. A six-pack has a higher value than a powerful bench press or a heavy squat. No one cares how much Tatum Channing or Brad Pitt lifts, or how fast they can run, or what they can build, or how many men they could defeat in combat. They’re admired for being desirable.
It used to be that only young women worried excessively about being desired. In traditional patriarchal societies, a woman who no one wants as a wife becomes a burden on her parents. An unwanted woman could never become a mother or run a household. She remained forever a dependent daughter or an independent, lonely spinster. For women of marriageable age, attractiveness had a very high value, and while the importance of attractiveness decreases with age, most men would still rather have a pretty wife than an ugly one. Whether by habit or by nature, many women tend to enjoy painting and adorning themselves to appear youthful, fertile, feminine and appealing.
However, the woman who cares the most about being desired is the harlot, because her survival depends on her ability to lure men into her loins.
Some will point to male ornamentation as a counter-example, but the motivation behind male embellishment has traditionally been different. When men decorated themselves, they did it to appear more fearsome or to communicate status. Samurai wore rouge, and like many finer points of samurai grooming, they did it so that their enemies would respect them as virile opponents even after they were dead. They didn’t tart themselves up to get laid. They did it to gain the respect of men.
Last weekend, a movie about male strippers made $39.2 million dollars at the box office. America’s come a long way since Flashdance.
In The Way of Men, I used Bonobos and Chimpanzees to compare the female-oriented society to the male-oriented society. People aren’t exactly the same as apes, but I think Chimps and Bonobos make revealing metaphors for where we’ve been, and where we seem to be headed.
Bonobos live luxuriously, with access to as much food as they need. Female coalitions check male aggression, and males rarely form tight-knit groups. Males don’t know who their fathers are, only their mothers. Sex is, as a bar whore once said to a pal of mine, “like shaking hands.” Homosexuality is commonplace because sex is a social activity, and everyone has sex with everyone. It’s not about reproduction; sex is about mutual masturbation and having a good time. Sex is a major part of bonobo life. Bonobos are said to be peaceful, and while that may not be completely true, they’re definitely matrilineal and exceptionally horny.
Chimpanzees form patriarchal hunting groups. The males stick together, and the females end up moving from group to group. Sex is a reproductive activity. Homosexuality is rare. Males dominate females and the males at the top of the male hierarchy control the group.
America is fast becoming a “Bonobo Masturbation Society,” devoted to pleasure and organized primarily to serve the interests of females. More and more men are raised by single mothers, and males are discouraged from organizing without female supervision. Sex is social, and the majority of the hard, dangerous work that men used to do is either done by machines, idiot-proofed, or outsourced to countries where life is cheap. Women and dishonorable men micromanage male aggression with endless laws and lawsuits, and bad boys who can’t pay big lawyers are drop-kicked into a multi-billion dollar prison industry that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world.
In our Bonobo Masturbation Society, fucking is one of the only things men are encouraged to do that actually makes them feel like men.
Throughout the Alt-Right, several writers have criticized “pick-up artist” culture and “game.”
Because just about the only manly thing that most men are allowed to do is bang, I am more sympathetic. I see what many call game as a kind of gateway masculinity. Game is essentially assertiveness training for a generation of young men who spent most of their lives playing “mother may I?”
Manliness is like a talent. Some males are more gifted than others, but like any talent, masculinity has to be pushed and developed to amount to anything impressive. Boys who were raised by single moms or overprotective parents and put through the public school feminist brain-washing system were never tried or trained by groups of hard men. You can’t hand a hen-pecked boy a high school diploma and expect him to spit like Clint Eastwood.
When they talk about game, men in the Manosphere are shoveling through the bullshit that the system tells boys about girls. This is work that needs to be done. If average young guys believe the official malarkey they are told about sex and relationships, they’ll be used and abused by entitled American girls for the rest of their lives. And, as they unpack feminist myths about the sexes, I’ve seen a lot of those guys start to wonder what it really means to be men. This is an important conversation. However, it almost seems like a safer route in today’s cultural climate to make chasing poon a long-term lifestyle choice. That’s where the positive mean slides toward a negative extreme.
Andy Nowicki wrote that if men really wanted to undermine the matriarchy, they would stop fucking. He may have his own (possibly religious) reasons for saying so, but I think he has a point.
Our feminist, globalist handlers would love nothing more than to keep young men — the most dangerous and potentially revolutionary group in any civilization – completely distracted by tang. And while it may feel like asserting dominance (in conveniently the most harmless way possible), if everything you do is designed to make you more appealing to women, you’re an eager vibrator. When your muscle is just for show, when everything you do is to make yourself more desirable, you’re playing the female role. When your worth as a man depends on how many women you can lure to your loins, you’re just a gigolo.
As Hunter S. Thompson noted, sex is the most fun for amateurs. It’s great when you’re young, pretty, naïve and carefree — but “old whores don’t do much giggling.”
Mark Simpson had a lot of this figured out when he coined the word “metrosexual” way back in 1994. The metrosexual is not necessarily gay or effeminate in the flamboyant sense of the word — that’s just the way people picked up the word. Simpson’s idea of the metrosexual is a “mirror man” whose highest narcissistic concerns are pleasure-seeking and being regarded as “desirable.” He may be in love with himself, but that, too, is a shallow kind of love. He cares more about how he looks and how well he fucks than what he has achieved or how well he is respected. It’s a harlot’s vanity.
Hugh Hefner was far ahead of his time. It was homosexual men who pioneered the bonobo lifestyle en masse. Before today’s PUAs were in pre-school, homos were doing it for the numbers, looking for validation, basing their self-worth on how many and how hot. Homosexual men rejected traditional male roles and expectations, and channeled all of their masculine aggression into sex for the sake of sex. Their idea of masculinity became masturbatory — a pumped up Tom of Finland caricature of masculine form without function or honor or virtue. Homosexual men, because they were men, set the cultural stage for objectifying men the way that men have always objectified women.
As pilot bonobos, the homos discovered the downsides of harlotry. An experienced player was bound to acquire a handful of STDs, and AIDS practically wiped out an entire generation of “sexually liberated” men. For many, there are also psychological costs. Being desired is a drug, and it’s addictive. When it’s your highest value, it becomes your identity. One of the problems — and this has always been a curse to women — is that sexual attractiveness is linked to the mating instinct, and it peaks in the young. Men mature more flatteringly than women, but most men who trade on their sex appeal won’t relax into the confident, secure, middle-aged manhood of their forefathers. Like homos and movie stars, I wonder how many of today’s players will chase steroids and sex drugs and eventually convince themselves that maybe that Kenny Rogers face lift will look better on them than it does on him. (It won’t, fellas. You’ll still look like an old lesbian who can’t blink.) There’s something particularly desperate, sad and undignified about a man of a certain age who spends too much time looking for sexual validation.
What’s worse is that straight men aren’t in the market for men, they’re in the market for women, so biology puts them at a major disadvantage. Game strategist Heartiste recently posted about an online dating experience where together, the two best looking guys managed to get a total of 50 messages from women, while the most attractive woman got over 536 messages from men in the same time period. That playing field will never be close to equal, but game is gaining popularity because men see that disparity and want to increase their odds.
Good-looking men with some game may be able to keep at it for most of their lives, and they’ll end up with some good stories. A small minority of men have always been libertines, and some men are probably particularly well suited to it. Some will have regrets, and some won’t.
The problem isn’t what happens to a few players, but what we become as a society when everyone wants to be a player. Libertinism used to be a form of rebellion, but increasingly, it’s part of the program. In a society where sex and attractiveness are the highest values, what happens to the other two-thirds of the curve?
The flesh won’t be democratized. Attractiveness isn’t any more evenly distributed than strength, size, or IQ. The world is full of fat, ugly people. People can improve their lot with diet and exercise and grooming — and they should — but you can only put so much lipstick on a pig. Some men and women just aren’t that great looking. A lot of people are actually pretty repulsive. A few should probably avoid daylight altogether, because they frighten small children.
Women have always been aware of the cruel elitism of beauty’s natural hierarchy. In societies where other virtues had higher value, they could focus on piety or simply being good mothers. When women were “sexually liberated,” some feminists (usually the fat, ugly ones) thought they could rely on social conditioning to give us all permanent beer goggles and make every bloated hag as desirable as Heather Locklear. If only Barbie had realistic proportions, or we were forced to watch more morbidly obese people on television, then fewer tears would tumble into buckets of ice cream. They keep pushing for “fat acceptance” and keep telling us that “big is beautiful.” When that doesn’t work, they barrage us with bad clichés and try to convince us that beauty is either in the eye of the beholder, or “on the inside.” We might patronize them, or try to be more sensitive, but pretending everyone is equally beautiful is just as absurd and untrue as pretending everyone is an Einstein.
No one wants a Barbie doll with cankles, and the de-objectification of women is at odds with the Zeitgeist of our oversexed Bonobo Masturbation Society. Andrea Dworkin lost, and more teenage girls than ever are watching hardcore porn to learn how to twist, stroke and swallow like the pros. I go to the gym and I see young guys who aren’t there to lift or get big. They’re following routines to “cut up” and build a body “for the ladies.” Those ladies are tanning, getting boob jobs, and trying to look like strippers. A friend who teaches at a high school in California said they had to cancel Halloween dress-up days because the kids didn’t want to be scary or cute anymore. Boys and girls alike used the holiday as an excuse to come to school as close to naked as possible.
People used to have decent aspirations. They wanted to have families. They wanted to do good work. They wanted to be good citizens, good Christians, good people. Now everyone wants to be a player and a porn star. Everyone wants to be the kind of monkey that all of the other monkeys wants to rub up against.
We call this matrilineal hump-fest “progress,” and seek our moral redemption in recycling.
Sex may be natural, and it sure is fun, but
it’s just a part of life. A society that over-emphasizes sex to the point where it seems like the only thing in life that means anything is grotesque and degraded, and for most people it delivers more emptiness than ecstasy.
In healthy patriarchies, men push themselves to earn the respect and admiration of other men. They work to prove their strength, courage and competence to each other. Men pride themselves on their reputation for mastery of their bodies, their actions, and their environment. They want to be known for what they can do, not just how well or who they can screw. And they sure as hell don’t waste their time trying to figure out what they can do to bedazzle bimbos.
Hell, in some places, when a man is ready to take a wife, he just picks one andkidnaps her. Men used to get married and get on with their lives. It seems like a healthier life path to me, and I’ve previewed what the other side has to offer.
Recently, I watched Restrepo, a documentary about soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. There was this scene in it where the Americans had to negotiate with local tribal elders. The elders were a bunch of dead serious-looking old dudes and their long beards were dyed bright red with henna.
Our tribal “allies” in the graveyard of empires have their problems. They shit in their hands and rape little boys. Their customs leave room for improvement.
However, as I watched their grave eyes, I wondered if any of these men had spent much time wondering, “Am I hot, or not?”
If you needed any proof to confirm Gregory Hood’s assertion that marriage is a dying institution, look no further than the wedding promo video “Boss Wedding.”
We’re bringing back Alternative Right’s famoous “So This Is How It Ends” feature, which highlights particularly insane current events and developments that remind us that we are truly “Revolting Against The Modern World”
If you needed any proof to confirm Gregory Hood’s assertion that marriage is a dying institution, look no further than the wedding promo video “Boss Wedding.”
Made to imitate a rap video, “Boss Wedding” features an interracial couple (pretty blonde/black dude pair) doing ghetto fabulous things before descending into a nightclub packed full of Indian dancers and other signs of the Kali Yuga — all with Jay Z and Kanye West’s “Niggas in Paris” providing the soundtrack. It’s obvious that it cost a small fortune to produce this 2-minute clip.
Note: the groom, Bambo Obaro, is a lawyer who works for one of America’s top law firms, Weil Gotshal (they must’ve been founded by Germans or something). We sure do wonder how Obaro landed a gig there with a degree from a lesser law school…
Bambo + Janice Epic Wedding Trailer from Major Diamond Productions on Vimeo.
What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there
Originally published at Right Stuff and posted on Alt-Right; reposted in the wake of the death of WBC’s leader Fred Phelps.
When I first saw media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a few years ago my first reaction was “LOLWUT”. My next reaction was that it had to be a troll. I found it so hard to take seriously because the WBC represents in pure concentrated form every leftist conceit about the nature of their non-opposition. They are white, rural, religious and openly bigoted against the most celebrated victim group of the moment.
I am not going to condemn or defend the WBC. I find them mildly amusing, but beyond that I am indifferent. What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there.
Liberals would so dearly love for the WBC to be representative of their opposition that they hem and haw over their “free speech rights” to create disturbances at military funerals and trespass on private property. In a sane society people engaging in such activities would simply be removed with force, not pandered to and granted the “right” to engage in such behavior. Ironically, it is precisely such behavior that cultural leftists used to come to power in the first place. Whether intentionally or not, the WBC is aping the gay rights movement in tactics. At one point I thought perhaps the WBC was an elaborate ruse to wake leftists up to the social value of violently excluding undesirables. If so, this would at least be an admirable if ultimately futile goal.
In reality liberalism faces no enemies, so it must create them. What passes for conservatism in this country is basically warmed over liberalism combined with occasional unintentional self-parody. Yet liberals will pretend that they are a mighty force to contend with. As I have discussed elsewhere this is ridiculous. Whatever power non-liberal groups have in this country is ceded to them by the left in a desperate effort to create the pretense of conflict and opposition.
The human soul needs conflict and struggle to give meaning to existence, yet liberal ideology is entirely built around eliminating conflict from society. They have been so successful at this that the main issue of the day is whether or not men can “marry” men and the main argument in favor of the practice is that feelings will be hurt if society reserves the title of marriage for male/female relationships only. This is why the left keeps the WBC around. It gives them the pretense of struggle, the facade of conflict and thus temporarily fills the gaping void they feel in the souls that they deny they possess.
To give an example of this a friend (who shall remain nameless) that is a student at Vassar College, the WBC’s next target, shared this note he received in his inbox:
Vassar students, employees, and friends,
Many of you know of the statement yesterday by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas that they will picket Vassar College on February 28 in protest of our open support of LGBTQ students, employees, and alums. Should the Westboro Baptist Church choose to come to Poughkeepsie, they will not be allowed to gather on campus. As a College, we look forward to any opportunity to counter messages of hatred and bigotry and to underscore Vassar’s values.
Vigorous conversations are underway online, on campus, and among all parts of our community on how best to express and reaffirm our values in relation to this picketing. All are invited to participate in these conversations, including one taking place tonight, Monday, at 10 p.m. in UpC, facilitated by students.
Jon Chenette
Acting President
Vigorous conversations? Why even bother? Look forward to it? Of course they do. What else have they got to look forward to other than dildos and interracial porn? One of the ideas that came up as a way to respond to the grave threat of the WBC is this proposal to “crowd fund” a gay teen suicide prevention hotline.
The Westboro Baptist Church has announced that they will picket Vassar College on Feb 28th.
In response, we are raising money for the Trevor Project, ”the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth.” Our goal is to raise $4,500, or $100 per minute that the WBC is planning to protest for.
How utterly facile. Of course this non-effort has been wildly successful precisely because it is so facile. The WBC represents everything postmodern liberalism could ever ask for. The caricature of an enemy, the pretense of conflict and risk free ways of “fighting back” and affirming the values of anti-values. What a joke.
On Christmas day, we started something new and revived something that needs a breath of life. RadixJournal.com is now live, featuring original writing, podcasts, and blogging on culture, society, race, politics, and beyond. Roman Bernard is Managing Editor. Both he and I will contribute frequently, and we will also involve the best writers in our movement.
On Christmas day, we started something new and revived something that needs a breath of life. RadixJournal.com is now live, featuring original writing, podcasts, and blogging on culture, society, race, politics, and beyond. Roman Bernard is Managing Editor. Both he and I will contribute frequently, and we will also involve the best writers in our movement. Radix is a project of The National Policy Institute, as well as its publishing division, Washington Summit Publishers.[1]
Editing Takimag from 2008–2010 and founding AlternativeRight.com in 2010 and editing it for its first two years, I have a track record of producing superior material online and maintaining standards. Radix is a culmination of much what I’ve been working on and thinking about for the past five years.[2]
RadixJournal.com will also play a complementary role to the print journal. Many articles that appear first online will be developed and expanded for the journal; in turn, print articles will, after a while, get a second life online.
Radix Journal is, we think, the proper use of print in the 21st century. Paper has given way to the Internet and mobile Web as the primary means of communication; but print still possesses an aura of authority and permanence, and it presents aesthetic opportunities that are not available online. We need to work in this medium, and Radix Journal will be a cultural flagship.
We’ve been delighted with Radix’s first issue, The Great Erasure, as well as the second, Pop Fascism, which is in an advanced stage of preparation. That said, we’ve simply fallen behind on producing volumes—and we know this has really frustrated subscribers. Roman has promised to be a cruel taskmaster in keeping me and the print edition of Radix on schedule. And an extremely valuable person has stepped in to lighten my load in editing and publishing books. And the website will play a vital role as the incubator for new material.
What is the real motivation behind Radix? In many ways, it’s quite simple. Good writing is an end in itself, as is the creation of a culture outside the boundaries of Americanism, liberalism, and the hideous academic establishment. (Building a culture is, of course, a collective project, and Radix will be one voice among many others.)
Secondly, we who support projects like Radix recognize that renewing our our people and culture is not simply about passing or defeating one bill, turning one knob, pulling one lever, or pressing for one single issue. It’s not that “politics” (in this technical sense of the word) does not have a place … it does … but we must be honest with ourselves: defeating the latest bad bill produced in Washington would, in the rosiest possible scenario, delay the destruction of our people and civilization by an hour or two.
Our task is to develop a fundamentally new way of looking at the world, a new way of acting and understanding ourselves, a different and higher value system. This is an enormous task! But the fight is worth fighting, and the struggle will be rewarding.
We hope you’ll join us!
Sincerely,
Richard Spencer
Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search
