Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Conservatism

Burn Down the Colleges

The purpose of a college education, Joe Sobran opined, is to give you the correct view of minorities, and the means to live as far away from them as possible.  Today, of course, you don’t get the means to move anywhere – you just get the debt that forces you to move back in with your parents. 

The purpose of a college education, Joe Sobran opined, is to give you the correct view of minorities, and the means to live as far away from them as possible.  Today, of course, you don’t get the means to move anywhere – you just get the debt that forces you to move back in with your parents. 

Prior generations of students were at least expected to retain a kind of intellectual elitist liberalism – think of Robert F. Kennedy reciting Greek poetry to a black audience when Martin Luther King was assassinated.  Today’s students can’t read The Great Gatsby without a “trigger warning.”  While White, blue collar America fights the Empire’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation’s future leaders are thrown into hysterics at the thought of cracking open Huckleberry Finn.  The educational experience in the liberal arts at many universities is essentially absent.

This is a feature, not a bug.  The rise of the Managerial Class and the mass access to higher education created by government funding changed the purpose of the university.  Instead of a place of learning for the traditional aristocracy, higher education is a certification process for white collar jobs.  Just as union membership was once required for certain blue collar jobs, a university degree granted permission to work in an office.  And as the Managerial Class consolidates its grip and hardens its ideology, a university is also an indicator that the individual has received the approved ideological training and can be trusted to participate in the anti-White regime. 

This is now becoming increasing formalized.  At Harvard University, students at the Kennedy School of Government, including minorities who gained admission though affirmative action, are advocating mandatory training in “privilege” for all students.  There are conflicting reports on whether the school has acquiesced to the demand.  At Princeton, a Jewish student’s mild critique of “white privilege” (and defense of Jewish privilege) has led to the usual girlish shrieking by the social justice warriors.  There is no theoretical limit to the amount of ideological training (or manipulative government policies) enabled by “privilege theory”, and universities will simply be a factory for churning out commissars and ideologically approved worker bees. 

The problem of course is that the Parasitic Class has a natural limit in economic terms.  Fewer and fewer of these college graduates can actually produce anything.  Again, Sobran – “In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college.”

What’s worse, the one thing these graduates do know how to do is complain about their oppression, file lawsuits, and generally cripple the country unfortunate enough to have to deal with them.  The mentally handicapped student “Noah” who is “going to college” will contribute more than the typical illegal immigrant “DREAMER” who will be allowed to stay in the country because he can pull a C average in “Chicano/a Studies.”  At least Noah won’t file a discrimination lawsuit if he gets a job as a Wal-Mart greeter.  Far from being an advantage, the “best” liberal arts programs in the country are actually a crippling weakness for the United States, because all they do is turn out people who will be employed in making the country worse. 

To use just one example, take the “can’t make it up” example from Towson University, where particularly vibrant specimens of multiculturalism were awarded a national championship in debate precisely because they refused to obey the rules and instead ululated about racism.  Even more hilarious are the White reporters who coo over this development as if it is a great triumph.  If only one of their opponents had simply read a paragraph or two from Rushton, Murray, or Wade and then dropped the mic and walked away, the nation (which is to say, the European-Americans who keep this country limping along) would have cheered. 

But this will not happen.  Reform will not come from the universities themselves or certainly from students.  While conservative groups occasionally talk about “taking back the universities,” the Beltway Right flails about trying to get college students to “celebrate Ronald Reagan’s birthday.” The smarter groups simply run race-baiting websites that draw hits and donations, while funding harmless and pointless activities about tax cuts or the federal debt.  And as for the campus libertarians, they will make it a point to condemn “fusionism” and refuse to ally with right wingers on the “wrong side of history” – to the utter indifference of the “conservative” gatekeepers who wail and gnash their teeth about the presence of a Peter Brimelow at CPAC.  

Nor will conservative donors save the day by pulling funds from the schools.  Progressives never went broke underestimating the stupidity, short-sightedness, and reactionary delusions of paleo-Americans.  While leftist donors fund a relentless legal and activist assault on White America, “right-wing” millionaires either fund football teams, open borders activism, or sophomoric study programs on the thought of Ayn Rand. 

Yet in spite all of this, the Education Bubble will eventually pop.  College has only one practical use, other than just networking.  It’s not what you learn at an Ivy League school that means anything – it is gaining admission and showing that you were smart enough to graduate.  Higher education is simply an extremely expensive and inefficient IQ test.  And as colleges are forced to put classes online and alternative education systems like Khan Academy grow in popularity, savvy donors may begin to wonder why they should blow millions of dollars in donations so “Professor” Cornel West can record a rap album and ham it up in crappy Matrix sequels, or so illiterate charlatans can enjoy a new “Ethnic Studies” department.  They might start looking for alternatives.

Many of the leading figures of the tech revolution – Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerburg, Steve Wozniak, Michael Dell, and others are college dropouts.  Peter Thiel offers a program that actually pays students to leave college in order to start their own businesses.  What the emerging economy values is less “the college experience” than raw intellectual power.  As Bill Gates says, Microsoft’s biggest competitor is not another tech company, but Goldman Sachs, because they are both competing for the best human capital (at least in terms of intelligence). 

An alternative method of education already exists online.  What is needed is a new method of credentialing employees – be it through a universal IQ test, the creation of “technical schools” for white collar jobs, or even using college admissions themselves as proof of qualification, rather than an actual diploma in diversity studies one receives after four years and six figures. 

The Left sees this as a threat, hence the increasing volume of effeminate whining about Silicon Valley’s “disturbing bro-culture” or even subversive (Dark Enlightenment) ideas.  This is also why the media is increasing efforts to put more members of the Parasitic Class into the offices and boardrooms of companies such as Twitter and Facebook.  In San Francisco, this has already led to a kind of intra-Left civil war, as the eco-friendly and SWPL tech employees find themselves targeted by white anarchists and Hispanic immigrants demanding handouts. 

Unfortunately for them, the tech industry is not like the media or academia.  In a global marketplace that prioritizes intelligence and efficiency, even a titan like Google can only tolerate so many pet “debate champions” (a new euphemism for the Sons of Obama) before its top talent flees to another competitor, even overseas.  Unlike universities or propaganda mills, the tech industry needs people who offer something to the company besides high estrogen, high melanin, and low IQ, or some combination thereof.  The tech industry (as shown by its championing of amnesty) doesn’t care about the country – but its very sociopathy enables it to ignore the faux egalitarianism of the subsidized servants of academia.

American higher education is an active liability for the country.  It won’t be long before the degrees they award will be liabilities as well.  A college degree will symbolize that the gradate is either a coward at best or a litigious, whining incompetent at worst.  Conservatives need to stop considering it an accomplishment if more people “go to college.”  The objective should not be to save the universities from themselves.  It should be to pop the Education Bubble, create serious alternatives for productive Americans, and starve the Parasitic Class and their training camps of the resources they need to survive. 

Revolutions occur when the political system prevents the most talented people in a society from reaching the status that they feel entitled to.  American culture increasingly resembles one particularly large university, with all the waste, incompetence, and stupidity which that entails.  The authentic American Right will have an opportunity when the talented and productive members of society take a hard look at the cesspool of diversity higher education has become, and decide they can do better with an alternative.   

No Comments on Burn Down the Colleges

The God They Really Believe In

A conservative is someone who identifies with an institution but will not accept the means necessary to create or maintain it.  This especially extends to religion, where modern Christians will adopt the trappings of Sacred Tradition and the heritage of a particular denomination but enthusiastically condemn their own past.  What they want is simply for modernity to suffer them to exist.  What they worship is egalitarianism – and the “god” they invented is simply a marketing scam.  

A conservative is someone who identifies with an institution but will not accept the means necessary to create or maintain it.  This especially extends to religion, where modern Christians will adopt the trappings of Sacred Tradition and the heritage of a particular denomination but enthusiastically condemn their own past.  What they want is simply for modernity to suffer them to exist.  What they worship is egalitarianism – and the “god” they invented is simply a marketing scam.  

L’enfant terrible Matt Heimbach and longtime white activist Matt Parrot operate the Traditional Youth Network, an organization that fights for “Traditionalism” with heavy Christian overtones.  Both Matts are converts to Orthodox Christianity, and incorporate their faith into their activism, with explicit role models including the Romanian Iron Guard, the Greek Golden Dawn, and to a lesser extent, Putin’s Russia.  To many reactionaries, Traditionalists, and white advocates, an Orthodox civilization with what Dugin calls the “Byzantine idea of the symphony of powers” is gradually forming a counter-bloc to the post-modern “West,” which seemingly defines itself by multiculturalism and sexual degeneracy.  This may be actually happening — or it might just be another example of the hard right falling into its classic error of seeing what they want to see.  (Ron and Rand Paul anyone?)

Whatever the case, despite the reputation of Heimbach and Parrot as primarily white advocates, much of the TYN’s energy is directed towards restoring a kind of old-fashioned Christian moralism.  They oppose feminism, homosexuality, and the breakdown of the family.  A true organic society, they argue, is opposed to both “rape culture” and “slut culture.”  Thus, a group of TYN activists, featuring a bearded Heimbach sporting an Orthodox cross, protested a “Slutwalk” at Indiana University.  As to be expected, they were attacked by violent leftists, giving us the amusing image of Matt Heimbach, Cross-Bearer, defending his comrades.  

Soon afterward, one Father Peter Jon Gillquist issued an “important message” to his congregation saying that Matt Heimbach had been excommunicated.  Normally, this would be private of course, but “as in the present case of Matthew Heinbach” [sic] it was necessary to trumpet his actions to the world.  “Heinbach” apparently was only received into the church because Father Gillquist did not know about Heimbach’s “nationalist, segregationist” views.  And after all, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).”  

This is similar to the denunciation of Jewish convert “Brother Nathaniel” by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the same grounds that “there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Colossians 3:11).”

Naturally, various “Orthodox bloggers” hastened to make sure they were also counted among the elect.  A Father “Ernesto Obregon” implicitly compared TYN to a pedophile – perhaps an unfortunate insult for priests to be slinging these days.  Obregon also confessed he had a “nightmare” that TYN’s views would be seen as Orthodox.  As terrifying as it sounds,

“They continue to post very pro-White messages on their Facebook page. No, they do not post overtly anti-other ethnic group messages…Nevertheless, one finds direct links to more toxic groups…. one encounters messages very much in favor of each ethnic group being able to maintain its cultural identity, and encouraging people to marry within their ethnic group to preserve that identity and keep each ethnicity separate and clearly identifiable.”  

And we can’t have that.  At least among whites.  

Eric Jobe, a Ph.D candidate who mostly “specializes in Hebrew poetry, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Second Temple Judaism,” offers us some subtle and intellectual rhetoric that it is a “satanic delusion” to believe in racial integrity.  Also, “racism and ethnic nationalism is just such a malignant tumor and an infectious disease that has no place among the holy people of God.”

There’s also one Sister Maria Gwyn McDowell.  Sister McDowell is a “feminist [and] a student of liberation theology” with a “doctorate in Theological Ethnics from Boston College.”  She entertains herself by suggesting that the Theotokos is on the side of Pussy Riot and publishing other “anti-kyriarchal” amusements.  A real model of piety – and one who need have no fear of excommunication.

The most important response, however, is that of the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher who giggles about getting to use words like “repent” and “heresy” to attack “racism, anti-Semitism, and fascism.”  “When things like this happen in public, the Church must speak clearly and uncompromisingly about them,” Dreher intones.  Dreher also throws in a sneering reference to “neopaganism” for good measure.  No Church Militant for the “Crunchy Con.”

Interestingly, many of the self-proclaimed Orthodox Christians critical of TYN do not come from the customary Orthodox background of ethnic communities.  Fr. Gillquist is the son of Archpriest Peter Gillquist, who led a movement of former Protestant evangelicals into the Orthodox Church in America.  Dreher is a former Methodist who converted to Catholicism and then Orthodoxy.  Father Obregon,
another convert, is upset about “pro-White messages” but trumpets his Cuban ethnicity in the very name of his blog precisely because it is not a traditional Orthodox community.  And while “McDowell” claims to be a longtime member of the church, her participation in it seems to be characterized by her desire to change everything about it.  Not surprisingly, she
writes that members of her family were “Jewish… card-carrying communists.”  

Perhaps more than any other Christian denomination (not including the poorly attended “national churches” of Europe), the Orthodox Church is characterized by its close identification with national and cultural boundaries.  The explicit identification of the two is condemned as the heresy of “Phyletism.”  However, formal condemnation does not change the fact that Orthodox Church organizational bodies tend to be rooted in a particular community and even churches in the United States are closely linked to ethnic groups with a strong identity.  Like Mexicans coming to America or Yankees coming to the South, Dreher and his new friends are doing their best to turn their refuge into a carbon copy of the thing they once fled by condemning this.

More importantly, as even McDowell admits, the Orthodox Church is not exactly a bastion of egalitarianism.  It could even be called a particularly “kyriachal” institution.  Groups like the Black Hundreds and the Iron Guard were inspired by Orthodoxy and received the blessing of church officials.  St. John of Kronstadt was a member of a nationalist party and expressed his dedication to the Russian Tsar, as highlighted by TYN.  The Church Father St. John Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos  explicitly blames the Jews for the crucifixion and suggests that the “chosen people” of God are now Christians – “They became dogs, and we became the children.”

Of more relevance is the traditional Eastern Christian unity between church and state.  The Russian government and specifically the Russian Orthodox Church are pushing a new narrative of an Orthodox “Russian world” that will provide an alternative to the decadent West, much to the wailing of the media.  Patriarch Kirill explicitly identifies the mission of his church as a defender of a “Russian world” that is a “distinct civilization” based upon Orthodoxy.  Not surprisingly, possible ecclesiastical divisions among Orthodox communities are becoming a forerunner to possible political divisions in Ukraine.  

What is at stake is two differing ways of viewing the church, and in a larger sense, religion.  TYN sees the faith as a one element of a people composed of “faith, biology, and culture.”  A faith may be universally applicable, but it should support a people’s right to maintain its own separate existence.  It is an ordering principle for a people.  Whatever the theological truth of this, this is how most religions develop, particularly the Eastern Christianity characterized by strong links to the state and organized along national lines.  The Russian Orthodox Church of today sees itself in this way.  

The second way is to regard religion as a purely abstract creed that can be adopted by anyone.  This is at the heart of Jobe’s chest pounding about a “holy people of God” who may be from any background, but adopt certain beliefs.  It is the “proposition religion.” Jobe, McDowell, Fr. Obregon, and Fr. Gillquist reflect this in their oddly simplistic and emotional pronouncements that Orthodox Christianity mandates the destruction of white ethnic identity.  

The reduction of Christianity to “you are neither Jew nor Gentile, man nor woman” seems almost  designed to force non-suicidal whites to adopt explicit Identitarian religion and Neopaganism.  Dreher clearly senses this, hence his attack.  But Dreher is the most dishonest of TYN’s critics because he wants to have it both ways.  Dreher is pursuing what the late Lawrence Auster called an “unprincipled exception” to liberalism.  He wants a conservative denomination that reflects his interest in place and community and allow him a superficial dissent from political correctness once in a while.  However, he will not tolerate anything that has a definitive statement against liberal universalism.  

As Dreher’s own life shows us, Catholicism used to be the cliché conversion faith for American conservatives trying to look hard.  After all, it wasn’t that long ago when the Pope was condemning “Americanism” as a heresy.   However, that is increasingly hard to sustain when the contemporary Vicar of Christ tweets profound wisdom like “inequality is the root of social evil.”  Of course, that hasn’t stopped Catholic conservatives from maintaining the proud post-Vatican II tradition that whoever is Pope didn’t actually mean whatever the latest tripe he served.  But it has reduced the Church of Rome’s appeal.  Now the hot new thing is Orthodoxy, but the same hollowing out process has already begun, at least in America.

What is called “religion” in the modern world isn’t really religion at all.  It’s simply a collection of empty rituals that serve as variations on the same egalitarian theme.  Absent a direct connection to community, religion is viewed publicly like choosing a sports team or a favorite food – a private preference of little consequence.  The fact that almost all religions are identified with ethnic communities or a past connection to a regime or cultural order simply makes it easier for people to continue to align with it out of shallow nostalgia.  But the linkage is no longer explicit.  

As modernity runs its course, the churches actually serve as a necessary safety valve.  They give people the illusion of identity without the substance.  They present the form of Tradition while preaching a doctrine of destruction.  And they carry forward the existence of an institution while hollowing it out from the inside.  Those churches that try to cling to doctrine in the face of this usually fall into the trap of the “unprincipled exception” themselves – for example, hammering on the sin of gay marriage, while fanatically preaching about the evils of racism.  Far from being an obstacle to modernity, the churches are a ne
cessary facilitator, a tool to systematically render would be Traditionalists either impotent or counterproductive.

Before long of course, the institutions are exhausted.  What is, after all, the Unitarian Church other than a tax dodge for progressive activists?  What are the mainline Protestant churches but facilitators of mass immigration?  And what is the bulk of the Catholic Church today but yet another ornate temple to social democracy, albeit one that opposes abortion on the grounds of egalitarianism?  Those believers that are left are betrayed by their own shepherds.  Viewing the collapse of American churches, it seems that Orthodoxy is simply a generation behind.  Like American conservatism, American religion is a “game, a way of making a living,” in the words of Joe Sobran, another man who took the heritage of his church seriously and paid for it.

Dreher bases his career (such as it is) on the importance of “place,” but peoples create significance and meaning, not tracts of dirt or old buildings.  And peoples sustain a faith or doom it to oblivion.  Whatever the truth of a particular doctrine, once cut off from the ethnic roots that sustain it, a faith will either wither and die or transform into a golem like monstrosity that will choke the life out of the very community that gave it existence.

Joseph de Maistre, a great Christian reactionary, wrote that every people gets the government it deserves.  This may be true of the churches as well, as the denominations are drying up in the shallow soil of 21st century America, leaving the real seekers for Truth bereft.  Matt Parrot asks, “What does a man do when his championship of Authority and Tradition results in his traditional authority prohibiting his life’s work immediately and without warning?”  Perhaps the answer is that the authority he bowed to is not a real guardian of Tradition or legitimate authority.  Perhaps it doesn’t even have a stake in its own long term survival.  Perhaps, it doesn’t want to be saved from itself.

It is not for me (of all people) to answer which side “God” is on in this fight.  But I can say this with certainty.  Whatever God TYN’s critics worship, it is not the God of St. John of Kronstadt, St. John Chrysostom, or the soldiers that fought in the name of Holy Russia throughout the centuries.  It is not the God that sustained the monarchies of Eastern Europe, the oppressed Christians groaning under Muslim occupation for centuries, or even the Russian faithful of today.  

It’s just the politically correct god of the Market Place, decrying the newly invented sins of “racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia.”  It’s a god who doesn’t offer salvation or even damnation, but just passive aggressive lecturing.  It’s a god our rulers depend on even more than the most tyrannical autocrat of the past depended on his state church.  And if that’s the “God” we’re expected to bow to, I’d rather be a “heretic” – or a heathen.

No Comments on The God They Really Believe In

The Negro and The Instagram

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly white men to make racial comments about blacks.

Last week was quite the time for old, seemingly White men to make racial comments about Blacks.

We first had Cliven Bundy discuss the problems of the Negro. The media unsurprisingly convulsed in anger in response. It wasn’t anything you wouldn’t have heard on an average day on Fox or Rush Limbaugh – it was just expressed in a way that made it easier fodder for The Daily Show to mock and made it harder for the conservative media to stand by him.

Then we had the leaked tape of the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers disparaging his girlfriend for associating with blacks (even though she is a mulatto herself). That led to many calling for Sterling to lose his ownership and prompted sponsors to flee from his team.

Both the controversy surrounding Cliven Bundy and that of Donald Sterling present an interesting study of prevalent attitudes towards race by different elements of American society. I would like to call these two views: “the colorblind negro” and “the high-status instagram.”

Bundy represents red state America—the tea party demographic to be more precise. As a cattle rancher living out in rural Nevada, he’s a natural voter for the Republican Party and makes the stereotypical consumer of conservative talking points. He became a cause célèbre of the Right because he withstood the federal government’s entrenchment on his private property and transformed it into the excesses of big government versus the constitutional rights of citizens.

It was somewhat of a farce to begin with and seemed like a situation that could’ve only been dreamed up by Rand Paul’s campaign staff—if it hadn’t actually happened. A rancher symbolizing the entirety of Middle America took on the government to protect the (technically illegal) grazing area of his cows and spit on the regulations aimed to protect an endangered turtle. While an inspiring act to stand up to the guns of the Bureau of Land Management, it’s ultimately an act over cows—nothing more.

But since it had nothing to do with race and was largely an economic issue, the right turned Bundy into a folk hero and made his fight righteous in the eyes of the GOP’s demographic.

Then he used the word “Negro” and compared welfare to slavery. That went over the conservative movement’s red line on acceptable race-baiting and they quickly moved to denounce him. What he said wasn’t even racist and if put in a different context, as Peter Brimelow has pointed out, would’ve been the basis of a Paul Ryan speech on inner city outreach:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Gregory Hood has correctly pointed out that this is just the all-too familiar conservative line about the dreaded “liberal plantation,” meaning the welfare state that keeps blacks enslaved to dependency.

But we all know that blacks choose to be on welfare because it is better than working at dead-end jobs and blacks instinctively know that as a group, they will never succeed or move up in America’s economy.

Government subsidies sound a whole lot more enticing than a shitty job as a janitor. Speaking of janitors… Bundy kinda likes these Hispanics who are replacing blacks at the low-skilled jobs they used to hold:

“Now let me talk about the Spanish people. Now I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here, and they’re people. And I’ve worked beside a lot of them. Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together. And I’ll tell you, in my way of thinking, they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people going to be with us – not not coming to our party.”

Once again, Cliven Bundy sounds more like Paul Ryan than Jared Taylor.

And his vision is the same: a colorblind America where every person who works hard, respects the Constitution and goes to a megachurch on Sunday is welcome here.

That vision is a fantasy that is unfortunately shared by far too many whites in this country, but believed by hardly any non-whites. As our country continues to balkanize along racial lines, many conservative whites will keep dreaming that one day non-whites will accept their colorblind vision and finally assimilate into the America of their youth.

That won’t happen – but the idea continues to lie at the heart of the conservative multiracialism that Bundy embraces.

That won’t save him though, and no matter how much he says that Martin Luther King would be on his side or how many irrelevant black conservatives they find to defend him, Bundy is a lost cause.

Even though he could stand up to the assault rifles of federal agents, he couldn’t stand up to the charges of racism.

The case of Donald Sterling, on the other hand, presents a more interesting and less covered view of race.

Sterling is a multi-millionaire who lives in Los Angeles and owns a professional basketball team in arguably America’s most multicultural city. He also happens to be Jewish (he was born Donald Tokowitz), has a mulatto girlfriend, earned a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for the millions of dollars he’s given them, and the only political candidates he has donated to have been Democrats.

Did I also mention that his sport of choice is the blackest sport, both culturally and proportionally, in America? Even President Obama admitted the fact when he ritually condemned Sterling for his racist comments

In the end, Sterling doesn’t cut the model for who the media would normally deem a bigot – but that doesn’t mean they haven’t noticed his racial views in the past.

Sterling made his millions as a real-estate mogul in Los Angeles. He owes a significant amount of his success to discriminatory practices that barred blacks and Hispanics from renting apartments from his business. He preferred Koreans and whites who he felt were better tenants. His opinions on blacks is that they “smell and attract vermin” and that Hispanics “smoke, drink and just hang around the building.”

He ran his business with common sense racial views that blacks and Hispanics would drive away potential renters and lower the value of the properties he was leasing.

Even how he runs his basketball team reflects that he has a certain understanding of racial differences. In a lawsuit filed by a former player, it was alleged that Sterling wanted a team stocked full of poor blacks from the South with a stern, white head coach managing them. You could say it was like a plantation system, and the left has even appropriated the conservative movement’s terminology to attack Sterling’s management style.

What ultimately did him in was his criticism of his mulatto girlfriend for associating with blacks. It focused solely on how it looks low-class and trashy – he doesn’t mind his paramour fucking them of course, he just doesn’t want pictures of her with them on “the instagram.” The idea is that attractive females (in his opinion, she’s not attractive at all in mine) shouldn’t be seen with black men, no matter how successful they are, because it lowers their status.

Sterling’s take on race is further outside of what mainstream society would tolerate than Bundy’s. As a more cynical and crass version of John Derbyshire’s “The Talk,” Sterling has admitted that blacks generate poor living environments, require the leadership of whites to do anything and should not be associated with publicly if you desire respectability. While Derbyshire’s talk was centered on protecting yourself and your kin from potential threats, Sterling’s views are solely about accumulating wealth and status.

In other words, he’s still a vile human being. Not because he’s an alleged racist, but because he cynically utilizes these views to eke out a luxurious existence and entertain himself through the blackest sport in America. He cares nothing about improving society or living by higher ideals, he only cares about himself.

While his views on race are far more realistic than Bundy’s naiveté, Bundy is the far more respectable character when compared with the odious personality of Sterling.

But both of their views on race are completely wrong. Bundy thinks that if we just stop seeing race and judge people on their “content of their character,” that “the negro” will finally assimilate into American society. Sterling, on the other hand, knows that this is a false notion and non-whites will never assimilate to the status of whites, Jews and Asians – and that’s why he doesn’t want pictures with them on “the instagram.”

Bundy represents an antiquated notion of America that no longer exists (and that’s proven by his ignorance at knowing the term Negro is now considered offensive), while Sterling represents a view that is becoming more prevalent as the upper class attempts to safely navigate a multiracial America and still preserve established notions of prestige (and that’s why he cares so much about his mistress preserving a high-status instagram).

Identitarians should reject both notions. Neither will preserve white identity and both are mental aberrations. Blacks will never embrace the delusion of economic freedom and treating blacks like plantation chattel is utterly vile. The view of Bundy will die soon, but it is possible that the views of Sterling will become more prevalent as more of the meritocracy drop their racial illusions to ensure their own personal security.

But it won’t save them when the non-white hordes they’ve manipulated for years decide to whip out the machetes.

Both views are a result of America’s twilight and reflect the decline in our society. We have to embrace racial views that always place our people’s interest first and never seeks to make our existence as atomized individuals the priority. We have to view ourselves as a collective and attempting to just make our individual lives more comfortable will no longer work. That is the Donald Sterling view of race.

Ethnocentrism is what we should strive for and is an viewpoint that will ensure our people’s survival – not the “colorblind negro” or the “high-status instagram.”

No Comments on The Negro and The Instagram

Dostoevsky And The State

As a great empire, Russia is an organism larger than the Russian people. However, the Russian people are the most important factor of the Russian Empire, and the basic features of the people’s spirit determine the character of its sovereignty to a significant degree. Therefore Dostoevsky’s thought on the attributes of Russia as a state are closely tied with the views he expounded on the Russian nation.

Originally published at Soul of The East

As the author of a notable work on Fyodor Dostoevsky, philosopher Nikolai Onufriyevich Lossky contributed an excellent analysis of Dostoevsky’s worldview. Here he examines Dostoevsky’s relation to the state in the context of Russian culture and Orthodox faith. While Dostoevsky highly valued the democratic ethos of the Russian people and wished to see their communal principles enacted more in political life, he was nonetheless a staunch monarchist and a critic of Enlightenment liberalism. Dostoevsky’s thoughts on foreign policy, meanwhile, might seem quite romantic to us, but they contain a powerful ideal: the image of a state in the service of God, the Church and the people. Translated by Mark Hackard.

As a great empire, Russia is an organism larger than the Russian people. However, the Russian people are the most important factor of the Russian Empire, and the basic features of the people’s spirit determine the character of its sovereignty to a significant degree. Therefore Dostoevsky’s thought on the attributes of Russia as a state are closely tied with the views he expounded on the Russian nation.

Dostoevsky was an opponent of limiting autocracy; he feared that the higher classes, the bourgeoisie and the educated would use political liberty to subordinate the simple folk to their interests and ideals. “Our constitution,” says Dostoevsky, “is mutual love of the Monarch toward the people and the people toward the Monarch.” (Letter to Maikov, No. 302) Civil liberties, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom to print were loved and defended by Dostoevsky in every period of his life. He valued rural and city self-government highly and considered them correspondent to the spirit of the Russian people. Preparing the novel Demons in his notebooks and thinking over the image of Stavrogin (initially under the name of “the prince”), Dostoevsky wrote and doubtlessly expressed during this his own thought: “If there is reform, self-government, then elucidate it clearly and firmly, not hesitating, but believing the in strength of the nation… The German principle, administration, wants to lay its hands on the native Russian form, self-government.” One of the characters elucidates further, keeping in view the thoughts of the “prince”: “It was curious that he could so deeply understand the essence of Rus when he explained it and thereby enflamed Shatov.”

Finding in the Russian people a “genuine democratic attitude,” Dostoevsky, without doubt, would have welcomed the establishment of political democracy in the form of a democratic monarchy, if, he hoped, the lower classes of the people could have genuinely enjoyed political freedom in the spirit of their ideals. In the last year of his life, when discussions of calling aZemsky Sobor (Land Assembly) were circulating, he recommended to ask the “gray coats” about their needs and even spoke about the responsibility of ministers before the Zemsky Sobor.

The place of Russia in Europe and her foreign policy especially interested Dostoevsky. The notion that moral principles should guide only the behavior of private individuals, but not the state, roused him to indignation. Condemning the behavior of such diplomats as Metternich, Dostoevsky says: “A policy of honor and unselfishness is not only a higher, but also perhaps the most beneficial (it) policy for a great nation, precisely because it is great.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, Jul.-Aug.) Russia namely comports herself as a great nation. “Russia,” says Dostoevsky, “was never able to produce its own Metternichs and Disraelis, but rather the entire time of its European life it has lived not for itself, but for others, precisely for interests common to all mankind.” Her unselfishness often resembles the chivalrous nature of Don Quixote:

In Europe they scream of ‘Russian invasions’ and ‘Russian treachery,’ yet only to frighten their masses when needed, for the shouters themselves hardly believe any of it, nor have they ever believed it. On the contrary, they are now bothered and scared that in Russia’s image there is something upright, something too unselfish, honest and disdainful of usurpation and bribery. They have a presentiment that it’s impossible to buy her off and she won’t be lured into a mercenary or violent matter by any political advantage.” (1877, Feb.)

There has recently appeared a brochure titled, “Principles of Russia’s European Policy in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” by Professor E.V. Spektorsky. Therein Prof. Spektorsky, making use of a multitude of facts, attests that Russia was guided predominantly by a policy of principles while Western states conducted a policy of interests. “The principles of Russia’s European policy were the salvation of the lost, loyalty to treaties and allies, and a peace of solidarity.”

One can object that Russia under autocracy conducted an unmercenary policy not by the will of the people, but by the orders of her rulers, such as Alexander I, Nicholas I and Alexander II. With many facts it can be proven that this is incorrect, and that that unselfish policy did correspond to the spirit of the Russian people themselves. And so after the flooding of St. Petersburg on 7 November 1824, among the people there were rumors that the disaster was retribution for the sin of not rendering help to co-religionist Greeks who had revolted against the Turkish yoke. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the goal of which was the defense of Orthodox Slavs, was supported by a widespread sympathetic movement of the popular masses.

Peter’s reforms, despite the dangers and temporary deviations toward the loss of cultural identity, were highly valued by Dostoevsky, as they freed Russia from “isolation”; their consequence was the “measureless expansion of view” and such an introduction to Europe, thanks to which we apprehended

our universal purpose, our personality and role in humanity, and we could not but recognize that this role and purpose did not resemble those of other peoples, for there every national personality lives only in themselves and for themselves, while we shall now begin, when the time has arrived, namely with becoming servants to all for universal conciliation.

Entering into European life, Russia attains the possibility of “active application of our treasure, our Orthodoxy, to the service of humanity.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, June) The first step on this path should be the resolution of the Eastern and Slavic questions, which in Dostoevsky’s understanding are rather approximate with each other. As a matter of fact, the significance of the Straits for the economic life of Russia and the defense of the Black Sea Coast is known to Dostoevsky, but it does not interest him. “The Golden Horn and Constantinople – all of this will be ours,” writes Dostoevsky, “but not for invasions and not for violence.” To demand Constantinople from Europe, Russia, thinks Dostoevsky, has “a moral right,” “as the marshal of Orthodoxy, its patroness and protector.” (Diary of a Writer, 1876, June, Dec.; 1877, March)

Gaining hold of Constantinople and freeing the Bulgarians and Serbs from the Turkish yoke, Russia, hoped Dostoevsky, would set a beginning to the “unity of the Slavs” “in the service of humanity.” (1876, June) He knew that Western Europe would oppose Pan-Slavism with all its power, fearing Russia’s strengthening. Even in Russia herself, in an article by Professor T.N. Granovsky, Dostoevsky came across the idea that Russia’s attention to the fate of the Southern Slavs was conditioned not by idealist motives, but the aspiration to expansion. Fighting against Granovsky’s idea, Dostoevsky backhandedly admits that he had the academic in mind when he sketched out the image of a Russian liberal in the form of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, mocking while at the same time loving and respecting him. In consolation to people who feared Russia’s strengthening, Dostoevsky said that for Russia herself the matter of liberating the Slavs will be a source of “only troubles and pain.” (1876, Jul.-Aug.)

Dostoevsky foresaw that “as it never was before, there will be for Russia no greater haters, enviers, slanderers and even overt enemies than all these Slavic tribes only as soon as Russia liberates them and Europe agrees to recognize them as liberated.” This would happen “not by the supposedly low ungrateful character of the Slavs, not at all – they have their character in this respect as all do – but because such things in the world cannot happen otherwise.”

Unfailingly they will begin from inside themselves, if not speaking it aloud, and announce to themselves and convince themselves that they do not owe Russia the least bit of gratitude, but rather that they barely escaped from Russia’s lust for power by concluding a peace through the intervention of the European concert.

“They will grovel before the European states,” and will say that “they are educated peoples capable of the highest European culture, while Russia is a barbarous country, a gloomy northern colossus not even of pure Slavic blood, an oppressor and antagonist of European civilization.” “These small lands will eternally quarrel amongst each other, eternally envy and intrigue against one another.” (1877, November) Therefore, “without Russia’s enormous unifying center, Slavic harmony is not to be, and without Russia the Slavs couldn’t survive; the Slavs would wholly disappear from the face of the earth, whatever the Serbian intelligentsia or various European, civilized Czechs might dream.” (ibid, February)

Despite all these tragic prophecies, Dostoevsky loves the Slavs and considers it Russia’s duty to selflessly fight for their freedom. “In the current war,” he says, “having freed the Slavic tribes, we shall not acquire not one strip of land from them (as Austria is dreaming for herself), but rather, we will be overseeing their mutual harmony and defend their liberty and independence, even against all of Europe. (ibid, April) He hopes that the freed Slavs, perhaps after their age-old strife, will finally come to understand Russia’s unselfishness and form a federated state with her, in which every member would receive “as much political freedom as possible.” Dostoevsky dreams that “such a union could finally someday be joined by even non-Orthodox European Slavs.” (1876, June)

When speaking on an all-Slavic federation, Dostoevsky obviously has in mindN.Y. Danilevsky’s work Russia and Europe. Danilevsky set out to prove that the united Slavs would bring a new form of culture into the historical process and achieve a new cultural-historical type to take the place of the Romano-German cultural-historical type. However, the distinction between Dostoevsky and the ideas of Danilevsky is great. According to Danilevsky, cultural-historical types are so unique that they are almost incapable of influencing one another, and it is impossible to produce a unified and universal human culture. Dostoevsky, to the contrary, does not depart from the ground of Christian universalism:

We first declared to the world that not through the repression of the character of foreign nationalities do we want to attain our own success. On the contrary, we see it only in the freest and most independent development of all other nations and in brotherly unity with them, complementing one another, fostering in ourselves their organic particularities and extending, from us to them, our branches for cultivation, communing with them in soul and spirit, learning and teaching until that time when humanity, having been fulfilled with the relations of peoples unto universal unity, like a great and magnificent tree will give shade to the happy earth.

Lovely are Dostoevsky’s dreams of universal brotherhood of peoples and the peaceful development of culture. Speaking on Russia, he constantly underlines her unselfishness and her unwillingness to undertake predatory seizures of other lands. He had well-founded proof in Danilevsky’s book Russia and Europe that Russia, founding a massive empire, never killed off established national cultures. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to close one’s eyes to the fact that Slavic and Russian messianism seduced Dostoevsky to the assertion that the capture of Constantinople by Russia would be morally justified. He omits from view that the protection of Orthodoxy and the defense of Russia’s economic and strategic interests could be achieved without taking Constantinople away from the Turks by way of a peace agreement with Turkey and other states.

We shall say in passing, by the way, a few words on Dostoevsky’s attitude toward war. Christianity, both in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, considering war an evil, admits, however, that there are other even worse types of evil, and therefore permits war in the struggle with them – for example, for the salvation of a people perishing from the violence of a predatory conqueror. Dostoevsky also holds this opinion, though he is overly fascinated by the positive aspects of war. He says:

A long peace always breeds cruelty, cowardice and crude, flabby egoism and principally mental stagnation. During a long peace, only the exploiters of peoples grow fat.

Having accumulated enormous wealth, the exploiters engorge themselves and begin to seek out deviant pleasures; the division between the rich and the poor is amplified, and “faith in the brotherhood of man” is lost. From this condition of society arise wars with commercial ends, for example, over new markets; such wars “pervert and even ruin peoples.” Conversely, “war for a magnanimous objective, for the liberation of the oppressed, for an unmercenary and holy idea heals the soul, drives out shameful cowardice and idleness,” and strengthens with an “awareness of self-sacrifice,” a consciousness of duty fulfilled and the solidarity of all the nation. (1877, April, see also Letter No. 353)

A burning love for Russia did not stop Dostoevsky from seeing the shortcomings of her state and social structure. And so in Demons, he made a well-aimed satire of despotic ways of Governor Von Lembke, who, not listening to the workers’ representatives that came to complain about the fraud of their factory manager, took them for rioters and had several of them beaten. Also wonderfully expressed in the novel are the absurdity and illegality of the measures that the governor and his subordinate take in the fight against the revolutionaries. Any “administrative triumph” (in Stepan Trofimovich’s words) is revolting to Dostoevsky. Toward the end of his life, he wrote in his notebooks that our society was not conservative, as “everything was taken from it, right up to legitimate initiative.” “All the rights of the Russian are negative ones. Give him something positive and you will see that he’ll also be conservative.” “He’s not conservative because there’s nothing to conserve.”[i]

[i] Biography, Letters and Notes from the Notebooks of F. Dostoevsky, 1883. Pg. 357.

No Comments on Dostoevsky And The State

Derbyshire After The Purge

Though I do not like to consider myself a sentimentalist, it seems worthy to commemorate the two-year anniversary of National Review’s decision to “sever ties” with John Derbyshire on April 7th, 2012. 

Though I do not like to consider myself a sentimentalist, it seems worthy to commemorate the two-year anniversary of National Review’s decision to “sever ties” with John Derbyshire on April 7th, 2012. The details of what happened and why have been gone over a million times, so if you are unaware, I will direct you to Mr. Derbyshire’s webpage on the matter. Moving right along, it should be noted that it is astounding how much Derbyshire got away with before he was fired. In his own small way, he may have even pushed some unsuspecting readers of NR towards our neck of the woods.

Some talking head at Salon actually got it right, when writing shortly after Derbyshire got fired, that Derbyshire has been writing racist screeds for years. “So why did no one notice until last week?” Even before then, Andrew Sullivan had taken note of Derbyshire dissident attitudes and made a point of trying to embarrass him by posting them on The Dish.

Just take a look at some of Derbyshire best pre-04/12 writing:

He gave explicit support to all ethno-nationalists, so long as their ethnicity is civilized:

Where ethnies are anciently and intricately mixed, as in Northern Ireland, there isn’t much do be done but stagger on under the horrible affliction of diversity, putting up with the occasional massacre. Where a coherent nation can be separated off, though, it should be.
The Uighurs should certainly have their own nation. So should the Kurds, the Catalans, the Scots, the Jews, the South Tyroleans, the Chechens, and any other people sufficiently civilized to run a statelet and sufficiently coherent to think themselves a single ethny. – Give ‘Em a Country, 08/11

He gave a glowing review of a Paul Gottfried book in National Review, with a title that referenced the late Sam Francis, and mentioned that the Paleos may rise again:

It may be that the Old Right will come into its inheritance at last 20 or 30 years from now, in one of the little fragment nations that will emerge when corruption, fiscal incompetence, demographic idiocy, educational romanticism, willful scientific ignorance, ethnic warfare, and missionary imperialism have finally destroyed the United States of America. – Beautiful Losers, 08/09

He spoke well, even poetically, about Jared Taylor:

We don’t shoot our dissidents, nor even exile them or send them to camps. But in other respects their careers parallel those of their spiritual kin living under sterner regimes: ignored by power-seekers, denounced by those who toady to power, swatted down contemptuously by power-holders, disliked by the taboo-upholding generality, and doomed to failure and oblivion unless, by very occasional blind luck, history in its onward march finds itself in step with them.

I still like and admire dissidents. I honor their cussedness, integrity, and courage. I can never stir myself to join them, though. Cowardice? By all means, you can think so. I view it as “insufficiently masochistic.” – The Futility of Dissidence, 02/11

As good as all of his past writing was, the case can be made that it has gotten much better, more radical, since his purge — particularly for those of us who are more Identitarian than Race Realist. Consider how Derbyshire’s pro-Asian writing has slowed to a trickle over the last two years. In 2007, he first proposed his “Arctic Alliance” between Whites and East Asians, and he wrote about it again in 2011. Immediately after his firing, he made a brief mention of it, but has since seemed to have dropped the topic almost entirely.

Instead, he has been focusing much more on Whites and his own sense of Whiteness has gotten stronger. There is of course his involvement with American Renaissance, but even his Takimag pieces have taken a “Whiter” tone. See for example his popular White People Are Pussies article, which ended with:

And we white Americans? Are we the most pussified of all—the pussies of the world?

That’s a thought I don’t want to have. That way lies hard, irreversible ethnomasochism.

It’s a thought that keeps bobbing up to the surface, though, prompted by some news item or image; or out of the blue, as on the radio that time, too publicly for me to disown it.

I must discipline my mind.

It is not quite there yet, but it is getting there. The same goes for his follow up piece, Losing Our Turbulence, where “Our” means “Whites:”

We should expect no turbulence among white people in the near future. Window-breaking there may be, but outside of a few remaining pockets of vitality such as Belfast, it won’t be whites lobbing the stones. Fattened by prosperity, soothed by the welfare state, and cowed by the missionaries of guilt, whites will limit their protests to voting for Tweedledum rather than Tweedledee, to genteel gatherings in rented halls, to comment threads on the dwindling number of news websites that still allow them.

His interest in the welfare of whites is steadily growing, and his ramblings about “NAM”s (Non-Asian Minorities) have become steadily replaced with more existential questions about the fate of Whites everywhere, like the post above, or the more lighthearted, Why Isn’t Racism Cool?

Like many Vdare contributors, he still yearns (and may even believe it can happen) for a day just around the corner when Republicans will become race-realist nationalists, and then save America. This is an unfortunate waste of time on Derbyshire’s part, and quite frankly a waste of his talent. But give it another two years, and he just might get right with the lord.

No Comments on Derbyshire After The Purge

Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Plotz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on Marriage Is Dead, Long Live Marriage

What Is Identitarian Religion?

A long-standing “Trad Catholic” I know told recently me that he had left the Church.  He, in essence, said that his “conservative” priest had become obsessed with promoting mass Third World immigration, peddling interracial adoption, speaking incessantly about various forms of “social justice” such as opposition to non-white abortions, and of course denouncing evolution because it’s “racist.”  Contemporary Western Christianity, even in its so-called “conservative” guises, has become indistinguishable from the central values of Cultural Marxism. 

A long-standing “Trad Catholic” I know told recently me that he had left the Church. He, in essence, said that his “conservative” priest had become obsessed with promoting mass Third World immigration, peddling interracial adoption, speaking incessantly about various forms of “social justice” such as opposition to non-White abortions, and, of course, denouncing evolution because it’s “racist”. Contemporary Western Christianity, even in its so-called “conservative” guises, has become indistinguishable from the central values of Cultural Marxism.

As other commentators have already noted, two things are happening to Christianity today:

First, outside the West, Christianity is rapidly becoming a non-Western religion (e.g. African Christianity in Africa, Mestizo Christianity in Latin America, etc.). As noted by many scholars, a new, non-Western form of Christianity is being born, unlike anything preceding it. It has been estimated that within 50 years, Christianity will overwhelmingly be a non-Western religion, both demographically and theologically.

Second, inside the West, Christianity is becoming more universalized than ever—often substantially no different from the major tenets of Cultural Marxism. You currently have mainstream Christian leaders (both Catholic and Protestant) supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and cajoling White couples into adopting unwanted African or Haitian babies instead of birthing White babies. Pathological altruism and ethnomasochism rule the roost; in short, Western Christian leaders today are a bunch of girly men. Such maladaptive trends cannot last indefinitely.

Evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and science journalist Nicholas Wade have both argued that religion, by and large, is adaptive, in that religion increases one’s inclusive fitness. In short, religion provides group cohesion and, when overlapped with ethnicity or race, religion maintains strong group identity, which assists in group survival. A textbook example of the success of ethno-religion would be Ashkenazi Jews.

What is happening with Christianity in the West today, however, is arguably maladaptive. This extremely universalized girly-man form of Christianity (unlike the more manly earlier Germanic form) seems to be an unholy suicide pact. Not only does it lack any grounding in biological reality but it seems to be hostile toward it.

And what is grounding in biological reality? When religion overlaps with and reinforces racial identity, it is at its strongest. In fact, ethno-religion might be the strongest group identity known to man. Religious identity and racial identity can be strong by themselves, but combine the two and you are in a different league. It’s little wonder that throughout human history ethno-religion has been the norm. The more extreme, deracinated and universalized religion of the past century is the historical aberration.

And that is the gist of identitarian religion, as I understand it: it’s ethno-religion, a rejection of universalism, a return to human normalcy. So, identitarian religion is something “new” in that it’s juxtaposed to our current universalized suicide pact, but it’s also “old” as it’s a return to older norms.

What forms can identitarian religion take? Is it exclusive to a particular religion? Short answer: No.

While Christianity has become nearly synonymous with Cultural Marxism in the West, it must not necessarily be so. Identitarian Christianity is a possibility, and one certainly sees instances of it, ranging from Pro-Western Christianity to the Anglo paleoconservatives, to Kinist Protestantism, to forms of ethnonationalist Slavic Orthodox Christianity. But since Christianity has recently taken on an extremely universalist trajectory, any battle for Identitarian Christianity will be an uphill battle, but nonetheless perhaps a battle worth waging.

Another option one sees is a return to Paganism, ranging from Asatru in North America to other forms of Germanic Paganism, Celtic Paganism, Roman Paganism, Greek Paganism, and Slavic Paganism throughout Europe. Paganism properly understood, i.e. historically and accurately understood, is a blood-and-soil religion, an ancestral religion, an ethno-religion, the very antithesis to deracinated universalist religion.

And, of course, there are other forms of Non-Western identitarian religion that would be appropriate for Non-Westerners. But the question here is whether competing forms of Western identitarian religion can get along. Within the larger framework of Western identitarian religion, can, for example, Identitarian Christians and Pagans coexist?

I don’t see why not.

And what of identitarian atheists and agnostics? Can they co-exist with identitarian religion? Since identitarian religion is not at odds with nature, and thus not at odds with evolutionary science, it does not threaten secular knowledge but offers itself as an additional societal glue. And perhaps a necessary glue at that, as it is unclear that society can survive, long-term, without religion. While some individuals can function without religion, can society as a whole? Has it ever?

As Western Universalist Christianity wanes tepid, and as identitarian ideas continue to spread, now is a good time to outline a larger framework for identitarian religion as a guide for various Western religions. Hopefully this brief outline will help with this endeavor.

Schema of identitarian belief Schema of identitarian belief

Poll:  Is Identitarian Religion the way forward for the West?

Is Identitarian Religion the way forward for the West?
  
pollcode.com free polls 

Alfred W. Clark blogs at Occam’s Razor.

No Comments on What Is Identitarian Religion?

The Westboro Baptist Church is a Liberal Wet Dream

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.

No Comments on The Westboro Baptist Church is a Liberal Wet Dream

NPI@CPAC: The “Unconference”

On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years.  NPI will provide for wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere.  Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”

As we announced last week, NPI will be attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC, which begins on March 6 and will stretch through the weekend. (Perhaps “crash” is a better choice of words than “attend,” despite the fact that we’ll be on our best behavior.)

THE PLAN

On Thursday and Friday (March 6 and 7), I will be listening to some of CPAC’s speeches and panel discussions and participating, when possible, in Q&A. If you see me in the halls, please say hello.

On Friday March 7, at 7:30 PM, NPI will host a dinner. Our special guest will be American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, a man who’s been a lion in our movement for close to 25 years. NPI will provide wine for everyone who attends, to ensure a festive atmosphere.

Then, around 9 PM, we will retire to a hospitality suite, where NPI will provide an open bar and host an “unconference.”

The “unconference” idea is a response to fact that most people don’t attend conferences to hear speeches—they attend to connect with people. Thus, our gathering will be something like a free-flowing conversation. Jared and I will get the discussion started with some remarks, and our guests will take it from there.

We expect excellent people to attend, and we hope that some from the CPAC crowd will want to see where the real action is. (No doubt, we will be “unconferencing” into the wee hours.)

Nota Bene

First and foremost, the gathering will be discreet to the best of our powers.

Our desire for privacy is one reason that we will not be releasing the exact location of the dinner and unconference until the morning of March 7. We will say now that the events will be conveniently located near the Gaylord Resort Hotel at the National Harbor.

Secondly, because of our discretion, you must register for our dinner and unconfenece beforehand using the form below. (This will be the only way we can alert you to our gatherings’ locations.)

Thirdly, you should be confident that you can attend in an anonymous fashion (short of donning a disguise and voice modulator): no name tags will be issued; no recordings will be made; and all discussion will be strictly “off the record.” Our guests, we hope, will feel comfortable expressing themselves.

Fourthly, though we hope you’ll join us for the entire evening, we understand if you could only attend either the dinner or hospitality suite.


This is a chance for our movement to have a real presence at a major forum for ideas (and perhaps mug a few conservatives with reality). And more important, it’s a chance for us to network and talk about our future.

I hope to see you there!

Name *
Name
Phone
Phone

No Comments on NPI@CPAC: The “Unconference”

NPI@CPAC 2014

Every spring, the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, meets in Washington, DC, to set an agenda for politicians, lobbyists, and activists of America’s right-wing (such as it is). The 2014 edition will take place at the Gaylord National Resort on March 6 through 8. For years, supporters have urged NPI to make an appearance at CPAC. This year, we’re doing it.    

 

 

Every spring, the Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, meets in Washington, DC, to set an agenda for politicians, lobbyists, and activists of America’s right-wing (such as it is). The 2014 edition will take place at the Gaylord National Resort on March 6 through 8.

For years, supporters have urged NPI to make an appearance at CPAC. This year, we’re doing it.

I will be attending panels that are relevant to our movement, and on Friday, March 7, we will host a private gathering for friends, supporters, and interested attendees. We will be joined by a special guest, whose identity will be revealed in the coming days.

In attending CPAC, we must be realistic about what can be accomplished. NPI is not an official sponsor, and thus our ability to affect CPAC’s agenda is limited to say the least. (Don’t expect Sarah Palin to evoke archeo-futurism in her keynote address.)

But then, people don’t really attend CPAC for what happens on stage. They go to meet people. And CPAC is a captive audience of individuals who self-identify as conservative. Our ideas resonate with many of them; and most all of them, I would guess, have a gut feeling that something is terribly wrong with America.

And this year, CPAC might be particularly interesting. The Republican leadership has expressed its wish for legislation that offers legal status for illegal immigrants. There’s a chance a revolt might occur . . . At the very least, CPAC is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to attendees the necessity of choosing a different path than the “Tax Cuts Will Solve Everything” agenda that has defined the conservative movement for decades.

Put simply, CPAC is a major forum for the debate of ideas, and we should be there.

More details are forthcoming. In the meantime, if you’re interested in meeting up and/or taking part in our private event, please fill out the form below. For the sake of discretion, we will announce the exact time and place of our gathering via text message and email on the morning of Friday, March 7.

Name *
Name
Phone
Phone

Please tell us about your commitment. This information will help us plan the best event.

No Comments on NPI@CPAC 2014

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