Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Globalism

The Global Favela

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing…

Reality has a well-known racist bias. And the White minstrel and courtier Stephen Colbert veered a little too close to what leftists used to call the reality-based community when describing the chaos of the upcoming Rio Olympics.

To the laughter of his SWPL audience, Colbert hammed it up and made silly faces as he recounted the violence, corruption, and incompetence as Brazil scrambles to put together the infrastructure needed to host the Summer Games. He noted billions of dollars were sent to companies which are currently being investigated for price fixing and kickbacks. He smirked about Brazil having one of the “highest violent crime rates in the world” and, making sure to trill his r’s for comedic effect, quoted the soccer player Rivaldo telling foreigners to “stay in their country of origin” because “here you will be running the risk of your life.” The meme-ready warning from police to arriving tourists “Welcome to Hell” was also featured. And though Colbert didn’t mention this, body parts recently washed ashore next to one of the key venues for the games.

Brazil, as de Gaulle said, is the country of the future and always will be. It will never be the First World nation its boosters fondly imagine. For racially aware American whites, this ironic prophecy has always held a more ominous connotation. Brazil was always the nightmare racially aware American Whites were seeking to avoid, a frenzied völker-chaos of crime and social dysfunction where the poor slaughter each other in the streets and the rich hide behind gated communities and militarized police.

As Colbert’s snark indicates, even the most deeply insulated shitlib shares this premise at some level. Leftists might find something like City of God romantic, but they don’t want to live there anymore than they want to spend time in the Baltimore neighborhoods they fetishize in The Wire.

Yet Brazil might actually be a best-case scenario. At least in the highly Germanized south of the country, there are areas which are wealthy and relatively free of crime and corruption. Not coincidentally, there is also a simmering secessionist movement. And in the recent controversy over impeaching leftist Dilma Rousseff, most of her opponents came from the whiter south.

Interestingly, The Hive leaped into action to defend Rousseff during the impeachment crisis, with the Huffington Post, Salon and other sources of Cat Lady morality warning against the “right-wing” coup. As the subtleties of Brazilian politics are poorly understood by American reporters and even less by American audiences, the situation was explained using the same Narrative applied to politics in every other nation. Rousseff’s defeat, warned one leftist, would mean a “roll back [of] affirmative action and efforts to redress discrimination against peoples of indigenous and African descent.” In other words, the pro-impeachment forces were Bad Guys because they wouldn’t steal enough of White people’s stuff. And Rousseff’s opponents were mostly males with light skin, ipso facto proof of malicious intent, racism, and sexism.

In a way, this Narrative captures something essential. Race creates the underlying conditions of all politics. The great deception of race relations in the West, the lie which justifies the entire political apparatus, is that people of European descent somehow benefit from the presence of “black bodies” and people of color to exploit. In reality, the most consistent pattern we see from Latin America to Europe is the desire of whites to escape multiculturalism, all while they continue to praise it in the abstract. Even in Sweden, the natives move away from “diverse” neighborhoods after only a small number of non-European immigrants enter. And this what really drives contemporary policy disputes, even if it is framed in terms of “limited government,” “local control,” “property values,” or “good schools.”

We flee, they follow, and then they complain we’ve oppressed them. From communist cult leaders to deformed actresses, the response we get is as to why these people are running to join us racists is the same – it’s Our Fault their society is the way it is.

But the truth is their societies are undesirable because they live there. If enough of them come here, our societies will be indistinguishable from theirs. Even if they were given a structural or environmental advantage, the outcome will be the same.

They need us. We don’t need them. We never did.

On those occasions in history when Europeans sought to integrate nonwhites into our system either as equals, slave labor, or something in between, we’ve always paid for it collectively. Whatever wealth was generated by slavery or colonization is nothing compared to the wealth and lives lost in the fratricidal conflicts and rebellions ultimately engendered.

Perhaps more than any other society in human history, status in the modern West is shown by loudly preaching egalitarian principles while isolating yourself from their effects. It’s not just right-wing snark to point out how Mark Zuckerburg is shilling for more immigration while buying property and building walls so as to protect himself from the rabble. This is the governing principle of our world.

The Open Society is a lie. It always was. The only question is where the borders will be drawn. We can have larger barriers outside the neighborhoods, countries and civilization we want to preserve, or we can have innumerable barriers around each home, shop, and gated community as we try to carve out a little space where we can watch our screens and live our virtual life as everything crumbles around us. And even if you’ve managed to find a decent community to raise a family, the American government has already made it quite clear it is coming for you.

In response to Brexit, we’ve seen a few “mainstream” columnists get excited about the idea that “nationalism vs globalism” will define the coming century. The “National Question” is certainly what Trump is staking his campaign on. In the aftermath of the EU Referendum, it was especially amusing to see the far Left shriek about the result on the grounds it would endanger the profits of stock jobbers. The mutual dependence of global finance and Cultural Marxism has never been more apparent.

But the conflict goes deeper than simply a dispute over sovereignty. While Brexit was certainly a sign of hope, the overwhelming support by young voters for remaining within the European Union is ominous. As the rapid progression of concepts like gay marriage and transsexuals in the military through the Overton Window has shown, most Millennials are quite comfortable with accepting the given Narrative. If “nationalism” is to triumph, there’s a time limit to recapture the state and the commanding heights of the culture to push new values.

Whether this is the beginning of some new age or the last gasp of the old Western order is wholly dependent on the electoral fate of figures like Donald Trump (who also relies heavily on elderly voters) and Marie Le Pen. If they win, they may set something in motion. If they don’t, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

If there are not victories in the short term, we’re going to see something far more existential and dangerous. Technology and transportation allow the elite to travel from global city to global city, unmooring them from traditional loyalties and reducing any stake they have in their native countries.

We have a ruling class with “no skin in the game” and to them, our entire society is expendable. The gamble most are making is they will remain invulnerable from the chaos of multiculturalism and global economic and technological progress, broadly defined, will continue. And if a self-conscious elite can beat back their own peoples, as Foreign Policy recently argued, they believe they will able to change the demographic situation such that their position will be invulnerable.

But as global society becomes more integrated and complex, it also becomes less stable. And now, the Western core countries are beginning to rot away, subsumed beneath a never ending and heavily subsidized tide of Third World humanity. The German government will spend over $100 billion to support “refugees” over the next five years, most of whom are worthless in terms of their ability to economically contribute. Sweden is already buckling under the weight of what they have admitted. And this is only the beginning of what is coming next, as Western subsidies have ensured an African population boom.

Assuming a nationalist or populist backlash can be beaten down by the System and Muammar Gaddafi’s prophecy of a “black” Europe is realized, what future does the West have, even for the wealthy? The global utilitarianism pursued through open borders is becoming a worldwide scheme of dysgenics, creating a deracinated, mediocre, and helpless human race.

If you were a wealthy South African businessman who didn’t care about his people, the end of apartheid was good for you. No sanctions, more opportunities for trade, and no social penalties. What do you care about the white trash leaving in squatter parks or gross Boers being butchered on their ancestral farmlands in front of their wives and children? You can watch the Springboks from your hotel in London.

But even these options are going to be cut off when bastions like Germany, the United Kingdom, and America itself buckle under the weight of demographic transformation. And can the “elite,” especially Jews, be as confident they will be able to penetrate East Asian markets as they did the West?

The events in Rio are simply a harbinger. A nation like Brazil can’t host something like the Olympics. As the West turns Brazilian (or worse), there will be fewer countries who can.

And as even though the Olympics themselves are just a variation of corporate degeneracy, it means something when a global fête backed by billions of dollars can’t guarantee the basic safety of its athletes, let alone guests. Even when the Soviet Union couldn’t supply supermarkets, it could accomplish great things if it bent every effort. Now, the “country of the future” can’t accomplish one big project.

When White America was about to fly to the moon, a group of blacks showed up in a mule wagon at the launch site, demanding welfare. As the entire world is converted into a giant favela, we’re going to see this on a mass scale. The astonishing advances in technology and health care which appear so close will never be realized. Instead, we’ll use the astonishing resources at our command to subsidize populations who hate us and make our lives worse by their sheer presence.

And as the walls close in, at least some SWPL’s are going to start to get it. Even Boulder, CO suddenly finds itself in the crosshairs for being insufficiently diverse. More broadly, we can only hope some of those who do have the ability to escape this dystopian future realize, some class traitors from the “elite,” realize what is coming is not worth living in and take action to build a different world.

The Alt Right is not just about grand dreams or some glorious destiny for our people. It’s the sole movement that can even consider real solutions to the problems destroying the lives of millions. Every father looking for a safe place to raise his family, every mother who worries about what will happen to her children, and every red-pilled Millennial who is beginning to understand he has no future has to look to us because no other movement offers him anything but annihilation.

We have a system that actively punishes virtue, destroys families, abolishes communities, and imports foreigners precisely because they have nothing to offer except votes for the leftist political party. It’s a conglomeration of monstrous evil. It has to be entirely destroyed not just so we can pursue the highest aspirations of our race but so a decent life is possible for ordinary people.

It’s not just a battle between nationalism and globalism. It’s about what kind of people we want to be. We can carve out a future for ourselves. Or we can acquiesce to being part of a global slum. But if nothing changes, we can see the “country of the future” and what it always will be.

It’s corpses washing up on a polluted beach. It’s hostile mobs using their dependence as a weapon. It’s a cultureless wasteland choking on its own filth. And unlike every other time in history, there will be nowhere to escape

No Comments on The Global Favela

Christendom, Christianity, and Coulter

Coulter’s understanding that Africa is ultimately a global cultural “follower” reflects a more sophisticated understanding of reality than American Christians who act as if Africa will redeem the West for Christ. 

Because of her latest column about Christian missionaries in Africa and their role in bringing Ebola to the United States, Ann Coulter is being called “monstrous,” “sick,” a “detestable harpy” and a “bitter, vicious troll” – by the American Right. Coulter made the case that Dr. Kent Brantly and his nurse engaged in self-righteous moral preening for choosing to work in Africa.  In response, a cavalcade of screeching conservatives began wailing at a level unheard since Tumblr heard that someone called Lena Dunham fat.   

Coulter made the obvious point that by going to Africa, contracting Ebola, and necessitating a massively expensive effort to fly back to the United States for treatment, Dr. Brantly squandered millions of dollars that otherwise would have been used to save lives. In response, conservatives joined the Left to engage in a massive exercise in morally indignant wishful thinking. As Breeanne Howe, contributing editor at RedState put it, “He saved lives!  You put a price on that?”

He probably did, though not in the way Howe means. By inadvertently sabotaging charitable efforts in Africa, he may have saved many more African and European lives in the long term. After all, he sabotaged stubborn Western efforts to keep African populations at levels they can’t sustain. This overpopulation leads to the famines, resource wars, and monetary costs that plague them and us each and every day. He also accidentally cut the demand for African immigration into the West, thus sparing us the vibrant rapes, murders, and social disorder it entails. European children yet unborn thank you Dr. Brantly! And while we’re at it, probably some Africans too. 

Still, for the sake of argument, let’s accept Coulter’s premise. Dr. Brantly’s extravagance probably cost some lives in the short term at the monetary price of more than $2 million and counting, not including government expenditures.  Conservatives used to understand that however much we may sympathize with Dr. Brantly and his colleague’s suffering, “good intentions” are no excuse for harmful results. It would be demonic to gloat at Dr. Brantly’s suffering, a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Yet the cold reality is that Dr. Brantly increased the potential that far more will die in the admittedly unlikely but quite possible scenario that Ebola is not contained in the United States. 

Besides the obvious cost/benefit argument, Coulter makes more substantial points that (not surprisingly) seem to have gone over the heads of American conservatives: 

  • In the long term, the fate of Christianity in Africa and the world will ultimately depend on its strength in the First World, what we once called Christendom. In Coulter’s apt phrase, “[A]ny good that one attempts downstream is quickly overtaken by what happens upstream.”
  • To choose to work in Africa instead of America isn’t an act of courage – it’s the easy way out.   As Coulter put it, “[I]f Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore—as the pope did—that you don’t have to be a Christian to go to heaven. Evangelize in Liberia, and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof will be totally impressed.
  • Finally, African charity is a cheap way to garner social praise.  “There may be no reason for panic about the Ebola doctor, but there is reason for annoyance at Christian narcissism.”

Coulter’s understanding that Africa is ultimately a global cultural “follower” reflects a more sophisticated understanding of reality than American Christians who act as if Africa will redeem the West for Christ. Some “conservative” Episcopalians have aligned their ancient seats with the Church of Nigeria,  “traditional marriage” campaigners place their hopes on Uganda, and Christian missionaries compensate for the death of the Faith in the West by carving out a new Kingdom of God in the Dark Continent. All of this reflects surrender, rather than a crusading spirit.  It’s a way to be surrounded by helpless, dark skinned, agency-free mascots who, as a bonus, have never heard of Christopher Hitchens.

Of course, this is precisely the same way SWPLs use Africa. The only difference is that the pathological altruistic kick comes from racial cuckoldry rather than the Holy Spirit. With luck, you can even fail miserably at providing charity, thus allowing you to experience more of that sweet, sweet shame. As one white Huffington Post contributor (naturally) put it in a column bashing “little white boys” and “white girls,”

Our mission while at the orphanage was to build a library. Turns out that we, a group of highly educated private boarding school students were so bad at the most basic construction work that each night the men had to take down the structurally unsound bricks we had laid and rebuild the structure so that, when we woke up in the morning, we would be unaware of our failure. It is likely that this was a daily ritual. Us mixing cement and laying bricks for 6+ hours, them undoing our work after the sun set, re-laying the bricks, and then acting as if nothing had happened so that the cycle could continue.

To her credit, while the author is still moral preening via the Huffington Post, at least she recognizes that her attempt to “help” was inefficient at best. Christian critics of Coulter seem completely unaware of this possibility in regards to Dr. Brantly.In their mind, only good intensions count.  More importantly, “respectable” conservatives (koshercons) see this as an opportunity to purge Coulter, ridding “the movement” of someone who upsets the open bar circuit when she gives anti-immigration speeches at CPAC

Ultimately, what is at stake is the focus of Christian morality. Christians historically considered their religion as part of the social order which defined and sustained that entity known as Christendom. This concept survived even the massive bloodletting that followed the Reformation and the collapse of the Christian consensus in the non-Orthodox West. Even well into the post-French Revolutionary era, there was an understanding of Christianity’s role that did not necessarily deny belief but also did not require it. As Napoleon Bonaparte said, “I do not see in religion the mystery of the incarnation so much as the mystery of the social order.” 

A traditional Christian has duties to his God, his family, his country (and sovereign), and his kin—none of which requires immoral behavior towards humanity at large. Traditionalists and Kinists are some of the few survivors of this kind of Christianity, which would have been recognized by men of sincere faith like Stonewall Jackson. God i
s the source of all, and as such, is also at the pinnacle of the great Chain of Being, a concept which is older that Christianity itself.  It’s this civilizational Christianity that Coulter is defending, however distantly.

One “Latino conservative” who goes by “SooperMeixcan” said, “So, ironically, Christianity would never have come to @AnnCoulter if early Christians thought the way she does.  That’s how stupid she is.” Of course, Christianity spread throughout the West and came to Ann Coulter – and the rest of us – because it was turned into a Germanic religion of Empire. Absent Constantine, we might be Odinists, Mithras worshippers, or Muslims—which is why Christians historically saw Constantine as an instrument of divine will, along with Charlemagne. 

The faith was spread to the European pagan and the foreigner through steel, not alms. “SooperMeixcan” is Christian because conquistadores forced it on his indigenous ancestors. Today, Christianity is dying in its Middle Eastern birthplace by the sword – and the Christian Right could not care less. One would think they could at least spare a hashtag.

 The god that is “worshipped” by many mainstream Christians can’t really be called “God” at all. It’s simply liberal morality conflated into the figure of a personality known as “Jesus,” or, if you are one of the more enthusiastic Judeo-Christians, “Yeshua.” Many Christians, like the conservatives at “Twitchy,” are content to engage in PC Judo in order to prove that they are the real universalists and the real liberals. The result is rather than a real religion, we get a floating deracinated abstraction – a belief in “Jesus” as your savior, however that is interpreted – which defines a global “community of believers.” Those “conservative” denominations that still exist take care to reinterpret Scripture at a stately pace, keeping behind the culture at large, but still moving in the same direction.

Therefore, to spread the belief in Christ as Savior to as many people as possible is more virtuous than trying to build a Christian community or nation at home – because community and nation ultimately don’t matter except insofar as they lead people to profess belief in the abstraction. Nor can many Christians even agree what social norms should be anymore. Even enforcing behavior such as supporting restrictions on sexual behavior or traditional gender roles becomes secondary to spreading the faith abroad. This only seems to intensify as the faith collapses at home. 

As even a casual comparison of the “Christianity” of Haiti, China, Nigeria, or South Korea shows, how the belief in “Christ” is understood is apparently not that important. To quote the one Bible verse all leftists know, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 KJV)

But if modern Christianity leads to a moral structure ultimately indistinguishable from secular humanism, why not just dismiss the supernatural elements?  Well, exactly – hence the great secularization taking place throughout the West, and now even in America. Christians who ground their apologetics in trying to rationally explain the irrational concede the battle. As Coulter implies, if Christianity collapses in the West, its cultural colonies in the West will collapse too, and whether they are a generation or so behind the times in terms of feminism or gay marriage will make no difference to the survival of traditional moral values. What we will be left with is slave morality without a master, divine or otherwise.   

What conservatives and many American Christians are doing is simply playing for time. They can avoid the crucial struggles at the core of the global system by kidding around at the margins. As if in an unconscious parody of Marx, they are moving the process of History forward by trying to drag Africa out of barbarism into liberal modernity, and so sowing the grounds of their own irrelevance. By valuing abstract belief over civilizational order and identity, and seeking praise from liberalism rather than its destruction, the American Right is taking the easy way out. Getting Ebola is less morally terrifying than being called a bigot. And feeling like you helped someone (and getting lots of applause for it) is far harder than confronting the cold truths that human well-being rests upon. 

Both liberals and modern Christians (or do I repeat myself?) need Africa. It is the Passive Continent, always that which is acted upon, rather than acting for itself.  Whether it is the source of meaningless and poorly understood “conversions” or a tool to enhance the self-satisfaction of white liberals makes no difference. Far easier to save 10 African souls or build a well in a village than run a public school for one day in a typical American city. 

Be it for Christians or SWPLs, the African humanitarian trip is as pure of an expression of modernity as playing Clash of Clans on your cell phone.  It’s an indulgence – in both senses of the word. And if Africa didn’t exist, it would be necessary for them to invent it.   

To close with a reading from the Good Book,

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.  Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  (Matthew 6:2, KJV)

“But Rabbi,” we can almost hear the modern disciples say, “what about our Facebook likes?”

No Comments on Christendom, Christianity, and Coulter

Summarizing Descent

Marxism, despite its best efforts, is a mega-structure of ‘social constructs’, it is the tenets of Communism implanted onto culture and human interaction and is the source of the modern ‘social justice’ movement prevalent among youths and in universities.

Originally published at Sigurd-Strong

Liberal society strives for equality in all social and political areas, but fails itself in the economic department, though democratic governments practice welfare systems and equality in regards to work and education opportunities, it continually fails to practice true equality within economics. So although liberal society practices ‘Cultural Marxism’, it fails to put into practice the natural (historical) conclusion to the question of economic ‘equality’, which is Communism. Communism is an economic system rather than a political system – modern liberals seem to believe that economics will solve all problems within society, the redistribution of wealth, the levelling of material possession and the stripping of old concepts of (racial and social) superiority will cease conflict and ensure the abstract idea of equal human rights. It is true that communism does in fact strip the individual of his identity; it removes the natural element of competition and makes each man indistinguishable from the next, ultimately unveiling a sort of democratic totalitarianism – and if the isolated man has no rights (Rougier) until relationships are created, then the people under communism, as interchangeable outlines of men certainly have no ‘rights’. 

Marxism, despite its best efforts, is a mega-structure of ‘social constructs’, it is the tenets of Communism implanted onto culture and human interaction and is the source of the modern ‘social justice’ movement prevalent among youths and in universities. The focal points are that gender and race are constructs built to discriminatorily divide people and every person ‘deserves’ universal human rights (which contrarily is not a social construct). This process of unblinking despotism succeeds through firstly encouraging one to willingly throw off one’s oh so oppressive, presumptuous characteristics and either acquires new vetted titles or else entirely denies nationality, race, gender etc. Unfortunately these advocators are misty eyed over ‘equality’ and cannot see the ‘double-think’ for the teetering manipulation of words – “we are all the same, but different”.

So how do you convince a young person to throw off their identity? You baffle them with biased history lessons and sentimental ideas. You lead them to believe that their natural attributes are a representation of historical persecution (i.e. all white males were slave traders), so upon this illogical guilt they attempt to align themselves with the ‘persecuted’ by putting themselves in an ‘oppressed minority’ or as we’ve suggested, denying themselves, this then rids them of their guilt. ‘Oppressed minorities’ i.e. women, then convince themselves that they need to rid themselves of the memories of their collective oppression, i.e. femininity, which is a relic of the past –equally, men who’ve adopted this neurosis, rid themselves of masculinity which again is a reminder of patriarchy and the pattern continues. Their behaviour is self-destructive, akin to caged animals, performing obscenities in affront to their ‘persecutors’.

Alienating the individual is not nearly enough, however. The ‘diversity through homogeny’ stint must permeate all institutions, in every group imaginable – political, social, cultural is the apparent need for a universal attitude within (the group) regardless of its aim. It must allow representatives from every category; every gender, race, age and religion must be heard and represented. Exclusivity, pride and success are sins which create resentment, instead of dealing with conflict the natural way – division (tribal and national) or competition, we insist that that is wrong but what is more humane is making the two agitators more alike, and then surely they will cease fighting?

It’s widely believed that Judaism and its sequel Christianity are the progenitors of egalitarian thought and ‘human rights’ since ‘all men are equal under God’. The modern distaste for competition and pride, and the seemingly impossible task of accepting a plurality of truths, or rather ideas as well as the thinning integrity of borders (globalisation) is evidence enough that liberal ideas stem from the universalism of these Asiatic religions. To reverse to a time when these thought structures were not neatly entrenched, we’d end up at our pre-Christian ancestors who worshipped a pantheon of gods and spirits and competition and pride was at the centre of culture. Victory was its own justification and life was sacred for its ephemeral nature and not clung to, to the detriment of growth.

So this simplified explanation of Cultural Marxism aims to enlighten the individual, who finds the communistic ideas appealing on a superficial level, because ‘equality’ is an obvious truth in a society that revolves around money. When money and equality are synonymous, we have the growth of global trade and larger bodies of power to oversee it. We have Westerners involving themselves with ‘less’ civilised parts of the world to spread the truth (spot the Christianity again!). What is the result? Large corporations who own a complete trade where the cogs are paid little and the product is equally cheap, this causes the deterioration of local industry and ambition. This makes it increasingly difficult for people to own their own businesses, houses etc. This is where Cultural Marxism and Economic Marxism cease mirroring each other and actually meet to form all-inclusive Communism. There is no middle ground on the path we are on, because in the society that values ‘progress’ over sustenance (and tradition), there will reach a pinnacle of extremism.

Communism does not see the individual, you are interchangeable, replaceable and therefore your national identity matters little, your national identity encourages exclusivity which is detrimental to the growth of global economy. Your countrymen could be easily replaced or mixed with that of another, and the cogs would continue. There is no place for ‘aiming higher’, the schooling system and therefore public expectations are lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator, the message is uniformity masquerading as tolerance and equality.

Your best form of defence is quite simply to value your national identity, your local community and its smaller businesses. Cultural Marxism is the process of willing Communism – so revolt against it by embracing tradition and your natural identity, changing your priorities from the materialism that sedates you to your innate spirituality. Enhance your self-esteem, not by demanding others opinions accommodate yours, but by arming yourself with intellectual and physical strength. What is popular is rarely there to inspire success, cultural Marxism is not a system of elevation but of degradation, encouraging the belief that self-destruction and lewd behaviour is ‘empowering’, in open revolt against healthy tradition.

Support true identity, not the merging and watering down of it.

No Comments on Summarizing Descent

‘Rape Culture Isn’t About Sex, It’s About Power’

Rape culture is a lot like racism. Maybe they should just call it “rapism.” It’s an abstract “evil” that a certain group, in this case women, reserves the right to identify and use to manipulate another group, in this case men, into increasingly defensive and impotent positions. As long as they can keep men apologizing, they can keep controlling them.

Our forefathers understood the truth about women.

The truth is that women actually like sex. Without the coercive discipline of patriarchs, women would have sex all the time–like the frisky matriarchs of the Bonobo world.

Men have always known that women like to feel good, too.

As Nietzsche observed, man is only a means for women and the end is always a child. However, this is an ultimate, often subconscious cause. More proximate causes include pleasure and affirmation.

If females had ever really run things, I’m not sure what their version of female “honor” would be, or if there would even be one. Always and everywhere, female honor has meant chastity–and female chastity was clearly a male invention.

Before modern contraception, the control of female sexuality was necessary to maintain order between men. If men are to be expected to care for children, they want to know which kids are theirs. A woman who cheats on a man undermines him and makes him look like a fool in front of other men. The virtue of female chastity–the ridiculous idea that a woman waits for and only wants intercourse with the man she’s been courted by or assigned to–was essentially constructed to protect the honor of men. The expectation of female chastity probably kept a lot of jealous men from killing other members of their own tribes. Men have always known that they wanted to have sex with many women, but they constructed social and legal institutions that forced them to control their own sexual urges, too. To maintain order and create stability in increasingly complex societies, men around the world dreamed up different versions of monogamous, or occasionally polygamous, marriage.

Women were trained to protect their honor–their chastity–above all things. They were scolded for lustful or adulterous thoughts that, it was rightly feared, might lead to misbehavior. In rigidly religious and socially complex bourgeois societies, they were discouraged from thinking of themselves as sexual creatures at all. Sex was something women were expected to simply “grin and bear” as a punishment for being born female.

Modern contraception, industrialization, globalism, and women’s suffrage changed the whole game. The lie of female chastity was exposed, and the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family collapsed. Male investment in civilization and order continues to decrease, and women–who are far better consumers and sedentary employees–have collectively reached a position which offers them the means to exert their own influence and tell their own lies about sex.

So they tell us about “rape culture.”

The violent rape of a woman is a brutal and visceral image that fills every man who loves his mother or his sisters with vengeful rage. Men may joke darkly about rape in the abstract, just as they may joke about murder or dismemberment in the abstract, but the actuality of violent rape is infuriating and repulsive to the majority of them. Men want to conquer the hearts and minds of women, but raping a woman of your own tribe is the act of a spurned, desperate man. A rapist is something that no right-minded man wants to be.

When anti-rape activists tell men they simply want to “teach men not to rape,” that sounds reasonable enough. When they say that there is a “culture of rape” that perpetuates rape, men are hesitant to disagree because they don’t want to be regarded as forgiving of rape or accessories to rape. It is precisely because most men are already against rape that women are able to use rape as a kind of personal holocaust. Anti-“rape culture” advocates are exploiting male disgust for rape and using it as a tool to silence criticism of women and exert control over men’s sexual behavior and conceptions of their own masculinity.

The women who claim that there is a culture of rape in America, as if there are somehow more rapes and rape is somehow more acceptable today than in the past or elsewhere, are not solely interested in preventing rape.

They surely know that the most brutal rapes–the nasty, violent rapes everyone imagines when they think of rape–are for the most part perpetrated by psychopaths and serial rapists who are immune to the influence of their college campus shaming sessions. Feminists also aren’t going to prevent Steel Reserve and Hot Pocket fueled trailer park rapes or underpass Joose rapes, because they have no more influence in these derelict zones than the mores of Victorian church ladies had in the backalleys of London. Given that the well-behaved college boys who make up their captive audience and potential mate selection are already against brutal rape, the ability of educational and Twitter campaigns aimed at ending “rape culture” to actually prevent violent rape will always be relatively minimal. A few frat boys will wait to make sure they got a clear “yes,” and the smart ones will record it for their own protection. But, for the most part, they weren’t the ones giving nice girls black eyes or broken jaws to begin with.

It is when feminists are asked how to end “rape culture” that they truly tip their hand. In a widely cited article in The Nation, the number one and number two ways to “empower men and women to change the status quo” were more concerned with changing masculinity, male identity and male sexuality than they were with preventing rape.

At the top of the list, the first “real problem” identified was “violent masculinity,” which is also known as “masculinity.” Violence has been a defining part of the male sex role and masculine identity throughout human evolution and for all of recorded history. The idea that violent masculinity is somehow a novel product of American society or even Western Civilization is one of the biggest lies feminists tell. If there truly are or have been cultures–not merely priesthoods or religious sects, but whole cultures–where the majority of men were not considered more violent than women, and I have never seen convincing evidence of this, then they are or have been exceedingly rare and anomalous. Male violence is a human norm and a human universal. Male violence is a central feature of both histories and myths concerning men all around the world, and the forms of entertainment that men and even very young boys choose freely continue to feature violent fantasy or simulated tribal warfare–as with team sports.

Just as men have always known or suspected that women also experienced carnal lust, women have always known or suspected that, for men, sex and violence are linked. The rush of dominating another man, or a beast, or the forces of nature is not so far away in the mind from the rush of sexually dominating a woman. All of our language about sex hints at the connection between sex and violence. There is no escaping the reality that the physical act of intercourse itself, as it is most often performed, involves a man violently pushing himself inside a woman in a wild, heightened, animalistic state of mind he rarely achieves in civilized life.

It’s not too much to ask to require men to make sure they have permission to engage in this ancient, ecstatic power play, since both men and women are having far more casual sex with far more partners than they were 100 years ago. But you don’t have to redefine masculinity to do that, since, as we all know, rape is already taboo.

Women are not stupid. They see this primal violence in male sexuality. They perceive their role it in it and it both excites and terrifies them, because they know that the delicate spirit of “equality” is exorcised in the frenzy of fornication.

Feminists taught the slogan that “rape is not about sex, it’s about power,” but only a few of them were willing to admit that sex is almost always about power, too.

Women are uncomfortable admitting that they enjoy the violent, dominant nature of male sexuality, especially in a political context. That they enjoy being dominated by men–at least in the bedroom, if only in the bedroom–is so politically volatile that it’s become an unspeakably dirty little secret for the new church ladies.

While it is true that women enjoy sex, they are also pragmatic and especially interested in safety and security. If there has been a “war of the sexes” raging throughout human history, men have almost always been the victors, precisely because they are bigger and stronger, more willing to take risks, and more inclined to be violent. Women see the potential for violence in men and they recognize that it is the greatest threat to the new order of society–their order. A majority of women in the developed world now have more political and economic power now than they ever have in human history, and this increase in status is utterly dependent on the continued pacification of men.

So they lie. They lie about male sexuality the way men lied about female sexuality.

They’re willing to trade satisfying sex for quasi-coital man-milking if it means holding on to their newfound political and economic power. They’re willing to use the tragedy of rape as a tool to cow men morally–to make normal, decent men prostrate themselves to prove they are not rapists or enablers of rape. As with “privilege,” men will always be guilty until proven innocent, and no matter what they do, no matter how they dishonor themselves, they will never be innocent enough. To release men from guilt is to relinquish power over them, and this power has already corrupted the hearts of the women who revel in it and gain from it.

Rape culture is a lot like racism. Maybe they should just call it “rapism.” It’s an abstract “evil” that a certain group, in this case women, reserves the right to identify and use to manipulate another group, in this case men, into increasingly defensive and impotent positions. As long as they can keep men apologizing, they can keep controlling them.

The continued success of feminism requires the ongoing construction of guilt cultures designed to mould men into a safer and more passive population. Corporate and banking interests want this, because ornery, violent groups of men unsupervised by women are a threat to established interests, property and supply chains. Pacified men also make better employees and consumers.

Feminists may merely be useful idiots to these bigger interests, but they are getting what they want out of the bargain for the time being. They want, as they have wanted for decades, to eliminate proscribed female gender roles and the ability of men to limit female behavior. They want men to “reimagine” a masculinity without violence or dominance. Masculinity without themes of violence or dominance may have no precedent, no history, and it may be completely at odds with physiology and human evolution, but male pacification is the key to female political and economic power.

These women are willing to do whatever they have to do to retain and gain that power, even if it means exploiting victims of rape to do it.

No Comments on ‘Rape Culture Isn’t About Sex, It’s About Power’

The Boycott Is A Bourgeois Form Of Protest

The beast won’t starve. The beast is still getting seconds, and dessert, and a nip off that dusty old bottle of port from the cellar.

Originally published at Jack-Donovan.com

So, you’re going to refuse to buy something from company x, even though it would be to your immediate advantage to do so.

You want to “starve the beast,” or “refuse to support a company that __.”

That’s nice.

NO ONE CARES.

Sure, if a small business has a handful of customers, and half of them stop buying in protest, you can really force an owner to re-think his policy. It’s standard procedure for leftists to bully mom and pop shops into baking lesbian wedding cakes, or run them out of business by smearing them as “racists” or “sexists” or some other offense to the People’s Revolution of Hand-Holding Vegan Transvestites. Happens all the time.

But a company operating in a national or global market isn’t going to notice if 1,000 radical weirdos switch brands of shampoo. Unless you manage to shame them in the mainstream media and your objection goes viral, no one will even notice. You’re a rounding error.

The beast won’t starve. The beast is still getting seconds, and dessert, and a nip off that dusty old bottle of port from the cellar.

Your refusal to open your precious little purse is not only pointless, it’s also reductive. If your critique of modernity is that it reduces us all to bank accounts and units of labor, then why reduce your protest of modernity to a financial transaction? You may say, “to hit ‘em where it hurts,” but since it doesn’t hurt, then why bother?

I understand not wanting to luxuriate in the tasteless decadence of Wal-Mart, but if they have the lowest price on something you need for your survival or to advance your own concerns — GO BUY THAT SHIT.

No shot-callers care about your personal boycott, which matters about as much as your fringe vote, so refusing to buy something you could use or paying more to buy it elsewhere is self-destructive asceticism at best, and vapid in-group social posturing at worst. You’re not starving the beast. You’re starving yourself, or starving your cause.

Use the system. Use it like a whore. Take what you want from it and leave the rest for the rats.

And what’s more — instead of boycotting, turn the whole thing around.

Don’t worry about withholding money from the people you don’t like. Concentrate on putting resources into the hands of people doing things you enjoy or believe in.

Don’t go out of your way to avoid buying something from a company you hate. Go out of your way to buy something from a company you like.

And don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. It’s good practice in Portland to assume that everyone I come in contact with is some kind of Progressive, if not a complete hippy fruitcake. If I worried about that, I could never support anything local. If they’re doing something I think is essentially good, but for all of the wrong reasons, that’s probably still better than most of the alternatives.

Money is only a means — a way to achieve an end. Withholding money is a passive-aggressive scold, not a positive path forward. If you want to exert a positive influence, instead of being a miserable bastard who is always against everything, show people in your sphere how you are using money as a means to support ideas that matter to you.

This, too, can be obnoxious once it catches on, as you well know if you’ve listened to SWPLs (or urban elves, as I call them) brag about buying recycled toilet paper or “free trade” coffee beans.

It does, however, seem to be more effective than bitching all the time, or financially handicapping yourself by refusing to buy trivial things at the lowest price.

No Comments on The Boycott Is A Bourgeois Form Of Protest

The War on Russia

The war against Russia is currently the most discussed issue in the West. At this point it is only a suggestion and a possibility, but it can become a reality depending on the decisions taken by all parties involved in the Ukrainian conflict – Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and Brussels.

This article was originally published at Open Revolt; it was edited by John Morgan. 


The coming war as concept

The war against Russia is currently the most discussed issue in the West. At this point it is only a suggestion and a possibility, but it can become a reality depending on the decisions taken by all parties involved in the Ukrainian conflict – Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and Brussels.

I don’t want to discuss all the aspects and history of this conflict here. Instead I propose to analyze its deep ideological roots. My conception of the most relevant events is based on the Fourth Political Theory, whose principles I have described in my book under the same name that was published in English by Arktos Media in 2012.

Therefore I will not examine the war of the West on Russia in terms of its risks, dangers, issues, costs or consequences, but rather in an ideological sense as seen from the global perspective. I will instead meditate on the sense of such a war, and not on the war itself (which may be either real or virtual).

Essence of liberalism

In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:

  • anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
  • belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
  • technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
  • eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
  • economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the other types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
  • democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
  • the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
  • one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship).

These are the core values of liberalism, and they are a manifestation of one of the three tendencies that originated in the Enlightenment alongside Communism and fascism, which collectively proposed varying interpretations of the spirit of modernity. During the twentieth century, liberalism defeated its rivals, and since 1991 has become the sole, dominant ideology of the world.

The only freedom of choice in the kingdom of global liberalism is that between Right liberalism, Left liberalism or radical liberalism, including far-Right liberalism, far-Left liberalism and extremely radical liberalism. As a consequence, liberalism has been installed as the operational system of Western civilization and of all other societies that find themselves in the zone of Western influence. It has become the common denominator for any politically correct discourse, and the distinguishing mark which determines who is accepted by mainstream politics and who is marginalized and rejected. Conventional wisdom itself became liberal.

Geopolitically, liberalism was inscribed in the America-centered model in which Anglo-Saxons formed the ethnical core, based upon the Atlanticist Euro-American partnership, NATO, which represents the strategic core of the system of global security. Global security has come to be seen as being synonymous with the security of the West, and in the last instance with American security. So liberalism is not only an ideological power but also a political, military and strategic power. NATO is liberal in its roots. It defends liberal societies, and it fights to extend liberalism to new areas.

Liberalism as nihilism

There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. It is not secondary; it is the essence of the problem.

Liberalism fights against all forms of collective identity, and against all types of values, projects, strategies, goals, methods and so on that are collectivist, or at least non-individualist. That is the reason why one of the most important theorists of liberalism, Karl Popper (following Friedrich von Hayek), held in his important book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, that liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests that human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning. (It should be noted that George Soros regards this book as his personal bible.) Any goal, any value, and any meaning in liberal society, or the open society, should be strictly based upon the individual. So the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are Communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualistic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism). So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or Communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and Communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism. Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle is attempting to achieve: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.

Unipolar period: threat of implosion

In 1991, when the Soviet Union as the last opponent of Western liberalism fell, some Westerners, such as Francis Fukuyama, proclaimed the end of history. This was quite logical: as there was no longer an explicit enemy of the open society, therefore there was no more history as had occurred during the modern period, which was defined by the struggle between three political ideologies (liberalism, Communism and fascism) for the heritage of the Enlightenment. That was, strategically speaking, the moment when the “unipolar moment” was realized (Charles Krauthammer). The period between 1991 and 2014, at the midpoint of which Bin Laden’s attack against the World Trade Center occurred, was the period of the global domination of liberalism. The axioms of liberalism were accepted by all the main geopolitical actors, including China (in economic terms) and Russia (in its ideology, economy, and political system). There were liberals and would-be liberals, not-yet liberals, not-liberal-enough liberals and so on. The real and explicit exceptions were few (such as Iran and North Korea). So the world became axiomatically liberal  according to its ideology.

This has been the most important moment in the history of liberalism. It has defeated its enemies, but at the same time it has lost them. Liberalism is essentially the liberation from and the fight against all that is not liberal (at present or in what has the potential to become such). Liberalism acquired its real meaning and its content from its enemies. When the choice is presented as being between not-freedom (as represented by concrete totalitarian societies) or freedom, many choose freedom, not understanding it in terms of freedom for what, or freedom to do what… When there is an illiberal society, liberalism is positive. It only begins to show its negative essence after victory.

After the victory of 1991, liberalism stepped into its implosive phase. After having defeated Communism as well as fascism, it stood alone, with no enemy to fight. And that was the moment when inner conflicts emerged, when liberal societies began to attempt to purge themselves of their last remaining non-liberal elements: sexism, political incorrectness, inequality between the sexes, any remnants of the non-individualistic dimensions of institutions such as the State and the Church, and so on. Liberalism always needs an enemy to liberate from. Otherwise it loses its purpose, and its implicit nihilism becomes too salient. The absolute triumph of liberalism is its death.

That is the ideological meaning of the financial crises of 2000 and of 2008. The successes and not the failures of the new, entirely profit-based economy (of turbocapitalism, according to Edward Luttwak) are responsible for its collapse.

The liberty to do anything you want, but restricted to the individual scale, provokes an implosion of the personality. The human passes to the infra-human realm, and to sub-individual domains. And here he encounters virtuality, as a dream of sub-individuality, the freedom from anything. This is the evaporation of the human, and brings about the Empire of nothingness as the last word in the total victory of liberalism. Postmodernism prepares the terrain for that post-historic, self-referential recycling of non-sense.

The West is in need of an enemy

You may ask now, what the Hell does all of this have to do with the (presumable) coming war with Russia? I am ready to answer that now.

Liberalism has continued to gain momentum on a global scale. Since 1991, it has been an inescapable fact. And it has now begun to implode. It has arrived at its terminal point and started to liquidate itself. Mass immigration, the clash of cultures and civilizations, the financial crisis, terrorism, and the growth of ethnic nationalism are indicators of approaching chaos. This chaos endangers the established order: any kind of order, including the liberal order itself. The more liberalism succeeds, the faster it approaches its end and the end of the present world. Here we are dealing with the nihilistic essence of liberal philosophy, with nothingness as the inner (me)ontological principle of freedom-from. The German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen justly defined the human as a “deprived being,” or Mangelwesen. Man in himself is nothing. It takes all that comprises its identity from society, history, people, and politics. So if he returns to his pure essence, he can no longer recognize anything. The abyss is hidden behind the fragmented debris of feelings, vague thoughts, and dim desires. The virtuality of sub-human emotions is a thin veil; behind it there is pure darkness. So the explicit discovery of this nihilistic basis of human nature is the last achievement of liberalism. But that is the end, and the end also for those who use liberalism for their own purposes and who are beneficiaries of liberal expansion; in other words, the masters of globalization. Any and all order collapses in such an emergency of nihilism: the liberal order, too.

In order to rescue the rule of this liberal elite, they need to take a certain step back. Liberalism will reacquire its meaning only when it is confronted once more with non-liberal society. This step back is the only way to save what remains of order, and to save liberalism from itself. Therefore, Putin’s Russia appears on its horizon. Modern Russia is not anti-liberal, not totalitarian, not nationalist, and not Communist, nor is it yet too liberal, fully liberal-democrat, sufficiently cosmopolite, or so radically anti-Communist. It is rather on the way to becoming liberal, step by step, within the process of a Gramscian adjustment to global hegemony and the subsequent transformation this entails (transformismo in Gramscian language).

However, in the global agenda of liberalism as represented by the United States and NATO, there is a need for another actor, for another Russia that would justify the order of the liberal camp, and help to mobilize the West as it threatens to break apart from inner strife. This will delay the irruption of liberalism’s inner nihilism and thus save it from its inevitable end. That is why they badly need Putin, Russia, and war. It is the only way to prevent chaos in the West and to save what remains of its global and domestic order. In this ideological play, Russia would justify liberalism’s existence, because that is the enemy which would give a meaning to the struggle of the open society, and which would help it to consolidate and continue to affirm itself globally. Radical Islam, such as represented by al-Qaeda, was another candidate for this role, but it lacked sufficient stature to become a real enemy. It was used, but only on a local scale. It justified the intervention in Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, and started a civil war in Syria, but it was too weak and ideologically primitive to represent the real challenge that is needed by liberals.

Russia, the traditional geopolitical enemy of Anglo-Saxons, is much more serious as an opponent. It fits the needed role extremely well – the memory of the Cold War is still fresh in many minds. Hate for Russia is an easy thing to provoke by relatively simple means. This is why I think that war with Russia is possible. It is ideologically necessary as the last means to postpone the final implosion of the liberal West. It is the needed “one step back.”

To save the liberal order

Considering the different layers of this concept of a possible war with Russia, I suggest a few points:

  1. A war with Russia will help to delay the coming disorder on a global scale. The majority of the countries that are involved in the liberal economy, and which share the axioms and institutions of liberal democracy, and which are either dependent upon or directly controlled by the United States and NATO, will forge a common front once more behind the cause of the liberal West in its quest to oppose the anti-liberal Putin. This will serve to reaffirm liberalism as a positive identity when this identity is beginning to dissolve as a result of the manifestation of its nihilistic essence.
  2. A war with Russia would strengthen NATO and above all its European members, who will be obliged once more to regard American hyperpower as something positive and useful, and the old Cold War stance will no longer seem obsolete. Out of a fear of the coming of the “evil Russians,” Europeans will again feel loyal to the Unite
    d States as their protector and savior. As a result, the leading role of the U.S. in NATO will be reaffirmed.
  3. The EU is falling apart. The supposed “common threat” of the Russians could prevent it from an eventual split, mobilizing these societies and making their peoples once again eager to defend their liberties and values under the threat of Putin’s “imperial ambitions.”
  4. The Ukraine junta in Kiev needs this war to justify and conceal all the misdeeds they carried out during the Maidan protests on both the juridical and constitutional levels, thus allowing them to suspend democracy that would impede their rule in the southeastern, mostly pro-Russian districts and would enable them to establish their authority and nationalistic order through extra-parliamentary means.

The only country that doesn’t want war now is Russia. But Putin cannot let the radically anti-Russian government in Ukraine dominate a country that has a population that is half-Russian and which contains many pro-Russian regions. If he allows this, he will be finished on the international and domestic levels. So, reluctantly, he accepts war. And once he begins on this course, there will be no other solution for Russia but to win it.

I don’t like to speculate regarding the strategic aspects of this coming war. I leave that to other, more qualified analysts. Instead I would like to formulate some ideas concerning the ideological dimension of this war.

Framing Putin

The meaning of this war on Russia is in essence the last effort of globalist liberalism to save itself from implosion. As such, liberals need to define Putin’s Russia ideologically – and obviously identify it with the enemy of the open society. But in the dictionary of modern ideologies there are only three primary iterations: liberalism, Communism and fascism. It is quite clear that liberalism is represented by all the nations involved in this conflict except for Russia (the United States, the NATO member states, and Euromaidan/the Kiev junta). This leaves only Communism and fascism. Therefore Putin is made out to be a “neo-Soviet revanchist” and a “return of the KGB.” This is the picture that is being sold to the most stupid sort of Western public. But some aspects of the patriotic reaction emanating from the pro-Russian and anti-Banderite population (i.e., the defense of Lenin’s monuments, Stalin portraits and memorials to the Soviet involvement in the Second World War) could confirm this idea in the minds of this public. Nazism and fascism are too far removed from Putin and the reality of modern Russia, but Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism will be evoked within the image of the Great Evil that is being drawn. Therefore Putin is being made out to be a “radical nationalist,” a “fascist” and an “imperialist.” This will work on many Westerners. Under this logic, Putin can be both Communist and fascist at the same time, so he will be depicted as a National Bolshevik (although this is a little bit too complicated for the postmodern Western public). It is obvious that in reality, Putin is neither – he is not a Communist nor a fascist, nor both simultaneously. He is a political pragmatist in the realm of international relations – this is why he admires Kissinger, and why Kissinger likes him in return. He has no ideology whatsoever. But he will be obliged to embrace the ideological frame that he has been assigned. It is not his choice. But such are the rules of the game. In the course of this war on Russia, Putin will be framed in this way, and that is the most interesting and important aspect of this situation.

The main idea that liberals will try to advance to define Putin ideologically will be as the shadow of the past, as a vampire: “Sometimes they come back.” That is the rationale behind this attempt to prevent the final implosion of liberalism. The primary message is that liberalism is still alive and vital because there is something in the world that we all must be liberated from. Russia will become the object from which it must be liberated. The goal is first to liberate Ukraine, and by extension Europe and the rest of humanity, who will likewise be depicted as being under threat, from Russia, and in the end Russia itself will be said to be in need of rescue from its own non-liberal identity. So now we have an enemy. Such an enemy once more gives liberalism its raison d’être. So Russia is being made out to be a challenger from the pre-liberal past thrown into the liberal present. Without such a challenge there is no more life in liberalism, no more order in the world, and everything associated with them will dissolve and implode. With this challenge, the falling giant of globalism acquires new vigor. Russia is here to save the liberals.

But in order for this to happen, Russia is being ideologically framed as something pre-liberal. She must be either Communist, fascist or perhaps National Bolshevist. That is the ideological rule. Therefore, in fighting with Russia, or in considering to fight her, or in not fighting her, there is a deeper task – to frame Russia ideologically. It will be done from both the inside and the outside. They will try to force Russia to accept either Communism or extreme nationalism, or else they will simply treat Russia as if it were these things. It is a framing game.

Post-liberal Russia: The first war of the Fourth Political Theory

In conclusion, what I propose is the following:

We need to consciously counter any provocation to frame Russia as a pre-liberal power. We need to refuse to allow the liberals to save themselves from their fast-approaching end. Rather than helping them to delay it, we need to accelerate it. In order to do this, we need to present Russia not as a pre-liberal entity but as a post-liberal revolutionary force that struggles for an alternative future for all the peoples of the planet. The Russian war will not only be for Russian national interests, but will be in the cause of a just multipolar world, for real dignity and for real, positive freedom – not (nihilistic) freedom from but freedom for. In this war, Russia will set an example as the defender of Tradition, conservative organic values, and will represent real liberation from the open society and its beneficiaries – the global financial oligarchy. This war is not against Ukrainians or even against part of the Ukrainian populace. Nor is it against Europe. It is against the liberal world (dis)order. We are not going to save liberalism, per their designs. We are going to kill it once and for all. Modernity was always essentially wrong, and we are now at the terminal point of modernity. For those who rendered modernity and their own destiny synonymous, or who let that occur unconsciously, this will mean the end. But for those who are on the side of eternal truth and of Tradition, of faith, and of the spiritual and immortal human essence, it will be a new beginning, an Absolute Beginning.

The most important fight at present is the fight for the Fourth Political Theory. It is our weapon, and with it we are going to prevent the liberals from realizing their wish of framing Putin and Russia in their own manner, and in so doing we will reaffirm Russia as the first post-liberal ideological power struggling against nihilistic liberalism for the sake of an open, multipolar and genuinely free future.

No Comments on The War on Russia

Choosing Limbo

In his “statement of principles” issued this past Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Boehner claims to have—at last!—put forth a “common-sense” and “bipartisan” approach that will fix our “broken immigration system.” Such clichés have become all-too familiar, and the memo is yet one more variation on a theme, played every couple of years for the past 15.  

In his “statement of principles” issued this past Thursday [PDF], Speaker of the House John Boehner claims to have—at last!—put forth a “common-sense” and “bipartisan” approach that will fix our “broken immigration system.”

Such clichés have become all-too familiar, and the memo is yet one more variation on a theme, played every couple of years for the past 15.

As other commentators have pointed out, Boehner’s “principles” are quite similar to those of the “Gang of Eight,” whose bill died in the House in 2013. The difference that jumps out is that Boehner would allow migrants who are in the U.S. illegally to acquire legal status, though not citizenship. (In other words, they would be allowed to stay but not allowed to vote for Democrats.)

Coming after the Gang of Eight’s failure, Boehner’s memo and resultant bill (if there ever is one) amount to a calculated attempt to negotiate between two centers of power in the Republican Party. The first is a constellation of interests that, for ideological and economic reasons, wants ever more immigration and access to global labor pools. The second is the GOP’s overwhelmingly White electoral base, which accounts for some 90 percent of Republican vote totals.

Mass immigration is patently unpopular among White Republicans; more important, immigration (along with “illegals,” “amnesty,” and related buzzwords) has taken on a profoundly symbolic meaning. Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.

There are many within nationalism and traditionalism, as well as the “hard Right” of Beltway conservatives, who are convinced that the GOP is acting like “the Stupid Party” in supporting the mass immigration of millions of likely Democrats. Such activists, it seems, want to save the GOP from itself, and prevent an unnecessary political suicide at the behest of clueless “RINOs”. (My fear is that Republicans aren’t as stupid as they look.)

But the GOP’s “grassroots” are, on some level, at fault for continuing to articulate their opposition to immigration using the bugaboo of “amnesty,” which effectively makes immigration a matter of legality, national security, and abstract notions of citizenship. (I, for one, would happily grant “amnesty” to a million Russian, German, or Italian “boat people” who might happen to wash up on American shores.)

Immigration and “amnesty” are, as mentioned, non-racist proxies for race and culture. In focusing on these, the base has effectively painted itself into a corner, in which it will have a difficult time opposing a bill that, say, promises border enforcement and increases legal immigration or, qua Boehner’s memo, offers penalties and legal status to migrants without citizenship and voting rights.

Putting that aside, a bill based on Boehner’s memo (if it ever sees the light of day) would create a “new normal” socially and demographically—and one with many unintended political consequences.

First and foremost, the migrants would remain here, regardless of whether they’d be allowed to vote. Hispanics would thus continue to establish enclaves and quasi-homelands.

Secondly, their children would be citizens. In other words, the political effects would not be immediate but they would be inevitable, some 25 years later when the current crop of Republicans are in retirement and no longer need to build careers by manipulating White voters.

Thirdly, and most provocatively, America would have generated a new “Jim Crow” myth. If Boehner proves successful, imagine the stories we’d read, only a couple of years on, of hard-working “José,” who’s here legally and whose lifelong dream is to vote or run for office. The American Left (and, likely, much of the Right) would be revitalized by the prospect of advocating for American Hispanics “living under Apartheid,” working and paying taxes but not receiving representation.

In the near term, I’ll refrain from predicting what will come of Boehner’s memo. A year ago, my gut feeling was that the Gang of Eight’s bill, introduced shortly after Obama’s second inauguration, would prove successful. (I was incorrect.) And since Boehner’s memo was released, there has been passionate opposition, even among mainstream conservatives.

Of course, all of this has remained entirely on the level of reaction: conservatives express their distaste and unease, without really articulating a competing vision—even on the most rudimentary level of Who We Are. For better and for worse, a likely scenario is that we will remain in the same limbo we’ve been in for decades: mass Third World immigration will continue, legally and illegally, and White America will keep putting off a definitive answer on its identity. At a time when it is needed most.

No Comments on Choosing Limbo

Being Who We Are

Russia is capable of ceasing to be the world’s gas station (there are more suitable candidates for this purpose) and gaining self-respect:

  • If it becomes a Pan-Slavic country ready to defend its brothers in blood, language, and faith even if only against the Euro-bureaucratic pink-Liberal dictatorship, even if only against extreme Islamism;
  • If it becomes a Eurasian country restoring the great continental project, defending its peoples against the West (in its neo-Liberal and “Euro-Communist” versions) and the East (in its Chinese and Saudi-Caliphate versions);
  • If it becomes a nationalist country capable of taking care of millions of Russians left behind the post-Soviet cordon, from Sevastopol in Ukraine to Ust-Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, capable of becoming the “Great Bear” ready to tear apart anyone who comes in between her and her cubs.

Is there anything that Russia can offer the world other than oil of the “Ural” brand?

Russian journalist Mikhail Moshkin analyzes the current instability in Ukraine with a special focus on the meaning of traditional Russian identity and statehood. This translation was originally published at The Soul of the East.


The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea. It is ethical mind qua the substantial will manifest and revealed to itself, knowing and thinking itself, accomplishing what it knows and in so far as it knows it.

G. W. F. Hegel

Ukraine: Two Alternatives of Returning to One and the Same

A well-known formula, “the patient is either alive or dead,” encapsulates the Ukrainian situation in its entirety for those looking from the outside (and, most likely, the participants themselves). Either the Maidan finally topples Viktor Yanukovich over, or, a more likely scenario in light of the current events is that Yanukovich will give up everything he possibly can, handing out status positions in the government to the Maidan triumvirate, which is rapidly losing popularity for collaborating with “zlochinna vlada”—“criminal authorities” (offending Oleg Tyagnibok to top it off!). And, considering that it is impossible to return to the pre-Maidan status quo, Yanokovich will become a “lame duck,” with the 2004 Constitution in his beak and the omnipotence of the Verkhovna Rada. In a country that just collapsed into yet another economic and political pit.

Given the prospect of Vitali Klitschko’s presidency (yet how can the boxer become president if Yulia Tymoshenko is released?), the prospect of a “white-and-blue” regional separatism, the secession of Crimea, etc., are all real possibilities. We are seeing the signs thereof already. At the same time, all our political scientists and analysts should not get overly excited about “redrawing the new underdeveloped countries on the map.” The specter of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Fronde haunted Ukraine as early as 2004 as well, but even then, with Viktor Yushchenko’s victory (does anyone still remember this political figure?), the southeastern autonomous region did not come to fruition, whereas Yevgeniy Kushnarev, the chief ideologue of separatism, got off lightly. Most likely, despite the ever-present antagonism between Galicia and the Southeast, there won’t be a “divorce.”

It looks like we might end up with bad infinity. Either, after the Maidan’svictory, we return to the “orange-ism” of ten years ago, or, after Maidan is pacified, we go back to the status quo from six months ago. The Eternal Return of one and the same, one and the same, one and the same.

In other words, this is obvious.

RussiaLacking Meaningful Alternatives

More central to this question, in response to the challenge of the Maidan—a gauntlet had been thrown down without any doubt—is what Russia can say or, more importantly, do. Let us attempt to be honest with ourselves and answer the following question: why is it that we, as we stand now, have the right to restore the Eurasian space, the triune Slavic union, and so on?

Critics of “gathering the lands of Russia” are, sadly, correct that our “Babylonian” spirit is still strong. And we have yet (do we?) to transform from the New Babylon into the Third Rome. Is it the Russia of mindless celebrities that is the beacon for all those discontent with “Euro-Sodom” and globalist Americanism?

Yes, we can become the focus of hope, but only if we ourselves find meaning in our own existence throughout history.

The author of this text is neither a Communist nor a fan of the USSR, “USSR v. 2.0″ or futuristic modernist projects in general. Therefore, he can only comment distantly: Russia of the 1920-30s (even if it were thrice Soviet and socialist, it remained Russia) was a realized possibility of a different world order and a different future. Antonio Gramsci and Georgi Dimitrov were pro-Soviet Communists not because of grant money, whereas Romain Rolland and Lion Feuchtwanger composed panegyrics without any exchange for thirty pieces of silver.

Being Who We Are

Russia is capable of ceasing to be the world’s gas station (there are more suitable candidates for this purpose) and gaining self-respect:

  • If it becomes a Pan-Slavic country ready to defend its brothers in blood, language, and faith even if only against the Euro-bureaucratic pink-Liberal dictatorship, even if only against extreme Islamism;
  • If it becomes a Eurasian country restoring the great continental project, defending its peoples against the West (in its neo-Liberal and “Euro-Communist” versions) and the East (in its Chinese and Saudi-Caliphate versions);
  • If it becomes a nationalist country capable of taking care of millions of Russians left behind the post-Soviet cordon, from Sevastopol in Ukraine to Ust-Kamenogorsk in Kazakhstan, capable of becoming the “Great Bear” ready to tear apart anyone who comes in between her and her cubs.

Is there anything that Russia can offer the world other than oil of the “Ural” brand?

Something does emerge as a sketch: this is a country that remains the bastion of Right-wing conservative Christian value, and, in general, a sort of a stronghold of the “global Right” force, ready to pick up J.B. Fichte, Alexander Hamilton, and Yamamoto Tsunetomo, ejected from the steamship of Modernity. What remains to be done is small: transferring this from the sphere of declarations (they are very much at odds with reality) into the sphere of political action.

We will also have to examine our recent past, since we were considered a stronghold of the “global Left” in the 20th century. It would be most logical to treat the Soviet era precisely as a period in history. Otherwise, there is the impression that Lenin and Stalin are still alive ruling our lives on a daily basis. It is time to leave necropolitics behind.

The latter will help us stop looking for cravings toward Tradition, faith, and hierarchy in the Communist Party’s congresses and speeches of leaders. We must stop looking for traces of Rurikid and Romanov Empires in the “Red Empire,” or, conversely, we must stop searching for crypto-Communists among the likes of Alexei Kudrin, Oleg Deripaska, and Viktor Yanukovich. Without bias or wrath, we must choose all that will be useful to us (that same socially-oriented economy with, as mentioned hundreds of times, Right-wing politics), leaving Vladimir Ilyich and Iosif Vissarionovich for the historians.

No Comments on Being Who We Are

Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

Below is the first installment of a three-part series on how we get from stato-national feeling to Pan-Occidental awareness. The second part will be about the “European alibi,” dealing mainly with the wave of anti-European hysteria currently washing through Britain, and the third and last one will be about “reclaiming the Occident,” since there’s a misconception in New Right circles about Europe and the West being antagonistic.

NATION-STATES AS STEPPING STONES TOWARDS GLOBALISM

I have hesitated before writing about the obscolescence of the Nation-State since I’m not sure that American readers, not to mention their European counterparts, are ready to fully realize its implications. White nationalism is a promising movement, but it is still defined in narrow American terms (“a homeland for White Americans”). On the other side of the ocean, Euro-nationalism is on the rise, but its conceptual framework still relies on Nation-States, which aborts the movement before it can fully develop.

Whether the project is a White Republic in the Pacific Northwest or a Southern Republic in Dixie (the latter being as likely as the restoration of absolute monarchy in Europe), or a “Europe of Nations,” miraculously deprived of extra-European settlers (and with the same failed states as today), nationhood, or rather “nation-statehood,” is still involved, and it is what prevents us from imagining a path out of the present mess. I suggest that, as a vanguard webzine, we get rid of nation-statehood altogether. More practical, grass-roots organizations will have to speak in terms that people will understand, but we are here to coin new terms, forge new concepts, and discard all the irrelevant ones.

Short-term National interests vs. Long-term Western interests

The main problem with the Nation-State is that it negates both what is above itself (race and civilization) and what is beneath itself (ethnicities). When stato-nationalists pay lip service to the “Europe of Nations” mentioned above, what they think of is Nation-States, and they defend Europe only to the extent that European states remain “sovereign,” that is, remain able to betray the European whole at any moment if it is in their short-term, selfish interests. From Francis the 1st allying with Suleiman the Magnificent against the Habsburg Emperor to Germany helping Lenin return to Russia during WW1, stato-nationalism has a clear record of repetitively harming the West. This will continue to happen as long as nations are not submitted to the Western, greater good.

Stato-nationalists have to resort to historical manipulation to justify their position: for them, nations came first, and then they “created” Europe/the West. Actually the reverse is true: Western European nations originate from the Carolingian Empire, which was shared out in 843 A.D. between the three grandsons of Charlemagne. This separation was rendered necessary both because of the dynastic rivalry of Louis the Pious’s sons and because of the linguistic gap between the Latin and Germanic parts of the Empire. One year before the Treaty of Verdun officialized this separation, two of the three sons of Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, concluded an alliance against their brother Lothair, who was claiming the whole Empire for himself. Charles the Bald, whose troops were Latin-speaking, had to swear an oath in High Old German for Louis the German’s soldiers to understand. Reciprocally, Louis the German swore his oath in Old French. The latter is the earliest known text in this language. From the dislocation of the Western Empire, as it was then named, emerged thus three states. These were Francia Occidentalis (which would become France) and Francia Orientalis (later the Holy Roman Empire, which was Germanic). Lothair kept an awkwardly-shaped strip in the middle, including all the regions European powers would seek to conquer up to WW2: what would later become the Low Countries, Rhineland, Alsace, Switzerland, Northern Italy.

The Denial of Ethnicities

Petty nationalists often summon, quite hypocritically, the “principle of subsidiarity” to explain why Nation-States have to remain “sovereign.” It is hypocritical because this same principle is not applied within the Nation-State. Let’s take a relaively recent example: in April 2013, there was a referendum in France to determine whether Alsace, France’s Germanic region, could be reunited in one single sub-national entity, instead of being divided between two départements (the French equivalent of U.S. counties).

Marine Le Pen’s Front National campaigned against it because it would “dismember” France, and it even used anti-German and anti-European imagery to make its case. That unfortunate campaign meant that Germanic Alsatians have to remain separated from their German brothers in the name of “France,” an entity that doesn’t mean anything outside the Germanic, Celtic and Latin peoples the royal state had managed to unite while respecting their uniqueness.

Modern Nation-States are based on the denial of ethnicity. Aside from a few cases, most states don’t reflect the ethnic composition of Europe, let alone North America. Ethnicities are scattered in various states (Magyars in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine), or their homeland is divided between more than one state (Catalans, Flemings).

Is there any wonder, then, that Nation-States still exist in the current context of globalization? Far from being fences, Nation-States are actually the stepping stones upon which globalists relied, and still rely, to advance their agenda. I will deal with the European Union in the next installment. I’ll demonstrate how the EU is effectively run by its member-states, proving how stato-nationalists, particularly British nationalists, are deadly wrong on this matter, which they don’t seem to really understand or even know about.

Aside from the European Union, other supra-national organizations gather Nation-States together. The United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and the WTO, are funded by Nation-States (which, to this day, are the only entities capable of raising taxes), composed of representatives of those states, and act, when they effectively do so, on behalf of their member states.

It is therefore ironic to see civic nationalists like UKIP’s Farage present the return to “sovereignty” as a matter of national pride for Britain, given that the entire globalistic project was built upon the basis of Nation-States. In Farage’s case, civic nationalism is perfectly compatible with global corporate “free” trade, as he has repeatedly admitted.

Divisive symbols

But before I move on to the next part, I’d like to conclude the present one with an observation that should be obvious for anyone thinking seriously of these questions: stato-nationalism has already failed, and there is no reason why it would magically succeed in the coming decades. Stato-nationalists, in their propaganda, have to use historic symbols of the division of the West. I can only feel admiration for Joan of Arc, who, when she was only 17, decided to rise up in arms and “chase the English out of France.” As admirable as this historic figure might be, and as necessary as her deeds were in the early 15th century, she obviously belongs in history books as of 2013. The enemy is not “the English,” and what has to be saved and reborn is not a single kingdom, but an entire race and civilization.

The English still pompously celebrate their Waterloo victory by shabbily welcoming continental trains at the eponymous station, but Napoleonic troops are unlikely to invade Britain through the Channel tunnel. Rather, Pakistani gang-rapists, West African soldier-beheaders and Caribbean looters come by plane, and are granted visas by the same state that British nationalists profess to defend.

Where are the Las Navas de Tolosa airports and Lepanto stations in today’s West? Having to raise the question, and even having to explain what these battles were about and why they mattered for the fate of the entire White race, illustrates how far we are from a real Pan-Occidental awareness, and how it will be needed in the times to come.

This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.Com.

No Comments on Nation-States, the European Union and the Occident (1/3)

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