Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Tag: Traditionalism

The TERFs to Dissident Right Pipeline

If you are at all active in right-wing online spaces, you may have taken note of an influx of women into dissident right political circles over the past two or three years.

If you are at all active in right-wing online spaces, you may have taken note of an influx of women into dissident right political circles over the past two or three years. In addition, there has been an increase in conversations surrounding the phenomenon of women within the political left who have rejected some of the more egregious elements of third-wave feminism, often at great personal and social cost. These women, who identify as second-wave or classical feminists, unequivocally reject transgender ideology – they are Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists (TERFs).

“TERFs” emerged as a slur by early 2010, as pushback against trans activism within feminist circles gained more visibility, along with the lesser-used Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist, or SWERF. With a major overlap, both groups reject the notion that sex is socially constructed and changeable, and both embrace that pornography and sex-positive feminism is a societal sickness and deeply exploitative of women.

These two core positions form the bridge between TERFs and the dissident right, with several other elements contributing to the exodus of women from the feminist framework altogether. TERFs aren’t necessarily “radical” in the sense that they are any more anti-male or passionate about their discourse than third-wave feminists, but for many, their adherence to the traditional feminist academic understanding of sex and gender earns them the label.

A surprising number of women involved in the dissident right admit to coming to their political stance from varying degrees of leftism. Similar to the “Libertarian to Alt-Right Pipeline” ubiquitous in 2016, the pipeline connects two diametrically opposed ideologies and makes converts out of an oppositional party. In order to understand this ideological leap, we have to understand what drives women to accept the core tenants of dissident right belief.

Gender as a Social Construct

Until the proliferation of transgender ideology in recent years, feminist academia understood gender as an entirely social construct distinct from sex, which is the unchangeable, biological basis of women’s oppression. Gender expression as a socially constructed phenomenon, or a product of an individual’s upbringing, is a concept undergoing a shift toward a more nuanced understanding of where and how the intersection of gender and biology occurs. The common dissident right position would be an unwavering view of immutable physical sexual dimorphism, a view shared by radical feminists, taken together with an understanding of gender expression as at least partly based in bio-psychological urges.

Feminists have long strained against the ties joining gender expression and a biological basis for gendered behavior, ardently arguing against the concept of a “woman’s brain” until recent developments in trans ideology have begun to repopularize the surprisingly regressive concept. In the midst of this confusion – a third position emerges. What if gender expression IS largely based on biology, and that’s perfectly alright? Why can’t we celebrate our unique aptitudes? Why can’t we accept what we cannot change, and advocate for women’s interests with this understanding?

Women’s Liberation to Corporate Slavery

The most severe catalysts for any women’s liberation movement are the immediate threats of physical and sexual violence and the lack of ability or opportunity for a woman to support herself or her children if her partner or guardian fails in his responsibilities or if he has passed away. Once these dangers were somewhat mitigated in the West, we see a shift from a genuine women’s liberation movement into the mid-to-late 20th-century Jewish-led feminist theory.

This movement and its development into third-wave intersectional feminism have helped to shape a society where violent pornography is encouraged for consumption and accessible to children, where mass immigration has caused rape epidemics in once comfortable European towns and villages, and women and girls are subject to unthinkable violence as part of a tradeoff for the supposed strengths of a diverse society. With self-identification laws and rabidly anti-woman LGBTQ activism, women have largely lost the right to privacy and the women’s only spaces vital for our safety. The freedom for women to work and support her family in a dire situation became perverted into a massive societal push for women to join the workforce en masse, resulting in what we now understand to be a wage-stagnating doubling of the labor pool and a generation of small children and infants raised in an often apathetic daycare system.

With this comes a new understanding of women’s oppression. We are torn away from our children by the new economic reality, sent into corporate slavery, and prevented from starting families. When the most natural essence of womanhood is discouraged and we are denied the fruition of our most basic biological instincts, we come to understand the current system as one dangerous to the feminine body and spirit, the family structure, and the backbone of western society. From this core realization onward, there are a number of factors that have caused the mass exodus of TERFs from the left into the dissident right.

Rejecting Degeneracy Depletes Social Capital

With countless women realizing that feminism, for all of its pro-women intent, has failed women and allowed these miserable circumstances to come to pass, nothing highlights this disconnect more than the social consequences of rejecting the trans and sex-positive narrative. The TERFs label results in the same personal or professional upheaval as being outed as a white nationalist, and trans activists use the same cowardly tactics as Antifa uses against suspected fascists. Women have lost their jobs, social circles, and families for failing to adhere to third-wave groupthink. They are subject to violent threats from trans activists and “feminist” men alike. These women become social pariahs and have simply already lost the social capital they stand to risk by getting involved in dissident politics.

TERFs Targets

Vancouver Rape Relief has been repeatedly vandalized, including a dead rat nailed to their doorway. The center provides support services to female victims of sexual assault.

Statistics and Race

Male violence is of unique interest when arguing the risks involved in allowing men into spaces where women are vulnerable, and one of the first steps in accepting the reality of male violence is actually viewing the statistics regarding male-on-female violence. Viewing the publicly available data with a critical eye reveals a truth known to anyone on the dissident right. It doesn’t take any thinking woman long to see exactly which men are committing violent crime and the majority of partner violence, and race realism is a natural next step.

Immigration

Another issue that sets most TERFs apart from intersectional feminists is their unflinching rejection of the Islamic encroachment on the West. Mass Islamic immigration is a grave concern to most women who value their safety over the social capital gained from intersectionality. Unregulated immigration from the southern border in the US continues to sacrifice female victims of illegal immigrant sexual violence on the altar of multiculturalism.

Certain sects of honest leftist politics have begun moving away from “woke” liberal discourse and into legitimate class struggle and economic analysis. Many have conceded the disastrous effects of mass immigration and an endless supply of cheap labor on wage stagnation and worker protections, and as these topics become less taboo in leftist dialogue, genuine leftist women feel more confident in questioning the diversity dogma.

Respect for Masculinity

Feminism creates a gender divide that doesn’t speak meaningfully to women who have healthy relationships with men. Anti-male rhetoric is toxically present in radical feminist spaces, and the most vehemently anti-male and anti-masculinity conversation pushes away women who have strong bonds with their fathers, partners, sons, and men in their communities, or even just the woman confident in her attraction to traditional masculinity.

Rethinking Patriarchy

Many women on the dissident right have come to understand patriarchy as a system of paternalistic male leadership, with the expressed goal of protecting women, families, and the larger societal structure. The adversarial understanding of patriarchal societies espoused by both MGTOW and third-wave feminism is both reductive and historically illiterate.

There is no perfect patriarchy to draw from historically, and some reactionary traditionalist movements only seek to replicate an idealized version of gender relations that are more a product of the 1950’s advertisement and marketing industry than a genuine understanding of our history. A pro-family, pro-natalist movement requires some degree of female participation, and reframing the patriarchy paradigm is essential – toward a system where men’s urges and strengths are allowed to flourish and channeled into healthy outlets, and women are protected and respected for their material reality and the gifts our unique biology affords.

No Comments on The TERFs to Dissident Right Pipeline

Nostalgia, Nationalism & Woody Allen

Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and…

Nostalgia is the great opium den of Nationalist circles where many bright and energetic minds in dissident politics go to escape modernity and embark on a quest of contemplation and yearning for what “could have been”. Is this something that can be fully separated from radicals in our movement? Maybe not completely, however, just like the addict in the opium den, so too, are nationalists being consumed in reverie over any time period that they never lived in, and in place of progression is a great wheat field image induced stagnation that breeds depression and resentment.

Third position ideas do require reflection on our past, which can justifiably create immense admiration, but if only for the purpose of moving forward. Jewish Filmmaker Woody Allen, seems to understand the negative effects of nostalgia and seemingly gifts us with his 2011 film, Midnight In Paris. A film that displays how this trance-like state of yearning for the past can seriously complicate your present. The only problem is Allen, I feel, is speaking to a very specific audience and that audience is us. Thus, he is careful to not encourage us too much and, as you will read below, I believe he has a more nefarious purpose for this messaging.


OVERVIEW OF MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

 Midnight in Paris, written and directed by Woody Allen, is a quirky tale of a screenwriter seemingly at an impasse. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson), is vacationing in Paris with his fiancee, Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents John and Helen. As we can see right off the bat, Gil and Inez couldn’t be more different than one another. Gil is very lackadaisical while Inez is explicitly high maintenance and intense. Inez’s parents have nothing but disdain for Gil and his ostensibly aloof and unserious personality. Gil is almost finished with his first novel about a man working in a nostalgia shop. Inez is not impressed or encouraging with this novel and wishes he would stick to screenwriting due to to his success in Hollywood. Inez is also annoyed at Gils’ insistence that they should live in Paris indefinitely due to his nostalgic euphoria over the Paris of the 1920’s.

Paul, who is a friend of Inez, and his wife happen to be in Paris at the same time as them. She admits to Gil she had a “crush” on Paul in college to which a clearly jealous Gil describes him as “Pedantic” and “Pseudo-intellectual”. Inez is clearly infatuated with Paul while Gil cannot stand him. Paul is a very dapper man who speaks with confidence and with every chance he gets, he tries to be the smartest man in the room. Even when he is contradicted by a tour guide about the artist Rodin and his tryst with his wife and mistress, Paul will not relent and keeps insisting he is right (and as the viewer can find out if they look into the life of Rodin, the tour guide was correct).

Gil and Inez have a night of drinking with Paul and his wife until Gil opts for a walk around the city of Paris alone to take the city it all in while Inez leaves with Paul and his wife in a taxi. Gil stops on his walk to figure out where he is exactly and as soon as the clock strikes midnight, a 1920’s vehicle pulls up in front of Gil. The passengers, also dressed from the 20’s, invite him to join them. It is at this point Gil is transported back in time to what he sees as the Golden Age of Paris. The 1920’s. This allows for an entertaining list of famous characters from the time to enter the plot such as Ernest Hemingway, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Cole Porter, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and more.

Every night Gil transports himself back in time to meet all these artistic giants of the 20th century while his wife spends her time with Paul and, supposedly, his wife. After Hemingway brings Gil to Gertrude Stein’s flat so that he may have his novel analyzed, he meets Adriana (Marianne Cotillard). They have an instant connection and Gil becomes conflicted with this new flame that he has in the past and his current fiancee.

After visiting an Antique vendor in the present day, he finds Adriana’s diary where she has written a passage about her love for Gil. This encourages him to go back in time once more so that they may communicate their feelings for one another. They do so,and as they kiss at midnight, a horse drawn carriage pulls up in front of them and a well dressed couple invites them in. They are then transported to the 1890’s which is the true Golden Age, according to Adriana. After she is offered a job to make costumes for the theater, she decides to stay but Gil cannot. He realizes that everybody is bored with the age in which they live and they won’t find their meaning by going back. He decides the present is where he should remain and they choose to part.

Once in the present, Gil realizes Inez may be cheating on him with Paul (a discovery made by Hemingway after he reads Gil’s novel; Gertrude Stein then relates to Gil that Hemingway could not believe the protagonist did not see his fiancee was having an affair right before his eyes with “the pedantic one”) and when he confronts her, she admits to doing so but that he needs to just “get over it”. Gil seems rather pleased and takes this moment to tell her he will stay in Paris and they are not right for one another. In the end, we see Gil walking, yet again, through the city of Paris and at midnight he bumps into a young beautiful antique vendor he met earlier in the film. They walk off together through the streets, in the rain, which is where Gil always felt happiest.


WOODY ALLEN & THE ARYAN

 What does this film mean, and more importantly, what does it mean for nationalists? In a way, Allen is giving an honest critique of reactionary thought. Not living in the now and spending ones time only in the past can produce untold unhappiness in the present. Gil is frustrated with how he is presently living. He dreams of a before time when to him everything was great. We see this many a time in politics. For a typical Republican, perhaps it’s America in the 50’s. To some 1930s Europe. To others medieval times and there are even those that believe that in the days of cavemen things were far more ideal. Which ever time one finds themselves pining for, Allen is telling the viewer that it is the present we should be focused in but how exactly is he portraying the present?

The film opens with a series of static shots that appear almost like paintings to display the very best of Paris. Throughout the film, the city is always ever present as another character in the story. While indeed very inspiring and breathtaking, it is obvious Woody Allen has only picked very select parts of the city. What we know of Paris today is that it is a shell of its former self. Even in 2011, during the films release, migrant hell holes burrowed their way into the city along with the trash that covers the streets. Culture in Paris is waning and the very best parts of the city are only preserved for the sake of tourism and not for the French soul. I doubt Allen is ignorant to any this. Quite the opposite. I believe this was a calculated decision on his part to ensure that we don’t spend much time in the past but to also accept our present as being more than sufficient, therefore we have no need to look to our future. As Nationalists, we are inspired by our past which Allen is more than aware, and as I’ve stated before we take elements from our Golden Age (whenever that may be) so that we may apply it to our lives in order to create a different future than the one that has been currently decided for us. Allen is careful to not encourage us too much. He wants you to stay forever in the present and to imprison your passion within the confines of a “this is good enough” type of attitude.

How do we know Allen is speaking to us? Some subtle clues in his body of work, as well as Midnight in Paris specifically, give us an indication of who he is speaking to. One of the ways we can find these clues is through name recognition which you can learn through the work of Mark Brahmin and his work in Jewish Esoteric Moralization also known as JEM. Many Jewish filmmakers pick very specific names in order to indicate who is an “Aryan” and who is a “Jew”. Gil can be translated to a few different meanings. Foolish, simpleton, and happy (which can hint at a happiness out of ignorance) are among those meanings which makes sense when you view this blonde and blue eyed character in the film. JEM often portrays the Aryan figure as gullible and generally oblivious.

It’s not that Gil is an ignorant man by any means it is more that he is a bit unaware of his surroundings and can be easily manipulated. Two women in his life that are Jewish signifiers, Inez (Who’s father is a Jewish figure named John who is also a neocon) and Adriana (meaning black, which is a Jewish signifier), merely have Gil around for their temporary entertainment. Adriana, for example, writes in her diary that her reasons for loving Gil are that he is “naive and unassuming”. Paul Bates, being short for Bartholomew which is a Jewish signifier, even cuckolds Gil. The Jewish figure steals the Aryans woman away from him.

While there are several symbols and other names that we can delve into, the point is that Allen is giving, in my opinion, a direct message to the “goy”. Jews are very fearful of an inspired Aryan people which may lead to uprisings as we have seen in the past. Since film is possibly the most versatile art form in history, it would behoove one such as Woody Allen to not only entertain his audience but to also influence them in a way that he feels benefits him through subversive means.


CONCLUSION

Nostalgia, while being quite natural, can be a trap. Gil experienced this well enough. While its aroma can be alluring, it has been the great motivator of inaction among Nationalists currently. I cannot emphasize enough that we can, and should, look to days gone by to find inspiration and ideas that we can use or even update to create a future. But A movement must have vision. Vision requires forward thinking. There is no return to tradition and Nostalgia is by no means meant to be our end goal.

Midnight in Paris interested me because on one hand Woody Allen is acting as if he is giving us good advice on this matter. On the other hand, making sure we are stopped in our tracks. This is one of many ways our opposition tries to control us. The film is well done, entertaining, and quite funny. With that being said, Allen wishes to make you feel like you are progressing while in reality keeping you in a perpetual hamster wheel. It is all too Caducean. We need to spot this effect in every aspect of our lives. We need to break free of not only the prison our opposition has created for us but the one that we, as nationalists, construct for ourselves. Move forward. Not backward.

 

No Comments on Nostalgia, Nationalism & Woody Allen

The Fascism in The Fappening

The “woman warrior” who is “badass” and easily defeats men in physical combat is now so ingrained in popular culture it has become a cliché, even as attempts to apply it in the real world lead to unintentional comedy

Nature is the ultimate fascist. The Borg like Left, having conquered politics, religion, and sexual morality, now turns its attention to its greatest enemy.

After all, we now are all supposed to believe that race is just a social construct–so why not “gender?” And if gender is just a social construct, why can’t women do everything that a man can do–only better?

Coming on the heels of Marvel transforming a Nordic warrior archetype into a symbol of grrl power, websites gleefully reported a few days ago that “half the Viking warriors were female.” Tor, a Sci-Fi site which also does its best to PC police the culture and promote affirmative action pseudo-authors, desperately proclaimed:

Shieldmaidens are not a myth! A recent archaeological discovery has shattered the stereotype of exclusively male Viking warriors sailing out to war while their long-suffering wives wait at home with baby Vikings. (We knew it! We always knew it.)…

It’s been so difficult for people to envision women’s historical contributions as solely getting married and dying in childbirth, but you can’t argue with numbers—and fifty/fifty is pretty damn good.

Where to begin. Yes, shieldmaidens were in fact a thing (though rare), and the Norse and Germanic peoples generally were always known for the high status they gave to women, going back to Tacitus.

But to pretend that Viking warbands consisted of fifty percent women in an age where brute physical strength determined survival strains credulity. And however desperately Tor and other sites wanted to believe this was true, the archaeological discovery itself (which is actually from several years ago, not really recent) doesn’t really support the idea of Nordic Amazons striking terror in the British Isles.

The study looked at only fourteen graves, hardly a representative sample size. Of those fourteen graves, one included a woman buried with a sword and a shield.  Perhaps this means she was a shield-maiden, perhaps it simply reflects something unique about this unknown woman, or perhaps these weapons were buried as ritual items. In any event, one grave is hardly an earth-shattering finding.

But where does the 50% come from? Well, gender may be a social construct, but apparently you can still find out the identity of centuries old skeletons easily enough. The findings show that six of the 14 remains were women, seven were men, and one was indeterminate.

And… that’s it. That’s enough for the likes of Adriana Barton at the Globe and Mail to sternly intone that “any vestigial misogynists out there better run for cover.”

Back in the woman-hating, hierarchical, patriarchal world of math and literacy, what this rather limited study suggests is not that she-Thors were channeling Buffy a few centuries early but that the Norse settled the British Isles in co-ed groups. Assuming this pattern held up across the isles, Viking settlement followed the same kind of pattern as the English conquest of North America rather that the male led domination that created Latin America. This is an interesting finding–yet hysterical journalists immediately ignored it to start screaming about female Vikings, so desperately did they need to believe in a Narrative of absolute equality.

The “woman warrior” who is “badass” and easily defeats men in physical combat is now so ingrained in popular culture it has become a cliché, even as attempts to apply it in the real world lead to unintentional comedy. Perhaps the most prominent woman warrior of the zeitgeist is Katniss Everdeen, the “strong” heroine of the Hunger Games. Katniss proves that young girls can kill men with a ranged weapon too, or something. The character is played by Jennifer Lawrence, who has survived the faux paus of beginning her career with the Bill Engvall Show, a family friendly sitcom built around one of the Redneck Kings of Comedy. (Engvall’s fellow royals were Jeff Foxworthy, Ron White, and Larry the Cable Guy, who was accused of racism by predictable shill and Alvin and the Chipmunks star David Cross.) Lawrence smoothly transitioned from the Engvall fanbase to her new Cross/SWPL fan base, becoming a hero because she curses, makes silly faces, and keeps (purposefully?) falling down at awards shows.

Miss Lawrence is the most prominent victim of the latest celebrity hack, which has been greeted with far more fury and frenzy than the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloff. She along with Kate Upton, Kirsten Dunst (redundant post Melancholia), and various other celebrities who are famous for unknown reasons have their assets prominently displayed all over Twitter like Kim Kardashian on magazine covers at the grocery store. Be it a Whiskey Tango single mom on EBT or one of the wealthiest women on the planet, we can safely say that according to the modern American woman, the height of seductive behavior is a “selfie” taken next to a hotel toilet. The behavior is more reminiscent of the decadent, self-absorbed, and effeminate Capital residents from the Hunger Games than the stern warrior character that gave Lawrence her fortune.

“The Fappening,” as it is being called (to the horror of the Great and Good), required an astonishing amount of technical skill, time investment, and considerable personal risk–all to obtain what these women all but expose in magazine and movies regularly anyway. As even Seth McFarlane sang at the Oscars (to much criticism), all you have to do is go to a movie and “We Saw Your Boobs.” In Traditional societies, actors were held to be the social equivalent of slaves and prostitutes–and there was a reason.

Clearly, the hack is not purely about sexual gratification, but a kind of political act (as well as a bid for Bitcoins). It’s a takedown of those held up as the ideal to be pursued and envied, that nexus of fame, money, and sex that we call celebrity. And the mainstream media has certainly interpreted it as a politically charged act, charging that the theft of the photos is a sex crime, and that even those viewing the photos are essentially guilty of rape. Lena Dunham is outraged (“It’s not okay”)–presumably because even though she keeps inflicting it on the Girls viewing public, no one wants to see her naked.

As we know whenever the shibboleth of “rape culture” is invoked, power is at stake, and the issue here is the Narrative of female empowerment. Behind all the propaganda, indoctrination, and legislation, female empowerment translates into the sexual anarchy of Tinder, Twerking, and nude selfies substituting for “repressive” courtship, style, and modesty. When a woman is, quite literally, shaking her ass at you like a mating display from a chimpanzee documentary, you’ll take her home if you’re three drinks deep—but you’re not calling her your girlfriend anytime soon. In fact, you’re not calling her at all (at least not sober.)

Such couplings aren’t really sex–it’s just using someone else’s body to get yourself off. This has also cheapened celebrity–one can imagine being weak in the knees and unable to speak if you met the late Lauren Bacall in her prime, but you get the impression you could bring home Rihanna with a few lines of game, a few lines of coke, and a bottle of cheap rum.

Of course, protesting the “objectification” of women is precisely what feminism is supposed to be about. But the blunt biological reality that a woman’s sexual desirability is more dependent on appearance than status brings the whole house of cards crashing down. Thus, we have plastic surgery freaks of nature like Nicki Minaj held up as role models, Beyoncé wearing a leotard and white woman hair in front of the word FEMINIST (while her lawyers police pictures on the Internet), and Katy Perry singing songs about being true to yourself while paving the road to (the first of many I’m sure) divorces because her celebrity husband displayed a picture of her without her customary twenty pounds of makeup. In the latest scandal, we have some of the most famous, powerful, and wealthy women in the world using the tactics of a thirsty sorority girl trying to keep the fraternity president from booty calling her roommate again. It’s the lie of modern female empowerment exposed.

To their credit, some feminists recognize this, and have turned their attention to the concept of beauty itself. As they take egalitarianism to its logical conclusion, we end up with feminists correctly claiming beauty standards are fascist. Well, they are–and the attempt to defy the Aristocratic Principle of Nature leads to an evolutionary dead end.

For that reason, aside from the occasional charity case of a heavily made up celebrity hypocritically telling deformed or sick girls “you are beautiful the way you are,” few act on the egalitarian imperatives of feminism. The few that do tend not to attract sexual partners, fewer reproduce, and fewer still can successfully transmit their revolt against nature to their children. It seems more likely that Western women will actively choose subordination, converting to Islam, and withdrawing altogether from the choice between being an “empowered slut” or a socially despised “prude,” or, worse, a Christian. Absent that, the only option left is the surface egalitarianism but fanatical status seeking of liberal modernity, which values sexuality above all.

With the release of a few pictures, Jennifer Lawrence has been transformed from warrior to victim–and the implicit demand by the feminists and their media is for men with guns to ride to the rescue. Indeed, the FBI, fresh from trying to finish off Ferguson, Missouri, is now frantically searching for the hacker, as we can’t secure the border or go to space but we can damn sure protect the public image of celebrities. In time, there will be a tearful interview, references to her “courage,” and maybe some new legislation against “revenge porn” or whatever else needs to be done to make sure women don’t pay for a sexual indiscretion–even as online regulations are tightened against political ones.

But The Fappening in its way is a milestone–the dead end of Western sexual politics. Even the American equivalent of aristocracy is as disposable as last Saturday’s hookup. And throughout the entire society, no one is looking good–from men haplessly sending unsolicited dick pics and spending their days fapping to women who can’t go ten minutes without text messages from five different guys telling them they really are special little snowflakes. No matter how many FBI investigations, Women’s Studies harridans, or tear jerking testimonials from “victims,” there’s no exit from this dead end under this system and under this culture.

The solution is identity–and the revolution it implies and necessitates. Being a real warrior isn’t about being “badass” as defined by Tumblr, and it’s certainly not about defying your own people to inflate your own sense of importance. As real Christians understood, the body is fleeting, and family, not sexuality, should be the source of honor and pride for a woman and the object of reverence and sacrifice for a man. And as those Nordic pagans–male and female—who conquered and settled in Britain understood, great enterprises are done as a community, a united tribe that is defended by real warriors who value something beyond their own lives.

What defines a warrior is not just his deeds, but what he defends. “The fame of a dead man’s deeds” only endures as long as the folk does. But those deeds speak for themselves, and the value of a European man or woman can be found in the legacy he or she leaves behind, not in the fleeting memory of youth or the temporary sexual availability. And no man or woman worth remembering ever thought, “Lemme take a selfie.”

No Comments on The Fascism in The Fappening

The Real Dugin

Personally, I had once considered these critiques as being essentially valid, but upon a more thorough investigation of Dugin’s writings and thought, I concluded that these critiques were based on flawed premises and assumptions. My intention here is to point out what the most common reasons for denouncing Dugin have been and why they are based on misconceptions and propaganda rather than reality.

Alexander Dugin is by now well-known in “Right-wing” circles of all sorts across the world—whether we are speaking of nationalists, Fascists, traditionalists, cultural or national conservatives, or New Rightists (also known as Identitarians). Upon the translation of his book The Fourth Political Theory in 2012, Dugin has received a significant amount of international attention from anyone interested in Right-wing or Conservative theory. Since then, a number of other essays by Dugin on the topics of Eurasianism (also spelled “Eurasism”) and also the Theory of the Multipolar World (both of which are interconnected with each other and with what he calls the Fourth Political Theory) have been translated into English, among other languages, allowing us a better view into his thought.

There is no need to discuss Dugin’s theories in any depth here, since his own essays achieve that sufficiently. However, a problem has arisen among Right-wingers in the West in regards to Dugin: while many have appreciated his works, a large number have completely dismissed or attacked him and his theories largely on the basis of misunderstandings or propaganda from Dugin’s political enemies. The situation is certainly not helped by the fact that well-known Identitarian writers such as Greg Johnson, Michael O’Meara, Domitius Corbulo, and some others in Europe have denounced Dugin with reasoning based upon such misunderstandings. Personally, I had once considered these critiques as being essentially valid, but upon a more thorough investigation of Dugin’s writings and thought, I concluded that these critiques were based on flawed premises and assumptions. My intention here is to point out what the most common reasons for denouncing Dugin have been and why they are based on misconceptions and propaganda rather than reality.

Position on Race

First, one of the most difficult issues is the claim that Alexander Dugin believes that race has no substantial reality, that it is a “social construct” and must be completely abandoned as a harmful product of modern Western society. Certainly, he critiques racialist theory, but this is not the same as rejecting race entirely (since one can assert the importance of race without resorting to “racism.” See my essay “Ethnic and Racial Relations”). It must be admitted that Dugin has not taken a clear stance on the matter of race, and occasionally makes statements which imply a dismissal of race (although it is significant that, for the most part, he leaves it an open question). On the other hand, he has also made statements implying an appreciation for racial identity to some extent, such as when he wrote the following:

Being White and Indo-European myself, I recognize the differences of other ethnic groups as being a natural thing, and do not believe in any hierarchy among peoples, because there is not and cannot be any common, universal measure by which to measure and compare the various forms of ethnic societies or their value systems. I am proud to be Russian exactly as Americans, Africans, Arabs or Chinese are proud to be what they are. It is our right and our dignity to affirm our identity, not in opposition to each other but such as it is: without resentment against others or feelings of self-pity. (quoted from “Alexander Dugin on ‘White Nationalism’ & Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution”)

However, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Dugin truly does believe that race is a “social construct”, as some have assumed. Would this be enough reason to declare Dugin a subversive intellectual in the Right? If this was the case, it would follow by the same reasoning that any past Right-wing intellectual who did not believe in the importance of race (or at least the biological form of race) must also be denounced. This would include such notable thinkers as Oswald Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey, Othmar Spann, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Oswald Mosley, and numerous other Fascist or nationalist intellectuals and leaders who did not place much importance upon physical race. Yet, paradoxically, many of those we see denouncing Dugin today would not do the same for such thinkers. This is not to imply that previous Fascist or nationalist intellectuals are entirely agreeable for us today (in fact, most New Rightists reject Fascism and old-fashioned nationalism), it is only to point out the self-contradiction which has gone unnoticed.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that Dugin clearly believes in the importance of ethnicity and culture and advocates ethnic separatism. Similarly to German Revolutionary Conservative and Völkisch thinkers, Dugin has unmistakably placed the Volk or ethnos as one of the highest values of his philosophy: “The subject of this theory [the Fourth Political Theory], in its simple version, is the concept ‘narod,’ roughly, ‘Volk’ or ‘people,’ in the sense of ‘peoplehood’ and ‘peoples,’ not ‘masses’” (quoted from “The Fourth Estate: The History and Meaning of the Middle Class”). Thus, it is clear that even if he does not value race, Dugin certainly does value ethno-cultural identity. Of course, this is not to say that rejecting the reality of race is not at all problematic, only that it is not enough to denounce a philosopher. However, those who like to claim that Dugin dismisses race as a “social construct” are reminiscent of those who say the same thing about Alain de Benoist, whereas it is clear that Benoist asserts the reality of race and advocates racial separatism–specifically from a non-racist standpoint–in many of his writings, one of the most notable in English being “What is Racism?”.

Empire vs. Imperialism

The second problematic notion about Dugin is that he is an advocate of a type of Russian imperialism, usually suggested being of a Stalinist and Soviet type. However, this claim has no basis in fact, since he has renounced Soviet imperialism and has also distinguished between true empire and imperialism (which also made by Julius Evola and many other Traditionalist and New Right authors). In his essay “Main Principles of Eurasist Policy,” Dugin has asserted that there are three basic types of policy in modern Russia: Soviet, pro-Western (liberal), and Eurasist. He criticizes the Soviet and Liberal types while advocating the Eurasist policy: “Eurasism, in this way, is an original ‘patriotic pragmatism’, free from any dogmatics – be it Soviet or liberal… The Soviet pattern operates with obsolete political, economic and social realities, it exploits nostalgia and inertness, it lacks a sober analysis of the new international situation and the real development of world economic trends.” It should be clear from Dugin’s analysis of different forms of political approaches that his own viewpoint is not based on the USSR model, which he explicitly rejects and critiques.

Moreover, it is often overlooked that when Dugin advocates a Eurasian empire or union, there is a distinction between a true empire—in the traditionalist sense—and imperialism, and thus an empire is not necessarily an imperialistic state (for a good overview of this concept, see Alain de Benoist’s “The Idea of Empire”). Unlike domineering and imperialistic states, the Eurasian Union envisioned by Dugin grants a partial level of self-government to regions within a federalist system:

The undoubted strategic unity in Eurasist federalism is accompanied by ethnic plurality, by the emphasis on the juridical element of the “rights of the peoples”. The strategic control of the space of the Eurasian Union is ensured by the unity of management and federal strategic districts, in whose composition various formations can enter – from ethno-cultural to territorial. The immediate differentiation of territories into several levels will add flexibility, adaptability and plurality to the system of administrative management in combination with rigid centralism in the strategic sphere. (quoted from “Main Principles of Eurasist Policy”)

Of course, it must also be remembered that Dugin’s vision needs to be differentiated from the policies of the present Russian state, which, at this time, cannot be said to adequately represent the Eurasists’ goals (despite the influence of Eurasism on certain politicians). Furthermore, it should be mentioned that while Dugin currently supports president Putin, it is clear that he does not uncritically accept all of the policies of Putin’s government. Therefore, a sound analysis of Dugin’s proposed policies will not equate them with those of the Russian government, as some of his critics have erroneously done.

The “West” as the Enemy

Another common misconception is that Dugin is hostile to Western European civilization and even advocates its complete destruction. It is important to recognize that Dugin’s conception of the “West” is similar to that advocated by the European New Right (in the works of Pierre Krebs, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Tomislav Sunic, etc.). The “West” is not a reference to all of Western-European civilization, but rather to the specific formulation of Western-European civilization founded upon liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism: “The crisis of identity […] has scrapped all previous identities–civilizational, historical, national, political, ethnic, religious, cultural, in favor of a universal planetary Western-style identity–with its concept of individualism, secularism, representative democracy, economic and political liberalism, cosmopolitanism and the ideology of human rights.” (quoted from the interview with Dugin, “Civilization as Political Concept”).

Thus, Dugin, like the New Right, asserts that the “West” is actually foreign to true European culture—that it is in fact the enemy of Europe: “Atlanticism, liberalism, and individualism are all forms of absolute evil for the Indo-European identity, since they are incompatible with it” (quoted from “Alexander Dugin on ‘White Nationalism’ & Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution”). Likewise, in his approving citation of Alain de Benoist’s cultural philosophy, he wrote the following:

A. de Benoist was building his political philosophy on radical rejection of liberal and bourgeois values, denying capitalism, individualism, modernism, geopolitical atlanticism and western eurocentrism. Furthermore, he opposed “Europe” and “West” as two antagonistic concepts: “Europe” for him is a field of deployment of a special cultural Logos, coming from the Greeks and actively interacting with the richness of Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic, and other European traditions, and the “West” is the equivalent of the mechanistic, materialistic, rationalist civilization based on the predominance of the technology above everything. After O. Spengler Alain de Benoist understood “the West” as the “decline of the West” and together with Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger was convinced of the necessity of overcoming modernity as nihilism and “the abandonment of the world by Being (Sein)” (Seinsverlassenheit). West in this understanding was identical to liberalism, capitalism, and bourgeois society – all that “New Right” claimed to overcome. (quoted from “Counter-hegemony in Theory of Multi-polar World”)

While Dugin attacks the “West” as modern liberal civilization, he simultaneously advocates the resurrection of Europe in his vision of the multipolar world: “We imagine this Greater Europe as a sovereign geopolitical power, with its own strong cultural identity, with its own social and political options…” (quoted from “The Greater Europe Project”). Similarly to the previous statements which we have quoted, he asserts here that European culture has multiple ideological elements and possible pathways in its history which are different from the liberal model: “Liberal democracy and the free market theory account for only part of the European historical heritage and that there have been other options proposed and issues dealt with by great European thinkers, scientists, politicians, ideologists and artists.”

Domitius Corbulo has argued, based on statements Dugin made in The Fourth Political Theory that liberalism and universalism are elements which run throughout Western civilization, that Dugin condemns Western-European culture in its entirety. However, it is important to recognize that these arguments are largely borrowed from Western-European authors such as Spengler, Heidegger, and Evola. These authors also recognized that anti-universalist, anti-liberal, and anti-materialist elements also exist in Western-European culture, and thus that there have always been other paths for the destiny of this culture. It is evident that Dugin would assert the same fact from his essays which we have cited here (as well as books not yet available in English, such as ¿Qué es el eurasismo?, Pour une théorie du monde multipolaire, or in Russian in Четвертый Путь, among others). It is important to remember here that The Fourth Political Theory is not a complete and perfect statement of Dugin’s thought, and that what he says there must be balanced with what he says in his other works.

It is often assumed that, considering his hostility to the liberal “West,” Dugin also advocates a complete destruction of the United States of America, which is seen as the epitome of the “West.” However, the very essence of his theory of the multipolar world is the idea that each civilization and nation must be granted the right to live and to determine its own destiny, political form, and way of life. For this reason, Dugin advocates the global combating of American cultural and economic imperialism, which denatures non-Western cultures. However, in the multipolar scheme, the United States also has the right to exist and to choose its own path, which means allowing the American people the right to continue the liberal model in the future, should they desire to do so. Of course, the liberal model would naturally be discouraged from abroad and be limited in its influence. This position can be drawn from Dugin’s key essays explicating the Theory of the Multipolar World: “The Multipolar World and the Postmodern” and “Multipolarism as an Open Project”.

The Fourth Political Theory vs. Reactionary Traditionalism

Some writers, such as Kenneth Anderson (“Speculating on future political and religious alliances”), have interpreted Alexander Dugin’s thought as a form of Radical Traditionalism (following Julius Evola and Rene Guenon) which is completely reactionary in nature, rejecting everything in the modern world–including all technological and scientific development–as something negative which needs to be eventually undone. This interpretation can be easily revealed to be incorrect when one examines Dugin’s statements on Traditionalism and modernity more closely. It is true that Dugin acknowledges Traditionalist thinkers such as Evola and Guenon among his influences, but it is also clear that he is not in full agreement with their views and advocates his own form of conservatism, which is much more similar to German Revolutionary Conservatism (see The Fourth Political Theory, pp. 86 ff.).

Unlike some Traditionalists, Dugin does not reject scientific and social progress, and thus it can also be said that he does not reject the Enlightenment in toto. When Dugin criticizes Enlightenment philosophy (the ideology of progress, individualism, etc.), it is not so much in the manner of the Radical Traditionalists as it is in the manner of the Conservative Revolution and the New Right, as was also done by Alain de Benoist, Armin Mohler, etc. In this regard, it can be mentioned that critiquing the ideology of progress is, of course, very different from rejecting progress itself. For the most part, he does not advocate the overcoming of the “modern world” in the Traditionalist sense, but in the New Rightist sense, which means eliminating what is bad in the present modern world to create a new cultural order (“postmodernity”) which reconciles what is good in modern society with traditional society. Thus Dugin asserts that one of the most essential ideas of the Eurasist philosophy is the creation of societies which restore traditional and spiritual values without surrendering scientific progress:

The philosophy of Eurasianism proceeds from priority of values of the traditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and social modernization (but without breaking off cultural roots), and strives to adapt its ideal program to the situation of a post-industrial, information society called “postmodern”. The formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed in postmodern. However, postmodernism in the atlantist aspect levels them from the position of indifference and exhaustiveness of contents. The Eurasian postmodern, on the contrary, considers the possibility for an alliance of tradition with modernity to be a creative, optimistic energetic impulse that induces imagination and development. (quote from Eurasian Mission, cited in Dugin, “Multipolarism as an Open Project”)

It should be evident from these statements that Dugin is not a reactionary, despite his sympathy to Radical Traditionalism. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that Dugin also supports a “Third Positionist” form of socialism as well as a non-liberal form of democracy. In regards to socialism, he has written that the “confusion of mankind into the single global proletariat is not a way to a better future, but an incidental and absolutely negative aspect of the global capitalism, which does not open any new prospects and only leads to degradation of cultures, societies, and traditions. If peoples do have a chance to organize effective resistance to the global capitalism, it is only where Socialist ideas are combined with elements of a traditional society…” (from “Multipolarism as an Open Project”). Whereas some have accused Dugin of being anti-democratic, he has plainly advocated the idea of a “democratic empire”: “The political system of the Eurasian Union in the most logical way is founded on the ‘democracy of participation’ (the ‘demotia’ of the classical Eurasists), the accent being not on the quantitative, but on the qualitative aspect of representation” (quoted from “Main Principles of Eurasist Policy”; see also the comments on democracy in his “Milestones of Eurasism”).

References to Leftists and Cultural Marxists

Finally, one of the most recent attacks on Alexander Dugin is based on his reference to Cultural Marxist and “Leftist” philosophers, which is seen by some as an indicator that Dugin himself is sympathetic to Cultural Marxism (see Domitius Corbulo’s “Alexander Dugin’s 4th Political Theory is for the Russian Empire, not for European Ethno-Nationalists”). However, Dugin has clearly pointed out that while he uses ideas from Marxist and “Leftist” theorists, he rejects their ideologies as a whole: “The second and third political theories [Fascism and Marxism] must be reconsidered, selecting in them that which must be discarded and that which has value in itself. As complete ideologies… they are entirely useless, either theoretically or practically.” (quoted from The Fourth Political Theory, p. 24).

If one notes that Dugin occasionally makes use of Marxist thinkers, then it should not be overlooked that he places even more importance on Right-wing thinkers, who clearly form the greater influence on him; the intellectuals of the Conservative Revolution (Heidegger, Schmitt, Moeller van den Bruck, etc.), the Traditionalist School (Evola, Guenon, Schuon, etc.), the New Right (Benoist, Freund, Steuckers, etc.), and the conservative religious scholars (Eliade, Durand, etc.). Furthermore, Corbulo objects to Dugin’s use of Claude Levi-Strauss’s work, yet respected New Right thinkers like Alain de Benoist and Dominique Venner (see Robert Steuckers, “En souvenir de Dominique Venner”, citing Venner’s Le siècle de 1914) have also referenced the ideas of Levi-Strauss on matters of culture and ethnicity, among other authors that Dugin uses, such as Jean Baudrillard.

In a recent interview, Dugin has clearly agreed with the European Right’s position on immigration (which advocates the restriction of non-European immigration), mentioning the threat that liberal cosmopolitanism brings to European culture: “The immigration changes the structure of European society. The Islamic people have very strong cultural identity. The European people weaken their own identity more and more in conscious manner. It is human right and civil society individualistic ideological dogma. So Europe is socially endangered and is on the eve to lose it identity” (quoted from “The West should be rejected”). Thus, when we take a less biased view of Dugin’s writings and statements, it is clear that his overall position is very far from that of the Cultural Marxists and the New Left.

From our examination thus far, it should be obvious that there are too many misconceptions about Alexander Dugin’s thought being circulated among Right-wingers. These misconceptions are being used to dismiss the value of his work and deceive members of Right-wing groups into believing that Dugin is a subversive intellectual who must be rejected as an enemy. Many other important Right-wing intellectuals have been similarly dismissed among certain circles, due to practices of a kind of in-group gleichschaltung, closing off any thinker who is not seen as readily agreeable. It is important to overcome such tendencies and support an intellectual expansion of the Right, which is the only way to overcome the present liberal-egalitarian hegemony. People need to take a more careful and unbiased look at Dugin’s works and ideas, as with other controversial thinkers. Of course, Dugin is not without flaws and imperfections (
nor is any other thinker), but these flaws can be overcome when his thought is balanced with that of other intellectuals, especially the Revolutionary Conservatives and the New Rightists.

No Comments on The Real Dugin

Frozen

The balance demanded by modernity is between adopting enough symbols of traditional culture to appeal to a mass audience, but enough egalitarianism to be promoted by the media. And the most successful example of this delicate balance is the top grossing animated feature of all time–Disney’s Frozen.

Every little girl wants to be a princess. No little girl wants to be a feminist graduate student. The Eternal Enemy of Hierarchy can never be eliminated, only subverted. The balance demanded by modernity is between adopting enough symbols of traditional culture to appeal to a mass audience, but enough egalitarianism to be promoted by the media. And the most successful example of this delicate balance is the top grossing animated feature of all time–Disney’s Frozen.

Disney has always been Ground Zero for the Culture of Critique. Even though the company is easily one of the most destructive institutions in the country, it ultimately trades on its past as the symbol of “Main Street USA” Americana and even Western traditional culture. Grown men speak of the “magic” of the company’s theme parks; people spend their entire lives dreaming of wearing rubber costumes in stifling heat for low pay, just to be a part of the company. Despite it all–Disney endures. And for that reason, it’s a battleground.

The heart of this battle is over the “Disney Princesses,” the protagonists of the classic tales that revolve around royalty, heroism, and true love with a handsome prince. Needless to say, even the term inspires rage among feminists, but where there is demand, there will be supply. As a kind of quasi-public brand in its own right, Disney responded to the zeitgeist by trying to “diversify” the mostly European Princesses, notably with the black heroine of The Princess and the Frog. Though it was a mild success, “Princess” Tiana never quite captured the imagination of little girls like Cinderella or Snow White. Another non-white Princess, the soldierly Mulan, can only be called a “princess” with an asterisk.  

Frozen tries a different tact–and succeeds with a brilliant head fake. Instead of another affirmative action Princess, Frozen goes full Hyperborean. The story is loosely based on the Danish tale of the “Snow Queen” and takes place in the fictional land of Arendelle, inspired by Norway. Both heathens and traditionalist Christians can rejoice–the royalty of this Aryan land are invested by bishops in a Cathedral conducting ceremonies in Old Norse, the king and queen consult arcane books written in the Younger Futhark in times of trouble, and the only nonwhites to be seen are friendly trolls–who, amazingly, bow to the royal humans.

The palace is filled with Western art, the martial uniforms will warm the coldest heart of the Dark Enlightenment, and there’s even a shout out to Joan of Arc.  Furthermore, neoreactionaries should celebrate, as Arendelle seems so committed to the monarchial principle that all political power is transferred not just from one royal family member to another as circumstances demand, but even to royals from other nations without even the discussion of a domestic legislature. It’s good to be the Snow Queen.

Now that Frozen has been thoroughly celebrated by the feminist friendly media, it’s odd to recall the sputtering rage it initially inspired. When the blond Queen Elsa was revealed, angry feminists took to Tumblr to create amateurish and repulsive “ethnic” princesses with the hashtag #ThisCouldHaveBeenFrozen. If it had been, I daresay Frozen would have had fewer viewers than recent seasons of The Simpsons.  

The flabby feminist failures and their cheese doodle covered keyboard crusading were still duly enabled by the media. Margot Magowan aka “Reel Girl” pitched a hissy fit republished by Jezebel before the movie even came out, protesting the inclusion of a “mountain man” character (Kristoff, who is hardly an overweening male presence) among other grievances. And a Disney animator’s casual remark that animating females was harder than males because of the need to keep them “pretty” unleashed the kind of feminist wailing only seen when the Duggars have another baby.

Therefore, the film’s success in a PC culture is a stunning marketing accomplishment, the media equivalent of BET suddenly endorsing Mitt Romney. Frozen accomplishes this with one weird trick–it pulls a fast one on the audience to transform the “handsome prince” into the villain of the movie.

Let’s look at the plot for those who are unfamiliar. Elsa has the power to control ice and snow. She is close with her sister growing up until she accidentally injures her with her powers. Anna is healed by magic trolls, who warn Elsa of the “great danger” of her magic. Her fearful parents tell her to “conceal, don’t feel” the power and lock up the castle, but they die in a shipwreck, leaving the girls essentially alone. Years later, during her coronation, Queen Elsa loses control of her powers, reveals herself to the people as a sorcerous “monster,” and unknowingly plunges her kingdom into eternal winter. Anna’s mission is to bring Elsa back and free the kingdom from its frozen fate.

Anna also is driven by her desire to be open to the world and find true love. With her memory of Elsa’s powers (and Anna’s near death at her hands) magically removed, Anna never understood why she was always cut off from her kingdom and ordinary human contact. Thus, when the gates are finally opened, she falls for the handsome foreign prince Hans, becoming engaged to him the very night they meet. During the kingdom’s crisis, Hans takes charge in Anna’s absence (because apparently that’s how the constitution works here), distributing cloaks to the people, rebutting foreign leaders who want to steal the country’s resources, and leading dangerous rescue efforts. Eventually, Elsa is captured, but not before accidentally “freezing” Anna’s heart, putting her in danger of death unless she can be saved by an act of “true love.”

Anna turns to her handsome prince and explains a kiss from her true love will save her life–only to be told brutally “if only there was someone who loved you.” Surprise, suckers!

Hans has been playing her from the beginning–as the 13th son of another kingdom, he’s planning to usurp the throne of Arendelle to finally taste power on his own. With Elsa in chains and his “wife” Anna dying, Hans will control the kingdom. The abrupt volte-face would be called clumsy in a soap opera, but cloaked in politically correct messaging, it is hailed as subversive and brilliant. “Finally, a Disney Prince Who’s a Disingenuous Dickweed” shriek the clickbait commissars at Jezebel, preening that “this is the direction we should be headed, rather than risk over-romanticizing the very flawed past.”

Other glorious triumphs?

  • Queen Elsa is alone at the end of the movie, instead of marrying a prince. Elsa can be a cat lady with magic powers–just like every feminist’s dream.
  • When Elsa escapes the powers and fully embraces her powers in the soaring “Let It Go,” The Daily Beast’s Melissa Leon squees, “she lets her hair down, shimmies her hips, and puffs out her chest. Here she is powerful, independent of the male gaze.” Well, not entirely.
  • Anna eventually does end up with a man–the hapless Kristoff, who far from being a “mountain man” is a hapless beta, meekly asks permission to kiss her, and is even mocked as a “fixer upper” with “unmanly blondness” by the trolls who serve as his family.

At the climax, Anna is dying unless she can get her act of “true love.” We see Kristoff coming to save her and the audience follows his death defying race against time. But Kristoff never gets close enough to save Anna–the dying Anna actually sacrifices herself to save Elsa from the evil Hans. This was interpreted as Anna “choosing” her sister over a man.

Is this explanation what the movie is going for? Yes–it is a deliberate fake-out, as the audience follows Kristoff only for him to be rendered irrelevant and stand around uselessly. But what’s actually happening is not Anna choosing Elsa over Kristoff, but Anna choosing Elsa over herself. She sacrifices her own life to save Elsa, and, through this sacrifice, warms her own frozen heart and ironically saves her own life. This isn’t some new bold feminist creativity–it’s the end of the Keanu Reeves movie Constantine. In pure plot terms, the feminist reading isn’t as present as the traditional Western motif of self-sacrifice.

The triumphant song “Let It Go” is being hailed from everything as an anthem of gay liberation to girl power, but the plot undermines this interpretation as well. Elsa may be unleashing her power–but it’s a complete disaster for everyone involved, including her. She has unknowingly doomed her kingdom and her subjects, she manages to endanger her sister’s life (again), and she’s simply hiding from her problems instead of overcoming them. Of course, she can’t really be blamed for this–she is only just emerging from years of grief and isolation. “Let It Go,” is, after all, in the middle of the movie, before the main plot mover of Anna’s quest to find her “true love” even really begins. But is the “liberated” Elsa who sics a murderous snow golem on her own little sister some great hero to celebrate?

In the end, the way Elsa learns to control her power is through “love.” Suddenly, in a kind of PC version of the deus ex machina, Elsa instantly becomes a beloved ruler who effortlessly fires off snow magic whenever she wants to the delight of her adoring subjects, none of whom seem especially upset she nearly killed them all. Anna gets with Kristoff and gives him a new sled–so we know who is wearing the pants in this relationship. Oh yeah, there’s also a funny sidekick snowman named Olaf who is sentient somehow, because, you know magic or something. (Merchandising, cough, cough.)

Call it Disney meets Alinsky. The author of Rules for Radicals advised his acolytes to associate their ideas with traditional symbols like the American flag, knowing that the average person would always confuse the form for the substance. Frozen has Nordic princesses, extreme royal absolutism (of a form never really seen in Northern Europe), adoring subjects fawning over the “beauty” of their leaders, and nobles with magic powers. It sucks in audiences with the appeal of Tradition, and then undermines it.

But it’s not quite that simple. As feminist Dani Coleman notes in a sophisticated review, the “subversion” of the “Traditional” Disney narrative has been done before – many, many times. “No Disney heroine except Anna—even Ariel—has begun her story with love as her goal since 1959.” And plenty of other Disney Princesses actually showed real courage and the willingness to sacrifice, taking charge of their own destinies.

The feminist “subversion” is overstated, as Anna and Elsa careen wildly from disaster to disaster because of their own “vapid, brainless, impulsive and flighty characters whose agency is stolen from them for the sake of comedy and wafer-thin plot contrivances.” To put it another way, to say Frozen is a big deal for “strong women characters” is like pretending it’s a big deal when a black man is elected mayor of a city, or that two men walked down a street in San Francisco holding hands. It’s been done before. And the women don’t really act to save the day–they create problems of their own making, problems instantly cured at the end through pabulum given some kind of magical power.

Yet there is still something subverted here, unrecognized by most critics because it’s long since vanished from our culture. That something is real family. The “true love” between the sisters Elsa and Anna is worthy enough, but it is only achieved after a vast amount of unnecessary suffering due to their own emotional chaos and impulsive decisions. Elsa (aged 21) and Anna (aged 18) act like girls, not women, let alone strong ones. The feminist high fiving that they don’t need men misses the point that it is precisely the lack of a man that has caused all the chaos in their lives–not a husband or lover, but a father.

Early in the film, we are given a cursory introduction to Elsa and Anna’s father and mother, the King and Queen. All things being considered, they react with steady nerves and compassion when Elsa almost kills her baby sister. While it is true they tell Elsa to control and conceal her power, it is worth noting that they don’t tell her to deny it. They simply recognize there is danger, as well as beauty. They aren’t ashamed of Elsa, they want to protect her, and her father expresses his confidence that his daughter can learn to control her growing power.  

God knows it’s not unusual for parents to die in a Disney movie. However, the struggle of the protagonist usually revolves about learning about his or her place in the world, accepting the responsibilities of adulthood, and symbolically replacing the parent as a leader in his or her own right, like Simba avenging his murdered father, taking his place as king, and becoming a father himself.

Here, the parents die so abruptly we never really get a sense of their relationship with their children. Moreover, there’s no transitional mentor for the children to learn from and bridge the gap from little girl to woman (let alone child to sovereign). This seems especially strange when Elsa is isolated from her kingdom for years and then is suddenly made absolute ruler. Who the hell was running the country while she was cooped up?

In one scene, a nervous Elsa prepares for her coronation and looks up nervously at a portrait of her kingly father, who, as some have noted, looks like a young Walt Disney. Just like all Disney products are ultimately in the shadow of w
hat the dead founder created, Elsa is trapped by the requirements of her royal role, even though the source is dead and buried. Not through his own fault, her father failed her by his absence, unable to return home, and manage her transition into adulthood. Perhaps he would have seen the folly of assuming she would automatically control her powers, or returned to the trolls for guidance. Instead, Elsa is left alone, and she instantly transitions from being sheltered and protected to flaunting her power in destructive ways out of a combination of fear, pride, and ignorance.

If we accept the metaphor of sexuality, the role of a daughter’s father is to protect her from the physical or emotional predations of other men (the Hans’s of the world) until the daughter can be “given away” to a man worthy of her. This concept survives in the traditional wedding ceremony. Knowing that your “little girl” is a woman can be painful to protective fathers but it doesn’t sever the bond between father and daughter, it merely changes its form. As Coleman observes (though not in this context), Ariel’s last line in The Little Mermaid is “I love you, Daddy.”

Mothers also have an important role to play. They have to educate their daughter as to what it means to be woman and to understand the power–and danger–of female sexuality. If left on their own, girls can either be terrified of sexuality or impulsively act out, leading to disaster. This is precisely what happens to Elsa, and, to a lesser extent, to Anna. And in a far, far more extreme way, it is what happened to the broken women of the modern West.

Screenwriter and director Jennifer Lee (product of divorce, divorced herself, naturally) may or may not have intended this message, but a Traditionalist viewing of Frozen isn’t about feminism or patriarchy. It’s about the gap left by the absence of family, a gap we see throughout the West. With so many marriages ending in divorce, mothers and fathers refusing to let go of youthful illusions, and, most critically, the patriarchal and matriarchal roles largely abandoned to media, schools, and pop culture, Western youth are left adrift. Instead of extended family or churches plugging the gaps in cases of death or misfortune, the larger culture actually encourages extended adolescence, with the resulting collateral damage all around us. In lieu of real family, we get a “Modern Family” of egalitarian cheerleading and faux loyalty dependent on abstractions and mutual comfort rather than a primal sense of duty to blood and kin.

In Frozen, we get a happy ending because the movie magically whisks away (quite literally) all problems. In our culture, we get an embarrassing wreck of a society. The forms of a real culture may remain – we still call things “marriage,” “families,” or “nations,” but the essence has departed. And what’s left behind are not extraordinary people commanding the forces of nature, but superfluous, deracinated individuals whose only power is to eradicate what remnants remain. But as the success of Frozen shows, even the most degraded has to look up–at least so they know what to tear down.

No Comments on Frozen

Redefining Brave

But we live in a different age and the conception of bravery has changed to mean simply “being yourself”–as long as being yourself means conforming to politically correct thoughts on race, gender, and freedom of course.

America is a country that is big on the word brave.

We even like to fashion ourselves “The Home of the Brave,” and we frequently give everyone–from sports stars to cancer survivors–that honored label.

This is in spite of the fact that the only current way Americans would’ve earned the status of brave in centuries past is to fight tribesmen in the mountains of Afghanistan. That’s because it was primarily tied to martial skill and valor by our ancestors and very few Americans can actually say they have participated in situations where they exhibited those virtues.

But we live in a different age and the conception of bravery has changed to mean simply “being yourself”–as long as being yourself means conforming to politically correct thoughts on race, gender, and freedom of course.

Sure, we still call the soldiers who fight needlessly in far-away lands brave and the masculine conception of the ideal still lingers around in our society–but less than 1% of America’s population will have any chance of engaging in state-sanctioned martial valor.

Not like that will stop our society from appropriating the term and using it to let people congratulate themselves for existing as obedient drones.

We can see this when the residents–and former residents–of one of the largest cities in America describe themselves as “Boston Strong” just because one bomb went off in their city, which resulted in a lockdown of the entire metropolitan area to track down the most unintimidating terrorist in human history.

Thus enters in the new, feminine conception of bravery that celebrates the individual freeing themselves from the “shackles” of old norms and conforming to the West’s new morality.

And you can be brave while parking your ass on the couch and not having to lift a muscle – because you just have to be yourself!

The culture certainly reinforces this with a popular song by Sara Bareilles that only asks its listeners to be “Brave.”

Backed by a saccharine piano line and having the same effect on testosterone as a gallon of organic soy milk, Bareilles‘ conception of brave is not that of martial valor but that of existing as the last man. It’s easily read in the song’s lyrics that the “brave” theme is coming out of your closet to announce to the world that you are a freak and an outcast.

Here are some choice lines that solidify that impression:

You can be the outcast /
Or be the backlash of somebody’s lack of love /
Or you can start speaking up

Nothing’s gonna hurt you the way that words do /
When they settle ‘neath your skin /
Kept on the inside and no sunlight /
Sometimes a shadow wins

Fallen for the fear /
And done some disappearing, /
Bow down to the mighty /
Don’t run, just stop holding your tongue

The video reinforces this theme by having fat schlubs and losers (like that inane “Happy video, which must constitute some type of trend) awkwardly dancing around in public places as an act of defiance against fascist cultural norms.

Watch for yourself:

There’s little wonder then that the songwriters behind this song intended it to be, in their words, a “a real civil rights anthem at a time when there are no civil rights anthems and there’s a giant need for civil rights anthems.”

Because there is always a need for more dogmatic songs instructing White Americans to break away from Tradition. And that’s what the song is ultimately about—breaking away from Tradition. That’s what it means when society tells you to be brave. Strike down the customs of your ancestors and embrace the existence of the Last Man. “You can be an outcast,” because we’re now all outcasts in the eyes of our ancestors.

And the purpose of this song is to further subvert the meaning of “brave” to suit the needs of a consumerist society that just wants to sit on its ass and eat Cheetos all day.

Bravery no longer has to mean real men fighting and dying in combat – it now means some obese fairy dancing around in a mall on his way to buying the complete series of “Sex and the City.”

The shame is that this song and other filth like it are played everywhere you might go. The bar, the grocery store, and even the gym (as gyms rarely play music for you to hit PRs with anymore) will all have Bareilles’ voice chanting for you to become the Last Man. It’s hard to create a revolutionary mindset within a culture that promotes such limp-wristed schmaltz.

That is why the creation of our own forms of culture is so important.

Culture conveys values and attitudes far more effectively than any kind of political sloganeering. Pursuing the creation of what you might call a “subculture” within North America that exists outside of the confines of mainstream society and reinforces the traditions and the values of our ancestors is just one way we can immunize ourselves from the culture of the Kali Yuga.

Luckily, there are already groups dedicated to this task.

Otherwise, we can continue to watch as more words get redefined to mean something contemptible to us.

No Comments on Redefining Brave

Vatican Ups The Tolerance

In the latest episode of Pope Francis trying to prove that he is the Spiritual Bolshevik-in-Chief, the Vatican permitted the performance of Jewish and Muslim prayers within its sacred sphere today.

 

In the latest episode of Pope Francis trying to prove that he is the Spiritual Bolshevik-in-Chief, the Vatican permitted the performance of Jewish and Muslim prayers within its sacred sphere today.

While the Church would never allow traditionalists to lead Masses in the Vatican, they’ll let people who don’t accept even the basic tenets of its religion to rent out the city for a day to make a meaningless gesture “for peace” in a land that will never know peace.

Put aside the religion debates within our circles for a moment and realize that this is a perfect symbol of the new faith of the Western world. A faith that treats every belief system as equal (unless they express White Identitarianism and condemn modernity), only stipulates that you be a “good” person (meaning following every guideline of the pervading politically correct dogma), orgasms to equality, demands tolerance for all (except certain evil White people and Boko Haram), opens up their sacred halls to foreign peoples, and celebrates the culture of the stranger while denigrating their own.

All the while knowing that these alien people would never extend the same generosity to Western religions.

In any case, it’s just another Monday in Pope Francis’ mission to spread egalitarianism to every corner of his Church.

No Comments on Vatican Ups The Tolerance

The Persecution of Varg Vikernes

Black metal musician and European traditionalist Varg Vikernes is under attack again by the French government after they couldn’t tie him to terrorism charges last year.

Black metal musician and European traditionalist Varg Vikernes is under attack again by the French government after they couldn’t tie him to terrorism charges last year.

Instead of charging him with an actual crime, they’ve pulled out the hate speech card and are accusing him of inciting animosity towards minority groups.

In a sane society, these charges would be deemed ridiculous and laughed out of court. Unfortunately, we live in an insane world and Varg now has to fight prison time for merely stating his views. In another sign that the government is simply persecuting him for voicing dangerous opinions, his original court date in October had to be postponed after Vikernes’ lawyer only received the 1,000 page indictment right before the proceedings were set to begin.

If convicted, the man behind Burzum faces up to five years in jail and 45,000 euros in fines. Luckily his supporters have raised funds for his defense and his lawsuit against the French authorities for harassment.

The charges stem from alleged posts reportedly made by Vikernes that were deemed too offensive to Muslims and Jews and merit jail time and forced poverty. He was first arrested for terrorism charges last July after French police raided his residence and found legally acquired firearms. The charges had to be dropped due to the flimsy nature of the accusations.

The tribulations of Vikernes reveal how far authorities in Europe (and to a lesser extent in North America) will go to persecute people with Identitarian views. They see Vikernes, nationalists, and other traditionalists as a threat to their system and that is why they relentlessly pursue individuals with views similar to ours.

But in some ways being seen as a threat is better than being ignored. Varg is an incredibly popular artist relative to his past and views. He is seen as a musical innovator and a pioneer of a genre that has made in-roads to the mainstream. He is able to convey his views to an audience that would otherwise remain unexposed to them through his music.

This is why he is considered a threat and his presence in France remains a sorepoint for the reigning government.

Regardless of the outcome of his trial, Vikernes remains unbowed in his ideology and will continue to voice his concerns.

Here’s to him beating the charges and continuing to make worthy music.

No Comments on The Persecution of Varg Vikernes

Derek Turner’s Sea Changes

As far as anti-establishment contemporary fiction goes, Derek Turner’s Sea Changes is among the best one is likely to read in English today. In tone, it is clearly a satire;…

As far as anti-establishment contemporary fiction goes, Derek Turner’s Sea Changes is among the best one is likely to read in English today. In tone, it is clearly a satire; in sensibility, it is clearly traditionalist; but in sentiment, it has the added virtues of temperance and compassion, qualities that steer this novel clear of the vices that have afflicted others dealing with immigration and the tone and character of modern race relations—Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints comes to mind—which have usually been vehicles for sublimated spleen. Perhaps the reason is that this novel was aimed at a mainstream audience, and not at fellow outsiders looking for a wink and a nod.

Sea Changes tells the story of Ibraham Nassouf, a young Iraqi. Desiring to escape the poverty and limited prospects of existence in his native Basra, he sets sights on emigrating to England, dreaming of the sort of life he had seen in Western media and magazines; his very grim and unpleasant journey, however, ends badly, for, having paid, along with dozens of others, a gang of human traffickers to take him to Britain, the latter decide to throw their human cargo into the sea and spray it with bullets after being challenged by a British coastal patrol. Ibraham is the only survivor, but he is washed on the beach along with forty or so of his fellow migrants, mostly African. The discovery, the suggestion that the migrants may have been murdered by local racists, and the throwaway remarks of a stolid farmer who finds himself in front of a television camera, being asked for comment by a reporter hyper-attuned to the racial angle, triggers a noisy media event, which dominates and is the raison d’être of the story.

Unusually, sympathy is with Ibraham, despite the fact that he funded his migration journey with money he earned working for a gangster in Basra. In a serio-comical fashion, at once caricaturesque and sophisticated, Turner skilfully conveys the squalor, uncertainties, precariety, mentality, and transient relationships involved in a journey of this nature. At each stage, Ibraham is reliant on a shady link in a long chain of sleazy, crooked, callous types who, while outwardly amiable, well-wishing, and occasionally hospitable, nevertheless make a living, or supplement their income, by fleecing the immigrants passing through. Ibraham is portrayed exactly as migrants are portrayed in Western media: a well-meaning, somewhat childlike, hard-working poor devil escaping war or poverty, and willing to go through hell for a better life in a rich Western country. Similar treatment is accorded to the Mediterranean countries of Europe forced to deal with the ever-rising tide of Third World migrants: the latter are seen by the authorities as pests, to be moved around and put out of sight in processing centres, where they languish in boredom and inactivity, but where they learn about rights they never imagined they had. It is a shadowy, confusing, and unforgiving world, constantly in flux, where every human is both predator and prey. What is worse, once Ibraham arrives at his destination, England, that paradise of the North Atlantic, it turns out his troubles have only just begun, for he becomes the ball in what is for him a confusing game of political football, in which he, the migrant of colour, is manipulated as a tool by the white English who, while appearing incredibly kind and helpful to him, are in fact completely self-absorbed and do not give a hoot about him. Eventually, he attains his dream—after some difficulty, he is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom—and he is even given permission to import his family. But life in London proves a tremendous disappointment, and we leave him living in bleak accommodation, jobless, with embarrassing flatmates, and in the throes of alienation, living in—but not part of—a culture he neither understands nor any longer wishes to understand. Looking back, life in Iraq, difficult as it was, at least offered community, friendships, and meaning. The process of migration proves destructive.

The closest to villain in the novel is John Leyden, a handsome Left-leaning journalist replete with fine phrases and crusading zeal, yet also egotistical, vain, shallow, arrogant, hypocritical, infantile, and spoilt rotten to the core. The reader does not end up hating him, however; rather, he comes across as a buffoon—a cog of the system he helps maintain. In the end, we are left to wonder about his motivations, for he is clearly not psychologically healthy or normal, despite his polished façade and professional success. His main antagonist is another journalist, Albert Norman, an old, grizzled, jaded, fat, wealthy, peppery, recalcitrant reactionary, whose politically incorrect column is both popular—indeed, it is the only thing levitating the circulation numbers in an otherwise modernising (=flagging) newspaper—and the last bastion of sense in a world gone mad. Along with Ibraham, Norman is Turner’s vehicle for some of his commentary on modern Britain, but, though almost heroic, he is ultimately an object of pity, for he is eventually defeated by the forces of ‘progress’ and even comes to realise his own futility. These two characters constitute the poles between which we find an array of depressingly familiar types: the thriving ethnic activist, the anti-racist thug, the Gerry Gables of this world, the ‘modernised’ offspring of rural parents, the cynical politicians, the semi-illiterate socialists, and, of course, the equally opportunistic, but far less skilled, anti-establishment politician. The latter, incidentally, a Nick Griffin analogue, has a seat in Parliament, until his party is banned in a swell of righteous fervour. Though stereotypes, all appear as three-dimensional characters, neither wholly good nor wholly evil, and indeed very human. All are, nevertheless, cogs in a machine.

Turner’s assessment of the situation is, therefore, that the problem is not the malfeasance of particular individuals, though some are more contemptible than others: everyone is implicated in some fashion, knowingly or unknowingly, actively or passively, whatever their individual reasons, however sensible their course of action may seem in the circumstances. The problem is systemic. And what sustains the system, in this case, is not the media, nor the politicians, nor any particular ethnic group, since they are all part of it: it is the idea that equality as the highest good—the highest expression of moral enlightenment. This is not explicitly stated in the novel; the latter is very focused on how British society today thinks about race and immigration. Yet, it is obvious, or it should be, that, in a type of society in which ethics possess singular importance, as is the case in Western societies, despite the corruption of modern times, what drives the tone and character of race relations today, and the debate on immigration, is the ethics of egalitarianism. That is what drives all the chatter, all the policies, all the decisions, all the actions and reactions despised by the type of reader who will read these lines. Without it, there would be no Sea Changes, nor a need for it. This is what, in my opinion, is most admirable about this novel, and why it is, to date, the most serious treatment of today’s cultural malaise, despite its satirical tone and occasional incursion into outright caricature. This is the only illustration I have seen in fiction of the way egalitarianism produces unfair, unjust, invidious, and unhappy outcomes. Something worth pondering.

There are, of course, some minor niggles, stemming from this being Turner’s first effort at fiction. I was distracted by the presence of superfluous adverbs, for example, a common mistake not made by more experienced writers of fiction, and not tolerated by professional editors at large mainstream publishers. And I am not a big fan of the front cover and general layout, which I think undersells the content. The book is, indeed, far better than it looks. Yet, this aside, Turner’s prose is elegant, effective, and rich with beautiful metaphor and well-crafted phrases. It is consistently good all the way through, and there is no sagging in the narrative, despite the predictable unfolding of events; it is, in fact, a page-turner, which sails along at a leisurely pace. Above all, Turner is to be commended for having successfully negotiated, with humour, sensitivity, and insight, a topic given to hysterics (on both sides), making the case against egalitarianism for readers of any political persuasion, radical and conformist alike.

No Comments on Derek Turner’s Sea Changes

The God They Really Believe In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Comments on The God They Really Believe In

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