What is the #AltRight? A brief explanation.

Last night on the Chris Hayes show, Rubio SuperPAC advisor Rick Wilson lost it and felt the need to attack the alt-right.  Almost immediately afterwards, Jonah Goldberg and many others began attacking the alt-right on Twitter.  In short, the establishment now feels threatened by the alt-right.

Interestingly, for a while, there has been a short memo about the alt-right floating about among “Conservatism Inc” warning people of the alt-right.  I’ve read parts of this memo and surprisingly its description of the alt-right is not inaccurate, just too succinct.  Here I’ll give a more detailed explanation of the alt-right.

The alt-right was first coined by Richard Spencer, as an intellectual alternative to the dry “Conservatism Inc” that then passed for right-wing thought.  Since then, the term has really taken on a life all its own.  As others have noted, the alt-right really isn’t a political movement per se but rather a zeitgeist.  The big-tent alt-right includes identitarians and archeofuturists, race realists and HBD bloggers, European New Right (ENR), edgelords, neo-reaction (NRx) and reaction (Rx), trad Christians, neo-pagans, white nationalists, PUAs, etc.  (Note, these groups are not mutually exclusive.  For example, an alt-righter might consider himself an identitarian and race realist.)

One thing commenters have correctly noted is how young the alt-right is.  While there is no objective way to determine the average age of the alt-right, I would place it in the early 20s.  (Compare this with the average age of a National Review reader, which is about 65.)   And this youth movement is different from, say, the “College Republicans” of the 1980s.  These young alt-righters did not grow up reading National Review (a good thing).  They grew up with /pol/, Reddit, Twitter and other social media, and were later introduced to sites like Radix Journal, AmRen, VDare, Occidental Observer, Heartiste, MPC,  and The Right Stuff.

How large is the alt right? Really impossible to tell, but some estimates have placed it around 4 million people (mostly in the USA and Europe) and growing rapidly.

While the alt-right is a large tent that disagrees on some issues, one issue that really unites the alt-right is immigration.  The alt-right is fed up with Third World immigration into the West and wishes to see most of these immigrants / migrants / refugees / invaders repatriated back to their ancestral lands.

The alt-righters usually are not free-market ideologues.  They believe the health of the nation should supersede free-market globalism, which often leads to a deracinated cosmpolitanism.  It’s why many on the alt-right are skeptical of free trade.

Philosophically, the alt-right might be called a rejection of universalism, itself a left-wing idea and product of the Enlightenment.  Nonetheless, the alt-right does not reject all Enlightenment ideas, especially science. (And those trads who say they do are probably liars.)   The alt-right might be thought of as archeofuturist which attempts to combine ancient relativistic and manly virtues with the findings of modern science, including those in human biodiversity.

Michael Brendan Dougherty recently called the alt-right “race obsessed”.  A better phrase might be:  race realists.  Most alt-righters actually take Darwinism seriously. (If you are at a loss of what “taking Darwinism seriously” means, you might want to read this book.)  Young alt-righters are comfortable with modern science which shows that human biodiversity is a facet of life.    The fact that so many today in Conservatism Inc. want either to ignore or deny human biodiversity, shows how untethered from reality modern conservatism has become.  It is living in a politically correct fantasy land.

Someone recently emailed a list of “popular college majors” of alt-right people.  I have no idea how someone could determine this, but here’s the list: computer programming, mathematics, genetics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, economics, classical languages, Germanic studies (think Tolkien & Wagner), and philosophy.

The younger alt-right is quite technologically savvy and has made many hashtags go viral:  #Cuckservative, #WhiteGenocide, #MerkelMussWeg,  #NRORevolt, #ISaluteWhitePeople, #WhiteGirlsAreMagic, #BoycottStarWarsVII, etc.

The most successful alt-right meme to infect the general public by far is the cuckservative meme (roundup here), which I’m happy to say I played a part in.  Other memes created by the alt-right:  white genocide, ((( ))), the current year, dindus, and many more.

Some critics have asserted that the alt-right is anti-Christian.  This is not true.  What the alt-right is against is mainstream Christianity today where you have “Christian leaders” supporting the Third World immigration invasion of the West and telling white people that they should adopt non-whites instead of procreating and white babies.  Much of modern Western Christianity has become suicidal and the alt-right is correct to mock and criticize it.  But in terms of religion, the alt-right is quite diverse.  Some are atheists and agnostics.  Some are neo-pagans. And many subscribe to an “uncucked form of Christianity” that is not antagonistic toward Western Civilization.

Trump.  Many mainstream journalists seem obsessed with the fact that many in the alt-right support Donald Trump.  Yes, many (but not all) do.  Nonetheless, the alt-right would still exist without Trump.  And many in the alt-right are not even American and are more interested in leaders like Orbán, Le Pen or Putin.

Many journalists have labelled the alt-right anti-semitic, which is more a smear than an actual description. There is actually diversity among the alt-right on the “Jewish question” (JQ).  Some like Jared Taylor do not discuss it.  Others like Kevin MacDonald do.  There is little dispute that Jews have disproportionally been involved in starting left-wing movements of the last 150 years:  Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Freudianism, Boasian Anthropology, etc.  Also, many Jews support Israel building a wall, deporting Africans and refusing Syrians while simultaneously supporting mass immigration for the West. Most in the alt-right would probably agree that a free and open society should not have a problem discussing this.  Some younger Jews sympathetic to the alt-right I’ve talked to see more comfortable with these ideas being discussed, so there might be a generational divide on this.

Whatever happens, one thing is clear:  The alt-right does not seem to be going anywhere.  In fact, it seems to be growing very rapidly.

Updates:

Interestingly, we’re also witnessing the rise of an alt-left, which in many ways compliments the alt-right.

 

What is a #Cuckservative?

Among the alt-right crowds, one of the most fascinating labels has emerged:  The Cuckservative (aka Conservacuck).  I’m not exactly sure where it started or who coined it (if you know, please say in the comments below), but it is truly brilliant as it crystallizes a particular personality that we all know too well.   If Anthony Trollope were alive today, he’d write an entire series on the cuckservative — or at least make him a re-occurring character in novels.

What is the cuckservative?  Well, I’ll paint in broad strokes here to provide a preliminary portrait.  Mind you, only preliminary.  Perhaps commenters can fill in the gaps below.

Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks he’s promoting his own interests but really isn’t.  In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isn’t racially aware.

In some ways, the cuckservative is the counterpart of the SJW (social justice warrior), and they are more alike than dissimilar. You often will hear the cuckservative screaming at an SJW about how “the Democrats are the real racists.”

The cuckservative feels very passionate about issues like abortion, which rarely directly affects his own life.  In fact, you might often hear a cuckservative talking about how abortion is “racist” since blacks and mestizos overwhelmingly get more abortions that whites.

On the other hand, the cuckservative feels uncomfortable about issues like immigration.  If the cuckservative is not an outright open-borders shill, he will only give lip service about “securing the border” or “opposing illegal but favoring legal immigration” but he will never talk about immigration very much.  After all, immigration has very serious implications for Western Civilization, so it doesn’t concern the cuckservative.

The cuckservative is often fanatically in favor of transracial adoption.  He sees it as some divine calling.  In a sense, this is cuckoldry at its essence, since these whites are usually forgoing their own inclusive fitness to adopt someone from another race.  As Heartiste notes, they’re race-cucking their own families.

Although the cuckservative is eager to show his PC bona fides by openness to other races, he really doesn’t want to know about other races.  Human biodiversity terrifies the cuckservative, as deep down he has bought into blank-slatism and egalitarianism.  The cuckservative would rather just have a Herman Cain  or Clarence Thomas poster on his wall than actually have to honestly think about race.

The cuckservative, although never Jewish, often seems vicariously to live through Israel.  Since the cuckservative feels that he cannot defend his own ethnic interests, he’ll defend Israel’s.  The cuckservative cares more about Israel’s borders than his own.  Israel adamantly defends its own ethnic interests and perhaps deep down the cuckservative respects this on some unconscious level.

On the other hand, the idea of whites acting as a group to secure their own interests terrifies the cuckservative. If you ever want to troll a cuckservative, just repeatedly use the word “white,”  such as “this isn’t beneficial for the white community.”  The cuckservative will be triggered immediately.

The cuckservative is a fascinating personality.  They’re all around us.  Can they be helped?  Is their condition terminal?  Who knows, but maybe by pointing out their condition they can seek self-improvement.

Updates:

This was only a general sketch — as there are many more nuances of the cuckservative, but I hope this is a good start.  Perhaps others can help fill in the blanks below.

This has been cross-posted at Radix Journal.

Update:  Who coined ‘cuckservative’?  Still not 100% sure, but from what people are saying it was probably MPC, or possibly TRS, with various Twitter accounts like this one popularizing it.

Important:  Roundup of #Cuckservative articles and memes

It’s Official: Conservatism is Dead

If there is one pic that could be put on the obituary of conservatism, it’s this pic of British philosopher Roger Scruton visiting Michaela to talk about philosophy and fox hunting, where he allegedly was met with blank stares and mild ridicule.

Don’t get me wrong.  I respect Scruton and have read the majority of his books.  His writings on conservatism, aesthetics, classical music and modern philosophy are superb.  But this pic symbolizes the changing times.  The 20th century was the century of competing ideas like liberalism and conservatism – which largely took place within white homogenous states.  The 21st century will be the century of ethno-politics.

Problems with the “Puritan Thesis” in #NRx

Around the neoreaction spheres, there is a commonly held belief that much of leftist can be attributed to “Puritanism”.  This idea was first popularized by Moldbug and has since been championed by various bloggers, which recently has erupted into a debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.)

While I’m a Moldbug fan and like some of his concepts, I think that Moldbugian critique of progressivism is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, the radicals who have drastically changed Western society over the past 150 years or so have not been Puritans but in fact Ashkenazis:

Marx – undermine traditional European regimes

Freud – legitimizes sexual degeneracy

Franz Boas – popularizes the “race doesn’t exist” meme

Ashley Montagu – also popularizes “race doesn’t exist” meme and makes racism the greatest sin of the West

Adorno and Horkheimer – Cultural Marxism, delegitimize white people

If the Puritan Thesis were correct, then if one subtracts the contributions of Jewish leftists, the trajectory of the West should be comparable to what it is today, but this seems highly unlikely, which means that the Puritan Thesis is too simplistic.

Second, it is true that Puritans have been a little more leftist than other Anglo groups. David Hacket Fischer’s Albion’s Seed well documents the contributions of the four major Anglo folkways in the United States (Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers & Scots-Irish).  While the Puritans are more leftist than the Cavaliers and Scots-Irish, the Quakers might actually be more leftist than Puritans, since the Puritans have vacillated in their causes.  While the Puritans might well have caused the American Civil War (their greatest failing in my opinion), Puritans were also some of the most adamant to demand repatriation of blacks after the Civil War. Furthermore, the greatest president of 20th century, Calvin Coolidge, was of Puritan stock. It was Coolidge who in fact passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration both in numbers and to Europeans.  This type of patriotism would hardly be found among America’s New Elite (the Ashkenazis who have replaced the WASPs in  America’s elite institutions – Yale now is less than 20% WASP). In fact, the New Elite seem overwhelmingly to support open borders (for the West, not Israel), as evidenced by George Soros, Sheldon Adelson and Mark Zuckerberg, to name but a few. Furthermore, it was the early 20th century people of Puritan stock (e.g. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard) who took Darwinism to its logical conclusion and championed the idea of racial differences, and who were opposed by people like Franz Boas.

Third, many neoreactionaries mean “Puritan” as a shorthand for Protestant (and seem somewhat hostile toward Protestantism, wanting to blame all the West’s problems on Protestantism) but there is no evidence that Protestants today are more leftist than Catholics.  If Protestantism were the cause of modern-day leftism, it seems that modern-day Protestants should be more leftist than Catholics – but they are not.  First, in the United States, the voting patterns of Catholics are considerably more leftist than Protestants.  Second, Catholic countries have a much higher rate of Marxism than Protestant countries (think of mestizos in South and Central America, or even Southern Europe).  Third, and most importantly, outside of Jewish groups, the Catholic Church today supports the Third World immigration invasion of the West more than any other religious organization.  In short, the Catholic Church today is actually calling for the genetic destruction of Western Civilization.   In fact, the Catholic Church is so vehemently in favor of mass non-white immigration that some European traditionalists have recently begun to wonder whether Catholicism is just as big of a threat to Europe as Islam.

Fourth, I wonder whether any of the neoreactionaries championing the Puritan Thesis have ever read Nietzsche, Spengler, Benoist, et al.  If one wants to talk about long-term cladistics, then what you have is not a Puritan problem, but rather a Christian problem.  As Spengler noted, “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”  The Christian idea of the “universal brotherhood of man,” some have maintained, is the fons et origo of all modern-day leftism.  In short, the problem is not with Puritanism per se but with a deeply held Christian mindset, which is much older than Puritanism.   Nonetheless, even if this Christian thesis is correct, it seems highly unlikely that our current trajectory would be the same but for the Jewish leftist movements of the past 150 years.

In conclusion, the origins of modern-day progressivism are complex.  While Christianity (not Puritanism) might be a part of the cause, leftist Jewish intellectual movements certainly are too.  There are probably other causes as well, such as pathological altruism and ethnomasochism.  Instead of committing to a dogmatic ideology (“Puritans and Protestants caused everything bad”), which is something leftists do, it’s better to keep an open mind and realize that the problem is much more complex.

Updates:

R/H/E Notes: Of the top 25 most liberal journalists in the USA, by far more are of Jewish or Catholic ancestry than Puritan 

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry) jumps on the Marxist bandwagon

The French Catholic neoconservative Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has a ridiculously trite article out at The Week entitled “Gay marriage, racism, and what everyone misses about the inevitability of social change.” Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to such prattle, but since it is getting attention on Twitter, I thought I’d address it.  Gobry, by the way, has had contact with various reactionaries, although he has denounced the Dark Enlightenment as “racist” — shocking.  That said, Gobry is not new to parroting the latest nonsense of neoconservatives and Cultural Marxists — whether it’s bombing North Korea, flooding Europe and the USA with Third World immigrants, or demanding that whites pay reparations to non-whites.

I indeed find it interesting that mainstream Christians today – both Catholic and Protestant – seem to have wholeheartedly adopted the mindset of Cultural Marxists, as Gobry does in his latest article by insisting that race is a “social construct”.  The one issue that Christians have not yet given into the Cultural Marxists is gay marriage, but this is only matter of time and, as I’ll show, Gobry’s very “reasoning” paves the way for gay marriage.

Gobry, in his latest, argues that gay marriage is not inevitable because tokens of progress have been wrong in the past.  His bogeymen of false tokens of past progress are the concept of race and eugenics (with, of course, the obligatory reference to Margaret Sanger).  He writes:

“As people on the left of the left, who usually care more about the history of ideas than milquetoast progressives, never tire of pointing out (and rightly), race is a social construct…. [Race] is an idea that has a very specific history, whose birth can be dated, which came to dominate the cultural worldview, and thence changed law and behavior. In other words, it was a socio-cultural revolution.”

At least Gobry is honest about siding with the far left, although he doesn’t correctly identify its origins.  (One of the first Marxists to champion the idea of race as a “social construct” was Franz Boas, who recently has recently been proven to be a fraud. Marxist Stephen Jay Gould has also been shown to be a fraud.)

Gobry seems to think that somehow the science of race is wrong since it’s a product of the Enlightenment, or, more specifically, the Scientific Revolution:

This reasoning, however, is wrong on a number of counts.

First, race in and of itself is not a modern concept.   As Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele point out in the “Ancient Concept of Race,” the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and later Muslims all had concepts of race.

What is different about the modern concept of race is that it is more scientific.  And this is supposed to discredit it?  Modern genetics is also a product of this “socio-cultural revolution,” so it should also be discredited?  Maybe Gobry thinks so, since genetics overwhelmingly proves the biological reality of race:

Like all good Marxist Christians today, Gobry quotes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.”  I’m not very religious nor am I an expert on Biblical exegesis, but scholars have told me that the traditional interpretation of this passage is one of a heavenly allegory but the more recent Marxist interpretation is that on Earth race and gender aren’t real but are “social constructs”. Gobry obviously sides with the later interpretation.

Which undermines Gobry’s very support of traditional marriage.  For, if gender – like race – is but a social construct, then why should any credence be given to traditional marriage grounded in a biological notion of reproduction (as the Latin verb maritare suggests by meaning both to marry and impregnate).  If gender is but a social construct, then participants in marriage should not be be discriminated against by gender.

Such deductions, however, may be beyond the intellectual powers of grandstanders like Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry.

Updates:

Michael B Dougherty seems to agree with the article because of something someone might have once said about his ancestors 100 years ago.  Newsflash, Michael, the Irish genetically cluster with Europeans and and there were never anti-miscegenation laws against the Irish.

Gobry warns that ideas like HBD must be kept “marginal”.

The Duck tells it like it is.

European Congress conference in Hungary shut down; Richard Spencer arrested

For the past month or so, there has been much talk about the identitarian European Congress conference (organized by NPI and others) in Budapest, Hungary.  The conference was to have many speakers (including Aleksandr Dugin) and was in part supported by members of the right-wing Jobbik Party in Hungary.  Then the antifa groups (both from Hungary and elsewhere in Europe) got involved, putting pressure on the Hungarian government to close down the conference.  The anti-free speech antifas got their way in shutting down the conference,  even to the point where Jobbik party members are now denying involvement, although they had been in contact with Richard Spencer for months in organizing the event.  Nonetheless, although the formal conference was shut down (and some people said they weren’t coming), Richard Spencer decided to go ahead and hold an informal private meeting.  (Here’s a video from Sept. 29 of Richard Spencer explaining that although the government was shutting down the conference, an informal private meeting would still take place.)  Well, yesterday it seems that Richard Spencer and others were meeting in a bar and Richard Spencer was arrested by the Hungarian authorities. (Here’s a video of Richard Spencer right before his arrest.)  I do not know the details …and have no idea whether Spencer has been released.

For updates, I’d watch Richard Spencer’s Twitter feed and Radix Journal.   VDare has also been posting updates at its blog and on Twitter, as well as journalist Paul Brian from his Twitter feed.

It’s ironically sad that various European authorities are so hell-bent on shutting down a pro-European conference.  It’s symptomatic of the pathologically altruistic, ethnomasochistic malady infecting  the West.

Updates:

Video: Reaction of attendees after police raid bar. Hunter Wallace claims Richard Spencer is being deported from Hungary.  Buzzfeed’s Max Seddon is tweeting that Richard Spencer will be deported from Hungary.  Here is a more detailed account of what happened in Budapest.  Jared Taylor reports on event.  Richard Spencer again breathes the free air.  Outstanding speech by Jared Taylor at the informal gathering in Budapest (take the time to read it).

Video of Richard Spencer right before his arrest:

Is libertarianism suicidal?

“Whereas much of American libertarianism may have been grounded in implicit whiteness, and movement is still implicitly white, it is gradually growing more explicitly anti-white than even the kind of conservatism advocated by The Weekly Standard.” ~ Gregory Hood

While there are some sound libertarians (e.g. Peter Brimelow, Hans-Herman Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard), libertarians seem to have high incidences of championing very dumb ideas, from school vouchers to open borders.  In other words, while libertarianism might possess useful insights and even some useful curbs on governmental power, its natural gravity seems to center around HBD denial, extreme individualism and deracinated cosmopolitanism. Indeed, libertarianism today is becoming a self-parody from Cathy Reisenwitz’s war against “racism and patriarchal oppression” to Rand Paul‘s wanting to “win Detroit” and flood the USA with the Third World.

Is there any salvation for libertarianism?  Although libertarianism might benefit small, cohesive cosmopolitan in-groups, will libertarianism always be detrimental to the larger, ethno-core of a host country? In general, is libertarianism a doomed, suicidal philosophy?

Related:

“Laws of the Cathedral: Obey or Perish”

“School Vouchers: A Trojan Horse to Destroy Private Schools”

“What is pathological altruism?”

Updates:

This poll has turned into quite the conversation on Twitter, from Cathy Reisenwitz denouncing the Dark Enlightenment for being “racist” to Justin Raimondo calling it a “Nazi revival”.

 

 

 

Medieval Europe: The Reality of Race

In the past couple days, “medievalist” Karl Steel and some of his friends, such as Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (and other Cathedral mouthpieces), have been “attacking” HBD and the Dark Enlightenment on Twitter, including a blog post.  N.B. by “attacking” I don’t really mean attempting to discredit but pointing and sputtering.  And I put “medievalist” in quotes because unlike traditional medievalists who had deep philological understandings of classical and medieval languages (such as Latin, Old High German, Old Norse, Anglo-Saxon, etc.) this group is representative of a new trend, “scholars” short on traditional philological skills but long on the latest pomod theories, which  results in applying the latest lit-crit “theory” to an English translation of a text.  Yes, Idiocracy, has consumed literary studies.  Oh yea, many of them also seem to detest logic and reason (ruses of the white man).

Anyway, browsing through some of their writings, you find the latest fashionable nonsense, like Jeffrey Cohen’s “On the nonexistence of race,” which is all quite comical.  It’s trendy these days to claim that race was “invented” in the Enlightenment, although Sarich & Miele easily refuted this claim in the “Ancient Concept of Race“.  These Dorothys can keep their eyes closed and continue to click their heels saying “race doesn’t exist,” but it simply won’t change reality.  In fact, modern science is showing that no only does race exist but genetic racial divisions are much deeper than previously imagined (see here).  Regardless, although these “medievalists” claim race doesn’t exist, I saw one person (now I’ve lost the source) speaking of miscegenation among the Medieval British.

Regarding the last point, “miscegenation among the Medieval British,” these people apparently are ignorant of Bryan Sykes landmark genetics study Blood of the Isles, where Sykes shows how remarkably ethnically homogenous the British Isles are at the genetic level.  Steve Sailer writes:

From his database, Sykes concludes that the majority of the genes of the peoples of the British Isles are descended from the oldest of the modern inhabitants: Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who began arriving 10,000 years ago from Continental Europe after the end of the last Ice Age, as soon as the islands became habitable again.

Regarding the Irish, see the “Ignatiev Fallacy“.

Still, there are different ethnic groups among Europeans.  Everyone knows this (and there are HBD differences between ethnic groups).  However, the current meme of emphasizing ethnic groups at the expense of larger racial groups hides how closely related many ethnic groups are to each other.   What’s remarkable in this instance is how closely related European ethnic groups are to each other vs Non-Europeans.  Regarding Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza‘s research on the genetic distances between racial groups, Sailer writes:

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.

Clearly these ethnic groups are more closely related to each other than to non-Europeans.

And let’s forget that concepts like “blue blood” (stressing white, fair skin) were very popular in Medieval Europe, as a way to separate fair-skinned upper-class Europeans from the swarthier Moors.

And let’s not leave out eugenics (which the Ashkenazis have been practicing for the past 1,000 years) in Medieval Europe.  Eugenics, first popularized by Plato and Aristotle, was alive in Medieval Europe with concepts such as “blue blood” or gentillesse (refinement and courtesy resulting from good breeding).  Gregory Clark has demonstrated that the children of the upper-classes among Medieval English had a 2:1 survival rate over the poor and that there was much downward mobility, which resulted in the downward drift of genes from the upper-classes to the lower classes, resulting in a general increase in IQ and decrease in violence.

Still, don’t let any of these inconvenient facts get in the way of our current “medievalists” where the Medieval World for them is but a blank canvass on which they can paint the most fashionable and latest lit-crit theory.

Related:

“The Ancient Greeks & Romans, Beauty and Human Biodiversity”

“Tolkien, HBD and German Romanticism”

Global Genetic Distances Map and Reality of Race

Updates:

Although I may seem a little hard on Karl Steel above, I will say this:  From what I’ve seen, Karl Steel seems more intelligent and perhaps one day able to think “outside the Cathedral box” than the ever hysterical Jeffrey Jerome Cohen.

Wesley Morganston: Karl Steel on Human Biodiversity: “Let’s Not Face Facts”

George Kennan, a race-realist Cassandra?

American diplomat and scholar George Kennan has long been a hero to those holding to the view of “political realism” in foreign policy, i.e. a county should only protect what’s in its vital interest and not get caught in the trappings of ideological battles.  This view is nearly opposite the dominant paradigm of today: neoconservatism / neoliberalism, which sees no problem spending American resources to spread democracy or “human rights”.  In recent years, those unhappy with neoconservatism / neoliberalism have turned to George Kennan’s writings.  For instance, Kennan’s ideas figured prominently in the creation of the American Conservative magazine.  Expect all this to end.

With the recent publication of Kennan’s diaries, we have discovered that Kennan was a race realist, supported eugenics, opposed multiculturalism, thought mestizo immigration bad for America, thought the end of Apartheid in South Africa would lead to white genocide, et al.  In short, Kennan was a Cassandra of sorts.  The Cathedral is not happy.  In fact, while Cathedral mouthpieces have already condemned Kennan in recent days, it will probably only be a matter of days before Cathedral Lite mouthpieces (such as the American Conservative) who previously supported Kennan now publish pieces condemning him. “Racist eugenicist!,” it’ll read.

Here are a couple must-read articles on Kennan’s recently published diaries:

Cooper Sterling: “The Sensible Realism of a Bygone Generation: George Kennan’s Attitudes on Race, Eugenics, and Multiculturalism, Part 1”  and  “The Sensible Realism of a Bygone Generation: George Kennan’s Attitudes on Race, Eugenics, and Multiculturalism, Part 2”

Other valuable writings:

Paul Nachman: “George F. Kennan: Immigration Seer”

Steve Sailer: “George Kennan, Fareed Zakaria, Kim Kardashian…And The Los Angeles Of 2014”

Excerpt arguing against mass immigration from George Kennan’s 1993 book.

Updates:

As the America media hysterically go on about human rights and democracy in the Ukraine, it appears the country is already being divvied up by Jewish oligarchs. Wonder what Kennan would think?

George F. Kennan

Monarchy vs Neocameralism vs Republicanism, etc.

Among the Dark Enlightenment legions, there has been a debate recently about what’s the best form of government.  Is it monarchy, neocameralism, republicanism?  Regardless, everyone seems to be in agreement that democracy is inferior.

Here’s my brief take: Best government for whom? Extrapolating from Aristotle (a proto-HBD thinker of sorts) in his Politics, different forms of government are better suited for different ethnies.  While the ancestral traditions of some might steer toward monarchy, others might be better suited for neocameralism or republicanism. Ca dépend.  Who is your group, what does it want? Also, the best form of government for a racially homogenous society might differ from the best form for a multi-racial society. And of course, the concept of ‘exit’ adds an entirely new dimension to this question.

Another interesting question, what form of government will be the most eugenic or dysgenic for the natural proclivities of a particular race?

Related:

“Aristotle, Darwin & HBD”

“The Ancient Greeks & Romans, Beauty and Human Biodiversity”

“Is “Natural Law” Anti-Nature?”

“Can Multi-Racial States Ever Function? Some Examples with Caveats.“

The Western “Demographic Crisis” Myth and the Cathedral Hive Mind

John Derbyshire has up an insightful post about Japan, wherein he surmises that the 21st century might belong to Japan since Japan appears to hold steadfast in avoiding Third World immigration and to be solving internally its own demographic transition.  History suggests that labor shortages (tight labor markets) often lead to greater efficiency and innovation.  David Frum wrote recently along these lines about robotics undercutting the “need” for immigrants.

Nonetheless, it has become a mantra in the West that declining birthrates and an aging population will lead to catastrophe — unless we open our borders to the Third World. These warnings, though, often seem greatly exaggerated.  Dennis Mangan wrote, “Russia’s population today is about the same as it was in the early 80s. That constitutes a crisis?”

History doesn’t really bear out this supposed demographic crisis.  The Malthusian and pre-penicillin West often saw great population vicissitudes that worked themselves out.   The Black Death might have killed off 1/3 of the European population, but the end result was tighter labor markets, increased efficiency, and an eventual increased standard of living.   Europeans and North Asians are resilient and can respond to changing circumstances.

The call for “more immigration” really isn’t a reflection of a “demographic crisis” but one of the Cathedral’s central religious doctrines:  Immigration Is Good.

How the chattering heads could be so wrong about the need for more immigration reflects a central problem with Western democracy today: no effective feedback system.  Nick Land writes,

The result is that every effective discovery process — whether economic, scientific, or of any other kind — is subjected to ever-more radical subversion by political influences whose only ‘reality principle’ is internal: based on closed-circuit social manipulation…. Democracy is thus, strictly speaking, a production of collective insanity, or dissociation from reality….

In short, Western democracies believe and promulgate Immigration is Good, and that’s all that matters.  Everything else is inconsequential; the Cathedral Hive Mind says so.

Interestingly, a hive mind in nature is generally adaptive. For instance, in a hive of honey bees, various worker bees perform dances demonstrating the location of food.  The information of some scouts might be wrong, so the hive mind eventually is able to discern the reliable from the unreliable information, which results in the creation of more honey, an absolute necessity for the survival of winter.  If this feedback system fails, the hive dies.

Our Cathedral hive mind, however, figured out how to make honey for multiple winters in one season, which provided immediate benefits, but now results in living off stocked-up capital and inaccurate signaling feedback.  The Cathedral has become a closed system, and it no longer receives signal feedback from nature; it is at war with nature.

But in the end, my money is on nature.

Updates:

Helian Unbound on Derb & Demographics.

Aristotle, Darwin & HBD

After reading over Noah Millman’s hyperbolic piece on neoreaction, I noticed another post by him nominally about atheism but substantively about an evolutionary basis of morality. He writes:

Evolutionary psychology comes in to explain why some kind of morality is natural, since we can’t rely naively on an Aristotelean teleology which we now know has no empirical basis (but which, I cannot stress enough, Aristotle thought was scientific – I feel pretty confident that, were he alive today, Aristotle would be making precisely the same move). But much of the edifice of Aristotle’s ethics can be readily re-built on a Darwinian foundation. Now we have a theory of virtue and human flourishing, and an ethics to promote same within society. Between Aristotle and the neo-Darwinians, we’ve also probably got a Burkean bias towards existing institutions and arrangements and a preference for spontaneous order over imposed rules.

Minus Millman’s predilection for J.S. Mill, I have long thought along similar lines, and have in fact argued similar points (here, here, and here).  I’ve long thought that Aristotle (foremost a biologist) in his political and ethical writings was working along the same intuitions as a sociobiology ethicist would today, albeit with Aristotle’s more limited understanding of human science.

But there is a larger problem here. Call it the “Western blind spot”.  As automobiles have blind spots, so do biological Westerners, and this blind spot is “universalism,” the tendency to prescribe Western norms universally.  And this is the primary problem with evolutionary psychology today — the tendency to think evolution stopped from the neck down some 50,000 years ago and that all races are behaviorally and cognitively the same.  Anyone who has taken the time to look into human biodiversity, knows this simply isn’t and cannot be true.  Thus, it’s better to think of human natures (plural) and not human nature.  Call this the HBD caveat, which brings us back to Aristotle, who, in his Politics, essentially gives an HBD account of politics:  different ethnic groups are better suited for different forms of government.

Further reading:

Peter Frost: “Can evolutionary psychology evolve?,” “Whither evolutionary psychology?,” and “Human nature or human natures?”

Johan Bolhuis et al:  “Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology”

AWC: “Is Natural Law Anti-Nature?” and “The Ancient Greeks & Romans, Beauty and Human Biodiversity“

School Vouchers: A Trojan Horse to Destroy Private Schools

While I am sympathetic to some libertarian ideas, I find it interesting how most mainstream libertarians are completely untethered from reality. The cause of this is probably two-fold:  (1) libertarians are above average in intelligence, and (2) they are highly analytical.  As a result, they tend to take models that might work in certain circumstances and then abstractly prescribe them for all of humanity.  (This tendency toward universalism, by the way, isn’t just a libertarian problem; it’s a white problem.)  For libertarians in particular, the problem of taking abstract models and then blindly applying them to all of humanity, is that, for the most part, mainstream libertarians are completely ignorant of human biodiversity.  In short, their economic models lack essential data.

Case in point:  school vouchers. Vouchers are the educational panacea for most mainstream free-market libertarians.  Some libertarian think tanks have entire teams of people devoted to promoting school vouchers.  “School choice,” they say, “will end all our woes.”

The problem with school vouches?  Let’s see….

Most public schools across America have been completely devastated by hordes of unruly, low-IQ blacks and mestizos. The only refuge for many whites is either homeschooling or private schools.  Many have not the luxury for the former, so private schools are the only option.

Unfortunately, private schools today are unable by law to discriminate against students based on race.  (Interestingly, you don’t see libertarians today arguing for freedom of association for private organizations.)  Private schools, however,  can economically wall off the ghetto:  tuition.  Most blacks and mestizos cannot afford or do not want to pay private tuition.

Now, if you wanted to destroy the last vestiges of civility among primary education, what would be more efficient than smashing this economic wall?

Enter vouchers.  Vouchers in short:  We’ll give taxpayer money to violent, low-IQ blacks and mestizos so that they can go to private schools and destroy them too!

Only the most myopic fool – i.e. beltway libertarian – would support such an idea. Granted, mainstream libertarians’ motivation for vouchers is usually a result of hatred of teachers’ unions.  But talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Has a more short-sighted idea ever been put forward?  (Well, yes, it has — open borders — but I’ll leave that for another discussion.)

I doubt most free-market wonks have even thought of the long-term implications of school vouchers.  But the left has, which is why more leftists continue to come out in support of vouchers.  Leftists, 1; Libertarians, 0.

We should start a Bryan “Libertard” Caplan award for some of the most short-sighted libertarian ideas put forward.

Updates:

Even with school vouchers, one way Ashkenazis will get around the “diversity enrichment” is by having an esoteric ethno-religion.  The hordes will stampede to the upper-class white schools, not the Jewish day schools, which the hordes would find peculiar and uninviting.  There can be many advantages to having an ethno-religion in a multi-racial state.

Straussians, Catholics, & the War on the West

If case you missed it, Paul Gottfried has an interesting article up at VDare:

“Claes Ryn, Allan Bloom, Leo Strauss, And Me”

And here are couple follow-ups:

Race/History/Evolution Notes: “‘Alienated’ ethno-religious minorities preferring’inclusive’ anti-majority narratives”

Kevin MacDonald: “Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn on Leo Strauss”

I’ve always found it telling that American conservatives have gravitated toward Straussian thought (e.g. see popularity of the Closing of the American Mind), which is really just re-packaged extreme liberal universalism.  For instance, for Bloom, the #1 boogeyman is “historical relativism,” which translates as no ethnic identity for Westerners (although, of course, it’s allowed for Israelis), and unsurprisingly short-sighted American conservatives eat it up.  Strauss & Bloom retell Western history as a war of good (universalists) vs evil (historical particularists).  If you are a good conservative, the implication is, then you must submit yourself to the great matrix of universalism.  In short, Straussian thought is just another facet of the Cathedral.

Related:

“Catholic Church declares war on West”

“Israel and African Immigrants”

“Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

Legal Justice in Multi-Racial Societies

The concept of ‘justice’ is ancient.  First widely popularized by Plato and Aristotle, ‘justice’ has remained a common element in Western political and ethical thought.  And while blind justice might be largely attainable in racially homogenous societies of European-descended peoples, it might not be so in multi-racial states. People, esp. non-Europeans, by design, might be just too tribal. Perhaps the real implication of the Zimmerman trial / Trayvon Martin affair is that the quaint  and fragile notion of ‘justice’ is often unattainable in multi-racial states.

Related:

“Can Multi-Racial States Ever Function? Some Examples with Caveats.”

“Blacks on twitter threaten random violence.”

Updates:

Cooper Sterling: “A Tale of Two Trials: What the George Zimmerman and O.J. Simpson Verdicts Reveal About Racial Denial“