Art in Action

“What is beautiful to some people may appear to others to represent a problematic and pejorative system.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/takedown-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-art-action-manchester-art-gallery-sonia-boyce

This is, of course, just the first step. They’re testing the waters. I’d give it at least another five years before the “feminists” & their islamic brothers are ready to heap up the paintings of John William Waterhouse and burn them all, in their version of Savanarola’s bonfire of the vanities.

In the meantime, gaze upon the same artist’s Lady of Shalott, above, and marvel that such things were possible, once.

Advertisements

A Serious Question

I read with great interest, today, Vox Day’s post on “The anti-Churchian Alt-Right:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-anti-christian-alt-right.html

Please do read the whole thing.

I’m never quite sure what to make of VD. He insists that he’s a Christian, but he never seems to get very specific about it.

He doesn’t seem to accept the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any other living authority on what it means to be a Christian.

I tried to ask him for some details, today, but his blog has lately become very commenter-unfriendly. So here are my questions:

In your opinion, Vox Day, to be a Christian, which of the following propositions must one believe:

(1) God is pure act without potency.

(2) Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross.

(3) God and Jesus of Nazareth are one in substance.

The Boomer Cuckservative Interpretation of Western Civilization

The Boomer Cuckservative Interpretation of Western Civilization

I’m sure all of you have experienced it:  A boomer cuckservative lavishing praise on Western Civilization . . . only to to justify some policy (such as Third World immigration) that is actually harmful to the people who built Western Civilization.

Case in point:  A truly embarrassing American Conservative article by Bradley J. Birzer, “Bring on the Conservative Debate for Immigration,” wherein Brad basically argues that the entire telos of Western Civilization is toward open borders. Seriously.  I’m not making this up.

I had never heard of Brad Birzer before reading this article, but apparently he teaches at Hillsdale College. I asked some academic friends about him and the two responses were: “major cuckservative” and “not very bright.” Both are probably true.  Nonetheless, I’ll use his article to illustrate the cuckservative mindset and what’s wrong with it.

Brad Birzer’s article may well be one of the  most historically illiterate pieces I’ve ever read.  He writes:

In the gloriously pagan Odyssey, Odysseus survives, again and again, because the highest commandment of Zeus is to welcome the stranger and protect him with all that one has. To this day, one finds remnants of this tradition throughout the Mediterranean as the stranger is greeted with olive oil, bread, and, depending on the predominant religion of the region, wine. As staple crops of the ancient world, these signified not just acceptance but actual joy at the arrival of the stranger. The god of the hearth stood as patron of the sojourner.

 

The Athenians, during the tumultuous fifth century before Christ, prided themselves on allowing not just the stranger into their communities, but also their very enemies in.  After all, what did the Athenians have to hide? Why not expose the ignorant to truth? Let the oppressed see how a free people live.

 

During the vast, long expanse of the Middle Ages, the Germanic peoples not only thought of themselves as residents of their own little piece of Middle-earth (Midgard), but they also thought of themselves as citizens of what King Alfred the Great labeled Christendom, the Christiana res publica, as well as believing themselves sojourners en route to the City of God. What Christian could allow—in good conscience—the accidents of birth such as gender or skin tone in this Veil [sic] of Tears to trump the possibilities of eternal salvation in the next?  Neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female. . . .

This puerile diatribe is just flat-out wrong on so many accounts.

First, the language he uses, such as “welcoming the stranger” and “sojourner,” is right out of  cuckstianity. Brad, I’m told, is a big “Cathocuck” and virtue signals non-stop like an SJW.  The fact that he uses these phrases shows he’s more interested in current liberation theology than in traditional Western thought.

Brad’s reading of the Odyssey is ridiculous. The Greeks valued xenia (hospitality), but it had limits. The Odyssey is, in fact, a reflection on these limits. Throughout the Odyssey, there is either too little hospitality (e.g. the cyclops, sirens, etc.) or too much hospitality (e.g. Calypso, Penelope and the suitors, etc.).  Odysseus tries to steer between these two extremes and find a mean.    Interestingly, the poem does not end on the note of “welcoming the stranger.”  Odysseus, in fact, murders all the suitors that invaded his island. (I suspect if Brad Birzer were Odysseus, he would have asked the suitors to stay and would have raised the kids they would have with his wife.)

In short, the Odyssey is not a screed arguing for unmitigated hospitality or open borders.  Only an extreme ideologue would read it this way, which makes me wonder whether Brad read the poem at all; if he did, he seems to have failed to understand it.

The Ancient Greeks were not SJWs, as Brad makes them out to be. They referred to foreigners as “barbarians” and in many Greek city-states, it was nearly impossible for foreigners ever to obtain citizenship. (In some city-states, in order to be a citizen, one had to prove citizenship on both the paternal and maternal lines back for two generations.)  Furthermore, there was an ethno-religious component to city-states.  Ancient paganism was a blood (not a creedal) religion and citizens saw themselves bound by blood to each other, to the gods, and to the state.  Aristotle, in the Politics, notes city-states being of the “same blood” and at one point defines city-states as “blood connections of families, brotherhoods, and common sacrifices.” Aristotle goes on to say:  “A state cannot be constituted from any chance body of persons, or in any chance period of time. Most of the states which have admitted persons of another stock, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by sedition.”

Even the Romans did not grant mass citizenship to foreigners until the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD.  By that time, Rome was already in decline and this edict hastened that decline, as later is demonstrated when Rome’s foreign, mercenary armies begin to loot the empire from within. The British historian Peter Heather argues that mass immigration was what finally brought down the Roman Empire.

Things get worse when Brad moves to the Magna Carta.

Nothing in Christendom better represented the ideals of the free movement of peoples than did the Great Charter of 1215, forced upon King John at Runnymede.  Though points 1 and 63 of the Magna Carta demanded freedom of the Church from political interference, points 41 and 42 reveal how fundamental the movement of peoples is to the sanctity of the common law.

  1. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.
  2. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

If we accept the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents in the history of western civilization, we Americans cannot afford to ignore it, its intent, or its specifics.  Common law demanded that a people—and the person—move freely, border or not. Even in time of war, the enemy must be treated with dignity.

Obviously, points 41 and 42 are referencing travelers and merchants selling goods—not immigrating seeking to become new subjects. Indeed, it’s ahistorical (not to mention childish) to conflate, on the one hand, subjects and citizens and travelers with immigrants. Moreover, the notion that the Magna Carta is a template for multi-racial inclusiveness and open borders is truly bizarre, when just 75 years later King Edward I issued the Edict of Expulsion (1290), deporting all the Jews from England.

Brad’s invoking of U.S. history amounts to cherry picking at best.

When it comes to the specifically American tradition of immigration and the free movements of peoples, the issue becomes more complicated.

 

Imagine for a moment that the great waves of immigration never came to America.  In the colonial period, among those who freely chose to cross the Atlantic, you would have to dismiss the Anglicans to Virginia, the Puritans to New England, the Quakers to Pennsylvania, and the Scotch-Irish. Of the unfree peoples, you would have to take out all of those of African origin. In the 1840s, remove the Germans, the Scandinavians, and the Irish.  In the 1880s through the 1910s, remove all Greeks, Poles, Jews, Italians. . . .

 

Yes, the native American Indian population would be justly celebrating, but, overall, and, from any relatively objective view, there would be no America.

 

Between 1801 and 1924—with the critical exception of the Chinese and the Japanese—no peoples were barred from entry into the United States.  Congress forbade further Chinese immigration in 1882, and a gentleman’s agreement ended Japanese immigration in 1905. Otherwise, until 1921 and 1924, any person of any continent, of any religion, of either gender, of any skin color, or any other accident of birth could enter the United States and take up residency the very day of arrival.  Only those with known criminal records or those suffering from tuberculosis were turned away.

 

Unless you are a full-blooded American Indian (less than one percent of the present United States population), you, American reader, would not be here without some ancestor having immigrated—freely or by force—to the United States. And possibly from what one might crassly dismiss as a “sh-hole country.”

 

Brad fails to mention the the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to white people of good character.  He also fails to mention how the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited immigration to Europeans and lasted until 1965, actually created a tight labor market and, as many economic historians have argued, created the largest middle class in American history.  (I suppose Brad sides with the open-borders, cheap-labor corporations that want loose labor markets to drive down wages.)

And, of course, Brad makes recourse to religion:

As Christians around the world celebrated the arrival of the Three Kings—the Magi of the Orient—on Epiphany, the president of the United States called for $33 billion to shore up America’s borders with $18 billion for the wall.

 

Would the Magi have been admitted in 2018? “Excuse me, Balthasar, but I need to see that your papers are in order.  Oh, I’m sorry, but your gift of myrrh exceeds our 3.2 ounces of liquid allowed.”

 

Perhaps, President Trump simply chose his timing poorly, but it would be impossible for the Christian to miss the irony.

Brad’s use of Christianity is largely through the lens of contemporary SJW Cuckstianity where Christianity is to be a suicide cult for white people. Historically, Christianity was not always a suicide cult.  Christian nations policed their borders and repelled invaders. Even Thomas Aquinas says people have greater obligations to compatriots and blood relatives than to foreigners.  If Brad were alive at the time of Charles Martel, Brad would have tried to convince Martel to “welcome the stranger” (and then Martel would have bitch-slapped him).

Brad keeps referring to “skin color” or “skin tone” as if race is only about skin color, when in reality race is 100,000 years of evolution and encompasses many behavioral traits.  Brad really needs to read up on human biodiversity, about which I suspect he’s completely ignorant.

In conclusion, Brad has no idea what he’s talking about.  Either he’s a fool or liar, or both.

Mind you, most of my criticisms here are merely academic and show how ridiculous Brad’s historical claims are.  Even if the West were truly open-borders in the past, it would not justify open borders now, as the scale of immigration now is so much greater than in the past and most of the immigration now is from the Third World.  As a recent study in the UK showed, “More people came to the UK in 2013 than from 1066 to 1960.”  The “movement of peoples” is unprecedented.

As an aside, Brad has written a book on Russell Kirk, whom many credit as being the grandfather of American conservatism.  Interestingly, Kirk defended racial segregation in the South, apartheid in South Africa, and at the end of his life became an immigration restrictionist.  Kirk also quipped that Jewish neoconservatives “mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”  Brad, of course, hates all of this, and wishes to cuck-wash conservatism, which is funny considering that conservatism has already run its failed course and is a dying ideology. Let’s hope something like archeo-futurism or identitarianism replaces it. Soon.

BradleyJBirzer

Updates:

This has also been posted at AltRight.Com.

Oz Conservative has an excellent response to Birzer with his piece “Open borders & individual dignity

Read Ricardo Duchesne’s “The Greek-Roman Invention of Civic Identity Versus the Current Demotion of European Ethnicity.”

The Left wants to use Christianity to police the Alt-Right

The Left wants to use Christianity to police the Alt-Right

Left-wing, Jewish journalist Peter Beinart has a telling piece up at The Atlantic, “Breaking Faith: The culture war over religious morality has faded; in its place is something much worse,” about how the decline of Christianity has lead to an increase in racial identity, especially among many younger whites affiliated with the alt-right.  He writes:

“Secularism is indeed correlated with greater tolerance of gay marriage and pot legalization. But it’s also making America’s partisan clashes more brutal. And it has contributed to the rise of both Donald Trump and the so-called alt-right movement, whose members see themselves as proponents of white nationalism. As Americans have left organized religion, they haven’t stopped viewing politics as a struggle between “us” and “them.” Many have come to define us and them in even more primal and irreconcilable ways.”

As if there is something wrong with whites supporting and promoting their own interests.  Beinart then discusses Richard Spencer, Milo, and how secularization has lead to an increase in racial identity among both younger blacks and whites.  He concludes:

“Maybe it’s the values of hierarchy, authority, and tradition that churches instill. Maybe religion builds habits and networks that help people better weather national traumas, and thus retain their faith that the system works. For whatever reason, secularization isn’t easing political conflict. It’s making American politics even more convulsive and zero-sum.

For years, political commentators dreamed that the culture war over religious morality that began in the 1960s and ’70s would fade. It has. And the more secular, more ferociously national and racial culture war that has followed is worse.”

Beinart is basically correct but there is more to this story.  The two most basic forms of identity are racial / ethnic identity and religious identity.  When the two intersect and form an ethno-religion, which is basically what Judaism is, the religion of Beinart’s co-ethnics, one probably has the strongest identity possible.  (Most early pagan religions were also racial ethno-religions, and arguably some forms of Christianity are too.)

The problem, however, is that Beinart can’t just wave his magic wand and resurrect Christianity to police white people — as much as he may wish it.  The irony is that mainstream Christianity today is on a universalist trajectory that would repel the very people that Beinart wants to police.  As I noted in a previous post, “Is Contemporary Christianity a Suicide Cult?,” contemporary Christianity is becoming more and more effeminate and seems to repulse more manly men.  For example, regarding the recent controversy to expel open-borders Russell Moore from his leadership of the ERLC, just take a look on Twitter at some of Moore’s most ardent defenders:  Nearly all of them literal cuckolds or Christian SJWs.

In short, Beinart fails to recognize that Christianity had a greater hold on young white men when it was in fact more like the alt-right, when it wasn’t as extremely universalistic as it is today and didn’t eschew racial identity for whites.

 

Updates:

Cross-posted at AltRight.com.

The Horror of Rotherham

Wow.  Just wow.  The depravity of this is truly unbelievable.  Over 1,400 young white girls were tortured and sexually molested by Pakistanti gangs for years and no one lifted a finger to stop it because they were afraid they would be called “racist”. In other words, it’s better to have your white children raped and tortured by brown curry pimps than it is to be a “racist”.

I think it’s time we retire the word “racist” from our usage right now.  This insidious, Marxist term has already done too much damage.   And while we’re retiring things, let’s retire these Rotherham officials and put them in prison.  In fact, a major purge of sorts is long overdue throughout the West.

As we reach the 11th hour of the West, we need to ask some serious questions. Like, isn’t it high time for a moratorium on all Third World immigration into the West?   Do white people have the right to exist?   And if so, how?  Shouldn’t whites have racially exclusive homelands to raise their families, just as all other races have including Ashkenazis?

Some must reads:

Kevin MacDonald:  “The Rotherham Pathology

Heartiste:  “The Rotherham Evil

HBD Chick:  “Stop creating a climate of fear!

Statistics on crime and race.

Roger Scruton: “Taking Revenge on Traditional Britain

Polls:

Updates:

Coming…

 

 

BwC9r6BCQAArThk.jpg_large

 

Cthulhu and the White worldview

Moldbug famously (at least in some quarters) once wrote that Cthulhu only swims left.  Having myself recently re-read H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Call of Cthulhu,” I’ve been thinking about what Cthulhu means.

One interesting facet of Lovecraft’s story is how HBD-friendly it is; in fact, “The Call of Cthulhu” could be called “HBD literature,” if such a genre exists.  In the story, you find ancient gods (extraterrestrials), which are adamantly worshiped by non-whites, especially blacks, mulattoes, and mestizos.  These gods are primordial.   Whites, however, seem to have more difficult time intuiting these gods and when they do, they often die.  Professor George Gammell Angell, the Norwegian sailor, and the narrator (it’s implied) all die after coming into some form of contact with Cthulhu.  It reminds me of a passage from Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct where someone states that Westerners (European-descended people) now seem psychologically incapable of the collective ecstasy of primitive religion.

Sam Francis writes:

Lovecraft’s stories are dramas of modernity in which the forces of tradition and order in society and in the universe are confronted by modernity itself—in the form of the shapeless beings known (ironically) as the “Old Ones.” In fact, they are the “New Ones.” …The conflicts in the stories are typically between some representative of traditional order (the New England old stock protagonist) on the one hand, and the “hordes” of Mongoloids, Levantines, Negroes, Caribbeans, and Asians that gibber and prance in worship of the Old Ones and invoke their dark, destructive, and invincible powers.

The irony of the Old Ones is that evidence of them is often in plain sight, but whites simply cannot see them, when when whites do, it’s often through reason (such as the professor and narrator) and not through spiritual intuition.  Most whites, however, will probably never see Cthulhu; they are incapable.

Cthulhu in this sense is like HBD.  It’s right there in front of your eyes, but most whites are incapable of seeing it.  Outbred Northwest Europeans project their own psychological worldview onto the world and non-whites – for whites, it’s all blank-slate deracinated universalism.  For whites, everyone is white. (And even some non-whites strive to be be white.)  Whites can’t hear Cthulhu.

One of the wisest things ever said about HBD was actually once said to be my a black man to the effect (paraphrase): “Whites are fighting other whites about HBD.  Deep down, most blacks probably know HBD is true, even though whites tell them it is not.”

So if Cthulhu only swims left, it’s because whites allow him to do so by unknowingly ignoring his very existence instead of harnasing his primordial power.  To acknowledge Cthulhu is the ultimate red pill.  Although Lovecraft had most whites die when coming into contact with Cthulhu, this is not true of HBD.  In this case, it’s probably a sine qua non for survival.  Maybe the rise of multi-racial states will hasten Cthulhu’s return.

Cthulhu

Cthulhu