Affirming the Malevolent Feminine

It is exhausted and trampled ground to go on an endless feminist tirade against Abrahamic religion, in all its patriarchal severity, either due to a supposed fear of the feminine feral or out of regulating economic function. This usually leads to a sentimentalist weeping praise of a ‘matriarchal pagan past’ which likely never existed, and if it did, certainly not as it is often depicted through ‘New Age’ or ‘environmentalist’ lens.

In pop trend manifestation, we see the vain ‘girl power’ notion throughout instagram, music artists, parrot politicians, and box office slop. It is a neverending flood of vapid articles touting the latest ‘social justice’ trend from MeToo to I’mWithHer. At times it is sincere, other times it is simply another corporation making easy money off the latest groupthink activism.

Despite the tired tirade against patriarchy’s ‘infantilization’ of women, rendering them either damsels in distress or property or overall childlike, we see much of this same infantilization by secular progressivism itself. It would be banal of me to point out the perpetual victimhood which is lauded in identity politics, as if vicimhood were a virtue in itself. This has become such a baked-in element, regardless of how disempowering and feeble it is, that it ceases to even be worth pointing out.

What is at the heart of these trends is the attempt to be seen as ’empowered and equal’, when in reality it is simply more infantilization that happens to be draped in bossy aesthetic and pseudo-autonomy instead.

With the partially valid, partially hysterical sensationalism of MeToo-like trends, there comes the terribly false depiction of women once again being the ‘forever innocent’ that is at the mercy of ‘brutal male whims’. This is a childlike and naive conception of reality, present or historical, that completely undermines any attempt at ‘female autonomy’.

In this lies the imbalance which impoverishes the whole ’cause’, whether one calls it ‘feminism’ or simply discussing the ‘feminine’, one cannot accomplish this gravitas so desired if there is a complete denial of the malevolant of which women are fully capable of, just as much as men and just as often.

Generally speaking, women may express vices and cruelty and inflict suffering in very different ways than males do. The ‘how’ of the expression differs, and it can be argued that is due to nurture or nature or both. Nonethless women are human and as such they are entirely capable of inflicting suffering just as much as men. At first glance this sounds common sensical, and yet if we observe current social trends that is not what we see in the upheld narrative. In fact, it is as if women are incapable of acknowledging this about themselves and about other women in the public square. And if they do, they are usually condemned for loathing their own gender or victim shaming or whatever condemnation is most convenient. And worse yet if a man dare say this, that is also immediate condemnation from ‘male allies’ and women alike.

There is such a lack of self-awareness that the narrative cannot comprehend this is still infantilization. The condemnation is so prevalent that if one dares acknowledge that women are capable of and just as inclined at expressing the absolute worst aspects of our nature it is as if we have said an innocent child is capable of committing cruelty and evil.

Furthermore there seems to be an obliviousness as to how utterly degrading and insulting this is to women, to the feminine, to femaleness itself, by women and men alike who share this ‘can inflict no suffering’ naivety. It is a denial, a castration, a declawing and defanging of the female and feminine. Human nature is capable of a spectrum, from the most saintly kindness to the most hideously cruel. It is naive folly to only accept or affirm the ‘prettier’ aspects of that spectrum and to deny or tyranically reject the ‘uglier’ aspects of that spectrum.

The whole must be affirmed.

This does not mean one is to aspire toward vice or cruelty. This does mean there is a crippling impoverishment if one does not affirm, whether on the individual or species level, that there is an unrestricted capability of being downright bestial. It does not require melodramatic jumps to grandiose examples, rather it is exemplified by events we likely see in our everyday lives. From manipulation to family court cases to family infighting to selfish mothers to drug abuse to petty seduction…the list goes on and on.

And yet despite this, a factual reality much of us have all came in contact with or experienced first hand, we cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge or address it. Again the trending narrative is that the female is ‘forever innocent’, much like a child, while simultaneously pretending to be the ‘powerful autonomous woman’. One cannot simultaneously support both without being completely at conflict.

Such is the state of present day ‘feminism’ or social discourse concerning women in general, it seems incapable or unwilling to examine itself in its entirety, and much less affirm the whole. Until it can do this, any propaganda attempt at ‘female empowerment’ is going to be nothing more than the latest music video or Cosmo magazine. That is, a vain and superficial facade that means nothing.

Advertisement

The Nazi Witch Hunt: When Hysteria Destroys Civil Discourse

“Let’s throw her in the lake, if she floats she is a witch. If she doesn’t float, she is not a witch!”

Yes, well, she is dead either way no? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Such is our current political climate among the left; a total irrational hysteria that is doing far more harm than good. And in the act of hysterical witch hunting, they fuel the very thing they oppose and further drive people to the right.

And as Nietzsche said, “Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”

1) The first bullshit excuse is usually this, “I do not debate with fascists. I will not normalize them.” The one who forfeits is the one who loses. That is, how can you triumph over an opposing ideology if you do not even have the spine nor calm demeanor to debate and discuss it? This kind of fearful and cowardly pseudo ‘moral high ground’ is little more than that, a cowardly act. If one is an advocate of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of civil discourse, then this should include even the most uncomfortable and taboo of topics. Being uncomfortable with an ideology or topic is fine, it is human, but one must have the emotional and mental maturity to stoically discuss it and confront it nonetheless. Running to the pseudo ‘high ground’ is not victory, it is not martyrdom, it is hiding under the blanket and hoping the opposition goes away. This trend of ‘moral self-righteousness’ is akin to the brown nose in Sunday School that tattles on his peer because he said a ‘bad word’. Has discourse truly regressed to that of children pretending to be the ‘goody two shoes’ and cannot be adult enough to debate and discuss ideologies one disagrees with or finds unethical? This results in ‘echo chambers’, or what the media has dubbed ‘political bubbles’. There is a figure of speech that says, “You are preaching to the choir.” That seems to be what the general left, be it libertarian left or progressives or liberals, seem to desire most. Run away from the opposing camp, shout ‘bigot’, smugly pretend to be morally superior, and preach to their own choir as they pat one another on the back.

This is not discourse. This is using the internet to form ‘echo chambers’ and rationalize cowardliness in the guise of ‘moral superiority’.

2) The second hysterical response is to call anyone and everyone one opposes a ‘nazi/fascist,/white nationalist/white supremacist, etc’ To use an example, whether one likes Milo Yiannopoulos or hates him, it is positively inaccurate and asinine to call a gay man of Jewish descent who has sexual relations with black men only a ‘white supremacist’ or ‘fascist’. It is further ignorance to say he is ‘entryism’ into such ‘boogyman’ ideologies. Personally I am in a same-sex relationship, and my partner and I have been called ‘nazi’, ‘fascist’, and ‘white supremacist’ more times than I can count. Neither of us are, but we are on the populist right, and to the hysterical and irrational this makes one a brownshirt. Where is the line for the hysterical accusations? Must you throw anyone into the lake to see if they float?

Recently Samantha Bee accused a random stranger of being a ‘Nazi’ because he had a ‘fascist haircut’, when in fact the individual was not a Nazi and actually had cancer. This shows how absolutely stupid and reckless the left has gotten with these senseless accusations. They have absolutely bankrupted the meaning of words by using them so flippantly and cheaply. Calling anyone ‘sexist/homophobe/transphobe/Nazi/fascist, etc.’ over the mildest things cheapens the very definition and meaning of the words. Do bigots and extremists exist? Yes they do, but when 90% of the accusations of these things are inaccurate, used cheaply, then people cease to care that they are accused of it. A decade ago I would have been disturbed to be called such a thing, but now it is used so often and so comically, people respond with a shrug. People simply stop caring that they are accused of these derogatory words when they are used like childish name-calling. They realize they are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, so they simply become desensitized to the accusations altogether.

When one bankrupts the meaning of a word by using it incessantly, over the slightest, and usually inaccurately, people just cease to care. If you ‘cry wolf’ enough times, people stop listening. And if you go on a witch hunt enough, people begin to sympathize with supposed witches that are victims of the mass hysteria. The mass hysteria of endless asinine accusations only fuels what they oppose and only drives people toward the right due to the alienation. Perhaps this leftist mass hysteria is okay with this, perhaps they are that extreme that they want to drive away anyone who is not as ‘pure’ as they. That is fine and well, but do not cry over the results of your own irrational behavior.

3) The third point is the ‘Streisand Effect’, anytime something is censored or banned or condemned, this only drives people’s curiosity to find out what it is and spread it even. Recently news articles have featured ‘horrible fascist books that Steve Bannon reads!’, and in return the sales of that book skyrocket. Anytime one attempts to censor or condemn, rather than discuss and neutralize, it drives people to find out what it is. This religious and puritanical condemnation of anything ‘goes against PC sentimentality’ only drives people to that thing that is being condemned. Those driven to it may embrace it or may not, but they will search it out. Again, the hysterical left fuels what it opposes due to its Inquisition-like behavior. One can look to the hysterical religious right of yesterday, in their condemnation of Elvis or rock’n’roll or metal music or piercings. What they condemned, it only drove people to it, particularly young people. As Jim Goad observed, how sad it is that the liberal left is now the New Church Ladies. Again, perhaps they are fine with this pseudo-moral superiority, but do not be angry when the results turn against you.

4) The fourth point is academic and in value of the intellect: always study and engage with what you oppose.  Never restrict your studying to ideologies you agree with. Always expand your mind and engage with those you disagree with. Do whatever you can to destroy your own ‘bubble’ or ‘echo chamber’. This can be difficult at times, but it is entirely worth it. Search out and study what society considers ‘taboo’, search out and study what the masses condemn. Not that one may embrace it, though they may, but so one can understand and know it. Aristotle once said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Has our discourse decayed so much that we are incapable of doing this? When I was younger, rebellious, I hated Christianity with an undying passion. Then when I matured I studied Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, discussed it with people of those religions, and while I did not convert, I learned so much and am glad I did this. I did the same with Islam, which is something I still oppose, but also now respect because I have studied and comprehended how powerful it is and can be.

Do NOT make a ‘boogyman’ out of any ideology or subculture of people. This is the mark of a weak and fragile mind. Engage with them, discuss, debate, read the material, learn, understand. This doesn’t mean one will accept it or adopt it, it simply means one is capable of civilly exploring and discussing any subject, regardless of the mass hysteria regarding it. This is the primary point. Do not run away like a coward, do not hide under the blankets and claim to be ‘morally superior’, do not shout ‘fascist’ like a child and run to the Sunday School teacher in sanctimonious timidity. No. Engage, debate, discuss, learn.

That is the essence of civil discourse, and absolutely no subject nor ideology should be off limits.

America First, or Not: The Populist Right and Populist Left

Last year I wrote an article regarding an ‘anti-establishment tomorrow’, and how the campaign season theme was the populist right under Trump and the populist left under Sanders. As we know, Sanders was thrown under the bus along with his supporters, and the establishment supported Clinton came out leading. With her failure in the primaries, the multiple protests since then against Trump, the left is fragmented, and the loudest among them are again the populist left.

These two remaining elements are still the most prominent in the current political climate, the populist right and the populist left. While both are forms of populism, they are quite different in nature. In the following I intend to compare and contrast, and conclude why the right is the preferred and most practical of the two.

THE POPULIST RIGHT

The populist right which rejected the GOP establishment, nominated Trump, and ultimately led to his victory is a populism that desires a government that values the everyday citizen over corporate interest and political establishment, that values the American citizen over the foreign individual, that values the interest of Americans over the interest in foreign interventionism, and that values native tradition and familiarity over multicultural experimentation. Comical exaggerations and violent responses based on these exaggerations has produces numerous articles warning of ‘fascism’, of ‘nazism’, and violent rioters who would rather respond with unproductive aggression in the name of ‘fighting fascism’ than engage in civil discourse. It is true that throughout modern history there have been instances of nationalist populism leading to far right and totalitarian regimes. There have been times when nationalism reached the point of rabid jingoism, both in the West and the East. As an excessive and extreme response to this, many have developed an irrational allergy to any form of nationalism. I will elaborate on this irrational allergy later, but I am acknowledging these historical incidences now to state that it is asinine and self-defeating to treat any and all forms of right populism or nationalism as being indicative of the most extreme historical examples. Needless to say, as the populist right has gained tremendous momentum, many have not developed this sickly allergy.

The populist right proudly declares ‘America First’, aside from the historical origin of the phrase which some have inaccurately and ignorantly decried as antisemitic, the phrase itself embodies everything there is to know about the populist right positions.

Differentiation is the essence of appreciation and value. The populist right values the American citizen above the illegal resident, for the latter is indeed illegally residing in the US and has outright intruded into a nation of which it has no permission to be in. To place the illegal resident as equal to a legal citizen, or to not acknowledge a difference between the two at all, is to demonstrate having little to no value of personal citizenship in ones nation. The populist right values citizenship, is grateful and proud to be a citizen of their nation, therefore acknowledges the difference between one who is a legal citizen and one who has illegally intruded. Therefore they see the need to enforce immigration law and border security, for a border, that which expresses differentiation, is a differentiation that the populist right fully acknowledges and cherishes.

Similar is reflected regarding refugees or legal immigration policy. The majority of populist right in the US are civic nationalists, with a minority being ethnonationalist, for the sake of accuracy to this I am arguing from the point of civic nationalism. Many Americans support legal immigration, and will acknowledge how difficult and costly the process is. Many will support an arduous process, for acquiring citizenship into a nation should not be a simple and flippant process. Aside from vetting, to screen out criminal or undesirable elements, the process should be difficult akin to taking a high level university course should also be difficult, as to separate the devoted and qualified from the not so. A sovereign nation has every right to allow or not allow any individual or group of individuals from entering their country. This is a basic inherent function of a state, the ability to discriminate regarding who may or may not enter. The populist right, in cherishing their nation and the quality thereof, fully supports prudent discernment concerning who may enter. Much as one desires a clean water source and filters water before consuming it, a nation should be prudent and wise concerning who may enter and become a citizen. A non-citizen has no right to enter a country of which he or she is not a citizen of.

Regarding refugees, a nation does not have an obligation to accept refugees and has the prerogative to aid or refuse aid.  While some nations, including the US, did sign onto the 1951 Refugee Convention which agrees to take in at least a small portion of refugees, honoring that treaty or to what extent it can be applied is an argument for a separate occasion. The populist right is varied regarding taking in refugees, or what refugees should be taken in. Many feel it is a Christian duty to take in the destitute, many feel it is a duty bred into the fabric of America to take in the unfortunate. I believe, generally speaking, it is up to the state and the people to decide who they take in or aide on a case-by-case basis. Duty, whether religious or national, must always comes before humanitarian notions. National interest must always comes before humanitarian notions. Whether a nation has a duty to accept or aide depends on the situation at hand.

The populist right does not desire needless military or political intervention in foreign matters that is not a direct interest or impact on the people. The general right displays their dissatisfaction with the GOP’s neoconservative status quo by nominating Trump. The populist right is sick of meddling in middle-eastern affairs, having it return to us in the form of terrorist attacks, and the citizen’s everyday problems such as unemployment or infrastructure goes neglected as wars are waged in foreign regions. The populist right is not isolationist, though a minority of them may hold that position. Rather they believe foreign policy should be realist, should be based upon direct national interest or an imminent threat to national security, and prudence should be practiced regarding any intervention. The populist right cherishes its military, and holds a deep seated reverence to those who serve their nation in military duty and action. A soldier’s life is the life of our son, daughter, father, cousin, church member, and must not be lightly thrown into battle. Lives lost in military service are never lives wasted, even if the foreign policy is wrong headed, and this is all the more reason why foreign policy must be prudent. The interventionism, and supposed ‘spreading of democracy’ by neoconservative policy makers is not the politics of the populist right. The same goes for Democratic establishment such as Hillary Clinton who was just as flippant regarding lost lives, interventionism, and a warmongering inclination as displayed in her relations to Russia. The populist right holds no devotion to the establishment, right nor left, if said establishment does not hold the interest of the people as the highest interest.

The nationalism so decried by the left, so demonized as being jackboots and hatred, is little more than a people that loves its nation, loves their loved ones, and demands that the nation put its own first and foremost above all matters. That is the essence of the populist right. Regarding social issues, ranging from LGBT to drug use to incarceration rate, one may be surprised to find that the populist right are far more libertarian inclined than the religious right of yesterday. Although the religious right is still a force today, it arguably has less power than it once did, and it is profoundly telling that the nonreligious Trump was elected. Possibly the least religious and most socially liberal Republican to ever be elected president by the political right. Indeed, what we are seeing today, what I dub the ‘populist right’ is a very different species from the ones who elected George W Bush or supported Romney. One could confidently say the populist right today is the paleoconservatism of yesterday, with general libertarian inclinations regarding social matters.

More could be said about the populist right, but I would like to turn my attention to the populist left, and while I may disagree with them wholly, I will attempt to survey it in a fair and neutral manner.

THE POPULIST LEFT

True to the populist term, the populist left has no devotion to the establishment, particularly an establishment that forsakes the people to corporate interest and unnecessary war. Many consider Bernie Sander as the ultimate populist left figure, being completely against Wall Street interest and endless war in the Middle-East. Although due to his support of Hillary Clinton, to a dogged degree, many on the populist left have lost faith in this ‘hero of the people’. Similar can be said of Jill Stein, though she is more divisive of the populist left as she gives credence to anti-vaccine theories and other less than credible fringe positions on science and technology. As it stands, the populist left is without a leader, but that has no dampened their spirit or silenced their voice. Be it through protests, activism, and general outrage. The populist left have made it clear the future of the Democratic Party, of the overall left, must be populist in nature. This is one of many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, and why there is great resentment among the left toward the Democratic establishment which they justly feel cost them the election.

The populist right revolves around the particular, and in contrast the populist left revolves around the universal. The populist left, and left in general, minimizes or outright dismisses the differentiation between legal and illegal resident. The humanitarian detail, or the fact the illegal resident is a human in need or suffering, is put above the legality of their residency. Furthermore, the economic detail is put above legality or national identity. Indeed, the most common policies the populist left argues for concerning illegal residents is immigration reform and amnesty. There is also a minority who calls for open borders, or porous borders. The need of the human, citizen and non-citizen, is put above the fact that they are here illegally. The economic benefit, though there are some costs to American citizens, is put above any sense of national identity or national sovereignty. The universal, that is humanity, is put above the particular, that is the American citizen. In other words, what drastically contrasts the populist left from the populist right is the populist left considers itself post-national, either overtly or softly. The populist left considers itself a ‘citizen of the world and of humanity’ first and foremost, and only below this is it a citizen of the US. In the same vein, national and international economy is considered far more important than national identity or sovereignty. As the world economy could safely be considered ‘without borders’, as leftist morality tends to be utilitarian, so too does it see quantified prosperity and elementary well-being to undifferentiated humanity to be the highest good possible.

Following the same reasoning, the populist left see no differentiation or very little differentiation between themselves and non-citizens. Therefore they see no problem with putting a non-citizen’s needs above a citizen’s needs. If the US is a ship, the unfortunates in the world are those adrift at sea, and the populist left sees it as humanitarian duty to take in as many of these unfortunates as possible. Be it illegal residents coming in, or refugees, the populist left desire any and all to board the ship. Whether there be mild vetting, no vetting, or a variation thereof, this is considered a footnote detail. According to the left, the US is a well-to-do ship and it is our responsibility to take any and all unfortunate aboard. Whether it be out of messianic sentiment, first world guilt or racial guilt, humanitarianism, or strictly a claim of non-zero-sum economic gain; while the reasoning or intention varies, the ‘welcome all’ position remains the same. Refugees, like illegal residents, are to be embraced. Differentiation between the citizen and the non-citizen is to be minimized or dismissed.

The populist left fully endorses a welfare state and a state which actively polices and educates on matters of social justice. The populist left endorses what could be dubbed a ‘therapeutic state’; rather than the socially downtrodden being those of lesser socio-economic class, the downtrodden are also those who are ‘socially maligned and oppressed’. The role of the state is not simply a welfare state, from healthcare to social services, but should also play the role of social justice arbiter on cultural matters. This is the result of the shift from class politics to identity politics. The state is not only a provider of financial security, but also the role of a school councilor or therapist in social matters. The populist right varies on the spectrum of negative liberty to positive liberty, but is primarily inclined to negative liberty, and that cultural matters should be left to the people and states.

One common ground where the populist left and populist right may agree upon is non-interventionist temperament. Both are exhausted from the vain wars in the Middle-East, from the backlash of meddling in others affairs and bombing foreign regions, and the people’s needs being neglected by the establishment all the while costly bloody intervention and corporate welfare is attended to. It must be said though that while the populist left is indeed exhausted by this, their penchant for humanitarianism is an all-too-ready opportunity for interventionism, as neoconservative and neoliberal administrations have proven. The optimism for ‘spreading democracy’, again a humanitarian sentiment, is an easy opportunity for militant intervention and political meddling that we have paid the price for dearly.

It is no mystery now why the phrase ‘America First’ does not resonate with the populist left. Perhaps a phrase that would better resonate with them is ‘Humanity First’. For the left, the universal will always be put first above the particular. And though the populist left and populist right both share the ‘populist’ foundation, that is that the people should come first before corporate welfare and interventionism, with no devotion to establishment official that does otherwise, they are in stark opposition in many others matters.

CONCLUSION

With this brief survey of both presented, I will conclude as to why the populist right is the stronger and preferred of the two. James Burnham once said, “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.” With those who advocate for open or porous borders, for mass immigration, for unchecked illegal residents pouring in, for a state which dictates what the conscience should dictate, for the preference of an undifferentiated humanity over individuated peoples, it is not a far cry to draw his conclusion. Differentiation produces quality and the particular. Non-differentiation, or willing dissolution, is indeed the suicide of a nation or people or culture. Each nation that is sovereign must put its own first, strengthen and affirms its own existence, and must not yield to disintegrative or dissolving forces. As does an individual must affirm his own existence and individuate, so too must a nation and people.

Dissolution, the opposite of individuation, is to render itself an undefined mass, that which is without form or identity. Under the facade of humanitarianism, a moral siren song that prizes itself as the moral good, it advocates policies that would indeed lead to a ‘Western suicide’, better put, the dissolution of a civilization. It is the will-to-suicide which drives a people to cease to differentiate between the citizen and the non-citizen, to renounce national identity, to condemn the aspiration to strength and affirmation, to desire the end of borders, to embrace all, to put the alien above the familiar, to put others above ones own, to slavishly villainize ones history, to ultimately and in the long run put a final end to the particular for the sake of the universal.

Each nation must put its own first and foremost, must affirm the particular above the universal, must individuate and affirm itself, must aspire and praise strength, and as each nation practices this so does each become rich in identity and being. This does not reject alliances or interdependence, but praises each nation aspiring to its best without the slightest guilt nor self-deprecation. A people which loves their nation, which loves their culture, which loves one another, will have no qualms aspiring to cultural excellence and national individuation.

SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX.

The Return to Political Polytheism and Realpolitik

“The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.”
Joseph de Maistre

 “The political entity presupposes the real existence of an enemy and therefore coexistence with another political entity. As long as a state exists, there will thus always be in the world more than just one state. A world state which embraces the entire globe and all of humanity cannot exist. The political world is a pluriverse, not a universe. In this sense every theory of state is pluralistic. The political entity cannot by its very nature be universal in the sense of embracing all of humanity and the entire world.”
Carl Schmitt

From Political Monotheism to Political Polytheism

The EU, the UN, NATO, notions of humanitarianism, universal human rights, cosmopolitanism…these are concepts constituting a sort of ‘political monotheism’ that have permeated the international realm and general politics for decades. Much of it stemming from the democratic peace theory, secular humanism, and other similar optimistic idealism. With the impotence and ineffectiveness of the UN, the slow crumbling of the EU, the detriments of unchecked mass immigration and failed experiments of multiculturalism, we are beginning to see a reversal in direction. The reversal away from ‘political monotheism’ and toward ‘political polytheism’.

By political polytheism, I do not necessarily mean a change from unipolar to bipolar, or bipolar to multipolar, though that is certainly related and may very well be occurring. Rather the shift away from a universal humanity or ‘one world’ idealism, or universalizing entities like the EU and UN, and a return to particulars.

A Frenchman is a Frenchman, and an Englishman is an Englishman, rather than the dissolution into ‘universal humanity’. Nation states are for their own individual self-interest, defined and sovereign, rather than putting global or collective interest before it. A nation state cares about its own citizens first and foremost above the outsider, the refugee, the immigrant, the unfortunate. Borders are defined and enforced, in contrast to leftist dissolution that advocates porousness or cosmopolitanism. Native or home culture is cherished in contrast to the superficiality of multiculturalism. Political polytheism is the celebration and affirmation of differentiation, multiplicity, and uniqueness.

What is meant by a return to the particular is a return to the local, to the native, to populism, to domestic culture, to native religion and custom. We are not ‘one world’ or ‘one humanity’. We are many nations, many cultures, many peoples, many religions, many traditions. I do not mean this only in the superficial sense, as leftist cries for ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’ means it, but in substance and in spirit. Acknowledgment of differentiation must go far past the superficial alone and acknowledge much deeper differentiation as well. Figuratively speaking, I do not mean many gods with an underlying unifying single God, but polytheism, many gods, in the fullest multiplicity of it. This is the political realm, as well as culturally and demographically.

We are not diversity that is unified into one. We are diverse in the most differentiated sense of it.

 

A Return to Realpolitik

Idealist delusions such as spreading democracy, nation building, the EU, universal human rights, humanitarian interventionism, pacifism, are beginning to dissipate and a return to realpolitik is occurring. Or to be more accurate, an acknowledgement of the realpolitik that always has been regardless of these idealistic pursuits. The acknowledgment that anarchy (absence of central governing authority) is the default state of the international realm, that fierce competitiveness is the default, that alliances and any seeming order is temporary, and the objective of maintaining power or increasing power is the sole motivation behind every act. I argue that realism fully includes and embodies political polytheism, as opposed to Wilsonian idealism which is politically monotheist; a contrast of the particular with the universal. France is to be France, Germany is to be Germany, Russia is to be Russia, and each nation strives to do what is in its own best self-interest for itself and its people. There is no such thing as the universal ‘man’; only the Frenchman, the Russian, the American, etc. The sliding spectrum that is definition on one end and dissolution on the other. We are currently witnessing a sliding from dissolution to definition, from the universal to the particular, from the monotheistic to the polytheistic. Perhaps this is optimistic of me, but this does seem to be the direction the pendulum is swinging toward.

Politics is the struggle for power, be it national or international. No matter how dressed up in liberal concepts one attempts to dress it in, from human rights to spreading democracy, it is always a matter of power struggles. As Morgenthau stated, the political realist must always ask, “How does this policy affect the power of the nation?” This includes the lofty vision of ‘progress’: a naive idea that humanity is ever marching toward a more and more enlightened, more peaceful, and more ‘socially just’ tomorrow. This idea of progress is more accurately a myth of progress that has secular religious faith in a possible historical inevitability to a leftist utopian tomorrow. Originally rooted in Whig history, now simply dubbed ‘progressivism’, and certainly reflected in Wilsonian Idealism. Realpolitik, better known as Realism, stands in stark contrast. Rejecting the idealistic to acknowledge the real, that is, struggles for power. Civilizations rise and fall, strife and conflict is the default (as Heraclitus teaches early on), there is no central authority, peace is temporary and passing, and nations are concerned with self-interest (power) foremost. It is no surprise that after a period of pervading idealistic facades that the facades pass and we again acknowledge the realpolitik that always been and likely shall always will be.

National Interest

In the recent inauguration speech given by President Trump, aside from the speech being highly populist, the powerful phrase was stated twice, ‘America First’. Indeed, national self-interest and its citizens should be the top priority of a nation. Above humanitarian missions, above interventionism, above refugees, above global projects, above international community. A turning away from the universal to the particular, away from the monotheistic to the polytheistic, away from the global to the national. Similar sentiment has gained momentum across Europe as well. Brexit was the declaration of the UK putting itself above the EU, a return to the particular. Marine Le Pen in France has gained momentum as talks of France leaving the EU increases. And in Germany, tragedy after tragedy as they face the consequences of putting naive humanitarian act of accepting mass refugees above the well-being of their own people.

Meek sentimentalism has inverted morality to villainize the strong and venerate the weak, villainize the self-interested and venerate the downtrodden, villainize the victor and venerate the conquered. Fortunately no nation has ever fully succumbed to this trending sentimentalist morality, but it has altered its rhetoric to appease it. At times though this inverted sentimentalist morality has permeated decision making, and optimistically we are seeing a reversal of this. May Germany be the cautionary tale of what happens when sickly sentimentalism determines decisions, allowing a horde of  foreigners into one’s country at the tragic expense of ones own people and security. This is simply one of numerous examples, from economic to immigration to interventionism. The nation and its own people must come first and foremost. Adopting the inverted sentimentalist morality that villainizes national self-interest while venerating martyrdom is a drive to suicide.

 

 

 

 

On Containing ISIS: A Brief Survey on Failed American Foreign Policy and a Realist Adjustment

Extreme religious fundamentalism is a byproduct of our postmodern time, specifically a byproduct of globalism and secular materialism. It can be argued that extreme religious fundamentalism is simply the reductionist materialism of the right. It is the obsession and fixation on the physical, on the literal, despite its claim to the transcendent, and in this particular situation a rabid reaction to secularism while ironically sharing the physicalist aspect. As secularism, hedonism, and consumerism spread in the 20th century, so did the reactionist ideologies (Wahhabism and so forth) which declared war on it.

As Western nations meddled in Middle-Eastern and Islamic affairs, as Middle-Eastern nations attempted to adopt or import secularist Western values,  bastardized byproducts was formed from this intersection of fundamentalist reactionism and Western interventionism. For over a decade the world has dealt with Islamic terrorist factions, as one loses influence, another rises. Currently ISIS is the terrorist faction to be dealt with, and the US has failed miserably at addressing this toxic waste byproduct.

A terrorist faction, such as ISIS, must be approached as one approaches a fire. It must be deprived of oxygen and smothered. While the heart of the matter, the extreme reactionism, is an ideology which may never die, its most recent physical manifestation can be slowly suffocated and contained. One must address each possible ventilation, and seal them accordingly.

So far the US has refused to work with Assad. I will not attempt to paint Assad as any saint or heroic figure. What I will state is this; a stable state led by a strong leader which can be negotiated with, even if an undesirable leader, is far better than a vacuum which gives full reign to a chaotic evil that cannot be negotiated with.

The US has failed to eliminate ISIS, to ensure stability in the region, and has refused to allow or assist Assad to ensure that stability. The blind self-righteousness of American foreign policy which insists that ‘all roads lead to Denmark’, in short that only a democratic state is acceptable, is an unrealistic and naive approach. The US has only insisted upon this, or insisted upon erecting a puppet state exhibiting supposed ‘democratic values’, for the sole sake of granting the US full influence in that region. Know this: there are only interests, no moral crusades or humanitarian causes. It has even be rumored that the US has supported supposed ‘rebels’ and even ISIS against Assad, specifically for the purpose of keeping Assad out of power and allowing the US the time to seize an opportunity to instill something that will serve solely US interests, or that perpetual chaos is preferable to Assad. Time and time again we have seen this ‘nation-building’ approach to be an abject failure. Syria, if the time and money were invested in achieve this, would have been no different. The US must abandon these nation-building approaches and adopt a far more realistic perception. The US must adopt this meddling foreign policy that prefers a puppet state that caters solely to US interest rather than realistically work with the powers already in place. This is a time when self-serving hubris is overreaching and has caused far more damage than benefit.

Ugly realities call for ugly truths. A place such as Syria calls for a leader such as Assad to mercilessly police the region and eliminate terrorist activity which is a threat to the state, and gone unchecked, becomes a threat to the first world. The same could be said of Saddam Hussein, another example where an ugly reality called for an ugly truth, and an ugly reality which called for an ugly leader. The realist detail is something the US cannot seem to accept, or has a difficult time accepting. The realist approach is a detail that Russia, or Putin specifically, fully comprehends. The approach has given him the advantage in Syria, by working with Assad to secure the region, and ‘showing up’ the US by doing so. Russia is also actively working with Turkey in shared interest to suffocate the ISIS threat. Unfortunately the US may have missed its opportunity to display superiority on the Syrian matter, particularly Aleppo, due to both inaction and lack of realism. Assad will continue to gain ground, with the aid of Russia, and keep the heat heavy and suffocating on ISIS presence.

With a stable state in the region, sealing the vacuum, mercilessly policing terrorist members…the second ventilation to seal is mass immigration. Western nations must enact ironclad immigration policy, extreme vetting, for any incoming and outgoing traffic for particular regions. While this may not immediately call for the banning of Muslims entering the nation, that option must never be removed from the table. Much like a person filters their water, or locks their front door, or sterilizes cooking utensils, so too must incoming immigration be vetting with a fine tooth comb. Also those here illegally must be addressed and these policies enforced vigilantly. This is not a matter of xenophobia, it is a matter of self-interest and self-preservation. One would not drink unfiltered or untreated water, then why would one be so loose in what is allowed into their nation? This is even more of vital importance to smaller European nations such as Germany which has felt the toxicity of unchecked mass immigration possibly more than any other. Germany is indeed the ‘canary in the coal mine’ to Europe as well as the US. This stream must not go unchecked. The fire in Syria itself must be kept in Syria, and any possible paths home must be secured. This is a second source of oxygen sealed.

Third and certainly not least, the continuing precision bombing of exact ISIS key resource locations. This must not cease. A problem that has occurred is the intermingling of ISIS targets and civilian, this has unfortunately led to tragic casualties of war. Nonetheless the bombing of key locations must continue. Again it is a matter of suffocation. With a stable state presiding over the region, policing without mercy, as well as bombing larger more obvious targets. Both the US and Russia have called in strikes. Calling for a no fly zone would be causing unnecessary conflict with both Russia and Assad, rather than multilaterally cooperating to plug this vacuum. Relentless policing is key to securing the region and suffocating the fire. The US has failed regarding Aleppo, is currently being outdone by Russia on the matter, but it can still yet secure its own incoming immigration as well as continue air strikes. This is a third ventilation sealed.

It may not be too late to cooperate with Russia, Assad, or Turkey on the matter. It may not be too late to save face and go in an entirely opposition direction than either failed approaches of Obama or Clinton. What can be said confidently is that the US is declining in international influence due to its poor handling of ISIS and Syria. What can also be said is an arrogant attempt to overthrow regimes and implant pseudo-states for the sake of serving American interest is a foreign policy that should be scraped. Perhaps this is the new direction taking place, a realistic direction.

Fake News: A Moral Facade to Manipulate Discourse

Fake news. It has been the hot topic as of late. Aside from blaming Russia and demanding a recount, many Democrats have now begun to blame the supposed ‘fake news’ for Clinton’s loss.

After months of the media spinning stories and polls to heavily favor Clinton, of predicting it would be damn near impossible for Trump to win, article after article spamming the public of Trump’s certain defeat, and despite their propaganda, Trump won. The fourth estate’s credibility now in the gutter, reeling from the loss, and doing everything it can to save face it turns to a new scapegoat to pin this unfortunate devastation…fake news.

Yes, supposed ‘fake news’, spread by Russia or not, is the new culprit that has supposedly influenced the masses and misinformed them thus leading to Trump’s victory. It is convenient and interesting this crusade against ‘fake news’ only appeared when the election did not go their way. It is all too telling.

First and foremost, a crusade against fake news in the name of ‘truth telling and hard facts’ is a complete and utter bullshit facade. The crusade against fake news is simply this: the manipulation of discourse by any means necessary as long as it is not a direct attack upon freedom of speech or press itself. It is rarely a direct attack upon freedom of speech or press, rather it is the utilization of any means necessary, ideological or technological, to coerce opposition into silence and manipulate the discourse to confirm the agreed upon narrative only.

This is not new, only slightly more overt than usual. Whether it be shaming, policing rhetoric, or banning social media accounts, the liberal left or regressive left will use indirect means to coerce or silence dissenting positions. To them, this is morally justified, for they are on the ‘right side of history’ or ‘fighting fascism and white nationalism’, or numerous other self-righteous rationalizations. The policing of fake news is an extension of this sentiment. Freedom of discourse, no matter the content, has become something of an enemy, or something desired to be eliminated. The support of discourse, but only within a narrow and confined boundary, only on specific approved content and vehemently excluding the disapproved content, has become a virtuous endeavor of the liberal left.

While there are indeed false news stories, websites that purposely produce false news, and general propaganda; it is only the most naive that would defend and entrust in a pseudo-benevolent entity to police these things for them. The intention itself is ripe for abuse, and thus is the problem. This ‘concern’ only occurred when election results did not match up with what the mainstream media discourse desired, and this is the red flag that tells it is not so much falsity they are concerned with, rather the elimination of what challenges the trending agenda. The legal difficulties have already been written about in other articles, and lawsuits have already occurred. It is unwise and reckless to declare this or that ‘fake news’ and not expect legal repercussions. The legal troubles themselves are enough to can this whole ridiculous crusade.

What is most troubling even still are those on the left who will rush to defend and argue in favor of this policing of fake news. Either too naive or too short sighted to see the problem of entrusting some other entity to play ‘fact checker’ for you, as if that entity does not have its own intentions. I do agree fact checking is important. It is perfectly fine to have websites and other sources do this. But one must not be so passive as to accept these ‘fact checkers’ at face value, without question. Or worse yet, regarding the use of it as a tool to manipulate discourse, perhaps they know this fully and that is why they support the idea. Again, they may have no problem with coercing opposing or varying viewpoints into silence or taking part in ‘policing’ any views which one may be offended by or find unpleasant or disagreeable. Orwell was incorrect to think it is the State which will become totalitarian in surveillance and policing, no, it will be the people themselves that will smugly smile and willingly police one another and coerce into silence those who dissent.

The argument best made in support of free discourse without policing, which includes yellow journalism and worse, is that an adult must be responsible enough to discern for him or herself what is and is not true. The infantilization of the masses may be trending, but it should not be the preference. A competent adult does not need and should not need a pseudo-benevolent entity to police what is and is not worth reading, or which is or is not valid content. Given there are many who do believe in sheer gossip, in crude exaggerations, in any content which may confirm their preconceived biases and narrative. This is the bad we must take with the good regarding freedom of discourse, speech, and press. It is the responsibility of the competent individual to compare articles with one another, double check sources, and triple check facts when and however a fact can be confirmed. It must also be stated, as much as there are those who are college educated that look down upon those who are not, education alone does not make one able to differentiate credible from not credible. The media has shown us clearly that even journalists educated at the best universities are every bit as fallible to agreeing with and propagating only that which agrees with their own biases and preconceptions, and in many ways, have shown to be some of the absolute worst at displaying this lack of integrity and outright zealous prejudice. An individual’s education does not determine whether they are capable of discerning legitimate news from the false, and this patronizing condescension that it must be done for them must stop.

The mainstream news media and staff have little room to dare pretend at having authority after the past many months of trash behavior they have exhibited. If they were wise, they would learn from their mistakes and be humble, not put on this bullshit facade against a ‘fake news’ scapegoat.

In conclusion, the words of HL Mencken may summarize it best,

“My belief in free speech is so profound that I am seldom tempted to deny it to the other fellow. Nor do I make any effort to differentiate between the other fellow right and that other fellow wrong, for I am convinced that free speech is worth nothing unless it includes a full franchise to be foolish and even…malicious.”

The Regressive Left: A Secular Slave Morality

The regressive left is a complete divorce from original liberalism. It is an insult to it, a sickly bastardized ideology that has spread like a plague. It is best understood as a sickness that erodes and makes a society feeble and self-deprecating. It turns a nation against itself, against national identity, against strength, desiring its own eventual dissolution or cultural suicide.

The regressive left is the inevitable conclusion of relativism intermixed with Christian remnants gone secular. It is the leftovers of Christianity, echoes of it, gone secular. It is the theology minus the quality and potency. It is highly religious and puritanical, though in such a way that it lacks either a historical or transcendent founding. It is purely discursive, but still has influence and power because ideology permeates throughout society.

There are five characteristics that constitute this sickly weakening of the spirit; 1) the reduction of the individual to categorized political identity. 2) overall dissolution due to excessive relativism and passivity. 3) enforcement of slave morality that demonizes the strong and venerates victimhood and weakness. 4) the enforcement of guilt, shame, as punishment for ‘secular sins’ to coerce toward mass conformity. 5)  in opposition to singular strength, the adoration of collective self-destruction in the name of secular martyrdom.

1) In line with horizontal quantification, what is called ‘identity politics’ is secular tribalism combined with social justice and victimization. Rather than the individual reduced to a number, the individual is reduced to their basic physical attributes. An individual of an ethnic minority is reduced to their skin color, a woman is reduced to her gender and sex, a homosexual is reduces to sexual orientation, a religious person is reduced to their religion. The individual is politicized, easily categorized into this or that political camp based solely on their physical attributes. The left lays claim to those who are homosexual, or women, or a person of color, and those of these listed minority characteristics which do not fall into line according to their physical identity are scolded, as if they are ‘going against their own interest’. Neither a woman or homosexual individual is looked at as a whole, rather they are reduced to the physical detail which defines that identity.

The detail of being a woman or being gay may indeed have a strong impact on their existence, it is still only a footnote to the person as a whole. The regressive left reduces these individuals to their identity footnotes, primarily as a form of politicalization and control. If you are homosexual, it is only in your best interest to support that which panders to that detail, as if there is nothing greater than that small detail. If you are homosexual, or belonging to a minority of any kind, and go against this tribalism, you are immediately labeled a political ‘traitor’ and ridiculed for practicing freedom of thought rather than slavish party devotion. Indeed, identity politics has ensured that the whole must never be greater than the sum of its parts.

2) Universalism, cosmopolitanism, global humanitarianism…these are the ‘virtues’ which the regressive left laud. It is a matter of dissolution in the name of a secular slave morality. That which is weak and passive is venerated, is deemed ‘good’. The dissolution of national boundaries, of national or cultural identity, this is deemed ‘righteous’, as we are all one undifferentiated mass that is called ‘humanity’. Mass immigration is permitted, nationalist identity is denounced; this is the national individual identity dissolved into the general mass. Much like the individual dissolved into the masses, so does national identity dissolve into mere mass humanity. Excessive permissiveness is a virtue. It is the intentional destruction of definition. That which defines identity is dissolved. The vertical is leveled, flattened into the quantified horizontal. Whether it be through the permissiveness to Islam, the permissiveness to universal “one world, one human race” humanism, or simply the flattening of cultural convention and identity. This is all deemed righteous and good. The destruction of identity is seen as a saint-like act.

National identity, cultural identity, pride in history and accomplishments; these are denounced for the sake of guilt and self-flagellation. In its place, a corporate monoculture of consumerism and elementary universal morality, typically utilitarian and materialist in premise.

3) The regressive left is purely secular slave morality. The downtrodden, the victims, the oppressed are venerated. The strong, the powerful, the successful, these are made villains. Outright power, through merit or not, is deemed villainous and ‘bad’. The individual which owns his or herself, his or her own accomplishments, his or her own merits, which admires excellence and individuation; this is the truest villain to the regressive left. The regressive left defines its morality in opposition to hegemonic strength. The soft attributes of compassion, empathy, fairness, compromise which constitute their morality are in reaction to that power which rules or ‘lords over’ them. Horizontal and quantified utilitarianism is what defines the slave morality as it seeks only to endure and relieve in opposing response to that harsher morality that rules over them. Its hierarchy is inverted in that the weakest and most victimized are the most revered, and the accomplished strong are the most reviled. The masses must villainize the singular man of individuation.

In the grander scheme, they demand descendants feel shame or guilt regarding the accomplishments of their ancestors. The heroes of the past, the grand accomplishments of Western civilizations, the conquests and victories, and display of immense power and leadership, these are to be denounced and one is to feel shame and guilt for their occurrence. That which is heroic, which accomplishes through power, must be reviled and considered a sin. The history of Western civilizations, from ancient to present victories, within the context of this slave morality, was a show of cruelty and vileness. One must abdicate their own nation’s history, own ancestor’s accomplishments, and instead feel remorse. Rather than celebrate the heroic victories of the past, one must feel shame and guilt for it. Self-flagellation and the desire to become the defeated is at the heart of this crusade.

4) In secular theological fashion, that which does not conform to the discourse of revering the oppressed is scolded and shamed, as if one has committed a ‘sin’. Something such as being white or male or Christian, with the history of ‘white men’ and so forth dominating throughout history and presently, with their supposed ‘privilege’, are expected to ‘be aware’ of this privilege. In other words, one must be aware of this ‘original sin’ that they carry and the supposed ‘evils’ which has been done. Shame and guilt are tools to be wielded against any whom do not conform to venerating the oppressed or show remorse for when the ‘privileged’ take advantage of such. Language that does not confirm the narrative is considered ‘offensive’, it must be checked and policed.

Blacklisting, shaming, scolding, condemning, these are a few of the multiple ways in which discourse is coerced and the individual punished. The regressive left does not directly attack freedom of speech, rather it attempts to coerce and pressure those opposing into being silent. Much like the puritan evangelicals, they use the ‘scarlet letter’ approach to stigmatize and shame one into silence. Whether they be called racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic and so forth, it is all an attempt to shame another and coerce the general discourse. Freedom of discourse they claim to respect, yet then practice coercion of every possible manner to manipulate the discourse to their favor.

This is practiced against ‘those with privilege’ as well as any minority which does not toe the line of the regressive left, which does not conform or side with the expected tribe.

5) The culmination of the regressive left practices results in the inevitable and ultimately nihilistic dissolution. In dislike of overt power, the denouncement of identity, it is much like a plague which makes the body sicker and weaker, turned upon itself; it is erosion, plain and simple. The veneration of weakness, and demonization of strength, it only continues to eat itself from within. As a raindrop falls into the ocean, a nation and people must lose its individual identity and dissolves into the global mass. The vertical immediately flattens and dissolves into the horizontal. This is the ultimate conclusion of the regressive left. It is the complete loss of cultural and national identity. It is the dissolution of being into the nothingness. Much like a martyr, it willingly aims to sacrifice itself in the name of a ‘greater good’, unfortunately it is an atheistic and nihilistic death. The regressive left is a death drive gone unchecked, driven to self-annihilation, driven to a return to nothingness, an ultimate ‘No’ to existence, a negation of self.

In conclusion, it is a matter of the vertical versus and horizontal, the national versus the global, the individual versus the masses. This is a simple survey based on observation of this sickly ideology that permeates society and drives it forward to its own dissolution. It is an ideology that spurs suicidal impulse. Identity and individuation may resist this dissolving. The active rejection of the secular slave morality may dissipate it in time, though it will always return in some form or another.

Own oneself, aspire to individuation, take pride in strength, take pride in history and heritage, be whole, be separate, and to thine own self be true.

Populist Right and Alt-Right: A Much Needed Differentiation

It is nothing new to say we are obsessed with categorization, particularly the West. This fixation on terms, labels, politicization, and categories has only expounded over the decades. A few months ago I wrote a survey piece that was an attempt to break down what the Alt-Right was composed of and its relation to the European New Right. As discourse flows, so does the need to reorganize and better differentiate.

With Richard Spencer and NPI in the news, the moral hysteria of the liberal left, the term Alt-Right being inaccurately dubbed an euphemism for White Nationalism, and the sheer lackadaisical (lack of) attempts of the mainstream media to reflect proper nuances. As I said in a past article,

“One could conclude that the American Alt Right is a collaboration of European New Right influence, Neoreactionist influence, White Nationalism, and Paleoconservatism. It differs in opinion as to which has been the greater influence.”

This last sentence has rung truer than expected as NPI garnered media attention, the liberal left claiming all Alt-Right are White Nationalists, and White Nationalists gladly obliging them in the sentiment.

Now once again there must be a differentiation acknowledged, and the nuances between what could be called the general ‘populist right’ and the niche ‘Alt-Right’.

The primary difference between these two come down to severity or extremity of the ideological positions. They do share political positions, but the Alt-Right is more likely to take it to a more severe and socially conservative degree.

The ‘Populist Right‘, largely supporters of Trump and composed of ethnic minorities as well as women, may find more resonance with the political positions of Pat Buchanan than Richard Spencer. They are largely in support of border security, stringent immigration and vetting,  civic and economic nationalism, ‘America First’ regarding foreign policy, and strongly anti-globalist, anti-cosmopolitanism, anti-establishment, anti-PC culture, and anti-Islamic. Regarding social matters they are moderately conservative, but tend to be fairly lax concerning LGBT issues, drug use, and religion. They are laid back in social issues, but detest the smugness and shaming of ‘social justice’ progressives. One could accurately say they are libertarian concerning social issues and discourse, while being economic/civic/Eurocentric nationalists concerning domestic and foreign policy.

In short, the nation/State is to put American citizens first; above corporate interests, above global interest, above foreign interest, above elitist establishment, and above foreign peoples.

What you are less likely to find in the Populist Right are advocates of race realism, strict ethno-states, strict reactionary conservatism,  hard white identity, or White Nationalist sympathy. Though of course this can vary. Also many who would fall into this Populist Right category are indeed non-white, as well as many women and even some LGBT (such as the person writing this). They have nationalist pride and do not have a problem with calling themselves ‘nationalists’ nor displaying national strength, but do not carry it to the extent of actual fascism or White Nationalism. They also may sympathize with figures such as Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage.

By and large the Populist Right has been the majority and primary supporter base for Trump and continues to be his most ardent supporters. Not to be conflated with the much smaller percentage and fringe that is the Alt-Right.

To put it succinctly, the ‘Alt-Right’ contain much of the above ideological positions though taken to far more extreme or hardliner degrees. Whether it be strong white identity and advocacy of ethno-states such as seen at NPI, or purist Catholic or Orthodox reactionists that are aggressively opposed to liberal social allowances. The Alt-Right term still remains an umbrella term for fringe right wing ideologies that are alternative to the typical mainstream Republicans, though vocal White Identity and Ethno-State advocates do seem to have the loudest voice and receive the most attention. Not all within the Alt-Right are the kind seen at NPI, many dislike Richard Spencer altogether, and a number still find White Nationalist aesthetics to be obnoxious or simply silly.

What differentiates the Alt-Right from the Populist Right is that the Alt-Right is a small niche collective of fringe ideologies, not at all the mainstream nor the general public. And while many of them, not all, do support Trump, they are not at all the majority or even a quarter of Trump’s support.

What also differentiates the Alt-Right from the Populist Right is issues of race realism, heterodoxy, and traditionalism which they take to a severe degree. This is not an accusation, rather they are proud of this severity and I only want to describe them in as neutral terms as possible. They do advocate strict ethno-states, hyper-nationalism, strictly anti-LGBT, and can be highly traditionalist regarding the roles of women.

Where the Alt-Right and Populist Right (including Trump) overlap, and this is very important, is that they are anti-globalist, anti-establishment, nationalist, populist, strict on immigration, anti-Islamic, Eurocentric, and detest the PC regressive left as well as detests the mainstream media. It is all a matter of severity and to what degree.

The liberal left media inaccurately and dishonestly paints broadly that ALL of Trump supporters and Trump himself are Alt-Right, and furthermore that ALL Alt-Right are White Nationalists. Both of these depictions are entirely false and intentionally dishonest. This, and much else, has rightfully earned them the derogatory label of being the lugenpresse, the ‘lying press’, and while the origins of this word are infamous, perhaps the mainstream media should behave otherwise if it did not wish to incur such resentment from the people.

In conclusion, I am no expert or authority. I have never claimed to be. I gladly consider myself a part of the ‘populist right’, not the Alt-Right, though I have read material and conversed with those in the Alt-Right and the European New Right. This is simply my attempt to categorize, explain, and record to the best of my limited knowledge. I hope it is helpful to any who inquire.

Salty Tears and the Electoral College: The Self-Centered Delusions of Liberal Urbanites

Those pressing to get rid of the electoral college only further confirm their self-centered delusions. Their wet dream is for …

Continue reading →

Two Tough Lessons For the Liberal Left: Bitter Medicine from Election 2016

There are those on the liberal left that are now writing articles admitting their errors, admitting they were wrong all along, and hope to learn from this. And there are others still, doomed to repeat the same mistakes which cost them this election, railing in fury against the supposed ‘racism and sexism’ which ‘stole’ this election from.

Half of the nation is mourning, crying, triggered, and the other half is laughing at them in glee.

These are the two lessons the liberal left absolutely must learn from this election. Personally I have been a Trump supporter from the start, albeit with plenty of doubts about him winning. I do not write this in accusation nor anger nor spite. I write this because I am seeing a bulk of the nation have a panic attack, go deeper into denial, and it is simply embarassing and sad to see. An American who cares wants both parties to be at their best, for both parties to be for the people they represent, for both parties to be healthy, despite the ideological differences at the end of the day.

Lesson #1: The liberal left, or regressive left as it has been dubbed, simply cannot persist with its absolute obsession with fragmenting identity politics. I have stated this before, and I will state it again, identity politics is fair game for every demographic. Identity politics advocates that each group of like-minded and similar (ethnically, religious, racial, sexual, gender, and so forth) fight to maintain what influence and power it has, as well as aspire to more influence. This is not incorrect nor morally wrong. This is to be expected. This is quite natural, and for an identity group to want to concede power or influence would be a strange thing indeed. This election cycle they played identity politics to the tee, and they have been bested at it for something they did not see at all. White identity is a factor. This is not racism anymore than black identity is racism. Again, this is simply a said group of like individuals fighting out of self-interest.

Identity politics is double-edged sword. Do not use it and not expect others to use it as well. Furthermore, and most importantly, in the past few years the regressive left has built a rhetoric that is based on shaming and demonizing. You cannot simply call other groups who disagree with you ‘racists’ or ‘privileged’, mock their hardships simply because they are white or male or Christian, dismiss them as if their life is a cakewalk, and demonize them as the root of every vile problem in this nation, and not expect that group to retaliate. It is a bear and the regressive left has poked it until it has awoken.

The ‘smug liberal’ cliche has only increased in popularity, from comedians to news articles to music celebrities. Those who mock the working class as being ignorant, stupid, backwards, redneck, blue collar hicks simply because they disagree with your political positions or ideology. They mock these people because they do not adopt the latest feminist trend or academic terminology. They mock these people because they did not attend college, do not completely buy into ‘privilege theory’, and don’t watch Bill Maher or John Oliver as if they are harbingers of pure reason.

In response you invoke the most asinine academic terminology cooked up on college campuses, from trigger warnings to microaggressions to safe space to new pronouns, and respond viciously to anyone who dare question this trend. And yet you wonder, here with an election lost, with Trump who appealed to the resentment, you wonder ‘how could we have lost?’

You need only look in the mirror.

The liberal left no longer represents the working class nor class politics. It represents smugness, sarcasm, false superiority, and looking down on those different in ideology or who disagree. The liberal left no longer represents free thought, healthy discourse, and a plurality of ideological differences. It has abandoned this and has become what it originally hated, the stuck-up bourgeois.

That should frighten you. Not send you spiraling once again into denial, screaming ‘RACIST! SEXIST!’ at everyone, everything, and even their shadows.

No doubt racism and sexism exists, as it always has, but in your puritanical zealotry you have done nothing but fuel it with gasoline by being such self-righteous pricks about it all.

Learn this well; if you continue with this regressive left rhetoric and smugness, it will only get far worse from here. This is cause and effect, plain and simple.

The nation is sick of this, fix it.

Lesson #2: It was revealed through wikileaks that the DNC is corrupt beyond what we ever thought it was. It skewered Bernie Sanders, it showed Clinton was completely in-bed with big money, and it showed they have played you like a fiddle.

What did you do in response? You shrugged. You laughed at the people who said this was a big deal. Many told Sanders supporters to suck it up, fold and support Clinton. The one candidate with a virgin clean reconrd in this whole race was thrown to the trashbin in favor of a candidate with a corrupt history longer than some of us have even been alive!

Where is your hatred and anger for the DNC for playing you all like fools? It’s Chairmen revealed to be corrupt as well. The primary element of this election was the working class, the sole ‘bread and butter’ of Bernie Sanders, and the Democrats chose the establishment supported Clinton instead.

Clinton is a masterful politician and highly intelligent. She pandered to the identity politics, to each minority, like a puppeteer pulling strings. She failed to capture the working class because it is identity politics that the progressives have been obsessed with for years.

Identity politics, another word for fragmentation.

I have stated this before also, go away from identity politics and return to class politics. That is the root of leftism. That is the heart of leftism. This election was populus driven, and instead identity politics was played, and thus the election was lost.

Whatever happened to class solidarity? Is that done for? A relic from the past as you string together a thousand identity factions and shout ‘INTERSECTIONALITY!’ ? This feeds directly into the first lesson. Identity politics forms together ‘we the righteous’ and points its finger at others declaring them’they the deplorable!’

You have achieved slave morality without even intentionally trying, a reactive morality, and it has cost you.

I beg you to get rid of the corrupt elitist neoliberals which infest your party and play you so easily. Return to populism, to a party of the people, and be done with this commercial commodification of ‘progressivism’ which is little more than a facade for corporate neoliberal interest.

Be done with this puritanical zealotry that has divided the nation into ‘we the righteous’ and ‘you the deplorable’.

Conclusion: I am certainly not the only one saying these things. The mainstream media has suddently had an epiphany and realized their errors all too late. The writing has been on the bathroom wall for years now, but many were too pompous to read it.

Maybe changes will come, or maybe people will bury their head in the sand (or their safe space echo chamber), as they scream “RACIST! SEXIST! EVIL WHITE PEOPLE!” and learn absolutely nothing from this whole election.

The right will be fine with this of course. It only makes the regressive left look like childish fools. And it only makes it that much easier for the right.