The Neoreaction/Dark Enlightenment tantrum

anonymous

I’ll confess the whole thing began with me being rather stoked to see a new movement that affirmed three things that my own learning suggests are necessary for a thriving civilization: gender roles, nationalism, and a taste for actual leadership instead of the marketing routine that is democracy.

However, the more I interacted with the folks from the Dark Enlightenment and Neoreaction camp, the more two things stood out. First, they were angry because of the confinement of their own thought. Second, they were (as a result of that confinement) basically acting out the same pattern of liberalism: the problem is the elites, replace them with popular sentiment, together we will make People Power and overthrow.

Yesterday, with the help of Colin Liddell, I launched a barrage on Alternative Right. Colin is one of those people who avoids suppressing his gut instinct, and thus is able to think with his whole body, brains, guts, muscles and gonads. Most people can think with only one at a time, and such simplistic thinking gets the same broken-down results that happen anytime someone makes a complex decision based on a single detail. Colin did great things with the layout and pushed this article out to the raging blog-o-twitter-sphere, which promptly raged that someone had attacked one of its darlings.

My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense. Further, this confines your thinking based on the taboos of liberalism, which means you’ll end up back at liberalism. Then I pointed out many of the liberal aspects of the DE, namely that its crusade against the Cathedral is a liberal-style revolution, e.g. an attack against the institution and its replacement with people power. What we actually need is an idea of what we want and thus a competing vision to the current set of pretenses held by our new elite.

This is naturally a provocative message. It’s like pouring napalm on a campfire: some marshmallows will turn out rather badly. I don’t intend ill toward any of them, and would have them as friends and allies if I could, but the ugly fact is that the DE and Neoreaction are terminally broken. Underneath some promising ideas, there’s the ugly skeleton of liberalism and a pretense about avoiding conservatism. Same old jive, same old song and dance! Reminds me of where I was at the end of college. Your gut tells you to go one way, but all of your friends, teachers, parents, neighbors and so on are busy posing at being enlightened by talking liberal theory at you all day long. So you don’t buck the trend, and instead you end up grinding your gears.

My suggestion for conservatives is twofold based on the ideas in the forthcoming book Futurist Traditionalism. In simplified form these are:

  1. Tradition: we want the world before the French Revolution, including the basis in Platonic ontology. The mechanics of this are well know.
  2. Futurism: however, we also want to be forward-looking and embrace opportunity where we find it, including technology.

It’s true that the past led to the present, and thus a glitch existed somewhere. I suggest that the glitch is inherent to life itself. All civilizations face this test, and the ones that fail it end up mixed-race third-world republics that struggle to put food on the table, much less rise to a level above the Bonobo-esque behavior of the human in its state before it makes an effort to discipline its mind, create civilization and technology, and rise to ascendant levels of thought instead of remaining mired in the reactive, biological and self-centric existence of the monkey.

What opposes us in another two-factor process that I call “Crowdism”:

  • Radical individualism: individuals decide that since prosperity exists, there should be no rules limiting the individual. They want “license” to selfishness.
  • Social subsidization: they invent a guilt/passive-aggression in “equality” that demands all people be subsidized, no matter how illogical their behavior

Crowdism is the process of people with short-sightedness deciding that since their society has wealth, it should be distributed equally. This ignores the way wealth is produced, which is inequality which leads to those who know how to protect and nurture wealth producing more of it. Most people are incompetent, and that’s the social taboo we face here; they don’t want to admit their best role is as serfs and servants. And yet that would protect them from both destroying society and living in self-perpetuating “poor people have poor ways” poverty, like most of our lower castes and ethnic minorities live now.

Thus the big surprise here is: we don’t need a new idea. All of the ideas we need to look toward are in Plato and other writers from the fall of the Greco-Roman empires. What we need to do is discover in ourselves the will to not only apply these, but to apply these in a forward method. We are here to explore the stars, to say yes! to life, to discover the infinite on every level (religious, scientific, intellectual). We are here to produce the good, the beautiful and the true, and in so doing to expand the informational field of the cosmos just that much more.

We will not get to that level with internet-style culture. That culture is based on cleverness, on the trends of the day, but most importantly, on justifying a lifestyle that may consist of dropping out of society, living in a basement/apartment, and looking down our noses at others for being unenlightened. That’s what the Dark Enlightenment, Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street, Neoreaction, et al. have in common, and it’s a path to doom. Try conservatism instead. It has everything you want, and much of what you have yet to discover.

***

On to specific replies:

Kirk was a historian, not a philosopher, but as a historian he was blind to or willfully ignored many of the more interesting American trends of the 20th century: (1) the replacement of the old American WASP elite by a new Ashkenazi elite, (2) the fact that American capitalism proved to be more corrosive than Soviet communism, (3) the Immigration Act of 1965 was probably the most important important piece of American legislation in the second half of the 20th century (in that it was America’s death knell). – Occam’s Razor

I can agree on the third fact. The Immigration Act of 1965 was designed to replace a domestic majority with third-world peoples in order to ensure a permanent democractic majority. But the electorate seemed to sleep through this one. Why?

I’ll explain: your first point is incorrect for two reasons. First, blaming the Jewish people for what is clearly an internal dysfunction makes no sense. Second, you’ve misidentified the breadth and mechanism of the replacement of the Anglos. What replaced the Anglo elite was a new ethnic mass composed of near-whites (Slavs, Irish, Greeks, Jews, Italians, and lower-caste whites) who overthrow the hierarchy here, much as was done in France in 1789, for the sake of people power. Sound familiar? Identical to the DE plan except back then they were liberal. The results will be the same if the DE takes power, by the way. You’ll have all these grand ideas and suddenly, the people power will be busy posing, posturing, pretentiously self-aggrandizing, self-marketing and so on. Your consensus will break down into many self-interested parties who, in the interest of pandering to the wider herd, will end up at the same policies the current elites endorse.

Second, there’s this notion that “the fact that American capitalism proved to be more corrosive than Soviet communism.” Here I suggest you are simply looking at the wrong target because the two societies had other commonalities. Both communism and capitalism are monetarist, or based on the idea that we can use economics in lieu of culture to control our society in lieu of having it collaborate (as it does naturally with culture). Not only that, but the real element in power in both cases was the bazaar. Once you turn the vote over to the people, they get self-centered and oblivious and start choosing freebies/pleasant fictions now over long-term problems that can be fixed later. It’s no different than handing out booze in the servants quarters, slave cabins or office cubicle farms. They’ll drink today, congratulate themselves on “sticking it to the man,” and then wake up tomorrow twice as broke, twice as sick and half again farther away from their goals.

The villain here, as some in the DE are willing to hint, is the people power notion itself. Democracy is a stampede, not a discussion. It is pretentious small-minded people proclaiming themselves kings and then vandalizing everything they touch. It is not created for the grand altruistic goals it claims, but so that there can be “license” to plunder, to defile, to appropriate, to muddle and otherwise to destroy. Democracy is not thinking, it’s an emotional reaction. It is not the work of the have-nots, but the cannot-haves, or those who by their own behavior limit their ability to be anything more than third-world levels of filthy, disorganized, kleptocratic and cruel. Instead of disciplining themselves and rising through a process of Natural Selection, they refuse to make even basic concessions to logic and instead act out their whims, feelings, desires and judgments, and for their unrealistic behavior are rewarded with failure in reality.

Until people are willing to face this truth, everything they do will fail because it will be sabotaged from within by people power. This is why the DE/NeR’s crusade against “the Cathdral” is more of the same error-prone behavior that got us into this mess in the first place.

59 Comments

  1. […] Brett Stevens responds here. […]

  2. AWC says:

    “First, blaming the Jewish people for what is clearly an internal dysfunction makes no sense.”

    I really didn’t blame anyone. Obviously the WASPs are at least in part to blame for their own dispossession. I just meant the fact that America’s elite has been replaced by a new one is quite interesting for historical reasons, but yet it is barely mentioned, not even by conservative historians writing about the “changes” American has undergone.

    1. I just meant the fact that America’s elite has been replaced by a new one is quite interesting for historical reasons, but yet it is barely mentioned, not even by conservative historians writing about the “changes” American has undergone.

      Very little of importance is mentioned in public and this has been the case since WWII at least. However, you might find Tom Wolfe interesting, and David Brooks’ description of the new Bohemian Bourgeois might also be apropos, although neither of these see the problem as a Jewish displacement so much as a displacement by aggregated non-Western European (“white”) elements.

  3. Hauer says:

    Thinking about the term ‘Futurist Traditionalism’ does not sit well with me. It seems akin to ‘victorious retreat’- far too optimistic.

    1. The main point of it is to ensure a forward-looking take on eternal values. We don’t want to be in 1788 the year; we want the type of society that existed then, adapted to our needs in the future.

      1. crow says:

        Cosmosis.
        Mankind reaching out to the stars, not by force of arms, but by osmosis.

        1. A kind of love, in other words. We should never forget that, I hope.

  4. Bob Wallace says:

    Tradition and Futurism is called Archeofuturism. It’s been around for a while. I tend very much toward it myself.

    1. de Benoist espouses a different philosophy that, while very important to the European New Right, is distinct from what is being offered here. Label is not structure or content; similar ideas will have similar labels but substantial differences.

      1. Cock'o'the'Walk says:

        I hate to be pedantic, but Guillaume Faye wrote “Archeofuturism”.

        1. Thanks; you’re correct.

      2. Bob Wallace says:

        Archeofuturism, in an American context, would be to take the best of past and wed it to the proper use of technology (and technology cannot be stopped).

        I keep in mind Cooper’s Law: “All machines are amplifiers.”

        1. would be to take the best of past and wed it to the proper use of technology (and technology cannot be stopped)

          I think this is true on both counts, first that it would unite past and future, and second that technology cannot be stopped. It also serves a vital psychological role which is to get out of the maudlin, self-destructive and directionless “the-past-was-better-we-are-all-doomed” trap, which is basically negativity to convince people there’s nothing they can do but enrich themselves amidst the decay.

  5. iParallax says:

    I’ve been watching you develop this train of thought, and I appreciate the intelligent critiques you offer. However, I’m not sure where you are getting the idea the NR/DE is about “People Power.” Moldbug’s “No Voice, All Exit,” the use of “demotist” as a slur, the Jacobites/other monarchists, the techno-futurist crypto-locked weapons…I don’t see how these are anything other than stark rejections of “People Power.”

    Perhaps you are contending that the above ideas are flawed, and will lead to relapse? You allude to that a few times but I don’t see that being the core of what you’re saying.

    Always interesting to watch and learn from debates between other parties. I’ll keep my popcorn and notepad handy…

    1. Moldbug’s “No Voice, All Exit,” the use of “demotist” as a slur, the Jacobites/other monarchists, the techno-futurist crypto-locked weapons…I don’t see how these are anything other than stark rejections of “People Power.”

      To be redundant, as I said elsewhere labels are not equal to their contents including the structure of ideas. The problem with the DE is that it is entryism, in other words, it is a fundamentally liberal structure/design with a surface of right-wing views (specifically, what I’m going to call “college White Nationalist”). The arrangement of ideas in the DE will inevitably lead to the same problems it complains of.

  6. Slumlord says:

    We don’t want to be in 1788 the year; we want the type of society that existed then, adapted to our needs in the future.

    The motive power for the French revolution came from the serious flaws that were present in society at that time. Setting the clock back only restores the initial conditions that gave birth to Modernism. Fat, happy, contented people don’t rebel and the Left pretty much always advances by co-opting a legitimate grievance of the people. The Right pretty much has its head in the sand refusing to admit that the grievances exist. The tragedy of the French revolution lay not only in the triumph of the Left, but in the absolute failure of the French Right to deal with it.

    The French revolution could have been stopped cold in its tracks if the Right had acted on the social grievances which powered it. Instead the Right spent so much of its time trying to restore the “old order” that it got sideswiped by the Left.

    No one, as far as I’m aware, has set out to give an accurate explanation of why the Left has triumphed over the last two and a half centuries. What motivates its success? What sustains it? Instead, it’s simply turn the clock back and all will be fine.

    Pull your heads out of your arse and start thinking. The situation is dire.

    1. crow says:

      The success of the left is achieved by people remaining stuck in their own egos. They want what they want, because they want it, and the left offers it to them.
      What they want, is disastrous, in the long-term. But why would that bother ego?
      The only conceiveable way out of this is to work towards spiritual development, in a way that does not seem like what has come to be known as ‘spiritual development’.

    2. I blog sometimes about this, it’s a core aspect of my little blog. Injustices weren’t always acknowledged and this allowed footholds by communists, socialists, feminists and etc. because they were criticizing actual systemic problems (just offering ridiculous and bad solutions).

      The overall post and some of Mr. Stevens’ comments also are not far removed from my own views on the DE/NR thing/sphere/etc.

      They seem to be unwilling to accept why their critics are critical, and this means they will fade into nothing. They aren’t something that warrants co-opting. I agree with the remark that they are themselves entryists. It’s quite obvious.

      This isn’t the only person I’ve seen with great criticism of the DE/NR, if anything the pointing out of these flaws and core liberalism is becoming more and more common in the dissident right.

      The only thing I might add to something like this post is that the political fixation of the DE/NR is also a path to irrelevance. Social change comes first, and extremely few seem interested in the serious work of setting up that social change.

    3. The motive power for the French revolution came from the serious flaws that were present in society at that time. Setting the clock back only restores the initial conditions that gave birth to Modernism.

      You assume the gripe of the rioting mob was legitimate. Given that their next act was to go on a rampage of murdering unarmed men, women and children for the crime of belong to a certain social class, I doubt anything they had in mind was legitimate.

      It’s easy to blame government for problems. For example, if the serfs rut recklessly and spawn too many of themselves for the food supply, they will be starving. The fault there wasn’t that of the government, but of the serfs. Yet they will blame government rather than take responsibility for their own lack of foresight.

      In the same way, the poor in the USA are convinced that their plight is the result of “inequality.” In reality, it’s the result of having no skills, poor money management, no impulse control and often criminal and/or corrupt behavior. The poor will always be with us, because the poor create themselves.

      1. LoreTek says:

        Precisely. It’s not that we are approaching the problem wrong, or not recognizing the right ones. The “problems” of today all stem from too much “fixing”. Any supporter of the french revolution will tell you the people were starving, the right had absolutely “failed” at “fixing” it. This “failure” is akin to being stabbed and failing to live. Except liberalism slowly robs anyone they can until they fail to provide and then they stab them, citing that failure.

        Saying “Injustices weren’t always acknowledged”, that if they actually focused on giving the people the bread the revolution could have been stopped in its tracks is the wrong kind of thinking. It is the thinking that gives the mob its actual power. It says that, we do have a solution for you, but we refuse to help, when the people that you say have a solution don’t actually have one, as one literally doesn’t exist in a form you accept.

        The money is running out, the subsidies are not sustainable, by claiming that we could be focusing more on the inequalities, but aren’t, you WILL get us all killed. What will stop the revolution in it’s tracts is stopping the subsidies, removing the corrupt voting source by requiring tax payer status to vote, and by having the wisdom to avoid genocide and guts to let die where it may, in a few generations, duty and honor restore themselves organically as the alternative is a natural death.

        Liberalism is a fight to maintain an inverse relationship. It is the art of taking equally from the coffers for unequal input. When this relationship strains, “inequality” is born – as in the amount of bread they got this week is “unequal” to the amount they got last week – out of fear it evolves into the art of blaming the coffers for threatening to run out. Plain and simple, and insane.

        A revolution then occurs when a big enough mob forms that the one partitioning the coffers can be killed and all the bread taken out at once. Why not skip the murder, the chaos, and the anarchy, and go straight to square one, like what will have to be done after anarchy?

        What could have “stopped the revolution in its tracts” is if the people revolting used their new found band of revolutionaries to revolt against their liberal leaders, that keeps them reliant on the handouts, and went to grow some wheat and make some bread.

      2. 1349 says:

        Given that their next act was to go on a rampage of murdering unarmed men, women and children for the crime of belong to a certain social class

        That’s an emotional argument…

        It’s easy to blame government for problems. For example, if the serfs rut recklessly and spawn too many of themselves for the food supply, they will be starving. The fault there wasn’t that of the government, but of the serfs.

        Wait, serf are serfs. They physically can’t think and foresee. Even more so if they constitute a mass.
        Their main creative talent is to spawn more of themselves (ideally – better versions of themselves, which is possible).
        So it was rather the elite who was more to blame.
        The poor/weak must be forced to work and achieve at least some kind of results, these results being estimated and sometimes rewarded. The poor will always be with you, and it is, in the end, dangerous to ignore them.

        Kids/pupils that are not shown they (or their efforts) are needed by anyone eventually get lost in life and rebel against their parents/teachers.
        Here i compare the serfs to kids/pupils and the elite to parents/teachers. To show someone they are needed you must interact with them, give them tasks, check results, explain what and why must be corrected, reward those who are at least eager to improve their results, and promote those who are succesful.
        In the pre-revolution calcified societies the elite ignore their poor, turn their backs on them, which, i suspect, is closer to the root reason behind “people power” revolutions.

        1. 1349 says:

          * …closer to the root reason behind “people power” revolutions than the aforementioned “not giving the people the bread”.

          A modern parent could give his kids all they could need and dream of, materially, but never pay real attention to them or teach them anything, and the kids get lost in life.

        2. Given that their next act was to go on a rampage of murdering unarmed men, women and children for the crime of belong to a certain social class

          Is it? Mass murder that destroys the heart of a nation seems to me objectively bad.

          1. 1349 says:

            It could be objectively bad but you can’t blame serfs for being serfs. =) And probably can’t estimate their actions as “legitimate”/”illegitimate”. They can’t think. Physically. There are lots of people who don’t physically think. Russian gopniks, western chavs… There is no difference for them between thinking about breaking your face and actually breaking it. =) No barrier of reflexion. More so in the crowd.

            And it isn’t sensible to blame them for rutting recklessly. After all, making kids is the highest level of creativity available for them to enjoy. Of course they’ll want to repeat it.

      3. Slumlord says:

        t’s easy to blame government for problems. For example, if the serfs rut recklessly and spawn too many of themselves for the food supply, they will be starving. The fault there wasn’t that of the government, but of the serfs. Yet they will blame government rather than take responsibility for their own lack of foresight.

        Sometimes government is the problem and rebellion is perfectly legitimate. Dismissing people’s grievances so easily is precisely what the French aristocracy did and how dumb was that in the long run? History shows that the French aristocracy were hopeless and they objectively mismanaged society, which in turn fueled grievances which were exploited by the Jacobins. Likewise, the rise of Communism came about because of the real and legitimate failures of lasseiz faire Capitalism.

        Yet they will blame government rather than take responsibility for their own lack of foresight.

        You assume that they have the power to think for themselves. You assume that are capable of making rational and logical choices. You assume that they both have the leisure and the time or previous education to understand issues of economics, social policy, industrial production and so on. You’re actually buying into the blank slate notion of human intellect that assumes that everyone has equipotential intelligence. You don’t even seen how far into the rabbit hole you are.

        The mob is irrational, the mob is short term, the mob is vulgar and when the mob is sufficiently agitated violent. Appeals to higher forms of behaviour by the mob is naively idiotic. That’s why any governing class has to have an ever vigilant eye on the well being of it, not a “leave em to there own devices” approach. Stewardship matters. The French dropped the ball.

        You really sound a lot like Marie Antoinette with your disregard for the proles.

        1. crow says:

          Marie Antoinette’s attitude seems incomprehensible, until you take a look around at the objects of that attitude. She may have been denying an evident reality, but it’s quite easy to see why.
          Her big mistake was to assume she was immune.

  7. LoreTek says:

    I see the movements as modern art was a decade ago. While they may be a confused mixture of denying modernism and emotion, being a movement it will eventually fall, but in it’s growth it will show the average person that others out there don’t think that the liberal idea is correct. It will make them question it as well.

    Like modern art opened the door to the actual artwork done on digital media, these movements will open the door to actual alternatives to liberalism that do not include the confusion of the “modern alt”.

    The important thing here is to remain optimistically critical and to not get locked in and defensive; becoming the old man with a bunch of rusted pipes and cans in his back yard, still convinced it is art.

  8. How in the hell could radical individualism ever be described as “crowdism? My God, man, they are polar oppositions.

    Either you are a lone wolf or you are part of the democratic herd. Either you are acting out of selfishness or you are part of the liberal do-gooder establishment. Either you are in it for Number One or you are part of the humanitarian horde.

    1. crow says:

      That you do not understand, does not make what you do not understand, rubbish.

      1. Maybe I don’t understand because it ain’t logical.

        1. crow says:

          There’s more to logical than many know.
          And it’s not only about logic.
          There’s a metaphysical angle, too.

          1. Crow,

            I would politely suggest that, at the same time, you not neglect the metaphysical angle to the lone wolf.

            1. crow says:

              I’m not. Your parameters are more limited than what you are defining. It’s not a case of either/or. Probably that is why it is a bit slow catching on. People are a bit slow. A recent development, and one that does nobody any good.

              1. You and I are both disgusted by the cesspool of modern democracy. I see this humanitarian sewer as the result of a lack of individualism – and the solution to such filth only to be found in a return to the primordial lone wolf.

                1. crow says:

                  Well. We probably have much in common.
                  I lend my support to the conservative cause, because it is clearly superior to any other alternative.
                  I am the original ‘lone wolf’, and have been for as long as I can remember. Which suits me, but what good does it do, when you view the larger picture?
                  A civilization can not be comprised of lone wolves.

                  At least you are able to differentiate between lone wolves and radical-individualists. Aka ‘hipsters’.
                  I assume that was what you were saying?

    2. LoreTek says:

      Google the “selfish herd theory”. It is the ethological explanation for why individual animals form crowds, and applies to radical individualists protecting their ideals.

      I think the second half of the confusion stems from thinking today’s “individualist” is a lone-wolf in the evolution of social exclusion sense, and not the radical – believing reality can adapt to him and the other way around is oppression – that he is.

      1. Good summary here, and it’s about Texas’ national love interest too:

        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3551535.htm

        believing reality can adapt to him and the other way around is oppression

        And that is a great one-line definition of the radical individualist. To them, reality is a part of their own minds, not the other way around. As crow points out, that’s the raging ego… and when enough of those get together, they form a hate mob against anyone who might call them out on this behavior.

    3. How in the hell could radical individualism ever be described as “crowdism”?

      Because a crowd is comprised of individualists because only such people have need of a crowd.

  9. […] Apparently Brett Steven’s article about the Dark Enlightenment/NeoReaction caused a bit of a stir among the DE/NR crowd. He has replied here. […]

  10. Weaver says:

    Brett Stevens,

    I don’t currently “think with [my] whole body”, but perhaps this thought will help:

    From Plato: The purpose of the polity is war, meaning a polity must be capable of surviving.
    From Aristotle: The parts serve the whole, meaning you don’t want a fat elite gorging itself nor do you want the foot serving the function of the head, Plato’s “gold” should rule.

    Paraphrasing from an unpublished poem by Eric Rücker Eddison: Absolute power rules absolute beauty; absolute beauty rules absolute power. Applying this poetic truth, while nationalism and religion can serve to justify power (power ruling beauty), they can also motivate power (beauty ruling power).

    The problem with most power theorists seems to be the assumption that power rules only for its own sake, meaning it never serves beauty. I believe this to be corruption and false. A synergy should exist when power has a motive and foundation, a reason to exist. I expect Nietzsche with power, lacking a spiritual base, would be frantically attempting “special” actions, desperate to be his own master, seeing all beauty as enslavement by another master. I’m aware he says things like the spirited triumph over the strong, but such doesn’t seem to fit with his overall thinking or else “spirited” is supposed to mean something slightly but significantly different such as “will” originating from “within”. I don’t mean to debate Nietzsche. I just wish he were forgotten.

    1. The problem with most power theorists seems to be the assumption that power rules only for its own sake, meaning it never serves beauty. I believe this to be corruption and false. A synergy should exist when power has a motive and foundation, a reason to exist.

      I agree and see a parallel in art and athletics. There is a form for a perfect throw, catch, jump, stroke, stride, etc. Power must apply itself to that form to be effective. Much like in engineering, the best solutions are elegant, simple and controlled.

      Our user “crow” here is a master of that in language (and most likely other things).

      1. crow says:

        Are you kidding? Nobody understands a word I say.

        1. Nobody understands a word I say.

          That has zero relation to whether you’re a master in language or not.

          1. crow says:

            You are right. Acknowledged.

  11. Count Cagliostro says:

    Could someone please elaborate on “a new ethnic mass composed of near-whites (Slavs, Irish, Greeks, Jews, Italians, and lower-caste whites)”?

    Is it some kind of Nordic nationalism notion?

    1. Weaver says:

      Not exactly. He’s writing from an American perspective. “White” was Anglo-centric and yes “Nordic”, but it was not an abstract “Nordicism” as it’s often used. You can find Ben Franklin labeling Scandinavians as “swarthy”. America was overwhelming English in its founding, and you had “nativist” movements that strove to preserve the ethnic composition. The Immigration Act of 1924 was a desperate attempt to preserve the mix as it was then after a flood of immigrants had transformed the previous America.

      England is a nation. Europe is a continent, race, and civilisation. America today is a jumbled mass of people from all over Europe and other parts of the world. “White nationalism” is an attempt at forging a new nation from that.

      As proof of this, the Irish are clearly white and Nordic, truly who is whiter than an Irishman?; but they were persecuted in the US. It should be no surprise that Irish-Catholic Ted Kennedy pushed the 1965 Act (yes, we can attribute Jews as well). Catholicism was also seen as a threat to that America.

      America and Canada, both, have been transformed. I’m unfamiliar with Brett Stevens.

      1. “White” was Anglo-centric and yes “Nordic”, but it was not an abstract “Nordicism” as it’s often used. You can find Ben Franklin labeling Scandinavians as “swarthy”. America was overwhelming English in its founding, and you had “nativist” movements that strove to preserve the ethnic composition.

        This is a good summary of it. I am an American nativist, mainly because the principle of nationalism demands it. I don’t think it makes sense to be foamingly radical about that, but it’s important to acknowledge the wrecking ball that letting near-whites in was back in the 1820s-present day.

        Nietzsche had an interesting view on race. He wanted the return of the “golden” elitist ancestors, who he hints were Nordic but of an earlier type (perhaps the pre-Hallstadts). To that end, he was against European identities created by nation-states, which tended to merge the golden into the darker in the name of “being German,” for example.

        I imagine that a good starting point is national identity without the politicized boundaries of the nation-state, but even more, caste identity. Merge the highest with the highest and we will return to the golden race.

        As Schopenhauer said:

        With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation. Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles.

        1. Weaver says:

          Didn’t Nietzsche want to merge Germans and Jews into that golden race? The German identity would be at less risk if breeding with other Germans. And I doubt they’d lost genes through intermarriage to such an extent as to make merging necessary. I realise nations change with time, but I’d think it ideal to focus more on identity. Power must serve something. If the motive is truly pious, I can sympathise; but I’m wary the motive is progressive under the guise of piety. (If the wording isn’t ideal here, the meaning should be clear.)

          You mention Futurism. Do you favour genetic modification? I’ve seen Richard Hoste write on the fear (slight potential misconveyance of Hoste’s article here) that Idiocracy would strike before biotech could take off and Lynn on the possibility of robot brains. I firmly oppose genetic modification myself: it’s embracing defeat and declaring it victory. Eugenics though can be good.

          Separately from biotech: I like elite theory, but it can go in different directions. I want a capable polity (else it risks destruction), but I want it to be happy as well. And of course the ultimate goal of all things is the glorification of God.

    2. NotTheDude says:

      I’m going to risk an answer as it does sound as though that is the case, though of course I am not him and can’t speak for him. I take it to mean that the cultural and genetic ties between most Western European peoples who have reached roughly the same level of civilization (which I guess is why the Irish are left out, given much of their history) need some kind of exclusivity to guard what they have and move forward. These peoples are the most alike, so will produce the best that they can amongst themselves, which looking at other more unstable ‘hybrid’ societies, seems the most logical choice. This site and its writers don’t deal in dogma like many ‘Nationalists’. They just look and think.

      1. I take it to mean that the cultural and genetic ties between most Western European peoples who have reached roughly the same level of civilization (which I guess is why the Irish are left out, given much of their history) need some kind of exclusivity to guard what they have and move forward. These peoples are the most alike, so will produce the best that they can amongst themselves, which looking at other more unstable ‘hybrid’ societies, seems the most logical choice

        This is a great answer.

        The Irish need to be Irish. I don’t believe in anti-Irish hatred, nor do I think the problem with diversity is the groups involved. In fact, the great secret of diversity is that it does not matter what groups are involved; the fact of diversity itself is destructive.

        Houellebecq lived in Ireland for the better part of a decade and reported that it and the people were lovely. In the United States, the record is different, but hard to suss out, since Irish, Greeks, Italians, Jews and Slavs (Eastern Europeans) arrived in a bunch when immigration was opened up. Before that, it was Western European.

        There has also been traditional bias against these groups because of their tendency to be “off-white” or partially mixed. Irish-Iberian with Middle Eastern elements, Italians with Arabs and Phoenicians, Greeks with Turks (when your empire falls, expect a rape wave), Eastern Europeans with Asians and Middle Easterners.

        I found this article on Eastern Europe enlightening also:

        A number of similar myths exist. For example, the common legend of an ancient Slavic culture. There never was, and could not be, such a concept because the term “Slavs” in all Western European languages always referred simply to “slaves” — the pagan people who survived under the oppressive regimes of one conqueror after another.

    3. Swedish Special Forces says:

      No. If it was nordicism, he would have included Scots, French, and the Swiss. Brett is referring to a time when America had been mostly Celto-Germanic: Anglo (along with the Scots), German/Dutch, French, and Scandinavian. If you recall, the Irish were discriminated, because they not only took jobs, but affected the cultural landscape. They stick together and refuse to properly integrate. I slightly disagree with Brett on the Greeks: I think they integrated well eventually.

      Nevertheless, the point is mass immigration sucks for any nation. America is no different.

      1. Good insight. I think this is a good way to put it:

        affected the cultural landscape

        Identity isn’t about who you DON’T want in, it’s about who you are and how to stay that way (and improve at being what you are, while you’re at it). Western Europeans is generally held to mean English, Scots, Cornish/Welsh, Dutch, German, Sweden, Norwegian, Danish, Finnish, northern French, and Austrian. There’s probably a few others.

  12. Holmgang says:

    Until now, I always thought you were part of the larger umbrella of DE bloggers Mr. Stevens. I have always enjoyed your articles and found them interesting. Both the DE and your own writings complimented each other very well. I find it troubling but predictable that the greater conservative, alt-right, DE, NE, traditionalist etc….etc… or whatever the hell you and others want to identify yourselves would turn on each other and eat their own.

    Can you imagine yourself as a young man that has stumbled onto your site or one of the DE blogs in order to re-fine their own core beliefs? Maybe that young man is trying to find ammunition to battle a leftist teacher or professor with well thought out counter-arguments. Only to find this silly in-fighting among practically identical minds.

    Many years ago, I learned that getting right wing thinkers to act in concert is like herding cats. A damn near impossible task. So I began to think that the only way to get the right to move in a positive direction is to flood the world with more cats. I care not what they want to call themselves as long as we continue to breed more cats.

    1. Can you imagine yourself as a young man that has stumbled onto your site or one of the DE blogs in order to re-fine their own core beliefs?

      What a wonderful question! Yes, indeed I can — which is why I believe that I should do my best to never mislead such a person. In any way, no matter how small.

  13. Aditya Barot says:

    Mr Stevens:

    Does President Reagan’s observation regarding a man who agrees with you 80 per cent of the time apply to neoreaction/DE? Or, are they simply we’ll-meaning but fundamentally mistaken persons who need a little adult chastisement?

    1. The problem with DE is that it’s an attempt to make a leftist version of the right, which will serve as a temporary proxy for the right, and the immediate revert to leftism. Much as happened to libertarianism when the internet got ahold of it.

  14. Tony says:

    Interesting analogy Holmgang, breeding more cats. At the very least conservatives might should be open to ideas other than their own.
    The future is NOT just some place you are going to (liberal idea of following the leader) but is a place you are creating (conservative idea of moving in a positive direction.)

  15. I enjoy your critique of DE. Personally, I do not favor their approach other than the methods (using the left’s tactics against them). I think conservatism is a losing ideology. It really just shadows liberalism in a lot of areas, moving on as its views are phased out of acceptable thought. It’s why I call myself a Christian Republican Nationalist. I favor a marriage of the benefits of non-familial successive monarchy, regional representative republican assembly, as well as explicitly Biblical foundation of common law. Ideally, I feel, a nation built to last would have a head of state handpicked for ideological adherence and Biblical literacy, a weakened judiciary, a split assembly, half elected from regions, the other half representing military, church, and engineering interests.
    This would not be a utopia, for it is clear at the onset to understand there can never be a utopia. However, I feel it would grant people the representation and freedoms they hunger for whilst also preventing societal evolution to the point of devolution. You almost want to put society’s ship in a bottle, prevent the machine from rusting as it ages. It’s hard to do, and the scale upon which this could be conducted is unknown. Would it only work for a city state? Who knows.

    What I do think is good is that traditionalists are starting to think outside the box and question previous assumptions in order to forward our ideological goals.

  16. […] Stevens, in this article, attempts to impose this sort of framing, reconceptaulizing Neoreaction in terms of his vision of […]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 1.343 seconds