Over at a site that has been on my reading list for years (and on which my writings have appeared) a rather detailed and articulate attack against me has appeared. It makes sense to analyze this in good faith and see what points it makes.
The author argues that I am (1) a mainstream conservative and (2) a world Zionist disinformation agent. Unbounded accusations like this cannot be refuted simply because there are too many inputs; I can show that the Bank Of The Learned Elders Of Zion did not send me any checks, but maybe they used another source, or pay me in Kentucky Burley. Same with the mainstream conservative accusation: perhaps I keep a television in the basement crawl space to covertly watch Fox And Friends late at night.
The first argument takes this form:
dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism
By “patriotardism,” the author seems to be suggesting an affiliation with the GOP and its defense of the “proposition nation”/”magic dirt” nation state. Fortunately, we have some source material: “Nationalism Rises As The Proposition Nation Fades Away”, The Death Of The Proposition Nation, Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism” and perhaps most fundamentally, “Patriotism Or Nationalism?”.
One might also wonder how the GOP jives with the four pillars advocated here for the restoration of Western civilization, the rejection of democracy, the dislike of equality, and other notions that are part of the mainstream conservative lexicon.
He does make a good point about mainstream conservatives however which is that they are the Rightists who were willing to work with the new, post-Revolutionary order as established in France, giving rise to the terms “Right” and “Left.” However, the impulse toward conservatism occurred long before that, and it is this type of “roots conservatism” — found in Plato and Nietzsche — that informs my advocacy of it and understanding of the term.
Moving on to the “Jewish Question” or JQ, which is always a point of conflict:
Of course those in service of the YKW do not feel the need to be especially covert about their advocacy in all places nowadays, particularly with The Alternative Right Tentosphere being what ((it is))), as it is devised to be YKW friendly – markedly so in its charter name site, Alternative Right, which re-published the Brett Stevens article “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism.” They feel no need to be ashamed of their defense of Jewish interests, they are free to exercise their chutzpah, as they do by way of Stevens in this article. However, the real points for style in shabbos service come into play as Stevens and committee go to work confounding and re-directing proper ethno-nationalist understanding of the world that the more sophisticated and Jew-wise would otherwise be sorting out.
My point is simple: Western Civilization’s decay is the result of poor decisions made by Western people. We cannot blame anyone else. In addition, we should cheer Jewish nationalism because it ends the diaspora and revitalizes nationalism. Western Civilization rose by being reflective, or intuitively bonded to the best aspects of reality and geared toward qualitative improvement of the experience of life, and breaking away from that by relying on scapegoats is beneath us, inaccurate and will lead to more horrifying stuff like The Holocaust. We are not murderers, nor are other racial groups our concern; our goal is to restore Western Civilization and make it better than ever before. This is the goal of any sane and healthy civilization, and we are not sane and healthy now, nor have we been for a long time, although the French Revolution really formalized our decline.
He wonderfully clarifies my argument here:
blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude
Yes. That is our illness. Everything else is a symptom. We do not achieve victory by fighting symptoms, but by going to the cause. Degeneration — first moral, then mental, and now physical — is the hallmark of the decline of the West. As one observer said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not murder.” We lost our way and have made ourselves miserable, and are now self-destructing.
This is the difficult problem we must solve. If stopping civilization decline were easier, there would be more great civilizations still in existence. Instead, it serves as the means by which every advanced human civilization so far has passed into darkness. This is the challenge before us: to save civilization.
Whether or not Jews are a symptom of this problem, they are not its source. Even more, whipping people up in a fury against them fails because it both distracts us from the actual cause, and inspires people to do ignoble things like genocide. We do not need to kill those who might appear to be our enemies; we need to fix ourselves, which includes excluding everyone else.
It is the same way with the African-Americans. Some wish to blame them, but the actual cause is diversity, which in fact gets more deadly if it involves “nice” groups because then your people hybridize with them, erasing the original population. This type of soft genocide leaves behind a civilization capable of none of the great acts of the old.
On this issue, the philosophers have it right: our civilization entered into decline because people became individualistic, or acting for themselves first against the natural ways a civilization structures itself. Individualism is reality-denial, a form of hubris. The only solution is a cultural change reversing this pathology.
Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European
Much of Jewish genetics originate in Southern Europe, which makes sense given the proximity of that region to Israel, and that we know Israel was a trading hub between West, East and Africa. That would lead to a mixed-race group of Caucasian and Asian roots with some African.
Think about this another way: if you take New York and analyze the people who are successful in business there, most will be Caucasian, followed by Asians, with a few exceptional African-Americans who have made it big in business. If all of these wealthy people go to the same schools, country clubs and the like, they will intermarry, producing an ethnic mix resembling the Judaic mixture.
Jews are not the enemy; they are what is left after a civilization dies in the higher socioeconomic classes. Again, think of New York. The reason pro-Aryanists fear The Eternal Jew is not because the Jew is the threat, but because the Jew is a symbol of our future if we do not end diversity.
we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin
Race is not binary. Consider the fringes, such as parts of Italy where the population is clearly intermixed with Persian and Phoenician remnants, or parts of Russian where the population despite being blonde/blue has a quarter Asiatic mixed into it. That does not mean we should do more than understand these other groups as being similar but crucially different to us.
The same is true of Spain, for example. Many Spaniards show clear evidence of admixture with Moors or Sephardim. Many Americans have Asiatic (Amerind) heritage, or some like the Melungeons of Appalachia, show African admixture. What does this mean? For starters, that admixture makes a group different, but not so radically different that we cannot understand them.
My hope for the Jewish people is the same as their hope: for the diaspora to end with a prosperous, safe and stable Israel as their ancestral homeland and a place for all Jews. Of course, the White Nationalists would work to prevent this and instead focus their energies on dreams of genocide, which then allows the actual problems of the West to go unchallenged.
Not coincidentally, this is also my hope for Western Europeans — and every other group, including Eastern Europeans, Africans, Southern Europeans, Asians and any other identifiable human group.
Our path lies between cuck and sperg, which means that we are trying to find a path between the cowardly GOP who will never act to save Western Civilization, and the White Nationalists, who will act on one issue obsessively and ignore the rest. The middle path is crucial here.
First of all, deconstruction is a mainstay premise of what modernity does to clear-away “the arbitrary” in its quest after foundational essences. It is NOT so concerned to not subject to arbitrary deconstruction and experimentation the precious inheritance that is. So, we already have a clue that Stevens is going to probably give us not something radically different for our interests at all (certainly not White Post Modernity) but something a lot more like bald modernity and nihilism in the service of the “reality of inequality”, a “reality” that just so happens to serve the ehem, rather unequal position now of Jewish power and interests – who will try to placate us, if we are good sheeple, by sneaking-in some “radically” traditional Noahide consolation.
Deconstruction is also a powerful method for reducing the seeming omnipotence of certain socially-acceptable illusions. For example, “the reality of inequality” applies to the failure of democracy and diversity.
the “irony” is that the notion of necessity that he is alleging as being opposed to fatalism and the humility (as opposed to hubris) to know one’s factual limitations is, in fact, of an appeal to a less socially interactive and agentive kind of cause and effect – it heads toward deterministic cause and effect quite the opposite of the agency that appeals of social critique and social constructionism.
And yet, life is deterministic. People have different innate abilities and inclinations. It sounds almost like he is arguing for Leftist universalism here, or the idea that people are equal and that accurate portrayals of reality are discernible by all people equally. That is clearly not the case, which is why hierarchy is needed.
democracy is put aside as something that doesn’t work because people start worrying too much about what others think
Yes, and for many other reasons too. Democracy is what the cucks defend. Mob rule is the downfall of the West.
Modernity has not only been atop a short list of the most profoundly transformative ways of life, it will remain to feature as an integral capacity of any competent post modern culture.
Modernity, which is the era which begins with the assumption of equality, has created vast degeneration in the West. The sooner we escape this time of illusion the better.
those peasant revolts! they were based in delusional thinking too – they should have just known their place!
His objections are starting to sound very Leftist. We need hierarchy; peasants who pretend to be kings are prone to make terrible decisions. Look at our history since the time when we rejected monarchy.
Stevens reverses this, and says that the unversities are merely responding to what students want. He is disingenuously suggesting that these liberal teachers, cultural Marxist and Jewish academics are innocent, they are merely responding to market demand of students, not indoctrinating them and selling them endless words, endless critique aimed at effecting the teacher’s personal interests along with peer Jewish and liberal interests.
Another way to look at this is that academia aims to sell its product to students who already agree with it, which thanks to the Leftist high schools, is most of them; however, the bigger argument is that Leftism is always more popular because it flatters the ego, and so people flock to it for social reasons.
Because you think that we just hate reality, beauty and happiness, we aren’t dealing with reality, not accepting what “is”, we only care about what we think “ought” to be. Do you really believe that Brett?
Yes. People are not good, and only some can become good through self-discipline and a sense of reverence. The rest are self-interested monkeys who behave like a prole revolt and destroy everything good. We can see this exemplified in Leftism and the associated movements that follow it, including White Nationalism, which attempts to destroy Western Europe through trace admixture and uniformity.
While it was not totally surprising that Alternative Right blog spot would unabashedly re-publish his Jewish advocacy, viz., the article quoted in the post, it was a little surprise to see it republished uncritically (save the capacity for critical comments) at Alt Right.com, and it appears that critical of them as I have been, that I still gave them too much credit. I assumed that it had to be the case that Stevens was not only selling a new podcast but a new website: why, after all, would these sites, supposedly wise to the JQ, be promoting the work of one with a long-standing track record of ardent defense and attempted exoneration of Jewish interests?, and why would AltRight re-post it, allowing for comments, yes, but re-post it un-accompanied by any critical editorialization of its own?
Alternative Right publishes a number of authors with somewhat divergent views. This can help expand dialogue about Right-wing topics instead of turning us into a Right-flavored version of Leftism, which forces conservative thought into a dogma or ideology and thus lessens its actual potency by making it related to symbol and not reality.
You would have to ask the editors there what their intent was, however. So far, I have found no reason to criticize them, even when they publish articles that I personally disagree with in whole or in part.
The points I take away from our dialogue here today are thus: there are no binaries regarding nations; each group acts in self-interest. The groups that succeed will unite individual self-interest with that of the group, which requires people who are not individualistic. Those who argue in favor of individualism are, at their heart, Leftism, or believing in the equality and goodness of humanity, which history shows us is nonsense and drivel. Even white people — especially white people! — are prone to become narcissistic and self-preening instead of focusing on the end results of their actions in reality. Rightism is found in rejecting the preening and focusing on reality, and this is what made the greatness of the West.
Majority Rights will succeed where it offers an alternative to the modern time. Once we assume equality, no amount of racial awareness will stop that from eventually extending to its natural end result, which is inclusion of everyone as equal. For that reason, we need a method of thinking outside of modernity/equality, and this is found in some of the ideas I pursue that are feared by both the underground white nationalist Right and the mainstream cheeseburger cuckservative Right.
I do not expect these ideas to be immediately accepted. No new idea ever is, mainly because it takes on a new form and so is unfamiliar to its audience. However, it seems to me that the greatest threats come to us from failed ideas of the past dressed up as something desired, for example Leftist pro-democracy talk disguised as pro-white or pro-nationalist.
For my ideas, the bottom line is this: we are here to restore Western Civilization. We know that to do that, we need to escape from the house that equality built, because it is the ideology of our enemies. In the interim, there will be those who try to sell us the same old thing in a new form because they know it will be popular. It makes sense to ignore those.
All in all, this seems a productive dialogue. We have gotten to the core of two ideals — my futurist traditionalism versus DanielS’s racialist democracy — and can compare them as they really are. This offers a lot to someone who is looking for an option to the present, and wondering how deep they must cut to get beneath the necrotic flesh and encounter healthy tissue again.