Posts Tagged ‘interview’

Interview With Brett Stevens on Operation Mockingbird

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Operation Mockingbird is a rising podcast that covers hard topics on the Right and concerning the future of human society as we move out of modernity. Host Joe Arrigo aptly covers a wide range of topics, and has interviewed me before, which turned out quite well. I was fortunate to be invited back for a second interview, which covers the events in Charlottesville, the Alt Right and the changes happening to America as Antifa and the Establishment link hands. I hope you enjoy it.

Interview With A Nihilist

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

Sometimes people wonder how it is possible to be a nihilist, conservative and transcendentalist in one. The answer is that one thought leads to another, starting with a quest to understand reality that makes one appreciate the qualitative dimension to all things. That in turn opens other doors.

This morning’s email brought a few short questions, and the answers are a quick insight into this mindset of naturalistic nihilism, so they are presented here. When man seeks to be above beast, he loses himself; when he encounters his inner beast, he can again see himself and context, and for the first time know what he is, and what is a truth beyond and above him.

What do you think about veganism?

To be honest, I do not think much about it. For most people, it is merely a social pose. As a former vegetarian, I understand some of the impulses behind it. What changed my mind was recognition that there is a natural order, and some animals are basically prey much as they are in the wild, and that with more traditional forms of farming, these animals have good lives and their species are perpetuated by humankind. In a broader sense, I think humans have taken up too much of the world, when we should at most have a third of it and leave the rest wild, but that requires fewer humans, which requires applying a quality filter to humans.

Are you determinist?

Yes, insofar as abilities go. You are born to be of a certain level of intelligence and moral character, and nothing will change that. More specifically, there is a natural hierarchy where everyone has a station based on those dual attributes — intelligence and moral character — and no one can rise above where they were born. Proles cannot be kings, and merchants cannot be geniuses. That can be complicated by caste-mixing, but offspring play a lottery as to which traits they inherit, and someone who is intelligent without moral character is a form of blight to both civilization and self. On top of that natural order, we have moral and realistic choices to make; we do not have “free will,” which implies unlimited choice, but like a computer we can process what is front of us based on what we know and the limitations of our circuits. Meaning: your grandmother’s 1995 laptop is not going to suddenly become an AI with godlike intelligence, but some computer out there might. For us to thrive, we need to find the best computers — geniuses — that we can and enlist them in planning and executing our future.

If nothing matters… why do you live?

It depends on the term “matters,” there. Obviously, reality is what it is, and in itself, that makes it important. Nothing “matters” in a universal sense, meaning that everyone can understand it, but there are things worth doing and fighting for, so those are important as far as I am able to discern. You may be looking for fatalists, who argue that no matter what choice we make, we are either doomed or it is all pointless anyway. A nihilist simply recognizes a lack of inherent meaning or universal truth. A nihilist also defaults to a natural view, which is that life may not have an innate truth or universal value to it, but it is something that exists for a purpose of its own, best approximated by what Schopenhauer calls the “Will.” With that in mind, we can see ourselves as what we are: animals attempting to survive, as part of the scheme of the universe to expand and become more complex, and through it derive perhaps not truths, but wisdom.

Interview With The Mad Monarchist

Monday, July 24th, 2017

As our regular readers know, Amerika represents roots conservatism, which is the habit of preserving what works and then gradually improving it qualitatively that has guided humanity since the dawn of time. That basic philosophy takes many forms, which have their own principles and methods interpreting it, but is more radical than anything else in that it faces the basic patterns of reality instead of focusing on categorical, material and discrete symbols as replacements for that reality. Part of this realism is recognizing the importance of aristocracy, or a leadership based on quality of people and not inverted assessments like wealth or elections or even popularity, and to that end we are monarchists, or those who want an escape from democracy to the more stable times of kings, lords and honor. One of the most persuasive writers about monarchy, The Mad Monarchist has explored not just the reasoning behind monarchy, but the remaining royal houses and the slow but gradual increase of interest worldwide in a restoration. For a monarchist, one cannot restore Western Civilization without also bringing its ancient leadership caste back to life. We were lucky to get a chance to interview this creative and dynamic, if hardline traditionalist, thinker.

The big question: why monarchy? What does it offer that nothing else does, why is it the best option, and how do people get to the point of realizing that this is true?

That is usually the first question; I have been asked it many times and have given many different answers. For some, the answer is based on religion, in my case Christianity which commands it. Yet, there are also practical reasons. Monarchies today are more cost-effective than modern republics, their populations are more united, they are disproportionately more prosperous and so on. They tend to be more durable and resilient than republics. The United States is the oldest major republic in the world and yet it is as a child compared to the longevity of monarchies such as Japan, Denmark, Great Britain or even tiny Monaco. All of these would, I think, make a strong case for monarchy being the “best option” but it is also part of how monarchies tend to be organic. This is partly why they are so different from each other and so long lasting. They grow up along with a nation and so are a natural fit for their people and culture rather than being something which an elite group “invents” according to a particular ideology and then expects everyone to adapt to.

As to how people get to the point of realizing the truth of this, the open-minded can, of course, be persuaded by reasoned arguments but such individuals are few. People also do tend to adapt to their circumstances and, despite what they claim, usually do not want any radical changes. However, I think there does come a point when people or their republican rulers must face the fact that their system is not working. Republics, at least in modern times, post-revolutionary republics, tend to be very Utopian and ideological and this will inevitably end in disappointment as they promise something, a Utopia, which cannot be achieved. At that point, I would think, people would have no choice but to look back to more “ancient wisdom” for a viable alternative. Democracy does complicate this point as it can be either a help or a hindrance. In China, for example, after tens of millions of people died and the rest remained mired in poverty, the ruling Communist Party did finally admit to itself that communism had failed and they began to abandon it but this would not have been possible if China had been a democracy. At the same time, it also means that the form of government itself is almost impossible to change by any orderly process.

Do you prefer absolute hereditary monarchies, or constitutional monarchies?

I would prefer either to a revolutionary republic but, of the two, I tend to incline toward absolute hereditary monarchies though, it must be said, the same thing will not work for everyone in every part of the world. My general preference is a traditional monarchy in which the monarch rules and is, as Bishop Jacques Bossuet wrote, “absolute” but not “arbitrary.” The two are not always so opposed as they seem. The former Empire of Japan was technically a constitutional monarchy, yet the Emperor had, effectively, absolute power in the end. Monaco has been a constitutional monarchy since the reign of Prince Albert I and yet he and every successive Sovereign Prince until the current one has suspended the constitution at some point. I prefer a monarch that is absolute in that his (or her) position is inviolable and beyond dispute but not arbitrary in the sense that he can do whatever he pleases. The monarch should be absolute but I think everyone should be absolute in terms of what is their own.

How does monarchy relate to caste?

I would say it relates to it only in as much as the historical conditions which led to the development of caste systems usually led to monarchy as well, which is not saying much as almost every people on earth, left to their own devices, naturally developed into a monarchy, even if only of the primitive, tribal variety. However, as caste deals with people interacting with each other rather than the ruled interacting with their ruler (which most of the ruled never have and never will) it has meant that caste is not as easy to eradicate as monarchy. Caste systems continue in a number of republics in spite of efforts to stamp them out. Similarly, republics themselves tend to ape monarchy after being without it for a sufficient time or, in some cases, almost immediately out of force of habit. Monarchies have tended to simply embrace caste differences and make them more beneficial and less cruel. Though, much of that will depend on things like religious differences. For the same reason that getting rid of the aristocracy never resulted in equality, I find it hard to imagine a world in which no trace of caste remains.

Are monarchies nationalist by nature?

Many will doubtless be upset with this answer but I would have to say, “yes” though, as always, this is not invariably the case. Monarchs tend to be bound up with the history of their nation, some more so than others but ultimately this is usually the case. Certainly, in cases such as France, the history of the monarchs is the history of the nation. Monarchs have often represented the way nations viewed themselves as a unique and special people, which I think is a healthy thing and which has certainly been proven to aid in longevity for a people. For a nation such as Japan, this is quite obvious. In others, it is harder to see but, as I have often said, even in the past when nationalism was not the most important thing to western peoples, that still did not mean that it was unimportant.

Many, incorrectly I think, attribute nationalism to the revolutionary era but ultimately it was the revolution, the downfall of monarchs and the elevation of “equality” and the “brotherhood of man” that led to internationalism and globalism. I have also said more than once that it was hardly a leap to go from arguing that the bloodline of your ruler does not matter to arguing that the bloodline of the people themselves does not matter, which is where we have come to today. I also think it no coincidence that in surviving monarchies which have done away with male primogeniture, which technically means a change in dynasty every time a girl is born first, has come about at the same time that western countries have abandoned the nation-state in favor of the multi-cultural, come one, come all approach to the demography of their populace.

Do you think monarchism is more likely, or less likely, to have a revival now — 228 years after the Revolution™ — as opposed to a previous time?

This is the sort of question that tempts me to dishonesty. I tend to be very pessimistic yet am stubborn enough to carry on regardless of the chances of success. I was born within sight of the Alamo so it is not in me to give up a fight simply because there no possible way to win. Most, however, are not like that and so you must hold out some hope for them to be motivated. Thankfully, I do think there are legitimate grounds for hope that can be found in almost any historical era and recently I have seen some that such is the case today. We are seeing increasingly the vanguard of the liberal mindset eating its own tail. The flaws in their utopian ideology are becoming evident as they are forced to violate their own principles in order to keep the façade of their model state from collapsing. I do not see how people can fail to notice this.

In the United States, for example, we have seen, with the election of Trump, the revelation of the hypocrisy of our ruling class and our institutions on a scale that certainly took me by surprise. You now have leftists championing states’ rights, pledging absolute faith to the intelligence agencies they ridiculed under George W. Bush and former peaceniks now clamoring for war with Russia or Syria. Likewise, you see Republicans unwilling to embrace “free market” healthcare, dropping any pretense of opposition to the homosexual agenda and admitting that their system of classical liberalism means that Satanists must be treated exactly the same as Christians. Other countries have different situations but I think many are coming to a similar climax. In Europe, the backlash against multiculturism has been good to see, though not as successful as I would have wished. I do see some reason to hope that in the republics, a rejection of the current system and a desire to reassert national distinctiveness could result in the restoration of fallen monarchies. However, I do also worry that, in their unthinking fury, some surviving monarchies may fall victim to these same forces which seek to tear down what exists.

Many have said that democracy has fallen, and others like Samuel Huntington have intimated that the age of ideology is over. With democracy and ideology dead, what is left, and how does this lead to monarchism?

My only question concerning the death of democracy would be whether it was ever truly alive in the first place. Ideology does seem to be on the decline somewhat, mostly because of the failures I mentioned above. People see the system failing to deliver paradise, they see the hypocrisy of their rulers and they are becoming restless. What is left will be a vacuum and that can lead to monarchy but only if the new leadership that comes along can keep a cool head and if the people have truly abandoned their slave-like devotion to the old liberal god. My concern is that the people have still not realized that utopia is unobtainable and they simply want some other system or ideology to deliver it. Likewise, as mentioned, I worry that existing monarchies and other traditional institutions could be torn down by hotheads who blame them for simply adapting to their environment. I see many on the right rejecting existing monarchs because they go along with the current ruling class and often mouth the same platitudes. I see them rejecting Christianity and embracing a sort of Germanic neo-paganism because they see the major churches likewise going along with the ruling class and repeating the same mindless, liberal “social justice warrior” type talking points. This greatly concerns me.

It concerns me because it is clearly understandable, yet to my mind is extremely tragic because, by turning against these things, the leftists have effectively prompted the right to do their job for them. The revolutionary types overthrew everything traditional that they could but for those institutions that they could not overthrow, they infiltrated them, spread garbage all around them, indoctrinated their members until we have reached the point that the right views them as tainted and is ready to tear them down for them. Because, rest assured, no matter how much the Prince of Wales talks about global warming or how often the King of Norway talks about a borderless world, diversity and inclusivity, the left still does not view them as allies or trust them to be genuine about these things. If they did, they would not prevent these monarchs having any actual power, they would not constantly be holding the threat of a republic over their heads. Modern, reigning royals can repeat all the popular leftist lines but the leftists do not think they really mean it. Unfortunately, many on the right think they do. I would hope the right either learns to disregard what modern, effectively caged, royals say and do and focus on the institution, the legacy and the heritage they represent. At the same time, I would hope that these royals overcome their Stockholm syndrome and take care not to get on the wrong side of their people.

If that happens, I think traditional monarchy could be the ideal solution, perhaps the only solution as one of the things that makes it most appealing to me is that traditional monarchies had government without politics. They had no political parties, good government was not hampered by two feuding camps locked in perpetual ideological war and people could focus on their own lives.

How did you get started out writing, and is this something you have trained for or self-instructed?

It was something I always seemed to be drawn to, won some awards for in school more years ago than I’d like to say, though I do remember being extremely terrible at spelling as a boy. One teacher, I think in the third grade, even gave me a pocket dictionary because my spelling was so consistently bad. I have never had what I would call formal training for it, I did take at least one writing class in my university days as I recall but my focus there was on history and geography.

What first drew you to monarchism, and how hard was it to break out of the conventional thinking that progress is real, the present is the best human society, that democracy is the only functional form of government, and so on? Did you receive pushback from family, friends, romantic interests and business associates?

I was fortunate in that I come from a very conservative family. I had my usual round of youthful foolishness in high school but by the time I went to college I quickly came to be solidly monarchist. I was probably never more monarchist or religious than when I was in a university that did nothing but try to convince me to be the opposite every day. Breaking out of the conventional thinking was not difficult for me. Given how my father and one of my grandfathers were ardent Confederate sympathizers, the idea that the U.S. government was God’s gift to the world never occurred to me. My late mother, I can remember as a child, also kept up with the Windsors and the Grimaldis and older members of my family, even the most “American” of them, were never really opposed to monarchy on principle. Being very religious, very “Bible-thumping” types, simply relating the passages of the Bible commanding obedience to kings was enough to get them on side or at least to admit that they could not object to monarchy.

For the same reason, they never believed democracy was the last word in government as they knew from their Bible lessons that the majority usually do what is wrong and only a few will do what is right, so none of that was very difficult. One incident that did impact me which I will never forget, though it was a great many years ago, was reading a passage out of my Grandfather’s encyclopedia which demonstrated “spin” by showing two passages about Britain’s King George III, each relating basically the same information about the man but one making him seem very good and the other very bad. That one event really opened my eyes and after that it became almost a game for me to read through my history books and pick out the facts from the opinions. That had a tremendous impact on me, particularly concerning the American War for Independence. As for family, friends, girlfriends, there has been no serious pushback or opposition. Everyone I was around for any considerable period of time was, I am proud to say, either converted to being pro-monarchy or at least not anti-monarchy. That being said, most of my immediate family is gone now, I live 50 miles from the nearest thing that could be called a city and I don’t travel anymore so my only contact with friends is by internet or telephone. As far as romantic interests go, my personality was more “pushback” than my opinions ever could be.

As for business interests, that was never really a problem. I did teach for about five minutes, realized that job would require far, far more patience than I would ever possess and I did know that any higher academic career would go nowhere with my opinions and my inability to keep quiet about them. Thankfully, none of that was necessary. I worked for my father growing up, whose views are not radically different from my own and today I have reached the point of being independent and self-sustaining in economic terms so I have no business partners or anyone over me that I have to worry about upsetting.

How does monarchy relate to aristocracy and feudalism?

Much the same as with the question about the caste system, they tend to coincide though they do not necessarily always go together or one lead to the other. There have been aristocratic republics and some would say that republicanism itself could be viewed as an overly complicated sort of feudalism. Monarchy, I would say, sits naturally at the apex of the feudal pyramid and in terms of aristocracy, monarchy takes the natural and inevitable divisions of society and smooths out the rough edges, making it more beneficial. Even in a monarchy these things can get out of hand, no system being immune from human error, but monarchy does not deny human nature as a modern, “egalitarian” republic would. For example, many American Senators and Congressmen occupy seats that their fathers and grandfathers occupied in their turn. A monarchy recognizes this, codifies it and you get a House of Lords, which is more direct and honest. A monarchy also makes these things work better by using human nature to best benefit. Prior to the Revolution, the French aristocracy had fallen into a terrible state but had King Louis XVI, a very upright and moral man, remained on his throne for the rest of his natural life, I have no doubt that the aristocracy would have changed to follow his example. Monarchs have also been able to do a great deal of good by using the natural drive to “keep up with the Joneses” to benefit the whole of society.

How could a modern republic — let’s pick a hard one and say the USA, or at least Texas — transition to monarchy? Can this be done through democracy, ironic as it may seem?

Technically speaking, it can be done through the existing legal process. In the case of the USA it would simply require a number of constitutional amendments and, while very difficult, there is provision for that in the current system and unlike many younger republics there is nothing in the constitution to forbid it. Texas could become a monarchy by amending the U.S. Constitution to do away with the requirement that state governments be republican. Of course, the Texas constitution would also have to be amended but this is easier. The alternative would be more difficult which would be for Texas to secede from the Union and then write an entirely new constitution that would make Texas a monarchy. The problem there, of course, is one illustrative of the flaws in the U.S. system itself which is that secession has been ruled to be impossible by the Supreme Court, unless, perhaps, the other states agree. Even the most idealistic republics, when all else fails, revert to “might makes right” and such a thing could still be possible but would require the use of force to accomplish it. Many years ago I had a list of the constitutional amendments that would be required, at minimum, to make the USA a monarchy but I have long last track of it. It can be done and, unless one is willing to resort to illegal means, is the only way one has to proceed. However, I think history will support me in saying that no ruling elite which truly ruled ever gave up power simply because of a vote.

If people are interested in what you do, where should they go looking for your work and news about what you have been up to?

Simply punching in “The Mad Monarchist” to your Google machine would probably work, I am told that after nearly a decade at this, mine is the first to come up on such searches. However, to go the source directly, I can be found at where I have long been. My posts are less frequent but more substantial than they were in years past but, over this much time, there is much for new readers to peruse.

Interview With Brett Stevens on The Uprising Review

Thursday, July 20th, 2017

Many of you know Everitt Foster as one of the voices on our podcast. He also co-helms a site dedicated to up-and-coming writers known as The Uprising Review. I was fortunate to be interviewed on their most recent podcast on the topic of editing and how it can influence the work of a starting writer. It is a lengthy but informative interview by a project that is worth exploring as cultural changes make writing, fiction and literature more important, not less.

Brett Stevens On Operation Mockingbird Podcast

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

I was fortunate to be featured on YouTube podcast Operation Mockingbird this evening, answering the thoughtful questions of host Joe Arrigo about Neoreaction, Traditionalism and the Dark Enlightenment, as well as a small amount on my book Nihilism.

You can find more on the Operation Mockingbird YouTube Channel or view the interview below. Thanks to Joe for a stimulating and comprehensive interview.

Interview With Brett Stevens

Monday, April 17th, 2017

I am fortunate to be interviewed at Speakeasy(X) regarding politics, philosophy, religion and music. You can read the complete interview here. It outlines much of the basic philosophical approach that I take toward Alt Right issues and the question of human civilization in general.

If you would like some framing going into it, it makes sense to remember what Seneca told Lucilius:

To consort with the crowd is harmful; there is no person who does not make some vice attractive to us, or stamp it upon us, or taint us unconsciously therewith. Certainly, the greater the mob with which we mingle, the greater the danger…I mean that I come home more greedy, more ambitious, more voluptuous, and even more cruel and inhuman, because I have been among human beings.

Much of what is revealed herein follows the patterns: humans are solipsistic, and form groups to scapegoat anything but that, so that they do not have to adapt in a Darwinian or a moral sense. Instead, people want to exist in pure isolation, but in doing so, deprive themselves of meaning and become miserable and self-pitying, which manifests in an impulse to destroy.

Interview with Jim Goad

Friday, March 31st, 2017

From some years ago, an interview with Jim Goad that never really seemed complete, but nonetheless is an interesting view into this intriguing thinker, activist and troll. We are fortunate to present his words here on Amerika as a way of understanding the complex philosophy from which he comes. Without further ado…

You are known for taking what seems to me a deliberately “antisocial” viewpoint toward society, in which you shy away from the politeness, flattery and conflict avoidance/inoffensiveness that seems to be a modern behavioral code. Are there any social values to being antisocial? Can a civilization be “too social”?

I’m glad you at least qualified it with the word “seems,” because I’m absolutely and sincerely antisocial. It’s entirely effortless for me to be antisocial, and the idea that I’d “deliberately” write that way sort of insultingly implies the audience is important enough to me that I’d alter my style for them, even if in an antagonistic way. If I was polite, that would be the result of effort and deliberation.

And I don’t feel as if I “shy away” from anything; rather, it’s those who mince words in order to please their own chosen herd who are shying away. I’ve never heard of “shying away” from politeness, only from confrontation, so that’s a new concept for me. I simply value and respect myself more than I do any aggregation of humans I’ve ever encountered.

I agree with Nietzsche’s dictum about how madness is rare in individuals but the rule in society. And I don’t care if there are “social values” in being antisocial or not. That’s why I’ve always rejected the idea that literature should have “socially redeeming value,” or else it’s obscene and illegal. What if the crux of your writing is that societies are inherently loathsome?

I’m entirely suspect of herd psychology. All civilizations are too social, at least for my tastes. I think crowds are mostly for mental weaklings and the fundamentally unexceptional. If that makes me autistic or the enemy of some dimwitted conformist “movement,” them’s the breaks.

If you had to identify the most formative influences on your writing and more importantly, your outlook on the world, what would they be?

Parents. Nuns. Politicians. Social engineers. Anyone who barked out a transparent line of authoritarian bullshit that, under scrutiny, proved to be entirely implausible.

When I was a kid, it was the myth of Santa Claus. As a teen, it was the myth that Jesus rose from the dead. Around age 30, it was the myth that with a little nurturing and nudging, we’d all be equal. And whether or not I agree with them, I’m also fond of people who have the bravery to go against the grain because they sincerely believe they’re right.

The philosopher Plato and historians Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee write about a cycle of history, in which civilizations are born, age and die. They point out how this death-process begins from within and is a natural consequence of civilization aging, unless counteracted by the cultural and political leaders of those civilizations. Do you think such a thing could happen to our civilization here in comfy North America? What about Europe?

I tend to agree with the idea that civilizations are like super-organisms. Not too sure there’s much of a remedy once they start aging and dying. I think America and Europe are both obviously declining. And I agree with Toynbee that civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. People of European stock are the only ones on Earth who feel good about feeling bad about themselves. That’s not exactly a recipe for success.

Some would say we live in a time when our elites have decided on a political dogma that replaces reality. Others, more cynical, might say that the citizens spaced out. Either way, it seems there’s a schizoid division between what my television tells me, and what I observe. Do you find this to be true and, if so, how do you use your famously irascible personality and mocking humor to break down the dichotomy?

When in history did elites preach a dogma that was realistic? When they lied that Jesus rose from the dead? That all men are created equal? That they had our best interests in mind? As far as I know, all they ever did was preach things that would divide, confuse, and placate the masses.

A couple generations ago they were preaching something else, but I don’t think it was necessarily any more realistic. You know those comparative picture games where you’re supposed to circle everything in Picture “B” that’s different from Picture “A”? That’s what I try to do in my writing — I try to circle everything depicted as “reality” in the mainstream media that doesn’t jibe with the world as I see it.

But I’m skeptical enough about human nature that I don’t think it will result in any grand, sweeping changes and usher in some New Dawn that makes any more sense. At best, it might enable to find me a few kindred spirits whose very existence doesn’t annoy the living shit out of me, but anything beyond that would constitute self-deluded wishful thinking.

Did you observe any parallels between the types of political interaction and control found in prisons between inmates, and the types of political manipulation used in international politics?

I’m not sure I understand the question, but I’ll give it a stab—in prison, everyone seemed to get along because ethnic divisions were acknowledged and respected, whereas in international politics, no one gets along because these divisions are denied and demonized.

If you could live in an ideal society, what would it be? Is there any way for us to get closer to there?

Asking the wrong guy. To me, the term “ideal society” is an oxymoron. To me, what would be ideal is a place where there’s as little society as possible.

The term “intellectual” has been ruined by ivory tower academics and pretenders who spout complex-sounding verbiage that is contentless and self-aggrandizing. Is there room in our society for rugged thinkers who are not poncy academics, like the Ernest Hemingways and Jack Londons of old?

Again, what is “our society”? If you’re referring to the tightly controlled media-created modern hive mind, no, there’s definitely no place for white males who don’t feel bad about being white males. Modern society has defined the white male as Satan, and I’ve never seen any simplistic angels/devils theological construct that makes room for Satan.

Interview With Jonathan Stern

Saturday, March 18th, 2017

Image: Ha’aretz.

Kahanism is a realist Israeli/Jewish nationalist position. It asserts the need for the Jewish people to live by their own standards, acting toward self-determination, preserving their own methods and values against the norming and entropy that is the default of the world. We were fortunate to get in an interview with Jonathan Stern, a Kahanist thinker and political force who has spoken in the past in defense of pan-nationalism.

What is Kahanism, and how does it differ from other Zionist, pro-Jewish or pro-Israel movements?

Kahanism is a right wing Jewish nationalist movement founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. The ideology of Kahanism is known as the “Jewish Idea” and teaches that the Jewish people must form a Jewish-only ethno-national state in the Land of Israel which would be governed by Torah Law, not democracy. One obstacle to forming such a state is the presence of millions of Arab Muslim occupiers, who migrated into the land of Israel over the centuries since the Roman Dispersion in 70 AD, so Rabbi Kahane was extremely active in advocating for their deportation en masse from Israel and this is what he is most famous for. 

However Kahanism isn’t just about Israel. Kahanism also espouses a global worldview which promotes nationalism in across the world and opposes multiculturalism. Kahanism is a traditionalist ideology which opposes liberalism, drug use, rap music, tattoos, promiscuity, homosexuality and other sexual perversions, and opposes intermarriage and the cultural assimilation of Jews into gentile society. One of the core tenets of Kahanism is “every Jew a .22”, and Kahanists believe that in order to be strong and free, Jews must arm themselves.

Hence Kahanism is extremely pro-2nd amendment and you will be hard pressed to find a Kahanist that doesn’t carry (or at least own) a firearm. Rabbi Kahane fiercely supported the war in Vietnam, (even writing a book about it called The Jewish Stake in Vietnam) and was a ferocious enemy of Communism, notoriously leading a violent campaign of terror against the USSR in the 1970s and 80s. Kahane also supported Apartheid in South Africa.

In regards to the United States: we believe that America was built as a White, Judeo-Christian country and that this is what has led it to be great. We do not hate Blacks for being black, nor do we hold animosity towards members of any other race simply because of their being born into that race. However we realize that multiculturalism and “diversity” are destroying the fabric of this country, and see that this experiment of a giant ethnic melting pot made up of people sharing no ethnic identity, cultural commonality or history is a disaster and is ultimately unsustainable. Hence we feel a natural kinship with White, Christian Americans who have allowed us to flourish in this country, and to whom we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.

While Kahanism is a branch of Zionism, most Zionists consider us to be racists, bigots and right-wing extremists since we oppose western democracy, and reject the idea of a secular, socialist, multicultural Israel where Arabs are given full rights as citizens. There are several different factions within Zionism, [which are] Labor Zionism (Socialist/Communist), Revisionist Zionism (Capitalist/democratic), and Religious Zionism (Religious/Statist). While Kahanism is a form of Religious Zionism, it is much less tolerant and politically correct than mainstream Religious Zionism which believes in peace with Arabs and promotes “religious and ethnic tolerance.”

Would you say it was “right wing,” as the media does, and if so, do you consider nationalism to be a right-wing view?

I would say that at least according to today’s concepts of left and right, Kahanism certainly falls well within the right-wing camp. Accordingly, nationalism in and of itself also falls within the category of “right wing” under those same notions. 

What drew you to this viewpoint, and how has it changed your life since?

I became involved in Kahanism at a very early age, as a result of the Crown Heights Riots in 1991, where blood-thirsty black mobs rampaged through the streets of that New York City Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, murdering and pillaging at will; while the NYPD (under the order of Black leftist mayor Dinkins) stood by watching and allowed it to happen.

This event taught me several things: that no matter what the liberal Jewish establishment tells us, blacks and other minorities are not our friends, and liberal politicians will allow Jews to get killed in order to pander to their votes. I understood that we can never rely on others to protect ourselves, and that Jews must arm themselves and train hard for communal defense. And it made me understand that even though we are ethnically unique and a nation unto ourselves, Jews are White and that Jews in America must live among Whites and unite with our fellow Whites in order to defend ourselves against these savages.

I became very close with Rabbi Binyamin Ze’ev Kahane, the son and heir of Rabbi Meir Kahane, (Binyamin [was] later murdered by Islamic Terrorists in the West Bank in 2000) and I have been active ever since. Kahanism has empowered me to be a strong, proud Jew, brought me to serve in the Israel Defense Forces and fight for the land of Israel, and has inspired me to advocate and pass on my ideology to others.

How much has Kahanism been revived by the victories of Trump and other right-leaning events, like Brexit and Hungary shifting right, and possible quasi-nationalist victories in the Netherlands and France?

It is impossible to even begin to quantify the degree to which Kahanism has been revived by Brexit, the victory of Trump, and the rise of the National Front in France and other populist movements in Europe. What we have in common with all these movements is that we are all Nationalists. The Torah teaches us that there are 70 nations, each with its own language, identity and culture, and that this is the way G-d intended the world to be.

Artificial and unnatural globalist entities such as the European Union destroy the boundaries between one nation and the other, and these boundaries exist in order to maintain balance in our world. People across the western world today are waking to up to how destructive multiculturalism has been to all but the globalist elite and third world savages, and are revolting against this globalist tyranny which has already caused so much damage and mayhem. These nationalist victories have given us a shot of energy not seen in decades.

Each day, more and more people are flocking to our cause and joining the ranks of our movement. After almost two decade of being practically inactive, we are now having large events and rallies where hundreds of excited young people attend and bring their friends. Our online presence has also elicited a tremendous response from supporters (both Jewish and Gentile) from across the globe, wishing to lend us support. 

Theodor Herzl wrote that the only way to escape persecution by national populations was to become a national population, effectively ending the diaspora. Do you think this is possible and, if so, what form would it take?

Herzl was correct in his assessment that the Jewish people will eventually need to become a national population, all residing in our own homeland in the land of Israel, and that this will be the only practical solution to defeat antisemitism. Now, mind you, I didn’t say, end antisemitism; I said defeat it, because antisemites will always hate the Jewish people no matter where we are, and will always attempt to annihilate us, even as a national population in our own land. However if we create a powerful ethno-national Jewish state with the right ideology, we will be able to fend off these attacks and no enemy will ever succeed in defeating us. 

The problem with this is the practical aspect. First of all we have the current state of Israel, which is frankly a disaster. It was established as a secular, socialist state, built on the Soviet model by avowed communists. Instead of adopting Torah Law as its basis, it adopted western values and a tailor-suited version of “democracy” in order to run things. The result has been where you have a state that on the one hand claims to be Jewish, yet on the other allows millions of homicidal Arabs to reside and vote there, even though they are murdering Jewish citizens every day.

The state also prides itself on its gun control, Socialism, embracing “gay rights,” and promoting every disgusting Cultural Marxist perversion under the sun. There is a large population of right-wing religious Jews there who would gladly put the state on the right course, but the Globalist leaders stymie them and go so far as to employ draconian measures such as arbitrary arrests and administrative detention (open-ended jail terms without trial or access to legal council) in order to silence them. Rabbi Kahane’s political party, Kach, was banned in Israel by left-wing socialist Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1994, and so Jewish Nationalists like us are essentially unable to advance our cause there for the time being.

We hope that eventually we will be able to replace this disgraceful entity with a true Jewish State, a State of Judea, and that at that point all the Jews of the world (left wing multiculturalists excluded) will be able to return there and fulfill this dream. We are fighting hard each and every day for that to occur. But for the time being, it seems that right wing Nationalist Jews can accomplish much more to advance our goals while living in the United States. We may have to wait a long time to all return to our homeland, but we have unbreakable faith that one day it will happen.

How must Israel deal with the problems of hostile populations within its borders, such as Palestinians, and hostile populations elsewhere in the middle east, such as many of the more fundamentalist Muslim states?

If Israel was a true Jewish state, it would round up all Muslims within its borders and expel them to any other Muslim country as Rabbi Kahane proposed. Once they are expelled, the problem of an internal security threat will cease to exist. In regards to fundamentalist Muslim States in the Middle East, there must be a policy of an iron fist. If any one of them so much as dares to lift a finger against the Jews, they must be attacked brutally and punished to the point where they will never again consider belligerence.

If that means random carpet bombing of their cities and killing large amounts of civilians (such as what the US and Britain did to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII), so be it. Aside from this iron fist policy, there is no reason for us to intervene to overthrow secular Arab dictators (such as Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Moamar Ghaddafi, and Hosni Mubarak) so long as those dictators keep to themselves and do not bother us in our own land. What happens between them and their people is their own business and none of our concern. We do not need to be in the business of “promoting democracy” in the Middle East.

Do you think it is reasonable, realistic and logical for the United States to ban some Muslim immigration?

I think it is reasonable, realistic and logical to ban all Muslim immigration into the US. The question is only one of if there is a will by the people. I believe a majority of Americans support banning Muslims from coming here. The only thing standing in our way is a handful of radical left wing activist judges. Just like a majority of this country rejected homosexual “marriage” yet these activist judges ignored the popular will and forced it down the everybody’s throat, and more recently with the activist San Francisco Federal Judges overturning Trumps lawful executive order banning Muslims, these judges are the real obstacle standing in our way. And the truth is that there is a very simple solution to this problem: just ignore their rulings.

There is actually precedent for this in our history. In the 1830s the Supreme Court refused to allow the removal of Indians from their lands in the South, but the President just ignored them and did it anyway. These judges only have as much power as we are willing to give them. If Trump were to completely ignore their rulings and force policy, what power would they really have to stop him? Of course this again comes down to the question of if there is a will by the American people to do this. Because if there is, nothing can stop us. But there is another elephant in the room here staring us in the face which we can not afford to ignore.

What about all the Muslims already here? Even if you banned every Muslim in the world from setting foot in America, you’d still have several million “Muslim Americans” who are already established here AND have been committing ALL of the Islamic terror attacks we have faced in recent years. Why is everyone ignoring them? Why should their piece of paper stating that they are US citizens differentiate them from a Muslim fresh off the Boat from Syria or Afghanistan? In fact, they are much likelier to commit an attack than a new comer from the Middle East. So the only answer in regards to effectively solving this problem is for all Muslims to be actively removed from the United States, including those who are American Citizens. Of course the ACLU will cry “racism!”, but at the end of the day, this is the only way to make America safe and no other proposal will ever actually work.

What do you think is the future of the “melting pot” model of the United States? If Herzl was correct, would this not lead to an internal clash of civilizations between different minority groups?

I believe that the “melting pot” model of the United States is an unworkable disaster and is bound to lead to a horrific end result. Without a doubt, this will lead to a massive clash of civilizations among different populations which is likely to descend into a full-out civil war. I am sure if Herzl were alive today, he would tell you exactly that.

You have told Haaretz newspaper that Richard Spencer is “a white nationalist who stands up for white people and there is nothing wrong with that.” Does this mean you believe in pan-nationalism, or nationalism for all ethnic groups?

I am a Jewish Nationalist first and foremost, but Jews are White, so naturally I recognize the logic behind White Nationalism. One should promote his own ethnicity first and foremost before he promotes the interests of others. Blacks do this, Muslims do this, Hispanics do this, so should Whites. So I respect Spencer for his level-headed advocacy in defense of the White Race. I definitely believe in nationalism for all ethnic groups. 

How do you reconcile the need for the principle of nationalism with the fact that this will involve supporting others who are hostile to Jews, or even derive some inspiration from National Socialism or Islam? Can nationalists “work together separately”?

Being a nationalist means putting the interests of one’s own nation above all else. If working with people who are somewhat antisemitic would advance our national goals, I would have no problem doing this. I would even work with Muslims if it helped our cause. I will give you one example where we actually did this to great effect. In 2005 an international (George Soros funded) homosexual coalition planned a massive gay festival in Jerusalem called “Inter-pride,” which was supposed to include gay parades, marches, film festivals, concerts, conferences, and numerous parties which always descend into sickening drugged-out gay orgies.

I was in Israel at the time, and we realized that in order to stop this abomination from taking place, we would need to join forces with other groups which we are unfriendly with, but share our anti-gay agenda. We reached out to the Catholic Church, Protestant denominations, Orthodox Christians, and even the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. As a result of the contacts we made, all of these leaders joined forces with the Ashkenazi and Sefardic Chief Rabbis of Israel and held a massive press conference to denounce and reject this disgusting event. In the end, the Israeli government caved under pressure and cancelled the Sodomite festival. I have never worked with Muslims (or other enemies) ever since, and I hope I never have to again. But If I have to in order to achieve an important goal, I will.

However there are limits. There is no way at any point in time and for any reason that I (or any other Kahanist for that matter) would ever work with or join forces with Nazis or anyone who believes in or promotes any form of Nazism. That would make us sell-outs to our own people. However unlike many other Jews, I do recognize that most White Nationalists are not Nazis, and I hope to build strong working relations with various WN groups and leaders.

Do you think that “Leftist Jews” create enmity that is then attributed to Jews in general, and that perhaps the problem with certain high-profile Jewish people is their Leftism, not their Jewishness?

I absolutely agree that leftist Jews cause a tremendous amount of antisemitism. For instance, several high-profile leftist Jews were very active with the ANC fighting to undermine the White Government in South Africa during the 70s and 80s. The White South Africans welcomed them into their country, gave them freedom and enabled them to become wealthy and successful, and in return they stabbed South Africa in the back in favor of a bunch of bongo-beating, machete-wielding savages who deeply hate Jews and consider us useful idiots.

I am solidly convinced that the antisemitism of Eugene Terreblanche and the AWB was a direct result of this stab in the back by these few, vocal Marxist Jews, because in general the Boers are very pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist. And to be honest with you, I can totally understand them if that was the experience they had with Jews. Same goes for the liberal Jews in America who marched to end segregation in the South in the 60’s, end the Vietnam War and those that are promoting open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, homosexuality, transsexuals, abortion, debauchery, and every perversion under the sun today. If I was a hard-working, red blooded White American and constantly saw Jews promoting this garbage which undermines the nation that my ancestors fought so hard to build and maintain, I’d probably hate Jews too!

However what these folks don’t realize is that those outspoken, liberal Jews do not represent Judaism in any way and do not speak for all Jews. They only represent the spineless, Reform and Conservative, multi-culturalist SJW Jews, whose loyalty is not to G-d or Judaism, but rather to globalism and their own perverted selves. These pathetic Ghetto-Jews make Jews like me absolutely sick, and we commit ourselves to countering them at every opportunity possible.

Despite this, there will always be a segment of the population that no matter what, would and will always hate Jews. If every Jew in the world voted republican, supported Nationalism, heterosexuality, gun rights, etc, etc, they would still want to exterminate us, because they are Amalekites and that is their nature. These types of antisemites only understand a Jewish fist, and that is exactly what we intend to give them. 

Do you think that Jewish people are more prone to Leftism than other groups, and if so, why? Do you see this as an inherent tendency, or an adaptive one related to being outsiders among national populations, or having some kind of internal conflict about being part of a religious/cultural/ethnic minority in a time when all of those things are somewhat taboo?

I think that proportionally, secular Jews in America are more likely to be liberals than members of other populations. I think the reason for this is that almost 2000 years of exile from their homeland, and living under a variety of oppressive foreign rulers has not only broken their fighting spirit, but caused them to adopt a perpetual victim identity and to always identify with the perceived underdog. Whereas, I see the Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust, and say that never again will my people be helpless victims of persecution.

I have learned to be strong in body and spirit and, to own firearms and prep for the day when I may have to defend my family and community. These libtard Jews on the other hand saw these same events and came to a diametrically different conclusion. They see that since this was done to us, we need to make sure that this will never again be done to any other people. So they start out by feeling compassion for poor, persecuted minority groups all across the world, and then they end up deluding themselves into believing that by advancing a “progressive” agenda, helping all the poor suffering illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, “persecuted” homosexuals and transvestites, they are actually fulfilling a divine mission to make the world a better place. It’s delusional, but they seriously believe this, and their reform and conservative quack “Rabbis” egg them on with this garbage. 

This “social justice” insanity can be broken, but it will take for these confused Jews to return to Torah and adopt an Orthodox lifestyle for their years of brainwashing to be broken and reversed. I know many people like this who grew up in convoluted Reform and Conservative leftist households, eventually saw that it was empty and fake and turned to Orthodoxy. Once they became religious and broke their ties with their former communities, they were able to see the farce that these liberal Jews believe in as what it is.

One thing to consider is that while these secular leftist Jews are quickly dying out due to a low birth rate and intermarriage with gentiles, the Orthodox Jewish population is growing rapidly due to a high birth rate and almost no intermarriage. Orthodox Jews are generally much more politically right wing, and solidly vote republican. In fact, most would be considered very far to the right, especially in regards to social issues. Demographics can not be ignored, and the Judaism of America’s future is Orthodox, not Reform or Conservative, so keep in mind that the politics are already changing now and will continue to change in the future.

If people want to support Kahanism, or follow your work, how can they do so and is there a way that they can donate or support you?

If people would like to follow us or get involved, we are active on Facebook. Just search for “the Kahanist Movement.” We get shut down regularly by Facebook for “promoting racism,” so don’t be surprised if that happens again. But as fast as they shut us down, we always start up again. We’re also getting active on Twitter. If anyone wants to contact or donate to the Kahanist movement, you can call us at (718) 395-7405, or email Gennadiy:

This was an amazing interview that gives all of us quite a bit to think about. Thank you, and best of luck plus our support in your quest!

Interview With Wrath Of Gnon

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

Many of our readers are familiar with Wrath of Gnon, the cerebral meme-master who pairs classic art with insightful quotations from writers and thinkers. Although he exists only on social media, his elegant images spread across the web and, interestingly for social media, re-appear years later. We were lucky to get some time to chat with the elusive Wrath of Gnon.

When did you first know that you would pursue a different path than that of the majority? Is there any way for someone who aspires to sanity to feel good about this modern world?

I was not exceptional in that I was born reactionary. I believe most people are for the simple reason that all the hollow slogans of the progressives — Equality, Brotherhood, Liberty, etc. — are so obviously untrue to even the most socially isolated child (and I was not in the least isolate, I grew up in a large loving family).

To maintain the progressive mindset it is vital that people remain detached from reality (from their roots, families, friends, communities), and plugged in or attached to the propaganda machine. Take a man away from media for a fortnight and you will see emerge a more sensible, realistic human being. My own reactionary thinking has only strengthened the more I remove myself from modern media and groupthink.

It is not difficult: stop looking at mass media, distance yourself from all writing that “feels” modern; keep going backwards in times until you find what you are comfortable with. There are even some recent writers with an old fashioned mind set, you don’t have to read Chaucer, as certain works of Kerouac will do just as well. Immerse yourself in reality: aspire to experience and perform all the functions of life, as far as it is humanly possibly for you.

This can include growing your own crops to taking your friends for extended hiking trips in the wilderness. There are no excuses and I believe it is possible for everyone to cultivate a timeless mindset. The important thing is to, in some way, manner or form, reach backwards. This is the meaning of the slogan “Revolt Against the Modern World”: to turn your back on modernity.

What, in your view, went wrong with the West, and how do we fix it? How deeply does the rot go?

As for when (even though you did not ask), there is the famous quip — “For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.” (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn) — but the Traditionalist-Catholic wing of reactionary thinkers go further, blaming the reformation. And so on. This is a fun but ultimately pointless game.

Personally I would not even call it a rot, as I subscribe to the Evolian idea that we are already “men standing in the ruins.” Rome has fallen all around us, it is just that we have not noticed yet (or as Adam Smith mirrored it “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation”). This question brings to mind the two famous portrayals of two different Roman nobles in the fifth century A.D., one who leaves the Imperial Capital to return to his family lands in Gaul, to “weather out the temporary unrest”, while the other quietly slips away to eventually found his own Holy Order, the Benedictines. The first thinking that order will soon be restored, the other with his mind already set on eternity. Both accounts make for fantastic reading.

The good thing is that everything we need to turn things around is already here. All the material, all the plans, all the accumulated wealth and knowledge of millennia of human thought and creativity is scattered all around us. We even have a time table for how to do it (and this was suggested by someone on Twitter three or four years ago), we just start turning the clock back, step by step, reversing history as we go along, keeping only the reality compliant, Gnon friendly parts.

And we might unwittingly have started this already: education, housing, vacation homes, etc., it is all becoming too expensive very fast. We are losing the means of production to more ruthless countries in the Far East, and we are running out of natural resources. Unrest in far away countries have started cramping our wanderlust—quick now, 2017 might be your last chance to see the Louvre, the Pyramids and the beaches of Pattaya! And speaking of Pattaya, sexually transmitted diseases are quickly becoming immune to treatment, thus limiting us even in our choices of partners, and in their numbers, automatically unwinding the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Mark Stein said “The future belongs to those who show up,” and as Evola noted, what we have to do now is to hold out, to “ride the tiger,” to “remain standing in the ruins,” to (as Rod Dreher posited) take the Benedict Option and become neo-monastics. And have children, of course. Lots and lots of children.

You publish a series of intellectual memes — striking images overlaid with notable quotations and cutting insights — which reveal much about what is wrong, and where we might go. What appealed to you about this format? How do you choose images and quotations?

I had been skimming the outer fringes of the “reacto-sphere,” but I think I was influenced in taking the step to participate more actively by a few people, and a few memes. The first was an anonymous image showing a leafy green, beautifully airy urban street from the turn of the last century, overlaid with the words: “NEVER AGAIN.” That one hit me like a brick in the forehead.

At the same time, I happened to find @shaunwesleywyrd and E.H. Looney on Twitter. S. Wes shared a photo of an old book by Oswald Mosley he was reading, photographed with whiskey and a pipe, and Looney shared (and I still think this is a most fantastic meme) an image of a young woman in medieval garb with the text: “The First Reich was the Best Reich.”

I saw a way to present (to the general public) very “politically incorrect,” almost caustic ideas, in a fun setting. It took me a few weeks of experimenting to realize that I needed two more vital ingredients: a pinch of gravitas (which I got from relying mostly on very old literature) and beauty. Beauty is the beginning of all things good, and goodness is the beginning of all beautiful things. At the very same time I was reading NRx, I read Bryce, MM, Sailer, Jim, Nick Land etc., and the rest is (well documented) history.

I have a decent image memory, so I remember a lot of images I have seen, and when I find a good quote in my readings (I read a lot, and almost only autobiographies these days) or online or suggested by helpful people on Twitter or Tumblr, that fit an image, I add it. And of course, the other way around. I think my best work is actually when I see an image and the text just comes to me naturally, whether it is my own or a quote from someone else (I do realize that there are almost no original thoughts out there, so as far as possible I try to give credit where credit is due).

Unlike many within modernist movements, including the Alt Right, you are an out-of-the-closet monarchist. What led you to have faith in monarchy? How do we get there from here?

Humankind has at the very least thirty-five centuries of monarchy under its belt by now (at least Europeans, much longer if you include the other great historical cultures), and this has taken us from roving bands of hunters to the outer reaches of the solar system. Furthermore the amount of beauty in the world is diminishing at the same rate that Modernity is growing.

I noticed that globalism is erasing differences both geographically as well as culturally while increasing meaningless ugliness! It is the differences that are important, the distinctions that make everything on this planet so interesting! I even have a love for borders (and walls and fences, demarcations, ditches, hedgerows, etc.): strange and wonderful things happen in borders regions: the starkest contrast, the strangest amalgmations and syntheses, the most interesting crossovers. Borders are great things — we need more of them!

I hate the leveling leviathan of globalization and commercialism. I do not trust systems — is there any system that has not achieved a long history of atrocities by now? All systems are inherently unsustainable, as they are founded in ideas rather than in observable reality, and once the people holding these ideas change, so do the ideas (witness social democrats in Europe or social justice warriors in American campuses).

By contrast, I find Monarchy the most robust, sustainable (and ecological if you will) form of societal organization. It mirrors only those structures that already exist in reality and in nature, it is so simple that even a child can understand it, even participate in it. When ever a group of pre-schoolers gather to play without adult interference, a natural hierarchy will establish itself within seconds. Between the two genders, between the members of the group, between the group (the culture) and reality (nature). The Monarch is to the nation what the Father is to the family.

Humans are the only animals that will actively invent problems in order to provide solutions for them. But monarchy is one of those things that just will not be improved upon, it is one of the eternal truths about mankind and of the reality of things. If mankind ever stops needing a King, well then I posit to say that we have already evolved (or devolved, more likely) into something post-human. But as long as the idea of the King survives, it will live on, ready to spring back into reality.

As Georges Bernanos asked of a four-year-old Lorrainer boy: “What is a king?”, “A king is man on horseback who is not afraid!” As fine a definition as ever I heard, and far more correct than a whole indoctrination camp of university professors.

How have you found ways to adapt to modern life? What is it like, living in a world where basically everyone is not just wrong but insane, and every institution is subtly corrupted?

Humor helps. And the knowledge that all institutions are merely guided by corrupt men and women, and that we are all more or less brainwashed from birth by Modernity. As a culture, we have always had ways to deal with people whose grip on reality is less than robust, only these days they seems to end up Chancellors, Chairmen of the Committee or with Tenure. As we were all once brainwashed, so we can all find our ways out of the modern labyrinth.

Here is where the allegory of the Red Pill comes in handy. I have, by now, a pocket full of them, and the more I give out, the more I seem to carry around. It is a self-feeding fire: every conversion is the seed of a dozen more, and the anecdotes of these “red-pillings” are moralizing tinctures indeed. On a more personal level, I am helped by reading, and finding that I am not alone. Everything I think and feel has been felt or thought before. As Evola put it:

My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.

I have tons of allies. Mind you, most of them (as of now at least) dead, but still. Tons.

If people want to break out of the mental virus of modernity, how should they do so? Is there a universal path, and do all people need to come to in-depth realizations, or can they rely on gut instinct?

Most of us are in it too deep. Every time we reach towards the light of the surface, modernism is there again, Chthulu dragging us downstream and into the murky darkness. Sometimes we can be helped by friends, someone reliable to help us climb back up. Find sanity again. Sometimes it happens in flashes of revelations (everyone knows these and Twitter is a great place to share), but like any idea whose time has come, we are slowly building towards a critical mass. Our ideas are sustainable, confirms to reality: when nature, long in tooth and red in claw sneers at us form the dark thicket, we are ready to sneer back, and soon there will be more of us. We will reach, sooner or later, the necessary critical mass.

There are of course savants out there, people who are so remarkably grounded that they are immune to modernity: you probably know many. Your uncle the air force mechanic. That aunt who is a nurse and never opened a book in her life but has started and ended more lives than Sitting Bull. That cousin who can build an engine from spare parts but has never heard of Affirmative Action in his life. Surround yourself with them. Go to them. Bask in their clearheaded glory. And then come back to the fray to pick up a few more lost souls.  As Tolkien stated so well: “It is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”

We hear a lot about environmental problems these days. In your mind, what is the relationship between modernity and ecocide, and is it purely industrial, or related to underlying political or social problems?

The simplest way I can put it, is that the environment has stopped being something wonderful from which to draw resources and strength to start being a problem that we have to “deal with”. Just listen to yourself, the phrase, “environmental problems”! It is amazing when you think about it. How did we get here? It is a combination of many things (let me name a few):

  • Individualism: I have needs, so screw the rest.
  • The Tragedy of the commons: No one owns anything any more. Everything is up for grabs. This ties in to nationalism, which is a natural defense mechanism and reaction to weak states. Environmental concern is the left wing shadow of this reaction.
  • Receding horizons: We are so used to there not being any more fish in the ocean that we forgot what it was like just two generations ago. We are so used to worrying about our kids walking two blocks to school by themselves we think it is normal, even though we ourselves would happily bicycle ten miles or more to go skinny dipping in ponds and lakes when we were twelve.
  • Rootlessness: Why should I bother about this place that I have never seen before and that I will never see again? I have no idea what it was like ten years ago, never mind a generation or more!
  • Unqualified Optimism (in Eternal Progress): Things will only get better. Progress leads to better things and evolution always climbs higher. Well, I have news for you buddy: nature does not care if it produces Beethoven’s Ninth or a superbly infectious tape worm. Whatever remains standing at the end of the day is what will remain. Nature is a blind God and you can never ever outrun or outsmart it. Moloch is not going to protect you either, despite how many babies you roast at its fires.

These all combine to create the situation we have today: Holidays in Cambodia and 120 channels on your TV, meanwhile the Springs keep growing more and more Silent for every year. But it is my firm opinion, that the environment (its uses and abuses, including the whole “environmental problem” subject) is fundamentally and unquestionably a right wing issue.

The left is the side of the favelas and locusts, the factories and the mercury spills, the estrogen in our drinking waters and the loneliness of the last rhino on the savannah. The right is about stewardship, firm action, boundaries, and responsibility. Green is a reactionary color. Just as in this neighborhood we shoot dealers, in this forest we also shoot poachers.

What activities do you find fulfilling outside of politics and philosophy? How do these help you and others live normal lives in the midst of the maelstrom of insanity?

Oh, I hate politics. With a passion. I will only talk politics with actual politicians and even then it is just a ruse to get them so close that I can kick them. Politics divides friends and splits families. Politics starts out with a discussion on the fair way to handle lay offs in industry and ends in one side digging mass graves for the other side. If politics does not get you mad and fuming you are doing it wrong.

I yell at people starting a conversation with the words “So what about that election uh?” Politics is of the enemy. I mine it sometimes, for ammunition, or for making more Red Pills. But that is it. Nothing more. As for philosophy I hardly ever read it. I have always been an “Oh yeah? Show me!” kind of guy. I want to see why monarchy works. I want to taste why democracy doesn’t (Anyone care for Soup? Our chef is legion).

Roger Scruton’s is the only philosophy I ever read, and even then I only read his most down to earth passages and grounded texts. I had enough abstract philosophy at university (and boy was that ever the biggest mistake of my life!), overdosing on Kant and Derrida at twenty.

But as for normal activities, I take an interest in drafting classical architecture, rural crafts, etc. It all helps me refocus, or retune myself to reality.

Right now, what is one thing that a normal person can do to resist modernity and encourage a shift toward a saner, healthier form of civilization?

I touched on this subject in an earlier answer, but if I would have to say one thing, it is to Stop consuming: media, stuff. Once that is done, start by gathering your friends and allies: “Form a Gang.”

I am no fan of rock stars, but they had the right idea when they started defenestrating TV sets. Everyone should try it sometime. The fresh air will do us good! As moms everywhere and in all times have pointed out: “It is a nice day outside, go out and play.”

How can people stay on top of your writings and creations, and what can they do to support your work?

I post most creations on Tumblr, and a lot of my readings and opinions on Twitter. I am not in this for money, I borrow quite freely from the dead and the living, I require no fame. I take up little space and need little nourishment. Kind words help though. If you find the mass of my messages too much, feel free to edit out my name from the images (lots of people do). Use whatever you need.

If you feel like helping, I would love to receive more suggestions from non-English speaking reaction, as long I can double check the sources independently, I am usually happy. If something strikes my fancy I will use it. I sometimes suggest titles that are in need of translating into English. Feel free to get started. Donoso Cortes, Barras, Bernanos, etc. there is so much out there that deserves a bigger audience. Quality is important, but so is quantity. The sheer weight, the volume of thought we can point to—it all adds up.

Interview With Brett Stevens At Divine Truth Ministries

Saturday, December 10th, 2016

I am fortunate to be interviewed at Divine Truth Ministries on the topics of race, religion, and civilization collapse. That should cover pretty much every area of interest for Alt Right readers. Thanks to Divine Truth Ministries for a to-the-point interview!

Recommended Reading