There are a whole lot of people in the West who are having their conceptual view of the world turned upside down. Westerners, and especially Americans, are used to the post-World War II globohomo order in which the Global American Empire (GAE) uses its power, both soft and hard, to enforce onto the rest of the world a set of progressive, left-wing social patterns coupled with exploitative economic patterns designed to benefit a tiny globalist transnational elite. Modern Americans are used to thinking of themselves as “heroes” who step in to save the day all around the world wherever there is trouble. Sadly, our “heroism” ultimately consists of “saving” little brown foreigners from their native cultures by enforcing globohomo onto them while convincing well-meaning but deluded patriots at home that we’re “making the world a better place.”
However, as American power continues to decline relative to the rest of the world, we are going to see an acceleration in the breakdown of this post-war order. This fact is on display in Ukraine, both directly with the Russian invasion and indirectly with the general responses to it outside the western world. On the one hand, there is increasingly shrill propaganda from Western governmental and media outlets whose tenor is such that it’s not remotely convincing to anyone who doesn’t already accept liberal, globohomo principles. On the other hand, the Russians appear to be directing their propaganda primarily to the non-western world, bypassing the West and its assumptions that everyone else shares its values.
Once again, Twitter comes through as a go-to source for material to write about. So I was a bit amused when I came across this tweet a few days ago,
I found it amusing because I have to admit, Star Trek is one of those things I would now classify alongside, say, the MCU movies as being the domain of the bugman. And since bugmen are a little…suspect in my eyes, well, you know. But as it turns out, the text in the tweet comes from an article appearing all the way back in 2005 in the Huffington Post, before that outfit became pro-paedo. Within that article, we find something interesting,
“There is another aspect of Star Trek that likely makes it irresistible to perverts. It is utopian, in the sense that all the differences and distinctions which create tensions here on earth have been eradicated. Despite their exaggerated sexual characteristics, for example, the crew members are citizens of a utopian interracial and interplanetary world where the usual conflicts associated with gender do not apply.
“In perversion, there is an attempt to obliterate any distinctions that provoke unconscious anxiety. First and foremost, this entails a denial of the difference between the sexes and the difference between the generations. Pedophiles are, at the very least, attempting to deny the difference between the generations. The utopian fantasy here is to normalize sex between adults and children.
“According to Dr. Peter Mezan, a psychoanalyst in New York City, “There is an impulse that is common to perversion and to utopian thinking. The wish is to create a world in which differences make no difference. The great utopian thinkers have been immensely inspiring, but there is a reason that utopian communities have never worked out. In the name of equality of every sort and in the attempt to eliminate the tensions that normally divide us, they propose to create a marvelously unnatural world without the usual boundaries…”
The classically-minded among you might be familiar with a set of events that are recorded by the Roman historian Livy as occurring in the early days of the Republic. These were known as the “secessions of the plebs,” or secessiones plebis, and they involved the literal withdrawal of the plebs – the common people – of the city of Rome from the city itself in acts of secession in which the common people would refuse to participate in Roman society until their grievances were addressed. As described by Livy, these grievances were indeed well-founded and involved severe financial (and even physical) abuses of the plebs by the patricians, the noble class in the city. In response, the plebs packed up and left, fortifying themselves on Mons Sacer and would simply wait out the patricians until that group folded and made the necessary concessions to once again allow Roman society to be a unified social body. As odd as such a thing might seem to the modern, socially atomised western man, these secessions worked and resulted in an improvement in the lot of the plebs each time.
The thing to remember about each of these secessions is that they were non-violent. These were not violent social revolutions. The plebs weren’t out there burning down patrician villas nor assassinating hated politicians nor attempting an armed overthrow of the Roman government. Indeed, in these secessions the plebs weren’t doing…much of anything. They just simply refused to show up anymore. The plebs merely withdrew their support for and cooperation with the prevailing system, rejecting the claims that the system made to legitimacy. As a consequence, the patricians didn’t get their crops harvested or their household necessities made. This was an economic blockade of an extremely effective type and there was nothing the patricians could really do about it. Since no force was being used, they didn’t have any moral standing to use force against the plebs, to compel them to come back to work. They were forced to yield.
In case it wasn’t obvious, the Western mind is damaged goods. Many observers would say that this is a recent state of affairs, but in truth it’s something that has been slowly building for centuries. It started with the broad acceptance of Cartesian dualism, the conceptual separation of the mind from the body that developed as an over-mechanised response to the scientific discoveries of men like Copernicus and Kepler. This “analytical mindset,” in the original sense of analysis as “the resolution of something complex into simple elements,” destroyed the manifold intricacy of organic traditional society as it was conceptually applied outside of a strict philosophical setting and into the broader stream of society. It has replaced traditional society with social systems that are ever more disintegrated.
In tandem with this has been the philosophical “mechanisation” of Western societies. Because social systems are no longer viewed as organic wholes, the divorce of soul/mind from body has led to the same within larger systems such as cultures and civilisations. This view of everything as a “machine” has destroyed the whole fabric of society and created a feedback loop that has consequently broken the holistic unity of each individual within our societies. It has reached the point where the very minds of massive numbers of people in our nations are broken. Yet, the answer is not in treating them like mechanisms in need of a new gear or a wound spring, but in trying to help people to reject this mechanised mindset and return to a traditional understanding of society and every individual’s place in it.
In modern American Christianity there is a lot of, frankly, unscriptural teaching about matters of race and ethnicity. Much of it, of course, is found in the mainline denominations, but has even reached into conservative and Evangelical denominations as well. This teaching implicitly supports a woke, globalist approach which is perfectly in accord with the antichrist spirit of our present age. It is, of course, the doctrine of multiculturalism and “critical race theory” that has made the jump from secular cultural Marxism into the so-called Christendom. I won’t go into a lot of detail about this here, but you can find the subject covered fairly deeply in this podcast.
However, just because we’re used to seeing the subject of ethnicity dealt with in this way doesn’t mean that doctrinally conservative Christians should avoid or despise this topic. Indeed, we should recognise that the Bible gives us some clear teaching about God’s plans and purposes for the nations, though this will not accord with the prevailing approach taken by most Big Evangelical and other denominational “thought leaders.” It may not always mesh with what some within the Dissident Right would like to see, either, but as Christians we are bound to align with Scripture over any earthly philosophy or political program.
People who’ve followed my work for a while know that I am a monarchist in the real sense of the word. As a result of this, I correspondingly tend to believe that whiggery as a governing philosophy doesn’t work very well (and in the long run I’m right). However, I am willing to grant that there are times and places where systems with whiggish tendencies, or at least things approaching them, were relatively successful and socially stable. The reason is because these systems met some criteria that, however temporarily, enabled them to curtail democratic tendencies that always lead to social strife and ruin for a state.
Let me first explain how I’m using terms like “whiggery” and “whiggish” in relation to historical republicanism. Essentially, “whig” refers to Enlightenment-era republicanism, based upon a liberal foundation that sought to democratise political systems and separate religion from politics – two ends that pretty much always introduce or exacerbate disorder in a society. This type of republicanism differs from the classical kind which generally saw a restricted franchise and the prominence of a truly aristocratic (as opposed to merely oligarchic) stratum of society in the affairs of government.
Recently, I had the privilege of preaching through Psalm 149. Included in this psalm is a depiction of the works in which believers will be participating with Christ – in Whom they are – after their glorification and during the Millennium, during which they will be ruling and reigning with Christ Himself (c.f. II Tim. 2:12, I Peter 2:9). The relevant portion of the psalm is below,
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psalm 149:6-9)
To the modern mind of those in soft, effeminate churchianity, this passage must seem horrifying if taken literally. God’s people – under the auspices of God the Son Himself – will execute vengeance upon the heathen? Bind people with iron? Execute judgment? Yet, there’s no exegetical or theological reason not to take it literally. And even as “extreme” as this work might seem to some, it is clearly depicted in this passage both as being service unto the Lord and as something that is an honour for His saints.
For those keeping abreast of the news, we have seen the ongoing saga of the Canadian truckers take some interesting turns. The Canadian government has stepped up its repressive measures by arresting protestors, freezing the bank accounts of their supporters, and even threatening to kill their pets and take away their kids. Yet – this hasn’t really had the desired effect. Instead of scaring people, it seems to be galvanising many in support of the truckers. Supporters are forming human chains to protect truckers from arrest. People still continue to donate to their GiveSendGo despite dire threats of the theft of their accounts by banks and the government. Many normies who didn’t originally support the truckers are now beginning to realise that the Turdeau government’s “cure” is worse than the “disease” that the Emergency Powers Act was supposedly invoked to deal with.
At least part – and I’d suspect a large part – of the reason why the Canadian truckers have and continue to generate so much support is because they serve as a much needed rallying point for the Right. For weeks this movement has been acting as a nucleation point for the crystallisation of opposition to the globalist Left and its anti-human agenda. But as is usually the case with normie conservatives, they’re mistakenly believing something to be a political movement which is actually a deeper and broader social movement, which should be consciously approached in that way. In other words, support for the truckers, opposition to globalist leftism and the “you will own nothing and you’ll be happy” ethos of the World Economic Forum crowd, and all the rest should not be viewed as merely belonging to a political party (who, the Republicans? LOL), but as existing due to an ever-widening social rift that exists in American and other Western societies.
One of the most recent Twitter outrages about which everyone has become Very Mad Online is a resurgent discussion about modesty and purity culture. One the one side, you have folks who make the very reasonable request that women should wear clothing when they’re in public, on the other you have those who find this request to be inutterably offensive and obviously indicative of sexism, patriarchy, and being an incel. Now, you probably think I’m exaggerating, but I’m really not (too much). The language emanating from the anti-purity side can become quite hyperbolic.
This isn’t too surprising if you cruise through the timelines of some of these people. While they profess to be very, very concerned about the “damage” that purity culture does to young women, it becomes pretty apparent that their main problem with it is that it doesn’t (or at least didn’t) allow them to act like whores. In nearly all cases, it really is a matter of their having some weird overreaction to what was likely just a bog-standard Evangelical Christian upbringing. Still, it’s amusing in a way to see them hang onto “Christianesque” language to try to gaslight genuine Christians into accepting their bogus reasoning, which is something they do across a whole range of contemporary issues.
For almost two weeks now, I’ve been following the Canadian trucker convoy with great interest. Beginning as a protest movement against vaccination mandates that threaten to put a lot of solid blue collar working men out of their jobs, it has since broadened into more big tent opposition to a number of related globalist policies enacted by the Canadian government. As they rolled across Canada with a great big convoy, they picked up steam and support from regular people all along the way. Last week, the convoy pulled into Ottawa and promptly invested the city centre, thus beginning the Great Honkening. I have been ecstatic to see its progress so far.
This is because it is exactly the kind of “scale up” of anti-Regime action that I’ve expected to start happening. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the ethnogenesis of two White ethnies in the United States – the genuinely cultural divide between normal heritage Americans and progressive soyjacks. It strikes me that much the same thing is happening in Canada as well, given how similar its Anglo culture is to our own and the similar trajectory its modern society has taken to that on our side of the border. Wherever you have different and antagonistic ethnies, you’ll form a metaethnic faultline and begin to see the organisation and aggregation of forces on both sides. Now, the soyjacks were already essentially united because they are de facto represented by Regime governments that already scammed their way into power. Our side has long been disunited – partly by outside interference and partly by an unfortunate obsession with “rugged individualism” that just creates social atomisation. Thankfully, this is being overcome and things like the Trucker Convoy represent a leveling up of coordination for /ourside/ that will hopefully continue.