One of the things that I dislike about fiction is how often it seems to come true. This is especially the case when the reader is presented with a work depicting a dystopian future. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who do not realize that dystopian works are intended to be taken as dystopian and who treat them as a challenge to reproduce these futures in real life.
This seems to be the case with the vision of a dystopian society portrayed in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, Harrison Bergeron. In this story, we are shown a world in which equality is forcibly maintained in every area and by whatever means necessary. The strong are loaded down with weights to impede their movement and bodily ability. The beautiful are purposefully uglified. The intelligent are fitted with random noise generators to make it difficult or impossible for them to think clearly. While the stated goal is to bring everyone to a state of equality, the below-average do not nevertheless seem to be raised. The society shown merely acts to drag down the above average.
The thoughtful observer who has noted the past few decades of Western life may be strangely perturbed by the similarities he sees between the modern West and the society presented in Vonnegut’s tale. The obvious obsession with “equality” in our democratic and egalitarian systems certainly serves to discourage the appreciation of aristocratic and superior traits and the sort of traditional society which encourages them.
However, it is also becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that this is not entirely by accident. Those of us in reaction and neoreaction often point to various macrohistorical forces which have led to the modern world (e.g. the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Puritan hypothesis, etc.). While these forces may have provided the necessary conditions to allow the appearance of the various specific social pathologies that have infected the West over the past several decades, I would argue that these forces were not sufficient to account for them alone. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that much of what we see going on with the West’s apparent drive toward self-destruction is intentional and at least partially confirms many of the arguments that have been made by “conspiracy theorists.”
Throughout the Western world, immigration (whether legal or illegal, and often approximating invasion more than true migration) is perhaps the single biggest issue facing both the people and the politicians. The Western world is finding itself facing an unprecedented mass influx of entrants from other, non-western parts of the world. While the history of the West has certainly involved mass movements of people at various times, these have always been understood to constitute either invasions or colonisations. The idea of millions of outsiders moving into a culture and it being considered “immigration” is a vastly new (and dangerous) concept in the West.
Nevertheless, there are many in our society who seem to be perfectly fine with the idea of mass immigration radically altering the cultural, religious, and genetic bases of Western societies. Indeed, the acceptability, or lack thereof, of mass immigration is one of the major points of division between so-called civic nationalists on one side and ethnonationalists (speaking generally) and especially white nationalists on the other. Civic nationalists, who are often really just straight up open borders supporters, believe that membership in a new society can be established as easily as simply taking an oath and signing some paperwork. “You can be a polygamist totem worshiper who believes albinos should be harvested for the magical elixirs in their livers and still be a good American,” and all that.
The common assumption, at least among the coastal élites, is that openness to immigration is correlated with democratic sensibilities in particular, drawing from a more generalised standard of egalitarianism. Because these élites rarely interact in any meaningful way with the immigrants who comprise the “mass” in mass immigration, they tend to assume the fungibility of the “lower classes.” This is why the political arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants as a source of political capital – one voter is as good as another, and if a new set of voters can be imported who will vote the way the Cathedral wants versus recalcitrant natives who insist upon voting for their own interests, then all the better. It wouldn’t be the first time in recent history that this has happened. The corporate arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants in much the same way – as replacement labourers for natives who are too expensive and have a fractious insistence upon earning a fair wage.
However, increasing democratisation and equality have not noticeably served to make either the masses or their “ethno-elites” more favourably disposed to mass immigration. Indeed, the opposite is widely occurring, as can be seen daily around us.
One of the unfortunate truths of the modern West is that 90% of everything has been subverted by cultural marxism, including practically every major religious organisation. This has long been obvious in overtly liberal denominations such as those within the World Council of Churches (WCC). Sadly, this has become more and more apparent even in so-called “conservative” denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which despite its reputation for conservatism, has (at least at a leadership level) been a hotbed of cultural marxism for over two decades. This is made all the more apparent by this proposed resolution to be submitted at the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2017 annual meeting (SBC17) and which will almost assuredly be passed by the assembled delegates out of some misguided sense of “justice.” The resolution calls on the SBC to condemn the alt-Right and nationalism in general, vomiting out the same laundry list of mean, scary “isms” that you’d find in any crudely drafted anarchist Antifa manifesto somewhere in the lower rent districts of the internet.
Full disclosure: I am a Baptist, but I am not a Southern Baptist. Instead, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist. So – in theory – I shouldn’t have standing to complain about this. However, many of the associations I am involved in contain religiously diverse memberships – Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, pagans, agnostics, and more – who do not generally tend to see the finer distinctions between various types of Baptists. As a result, when the Southern Baptist Convention acts on a set of godless, globalist impulses such as are represented in the resolution in question, it tends to tar other Baptists with its unbiblical and satanic brush.
I will make a detailed presentation of the biblical case for nationalism below – though I shouldn’t need to since it’s one that most Christians of every denomination understood during the previous nineteen and a half centuries of the existence of Christ’s churches. Christianity contains within its doctrines a “weak universalistic” message pertaining to the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sinful man and for the capacity for human beings of all races and nations to place their faith and trust in God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. However, it is an unbiblical and illogical leap to pass from that to the sort of “strong universalistic” globalist, socially and nationally equalitarian message which modern liberalism implicitly assumes. In other words, while it is a genuinely Christian message to say that Christ’s blood can be applied to any sinner of any group, it is NOT a genuinely Christian message to take that basic truth and twist it to claim that it means that national borders should be erased, that racial and national distinctions should be disregarded, and so forth. The latter is not at all implied by the former. Yet, this is the message which is adopted by even so-called conservatives when they criticise nationalism as they seek to ingratiate themselves with a godless world that increases more and more in its rebellion against every standard and ordinance of God which He has established for the governance of this world. This is what SBC17 would be doing if it adopted this resolution.
Here at the Times, I have previously discussed ethnonationalism and even applied it to the American situation. Essentially, ethnonationalism posits that nations – defined as people sharing common culture, heritage, traditions, language, religion, mores, and so forth (and thus, by extension, nearly always sharing a common genetic descent as well) – should be free to self-associate rather than being forced into supranational or globalistic schemas which dilute and destroy their unique national inheritances. But let’s say that this sort of schema were actually to become a reality to a much greater degree than it currently is – what would such a world look like? Would the world be divided among tens of thousands of different nations – each with its own well-defined territorial expanse – consisting of anywhere from tens of millions of people down to merely a few thousand? I don’t necessarily see how that would be advantageous, and would indeed be a very chaotic sort of situation – exactly the opposite of the type of orderly system that traditionalists and reactionaries seek to restore.
Instead, I believe that an ethnonationalist world order should include the element of aristocladism. Essentially, aristocladism may be defined as the division of national groups into hierarchies based on a variety of metrics having to do with their relative power and capacities, including many intangibles such as national spirit, courage, and so forth. Some nations, even when compared to their close relatives and neighbours, seem to “have it together” more than the others. It’s only natural that these nations should stand out as natural leaders and protectors for those around them. However, before expanding on this idea, I’d like to discuss a few foundational concepts.
Anyone familiar with the Alt-Right (which term I am using broadly to identify all “non-mainstream” Right movements, from anti-political correctness all the way to neoreaction) has surely heard a great deal about nationalism by now. At its most basic level, nationalism is conventionally understood to refer to the belief that a nation should be able to exist autonomously and independently apart from the domination of others, and that the good of the nation should be placed ahead of international or global concerns. As such, there is really a rather large group of positions which crop up among alt-Righters, all of which are considered by those holding them to be “nationalism.”
Generally speaking, I think these positions can be aggregated into two general groups. First, you have the nationalism held by those who would often call themselves “white nationalists,” who would tend to focus on the issue of race, primarily from a genetic aspect. The other nationalism would be that which focuses its attention on culture and on the organic existence and evolution of nations as cultural and social groupings. This latter form is what I would subscribe to when referring to myself as a “nationalist.”
In a previous post, I essentially laid out my description of what a “nation” is. The best and most natural definition of a nation is that given by God Himself when He used it in the original languages in which the Holy Scripture were revealed. In Greek, the term for “nation” as it relates to “the nations of the world” is ethnos. The conceptually cognate term in Hebrew is goyiim. In both languages, the terms come from root words which essentially describe a group of people who are joined by the same language, traditions, mores, rituals, etc. In other words, culture and society. A “nation” is a group of people who share the same cultural outlook, the same general set of beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions about the world around them and of their relations to each other. My belief is that any definition beyond this one necessarily rests on some level of artificiality, removing it to a greater or lesser degree from the realm of realism.
A couple of days ago, there was an excellent op-ed in the New York Times by Marine Le Pen about the Brexit. She notes, quite rightly, that the European Union is nothing more than Berlin’s latest empire,
“British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.
“The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.
“Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.”
For most of human history, the imposition of power by one nation or political entity over another has been considered slavery. When the Greeks, Romans, and other ancient talked about “freedom” in an international context, they meant the ability of one nation to exist without domination by another. Likewise, when speaking of nations, “slavery” was a state of being in another’s power. For instance, we see the exchange between the Persian Cyrus and the Armenian Tigranes,
This post originally appeared about a year ago on Traditional Right.
I would like to repost it here, in light of recent events such as the Brexit and the on-going crisis surrounding the flood of undesirable immigrants into Europe and North America. Specifically, I believe that nationalism does not have to be merely a secularist phenomenon. There are many solid biblical reasons to support nationalism, contra the sort of simple-minded globalism that so many mainline denominations and even Evangelical cuckservative churchians preach. Just because God’s Son Jesus Christ died for the entire world, this doesn’t mean that God wants the entire world “all getting together” into some globalist fantasy when He specifically broke us apart thousands of years ago to keep that from happening.
The other night, I made the mistake, while cycling through the stations on my car’s radio, of listening to a few moments of an interview on the local public radio station. I don’t even remember the name of the interviewee, and really only remember about him that he was your typical left-wing whiner, in this case complaining that he had not been given a chance to write an op-ed for the New York Times. What really had his knickers in a knot was that Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front party, had been given op-ed space by the Times in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.
According to our misremembered would-be author, this was simply a horrible, horrible thing for the Times to have done. The interviewer, admitting that he did not know who Marine Le Pen was, asked why. It was because, as we were told by Nameless Whiner, Marine Le Pen is a “fascist.” He then proceeded to expound upon this point, demonstrating in the process that he had no idea what “fascism” really is; explaining that, among other things, Marine Le Pen is against multiculturalism and open immigration into France from the Muslim world.
In other words, Marine Le Pen is a “fascist” because she believes that France should be for French people.
Cross-posted earlier on Traditional Right.
You can tell it’s an election year, because the Republicans are all of a sudden talking about the Constitution again. Not that I mind, of course, but it seems that they only start paying attention to it when the generally more conservative and constitutionalist Republican primary voters start paying attention to them. So suddenly, the political realm is filled with talk about what the Constitution says about every issue, from abortion to xylophone maintenance.
The problem that I see with this, however, is that at the same time as they are claiming their love and devotion to our founding document, most of these same politicians are pursuing policies relating to demographics and national sovereignty which are completely at odds with the perpetuation of the diluted remains of constitutional government. Put simply, the mainstream Republican pursuit of amnesty, open borders, and massive immigration (both legal and illegal) works to destroy the very Constitution they profess to be so concerned about.
We must consider the following as a truism: There is no such thing as magic soil. What I mean is that a person’s culture and upbringing do not change simply because that person occupies a new geographical location. An immigrant (regardless of their legality) will not automatically possess a new set of fundamental political, social, cultural, and moral attitudes, simply because they occupy a place on American soil, or even have gone through the extended process of formally attaining American citizenship. To see them acquire an American outlook to go along with their American residency requires time-consuming, extensive, and (in an ideal world) mandatory acculturation to our society and mores. In days gone by, our society and government both worked to try to make that happen (with a fairly good success rate). Unfortunately, our government has completely absconded (and is, in fact, hostile to) its responsibility to assimilate immigrants, and political correctness is increasingly tying the hands of anyone else who would seek to encourage immigrants to become genuine Americans in more than just a formal sense. Diversity – the death-knell of any advanced civilization – is becoming the norm, rather than just an unfortunate but temporary exception.
The Euro-globalists managed to get one of their own
elected selected as the President of Austria,
“Alexander Van der Bellen – who appears to have defeated the Freedom Party’s Norbert Hofer by around just 30,000 of nearly five million votes – has a track record of opposing the nation state as a concept, and his own as a reality.
“In 2007, while he was leader of the Austrian Greens, the party published a picture of a dog with the Austrian flag in its mouth. The poster read: “Take your flag for your gag”, followed by the declaration that anyone who loves the country “must be sh*t”.
“The flag “joke” was a play on a campaign urging dog owners to place their dog’s excrement in bags and trash cans. The Austrian greens replaced the bag with a flag of Austria in the image (right).“
So close. Too bad Hofer didn’t get outside the margin of fraud (see it here in the original Austrian).
The globalist “elite” really needs to keep in mind that the “far right nationalists” that they’re dealing with right now are the ones who are still willing to try to work within the system. If they keep squashing all attempts by the people to protect their own nations, they’ll find out that the next step involves “far right nationalists” who don’t bother with the established processes any more.
Now is the time for the globalists to figure it out, get out of the way, and go into honourable retirement in Monaco with their vast fortunes more or less intact. That’s definitely a lot better than being thrown out a window or decorating a lamppost.
One of the greatest services that Pat Buchanan performed for America in his discussions about immigration was to emphasise the place of culture in that conversation. While talk about the subject generally tends to revolve around questions of legality versus illegality, crime, and its impact on wages and jobs – and these are all important matters, mind you – discussing the impact which immigration has on America’s culture has found much less of a place at the table.
Before I get too deeply into this article, I want to take a moment to address the title above. I realise that this title is not particularly creative. I know that Rick Santorum used it as a slogan in a past presidential bid, and that it is thought that his campaign, in turn, more or less copped it from a poem by Langston Hughes entitled “Let America be America again.” I don’t care about any of that. I chose the title because it well expresses the sentiments I wish to lay out in this article.
The reader may find his or herself asking, “Why are you talking about culture again? How come you’re always harping on that subject?” The answer is because culture is important. Culture is, in fact, more important for the long-term direction of a nation than are its electoral politics, its economic choices, or its foreign policies. Different types of governments, economic booms and busts, may all come and go, but the culture of a nation will set the tone for how the nation responds to and weathers these things.