Untimely Observations

Three-Fifths of a Controversy

At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia-- my undergraduate alma mater-- President James Wagner is in hot water... make that boiling hot lava. He has ignited a furor not likely to die down anytime soon. Faculty, students, and administrators are all screaming at him like...well, to put it frankly, like a bunch of bitches. And when faculty, student, and administrative bitches be trippin', presidential heads are liable soon to be rollin'.

"Oh dear!" you reply, voice resonant with grave concern. "What ever has the man done?? It must be something really beastly... after all, those employed and enrolled at prestigious American universities never lose their heads and throw a collective PC-hissy fit over something utterly stupid and of no real moment and ultimately insubstantial! The president's transgression must be egregious indeed!"

And oh, it is! Wagner's act is in fact so stunningly wicked that before I relate it, you may just want to ready your smelling salts, in case you pass out from the shock. Consider this your "trigger warning," if indeed you are the type of person who cares at all about such things as decency, goodness, justice, and decorum.

Are you ready? Are you sitting down? Is your rectum good and clenched? Have you got a stong father figure by your side whom you can hug and on whose broad, strong shoulders you can cry copious tears of dismay and trauma?

Okay... here's what he did.

This dastardly man... flagrantly used a historical metaphor in a newspaper column in order to make a rhetorical point!

"So what," you ask?

Well, you see, it may not LOOK like a big deal, but it IS. Yea, verily, indeed. After all, the piece in question, which Wagner penned for The Emory Wheel, made reference to the "three-fifths compromise" following the end of the Revolutionary War, in which those pushing for black slaves to count the same as whites for the purposes of constituional  representation, settled instead on letting each black vote count for 60 percent, or three-fifths, of the value of a white man's citizenship. Wagner cited this instance as a time when one political faction, believing strongly in the correctness of their cause, nevertheless made concessions for pragmatic purposes.

Here is a summary of the brouhaha, as reported by the Wheel, the student newspaper that once ran a few of my own strident post-adolescent editorials back in the day:


(Note the ample and pungently unfurling scent of relentless butthurt from the various student and faculty groups chiming in to condemn Wagner's oh-so-horrific words. Geez, what a campus of whiners!)

Yes, folks... that's what it takes to ignite a campus controversy these days. It's becoming easier and easier. To bring the militant multicultist mafia down on your head, you used to have to do something really provocative, like fly the "stars and bars" from your dorm room window, or refuse to spell "woman" with a "y," or smirk in the presence of an AIDS quilt.

Now all it takes for a university president-- a president, no less-- to be undone is for him to invoke an ostensibly infelicitous, even if accurate, metaphor relating to antebellum Negro slavery in the midst of an altogether rather bland newspaper column encouraging clashing departments of his college to unite despite their differences for the sake of a greater good.

The American academic gulag metastasizes into an ever-more absurdist caricature all the time. What will be the next overblown kerfuffle to roil the legions of left-liberal brainwashed goosestepping minions? Will the plague of political correctness finally run its terminal course and perish, even as it kills its by now thoroughly spent and useless hosts in the ivory towers it inhabits?

Untimely Observations

The Psychology of Gun Control


In America, the discussion of political issues is an endless and perpetually inconclusive cycle: Party mouthpieces formulate stock arguments, and the media disseminates them to the rank and file, who then absorb and regurgitate them. They are then repeated ad nauseam whenever a well-publicized event returns the question to the limelight. Solutions are never discovered. This has been standard procedure for at least the last three generations who, incapable of seeing outside the narrow parameters of bipartisan debate, accept it as the norm. But why?

Politics is not an academic discipline and does not involve the abstractions of that milieu; its matters and its terms are direct and concrete. Its subjects are familiar on a functional level to the majority of the population. If objective truth does exist then the questions being asked in the political milieu should end in objective answers. If Americans can calculate solutions to algebraic equations, they should certainly be able to do the same for poverty, crime, energy, and healthcare.

This has not happened, from which I infer two things: (1) that Americans are truly ignorant of what they speak about politically; and (2) their reason for engaging in political debate is self and partisan promotion, not the actual search for solutions.

Here it is noted that, like everything else in mass democracy, one’s political orientation is commercial, in other words a consumer choice. People select views (prepackaged for them) that satisfy their psychological disposition, and this reflects them in not only the political, but also the human dimension. Politics is merely a smokescreen for culture, fashion, and interpersonal interaction.

Conservatism and Liberalism function, not only as filters for reality perception, but as subcultures. Hence, they can be studied sociologically in the same manner as the music and art scenes.

One feature of subcultures is the possession of their own built in lexicon, a collection of terms used only by their members, and only to phatically communicate within the group. This is cliché regurgitation, and it is understandable: subcultures are the vehicle through which people satisfy their mental drives, mutually reinforcing each other in the process. Original thought - or thought at all - is not the point; nor is reference to things outside the group or interaction with people outside the group.

When analyzing the terms used within the subculture you will detect similarities between them and patterns will emerge. What are the most commonly heard terms in the liberal vocabulary? “Tolerance,” “sensitivity,” “inclusion,” “diversity,” “equality,” “humanity”...all phonetically soft, bright, and feminine. They all please the liberal ear in a manner.

Even if they are all essentially restatements of each other, each still possesses its own star in the liberal zodiac. Public figures use buzzwords for their emotive, rather than intellectual content; as such, their weight is connotative rather than denotative. Notice also that since the decline of Marxism the left has draped its periodicals, websites and t-shirts in aqua colors, all understood to evoke peace and tranquility.

Conservatism, for its part, is no different. The character it presents and the personality it attracts differ, but the dynamics uniting the two do not. Where the liberal’s lexicon is soft and feminine the conservative’s is hard and masculine: “tradition,” “hierarchy,” “history,” “nation” and all its derivatives. Note also the colors favored by the Right: earth tones.

It can be seen that the force driving politics is irrational, fueled by subjective preferences valued without reason. If politics is a manifestation of psychology, then so are such areas as culture, lifestyle, and pastimes, explaining the high rate of correlation between the two. One of our society’s central conceits, that people form their views after active research and modify them when presented with contradictory information, is a falsehood. Gun control, having recently returned to the limelight with the shooting in Newton, Connecticut, illustrates this.

But it is not even about gun control, as that would require dealing with issues and other people in a hard-headed and realistic way far beyond their emotional comfort zones. Instead it is merely about espousing gun control for consumption within the sub-cultural group. It is all about preaching to the choir, and ignoring the awkward realities beyond the swell of their own droning organ.

Would-be gun grabbers are invariably the products of urban areas in which gun ownership is not part of the culture; it is the rare exception. Their knowledge of guns, gun owners, and the issues, habits, and traditions that drive gun-ownership is miniscule. It never extends beyond the caricatures portrayed in popular culture.

Moreover, these people are “the Other.” They inhabit small towns in rural areas, where the ratio of church attendance and heterogeneity is unacceptable. Such are not America, or at least not what they wish America to be. In the liberal fantasy, they need to be redesigned so as to become unrecognizable, to fit the encroaching zeitgeist, but, again, this is essentially a fantasy.

Guns have no place in the antiseptic utopia that Liberals create as a group-wank-fantasy every time their subgroup interacts. In moments like this, Liberals naively believe that their motivation for stripping cultural and intellectual inferiors of their favorite toys would be a desire for public safety; in reality, their motivations are purely a matter of sub-cultural group interaction and acceptance.

Politics is a conflict of tribes, and of subjectivities. Who is the winner? Is it the man with the best information, most logically valid arguments, and finest ethical credentials? Of course not, for such a man exists in the desolate no-man’s land between the self-affirming and self-isolating herds of the subjective and emotionally-driven subcultures.

AltRight Radio

The Other Democrats

The latest episode of Vanguard Radio is live. (Unforunately, since we've changed hosts, we can no longer embed the audio files here at AltRight.)

In this week's episode, long-time activist and organizer Kevin Scott joins us for a discussion of British nationalism and the creation of the British Democratic Party (which is designed as a successor to the British National Party.)

Also, note our new iTunes subscription feed.  


Untimely Observations

The Westboro Baptist Church is a Liberal Wet Dream


When I first saw media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a few years ago my first reaction was “LOLWUT”. My next reaction was that it had to be a troll. I found it so hard to take seriously because the WBC represents in pure concentrated form every leftist conceit about the nature of their non-opposition. They are white, rural, religious and openly bigoted against the most celebrated victim group of the moment.

I am not going to condemn or defend the WBC. I find them mildly amusing, but beyond that I am indifferent. What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there.

Liberals would so dearly love for the WBC to be representative of their opposition that they hem and haw over their “free speech rights” to create disturbances at military funerals and trespass on private property. In a sane society people engaging in such activities would simply be removed with force, not pandered to and granted the “right” to engage in such behavior. Ironically, it is precisely such behavior that cultural leftists used to come to power in the first place. Whether intentionally or not, the WBC is aping the gay rights movement in tactics. At one point I thought perhaps the WBC was an elaborate ruse to wake leftists up to the social value of violently excluding undesireables. If so, this would at least be an admirable if ultimately futile goal.

In reality liberalism faces no enemies, so it must create them. What passes for conservatism in this country is basically warmed over liberalism combined with occasional unintentional self-parody. Yet liberals will pretend that they are a mighty force to contend with. As I have discussed elsewhere this is ridiculous. Whatever power non-liberal groups have in this country is ceded to them by the left in a desperate effort to create the pretense of conflict and opposition.

The human soul needs conflict and struggle to give meaning to existence, yet liberal ideology is entirely built around eliminating conflict from society. They have been so successful at this that the main issue of the day is whether or not men can “marry” men and the main argument in favor of the practice is that feelings will be hurt if society reserves the title of marriage for male/female relationships only. This is why the left keeps the WBC around. It gives them the pretense of struggle, the facade of conflict and thus temporarily fills the gaping void they feel in the souls that they deny they possess.

To give an example of this a friend (who shall remain nameless) that is a student at Vassar College, the WBC’s next target, shared this note he received in his inbox:

Vassar students, employees, and friends,

Many of you know of the statement yesterday by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas that they will picket Vassar College on February 28 in protest of our open support of LGBTQ students, employees, and alums. Should the Westboro Baptist Church choose to come to Poughkeepsie, they will not be allowed to gather on campus. As a College, we look forward to any opportunity to counter messages of hatred and bigotry and to underscore Vassar’s values.

Vigorous conversations are underway online, on campus, and among all parts of our community on how best to express and reaffirm our values in relation to this picketing. All are invited to participate in these conversations, including one taking place tonight, Monday, at 10 p.m. in UpC, facilitated by students.

Jon Chenette

Acting President

Vigorous conversations? Why even bother? Look forward to it? Of course they do. What else have they got to look forward to other than dildos and interracial porn? One of the ideas that came up as a way to respond to the grave threat of the WBC is this proposal to “crowd fund” a gay teen suicide prevention hotline.

The Westboro Baptist Church has announced that they will picket Vassar College on Feb 28th. In response, we are raising money for the Trevor Project, ”the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth.” Our goal is to raise $4,500, or $100 per minute that the WBC is planning to protest for.

How utterly facile. Of course this non-effort has been wildly successful precisely because it is so facile. The WBC represents everything postmodern liberalism could ever ask for. The caricature of an enemy, the pretense of conflict and risk free ways of “fighting back” and affirming the values of anti-values. What a joke.

Originally published at The Right Stuff

Untimely Observations

'Earth Privilege' and Asteroids

Due to 'Earth privilege' you may be interpreting the recent spate of asteroid stories in the wrong way. Our biased, Earth-centric media tends to portray the asteroids as the danger, when it is obvious that it is the other way round. Just the other day, one unfortunate interplanetary object, innocently following its predetermined elliptical orbit around the Solar System, was smashed to cosmic dust by the Earth straying into its path.

Earth privilege (or "human-hosting planet privilege," as progressive astrophysicists occasionally term it) refers to advantages that a certain astronomical object obtains in media and cultural discourse beyond those commonly experienced by other astronomical objects.

The term connotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that the Earth and the people who live here may not recognize they have. This distinguishes it from overt hatred and prejudice against asteroids and meteorites that was common in earlier ages, when innocent comets were routinely blamed for plagues, famines, earthquakes, and invasions by the Mongols.

Thankfully, we have moved beyond such crass 'astrologism,' but the problem of Earth privilege, as these recent stories reveal, remains a constant and indelible stain upon our moral character.

Only by ensuring absolute astronomical equality can we make amends for several billion years of Earth privilege. As with overcoming White privilege and male privilege, the way forward is to deconstruct the social or, in this case, astronomical construct. This can best be achieved by dismantling the offending astronomical object into several million smaller pieces, possibly through a massive nuclear explosion. In this way, we can make enormous strides towards the final, absolute equality that will ultimately only be achieved with the heat-death of the universe.


The Launch of the BDP

The next few years in British politics could be the most interesting ever. The success of UKIP, which now regularly polls over 15%, shows that the main parties are losing the popular mandate. The Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat Parties are suffering from falling membership and increasing voter apathy. The people feel betrayed and resentful about the direction the country has been taken in. Quite simply an enormous political vacuum is developing.

But UKIP can only explore the vacuum; it can never fill it. It is essentially a shallow, opportunist party of little substance. The voters instinctively know this and treat it merely as a stick to beat the main parties. The real hope for Britain lies in the foundation of the British Democratic Party, a new party formed by nationalists who have finally moved out of the shadow caused by the collapse into irrelevance of the BNP.

Launched last weekend at a meeting near Leicester, the party provides a new standard for British nationalists to rally around once again in the struggle to save their nations, a struggle, it should be said, made all the harder by the mistakes of the past. The following is an account of the launch of the new party from the website of Civil Liberty:

Around 80 invited activists attended the national launch meeting of the British Democratic Party in Queniborough, near Leicester, on Saturday, the 9th of February, 2013.

Key policies discussed included a halt to all further immigration, Britain's withdrawal from the EU and protecting the social and economic interests of the British people.

Addressing the meeting, the chairman of the new party's steering committee, Kevin Scott, who is also the director of the independent Civil Liberty nationalist civil rights campaign group, said that the new party would respect the rights of those legal immigrants and their descendants to remain in the UK without fear or hindrance. In due course, increased resettlement aid would be offered to those wanting to return voluntarily to their ancestral homelands. He also said the purpose of the new party was to win back the nationalist movement from those who had wrecked it and then, ultimately, to win back the country for our own people so that they may live freely once again unhindered by multiculturalism and political correctness.

One of the main speakers at the launch meeting was Andrew Brons, the MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside, who was warmly welcomed by the invited audience.

The other speakers included Adrian Davies, the former leader of the Freedom Party, Sam Swerling, a former Conservative councillor in London, Jim Lewthwaithe, a former Bradford BNP councillor, Kevan Stafford, the main Leicester organiser of the new party, Andrew Moffatt, a former UKIP parliamentary candidate, Brian Mahoney, a former BNP regional organiser from Wales, and Ken Booth, another former BNP regional organiser from the North East of England.

One of the aims of the meeting was to kickstart launch meetings across the south of England and beyond and rally those nationalists who have left the BNP in disgust at the destructive self-serving antics of that party's leadership.

The first part of the meeting discussed why a new party was needed, while the second half of the meeting discussed the way forward the new party proposed relating to the constitutional and financial controls it had developed over the last few months, the importance of ideology to the party's core beliefs, the organisation and administration of the new party and the importance of grassroots activism and local elections in building the profile of the BDP (or Brit Dems, if you prefer) across the country. Valuable contributions were made by the invited audience following both parts of the meeting.

Party literature and policy statements were distributed to the assembled activists and membership forms were also made available so that potential members could sign up on the day as many enthusiastically did.

This new British Democratic Party is the third manifestation of the party name that we are aware of in British political history. The first BDP was formed by John Brown, from South Shields, in the North East of England, in March 1938. According to his manifesto, one of the aims of this first BDP was, "the destruction of Communism and Fascism and the winning over of workers to a belief in their own country." John Brown had been expelled from the Labour Party only the month before for making speeches attacking the Labour leadership and his first BDP meetings on Tyneside were attacked by Labour and far-left thugs intent on destroying his new party.

Ironically, a photographer from the Labour party front group, Hope not Hate, turned up outside the meeting room in an effort to intimidate those attending the launch meeting of the new BDP.

The second version of the BDP was formed in early 1980 by Anthony Reed-Herbert, a Leicester lawyer and former leading light within the National Front at the time. Mr Reed-Herbert had split away from the National Front a few months earlier following the disappointing showing of the National Front in the 1979 general election. The BDP in Leicester scored some credible votes in local elections in the city before eventually merging with the British National Party when that party was established in 1982. A founder member of the Leicester-based BDP was present at yesterday's meeting and brought along some original BDP literature from 1980 for the invited audience to examine.

Like everyone else at the meeting, that former BDP member from the 1980s recognised the enormity of the task ahead for the new party, but, third time lucky, is determined to succeed this time!

Untimely Observations

The Brilliant Automatons


College is the place where people are supposed to learn to think, but instead join mass social movements with barren intellectual foundations to strut their terminal insecurity across the public spectrum.

I put this statement to paper not as some curmudgeonly Republican lamenting modern times as the few remaining years of my life tick away. Nor am I an individual pledged to the ultimate narcissism of Objectivist thought, ready to vilify all those who decline to accept the permeating vanity and cultureless basis of my beliefs.

Instead, the aforementioned claim is birthed in the mind of one very normal student directly integrated with the academic community of an institution lauded both nationally and around the planet for the quality of its education, while simultaneously being a beacon for the American Nation’s sprint towards debauched social oblivion: the University of Virginia.

For fairness’ sake, UVA is well-regarded, but unfortunately accolades are not enough to save its grounds from becoming the prime rookery for this generation’s finest collection of useful idiots, never hesitant to jump on a one-shot bandwagon toward society’s implosion so long as they get a seat at the “in” table. A table, as I like to describe it, of Brilliant Automatons, wound and pumping to get out into the nation and turn the fullest expressions of their sinewy political imaginations into reality.

Perhaps the finest rendition of Brilliant Automaton behavior comes in the reaction to last year’s sordid Helen Dragas Affair. Instead of responding to the removal of University President Teresa Sullivan by Board of Visitors rector Helen Dragas with the candor and free thinking which Thomas Jefferson would have admired, most of the student body morphed into a droning collective of anti-Dragas sentiment and launched a campus-wide campaign to have their heroine president divinized and the Banal Rector fired from her position.  

Rallies assembled, insults flew in one direction, petitions were signed, and the vibrant groupthink guard seemed unstoppable in its mission to deflect attempts at what it imagined was a corporate coup. Ancient alumni and the local tabloid paper also got their share of visibility, trumpeting a steady note of condemnation and Occupy-esque rhetoric. So vehemently coalesced was anti-Dragas outrage that even the once-sacred memorial to slain student Morgan Harrington in Charlottesville found itself defaced with imposing “DUMP DRAGAS” graffiti months for after the scandal had subsided.

Never mind that Sullivan was once levied with a serious accusation of academic fraud along with her collaborator at the time, the Scott Brown-trouncing Senator Elizabeth Warren. Or the fact of her help in stymying advances in the University’s higher education program by delaying the advent of online course options. The only matters at stake to Dragas’ detractors were evil corporations, their encirclement of UVA’s first female president with patriarchal malevolence, and a general feeling of insecurity amongst the student body.

Of course, this latter issue of insecurity is precisely what creates the Brilliant Automaton. Despite having much credence in the realms of academic achievement, these students still require the fleeting comfort of a social groupthink team and thus submit to whichever is most readily available (and popular), regardless of its foundational principles. Facts fade away before their eyes and transform into the scintillating aroma of big-tent social groups. Barely thinking once, they seize up, lock step, and become the Brilliant Automatons, both well-educated and more than able to latch on to trends which threaten the very basis of traditionalist America.

If the students participating in “Dump Dragas” had been a lot of booze-addled pretenders at Arizona State University, they might have been dismissed as the harmless lemmings of modern society, not one of them holding the potential for anything beyond playful mischief. But this is not the case; UVA is highly respected, and thus many of its graduates are likely to enjoy positions of significant public authority in the future.

Diplomas from the school will line the neatly-kept walls of courthouses, teacher offices, business headquarters, and possibly the White House itself. Their holders stand to be on the frontline of countless public issues, at times enjoying the power to swing political and social histories in irrevocable directions. The notion of such personalities and their mob-like conformity possessing significant power in public affairs is both disheartening and grievous to the soul.

As traditionalist and nationalist culture faces continual assault, its guardians shall be replaced by the Brilliant Automatons, who can joyfully assist as contributors to the multiculturalist, feminist, anti-white, and pro-liberalism onslaught. And what is more, they will do so with the full honor of a university degree emblazoned upon their psyches.


Unreliable Narrators

In this second segment of our "Author to Author" audio series, Andy Nowicki speaks with legendary and acclaimed Southern writer Tito Perdue regarding Perdue's latest: a surreal racialist-themed sci-fi dystopic freak-out/comic romp entitled The Node.

Then Tito turns the tables and grills Andy concerning his book Under the Nihil, a paranoid fable which charts one man's mental and spiritual collapse and his subsequent descent into pharmaceutically-induced terrorism.

Node talk:

Nihil talk:

Purchase The Node at www.amazon.com/The-Node-Tito-Perdue/dp/1616583517 or at www.ninebandbooks.com

Purchase Under the Nihil at www.amazon.com/under-the-nihil/dp/B006PZ4IHK at www.counter-currents.com


Untimely Observations

Alternative Right Fitness


Jack Donovan's article "How to Start a Gang: The Co-op Gym" is a practical guide to creating an "honor gang" in the real world around the idea of fitness.  Let's take it farther though -- what do we do once we are at the gym? The same old exercises you do anywhere else?  What if there were are way to incorporate some of the metapolitical and cultural ideas that the Alternative Right talks about in an everyday context?

Introducing The Centurion Method.

The Centurion Method emphasizes brutally difficult (but scalable) workouts using everyday equipment like sledge hammers and large rocks. Unlike Crossfit, the Centurion Method is designed to be done in any possible setting, including a private home, a spot of land outdoors, or even a cemetery.

More interesting than that however, The Centurion Method (while not defining it explicitly) channels many of the impulses that appeal to Radical Traditionalists. Different groups, or "pits," emphasize hierarchy and competition. Different "kvlts" or divisions that emphasize different kinds of exercises, have heavily militaristic overtones.

The aesthetics borrow heavily from black metal, heathen, and post-apocalyptic subcultures, with Germanic runes festooning books and equipment and workouts being conducted in gas masks. The main site boasts, "Using the Guerrilla and Primal training programs we prepare the human body for whatever the cruelty of nature may thrust upon it. Survival of the Fittest is her mantra, death her husband, and the cry of ‘LIFE’ hot on our lips. We do not mess around."

This isn't Planet Fitness -- these are clearly workouts for anti-egalitarians looking to revolt against the modern world. More importantly, these are workouts for the self-conscious “preparatory men,” poking through the ruins of what used to be our civilization.

Why is this important? We already know the Alternative Right can't just be some kind of a nerdy online subculture, trading essays back and forth. However, it's equally futile to try to engage directly with mainstream culture and simply be subsumed by the tide of filth and corruption that passes for civilization. The key is to create sustainable subcultures at every level that can bring in people and show them what being anti-egalitarian means without having to explain it to them. The Centurion Method seems as good as any.

So put down the Mountain Dew and pick up your sledge hammer. The new barbarians are rising from inside the gates of the cursed city – and it's time to swell the ranks.


The Desexing of Beyonce

The female pop star is akin to the mayfly; a delicate little creature that appears briefly, in the flower of its life, flutters around, oohs and aahs, and then disappears…no one knows where. This is its essence and natural law. If it continues past its sell-by-date it has to evolve into a different creature and jettison much of what makes it it.

I use the term it advisedly, in order to reflect the great wisdom and discovery of our gloriously enlightened age, namely that gender is just another color painted on the canvas – or a squiggly line on the etch-a-sketch – of human nature.

An it can be a he when it wants, or a she – lift up the toilet seat or lay it down; a pitcher or a catcher, a patcher or citcher; the possibilities are endless and we haven’t even introduced sheep, children, or dead people yet.

By abolishing this arbitrary distinction between one half of humanity and the other, think of all the human kapital that can be unleashed and marketized in the same way that we were able to marketize the ability of the financially illiterate to pay off mortgages!

But back to Beyonce and any other female pop star who’s been at it too long. Blinded by the limelight’s glare they flutter unthinkingly across the Faustian line into rather too much success and somewhat too lengthy a career. But instead of their souls, which possibly remain locked up in their little toes, what they end up losing is their femininity.

We’ve been here before: Madonna at the start of her career. If not exactly virginal, there was nevertheless something girlish, sexy, even cute about her; typified by her mascaraed doe eyes, downy eyebrows, and candy-store costumery: a guilty pleasure, a furry peach, a naughty little girl, innocence begging corruption.

But then she also strayed beyond the chronology of the pop mayfly, something she could only do by jettisoning all femininity. That and that alone would make the God of Pop-Death turn away and bestow his amnesia-inducing attentions elsewhere. From the faux-innocence of femininity that evoked thoughts of deflowerment, she turned herself into a desert of sexless depravity.

The form this took was a bundle of rigorously honed muscles on bone; a gyrating automaton that robotically aped sexuality in all its absurdity; sex on a stick projected at a fast retreating public; one giant car-crash with a million rubber-neckers, a freak-show for the name-recognition generation, the great unwashed collectors of unlistened to CDs.

We see the same thing with Beyonce. Widely regarded as the most beautiful “woman of color,” she has been trapped by that vital PR role and the R’n’B references of her ethnicity to pump and grind and shake that booty like the flywheel of a steam engine till every hint of femininity has been stripped away, leaving only a ghastly marionette show; a grinning death’s head caricature of sexuality that fits perfectly into a stadium-filling aesthetic that has its roots in the earlier part of the twentieth century.

“The Fame Monster,” Lady Gaga called it without knowing what she was referring to. We want our Whores of Babylon, but they have to be mighty. But they can only be mighty by losing all feminine weakness and becoming pure Will-to-Power dressed in leather lingerie. To drive the machine of global fame, they have to accept a kind of "unigender fascism," a mixture of masculine muscle, howling, and pain comingled with the feminine desire to be loved and coveted: emotionally feminine; physically masculine.

Spengler said apropos the approach of Fascism:

“Hardness, Roman hardness is taking over now. Soon there will be no room for anything else. Art, yes; but in concrete and steel. Literature, yes; but by men with iron nerves and uncompromising depth of vision.”

If he had known the popular culture of our times, he would have recognized Beyonce as a misplaced manifestation of his thought. Show business is a Fascistic realm of ruthless competition. The competition may be towards the crassest, the lamest, or the lowest common denominator, but it is competition all the same and just as ruthless as the Stalingrad front.

The dynamic of show business is vertical not horizontal; it is masculine not feminine, and those women who push themselves to get to top can only excel by becoming its and not shes.

Because she’s Black – despite her mulatto blood, skin lightener, and hair straightener (wigs?) – Beyonce can go a lot further along this road before anyone dare notice that the empress, while not exactly naked, looks pretty fucking gruesome, and more like the emperor or Conan the Barbarian.

Her half-time show at the Super Bowl brought this into focus. Called on to outdo her usual schlock, she overreached herself causing her mask to slip beyond the PR recovery zone, presenting photographers with the chance to capture a scowling, she-Hulk monstrosity, with thighs like pistons, and unnatural hair that seemed stapled on in an ironic comment on her lost femininity.

A woman that prostitutes her sexuality in the manner of Madonna or Beyonce can justly be called a bitch – even though this is an insult to many a decent canine – but when such a bitch aspires to Whore of Babylon status she risks becoming merely a dog.

The Magazine

Alt Right Art

Left-liberal attitudes and habits of mind may at one time have been radical, provocative, and gutsy, but today they are staid, stale, conventional, and boring. Any honest contemporary cultural Marxist will have to admit that, politically speaking, his side now holds all significant power. Those who openly decline to subscribe to the ideological establishment’s point of view on such matters as race, gender, and sexuality have in effect committed social suicide; having put themselves utterly at the mercy of the powers-that-be, such unfortunates have left themselves open to attack by legions of official Zeitgeist-enforcers and their numerous toadying minions.

Today’s thought-criminals and ideological deviants are liable to be thrown in jail or fined for indulging in so-called “hate speech,” or at the very least, to be subjected to harassment, humiliation, and deprivation of livelihood. It is, in short, a bad career move not to toe the company line. Even in a country where free expression is nominally protected, one still in actuality faces a stark choice: conform to the enforced conventional wisdom, or be thrust into the outer darkness.

For radical traditionalists, alternative rightists, race realists, and other such present-day thought-criminals, things seem dire indeed. Yet all is not lost, and much, in fact, has been won. For our adversaries’ victory on cultural matters is very much a pyrrhic one. In becoming the Establishment, the Left has hemorrhaged its mojo. To be a lefty today has none of the allure or glamour that it once possessed in halcyon times when one actually faced persecution and ostracism for taking up left-wing causes. In 2013, one who spouts liberal rhetoric and parrots politically-correct bromides doesn’t seem like a troublemaker, but rather a brown-nosing goody-goody. A defiant rightist, on the other hand, has gained the status of a dangerous outlaw; though reviled, feared, and loathed by the authority-fearing populace, such a one nevertheless exudes an exciting primordial appeal for his insolent refusal to curtsy before the almighty Zeitgeist.

What is more, oppression is often a boon to the cause of creativity. After all, complacency is typically the bugaboo of the ascendant, not the downtrodden. Those in control only have an incentive to play things safe, whereas the ideological outlaws have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Now, therefore, is the time to seize upon the opportunity with which circumstances have presented us. An artistic renaissance is in the works, blossoming ripely under the ongoing blizzard of scorn, revilement, and repression launched from official, sanctioned institutions of ideological dominion and control. A hearty harvest is being nurtured beneath the very steel-spiked boot of the tyrant’s heel which now threatens to crush us utterly.


Every significant and worthwhile social movement is not solely, or even primarily political in nature. Rather, it is buttressed by a spiritual understanding of man and the cosmos. Thus, the cluster of variously intertwining ideologies which make up the alt-Right must be represented in aesthetic form, as art must undergird any philosophical conception of reality. Art goes where rhetoric cannot go; art communicates by showing rather than merely telling; being properly understood as elemental, rather than simply rational, it speaks to the soul, not just the mind. A thousand well-worded, thought-provoking articles don’t have nearly the same psychic impact upon a reader as a single novel, play, or poem possessed of the spark of lusty inspiration.

In order for our vision to be properly promoted, we must frame our mental and spiritual revolt against the bankrupt morays of the modern world in aesthetic terms. This means composing works which enable readers, viewers, or listeners (depending on the medium) to see the truth behind the malignantly deceptive simulacrum that is post-modernity and the bogus, trendy, ascendant ideologies that infest nearly all aspects of our current day-to-day consciousness. We want to help modern man rip off his blinders so that he may apprehend reality and truth, and the most effective manner to accomplish such a goal is through the cultivation of an artistic counter-movement, one which aggressively challenges the dominant contemporary paradigm on its own terms.

Alex Kurtagic, Wermod and Wermod publisher and author of the anti-multicultural, anti-egalitarian dystopian novel Mister, has made the point that people seldom change their minds based on a confrontation with facts or reasoned argument. Rather, they adopt a different mindset through what could be called aesthetic initiation, a process that Kurtagic himself has associated with a type of seduction. And the best literature does indeed possess a seductive power; it woos and ravishes its reader, and causes him to fall in love with the truths it presents; it makes him want to live and die for the virtues it depicts; it makes him as passionate and devoted as any ardent lover.

Let us work to redeem the time by bringing forth a muscular legion of artistic works in any genre which suits our particular gifts. Let us fling forth our devout defiance, and raise a formidable army of books, dedicated to subvert, undermine, and overthrow the Zeitgeist. Our enemies have much to fear from us, for the pen is mightier than the sword.

Exit Strategies

War and Democracy - a Review


We have always been fighting the Revolution. This is the thesis, in a more complex form, of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy, a collection of essays centered on the instability of modern liberal democracy after the “end of history,” and how it has launched us into an unending series of wars for ideological objectives. In exploring that, Gottfried also uncovers the neurotic and confused nature of modern existence.

In doing so, he targets neoconservatism, which could be described as the greatest threat to right-wing beliefs since it incorporates surface characteristics of conservatism but mates it to a fundamentally liberal mission, namely the spreading of liberal democracy in the notion that it is “progress” and will eliminate wars, liberate people and generally bring our species to a more Utopian existence.

Gottfried picks his targets from the abundant myths and confusions of a modern time. He tackles anti-German feelings in “Germany’s War Wounds,” then picks apart the complex relationship between Jews, Israel and liberalism in two essays, and hits topics as diverse as Middle East uprisings and cultural decay in between. A consistent thread runs through all of his pieces: criticism of that which, not making logical sense as a continuous thought, has been amalgamated under an aesthetic notion and tied together as Ideology.

The style of these short essays is crisp and yet curving and cynical. Gottfried attacks the insanity directly by revealing its logical contradictions and then extrudes the argument into a question of consequences. What arises from these disaster policies and broken or malformed assumptions? Perhaps this book’s most powerful psychological effect is that it always hints at a truth suspended beneath the surface of reality, and the need to look not at what’s on our desks in terms of politics, but what its presence among those in power will create.

In the ’70s and ’80s, the American left swarmed with despisers of the U.S., which was then engaged in a global struggle against the Soviets and their proxies. The Right by default became America-boosters, in whose ranks coexisted both traditional anti-Communists and neo-Jacobins. But it was the neo-Jacobins who by the end of the Cold War were able to define the moral substance of the struggle against the Soviets, as a global democratic crusade tied to a particular state representing a political creed. Unlike other nation states, neo-Jacobin America is ethnically and racially pluralistic but imagined to rest on a universally applicable proposition, that everyone should be viewed as equal and be empowered to enjoy human rights. (p.79)

Obviously I disagree with Gottfried on this point in that even his own history shows the origins of internationalism in the French Revolution. Liberalism gradually infiltrates by a method not described here, and when it takes over, even conservatives parrot it and use it as their justification for war. Further, our use of this creed goes back to the first world war (“the war to end all wars”) and the second world war (“the war to liberate Europe”) if not to any of the post-French Revolution European wars by which Napoleon and others tried to fight monarchy and implement equality.

Neoconservatism is a liberal disease and, while Gottfried illustrates this, I think he’s off-base regarding the blame for a single country, and by doing so, is lunging after the wrong target. However, you will not find a more eloquent or fully descriptive description of why the neoconservative crusade for global liberal democracy is a historical artifact elevated to religious status. He is even more insightful as he decimates the fundamental myths and legends of this new religion, specifically in razor-edged essays like “Wrong Revolution” and “Bourgeois Radical,” both of which have a whiff of the same type of socially critical eye that Tom Wolfe wields to great effect.

One thing Gottfried does that is unique in his field is to associate democracy with an inevitable projection into consumerism. While that might seem to contradict his thesis above, where the incorporation of liberal democracy into patriotism and capitalism under the guise of universal human rights is sui generis to the Americans, it explains more of why this “easy” belief system is so pervasive and destructive, and yet invisible to most people because of their unstated assumption that it is morally superior and progressive:

The current version of democracy benefits from consumer capitalism inasmuch as public administration needs the financial resources and consumer goods produced by the market to maintain social control. Consumer societies also serve the goal of democratic socialization — that is, the creation of “democratic,” as opposed to “authoritarian,” personalities — by encouraging a materialistic way of life. As Daniel Bell argues in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, other things being equal, democratic-capitalist societies work against pre-modern institutions and values. (p.114)

For those of us on the New Right, Gottfried is a vivid and adamant link between criticism of liberalism and criticism of the capitalist-democratic state religion which has become the primary agent of liberalism. When the Soviet Union failed, Marxists stopped fighting directly, but used instead a divide and conquer technique based on hybridizing existing beliefs with their own, and thus promulgating their own DNA amongst that of the enemy.

If you have been wondering what ties together most dissidents from this time who, like myself and Gottfried and many others, feel the West has become Rome II and is falling in the same way, look no further than War and Democracy. If you are an alt.fan.unabomber devotee who thinks industrial society has trashed us, a paleoconservative who feels even Reagan had a bit of the Red in him, or just a modern moderate who wonders how civilization can have become so crass and meaningless, this book introduces the basics and gives you a strong push in other directions you’ll want to explore.


War and Democracy

by Paul Gottfried

170 pages, Arktos, $21

Untimely Observations

Liberal Hegemony (Part 2)


My previous post was my debut on Alternative Right, so I am surprised by the response it generated. However, I feel that I did not present my opinions in a way that was clearly understood, so have prepared the following not only in response, but to further articulate my basic premise and expand upon it.

My intention was to illustrate the process by which one ideology becomes dominant in a society. Its nominal opponents attempt to retain relevance by phrasing their arguments as answers to, rather than criticisms of, its concerns. Soon they function not as its opponents but its adjuncts. Through the conscious forfeit of its critics, the ideology passively absorbs and redesigns its competition in its own image. I realize I did not sufficiently describe the set of social conditions in which this occurs. They are as follows:

(1) Individualism: Unlike pre-modern societies in which one lived in small scale units, whose inhabitants functioned as an extended family, the individual now exists in large units characterized by atomization and formality. Family and friends notwithstanding, his relations with others are contractual and exist in formal settings. Those he encounters in public during his daily routine are strangers. Conservatives and libertarians may balk at the assertion that this is an individualist society, citing the existence of income redistribution as an example of our purported collectivism; however, those operating said system are unknown to the citizenry, and their activities occur unseen. Not one person receiving government assistance knows or even sees the tax providers contributing it. The inverse is the same.

(2) Mass scale: It is large scale, with large institutions serving a large population: formal cities, schools, businesses, and governments. These institutions, due to modern technology, possess greater coercive power than was ever welded by their predecessors, and their functions are formal and codified. The majority of the citizenry do not know the individuals controlling them, or the basic facts of their daily operations.

(3) Self-centered cooperation: Whereas in pre-modern societies the individual was subject from birth to a web of informal relations, which formed the basis of cooperation, he is now born an atom. With the exception of friends and family, he pursues and locates others to collaborate with out of self-interest. Hence, one is from adulthood onward packaging and marketing himself to his peers. Social interaction becomes a matter of apprehension and unease.

(4) Division into appearance and reality: As a mass society, where interaction is contractual and self-interested, this is inevitable. Colleges need students and students need education. Businesses need employees, who in turn need employment. Parties need voters, who in turn need public policy they benefit by. People need friends and lovers and friends and lovers are always people. Preparing oneself for the ball is not only an institution, but a field of study in itself.

As a consequence of the above our society has based itself on two key institutions: democracy and the market. On the surface the two seem very different; but closer inspection reveals they are one and the same. Parties are firms and politicians are products; campaign ads are product commercials; campaign appearances are in-store product demonstrations. Voters are consumers, and votes are their dollars. The two are mediated by marketing departments and PR firms, respectively. This is no coincidence, as democracy and commerce both manifest from the same dynamic: promoting one’s self by promising service to others. Or, in laymen’s speak, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

Ideology is the tool used for the scratching. Note first that ideology is not reality. Reality is complex chaos, raising questions without answers; ideology is reality streamlined into a linear narrative with clear pros and antagonists, presented publicly in an understandable fashion. I use the term not to denote academic systems of abstract thought, such as Marxism, but to refer to the base set of positions, slogans, and stock arguments that have hegemony in the society. In mass society, people lack direct access to the truth behind issues, so they access it indirectly through presentations from media conduits. Because of our society’s market basis, they have a plethora of options, but no guarantee of truth.

Ideology is a conduit that gives them perceived truth; it is an explanation of society to them. The winner, like the performer or film that attracts the most customers, is the one with the broadest appeal. Notice how in political debates on the individual level the same stock arguments are constantly regurgitated, and how political literature reads like a transcript of such conversations? This is because the worldview is manufactured and purchased as a product. It’s the same phenomena by which high school students choose mall subcultures and adults choose hobby clubs. Liberalism became the dominant brand the same way Journey made platinum album sales and “Friends” tops Neilson ratings: it appealed to the majority of the population, did not challenge their sensibilities and asked nothing in return. As such it is not unique.

If it is anything, it is the refinement of the abstract and the universal into ideology. Abstractions are empirically nonexistent; they are created mentally through the removal of particulars. This creates universals, which are properties said to be possessed by every thing, not just one individual thing. This in turn produces the linear logic of a child: the benefits of their premises are self-evident to quantitative thinking. Universalism is thought superior to nationalism because it allows for greater inclusion, whereas the latter is unjustly exclusionary. Equality is thought superior to inequality as it provides more to more whereas the former excludes many. This is the morality encoded into people’s social interactions (everyone wants to be, or be thought of as, nice) and is liberalism’s built in defense mechanism. It’s also conservatism’s built in weakness: it lacks this accessibility as its benefits are its outputs over time and cannot be directly deduced from its premises. Therefore it is easy prey for strawmen and ad hominems, because most don’t take the time to think through the information presented to them.

Liberalism acquired its hegemony in the now familiar way. A revolution or reform to the status quo is proposed, quickly gaining support because of its mass appeal. When it can make its desired change, it succeeds and incrementally replaces the prior establishment. Generations pass and inherit the new paradigm, which most accept and take for granted.

In Liberalism’s case, its intention of universal inclusion precludes quality control and can be co-opted by anyone and for any purpose. Those governing the system and its beneficiaries are advantaged in that theirs is perceived as the correct side of history. To oppose them is to oppose the basic moral convention, and can only be done on those rare occasions when the system produces an obvious massive negative output.

In civil society, Liberalism expands through narcissism as people are always willing to dismiss criticism of something that enhances their self-image. Perpetuated through these social factors, its perception as truth shields it from bearing the weight of its own failures. The only problem permitted is “not enough” so the solution of course is “more of the same”!

This is the problem the Right faces: to undo Liberalism we must undo the social, historical, and material conditions from which it congealed in the first place. Changes in public policy, legislation and even cultural campaigns are of no consequence. Society itself needs first to collapse. When tooth and claw needs render the liberal fairy tale an unfeasible myth the rest will take its natural course.


Never Be Rude to a Faggot

For those not following the hype and hullaballoo surrounding the most overhyped and hyper-hullaballooed event in the history of the world, it seems that in the run-up to Super Bowl XLVII, a professional football player has expressed the simply unacceptable sentiment that he actually finds it quite undesirable to take showers and walk around naked in the company of gay men.

The offender is one Chris Culliver, defensive back for the San Francisco 49ers. Earlier this week, over the course of a lighthearted radio interview with a jocular interlocutor on press day, Culliver revealed that he has a strict no homo policy when it comes to goings-on in the locker room. He’d rather not be around any of those “sweet”-acting, lispy, limp- wristed characters while in a state of undress: “Uh-uh,” Culliver stated emphatically at the prospect, “no way!”

Needless to say, all progressive-minded folk interested in showing others how righteous they are immediately jumped all over the suddenly embattled NFL jock for saying such an outrageous, “ignorant” thing. Equally as predictably, soon afterwards a chastened Culliver, looking like a frightened little boy who’s been called to the principal’s office, issued a meek apology to all right-thinking people everywhere, whom he deeply wounded with his viciously hateful, awful, horrible, despicable, dastardly, and completely terrible remarks. (For his penance, he’s been assigned—what else—“sensitivity training,” with representatives of the San Francisco LGBT community! Will he be forced to strip in the company of a bunch of flaming, leering queens in order to demonstrate having conclusively overcome his homophobia? Enquiring minds wonder…)

Presumably, Chris Culliver ought to be perfectly fine with the notion of being in intimate quarters with men who embrace the love that, until recently, dared not speak its name (and now apparently won’t ever shut the hell up). He shouldn’t fret about being ogled, or fear being subjected to frisky, freaky episodes of frottage by fellow athletes who happen to be light in the cleats (not that there’s everything wrong with that). And if he’s afraid of dropping the soap in the shower, well, that’s just cuz he’s a reprehensible bigot. Once Culliver is properly sensitivity-trained, he’ll come to know that gay men don’t really like to look at naked men’s pecs, penises, and posteriors…

Oh wait; they do? Uh…

Well then, maybe he’ll learn that, even if gay men like to ogle his naked body, he just needs to deal with it, because they’re gay and they get to do that, and not liking it is hate, plain and simple. Fearing the (homosexual) male gaze is only baby steps away from digging up Matthew Shepard and Tyler Clementi, and killing them all over again; such a repulsive heterosexist proclivity towards gay zombie genocide must be eliminated so that tolerance can reign supreme.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Or something.

(Cue the wank gesture and the insouciantly rolled eye.)


The Faceless City

When I left London for Japan some years ago, one of the many reasons was that London was becoming a disharmonious place where it was increasingly difficult and dangerous to live in a sincere and honest way. It was also becoming an unpredictable place where it was hard to know what those around you were thinking or were being programmed to think by their culture, biology, or simply their confusion at being in London.

To survive and function it was increasingly necessary to be forever on one’s guard and second-guessing everyone around you so as not to upset anyone unduly or be caught unawares. I guess this is what they mean by the Orwellian phrase, "Diversity is Our Strength," raising the question of just who exactly is meant by "our."

One of the characteristics of London is that its peculiar mix of welfare, public transport, urban density, and the constant flux of slumification vs. gentrification makes it difficult for people of different backgrounds to get out of each other’s faces and self-segregate: the kaleidoscope is always turning. This means that Londoners walk around in a constant state of fear, hatred, and denial of each other, with constant CCTV surveillance backed up by strict anti-gun, anti-knife, and anti-freedom-of-expression laws struggling to keep a lid on things.

A recent acid attack has highlighted the nature of London perfectly. Going by the photograph of her before the attack, the unfortunate victim, 20-year-old Naomi Oni was a self-confident, outgoing sort of girl, who, presumably inspired by the videos of Beyonce or Rihanna, liked to strut her stuff. The fact that she also worked at sexy lingerie shop Victoria’s Secret helps to paint more of a picture: a sex-in-the-city girl-on-the-town, confident in sending out the usual sexual signals in the over-sexed-up metropolis; in many respects a typical London girl.

But then her attacker was also an equally typical Londoner – a mystery Muslim in the traditional black-bin-bag-like nijab that entirely and, conveniently in this case, obscured her face. Although the reason for the attack as yet remains unknown, the circumstances point to a religious motive and a culture clash: Mecca finding it hard to tolerate Babylon in the streets of England.

The essence of the city – of any city and of Tokyo where I now live – is a degree of facelessness, something that is usually achieved by the adoption of a mild poker face, a sour look, or the avoidance of eye contact as people go about their business. But in a city like London where diversity is turbo-charged and rammed into everyone’s face 24-7 facelessness is acheived by more extreme methods – the facelessness of the nijab, the facelessness of the face dissolved in acid.


Untimely Observations

Dostoevsky on Modern Conservatism

On the advice of a friend, I have revised and updated a short 2009 essay on Fyodor Dostoevsky and modern conservatism. Translation is mine.

At first glance the U.S. Presidential Inauguration might seem another empty media spectacle. After all, the Commander-in-Chief is anointed by the infallible People, but he attains power ultimately to carry out the interests of globalist oligarchs. Yet the inauguration ceremony also serves as an affirmation of America’s true religion, liberalism. In his 2013 inaugural address, Barack Obama articulated quite clearly that “We, the People” shall lead humanity’s progress toward ever greater liberty and equality.

“Conservative” opposition to leftist political programs and figures, no matter its seeming intensity, is simply a matter of partisanship and policy choices. Republicans, constitutionalists and libertarians all share the same vision of the United States that Obama outlined:

We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names.  What makes us exceptional -- what makes us American -- is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

Not a nation in any traditional sense, America is a social experiment, a self-willed construct proclaimed to embody the destiny of all mankind. The United States is a triumphant herald of modernity, and modernity is the spiritual impoverishment of being. Blood, faith and heritage are to be abolished by liberty, i.e. the vicissitudes of market forces. The fanciful notion of “unalienable rights” simultaneously disintegrates society while strengthening elite control. In his own second inaugural speech of 2005, Republican George W. Bush saw the drive toward global democracy as “a fire in the minds of men” lighting a path toward a New Order of the Ages.

The man who first spoke of this fire burning through civilization was none other than the brilliant 19th-century Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky in his work The Possessed. In typical fashion, Bush had warped Dostoevsky’s image, holding the noxious revolutionary flame aloft as a liberating force. Never would the man from St. Petersburg have supported this obvious contagion; the forces of subversion must be utterly routed at every level of national life.

Fyodor Dostoevsky has rightly been called a prophet of the modern age. With a depth of vision unrivalled, he saw that cultural, political, and economic disorder have their main source in a crisis of the spirit. Dostoevsky then foresaw how man’s rebellion against the Transcendent would progressively accelerate into full-blown anarchy. This idea became a central theme of The Possessed, his great counter-revolutionary novel. Within the book particular attention was drawn to the spiritual corruption of the ruling class, the so-called conservative elements of society.

Dostoevsky wrote about Russia, but he was also deeply sensitive to the West’s descent into secularism. By the 19th century “enlightened” European man had hurtled headlong into apostasy, abandoning Christ for the worship of self; his first act of regicide was the murder of God within his heart. Without sacral authority, power was said to derive from the perfect will of “We, The People,” guided by moneyed manipulators and their technocrats. Parties like the GOP and the Tories have done nothing to arrest the decline of our societies because they ultimately share the same radical, anti-traditional principles of the Left. For evidence, look no further than Britain’s rapid transformation into a crime-ridden, multicultural surveillance state, where the ruling Conservatives advance homosexual “marriage” as a matter of moral legitimacy.

The ideals of modernity, manifested in progress, equality, democracy, total individual autonomy, etc. form a counterfeit religion. So long as the self-proclaimed Right holds fast to any of these fantasies, opposition to liberalism is meaningless and purely cosmetic. Rhetorical nods to cultural consolidation, i.e. “family values,” are articulated within the corrosive framework of Enlightenment rights ideology, and only for the purpose of grabbing votes. Does anyone seriously contemplate that the Republican leadership will attempt anything meaningful against institutionalized infanticide? Lest we forget, over 50 million unborn children have been slaughtered in the United States since abortion was made legal by the Supreme Court in 1973. It is now a point of pride that American men and women fight for these storied liberties from the Hindu Kush to the Maghreb.

With the traditional West devastated and hierarchy inverted, there is precious little to conserve besides one’s faith and lineage, the necessities for survival and resurgence. But modern conservatives reject the divine-human and heartfelt essence of culture, thereby serving as the liberal order’s most ardent defenders. How easy it is to cheer the next war, demographic dissolution or crass popular amusements, all acts in the founding of a Garden of Earthly Delights, what Dostoevsky imagined as a glorified anthill. The conservative movement knows what’s really important: generous contributions from the financial and defense industries to maintain policies of corporate centralization and overseas empire.

The mainstream Right has led the West to systemic cultural collapse in full collusion with the slightly more radical Left. Dostoevsky's The Possessed reveals the spiritual and intellectual dimensions of this long process and the malevolent spirit behind it. A conversation between the story’s provincial governor, Von Lembke, and the nihilist revolutionary Peter Verkhovensky nicely encapsulates the mentality and path of conservatism in the modern era.

“We have responsibilities, and as a result we also serve the common cause as you do. We are only holding back what you loosen and what without us would scatter in various directions.

We’re not your enemies; hardly so. We’re saying to you: go forward, make progress, even shatter, that is, everything that is subject to alteration; but when needed, we will keep you within the necessary boundaries and save you from yourselves, because without us you would only send Russia into upheaval, depriving her of a proper appearance, and our duty is to look after proper appearances.

Understand that you and I are mutually necessary to each other. In England Tories and Whigs also need each other. Now then, we’re Tories, and you’re Whigs…”

“Well, however you like it,” murmured Peter Stepanovich. “Nevertheless you are paving the way for us and preparing our success.”

Strip away the concern for proper appearances, and it becomes clear that modern conservatism is the handmaiden of revolutionary nihilism.