I love the old British culture. The one that gave to the world Shakespeare, William Wordsworth, Samuel Coleridge, Lord Byron, Charles Dickens, George Orwell, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley, J. K. Rowling (yes I am an H. P. fan), Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, Enoch Powell, and countless others. We cannot forget the language, foods, customs, and myths which have also come from that magnificent island.
Where did it all go so wrong? When did Great Britain stop being so great? When I was younger Great Britain for me was something out of the story books. I am not old enough to have ever lived during a time when Britain was great, unfortunately that was years before me. But for this American boy it was a land of knights loyal to the code of chivalry which was transformed into a beautiful nation of hard working laborers with an intellectual class of elites which understood fine music and behavior. This was a place which produced great minds that in turn produced literature, art, music, and customs, all of which were lost when crossing the Atlantic.
All the Americans whose works that are worth reading, had wrote in such a way as to appeal to the British standards of excellence. Those noble of character were men of American blood but who held a British heart. Yet such blissful ignorance does not often stand the test of time. As reality set upon me and the world was not just that of beautiful sonnets and stunning short stories, I saw that Great Britain was really not so great after all. I asked myself if Great Britain was ever really great or if the stories about it were. It took some time for me to find the answers. No place is perfect, of course, but a place can be great and Great Britain for a long time did live up to its name.
Unfortunately sometime between the Second World War and the rise of the Libertarian stock into politics (Thatcher's thugs) that island of shires fell apart. It lost the soul which made it great. Now Great Britain was no better than my country. There is nothing exceptional about it - but there was in times past. I do not hate my country but this is one where popular sentiments run amok, in Great Britain the culture was a combination of many things but above all it nurtured a sentiment of faith, virtue, and community. Perhaps it may do so again at some distant point in the future. Maybe future generations will not have to read about a once Great Britain but can actually see it with their eyes.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Faith precedes and pervades Politics
How many times have you encountered that person who proclaims, "Religion has no business in government."? I have encountered them far too much for my tastes. They profess such nonsense, which is oblivious to them. Faith, we are told, is an entirely relative/subjective/personal view which has no objective or transcendental character. Thus the imposition upon society at-large of theological views is to demand others adhere to a self-adopted theological or even moral, system which is only correct for you. Politics then should be entirely separate from morality which derives from theology.
This is entirely impossible for many reasons. The most obvious of course is that society needs a common moral bond to hold itself together, to determine what is right and wrong, how to fairly compensate an injustice, and from where these decisions derive their objective legitimacy. Civilized society itself needs a hard surface upon which it may arise. That hard surface is a shared morality derived from theology. Yet others propose we construct our society upon a bed of loose sand, for that will surely hold a society together.
From where do we derive our morality? Perhaps you may listen to the knaves when they exclaim that morality is the cobbling together of personal affections, sentiments, and ideas a person, and only a person, consciously approve of. Reason and logic are to form our morality is basically what they mean. Yet, simultaneously, reason and logic are entirely relative in this respect. What one affirms is not necessarily correct; it however has derived from the application of logical reasoning on the individual's part. This is, once again, a horrible assertion. Reason and logic operate, logically, only when applied to determine an objective conclusion. I am not stating that reason and logic are wrong or should never be applied for they are positives so long as administered in properly designated sections of life.
Morality in fact is derived from the transcendent; it is reinforced through observation of divinely sanctioned natural law. God has constructed the world in a proper order, this order we are only to discover and then live by appropriately. It may be discovered through analysis of the world, but this form is incredibly difficult and the full realization of natural law has only been achieved this way by a few bright philosophical minds, yet even then large parts were absent. The other way is through revelation. Natural law is revealed to us by God through his worldly messengers. From that point it is our responsibility to both observe its truth through the workings of the world and adjust our morals to live in continual approval of this truth.
So how is it that religion is to be stripped from politics when politics is the expression of ethics and morality? Those who demand faith be stripped from politics do not mean all faith, only our faith. Theirs shall persist; it shall pervade all political discourse and intrude upon our understanding of the world. Do not be fooled for a second. Secularism is not a removal of faith from politics; it is the replacement of our Christian faith with the Secular creed. Secularism is a rival system of faith divorced from our Christian faith and challenges us for dominance. Just because their faith lacks a sense of the transcendent, churches, and so on, does not make it any less of a faith. It is a faith insofar as it erects a system of accumulated philosophical tenets expressing a complex understanding of the world.
One particularly important issue to note is the difference between politics preceding faith and faith preceding politics. Most equate a person's faith with their politics, which is actually quite true. But they do not adequately analyze whether this faith precedes their politics or whether the politics precedes their faith. Faith however always precedes politics, whether or not we fully acknowledge this reality is not of issue at the moment. A person is a political Reactionary because he is, ipso facto, a reactionary in his Faith. This is why there does exist a tangible "Right" and "Left". On the Right, and by Right I mean the 7 types of Reactionary, we find the religiously devout, theologically disciplined, and for the few irreligious ones among our ranks, a philosophical affirmation of our general worldview, except it is more hollow than hallow.
The next time a person argues that morality, ordinarily attacked as religion, arising from faith, should be removed from public discourse, remember that they are adhering to a faith as well. They are in fact attempting to coax you into surrendering from the battle. Would you surrender if Islam was being preached the same way secularism and all its particular ideas are? If not, then why would you surrender to an, at best, equally sinister plot to overthrow your civilization and route out your faith?
**Faith here is meant to be separate from, yet intrinsically attached to religion. Faith being our understanding of the world around us and religion being a particular creed which informs our world view.**
This is entirely impossible for many reasons. The most obvious of course is that society needs a common moral bond to hold itself together, to determine what is right and wrong, how to fairly compensate an injustice, and from where these decisions derive their objective legitimacy. Civilized society itself needs a hard surface upon which it may arise. That hard surface is a shared morality derived from theology. Yet others propose we construct our society upon a bed of loose sand, for that will surely hold a society together.
From where do we derive our morality? Perhaps you may listen to the knaves when they exclaim that morality is the cobbling together of personal affections, sentiments, and ideas a person, and only a person, consciously approve of. Reason and logic are to form our morality is basically what they mean. Yet, simultaneously, reason and logic are entirely relative in this respect. What one affirms is not necessarily correct; it however has derived from the application of logical reasoning on the individual's part. This is, once again, a horrible assertion. Reason and logic operate, logically, only when applied to determine an objective conclusion. I am not stating that reason and logic are wrong or should never be applied for they are positives so long as administered in properly designated sections of life.
Morality in fact is derived from the transcendent; it is reinforced through observation of divinely sanctioned natural law. God has constructed the world in a proper order, this order we are only to discover and then live by appropriately. It may be discovered through analysis of the world, but this form is incredibly difficult and the full realization of natural law has only been achieved this way by a few bright philosophical minds, yet even then large parts were absent. The other way is through revelation. Natural law is revealed to us by God through his worldly messengers. From that point it is our responsibility to both observe its truth through the workings of the world and adjust our morals to live in continual approval of this truth.
So how is it that religion is to be stripped from politics when politics is the expression of ethics and morality? Those who demand faith be stripped from politics do not mean all faith, only our faith. Theirs shall persist; it shall pervade all political discourse and intrude upon our understanding of the world. Do not be fooled for a second. Secularism is not a removal of faith from politics; it is the replacement of our Christian faith with the Secular creed. Secularism is a rival system of faith divorced from our Christian faith and challenges us for dominance. Just because their faith lacks a sense of the transcendent, churches, and so on, does not make it any less of a faith. It is a faith insofar as it erects a system of accumulated philosophical tenets expressing a complex understanding of the world.
One particularly important issue to note is the difference between politics preceding faith and faith preceding politics. Most equate a person's faith with their politics, which is actually quite true. But they do not adequately analyze whether this faith precedes their politics or whether the politics precedes their faith. Faith however always precedes politics, whether or not we fully acknowledge this reality is not of issue at the moment. A person is a political Reactionary because he is, ipso facto, a reactionary in his Faith. This is why there does exist a tangible "Right" and "Left". On the Right, and by Right I mean the 7 types of Reactionary, we find the religiously devout, theologically disciplined, and for the few irreligious ones among our ranks, a philosophical affirmation of our general worldview, except it is more hollow than hallow.
The next time a person argues that morality, ordinarily attacked as religion, arising from faith, should be removed from public discourse, remember that they are adhering to a faith as well. They are in fact attempting to coax you into surrendering from the battle. Would you surrender if Islam was being preached the same way secularism and all its particular ideas are? If not, then why would you surrender to an, at best, equally sinister plot to overthrow your civilization and route out your faith?
**Faith here is meant to be separate from, yet intrinsically attached to religion. Faith being our understanding of the world around us and religion being a particular creed which informs our world view.**
Saturday, May 12, 2012
On the Wealthy
Laissez-faire types complain I am a Socialist, Socialists complain I am a Fascist, and everyone else thinks I am just off my rocker. Yet, I do not see myself as a Socialist, Fascist, or insane. Most laissez-faire's develop a problem with me when the issue of the rich arises. They protest, that I have the cold, envious heart of a Leftist residing within my chest for daring to speak ill against those traitors traders, speculators, manipulators, and bourgeois sycophants. Is that reasoning not grand? If you dislike a person, or group of persons, who have money, you are obviously envious.
I cannot help it that when I think of these Wall Street millionaires and billionaires the first person in my head is Ebenezer Scrooge. This would not be the case had many of these upper class urbanites not treated everyone else as dirt beneath their feet, contributing philanthropically without any sincerity, and pursuing to continue this, in the words of George Fitzhugh 'war of the rich against the poor, and the poor against each other'. The late PM Benjamin Disraeli stated in his 'Sybil, or the Two Nations', "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor."
Disraeli was not protesting the inequality between all wealthy and poor persons, just as I do not. He was denouncing the bourgeois (to steal a term from the Socialist dictionary). It was not royalty, gentry, nobility, or aristocrats, whom he had a problem with, nor would I have a problem with such people. Instead it was, as I believe it was in the days of our Lord when he walked the earth, the man of trade who is the most devious. In the Bible we find many references to the moral depravity of those with great wealth.
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
"As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful." - Matthew 13:22
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." - Matthew 6:24
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ..." - Luke 16:19-31
It was the merchant class which committed themselves to struggle against the Church, Monarchs, Nobles, and Aristocrats, throughout Europe. They invested a sum of their fortune into the pursuits of Enlightenment philosophes. It was not liberation for society they sought from some imaginary oppression; it was liberation for their class. I cannot recall who said it but they stated, 'every revolution is the aspiration of a rising elite'. No revolution occurs without a fashioned elite ready to take the throne. Thanks to modern capitalism which arose out of England during the late Middle Ages, new elite did arise whose sole focus was on making money.
With that money they felt it their right to sweep away the old institutions and install new ones. Their new God was to be enthroned for all to worship. The new emotions shall triumph; Pride legitimized rebellion, Greed legitimized plunder, and 'Reason' legitimized atheism. Yet we are taught that pride is a deadly sin, greed is disgusting, and reason has to be chained to an altar. There is to be only one God for man and we must choose. Either we are to have the God of Heaven and the Earth, who had given his only begotten son to save us from our sins, and listens to our sighs or we are to have the god of Money, which chokes dry the well of virtue and rains down upon men the horrors of indifference.
I am not the only Reactionary who holds these sentiments. The late Gilbert Keith (G. K.) Chesterton shared my views on the matter. Beside him surely stood other Reactionaries that acknowledge the accompanying sinfulness of accumulating wealth among the class who are at war with the poor.
"Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it." - G. K. Chesterton, 'A Miscellany of Men' (1912)
"The rich are the scum of the earth in every country." - G. K. Chesterton, 'The Flying Inn' (1914)
"The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all." - G. K. Chesterton
Most modern "Conservatives" tell me I should be a defender of the wealthy because I proclaim to be a Conservative. Never have I suggested confiscating anyone's wealth as a Socialist would because private property is always to be respected. This principle is held in higher regard by me than by them. For they propagate the doctrines of Republicanism and Representative Democracy, a public government, whilst I profess adherence to the doctrines of Monarchy and Aristocracy, a private government. Of these two, public and private government, which do you believe is most likely to uphold the principles of private property? The one who is set to lose most if they dare set a precedent that private property is not to be respected, for their authority relies entirely upon this principle.
"I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you...that I am the martyr of the people." - King Charles I of England
I cannot help it that when I think of these Wall Street millionaires and billionaires the first person in my head is Ebenezer Scrooge. This would not be the case had many of these upper class urbanites not treated everyone else as dirt beneath their feet, contributing philanthropically without any sincerity, and pursuing to continue this, in the words of George Fitzhugh 'war of the rich against the poor, and the poor against each other'. The late PM Benjamin Disraeli stated in his 'Sybil, or the Two Nations', "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor."
Disraeli was not protesting the inequality between all wealthy and poor persons, just as I do not. He was denouncing the bourgeois (to steal a term from the Socialist dictionary). It was not royalty, gentry, nobility, or aristocrats, whom he had a problem with, nor would I have a problem with such people. Instead it was, as I believe it was in the days of our Lord when he walked the earth, the man of trade who is the most devious. In the Bible we find many references to the moral depravity of those with great wealth.
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24
"As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful." - Matthew 13:22
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." - Matthew 6:24
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. ..." - Luke 16:19-31
It was the merchant class which committed themselves to struggle against the Church, Monarchs, Nobles, and Aristocrats, throughout Europe. They invested a sum of their fortune into the pursuits of Enlightenment philosophes. It was not liberation for society they sought from some imaginary oppression; it was liberation for their class. I cannot recall who said it but they stated, 'every revolution is the aspiration of a rising elite'. No revolution occurs without a fashioned elite ready to take the throne. Thanks to modern capitalism which arose out of England during the late Middle Ages, new elite did arise whose sole focus was on making money.
With that money they felt it their right to sweep away the old institutions and install new ones. Their new God was to be enthroned for all to worship. The new emotions shall triumph; Pride legitimized rebellion, Greed legitimized plunder, and 'Reason' legitimized atheism. Yet we are taught that pride is a deadly sin, greed is disgusting, and reason has to be chained to an altar. There is to be only one God for man and we must choose. Either we are to have the God of Heaven and the Earth, who had given his only begotten son to save us from our sins, and listens to our sighs or we are to have the god of Money, which chokes dry the well of virtue and rains down upon men the horrors of indifference.
I am not the only Reactionary who holds these sentiments. The late Gilbert Keith (G. K.) Chesterton shared my views on the matter. Beside him surely stood other Reactionaries that acknowledge the accompanying sinfulness of accumulating wealth among the class who are at war with the poor.
"Among the rich you will never find a really generous man even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away; they are egotistic, secretive, dry as old bones. To be smart enough to get all that money you must be dull enough to want it." - G. K. Chesterton, 'A Miscellany of Men' (1912)
"The rich are the scum of the earth in every country." - G. K. Chesterton, 'The Flying Inn' (1914)
"The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all." - G. K. Chesterton
Most modern "Conservatives" tell me I should be a defender of the wealthy because I proclaim to be a Conservative. Never have I suggested confiscating anyone's wealth as a Socialist would because private property is always to be respected. This principle is held in higher regard by me than by them. For they propagate the doctrines of Republicanism and Representative Democracy, a public government, whilst I profess adherence to the doctrines of Monarchy and Aristocracy, a private government. Of these two, public and private government, which do you believe is most likely to uphold the principles of private property? The one who is set to lose most if they dare set a precedent that private property is not to be respected, for their authority relies entirely upon this principle.
"I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you...that I am the martyr of the people." - King Charles I of England
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Whig domination of history
In classrooms, the media, and among our silly peers we find a view of history that is both perplexing and dogmatic. A reckless fusion of ideals that produce history viewed in black and white. We are expected to believe that history is divided among men who can often be assigned either the classification of "good" or "evil". These classifications are to be assigned for no other reason than to reassure our faith in modernity. That history is but the long march towards enlightenment, where we have either presently achieved it or are continuing down this supposed evolutionary path.
I find several particular issues with what is referred to as the "Whig view of history". Progress, enlightenment, civil liberty, and scientific advancement are, according to most, the basic fundamental goals in the developments of man. When such were allegedly denied, as during the supposed "dark ages", the great masses of men yearned for these things. Yet, setting atop them was the yolk of ignorance and superstition. Those clinging to faith, king, and tradition, were but fools, or better described as pawns, being played by a spiteful elite constituting oppressive, tyrannical monarchs, aristocrats, nobles, and clergy.
This cannot be any further from the truth. First, in order to understand the Whig view of history one must grasp what it proclaims to be the highest achievements, or desirable ends, of mankind. This could reasonably be summed up with three words; leisure, liberty, and license. The great masses of Whigs (more commonly referred to as Liberals) subscribe to, in some form or another, the theory of utilitarianism; that the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint. Yet, happiness itself is often ill-defined by them. Let us, for the sake of argument, proclaim happiness, in Liberal terms, to mean maximum autonomy.
Leisure thus plays a critical role. The industrial revolution, scientific breakthroughs, and modern globalization are key contributing factors to the overall maximization of leisure in predominantly Liberal (Western) nations. If leisure is to be treated as a key contributing factor to happiness, and the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint, then leisure itself must, ipso facto, be a just ethical endpoint. But leisure itself must be properly defined. I believe most would agree that leisure, in Liberal terms, means more freedom to pursue (secular) interests. Less work hours, less dedication to prayer, easy access to (more than necessary) food, along with more affordable material goods, would generally constitute the requirements for leisure (aside from the basics of housing, clean water, etc...)
Liberty also plays a critical role in the development of history. Whigs originally, and many still do, believed negative liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Others however have considered positive liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Negative liberty demands freedom to (speak, think, protest, vote, etc...) while positive liberty demands freedom from (poverty, inequality, sexism, racism, etc...) for man to fully realize his individual autonomy, which is the basis of happiness. During the 19th century Western man believed there was but little work left for the full realization of negative liberty. Yet as Socialism became an influencing characteristic of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, positive liberty exploded in its importance. This has become the central point of disagreement among modernists - negative and positive liberty, which fully maximized human autonomy, thus human happiness.
License is the last of the summary terms for desirable achievement, but definitely not least important. That men, and women, have many 'oppressive' moral restrictions lifted from their shoulders is now assigned its place in the achievement of a utilitarian utopia (or dystopia). The sexual revolution, originally beginning around World War I but fully erupting in the 1960s, is a perfect result of this view of history are progressing towards the greatest happiness of the greatest many. Women were now 'liberated' from unselective motherhood, then tolerance and eventual acceptance of sodomy, and it added a long list of other taboo breaking actions and thoughts such as rebellion as a positive, gangsterism, drug experimentation, interracial relations, and so on.
If we take these three terms as the basic components of autonomy, and understand autonomy as the bedrock of the greatest happiness of the greatest many, which itself is a the just and desirable endpoint, then a Whig view of history may be placed into context. All of these things; leisure, liberty, and license have come quite recently, finding themselves often lonely or excluded from the many chapters of human history. Yet they are to be established as the ends millions of people had been yearning for since time immemorial. With this mere assertion we have written off the millions who have rallied to their faith, kings, princes, nobles, knights, and traditions. In just one fowl swoop we have relegated these men to the dustbin of history, except in times of needing a figure that epitomizes ignorance or evil to which the modernists may rally the masses around in unanimous condemnation.
Such a view of history relies upon the assumption that they who preceded our time were; A) oppressed, B) ignorant, C) evil, or D) a combination of A, B, and C. Today, we must conclude, the people are more enlightened than ever before, the political systems are unquestionably good, and the moral aims are undeniably legitimate. Except for a few outliers, Westerners have reached almost a new state of being. This era is the realization of greatest happiness of the greatest many in history. And for this, it must be concluded as a good. History itself then must be analyzed from the standpoint of a modernist, who observes the present then assigns "good" and "bad" to history based upon our ethics. To me, this epitomizes the full extent of generational imperialism. Our present generation apparently has such a superior state of ethical and moral enlightenment that they may rightfully judge those who have now passed. Such a duty seems fitting only for God - but have we not now ourselves become God-like? Even the creator may be judged by us on our ethical terms.
For those of us who are not utilitarian, not Liberal, and thus realistic, history has a different flavor. It is not black and white. There is not a line in the sand easily drawn with "good" on one side and "bad" on the other. This is not a game of football where there are two teams, one wearing our color and the other a rival color. History should always be viewed objectively; any good historian would not insert a biased opinion without clearly defining it as such. Yet, here we are. Suppose we decide to view history within the context of a particular worldview, then what would a Reactionary recommend? It would be recommended to view history more along the lines of the fall of man, that we are naturally prone to sin, and that all men have both good and bad characteristics, but it is how one decides to use his influence that matters.
Good is not to be understood however as self-autonomy, leisure, liberty, or license. Rather it is to be viewed as the redirecting, or reordering, of oneself and society towards God. Through this the good shall be revealed. Common good can only be achieved by directing ones efforts towards God, justice, righteousness, and virtue. If, from this, flows a proper understanding and implementation of liberty along with fulfillment of leisure, then that too shall be good. Thus history assumes a different character altogether. It becomes a story, not of evolution and advancement, but of either an affirmation of the transcendent through proper ordering within divinely revealed natural law or a rejection of such with a descent back into barbarism and anarchy.
I find several particular issues with what is referred to as the "Whig view of history". Progress, enlightenment, civil liberty, and scientific advancement are, according to most, the basic fundamental goals in the developments of man. When such were allegedly denied, as during the supposed "dark ages", the great masses of men yearned for these things. Yet, setting atop them was the yolk of ignorance and superstition. Those clinging to faith, king, and tradition, were but fools, or better described as pawns, being played by a spiteful elite constituting oppressive, tyrannical monarchs, aristocrats, nobles, and clergy.
This cannot be any further from the truth. First, in order to understand the Whig view of history one must grasp what it proclaims to be the highest achievements, or desirable ends, of mankind. This could reasonably be summed up with three words; leisure, liberty, and license. The great masses of Whigs (more commonly referred to as Liberals) subscribe to, in some form or another, the theory of utilitarianism; that the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint. Yet, happiness itself is often ill-defined by them. Let us, for the sake of argument, proclaim happiness, in Liberal terms, to mean maximum autonomy.
Leisure thus plays a critical role. The industrial revolution, scientific breakthroughs, and modern globalization are key contributing factors to the overall maximization of leisure in predominantly Liberal (Western) nations. If leisure is to be treated as a key contributing factor to happiness, and the greatest happiness of the greatest many is a just ethical endpoint, then leisure itself must, ipso facto, be a just ethical endpoint. But leisure itself must be properly defined. I believe most would agree that leisure, in Liberal terms, means more freedom to pursue (secular) interests. Less work hours, less dedication to prayer, easy access to (more than necessary) food, along with more affordable material goods, would generally constitute the requirements for leisure (aside from the basics of housing, clean water, etc...)
Liberty also plays a critical role in the development of history. Whigs originally, and many still do, believed negative liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Others however have considered positive liberty to be the full realization of human progress. Negative liberty demands freedom to (speak, think, protest, vote, etc...) while positive liberty demands freedom from (poverty, inequality, sexism, racism, etc...) for man to fully realize his individual autonomy, which is the basis of happiness. During the 19th century Western man believed there was but little work left for the full realization of negative liberty. Yet as Socialism became an influencing characteristic of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, positive liberty exploded in its importance. This has become the central point of disagreement among modernists - negative and positive liberty, which fully maximized human autonomy, thus human happiness.
License is the last of the summary terms for desirable achievement, but definitely not least important. That men, and women, have many 'oppressive' moral restrictions lifted from their shoulders is now assigned its place in the achievement of a utilitarian utopia (or dystopia). The sexual revolution, originally beginning around World War I but fully erupting in the 1960s, is a perfect result of this view of history are progressing towards the greatest happiness of the greatest many. Women were now 'liberated' from unselective motherhood, then tolerance and eventual acceptance of sodomy, and it added a long list of other taboo breaking actions and thoughts such as rebellion as a positive, gangsterism, drug experimentation, interracial relations, and so on.
If we take these three terms as the basic components of autonomy, and understand autonomy as the bedrock of the greatest happiness of the greatest many, which itself is a the just and desirable endpoint, then a Whig view of history may be placed into context. All of these things; leisure, liberty, and license have come quite recently, finding themselves often lonely or excluded from the many chapters of human history. Yet they are to be established as the ends millions of people had been yearning for since time immemorial. With this mere assertion we have written off the millions who have rallied to their faith, kings, princes, nobles, knights, and traditions. In just one fowl swoop we have relegated these men to the dustbin of history, except in times of needing a figure that epitomizes ignorance or evil to which the modernists may rally the masses around in unanimous condemnation.
Such a view of history relies upon the assumption that they who preceded our time were; A) oppressed, B) ignorant, C) evil, or D) a combination of A, B, and C. Today, we must conclude, the people are more enlightened than ever before, the political systems are unquestionably good, and the moral aims are undeniably legitimate. Except for a few outliers, Westerners have reached almost a new state of being. This era is the realization of greatest happiness of the greatest many in history. And for this, it must be concluded as a good. History itself then must be analyzed from the standpoint of a modernist, who observes the present then assigns "good" and "bad" to history based upon our ethics. To me, this epitomizes the full extent of generational imperialism. Our present generation apparently has such a superior state of ethical and moral enlightenment that they may rightfully judge those who have now passed. Such a duty seems fitting only for God - but have we not now ourselves become God-like? Even the creator may be judged by us on our ethical terms.
For those of us who are not utilitarian, not Liberal, and thus realistic, history has a different flavor. It is not black and white. There is not a line in the sand easily drawn with "good" on one side and "bad" on the other. This is not a game of football where there are two teams, one wearing our color and the other a rival color. History should always be viewed objectively; any good historian would not insert a biased opinion without clearly defining it as such. Yet, here we are. Suppose we decide to view history within the context of a particular worldview, then what would a Reactionary recommend? It would be recommended to view history more along the lines of the fall of man, that we are naturally prone to sin, and that all men have both good and bad characteristics, but it is how one decides to use his influence that matters.
Good is not to be understood however as self-autonomy, leisure, liberty, or license. Rather it is to be viewed as the redirecting, or reordering, of oneself and society towards God. Through this the good shall be revealed. Common good can only be achieved by directing ones efforts towards God, justice, righteousness, and virtue. If, from this, flows a proper understanding and implementation of liberty along with fulfillment of leisure, then that too shall be good. Thus history assumes a different character altogether. It becomes a story, not of evolution and advancement, but of either an affirmation of the transcendent through proper ordering within divinely revealed natural law or a rejection of such with a descent back into barbarism and anarchy.
Monday, May 7, 2012
The 7 types of Reactionary
After spending countless hours perusing the AltRight/Orthosphere Reactionary websites I have come to a conclusion that there are exactly 7 types of Reactionary. We are all undoubtedly Reactionaries, but of what particular ideological leaning depend largely upon which group you find yourself in. What is also noticable are the particular intellectual figures most emphasized by the members of each reactionary group and also their particular form of religiosity.
The 7 groups are listed below, in alphabetical order:
Aristocratists
High Culturists
Monarchists
OrthoConservatives
Right-wing Populists
Third Positionists
Traditionalist Conservatives
It is important to note that, since we are all Reactionaries, all the types listed above do have overlaps. This system of organizing must also be understood as a hierarchy. Because we are all Reactionaries, a classification along the lines of "Socialist" or "Liberal" or "Conservative", these are sub-groupings and within them are sub-sub-groupings. The following are the listings of sub-sub-groupings, to show what I mean:
Aristocratists - Nietzscheans, Neo-Pagans (Nouvelle Droite), and Conservative Revolutionists
High Culturists - High Tories and Elitists
Monarchists - Pan-Monarchists, Absolutists, Divine Rightists, Autocratists, and Caesarists
OrthoConservatives - Christian Reactionaries and Latin Conservatives
Right-wing Populists - Nationalists and Populists
Third Positionists - National Anarchists, Evolians, and White Nationalists
Traditionalist Conservatives - Paleoconservatives and "old school" Conservatives
All of the 7 types also have their own ideological figureheads, with certain figures this can overlap. Of the influential figures Joseph de Maistre has perhaps the largest influence. He has influenced all of the 7 types, although some more than others. Then there are figures specifically for a particular type who have very little, if any, influence outside of that type. In particular I believe Benito Mussolini has largely influenced only Third Positionists, others may enjoy some ideas of his but do not count him among their intellectual influences. The following are a list of significant figureheads in each type:
Aristocratists - Friedrich Nietzsche, Alain de Benoist, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Carl Schmitt.
High Culturists - T.S. Eliot, Dante Alighieri, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Cicero
Monarchists - Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes, and Jacques Bossuet
OrthoConservatives - Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis de Bonald, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Maurras
Right-wing Populists - Thomas Jefferson, Charles Coughlin, Pim Fortuyn, and Jean-Marie Le Pen
Third Positionists - Benito Mussolini, Julius Evola, and Francisco Franco
Traditionalist Conservatives - Edmund Burke, G.K. Chesterton, Benjamin Disraeli, Enoch Powell, and Joseph de Maistre
I find myself influenced in some way by most of these thinkers. Above all, for me at least, is the great Joseph de Maistre. He sits alone above the rest, as the greatest Reactionary intellectual in Western history. Of the types listed above, Right-wing Populist is the type I find least affiliation with. The group I identify with most is the OrthoConservatives; a good combination of tradition Christianity (specifically Roman Catholicism), moralism, hierarchy, and racial solidarity.
If you care to comment, of the 7 Reactionary types listed above, which do you believe best represents your philosophy?
The 7 groups are listed below, in alphabetical order:
Aristocratists
High Culturists
Monarchists
OrthoConservatives
Right-wing Populists
Third Positionists
Traditionalist Conservatives
It is important to note that, since we are all Reactionaries, all the types listed above do have overlaps. This system of organizing must also be understood as a hierarchy. Because we are all Reactionaries, a classification along the lines of "Socialist" or "Liberal" or "Conservative", these are sub-groupings and within them are sub-sub-groupings. The following are the listings of sub-sub-groupings, to show what I mean:
Aristocratists - Nietzscheans, Neo-Pagans (Nouvelle Droite), and Conservative Revolutionists
High Culturists - High Tories and Elitists
Monarchists - Pan-Monarchists, Absolutists, Divine Rightists, Autocratists, and Caesarists
OrthoConservatives - Christian Reactionaries and Latin Conservatives
Right-wing Populists - Nationalists and Populists
Third Positionists - National Anarchists, Evolians, and White Nationalists
Traditionalist Conservatives - Paleoconservatives and "old school" Conservatives
All of the 7 types also have their own ideological figureheads, with certain figures this can overlap. Of the influential figures Joseph de Maistre has perhaps the largest influence. He has influenced all of the 7 types, although some more than others. Then there are figures specifically for a particular type who have very little, if any, influence outside of that type. In particular I believe Benito Mussolini has largely influenced only Third Positionists, others may enjoy some ideas of his but do not count him among their intellectual influences. The following are a list of significant figureheads in each type:
Aristocratists - Friedrich Nietzsche, Alain de Benoist, Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Carl Schmitt.
High Culturists - T.S. Eliot, Dante Alighieri, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Cicero
Monarchists - Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes, and Jacques Bossuet
OrthoConservatives - Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis de Bonald, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Maurras
Right-wing Populists - Thomas Jefferson, Charles Coughlin, Pim Fortuyn, and Jean-Marie Le Pen
Third Positionists - Benito Mussolini, Julius Evola, and Francisco Franco
Traditionalist Conservatives - Edmund Burke, G.K. Chesterton, Benjamin Disraeli, Enoch Powell, and Joseph de Maistre
I find myself influenced in some way by most of these thinkers. Above all, for me at least, is the great Joseph de Maistre. He sits alone above the rest, as the greatest Reactionary intellectual in Western history. Of the types listed above, Right-wing Populist is the type I find least affiliation with. The group I identify with most is the OrthoConservatives; a good combination of tradition Christianity (specifically Roman Catholicism), moralism, hierarchy, and racial solidarity.
If you care to comment, of the 7 Reactionary types listed above, which do you believe best represents your philosophy?
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Update
I apologize for my week-long absence from posting new topics. This blog has not been forgotten about. Earlier in the week I had some computer troubles then just decided to give my computer a break, and my eyes. It has been refreshing only to use a computer for a maximum of an hour each day. Anyway, I should be back to blogging early next week. Thank you for continuing to view my blog!
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Sodomite Liberal attacks Bible and Christians in High School
Dan Savage, a radical Liberal and sodomite, is founder of a large anti-bullying campaign. During a speech to High School students about bullying, he conveniently forgot to follow his own principles. This is of course permissible since he was deriding the Bible and Christians, which is perfectly acceptable today. Up to 100 students simply walked out during his rant about the "bullshit in the Bible". He even began his speech with "I hope you're all using birth control".
Savage even went on to criticize the GOP and saying... “The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night– if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night– she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death,” he says, yet “Callista Gingrich lives.” When those Christian students left he called them, mere High School students, "pansy asses".
Savage even went on to criticize the GOP and saying... “The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night– if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night– she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death,” he says, yet “Callista Gingrich lives.” When those Christian students left he called them, mere High School students, "pansy asses".
Friday, April 27, 2012
Reactionary Quotes
"Suffering is permanent, obscure and dark, And shares the nature of infinity." - William Wordsworth
"Reaction is a necessary term in the intellectual context we inhabit in the twentieth century because merely to conserve is sometimes to perpetuate what is outrageous." - Mel Bradford, 'Reactionary Imperative'
"Christianity is not a theory or speculation, but a life; not a philosophy of life, but a life and a living process." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
"Happiness is a butterfly, which when pursued, is always just beyond your grasp, but which, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you." - Nathaniel Hawthorne
"Tell him, on the contrary, that he needs, in the interest of his own happiness, to walk in the path of humility and self-control, and he will be indifferent, or even actively resentful." - Irving Babbitt
"Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand." - Saint Augustine of Hippo, 'Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John' Tract XXIX on John 7:14-18
"If occasion were, I hope God would give me his grace to suffer death for the true Catholic religion as well as banishment." - King James II of England
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?" (1945)
"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." - G. K. Chesterton, "The Book of Job: An Introduction" (1907)
"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture." - Baron Roman Nikolai Maximilian von Ungern-Sternberg
"Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists" – Joseph de Maistre
"I can prove anything by statistics except the truth." - George Canning, "A Dictionary of Thoughts" (1908) edited by Tryon Edwards, p. 587
"You cannot come here because you are not white." - Alan Clark
"Enoch Powell: No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.
Margaret Thatcher: Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.
Powell: No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed." - Enoch Powell with Margaret Thatcher
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged." - Hilaire Belloc
"The disappearance of the heroic ideal is always accompanied by the growth of commercialism. There is a cause-and-effect relationship here, for the man of commerce is by the nature of things a relativist; his mind is constantly on the fluctuating values of the marketplace, and there is no surer way to fail than to dogmatize and moralize about things." - Richard M. Weaver
"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." - Ray Bradbury
"There is shadow under this red rock
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust. " - T. S. Eliot, 'The Waste Land'
"I think that all artists, regardless of degree of talent, are a painful, paradoxical combination of certainty and uncertainty, of arrogance and humility, constantly in need of reassurance, and yet with a stubborn streak of faith in their own validity no matter what." - Madeleine L'Engle
"They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three. - James Russell Lowell, "Stanzas on Freedom" (1843)
The page titled 'Quotations' will receive continuous updates as I find new quotes. Please refer to that page in the future.
"Reaction is a necessary term in the intellectual context we inhabit in the twentieth century because merely to conserve is sometimes to perpetuate what is outrageous." - Mel Bradford, 'Reactionary Imperative'
"Christianity is not a theory or speculation, but a life; not a philosophy of life, but a life and a living process." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
"Happiness is a butterfly, which when pursued, is always just beyond your grasp, but which, if you will sit down quietly, may alight upon you." - Nathaniel Hawthorne
"Tell him, on the contrary, that he needs, in the interest of his own happiness, to walk in the path of humility and self-control, and he will be indifferent, or even actively resentful." - Irving Babbitt
"Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand." - Saint Augustine of Hippo, 'Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John' Tract XXIX on John 7:14-18
"If occasion were, I hope God would give me his grace to suffer death for the true Catholic religion as well as banishment." - King James II of England
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?" (1945)
"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." - G. K. Chesterton, "The Book of Job: An Introduction" (1907)
"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture." - Baron Roman Nikolai Maximilian von Ungern-Sternberg
"Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists" – Joseph de Maistre
"I can prove anything by statistics except the truth." - George Canning, "A Dictionary of Thoughts" (1908) edited by Tryon Edwards, p. 587
"You cannot come here because you are not white." - Alan Clark
"Enoch Powell: No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.
Margaret Thatcher: Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.
Powell: No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed." - Enoch Powell with Margaret Thatcher
"Here richly, with ridiculous display,
The Politician's corpse was laid away.
While all of his acquaintance sneered and slanged
I wept: for I had longed to see him hanged." - Hilaire Belloc
"The disappearance of the heroic ideal is always accompanied by the growth of commercialism. There is a cause-and-effect relationship here, for the man of commerce is by the nature of things a relativist; his mind is constantly on the fluctuating values of the marketplace, and there is no surer way to fail than to dogmatize and moralize about things." - Richard M. Weaver
"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." - Ray Bradbury
"There is shadow under this red rock
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust. " - T. S. Eliot, 'The Waste Land'
"I think that all artists, regardless of degree of talent, are a painful, paradoxical combination of certainty and uncertainty, of arrogance and humility, constantly in need of reassurance, and yet with a stubborn streak of faith in their own validity no matter what." - Madeleine L'Engle
"They are slaves who fear to speak
For the fallen and the weak;
They are slaves who will not choose
Hatred, scoffing, and abuse,
Rather than in silence shrink
From the truth they needs must think;
They are slaves who dare not be
In the right with two or three. - James Russell Lowell, "Stanzas on Freedom" (1843)
The page titled 'Quotations' will receive continuous updates as I find new quotes. Please refer to that page in the future.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The greatest responsibility has been entrusted to America
Today I was reading through my blog list and found a shocking post made by The Catholic Knight titled 'OH MEIN GOTT !!! Papa Ratzinger Calls Upon U.S. Catholic Church to "lead the way" in Revival of the Worldwide Catholic Church !!!'. Therein The Catholic Knight links to another article titled 'Pope: US Catholics must lead Church revival'. We, Americans, a nation originally founded by Liberal, irreligious principles and composed largely of Protestants have now been called upon by the Father of our Church himself, Pope Benedict XVI, to fulfill a truly difficult task - revive the Catholic faith.
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that...
My fellow Roman Catholic Americans, not since the times of Islamic invasion has the faith been so threatened. At that time all of Europe was ready to die for the faith. Today most of Europe has discarded it. The Pope has called upon us to be its example, to be its strength, and from our holy character reawaken Europe to the truth. We have been given the most important task known to mankind - saving the souls of millions from eternal damnation. This is not something we may do overnight but it should put pressure upon us all to attend mass more often, speed up conversion, pray more often, and demonstrate a better moral character. All of this is possible and can be accomplished with little effort by each of us.
I pray the Catholics of America are up to this challenge. The continuation of the faith is depending on us.
Pope Benedict XVI has stated that...
"The Church in the United States should lead the entire Church in the world" in a revitalization effort, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano said. "This is a great task, but you have the determination and the grace to do it. This I know is the vision of the Holy Father regarding the Church in the United States."
My fellow Roman Catholic Americans, not since the times of Islamic invasion has the faith been so threatened. At that time all of Europe was ready to die for the faith. Today most of Europe has discarded it. The Pope has called upon us to be its example, to be its strength, and from our holy character reawaken Europe to the truth. We have been given the most important task known to mankind - saving the souls of millions from eternal damnation. This is not something we may do overnight but it should put pressure upon us all to attend mass more often, speed up conversion, pray more often, and demonstrate a better moral character. All of this is possible and can be accomplished with little effort by each of us.
I pray the Catholics of America are up to this challenge. The continuation of the faith is depending on us.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
RE: The Myth of White Privilege
**The following is a reply I made to a thread on AboveTopSecret titled 'The Myth of White Privilege'**
Has there existed white privilege? Yes, actually. Does white privilege exist now? Not in any real way. White privilege is a myth in its modern form because it is simply a falsehood. I am, because of my White racial background, no more privileged than anyone else. ‘Then how can anyone legitimately make such an accusation’? The simple answer is that they are idealists.
Impractical person: a perfectionist who rejects practical considerations
There exist largely two camps of thought in modern Western society. One says that there does not exist any race except the human race; we must, to be moral, avoid viewing others as anyway different from us simply because of their skin color. These people do not particularly jump for joy over a future of one single color, they generally do not care so long as all people are treated and viewed as equals.
The other camp is more radical and far more dangerous. They say that race is a social construct, developed by people, particularly men, of European descent to grant themselves a special privilege to rape, pillage, plunder, and conquer all of the earth and subject all other races to their domination. Race was created by them for this purpose alone: suppression of the others. Greed, malice, immorality, injustice, and inequality stem from the maintenance of this social construct. The only way to destroy these social injustices is to destroy the social construct.
While the first group may read this and say “I am not a radical like that”. Actually, you are. Not because you directly participate in the expansion or espousing of such ideals but rather because you also object to reality. You are just as much of an idealist as the more radical group. It at least makes sense though for a person who believes in equality to view color as irrelevant. They desire all people to rise upon their own merit and are less likely to encourage hostilities between races. But when all chips are on the table, they flee to the side of their radical brethren in seeing that there is a great privilege for the White race.
When dealing with idealists it is necessary to understand one thing: they are completely immune to logic and reason. Quote as many statistics for your defense, hell quote the divinity itself, and they will say you are wrong. The White privilege myth is not something we can simply ignore because it has inevitably fatal consequences for an entire race on this earth.
The basic argument is that America is an institutionally racist country geared towards the higher achievement and protection of the socially constructed White race at the expense of all others – specifically the Blacks. Because of this Blacks are targeted more by the police because the police are racists. They believe all Black youth are criminals. Forget that profiling is an important part of common sense law enforcement. Blacks represent 12% of the US population but commit 52% of muggings and 60% of murders. Is it any wonder why one group is more likely to be questioned by police than another?
“But poverty is rampant among minorities which causes crime, all of which stems from White privilege and institutional racism.” Okay, take for example the District of Columbia. It enjoys the highest salaries in the nation and is second only to Alaska in personal income per capita but leads the nation is nearly every category of crime including murder, robbery, assault, and motor vehicle theft. It also has the nation’s strictest gun control laws and highest police costs per capita, highest ration of police and correction officers per citizen, and highest rate of incarceration. Its population however is 65.2% composed of minorities.
Nearby West Virginia has the lowest crime rate yet suffers from chronic poverty, high unemployment, and has the fewest police per capita but it is 93.2% White. It is also important to note that the states with the highest crime rates are located primarily across the South from California to Maryland. These states are heavily composed of minorities and poverty. Of the states that are exceptions, such as Kentucky and West Virginia, the crime rates are significantly lower. States in the North generally enjoy the lowest crime and less poverty, but this is not entirely the case. Among the poorest northern states such as Maine and North Dakota, crime rates are the lowest in the nation but Whites compose around 90% of the population.
While there are screams of Whites committing violent crime against Blacks, or the horror of Blacks committing crimes against each other, the fact is Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a crime against Whites than the reverse. They are about 130 times more likely to rob a White than reverse. Every year there are roughly 35,000 Black on White rapes but fewer than 9 White on Black rapes. More than 3,000 gang rapes by Blacks against Whites each year but White on Black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in FBI and US Justice Department statistics.
Factor in that the average IQ gap between Whites and Blacks is statistically 15-18 points, which means roughly 11-16% of Blacks have an IQ of or above that of the average White. “This is due to a failing education system and racist testing practices, both stemming from White privilege and institutional racism.” The IQ differences between the races were most notably tackled in ‘The Bell Curve’ which was released in the 1990s. It was controversial, not because it gave racist opinion but rather because it gave only facts. How facts can possibly be controversial is beyond me.
Even going beyond the White privilege myth, why is this even a problem? It is due to the concept of equality. We are taught that the highest moral achievement is the equality of all people. Everyone from Libertarians/Conservatives to Socialists/Anarchists believes in it in some form. But it is entirely wrong and has no place in a free or just or even sane society for that matter. Equality has never nor will it ever be achievable. The only time it will even be remotely close is when we are all equally miserable and oppressed.
This has already begun and it is a complete onslaught against the White race. Political correctness is alive and thriving, even growing. Through it we are being taught the ideals of radicals as the only ethical view to hold. We are Whites must collectively apologize for a past we had no part in making or surrender all that we have today. That slavery existed where White men owned Blacks must be corrected through penance in the name of the Unholy Faith of Egalitarianism.
As a society we commemorate this faith’s God’s such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially Martin Luther King, Jr. To speak disparagingly of the latter is not only taboo but is worthy of condemnation today; forgetting the fact that he was a Communist subversive, plagiarist, and adulterer. We are to hold him in high esteem while speaking ill of those who just so happened to hold views that man from the beginning of thought held.
In the name of equality we have witnessed the French Revolution and its divine punishment, The Reign of Terror. We have witnessed the Russian Revolution which brought starvation to Ukrainians and death by Gulags to millions of others. The Chinese Revolution which overturned one of the world’s oldest civilizations and butchered its people by the millions. Not to mention the others such as Fidel Castro and Pol Pot. In all instances it has been the same. Equality brings misery and state oppression.
In the West however we found a new way to oppress the people. It was developed by the Frankfurt School who originated in 1920s Frankfurt, Germany before departing for the US with the rise of Hitler. A group of Jews organized developed a new concept from the works of Hungarian George Lukacs who taught school children in Socialist Hungary about sexual degeneracy. They formed the culture of critique and a few were brought in by the Roosevelt administration to test their theories on post-war Germany to brainwash the people with alleged Nazi sympathetic views. From here they developed into a powerful force that spread throughout college campuses in the sociology departments in the 1950s.
By the 1960s the works of Herbert Marcuse became very popular among the youth, particularly ‘Eros and Civilization’ which claimed capitalism through mass media and the bourgeois were suppressing man’s freedom which came through sexual freedom. This was considered to be ‘erotic Marxism’ but it was a very powerful force in shaping the ‘60s counterculture movement. This is where the radical views on race originated, in the 1960s among college students radicalized by their Frankfurt School leaning professors and the works of Marcuse who is considered to be the ‘Father of the New Left’.
Perhaps most interesting when discussing the White privilege myth is a work of Herbert Marcuse titled “One-Dimensional Man” where he claims the new Marxist proletariat cannot be the working class Whites as originally envisioned. Instead it will have to be an alliance of the non-integrated forces of society such as the racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, homosexuals, rebellious youth, and the radical intelligentsia.
To the Frankfurt School Western society had feelings in the 1930s overwhelmingly aligned with Nazism. It was a damaging combination of discrimination against women, Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals all built upon the Authoritarian Personality which prevented the working class from realizing their potential according to Marxian thought and overthrow the bourgeois. The proletariats, White working class/poor men, were not willing to abolish national borders and believe in universal equality.
In response the Cultural Marxists decided to embark upon the ‘long march through the institutions’ as Antonio Gramsci suggested. Moa Zedong ironically called his revolution the ‘long march’. Through this radicalization of the perceived oppressed they could finally instigate Marx’s revolution in the West. Race is but one factor which was necessary to bring under their control and they did this through the use of Critical Theory which is the foundation of all race and gender studies but has spread throughout our educational institutions teaching Whites about the atrocities of their racial past. Simultaneously telling them race does not exist, in the name of equality, then planting seeds of self-hatred and hostility towards their ‘ignorant’ ancestors.
The White privilege myth comes out of this devastating Cultural Revolution in the Western world. Which has resulted in the widespread use of accusing opponents on the right of being Nazis, Fascists, xenophobes, bigots, racists, or nativist for believing what had always been believed by all people in all of history and is still believed by all except White Westerners today. This is why we are to have affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, social restriction upon speech (Negro/Black is now African American, Indian is now Native American, retard is now mentally disabled, etc…)
Because of this we must also invite in hordes of third world immigrants into our nations which are suffering a reduction in population, which Socialists say is a good thing, due to policies regarding contraception, family life, feminism, rising crime, and decline in national unity. To supplement this we import millions of poor third world peoples with low IQs, possible diseases, inclination to violent crime, and high birth rates leading to an inevitable demographic crisis. In the meantime we cannot assimilate them, for that is violating their freedom, nor can we turn them away because that is racist. It is White nations and only White nations which must hand over their lands to invaders with a smile on their face or be condemned and in some European nations; fined or imprisoned.
The conclusion is simple. White privilege is a myth created by left-wing lunatics hoping to foment a Marxist Revolution or at least dramatically alter our culture because of a mass indoctrination which tells all White people their ancestors were evil, they must repent for their thought crimes, limit their speech or face social ostracism, happily hand over their lands, and recite the mantra: “There is no so thing as race. Race is a social construct. This social construct was created for the maintenance of privilege for White people. For this all Whites must make sacrifices.”
By this point if you actually read all of the above I am just a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Fortunately I am neither a Nazi nor a person who wants to kill any people. I believe in the right of all races and ethnicities to self-determination in their own ancestral homelands. Free from external intervention or internal subversion. There exists a natural difference between the races which does not necessarily mean one is overall superior or inferior to another. White privilege is a myth created by Cultural Marxists and spread by their useful idiots. I am a proud White male who does not believe in equality but rather freedom. We are not born equal but we are born free according to the customs of our ancestors. No single ideology can ever be applied universally nor should it ever be attempted as the Cultural Marxist-Neoliberal system known as Modernity is.
Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-White.
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread761493/pg1
Has there existed white privilege? Yes, actually. Does white privilege exist now? Not in any real way. White privilege is a myth in its modern form because it is simply a falsehood. I am, because of my White racial background, no more privileged than anyone else. ‘Then how can anyone legitimately make such an accusation’? The simple answer is that they are idealists.
Impractical person: a perfectionist who rejects practical considerations
There exist largely two camps of thought in modern Western society. One says that there does not exist any race except the human race; we must, to be moral, avoid viewing others as anyway different from us simply because of their skin color. These people do not particularly jump for joy over a future of one single color, they generally do not care so long as all people are treated and viewed as equals.
The other camp is more radical and far more dangerous. They say that race is a social construct, developed by people, particularly men, of European descent to grant themselves a special privilege to rape, pillage, plunder, and conquer all of the earth and subject all other races to their domination. Race was created by them for this purpose alone: suppression of the others. Greed, malice, immorality, injustice, and inequality stem from the maintenance of this social construct. The only way to destroy these social injustices is to destroy the social construct.
While the first group may read this and say “I am not a radical like that”. Actually, you are. Not because you directly participate in the expansion or espousing of such ideals but rather because you also object to reality. You are just as much of an idealist as the more radical group. It at least makes sense though for a person who believes in equality to view color as irrelevant. They desire all people to rise upon their own merit and are less likely to encourage hostilities between races. But when all chips are on the table, they flee to the side of their radical brethren in seeing that there is a great privilege for the White race.
When dealing with idealists it is necessary to understand one thing: they are completely immune to logic and reason. Quote as many statistics for your defense, hell quote the divinity itself, and they will say you are wrong. The White privilege myth is not something we can simply ignore because it has inevitably fatal consequences for an entire race on this earth.
The basic argument is that America is an institutionally racist country geared towards the higher achievement and protection of the socially constructed White race at the expense of all others – specifically the Blacks. Because of this Blacks are targeted more by the police because the police are racists. They believe all Black youth are criminals. Forget that profiling is an important part of common sense law enforcement. Blacks represent 12% of the US population but commit 52% of muggings and 60% of murders. Is it any wonder why one group is more likely to be questioned by police than another?
“But poverty is rampant among minorities which causes crime, all of which stems from White privilege and institutional racism.” Okay, take for example the District of Columbia. It enjoys the highest salaries in the nation and is second only to Alaska in personal income per capita but leads the nation is nearly every category of crime including murder, robbery, assault, and motor vehicle theft. It also has the nation’s strictest gun control laws and highest police costs per capita, highest ration of police and correction officers per citizen, and highest rate of incarceration. Its population however is 65.2% composed of minorities.
Nearby West Virginia has the lowest crime rate yet suffers from chronic poverty, high unemployment, and has the fewest police per capita but it is 93.2% White. It is also important to note that the states with the highest crime rates are located primarily across the South from California to Maryland. These states are heavily composed of minorities and poverty. Of the states that are exceptions, such as Kentucky and West Virginia, the crime rates are significantly lower. States in the North generally enjoy the lowest crime and less poverty, but this is not entirely the case. Among the poorest northern states such as Maine and North Dakota, crime rates are the lowest in the nation but Whites compose around 90% of the population.
While there are screams of Whites committing violent crime against Blacks, or the horror of Blacks committing crimes against each other, the fact is Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a crime against Whites than the reverse. They are about 130 times more likely to rob a White than reverse. Every year there are roughly 35,000 Black on White rapes but fewer than 9 White on Black rapes. More than 3,000 gang rapes by Blacks against Whites each year but White on Black gang rapes are so rare they do not even show up in FBI and US Justice Department statistics.
Factor in that the average IQ gap between Whites and Blacks is statistically 15-18 points, which means roughly 11-16% of Blacks have an IQ of or above that of the average White. “This is due to a failing education system and racist testing practices, both stemming from White privilege and institutional racism.” The IQ differences between the races were most notably tackled in ‘The Bell Curve’ which was released in the 1990s. It was controversial, not because it gave racist opinion but rather because it gave only facts. How facts can possibly be controversial is beyond me.
Even going beyond the White privilege myth, why is this even a problem? It is due to the concept of equality. We are taught that the highest moral achievement is the equality of all people. Everyone from Libertarians/Conservatives to Socialists/Anarchists believes in it in some form. But it is entirely wrong and has no place in a free or just or even sane society for that matter. Equality has never nor will it ever be achievable. The only time it will even be remotely close is when we are all equally miserable and oppressed.
This has already begun and it is a complete onslaught against the White race. Political correctness is alive and thriving, even growing. Through it we are being taught the ideals of radicals as the only ethical view to hold. We are Whites must collectively apologize for a past we had no part in making or surrender all that we have today. That slavery existed where White men owned Blacks must be corrected through penance in the name of the Unholy Faith of Egalitarianism.
As a society we commemorate this faith’s God’s such as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially Martin Luther King, Jr. To speak disparagingly of the latter is not only taboo but is worthy of condemnation today; forgetting the fact that he was a Communist subversive, plagiarist, and adulterer. We are to hold him in high esteem while speaking ill of those who just so happened to hold views that man from the beginning of thought held.
In the name of equality we have witnessed the French Revolution and its divine punishment, The Reign of Terror. We have witnessed the Russian Revolution which brought starvation to Ukrainians and death by Gulags to millions of others. The Chinese Revolution which overturned one of the world’s oldest civilizations and butchered its people by the millions. Not to mention the others such as Fidel Castro and Pol Pot. In all instances it has been the same. Equality brings misery and state oppression.
In the West however we found a new way to oppress the people. It was developed by the Frankfurt School who originated in 1920s Frankfurt, Germany before departing for the US with the rise of Hitler. A group of Jews organized developed a new concept from the works of Hungarian George Lukacs who taught school children in Socialist Hungary about sexual degeneracy. They formed the culture of critique and a few were brought in by the Roosevelt administration to test their theories on post-war Germany to brainwash the people with alleged Nazi sympathetic views. From here they developed into a powerful force that spread throughout college campuses in the sociology departments in the 1950s.
By the 1960s the works of Herbert Marcuse became very popular among the youth, particularly ‘Eros and Civilization’ which claimed capitalism through mass media and the bourgeois were suppressing man’s freedom which came through sexual freedom. This was considered to be ‘erotic Marxism’ but it was a very powerful force in shaping the ‘60s counterculture movement. This is where the radical views on race originated, in the 1960s among college students radicalized by their Frankfurt School leaning professors and the works of Marcuse who is considered to be the ‘Father of the New Left’.
Perhaps most interesting when discussing the White privilege myth is a work of Herbert Marcuse titled “One-Dimensional Man” where he claims the new Marxist proletariat cannot be the working class Whites as originally envisioned. Instead it will have to be an alliance of the non-integrated forces of society such as the racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities, homosexuals, rebellious youth, and the radical intelligentsia.
To the Frankfurt School Western society had feelings in the 1930s overwhelmingly aligned with Nazism. It was a damaging combination of discrimination against women, Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals all built upon the Authoritarian Personality which prevented the working class from realizing their potential according to Marxian thought and overthrow the bourgeois. The proletariats, White working class/poor men, were not willing to abolish national borders and believe in universal equality.
In response the Cultural Marxists decided to embark upon the ‘long march through the institutions’ as Antonio Gramsci suggested. Moa Zedong ironically called his revolution the ‘long march’. Through this radicalization of the perceived oppressed they could finally instigate Marx’s revolution in the West. Race is but one factor which was necessary to bring under their control and they did this through the use of Critical Theory which is the foundation of all race and gender studies but has spread throughout our educational institutions teaching Whites about the atrocities of their racial past. Simultaneously telling them race does not exist, in the name of equality, then planting seeds of self-hatred and hostility towards their ‘ignorant’ ancestors.
The White privilege myth comes out of this devastating Cultural Revolution in the Western world. Which has resulted in the widespread use of accusing opponents on the right of being Nazis, Fascists, xenophobes, bigots, racists, or nativist for believing what had always been believed by all people in all of history and is still believed by all except White Westerners today. This is why we are to have affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, social restriction upon speech (Negro/Black is now African American, Indian is now Native American, retard is now mentally disabled, etc…)
Because of this we must also invite in hordes of third world immigrants into our nations which are suffering a reduction in population, which Socialists say is a good thing, due to policies regarding contraception, family life, feminism, rising crime, and decline in national unity. To supplement this we import millions of poor third world peoples with low IQs, possible diseases, inclination to violent crime, and high birth rates leading to an inevitable demographic crisis. In the meantime we cannot assimilate them, for that is violating their freedom, nor can we turn them away because that is racist. It is White nations and only White nations which must hand over their lands to invaders with a smile on their face or be condemned and in some European nations; fined or imprisoned.
The conclusion is simple. White privilege is a myth created by left-wing lunatics hoping to foment a Marxist Revolution or at least dramatically alter our culture because of a mass indoctrination which tells all White people their ancestors were evil, they must repent for their thought crimes, limit their speech or face social ostracism, happily hand over their lands, and recite the mantra: “There is no so thing as race. Race is a social construct. This social construct was created for the maintenance of privilege for White people. For this all Whites must make sacrifices.”
By this point if you actually read all of the above I am just a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. Fortunately I am neither a Nazi nor a person who wants to kill any people. I believe in the right of all races and ethnicities to self-determination in their own ancestral homelands. Free from external intervention or internal subversion. There exists a natural difference between the races which does not necessarily mean one is overall superior or inferior to another. White privilege is a myth created by Cultural Marxists and spread by their useful idiots. I am a proud White male who does not believe in equality but rather freedom. We are not born equal but we are born free according to the customs of our ancestors. No single ideology can ever be applied universally nor should it ever be attempted as the Cultural Marxist-Neoliberal system known as Modernity is.
Anti-racist is codeword for Anti-White.
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread761493/pg1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)