The Caitlyn Jenner story was orchestrated to bring specific concepts to the forefront, notably the complete reversal of gender roles. Although the elite’s occult teaching are about complete equilibrium, they want the masses to be completely out of balance. That’s how you keep them confused and malleable.114
Now, you don’t have to go all the way with the Vigilant Citizen’s idea of an “occult war” being fought against society through media indoctrination,115 to see that something is going on here. Non-conspiratorially, it may simply be that the liberal mind has a vector to “social” causes and “social” solutions—hence, for example, the refusal to consider genetics to explain black pathology, preferring to fall back on the search for increasingly subtle and attenuated forms of racism such as “white privilege” or “structural racism.”116 A truly degenerating research project,117 but when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a perfectly lacquered nail.
Counter-Currents/North American New Right
June 11, 2015
MILO & THE MILES118
“‘Garçon’ means boy.”—Waitress in Pulp Fiction
There’s a reason you’re not supposed to use the Devil’s name. No sooner does Counter-Currents publish a review119 dealing with the Great Purge-Meister Buckley than the MSM, including outlets like Salon that are happy to publish outright defenses of pedophilia,120 was shocked, just shocked, to discover some interviews in which Milo made some comments about pedophilia which, when stripped of their obvious intent to offend, reduce to these anodyne propositions:
it seems pretty reasonable to set 16 as the age of consent, and
his own experiences, at a slightly younger age, were not traumatic and actually rather interesting.
Now, in the first he is merely agreeing with the British Parliament (he is a Brit) and the majority of American states,121 while the second is a subjective report, which if true is interesting and if false is delusional. Understandably, though, people don’t relish stories of pedophilia with a happy ending.
What struck me about the dust-up was that, having recently begun to reacquaint myself with the New Testament, it seemed a perfect opportunity to explore what conservatives are always claiming they care about: what would Jesus do?
Because, unlike the necessarily ad hoc and arbitrary results of an attempt to obtain contemporary advice from an ancient book of fairy tales, here we have a pretty clear incident to go on.
I refer to the incident of the Centurion and his Servant. In Matthew, we read:
When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?” The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment. (Matthew 8:5-13, NIV)
As is so often the case, there is a parallel account in Luke:
When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in (((Our Greatest Ally))).” Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well. (Luke 7:1-10, NIV)
I quote both because there is a very interesting sleight-of-hand going on in most modern translations, including the NIV used here.
Christians usually take offense at being referred to as endorsing a “slave religion,” but the fact is that the early Christians, at least, were quite happy with the idea of slavery, at least metaphorically. Paul is proud to call himself “a slave of Christ” repeatedly, for example. The basic idea is that one has ceased to be a slave . . . to sin, and instead moved into the higher (though perhaps not comfier) realms of a slave to Christ or God.
On the other hand, modern PC Christians also find the word uncomfortable. And indeed, antique slavery was rather different from the sort of Roots image it calls to mind today. And so the tendency has been to use the rather anodyne word “servant.”
In Luke, the word translated as “servant” is entimos doulos, which means “honored slave,” a sort of “house Negro.” Matthew uses pais, which Matthew Nederlanden notes “produces a nice play on words with the Greek word for paralysis.” He then says that:
At the time, pais, a term of endearment, could mean one of five things:
“son or boy”
a “special servant” who lorded over other servants and cared for his master’s children
a particular type of servant—one who was “his master’s male lover”
an endearing term for the junior partner in a homosexual relationship
an attractive young male122
I think you see where this is going. Although there are tamer connotations, James Neil has pointed out that it would seem odd for a Roman centurion, the very model of a Tough Guy, to be so concerned about a mere slave (remember all those bad connotations of slavery, right?) as to seek out a Jewish miracle worker to cure him.123
So, here we have Jesus confronted with a pagan, a bloodthirsty soldier, a Roman oppressor, and quite likely (as they so often seem to go together) a practitioner of pederasty.124
What does Jesus do?
It would be useful to contrast this with the Woman Caught in Adultery. We often hear it said, more or less disingenuously, that one must “love the sinner but hate the sin.” Thus, Jesus tells the woman’s would-be punishers that the one throwing the first stone must be without sin. As they slink away, Jesus tells the woman “Go, and sin no more.” He’s pretty clear: adultery is a sin, and she is a sinner; going forward, she must sin no more.
With the centurion, however, Jesus’ attitude might be called sovereign indifference. There is not a word about the sin or sinner, if such they be. Instead, Jesus marvels at the faith held by the man. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is stymied by Jews who are uncomprehending or hostile; even his own disciples betray him (Judas), deny him (Peter), and doubt him (Thomas). And yet here is a Roman, a goy, who gets it!
Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, come to overthrow the Romans and establish the Pax Judaica.125 As Max Stirner says, he is not interested in revolution, but insurrection; not external change, but change that at least starts from within.126 He associates with gluttons, drinkers, tax collectors, and whores, much to the disgust of the (literal) Pharisees. The physician (like Luke himself) must go where the sick are to be found; what matters is that they have the faith with which anything is possible.
&nb
sp; And so the centurion’s words become the faithful’s formula of contrition: the priest and the congregation together respond to the invitation to “Behold the Lamb of God” with these words: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
My moral being that Milo is someone who gets it. What’s “it”? They hate us, and want us to die, and we will, if we don’t stop Them.
Rather than virtue signaling and morally panicking at the slightest lifting of an eyebrow by Those who are themselves hardly paragons on the subject (indeed, “first stone,” MSM?) but are certainly mortal enemies of our side, we should in such circumstances rather be “as wise as serpents.” Let us make common cause with those who share the faith. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
After all, if They do take over, the children will hardly be any safer, right?
Of course, as with all Biblical exegesis, your mileage may differ.127 Since we started with the opening of Pulp Fiction, perhaps it would be best to let Jules have the last word, as he usually does; here he is, at the end, after his own conversion experience:
Now . . . I been sayin’ that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, that meant your ass. You’d be dead right now. I never gave much thought to what it meant. . . . But I saw some shit this mornin’ made me think twice. See, now I’m thinking: maybe it means you’re the evil man. And I’m the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here . . . he’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. And I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.128
Counter-Currents/North American New Right
February 28, 2017
WILD BOYS VS.
“HARD MEN”
Many of today’s “alternative” Rightists aspire to a pre-modern, even Traditional worldview that they hope will return us to the vital sources of our civilization. But that is just a castle on a distant hill. In the meantime, we still live in the subdivisions of bourgeois conservatism, where all intellectual progress can be undone with a single wrong turn in a labyrinth of mental cul-de-sacs.
Issues touching on sexuality, family life, and economics particularly seem to set us off, for most American conservatives inherit their ideas of healthy Traditional society from the profoundly modern and anti-traditional heresy of Calvinism, which imprisoned eros within marriage and formerly free men, women, and even children in mines, factories, and workhouses.
When one looks through these lenses, the real sources of our civilization become invisible, for civilization begins not with the nuclear family, but the Männerbund; not with work, but with play; not with necessity but with luxury; not with modesty but with display. Thus I wish to deploy the phenomenon of dandyism to shock the bourgeois blinders off would-be Traditionalists.
I.
ARE WE MIDDLE CLASS CONSERVATIVES?
At The Occidental Observer, Elizabeth Whitcombe in “The Difficult Class”129 lauds the supposed “strength” of the middle class, epitomized by its supposed “individualism,” and laments how global elites have tried to undermine it. Of course, one might question how “individualist” the middle class is, or whether, if so, that is a strength. Kevin MacDonald, for one, argues that the alien elites (you know who They are) are precisely promoting individualism itself to undermine White societies.
Whitcombe, however, has an odd idea of “individualism” since she thinks that, “In his Republic Plato recognized the power of middle class principles. Family loyalty, community participation, self-reliance, and prizing education are all things that help the individual resist the will of the State. Plato knew that a class of virtuous citizens needed these qualities in order to prevent the state from slipping into tyranny.”
I’m not sure any of this is particularly “individualist” or “middle class” as opposed to archaic Greek warrior virtue, promoted by pederasty and represented in public art by statutes of invincible male friends who resisted tyranny to the death, but whatever; at least she seems to admit that Plato must be pretty smart, since she wants to draft him for her cause.
Alas, our trust is misplaced; apparently, Plato is an untrustworthy ally, and reveals himself as . . . wait for it . . . “naïve”: “Plato naïvely thought that he could get rid of internecine conflict by extending the family relationship across an entire class—in other words, communal property and no nuclear family.”
Somebody is “naïve” here, but I don’t think it is Plato. Rather, Plato is quite aware of what he is about. In this “class” of Guardians, he is attempting to recreate the features, and thus the benefits, of a Männerbund, the male warrior groups that split away from exactly the “nuclear family” Whitcombe naïvely eulogizes, in order to create the higher institutions of the state and culture.
Ironically, many of the institutions that one thinks of as “middle class,” such as the Boy Scouts, the Little League, the Armed Forces, and the Church, etc., are in fact vestiges of such bands; that’s why women are obsessed with “gaining entrance” or, like Ms. Whitcombe, naïvely ignoring them and promoting the female cults of Family Values. That’s also why they are subject to Christian-inspired witch hunts for “homos.” (Why there, rather than in banks or hardware stores?)
At one time, Rightists from Hans Blüher to Julius Evola knew of such things, but today it’s all about Judaic Family Values.130
These are the Wild Boys that William S. Burroughs mythologized, which I have taken as my blog’s emblem; indeed, Burroughs’ mythology will crop up again in our examination of the next offending article.
II.
KURTAGIĆ’S “HARD MEN”
The very next day at TOO, Alex Kurtagić contributed “They Don’t Make Them Like They Used To.”131 Here Alex treats us to a visit to a local exhibition, where photographs of some Olde Tyme factory workers (a pencil factory, if you will) produce an odd effect on our correspondent. Whitcombe’s middle class likely leaves him cold, but these filthy old codgers set his mind athinking in odd, unwholesome ways. He calls the Wife over and she concurs; these chaps, with their “hostile frowns, ice-cold blue eyes, and troglodytic beards and angrily scowling moustaches” are Real Men, and are sadly lacking today. In another article, Kurtagić pays tribute to the industrious Quakers, who played a prominent role in creating the kinds of factories that produced pencils, matches, and “Hard Men.”132
Right off, I have some questions here. For all their beards and stares, these are after all pencil factory workers, not coal miners. Secondly, would these Hard Men be spending their precious “free time” gazing nostalgically at old photographs, and even if so, would the Wife be along? It seems to me that when Men were Men, Women were Wives, and stayed home mending and birthing and boiling tripe.
Unhindered by such negativity, Kurtagić continues to drift in his vaguely erotic reverie about the days when factory labor made men Hard, and even waxes nostalgic for the “muscular Christianity” and the Cult of Work that served as ideological cover for the mechanized enslavement of the English yeomanry.
Orwell already made similar observations on the degeneracy of British manhood in The Road to Wigan Pier, but formed a rather different, and more plausible, diagnosis. Observing the sorry specimens arrayed under a dreary sky for the funeral of King George (the only color supplied by the pink bald heads revealed when hats were doffed), he lays it first to the sacrifice of the physical best of a generation in the Great War, and thus the loss of their progeny; and moreover, the appalling conditions (filth, hard work, poor nutrition, overcrowding) of the Industrial Revolution that Kurtagić lauds!
The futile evil of WWI, and the evils of the factory system: more evidence that Orwell and Waugh were, as a recent dual biography argues, The Same Man? Certainly he’s more of a “conservative” here than Kurtagić.<
br />
III.
TRADITIONALISM VERSUS CAPITALISM
Is this what the Right has become? Eulogizing Victorian factory slavery and the twisted troglodytes it produced? At one time, English Traditionalists saw these men as “a ruined race” (Tolkien), and thundered against the system that produced it. That Christianity produced and defended it is hardly a positive feature of the religion, as Kurtagić thinks, and most English Traditionalists who stayed Christian (Chesterton, Belloc, Gill, Eliot, etc.) fobbed it off on the Protestant deviation.
The medieval Church, steeped in Aristotle, was part of a continuous Western tradition, going back to the Greeks, which condemned work and promoted leisure as “The Basis of Culture,” in the words of Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper, whose Leisure: The Basis of Culture, was a surprise bestseller in the 1950s when T. S. Eliot prompted his publisher Faber & Faber to put it out. Imagine, a Catholic bestseller!
Non-English, non-Christian Traditionalists such as René Guénon and Julius Evola were even more scathing. And why not? Modern “work” is the satanic parody of traditional craft, which, before it was destroyed by Protestant “work,” was an integral part of traditional society, each vocation appropriate to elicit the perfection of the laborer’s own nature (hence, caste) as well as to serve as a “support” for metaphysical and initiatory knowledge. The factory system, by contrast, treated “all men as ‘equal’” and interchangeable units to be worked at the stupidest tasks until the last ounce of strength was gone, and then tossed on the scrap heap.
Evola devoted two chapters of his post-war manifesto, Men Among the Ruins, to “the demonic nature of the economy” and its tin idol, work. As Troy Southgate summarizes it in his book Tradition and Revolution:
The Homo and the Negro Page 7