White Devils

or, How We Got Here and Where We Are Going

Richard Spencer had some audio leaked recently that has gotten some minor play in the usual rags and the twitterverse. It’s not a good look for the polished David Duke wannabe brand he’s been cultivating, and gives the evidence the enemy needs to cast anyone remotely associated with him as a monstrous creature who eats biracial children alive and burns down wealthy black neighborhoods.

In this regard, it’s an unfortunate lesson in watching one’s mouth when one is in a position of leadership, and it confirms that Spencer is no leader. It says something deeper about Spencer and his whole cadre, though, that the outburst took place at all. Whatever you think of Spencer (and having met him, I’m no fan), if you can’t at least understand the anger and resentment echoing in his impotent cry against the heavens, you’re asleep or dead. In less than a century, the Japhethite nations of the world have gone from complete dominion over the whole earth to being a harried minority in their own gardens and village markets, forced to beg outside the city walls they built. Whatever traits recommend Spencer to speciation within genus Mustela, the man knows who his cousins used to be and is painfully aware of what he might have been in a different timeline. There’s not a self-aware Anglo alive who doesn’t feel that sting and want to lash out at those friendly stars that have abandoned him. We are orphans of fate, left beside the gutter by a universe we believed favored us above all its children.

Our friend Borzoi is fond of reminding us of the thought experiment wherein 9/11 is a false memory to distract us from the fact we’re all in Hell as a result of a global thermonuclear war. How attractive a prospect to make sense of things! It summons Lucifer’s cope in Book I of Paradise Lost: “Th’ Almighty hath not made this place for His envy.” Here in Hell we may not, as the Fallen Angel might, reign secure. But the Luciferian tendency to cry against the Heavens is certainly strong enough within us, and it is ultimately what destroyed us in the first place: the commonalities of the Japhethite nations, and the Anglos chief among them, with Satan begins long before he awakens, bewildered, in the great lake of burning sulphur.

White Nationalism is precisely this: it is a continuation of the same mistakes that ripped world dominion from the hands of the Western World and placed it under the command of the formerly colonized races, ill-prepared as they were to take it. “I will give children to be their princes, And babes shall rule over them.” (Is. 3:4) Our ancestors, by universalizing our civilization as the yardstick by which Civilization itself is measured, split the world into the white adult and the brown child, a paradigm which the left, even as it decries it, lives within and daren’t give up. Historically, children in a society live in a unique social position – the Romans called them libera, because they were free of responsibility, innocent of the dangers of the world, and wholly dependent on adults. In Levantine culture, to harm a child was so grievous an offence that it cried to the heavens for a unique punishment (death by drowning – the culprit would have a millstone tied to his neck and be cast into a body of water, cf. Mt. 18:6), and it was the horror upon which the Moloch cult supped to secure the favor of their diabolical master — much as the savages of the South Pacific accessed unique spiritual powers through ritual cannibalism.

The taboo against harming the child has been sublimated by the global left into a taboo against harming the Global Child – the non-White races, whose status as Global Child was not bestowed by the global left of the 20th century, but Western Civilization itself in the 18th. It is the paradigm Frederick the Great used to compared the Poles to the Iroquois, and called them children to be raised to be German. It is likewise the Southern slaveholder’s paradigm of his charges – masters bound as much to their slaves as their slaves were to them. The strongest defense of the institution of slavery, then as now, was the utter helplessness the freed slaves found themselves in upon emancipation. Fully a quarter of the entire population of former slaves in the United States – a million souls – vanished from upon the Earth in the few years immediately following emancipation, during a time in which their own brethren and Yankee protectors held power in every one of the conquered Southern states. Southern sympathizers cast this as a crime of the Yankee – and, indeed, it is, but it is certainly a crime of opportunity, for there would never have been a population of 3.9 million Global Children living in the conquered South but for the peculiar institution which permitted the Southern Creoles to build their society.

Now the Global Children come home to live with, and leech off, their adoptive parents in lieu of facing the cold Winter of Global Adulthood. The White World meanwhile is divided between the condescending pity of the ignorant Liberal and the pitiless contempt of the White Nationalist – but they are fundamentally united in the paradigm of the Global Adult vs Global Child. The masculine tendencies that manifest throughout Dissident Right are manifest in White Identitarians, whose racial politics amount to telling the Global Child “we’ve done enough, leave us alone, you’re on your own now.” The feminized Global Left, meanwhile, laments the state of their Global Children, and struggles to find how they could do more, how they have failed, how they must continue to nurture the Global Child. The two cannot seem to come to an amicable divorce, for both would consider it an annulment of Western Civilization itself (do not mistake the left – they do value their own civilization, they merely mistake its nadir for its zenith).

None of this is new – Spandrell has already seeded this in his description of Bioleninism. His conception, though, lends itself too easily to the conclusion that Leninism must win because nature is entropic. (I am not accusing him of saying this, but asserting that it is a necessary conclusion to draw). The paradigm must be abandoned – the West must cease to be the Global Adult in its posture towards the rest of the world – which for White Identitarians and Bioleninists alike means the West must cease to be.

The Global Child conceptualizes us as White Devils – but they are dualists. Their gods require a great Devil to survive. They cannot do without Western Civilization, so they will beat it into a coma, suspend it in an iron lung, keep its IVs and feeding tubes active. A West in suspended animation to feed and clothe them and hate them is the highest goal of the Global Child and therefore the Global Left. The worst thing that could ever happen to them is for the White Man to cease to be as a meaningful category, for the world to move on from the West, and regard it as historical. It is not sufficient to be indifferent, either – the “deadbeat dad” archetype is still a father. What Dissent must supply is not a means to keep the White Man alive forever, but a new paradigm; it cannot be White, it must be more than that. The future of the Japhethite nations hinges on a superior alternative to White Identity being realized; insofar as we preserve the intellectual ruins of the Faustian cultural landscape, they must be in a paradigm that can be transformed in the successor civilizations.

The brouhaha around E. Michael Jones and his followers recently shows something of a way: Jones is still an ethnic American, he never successfully became White in a meaningful sense. He has found his identity in his Catholicism instead. White Identitarians will argue this is a greater dead end than their own perception of racial identity, and perhaps it is – it is at least as Western as Whiteness, and therefore just as endowed with energy and staying power as artifact of the dead West. What Jones possesses, and what gives his ideas value, though, is a conceptualization of the Absolute, something that transcends civilizations and can therefore make the leap from an old and dying civilization to a new, youthful one. He has Truth – not merely Christ, but Truth. Dostoevsky said that if he could be convinced that Christ was separate from Truth, he would leave Truth and cling to Christ. A man whose race is young can afford such a sentiment. In old age, the sense of the Absolute is means whereby we avoid dementia.

This is the real project of Dissent: not conserving or preserving, the project of the old and dying, but creating anew upon better foundations. The rejection of principled conservatism is a good prologue to genuine creation, but it is not enough, and too many people – Spencer included – have become trapped there, screaming at the world they cannot change and failing a people they cannot save. If the last four years have shown us anything, it is that “becoming who we are” is a deathtrap and a suicide cult – we must become more than we have ever been. More than White, more than Western, more than Faustian. We must become our future, or we will not have one.

12 Comments Add yours

  1. reconzfvry says:

    Wow.. This was very well written. This recent upturn of events surrounding E Micheal Jones has really got me thinking about much. I was just talking to a friend on Twitter today and he made the excellent point that it would appear as though despite the fear mongering that people would “turn away from white identity and back to chrisitian only” it in fact has reversed. People are embracing that they are white and also embracing Christianity as there spiritual path and rejecting paganism and atheism. Looks like we are going through another growing phase in this cause.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. BaboonTycoon says:

    I do not see the effectiveness of this argument, which is, as I understand, the need to come up with some sort of identity other than “white” for the purposes of a nexus around which to build post-collapse America. If I understand correctly, then the ideas presented here only make sense in the frame of the sophistry constructed in this article. Looking beyond that, there are two major problems here.

    The first major problem is the issue of the lowest common denominator. When we on the right speak, it is our job to cut through decades (centuries even) of liberal programming ingrained in people from their first day in public school. Now, while high minded ideals have their place, to reach the broadest range of people, the tangible will always beat the abstract. I believe that is evident in how the right is currently aligned. Everyone successful is converging on the demographic change angle. Issues important to Catholics, such as abortion, have been duds. Successful right wing politicians speak of things such as building walls and closing ports to defend against the third world while unsuccessful ones speak of taxes and wars to “defend democracy in the Middle East.” Whiteness is the best vector for right wing ideas, the best thing to cut through that liberal programming, because it simultaneously shows that that programming was a lie and that there are threats to white people, both direct and indirect, in retaliation for their crime of existence. The same cannot be said for any other identity.

    The other problem is that we don’t have a better identifier. As I’m sure you’re aware, right-wing movements tend to be targets of infiltration and subversion. While we can never be entirely certain that anything we do is fed-proof, we can absolutely be sure that someone who is white is much more likely to be on our side than someone who isn’t. And think of the alternatives. Say we get your hypothetical Catholic successor state. In the United States, this would mean that Hispanics and their liberal preferences would make up an even larger share of the population than they do currently, putting us behind square one. Speaking of which, there is no set of ideas that you can come with that cannot be co-opted by liberals for their own ends. GSS data shows us that the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics support gay marriage, gay priests, female priests, etc. They haven’t even been able to resist sticking their tentacles into their own allies, the Muslims, having opened co-ed mosques with gay and female imams. If they can use even illiberalism itself to enforce liberalism as they do in court and on the web, one can be assured that whatever way we values test people will be even more useless than whiteness in determining whether or not they are with us.

    I understand that you likely are of the mind that explicitly advocating for white people seems edgy and may scare some people off. And it is true that it takes very little for one to cross the line into wignat territory in the eyes of the dull and uninformed. But I neither see any better hand to play nor do I think we will find one, with one possible exception: the female question. The repealing of “womens’ rights” is not a position that has been given any significant amount of exposure by any popular figure, and yet this is something that affects everyone (impending demographic winter or not), has several potential rhetorical killshots for us (the anti-natalism of liberals could easily be likened to an attempt to wipe out all human life), and it positions us as a movement that encourages love, positivity and community against the overweight, hedonistic demons that shill for the other side. Either way, we cannot break liberalism if we do not first break its taboos.

    Like

  3. Lotta big words for what effectively amounts to: “abandon this category, its too difficult!”

    The great issue of the reactionary and eternal spiritual conservative is the tendency to over-intellectualize the issue.

    The dissident attacks his enemy. The fiercer his opposition or the greater his censorship the more worthwhile his attacks. Sure, the Catholics fought all of the progress since the sixties other than the racial stuff, but the enduring fact is our films are subject to no decency codes, porn is legal, and perverts gloat about reading to children in our public libraries. Spencer failed once, the reactionary integralists and there ilk have failed continuously for 70 years. No amount of pretentious obfuscation can wash away this failure.

    Fundamentally these lessons have been learned. Everything you advocate about transcending whatever was the sort of rhetoric spencer was peddling just a few years ago. He failed. Jones’ ilk failed. You will fail. Who didn’t fail?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with you. The problem with novelty addicts is that, after every little owie-booboo, they scramble to replace their entire worldview.
      The article makes some good points – yes, non-white races have been treated as children and wards of the West – but the “so what” should not be “let us then destroy the West and abandon the Alt Right.” Instead, we can just resolve to not treat other races like kids. The observation can be a contribution to, but not a replacement for, everything we’ve held to thus far.

      And I’m not even a WN.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The issue remains that political right wing fad-Catholicism is built on appeals to misplaced reactionary sentiment and word games. Look at how EMJ plays around with the word logos as eagerly as a victim of biolenenism plays with xirself. Or the appeal to ethnically american. I might similarly say, “I’m ethnically a member of cosco!” as the two have the same effective meaning.

        Washed up reactionaries and the like often make appeals to transcendent truth, forgetting what is in front of them, reality itself. I am no materialist by any stretch, but observing whether a category is salient or not is important. The category of white arose when it became useful, just as the categories of nitrogen and oxygen arose when they did. All of them are material, salient, and useful, and anyone asking you to abandon the use of one of them should be treated with the same skepticism of anyone attempting to dissuade use of the others.

        Finally I will conclude with ought to be said yet amazingly has not yet. EMJ might be good at citations but his opinions on other matters derail into senile intellectual hypocrisy of the worst regard. Listen to any of the drool coated blathering escaping the pretentious windbags gullet concerning the reformation and one is assailed with accusations on parts of the protestants of political motivations! The blatant absurdist assertion considering they were attempting to reform what was an explicitly political organization. What part of declaring wars, legitimizing kings, and divvying up continents to client states isn’t political Mr. Jones? Or did logos and mater maria imbue the pope hat with the same power are levantine friends have, to claim one of two categories when it is rhetorically convenient?

        Like

  4. There are issues here, but I think “let’s destroy the West” is a misreading. I think the conclusions are more along the lines of “the West is already dead.” It’s envisioning a post-Western world that in part already exists. The main problem I see is that it proposes no solutions, it just points out problems. Spengler proposed the Nietzschean amor fati as a solution, “going down with the ship”, so to speak. This article says head for the lifeboats, but gives no indication of who we need to be sending the distress signal to or what it should say.

    Like

  5. Tony Chachere says:

    If Whiteness was a sufficient identity, most white people would find it compelling. They don’t, so it must not be.

    And before anyone blames the special conditions of postmodernity for this, they ought to remember that Europe did not conceive of her identity as primarily one of whiteness until the 19th century, and the Darwinian and proto-Darwinian revolution. Before that, white people shared the common feeling that all racial kin have, they celebrated Christianity and their individual smaller ethnicities/languages/states, and in some places looked back to antiquity to see themselves as heirs to the Roman tradition. These modes of identity spurred the people of Europe on to real greatness. There’s no reason why they can’t again.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Its almost like categories become salient when they become salient. What sort of Platonism have you been huffing?

      Like

  6. Tony Chachere says:

    Imagine being offered two futures; in one, you’d have a polis comprised entirely of randomly-selected American whites, and in the other, you’d have people from races that reflect the US’ current demographic makeup, (60% white, 15% black, 25% hispanic/asian), but they’re united by a shared, healthy conception of virtue, a common history, and a fear of God.

    In the first, you would have people less genetically predisposed to violence. In the second, you would have people more ideologically inclined to punish violence. In the first, you’d have more innate intelligence. In the second, you’d have consensus about which pursuits are fitting uses of intelligence. In the first, you’d be guaranteed to have children and grandchildren who looked like you, but whether they’d think like you would be anyone’s guess, subject to societal pressures and the mass media. In the Second, it would be hypothetically possible for you to have a half or quarter-black grandchild (although again, these people’s healthy conception of the good means that they haven’t fetishized such an outcome, and people’s natural affinities for their own kind are allowed to govern without artificial guilt, so it’s not especially likely, either) but you’d have a strong certainty that your offspring would care about the things you do.

    Obviously we’re being offered neither of these things, and we face being sent to prison for even acknowledging the obviously desirable traits of either one. But I suspect that much of racial nostalgia is spiritual nostalgia, and that much of racial continuity (which I do recognize is good) could be better achieved by means other than straightforward appeals to it.

    Like

    1. BaboonTycoon says:

      As you did not address the salient points against this article, let me restate them and clarify.

      1. In the United States and increasingly in Europe as well, you do not have an alternative identity that can accomplish even what using specifically white identity already has accomplished. I sense more of an attempt to propose one in your comments, and if you are suggesting using ethno cultural heritage as a replacement it is a non-starter in the United States for obvious reasons and is becoming one in Europe due to EU travel laws combined with the general ineffectiveness of independence movements. Catalonia lasted all of 8 seconds, and it had all the approved opinions and wealthy backers. But more to the point, it is not Irish or Welsh or Flemish or South Tyrolians that are under attack by liberals. It is whites as a whole. I encourage you to look at the history of Lega in Italy. They found success by abandoning their regionalist ambitions and standing for Italians as a whole.

      2.Being white is the best indicator we have of receptiveness to reactionary thought in the civilized world. Liberals will lie and say they share whatever ideas you come up with in order to run your movement into the ground. Liberals cannot lie about being white. Certainly, the enemy’s most devoted agents are white or semitic, but in any case, pure physiognomy tests are going to trump values tests any time.

      3. This line of thinking is not the future, but the past. Liberals have been at war with white people for over a century at this point and grow ever more direct and open about it. The response from conservatism has been to do exactly as you propose, defending whiteness through vague multi-step proxies such as entitlement cuts, tax breaks, abortion, “patriotism” and so on. We are all well aware of the result. Meanwhile, the new nationalist right has found resounding success (at least in the electoral and cultural sense) focusing on a much more direct and obvious proxy for whiteness, immigration control.

      And allow me to make a new point as well: holisitc, comprehensive worldviews are to be avoided. As others in this mag have stated, single issue, direct and targeted messages are those that have been the most effective. We unfortunately live in a world that values consensus over truth, and so we require big tent coalitions for electoral politics. Whatever post-western civilization looks like will have to be dealt with as we come to it, for no one has any idea of what it will look like at the moment. For the time being, we can’t afford to do much but try and change views on one issue at a time, lest we succumb to purity testing and freezing people out.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s