Counter-Currents
2,489 words
Unless you’ve been living under a rock in recent weeks, you’ve probably heard of the groyper rebellion against Conservative Inc.
What started off as college kids messing with cuckservative grifter Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point USA (TPUSA) fake-right organization has spiraled into a full-blown invasion of cuckservative and grift-right events by young men cloaked in courage, armed with the truth, and posing uncomfortable questions to the controlled opposition.
So far, the groypers have caused the resignation of the TPUSA’s President, Vice President, and Secretary at Kansas State University (one of its largest chapters), forced cuckservative gasbag Sebastian Gorka off the Internet, and manipulated Charlie Kirk into purging TPUSA of anyone who supports the groypers – or at least their right to pose difficult questions. This means that he’s essentially expelled the brightest, best-adjusted, and handsomest people from his organization (if population genetics are right about the kind of people who are conservative).
I believe Robert Hampton has done a stellar job of covering the nitty-gritty of the groyper war from a political perspective. What I want to do is provide insight into the metaphysics and ideology behind the war, offer a partial profile of the combatants, and address the first serious threat to groyperdom which now looms on the horizon, courtesy of one M. Yiannopoulos.
We begin by observing the reactions of the neocons, grift-right, and the various tentacles of the Kochtopus and allied monsters to the groyper phenomenon. Amidst the oy veys, nudda shoahs, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments, and ever-escalating charges of racism and Holocaust denial, one thing is clear: The concerns of the groypers are not typical of American conservatism but are rather closer to the European Right, whereas American conservatism is really just a defense of liberalism, as Jeremy Boreing recently made clear:
What these retrograde losers don’t understand is that what American conservatives want to conserve is American liberalism.
American conservatism is not European conservatism. https://t.co/PkBpCNTgku
— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) October 30, 2019
You’ll see the purple-pilled reaction to that, and on the face of it, that’s that. But here’s a radical thought: What if that odious and aptly-named carbuncle is right?
If you’ve read your history, you understand that, yes, the United States is a constitutional and liberal country. It was founded in rebellion against a monarchy, based mostly on conspiracy theories that’d make David Icke blush; its Constitution is used as the classic example in constitutional law textbooks to illustrate the premise of liberal constitutionalism; and it rejects traditional religiosity, hierarchy, and corporatism in favor of the secularism, egalitarianism, and individualism of liberalism. But the liberalism of the Founding Fathers is now a bit passé, having been replaced by a more advanced form which now concerns itself primarily with tearing down the white man rather than uplifting the Negro – which still pops up now and then, wearing a ridiculously fake moustache and calling itself “libertarianism,” or sometimes more brazenly “conservatism.” It was and is a Leftist movement which stands opposed to the traditional worldview and traditional society. It does have Rightist elements, but only insofar all Leftist movements need some Rightist policies in the event that they win – quite simply, the Left is a vector of chaos and incapable of governance. Every revolution is followed by the sobering emergence of a pragmatic, relatively Right-wing ruler, often authoritarian: Stalin followed Lenin, Napoleon followed Robespierre, Hamilton followed Jefferson. Nevertheless, the core of the ideology remains Leftist, liberal, and hostile to the genuine Right. The United States was literally conceived in sin: the sin of the prodigal son, although unlike the Roundheads, Jacobins, and Bolsheviks, the Americans did not commit that combination of patricide and deicide that shatters the soul of a people: regicide.
Thus, when the normiecon blabbers on about “muh constitution,” “muh American values,” and whatever else, he is signaling his allegiance to this Leftist and liberal ideology, which was America’s central ideology in a time he considers better than his own. A new, fast, and sleek version is available to Leftists, but even the conservative jalopy will get us to the endpoint of liberalism eventually, which is a dystopian hellhole where there are no families, no joy, no American nation, not even fancy future cars – just armies of bugmen munching on bugburgers and living in rows upon rows of grey pods.
Did I say American nation? Huh? What is this racism and anti-Semitism? As long as they come here legally, I don’t care what their color or creed is! This is Uhmerica!
Even though the US was conceived in sin and tainted with liberalism from the get-go, there was at its core an American nation, which served as the springboard for the American empire. From this historic American nation sprung America’s counter-currents which opposed the inherently decadent US. There is a Deep America, which is made of flesh and blood, which believes in blood and soil. There is an America which conquered the continent from sea to shining sea – a white America, if I do say so myself; one concerned not with the welfare of the negro, but with the existence of white Americans and a future for white children. From this Deep America arose such men as Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Madison Grant, Ezra Pound, Robert E. Howard, Huey Long, Pat Buchanan, John Wayne, and Ross Perot. This is the America of hearth and home, not of marble columns in DC and dangerous utopian nonsense in dusty tomes written by dustier men.
From this America do the groypers arise. They are of the Right, most definitely. They are not, however, of American liberalism. They do not dream about the long-lost 1776 (even though Alex Jones assures me it is about to commence again). The groyper dreams, in his questioning and quest for truth, of something that is yet to emerge and take shape. The groyper dreams of an American nation qua American nation, which has thrown off the yoke of liberalism and exists for itself rather than as a vehicle for an outdated, Enlightenment-era ideology. The groyper wants America to exist as the nations of Europe exist. He is an enemy of empire, because empire blurs the borders between peoples. Any nation which has had the misfortune to be at the core of an empire has fuzzy borders; Turks and Russians come to mind, with Turkish identity meaning little more than “non-Albanian Balkan/Anatolian Muslim” at the end of the nineteenth century, and with Russian identity being little more than “Russian speaker” even today (though it is rapidly differentiating itself). The groyper naturally crosses rhetorical swords with the cuckservative, the normiecon, the libertarian, and the Boomer, all of whom are vectors of liberalism and empire. The aforementioned groups would like Deep America to not ask questions, but rather to stoically carry on her burden as a vehicle for liberalism and empire. The groyper is the dissenting American who would like to know why there is a transgender named “Lady Maga” being propped up as a conservative personality. The groyper would like to know why his nation’s blood and treasure are being expended on a tiny country in the Middle East with a massive lobbying operation in DC. The groyper would like to know why his nation is being invaded by swarthy and hostile foreigners, and why the alleged conservatives support a legal version of that invasion, even if it means the death of the historic American nation.
In a sense, we are witnessing the conflict between liberalism and a form of European-style conservatism – which is to say, the conservatism of a particular European nation: America. It is clumsy and undefined, and there are no elaborate national myths, but I think that the American nation has yet to crawl out from under the American empire’s shadow. (I believe the American empire is still alive, although its prognosis is not good.) In time, its identity will become differentiated and it will become a coherent group; in other words, the process of ethnogenesis will be completed. We are observing such a process of ethnogenesis in the wake of an empire in Russia today, whereas studying the history of post-1924 Turkey can provide us an example of a more-or-less completed ethnogenetic process.
The groyper army is to a great degree self-directed, though from what I can tell, the major figureheads of the movement are Nick Fuentes, Vincent James, E. Michael Jones, and Patrick Casey. Some patterns jump out: All four of these guys are some combination of Mediterranean and Hibernian. All four are Catholics. All four took the side of optics in the Optics War. All four look for political solutions, eschewing fedposting and calls to violence. There’s a reason for all these common traits.
First, it’s important to remember that liberalism is to a great extent an Anglo phenomenon and that the English people have shown an unfortunate predilection for it. Insofar as Anglo thinkers are fundamentally illiberal, we usually find Celtic admixture in them. It stands to reason that if a nationalist and illiberal Right is to arise in America, it would arise among non-Anglo whites, and with the German-Americans completely subsumed into Anglo culture, it’s up to a scrappy crew of Micks and Eye-talians to git r’ dun. Catholicism dovetails with illiberal nationalism in two important ways. Firstly, it is inherently hierarchical, entry into its priesthood is restricted (you at least need to pass seminary), and it can trace its roots back to the Roman Empire – to the crucifixion of St. Peter in Rome. It is a living reminder that there was a world before liberalism and, for those who have eyes to see, it is prima facie evidence that goodness and beauty can exist without liberalism.
Secondly, Catholicism does not necessarily suffer from the American Protestant disease of philo-Semitism. In this long and exhaustive article, we see that American Protestantism is incurably Zionist and philo-Semitic and has been since before the founding. It is therefore unlikely that an American illiberal nationalist movement, insofar as it is America First rather than Israel First, would arise out of Protestantism.
Of note is that the groypers seek to usurp Conservatism Inc. Conservatism Inc. is morally bankrupt and at the very least an accessory to the evils committed by the anti-white and anti-family Left, but it is very good at rooting out anything which even smells of illiberalism. The groypers are optical not because they want to infiltrate and subvert Conservatism Inc.; they are very much aware that this cannot be done. Rather, they seek to demonstrate to the conservative American – who is an American nationalist in the making – that Conservative Inc. does not have his best interests at heart and that it is willing to be as censorious and as shrill as the Left when asked polite questions by clean-cut, if green, young men. Charlie Kirk’s panicked disavowals, Dan Crenshaw’s smug dismissals, Rob Smith’s effete passive aggression, and Sebastian Gorka’s bloviating paroxysms are all revealing Conservative Inc. as a group of corrupt and capricious bullies whose haughty outrage at having been asked a question (a question, I say!) by the unwashed masses red-pill more people than a thousand spreadsheets with crime statistics.
I wish the groypers well in their endeavor. As a European-style nationalist, I welcome them and the rising American nation to the club. I am eager to help them with any wisdom I can impart. Let me therefore begin by warning the groypers that Conservative Inc. may look like a bunch of morons, but that these people can be surprisingly cunning when it comes to guarding their income streams.
Milo Yiannopoulos has just leaked a recording of Richard Spencer throwing a temper tantrum in the wake of the Charlottesville rally:
Milo just uploaded leaked audio of Richard Spencer reacting to the death of Heather Heyer and the negative press it did to his movement.
Just in case there was any question of the so-called “dapper white nationalist” being a raged fuelled hateful monster.
Explicit warning. pic.twitter.com/KpVk2fLYSu
— BAILEY, THE LIBTARDTARIAN ???? (@atheist_cvnt) November 4, 2019
It shows us that Richard Spencer is one narcissistic puppy. Still, I have to disavow the recording and its leaking because I, too, have had my heated gamer moments, and I’ve said much, much worse about people of other races, faiths, and ethnicities in my angry rants. But I’ve not ever, to my knowledge, claimed to rule the effing world. See, what I find contemptible in this rant is not the rage against “kikes,” “midgets,” and “octoroons,” but its petulance and megalomania.
In case you’re wondering, no, the editor did not splice two texts together. The Milo leak is relevant because of its timing. It is late 2019 and Spencer has been a spent force for over two years now. His various problems are well known to the Dissident Right, and nobody outside our movement has any regard for Spencer. So why am I bringing it up now?
Given rumors that Milo Yiannopoulos is dead broke, I would not be surprised if this were some ploy to taint Nick Fuentes as the groypers’ most visible leader. It is easy to forget, but Nick Fuentes was present at Charlottesville. This two-year-old clip could very well be the beginning of a smear campaign against Fuentes, which would taint the entire groyper movement by association. Spencer, for his part, is visibly bitter about Nick’s success with the groyper uprising, whereas all his creatures on Twitter have been trying to link Milo with Fuentes and make people believe that Spencer is the actual target. At the time of writing, there is no evidence that Milo is planning to strike at Spencer, but it is important to bear in mind that he is a recently impoverished man of extravagant taste, that he probably has audio recordings of a lot of people in the movement, and that Conservative Inc. has a lot of money to spend – and a grudge against the groypers and especially Nick Fuentes.
If true, this plot will fail. Firstly, Nick Fuentes has already been as defamed and attacked as any member of the Dissident Right. He is, in a sense, robust and even antifragile to censorship and abuse because he has anchored himself to the truth. His groypers will follow him into the maw of D-live, if need be. The second reason is even simpler. The groyper movement is far more than a Nick Fuentes fan club. It is the primal scream of Deep America, of an American nation which intends to make itself known and rise on the world stage. Fuentes is riding this wave – how far, I cannot tell. Vincent James, E. Michael Jones, and Patrick Casey are also riding this wave. This wave has the power to sweep away the cuckservative establishment. This wave has the power to cleanse America of liberalism. A biblical plague of frogs has descended upon Conservative Inc., and with every question croaked, a true American nation edges closer to its birth.
33 comments
I’ve often noticed too how some of the greatest voices of our side seem to come from catholic backgrounds, such as Patrick Buchanan and sobran in this age, and Chesterton and Belloc in earlier empires. Also they seem to be the ones most likely to criticize the prime movers, if you believe all that(as im not so sure anymore).
I came to the same conclusion as the author, that Catholicism is rooted in a long tradition, with an authoritarian structure to support it positions. People, no matter how intelligent, require a grounding in certain absolutes to resist strong arguments and popular blitzes from opposing ideologies. Moral or doctrinal relativists can gradually be shifted into any position; those who believe nothing believe anything, from Chesterton himself. Judaism too has that lengthy sense of historical and institutional grounding which may be part of the source of the power of its intellectuals.
It probably is a question of hierarchy. Protestantism leaves a huge opening for hubris by allowing lay preachers. If each man is his own priest, then very soon we get to “each man his own god”. In the Apostolic churches, you’re receiving the sacrament from someone who is different from you, higher than you in the religious hierarchy (even if you’re the king) and has the vestments, education and language to prove it.
The Apostolic churches inculcate humility into men.
I had some unkind words for the author on one of his previous articles. I still stand by that criticism. However, I must say that this article was excellent and I will be sharing it among normieCons and Maga types who I think will be able to understand it. Regardless of what the Founding Fathers were trying to do, the fact is that White America is a People with a millennia-old legacy, and it’s existence and desires don’t need to be justified by a fucking rolled up piece of paper that some Anglos with stupid wigs wrote (spare me the muh traditions crap, the wigs look retarded) or by a set of Enlightenment principles
You don’t get the one without the other, friend.
Richard Spencer’s mad because he invented the piano key necktie, HE INVENTED IT! What has Fuentes invented? Nothing! NOTHING!!!
According to my calculations, chucking questions at the centre-right inevitably leads to them exposing hypocrisy or avoidance. Because they pretend to not know the things that we know. Any time there is an event, we should be there and ask pointed questions. It’s not as if Antifa will be there to tail you later on.
Nick Fuentes often rubs me the wrong way. It’s a ‘Boomer thing’, I’m sure. However, his 11/5 YouTube (which includes comments about the Richard Spenser video) showed a very much more mature side that I’d seen in the past. I’d watched him the past, but didn’t really catch onto his political vision. Probably just a ‘Boomer moment’ or ten. Anyway, in the 11/5 video he gave a brief explication of the ‘three principles’ of his political vision. He described himself as (1) a ‘nationalist’ for the ‘Historic American Nation’, (2) ‘anti-degeneracy’/pro-Christian and (3) ‘America First’ and against the influence of ‘foreign lobbies’. He eve used the phrase ‘white identity’ at some point in the video. I wonder is this is what Mr. Jeelvy means by ‘European-style conservatism’.
Although I doubt that many readers here will be very interested in E Michael Jones, I should point out that he vehemently denies being white and has no sympathy at all for white nationalism. In a direct comment to me he said that he was “biracial, that is, part German and part Irish.” He is nothing more than an eccentric Catholic version of Jordan Peterson, although very woke to the JQ.
He is partially right in it that Europe would probably not have risen as a civilization as much without Christianity, but his reasoning as to why is absurdly fallacious and I can only conclude that he is deliberately deceiving himself. But more on both the necessity of Christianity and the human capacity for self-deception in a future article.
Even his understanding of the JQ is one that is unacceptable to most (if not all) dissident rightists, since he doesn’t take the racial angle on it.
EMJ is probably the best thinker of our times. Some people can’t, for some reason, grasp nuance. If you read his stuff, EMJ is clearly aware of race. The avoidance of the “white” term is calculated. Most boomers and gen X don’t seem to get this for some reason. You do not need to be explicit about the “white race” in order for the white race to survive and thrive. White people already stick to their own for the most part, the problem is not, “white racial awareness.” The problem is sickening degeneracy amongst the youth in which they are not having babies. Christianity fixes this. Christianity fixes feminism, Jews, and homos. We use CHRIST as our shield, in order to save the white race. Christianity fixes the degneracy that has plagued the white race for so long. And, EMJ is right. The Jewish problem is not a blood problem, it is a theological problem. Otherwise Jews of the past, like Pfefferkorn, Donin, Paul of Burgos, Pablo Christiani, Torquemada, and other would not have converted to Catholicism, and then gone on to persecute the Jewish community they just left. Nicholas Donin was the man responsible for first burning Talmuds. Christiani is the first person to force Jews into wearing yellow patches on their clothes to separate them from Christian’s. These things need to be taken into account and need to be thought about.
The only way the white race survives is through a Christian resurrection.
I disagree strongly.
We have a hard enough road as it is, to convince white people to have borders, children, and take their own side — even though the consequences of non-action are increasingly clear.
The idea that, in addition to all that, we have to convince them of Christianity — indeed as a pre-requisite — strikes me as a simple sectarian error.
We won’t need to convince them of Christianity. When people see how bad things get with Trump out of office and the democrats in power, most will start begging for the churches to take over. You get order out of chaos, and the churches (Catholic Church in particular), flawed as they are, represent order, hierarchy, and tradition.
You’ve been huffing more than incense if you think that Pope Francis is the order we need.
Not Francis, the Church. The Pope is not the Church. The body of the church is still there, the entire organization is there, but the head is sick. What you are witnessing, and what you will continue to gradually see, is a “bottom-up” change in the church, rather than “top-down.” This is why Ratzinger resigned, because there was so much corruption, even he couldn’t fix it. The bottom up resurrection of the church is what will ultimately cleanse it of the homosexual infiltration.
What is interesting in the E. Michael Jones question is the metaphysical implication of the undergirding concept in his sense of Logos: he equates logos with divine being and thus with necessary order and intelligent order. He does not merely imply but states directly that we are in a disordered state and that hyper-liberalism — whatever this is that is inflicting us (somewhat difficult to name) — is a type of disease, powered as it were by ‘the J revolutionary spirit’. It is a bit reductive to say the least and yet is a usable idea. In any case, he reaches many people who resonate religiously and philosophically with his base message.
Related to that, which will not ever be separated from traditional Catholicism, is its grounding in Thomism. It seems quite clear, to me at least, that a strict Thomism can largely defend and explain nearly every concern brought out here at CC. Perhaps because it is so very Aristotelian.
I do suggest that when one pays attention to the traditional Catholicism movement that in great part they align themselves with the rigorous categories that operate so strongly among the pagan and philosophical Right (that is how I would generally describe Counter-Currents).
So, it is curious to me that the Traditional Catholic Right can and does support a large part of the Dissident Right, and yet the philosophical right — as here at CC — must categorically reject Christian metaphysics. The wishy-washy Catholic center, and definitely its own lunatic fringe (Francis et al) is so far away from any rigorous pagan-philosophical or religious-metaphysical pole as to be completely useless to us and people who are thinking, in different ways and from different angles, like us.
The problem is that within its smallish circles the radical Catholic Traditionalists advocate for a great deal that is advocated here in these pages of CC. And there are definitely people there who think as we do here (if you’ll allow that turn of phrase). Yet it is nearly impossible to imagine the structure of the Church with its seat in Rome as ever aligning with a radical reorganization of our sickly hyper-liberal cultures.
However, in a Thomist sense, a personal reorganization of ones inner territory is much to be desired and certainly dove-tails with stoic and pagan philosophical concerns. Myself, I am metaphysically inclined to alignment with the inner sense of traditional Catholicism, and there is no way to (possibly ever) separate Europe in its widest senses from Catholic-Christian metaphysics, so I do tend to see the need for *inner spiritual renovation* which definitely is attended to on the inner plane by a traditional, religious focus.
These worlds of concern (clear-headed pagan radicalism at a philosophical level and traditional Christian-Catholicism) are definitely intermingled, yet stark divisions, especially under pressure, do reveal themselves and these differences will forever manifest in our movement.
Allow me to plagiarize: “Bliss it is in this dawn to be alive, and to be young is very heaven.”
(Oh, Charlie, we hardly knew ye.)
I don’t really see Richard’s criticism of Fuentes and the Groypers as jealousy. His critique was pretty measured and well intentioned; he’s supported them. After Charlottesville he was understandably angry and amped up, which came out in the leaked audio and is understandable given the circumstances.
Like always, leave it up to the “dissident right” to scapegoat. I really wish we could come to the point where people would circle the wagons and defend eachother, but, unfortunately, it seems rightists movements are doomed to continuous power struggles and drama.
There comes a point when you recognize that a comrade in your struggle is a liability because he makes serious and costly errors and brings harm and shame upon us. At that point circling the wagons goes from being a helpful reflex to being a harmful one, because it spends resources to protect a person who is going to do more stupid and costly things down the road, further weakening us and imposing more costs. It has to end.
Ok, Boomer.
His comments were indeed well-measured and didn’t show any jealosy that I could discern, if people care to listen to them (And his take on it is shared by many, not only his asociates on the podcast). I don’t expect them to amount to much, last long or have some impact. Their intentions are good, but the tendency of that crowd is still towards the status quo of yesterday. Doesn’t at all touch on the things we want changed on a deeper level. And before someone says ‘ah, but they are doing much to wake people up’, I’d answer: No. We’ve seen it before. They’ll not be platformed in any way, and their complaints won’t be spread around. This is not 2015. Our adversaries know better now.
It is entirely another matter what Spencer himself is like or whether people should support him when he makes various blunders.
At this point, what the North American New Right desires is so revolutionary, and so fundamental, that it would require a total breakdown of the established system to implement. What will save America will never be something that comfortable, manicured, perfumed, fed and burped Americans would ever vote for, only starved and scarred Americans. Speaking of Napoleon, speaking of Stalin, Cromwell and Caesar, these men all rode into power on the crest of unprecedented crises in their respective nations. Civil wars, starvation, coups d’état, a world war, the complete bankrupting of the state and the total collapse of authority. To speak of such revolutionary ideas as to do away with the founding humanistic liberalistic drivel that was massaged into the early spirit of the US by masonic hands would mean to fundamentally destroy and reforge an entire nation and its people, metaphorically as well as physically. That is something not even the Bolsheviks managed to accomplish without a world war on their side.
Hello guys. As a foreigner, it’s sometime hard to understand the differences between all the counter currents.
What’s the big differences between G. Johnson/CC and thec”groypers”?
And what means “groyper”. My translator give me 3 differentz words.
Thank you for your eventuals answers.
1. Counter-Currents are a publishing house and webzine focusing on philosophy and culture from the right, often from a European perspective. The groypers are a young American phenomenon who are fellow travelers to the counter-currents stream.
2. Groyper is the name of the meme frog with his arms folded under its chin.
Here.
Well French Royalist. I’m not the best person to answer but I think the main difference would be their positions regarding religion in particular Christianity. The most visible groyper, Nick Fuentes would be very much a traditional Catholic whereas Greg Johnson would be not be hostile to it but ambivalent. Counter Currents would be explicitly White Identitarian whereas some of the associated groyper figures such as E. Michael Jones would have a racial blind spot, although the younger ones such as Patrick Casey and Nick Fuentes would be very racially conscious. The groyper comes from a meme https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/groyper. You could call it a spin off of Pepe the frog which became associated with the Alt Right during the 2016 U.S Presidential election’s. It became associated with an unapologetically anti political correctness trolling attitude from young men which became associated with White Nationalist and Identitarian political movements. The groyper’s are a more subtle movement than the Alt Right and less willing to make any accomodation with old style White Nationalists such as Neo Nazis, snin heads etc, although neither did the Alt Right originally. Ultimately both groups would share a lot in common such as race realism, HBD, anti immigration, pro West and pro White, pro Traditional family structures.
Thank you Nicholas and Shane for your very clear answers
(reading again my 1st post, I have to apologize for the numerous typos errors (write on phone is not easy for a man born in the 70′)
Since my questions, I have watched vids of this Nick Fuentes, and I have to say I love this guy!
((even if I don’t know if I’m still Christian or have became pagan.)
Reading Gore Vidal’s 1876 which he probably thought was very a propos after Watergate but is more so now — Dems rigging elections, impeachment as a tool of political gain, electoral college chaos. Here too: ““I daresay the fact that I have spent most of my life in Roman Catholic countries has not only made me more tolerant than Bigelow, but also convinced me that Roman Catholic societies are more agreeable to live in than Protestant ones because they are not in the slightest degree Christian.” — Gore Vidal, 1876
Mayor Curley of Boston built his career on flooding the city with immigrants to solidify his hold on power while the Brahmins were oblivious. His verdict was “The Anglo Saxons are a strange and stupid race.”
Yes, indeed. In that connection, the following is worth reading, despite having been written by two left-of-center Establishment economists: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Curley-Effect%3A-The-Economics-of-Shaping-the-Glaeser-Shleifer/d91585bb8b76022b3c0c0e010a1b43db44d4b2dd
This is pretty much off topic, but since Robert E. Howard is mentioned here, I feel my comment at least tangentially relevant.
When speaking of the ‘Deep America’ (lovely term by the way!), I am often puzzled by the fact that H. P. Lovecraft almost never comes. Reading his works, it is obvious that Lovecraft thought of the existence of an American blood-and-soil nation as a given. To Lovecraft being an American was not a matter of having a US citizenship, or even being White and having a US citizenship. To him an American was a kind of Anglo-Saxon, preferably the kind who had already been in the Americas prior to the American Revolution.
Reading, for instance, The Colour out of Space or The Dreams in the Witch-House, and it is clear that to Lovecraft, Poles in America were distinctly foreign. Even the Irish-American police officer in The Haunter of the Dark is simply just ‘a great wholesome Irishman’, who just happens to be in America – That he was born there is inconsequential.
I don’t get why people even listen to E Michael Jones. He is an old Catholic crank who thinks he has all the answers. He is explicitly indifferent to white genocide and comically ignorant about basic human biology.
The problem with these questions is that they seem to indicate that the problem with the Republican Party simply isn’t Christian enough. And it isn’t conservative enough, by standard American conservative standards. Even their framing of the race issue is simply in terms of GOP election prospects.
The truth is that most people who aren’t Charlie Kirk aren’t pro drag queens. And most Americans aren’t raging homophobes and misogynists, so who are they appealing to?
The issue is white dispossession. This is the radical issue. This is what is not represented by the mainstream. I think some are using their Catholicism as protective, which is perhaps understandable and even of benefit. But others are actually just Catholic fundamentalists, like E Michael Jones, who have a very different vision of how the world should look.
This is very well put comment with great points that I couldn’t put better myself.
I think the answer to your question is that those people who listen to and are influenced by EMJ are people who are established within that framework of understanding: a Catholic metaphysics.
It revolves around the ultimate questions of *interpretation*: interpretation of the world we live in, its meaning, our purpose. The deeper one goes into those questions, the more *elemental* become the answers one seeks and those one arrives at.
EMJ is *interpreting* the world, and certainly that of modern culture. I find him rather grating at times with his annoying booming voice, yet I definitely respect him. When you observe him interacting with young people especially, and those who are Catholic and who seek a way to activate their Catholic activism, you notice how he becomes solicitous of their youthful openness and they show their respect for the orientation and knowledge he does have.
However, he is genuinely incapable of seeing the problem as essentially racial or biological. I do think he could understand ‘White replacement’ though, and much of his writing explains how it came about. But, to understand EMJ one would have to understand that his notion of Logos is that of a universal principle: and anyone and everyone can come under that influence. Obviously, he equates that with the salvific and yet he does not speak of the salvific very often (a fundamental category of Christian and Catholic metaphysics).
I tend to agree with him on this core point. If we are bringing ourselves under the influence of structured, ordered ideas, and this is what we mean by logos/knowledge/truth, the very same thing can and should happen everywhere and anywhere. Therefore: our points and our position thereby is *intelligible* to anyone with ‘ears to hear’.
If there is a problem with the Republicans it is that they have become through-and-through corrupt and do not serve the larger population or their constituency. They have operated as tricksters, have they not? and for many years have manipulated their (White) base. It would be an improvement, at least from my angle, if any one of them actually began to enunciate a more genuine traditional Catholic perspective: which is radically opposed to so much that they stand for and serve.
I agree with you: the base of this entire problem is White dispossession. That is, basically what was outlined in The Dispossessed Majority. It seems to me that that is the core of the argument that we can and must bring forward.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment