By the title you might expect some sort of radical text, saying some like we should go back to Africa or kill the cracka off in a glorious revolution. Maybe some black panther like rhetoric that simultaneously condemns whites and seeks their help and embrace of our cause; well, those whites who are “down for the people” anyway. I mean none of that of course, nor do I mean one should rid themselves of the intangible parts of our culture that may have started with whites like the sax (or any of the instruments used to create the Blues, Gospel, and Jazz), the English language or ( if you believe they gave It to us) the Christian religion. No culture is without outside influences and purity spirals are unhealthy for any culture, movement, and organization.
That said, I certainly am against embracing much of white culture and especially current mainstream white culture. I’d dissuade one from engaging the former because I am an anti-assimilationist, and the latter because it’s crass, godless, materialistic and vulgar ( like our current culture). We need to support and foster our own institutions, and outlooks on the world in order to be a spiritually and culturally prosperous race. If we don’t do that, our very identity will always be insecure and we will continue to exhibit the forms of self-hatred and self-destructiveness that are so common among us.
What I mean is rid yourself of the white man as an excuse, as one to emulate, as one to oppose and as one to seek love, respect or any validation from. Be neither his enemy nor his follower. Imagine your own path. Be secure in yourself as a black man with his own ways, mores, values, and culture developed in our over 400 years in this land now called the United States. Celebrate your achievements, unify with your brethren, follow your betters and lead your lessers. Create a way of life directed at self-determination for the black race, instead of one dedicated to receiving favor or fairness from whites. Act and behave as a confident person from a confident culture. That is the only way to build on our traditions and maintain our identity( what little we have left of it)
This recent spate of “right wing” victories which includes Brexit, Trump, and the European nationalists is part of the same global phenomenon which produced Modi.
It almost seems too obvious to point out how similar Trump and Modi are but I haven’t seen many people in my circles saying it. Probably because I hang out mostly with Americanized NRI liberals in the Brahmin class (as per Moldbug’s schema, not Chaturvarna). These people love Modi and hate Trump and want to avoid finding the obvious similarities and connections. There are some articles tracing out the connections. Mostly in condemnatory tones. But some sources are saying the exact opposite as well, which is totally ridiculous. So lets go over some of the basics.
Victory of the Edgelords: The first major similarity is their negative public branding, and the material causes for why that sort of branding was possible in the first place. Trump and Modi both are both considered bigots by their liberal opponents (particularly in English language media which has been totally captured by leftist establishment forces), and have garnered support from right wing radicals. In Trump’s case this mostly centers around his rhetoric, though he is also favored by far right groups like (numerically and politically insignificant) KKK or the (much more numerous and significant) Alt-Right. In Modi’s case it derives from his institutional connection with the RSS and Hindutvadis in general, and his role in the Gujarat riots. In both cases this seemed to have damaged their reputations and election chances at the time. They were considered outsiders with hickish attitudes by their own liberal countrymen, and scary nationalists by neoliberals in other countries. Remember how under Obama the US denied Modi’s visa? Well Trump narrowly escaped the same fate at the hands of the UK parliament. Ultimately in both cases this politically correct negative branding failed to stop the candidate, as what the media establishment portrayed as a negative and bigoted campaign was interpreted very differently by the voting public.
The Federalist published a piece I wrote about the heavy-hitting Black Mirror episode “San Junipero.” While some called it a brighter episode in the series, I think it was a dark, sophisticated meditation on morality and salvation. Check it out.
But this isn’t just a matter of homosexuality; the logic for same-sex marriage has been baked right into opposite-sex marriage for decades. Where marriage was once, in our society in decades past, a set of obligations to people, past, future and present, it is now about love—two (or more?) people enjoying one another in a relationship they can terminate at any time. How, then, can we justify preventing two people who enjoy each other from getting married, no matter what their sex?
Thus, the homosexual relationship and the contraceptive heterosexual relationship of mutual enjoyment can be seen as microcosms of the paradise world of San Juniper: their existence is not justified by any created purpose, but by the moral philosophy that matter, consciousness, and existence are all to be melted down and rearranged to maximize individual enjoyment. Even if there is an option to have children in San Junipero, it would exist in the same way that gay adoption exists in our world: something—a consumer choice—that is instrumental to satisfying desires, not an end itself.
I recently read Elaine Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels. It finally gave me a handle on why these books ended up in a jar in the Egyptian dirt, instead of in the Bible. (more…)
I published my first editorial at The Daily Caller. Check it out.
Venezuela should have been the Norway of South America. Pundits had been predicting this since 2010, when it was clear that the country would dethrone Saudi Arabia – a much wealthier country with an almost identical population – as having the largest oil reserves in the world.
But in spite of all this, Venezuela has still managing to undergo what Time described as a “complete collapse of society.” The democratically elected socialist government tried to faithfully implement a centrally planned economy and smash capitalism. By some metrics they succeeded. They smashed the markets for toilet paper and made it nearly impossible to come by, they smashed the market for food and forced citizens to wait in hours-long breadlines, and then they even smashed those lines by removing people from them based on the last digits on their government ID cards. Now food scarcity is so bad that people are set to be forced to work on farms.
The chasm between the notional and the actual couldn’t be larger. Not once did the ruling elites of Venezuela consider that their naïve – no, psychotic – utopianism might lead to bad results. President Nicolás Maduro’s adherence to ideology led him to blame the crisis on “economic warfare promoted right-wing sectors” of the country. It’s clear that, in making that statement, he was under the influence of ideology and not facts. He, just like every other socialist, is trying to relitigate 150 years of known economic fact: countries with free markets and powerful “right-wing sectors” don’t have breadlines and don’t have catastrophic shortages.