Normie Michael Knowles: “What is the Alt-Right?”

He’s wrong on a lot of central points. I note some of them below the video:

1) The Alt Right is organic and has no leaders, despite any attempts by any one figure to appear as its ‘leader’. Like the Tea Party, the AR is a bottom up phenomenon. (The MSM, of course, wants to put a ‘face’ on it, so they go to one person.) Putting RamZPaul as one of the “leaders” of the AR is hilarious. RamZPaul is a comedian who uses irony to poke fun at PC and to argue for the rights of ALL races and ethnicities to have identity politics and nationalisms, which is natural. Furthermore, he has disavowed the AR (specifically, it’s 88-ers) quite a while ago.

2) The AR does not reject Christianity per se. While some in the AR do, others don’t. Christianity is certainly the root cause of the ‘pathological altruism’ we see today in the Western world, but Christianity itself is a giant topic with 2,000 years of history. IOW, there are some good aspects about Christianity and its history, and there are some bad aspects. He is right in saying that Nietzsche is a key figure for the AR’s perspective, but it is not essential to agree with Nietzsche to be in the AR.

3) This guy does not mention at all how ‘race realism’ and ‘human biodiversity (HBD)’ are cornerstones of the AR. There is a growing body of science demonstrating how the races are different, particularly in terms of IQ, levels of trust in the societies, aggressiveness in the societies, etc. When compounded over time, these genetic attributes lead to very different societies and very different civilizations. (I encourage people to read Nicholas Wade’s book “A Troublesome Inheritance” as a first book.) Denying this (as Civic Nationalism does, this being the default position of most traditional “National Review” type conservatives that dominate the GOP) is myopic and foolish, leading us into the dire situation the West now faces. Another seminal book I encourage people to read is “Who Are We” by the late scholar Samuel Huntington.

4) This guy implies the AR is very small. He is vastly underestimating the size of it. AR is like an iceberg. The number of AR people willing to ‘go public’ and attend a rally is likely small, for obvious reasons; the number of AR believers who want to stay anonymous is much larger. Furthermore, it all depends on how narrow one wants to define the AR. I look at it from more of a ‘big tent’ perspective. It’s very hard to measure the true size of the AR. The very fact that, every other day, the NYT and its ilk publish ‘alarming’ stories about the AR is a pretty good measure that we are larger than they’ll admit… and a threat to them. Otherwise, they would simply ignore us.

5) The AR is buttressed and fueled by youth. This is an underreported aspect of the AR. Millennials and even Gen Z are rejecting PC to a more marked degree, and with more intensity, than older generations. And a rejection of PC = realizing that Whites aren’t bad.

6) Women, namely young women, are entering the AR at a fast pace. Vloggers like Lauren Southern, Lana Lokteff, and Brittany Pettipone are speaking to 20-somethings who don’t want to feel ashamed for being white.

7) The AR does not have more in common with the Left than traditional conservatism. While there is the potential for common ground with the left in some respects (e.g., a form of communitarianism), the AR perhaps had more in common with the Boomer generation Left (anti-globalism; trade protectionism; enforcing immigration law to help domestic workers, etc), but it has nothing in common with the New Left of today, who have abandoned those issues and are now entirely consumed with anti-white animus, open borders, and militant political correctness.

The AR rejects the hyper-individualism of traditional “free market” conservatism (which is itself strongly influenced by libertarianism) for having led us to a society of shallow materialism, an atomized society with no more traditions left. If we were an ethnically homogenous white country, like we were in say the 1950s, with shared WASP values and traditions (acculturated over hundreds of years), then a more ‘libertarian’ approach might work. We could ‘afford’ to absorb and temper the free market’s tendency to want to erode traditional norms. But we are long past that. Multiculturalism has led to a new era of tribalism, instigated by the Left. And Hollywood culture has gone from making movies that reinforced WASP values to a culture that despises them, makes fun of them, and otherwise shits on them, while glorifying every form of degenerate and transgressive behavior imaginable (in the name of individualism and ‘self-actualization’) and every form of non-white bad behavior (in the name of ‘diversity’).

Given all this, especially the radical demographic shifts unprecedented in human history, the next logical step for whites, as a natural reaction, is “identity politics for white people”. Just the other day, for example, a poll found that 55% of white people in the country believe that whites are discriminated about. Think about that. That’s a lot of white people and, at 55%, in necessarily includes a lot of traditional Democrats. I suspect many of these white people have to realize, or soon will, that the next step in the logic of identity politics is for white people to collectively look out for *their* interests as whites, given how every other ethnic group has organizations to promote and lobby for their races’ interests. This is what figures like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald have been working their lives to do. The taboo around this idea is losing its hold, particularly with younger generations. The taboo that an organization representing white interests is somehow ‘racist’, when the others aren’t, will fall in time, particularly as we get ever closer to the magic year when whites will be a minority in the very country they built.

8) The AR has an important antecedent in Paleoconservatism, from which figures like Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis were part of. But whereas many of the Paleos were religious, the AR is not religious per se.

9) There are some in the AR with grandiose visions of a pan-European white state, the repatriation of non-whites out of white countries, etc. This to me is pie-in-the-sky idealism. With some on the AR, a ‘virtue-spiraling’ takes place, which makes the movement harder to grow. Keeping it big-tent is the way to grow the movement.

10) The rapid ascent of the AR (out of essentially nowhere) in just the last few years is quite remarkable. In many ways, it is the U.S. playing catch-up to the much longer ‘New Right’ tradition that has existed in Europe for a much longer time. In Europe, their much older ‘Alt Right’ tradition has now successfully entered politics and parliaments. It remains to be seen whether something similar will happen in the States.

In summary, the MSM, GOP Inc, and guys like the one in this video, are struggling to make sense of what is going with this AR thing. 95% of the time they are totally missing the mark. This guy gets a few things right, but a lot of things wrong.

Posted in Alt-Right | Comments Off on Normie Michael Knowles: “What is the Alt-Right?”

RIP: George Young

If you want to know where the Young Brothers got their rock aesthetic from, what become the iconic and distilled sound of AC/DC, you must look to their older brother George, whose work with The Easybeats prefigured the basic song structure template that AC/DC built a career on.

For many years George’s work as a co-songwriter and co-producer with Harry Vanda led to a slew of hits.

Sadly, George has passed away:

George Young, the brother of AC/DC co-founders Malcolm and Angus Young, has died at the age of 70.

A former member of The Easybeats, George co-produced AC/DC’s early albums, including “TNT”, “Dirty Deeds Done Cheap” and “Let There Be Rock”. He started his own production company when The Easybeats split in 1970… He returned to co-produce AC/DC’s 1988 album “Blow Up Your Video” and 2000’s “Stiff Upper Lip”.

Here is a wonderful song by The Easybeats called “Sorry” (1966), written by George Young and Stevie Wright. You can hear the seeds of the AC/DC sound in this song’s power chords and overall song structure:

Here is another Easybeats song called “Good Times” (1968), written by Vanda & Young. Supposedly, when he heard this song for the first time on BBC radio, Paul McCartney called the radio station to request they immediately replay the song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adq6CrkiyZ0

Finally, you can really hear the roots of AC/DC in the song “Natural Man” (1973) by the Marcus Hook Roll Band, a short-lived rock band formed by Vanda and Young. (A very young Malcolm & Angus Young played on the band’s one album.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_S99uexdI

Posted in Music | Comments Off on RIP: George Young

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

I have a long review of the new movie Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017) up at Counter-Currents:

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017), a new film by writer/director S. Craig Zahler and which stars Vince Vaughn in the lead, enters the canon of recent films and TV shows dealing symbolically with the plight of white men in contemporary America. This theme is explored through the protagonist’s surface level patriotism, antagonisms between Mexicans and Anglos, and through the allegory of a beaten-down Christianity, as embodied in the character of Bradley Thomas (Vince Vaughn).

The variants of patriotism and Christianity depicted in the film, however, are not of the increasingly specious patriotism of Proposition Nation, nor the ascetic theologies and pathological altruism of Christianity’s most liberal proponents today. Rather, they signify a tired and ragged patriotism and an older, more muscular Christianity, where strength, honor, and mercy coalesced into a white Christendom, the heritage of which bound Western European cultures together and largely defined the contours of Western civilization.

Whatever Zahler’s intentions may have been in writing and directing this film, they do not necessarily have to align with the film’s communicative symbols. After a brief Jungian foray into how successful, resonant films can act as an expression of the collective unconscious, I will attempt some interpretive decoding of Brawl in Cell Block 99, the plot of which involves Bradley’s attempt to, so to speak, secure the existence of his family and a future for his white child. In the case of Brawl in Cell Block 99, discipline, stoicism, great violence, and ultimately personal sacrifice are required.

Read the rest here.

Posted in Film | Comments Off on Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Pete Townshend – Let’s See Action (1972)

Written 45 years ago, here’s Pete’s demo for “Let’s See Action”, with the maestro playing all instruments and doing all vocals. The song was one of the many tunes slated for The Who’s ill-fated Lifehouse project, which Pete decided to abandon, releasing some of the project’s songs as Who’s Next (1972).

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Pete Townshend – Let’s See Action (1972)

Mark Halperin

Aaaaand he’s Jewish.

Posted in Jewish | Comments Off on Mark Halperin

Civic Nationalism: Pt. 218

Audacious has a good post on how “Civic nationalism is implicit white nationalism” and Z Man has a good post on the “Civic Religion“.

Posted in Civic Nationalism, Political Theory | Comments Off on Civic Nationalism: Pt. 218

TNR: “University History Departments Have a Race Problem”

In The New Republic, Josephine Livingstone writes that “University History Departments Have a Race Problem”. The byline reads: “The alt right is appropriating medieval studies and classical scholarship. What can academics do to stop them?”

This October, Professor Matthew Gabriele of Virginia Tech’s religion department co-hosted a symposium at George Washington University called “The Middle Ages, the Crusades, & the Alt Right.” The conference was aimed at “bringing together scholars and journalists” to discuss “popular contemporary nostalgia for the Middle Ages, specifically the Crusades and ideas about Race.” The resurgent white supremacist movement has been appropriating medieval (or medieval-flavored) motifs in the public eye this year, taking up the “Deus Vult” slogan (or “God wills it,” purported to have been chanted by medieval Crusaders) and the so-called Celtic Cross. The symposium aimed to discuss “where those ideas come from, what the real Middle Ages was like, how universities are reacting to this newfound interest, and how these modern groups are themselves evolving.”

Oh, boy.

White nationalists have a long and storied history of abusing the premodern past for their own ideological ends. In our moment as in the original Nazis’, the nationalists believe that white identity’s roots lie in some long-lost cultural heritage dominated by white men. When I spoke to Professor Gabriele, he told me that the symposium was in part an extension of a piece he wrote for the Washington Post in response to the London terrorist attacks in June, which had prompted an uptick in the use of the word “crusade” in the press.

The new urgency of historical studies’ situation prompts a broader question for the humanities, especially for fields whose object of study is politically sensitive or prone to right-wing appropriation. Should historians take responsibility for the abuse and exploitation of the past by amateurs, or even by those within their own ranks? Is scholarship doomed to be complicit in the violence done in its name?

Yet a new level of SJW anxiety has been created.

How can a field of study be “politically insensitive”? I mean, really, what possible field of study (choose your domain of inquiry) is inherently “politically insensitive”?

The best paragraph:

In recent months, white supremacists have publicly claimed the iconography of medieval Europe in an attempt to shore up their identification with a fictional, homogenous or “pure” white past. Some academics have been willing to indulge them. From within medieval studies itself, the University of Chicago professor Rachel Fulton Brown has become a notable supporter of Milo Yiannopoulis (she is cited in the Buzzfeed Breitbart investigation), and writes blog posts with titles like “Three Cheers for White Men.” She has also been a contributor to Breitbart. This solidarity between outright advocates of white supremacy and a conservative academic was already scandalous. But Professor Brown strained matters further when she publicly attacked the nontenured, woman of color scholar Dorothy Kim, encouraging her to “learn some f*cking western European Christian history” after Kim wrote about the field of medievalism’s complicity with white nationalism.

I want to buy Rachel Fulton Brown a drink for that line.

The piece then frames the cartoon-of-a-black-roman-soldier kerfuffle that Sailer noted, before landing on this crucible of pomo methodology:

They want to stress three main things: First, what we know about the past is shaped by our contemporary biases; second, the tools we use to study the past were fashioned by long-dead scholarly forebears whose ideologies have to be interrogated; and third, there is no one fixed version of the past. History exists in a million fractal ways in a million different places and according to a million different subjective experiences. “Certainty” can offer us nothing but lies.

All in a day’s work at TNR.

Posted in Academia, Anti-White, Political Correctness, Postmodernism, White Identity | Comments Off on TNR: “University History Departments Have a Race Problem”

Report: John Kelly Said He Wants to Admit Zero Refugees

From The Daily Beast:

White House chief of staff John Kelly reportedly suggested during a debate over how many refugees should be allowed into the U.S. that the country should admit zero. The New York Times reports that the incident is an example of how Kelly, despite being billed as a moderating force inside the White House, has “made clear that he is more aligned with President Trump than anticipated.” Kelly reportedly shares many of the same hardline views as the president on immigration and national security issues.

That’s “zero”.

Posted in Immigration, Republican Party | Comments Off on Report: John Kelly Said He Wants to Admit Zero Refugees

Steps Toward RaHoWa – Pt. 28,193

Incident by incident, this one from NYC, we are getting closer to RaHoWa:

Police announced Wednesday that they are looking for what they described as a black male, “approximately 30-years-old, with a bald head,” who allegedly threw some sort of liquid in the eyes of a 13-year-old girl Tuesday afternoon, and then made what they described as an “anti-white remark” to her.

“This is for you, white b—h!,” the man allegedly said to the teenager.

This story, though, will be forgotten by EOD.

Posted in Anti-White | Comments Off on Steps Toward RaHoWa – Pt. 28,193

Pound For Pound

In TAC, Scott Beauchamp reviews the new book The Bughouse: The Poetry, Politics, and Madness of Ezra Pound, by Daniel Swift (“Ezra Pound, Locked Away”):

Ezra Pound is a litmus test as much as he is a poet. His cartoonish anti-semitism and support of Mussolini during the Second World War, made famous by a series of almost unintelligible radio broadcasts for which he was charged with treason, have come to overshadow Pound’s poetic genius in the popular imagination. He isn’t Pound the poet, he’s Pound the fascist poet. And his reputation forces us to confront the question of whether art can, or should, stand apart from the politics of the artist. Answer “yes” and you open yourself to accusations of fascist, or at least reactionary, sympathies—regardless of what your politics might actually be. Answer “no” and you admit, in some small way, that art itself doesn’t exist except to serve as a kind of elaborate Trojan Horse for political opinions…

Of Pound’s alleged ‘insanity’:

In 1946 when a jury found Pound to be “of unsound mind,” unfit to face trial, that decision was based in large part on a reading of his poetry during the hearing. Swift writes that Pound’s lawyer was “presenting poetry as proof of insanity.” And obviously it worked. “The doctor is working as literary critic…” writes Swift, “So much depends upon the way in which we might be willing to read Pound’s poetry.”

In 1955, Pound was diagnosed with Psychotic Disorder, undifferentiated. By the time he was released from St. Elizabeth’s in 1958, his diagnosis had changed to Narcissistic Personality Disorder, qualified as “permanent and incurable.” These diagnoses were based almost entirely on interpretations of Pound’s poetry, or things Pound said about politics, literature, and his family history. In searching, elegant prose, Swift shows us how the entire institution of mental health didn’t simply fail to comprehend the vast complications of Pound’s work, but, in a sense, reified Pound himself by construing his mind as a problem to be solved. Probably not coincidentally, the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM) was published during Pound’s time in St. Elizabeth’s. The manual is a comprehensive (although constantly changing) list of definitions of mental aberrations. Nowhere in the manual is there a definition of sanity itself. Swift’s book implicitly suggests that perhaps this is because “sanity” is itself a concept that shifts to adhere to the political and social status quo. A sane person is someone who works comfortably within the logic of capitalist, liberal, vulgar materialist culture—the very things that Pound raged against.

Another complication to the narrative that Pound was completely unhinged from shared reality was the number of luminaries and aspiring artists who visited him while he was in St. Elizabeth’s. “It was the world’s least orthodox literary salon,” writes Swift. “…convened by a fascist, held in a lunatic asylum…Among the many who came to visit – tourists, young activists, ambassadors and academics – were foremost the poets. T.S. Eliot…Robert Lowell, Marianne Moore, W.S. Merwin, Charles Olson, Kathleen Raine, Allen Tate and William Carlos Williams…John Berryman…Louis Zukofsky…Randall Jarrell, Archibald MacLeish…” The list is a who’s who of mid-century literati.

Posted in Literature | Comments Off on Pound For Pound