In a sane society, no one would have to justify why he believes the same principles that his ancestors did for hundreds of years before. Over the entire history of European civilization, from the discovery of agriculture until, say, 2009, I doubt that a single member of my genetic tree believed that “demiflux” was a valid gender–nor if I consulted most ancestors from over the last few hundred years at random would they have any difficult answering:
- Do different races have different characteristics?
- Are men and women naturally suited to different roles?
- Is heterosexuality more natural than homosexuality?
- Do longstanding institutions like the Church and State exist for valid reasons?
Nevertheless, taking the same positions that would have struck all pre-Baby Boom generations as blatantly obvious would today qualify as a revolutionary act, with potentially devastating consequences. As the reaction to The New York Times’ profile of Tony Hovater—the so-called “Nazi next door” showed—if the Left considers you a Nazi, they won’t just yell at you; they will actively work to make sure you starve to death through enforced unemployment. The Left would not even tolerate a wrong-thinker like Hovater working as a part-time cook at a small diner and began a hysterical campaign to fire him and make sure he could never work again. Even more significant, but less reported, was the fact that the same mob demanded that Hovater’s wife and brother-in-law lose their jobs too. In the upside down world of 2017, it is a firing offense to be related to a woman . . . who stands by a husband . . . who holds political beliefs that The New York Times described in the following terms:
He said he wanted to see the United States become “an actually fair, meritocratic society.” Absent that, he would settle for a white ethno-state “where things are fair, because there’s no competing demographics for government power or for resources.” His fascist ideal, he said, would resemble the early days in the United States, when power was reserved for landowners “and, you know, normies didn’t really have a whole hell of a lot to say.”
Granted, these beliefs are controversial now. But they would have been unremarkable for most of American history. Thomas Jefferson became president of the United States while espousing similar beliefs. Today, the Left won’t trust short-order cooks to hold them.
Perhaps the best metaphor for the intellectual Right today comes from G.K. Chesterton, who described, in the first few pages of his Orthodoxy, a British explorer who became lost at sea and landed in England, thinking it was an undiscovered country. To journey rightward can mean risking your job, your livelihood, and even your relationships with your own family. But it is all to “discover” facts already known for most of history. It is the equivalent, as Chesterton put it, of storming a “barbaric temple which turned out to be the Pavilion at Brighton.” To Chesterton, this was a joyful experience combining “the terrors of going abroad…with all the humane security of coming home again.”
For us, teetering on the border between social-media censorship and outright government repression, it is hard to find much in the way of “humane security.” The media, Silicon Valley, our political elites, Hollywood celebrities, Fortune 500 companies, and their hordes of enablers have done everything in their power to stigmatize, destroy, humiliate, and bury every common-sense tradition passed on through generations. Everywhere that some authentic expression of the white European experience has evolved, reflecting the accumulated wisdom of countless generations, there our ruling class attacked, seeking to replace our real culture with the mass-produced e-snark of corporate celebrities like J.K. Rowling or George Takei.
This is a wholesale replacement of everything organic, true, and beautiful that evolved from the lived experience of a real, concrete people struggling to understand and improve the world around them. In its rejection of all that, the polyglot replacement culture is at the very least post-European. But even more, it is post-human. It is the reflection of a soulless, monolithic corporate pseudo-culture that exists only to provide complex technological toys to a passive consumer base whose chief interests are porn and Netflix and whose social and political worldview, to the extent they have one at all, is solely crafted around virtue-signaling points and getting the most likes on Facebook.
Our ancestors—who made real sacrifices to their families and nation to build civilization out the empty American wilderness—would have instantly seen this new culture as alien and disgusting. But it is only through great effort that we can see the same.
This reversion of past insights also explains the sheer hatred that our present elite directed toward Roy Moore. The actual substance of his supposed “sexual misconduct” is beside the point. In our own porn-soaked age, and after enduring years of leftist attempts to normalize pedophilia, the the idea that liberals could be outraged at Moore dating women who were—quite literally—“barely legal” is too hypocritical to take seriously. (Indeed, just days before the first Moore accusations broke, Newsweek even ran an article complaining that the alt-right unfairly uses pedophilia as a political weapon too often.)
The real reason that leftists hated Roy Moore is the same reason they have always hated the rest of Alabama. It is the reason that Wonkette published an article entitled “Inbred Alabama Hicks Can’t Even Spell Why They Hate Transgenders So Much,” with the subtitle “Put a fence around the state and call it Camp Moron.” It is why Jon Stewart would run a Daily Show segment smirking that Alabama gauche political decisions come from its voters being educated in Alabama public schools. (Needless to say, liberals never mocked the thirteen black Baltimore schools that generated no single student proficient in math.) In short, they hate Alabama because it expresses to them unabashed white and religious traditionalism, and they hated Roy Moore because he was the face of that traditionalism.
Moore, after all, was the same man who built his public career on loud expressions of his Christian faith, when, as a judge, he refused to recognize gay marriage or remove the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. Even worse, his reasons for doing so lay in Biblical interpretations that the average Daily Show viewer would find completely incomprehensible, if not evil. And, in an age when the urban and intellectual centers are full of males who naturally shrink from confrontation, these acts of defiance reflected a masculine sense of resolve.
Each of these aspects, piled one on top of the other, motivated a nearly deranged desire to destroy him. And, because this is ultimately part of a war for the soul of our country and the Left plays for keeps, this destruction must include humiliation, as well. In the ultimate twist of the knife, the Left accused Moore of sexual perversion—which they normally celebrate—to claim he was a bad Christian—which they normally despise. Thus, the particularly galling argument that a bien-pensant like Jimmy Kimmel is really a better Christian than Moore, solely because of his “progressive values,” and despite the fact that he is far too sophisticated to believe in silly things like church doctrine.
In the wake of Moore’s loss, it has become fashionable for some on the Right to claim victory for a more serious, race realist and immigration-skeptical right over Moore’s old Bible-thumping, Moral Majority style. But this position fails to address why the elites tried to so hard to destroy Moore in the first place. The fact that all ranks of the Cathedral joined together to take out this one man gives us insight on where their priorities lie, and where we, in turn, should direct our efforts.
Throughout my years in fringe-right circles, I have encountered adherents of every esoteric ideology, from neo-pagans and Odinists to Nietzscheans, Evolians, primitivists, anarcho-capitalists, Objectivists, Eurasianists, and agorists. I’ve met people who identify with lost causes from the antebellum South, to the ephemeral American interwar “Old Right,” to the Stuart and Hapsburg dynasties. I even understand that there are right-wing admirers of Muammar Gaddafi’s pan-Arab socialism, though I’ve never met one personally.
Ultimately, though, despite their seeming novelty, none of these philosophies offer up a real challenge to the modern world. For one thing, the fact that they are so offbeat makes them unthreatening.
But on a deeper level, none of these philosophies are challenging because our system itself is based on weirdness. It is socially acceptable to die your hair any color, identify with any gender, or adopt any fetish. In this kind of world Odinism may shock a few liberals, but it is ultimately just another manufactured identity, a sort of right-wing Rachel Dolezal-ism wherein suburban kids from Rockville, Maryland, decide to worship Thor because it “triggers the snowflakes.” Though the “snowflakes” may be triggered, they intuitively understand the Odinist’s choice because, like their own identities, it is a choice made by deracinated people that bears no connection to any living tradition those people ever experienced.
If we really want to stand against the evil of our time, we would do well to be less exotic and more normal: less Viking and more Christian, less like Zarathustra and more like your great-grandfather. G.K. Chesterton, too, admitted that he began his intellectual journey with the modernist desire to be unique and original and create a new philosophy from scratch, but that “when I put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.” It may be that we on the Outer Right are destined to the same fate, as we finish what appears in retrospect to be the implausible intellectual journey from Rothbard to Nietzsche, and finally to resting within the centuries-wide mean of Western thought.
But one thing is certain: the last thing that our enemies absolutely will tolerate is a proud white man who holds the moral convictions of his grandfathers. From Tony Hovater to Roy Moore, they will spare no effort to destroy him. The fact that Hovater was an unremarkable guy with a minimum wage job did not prevent the unmitigated hatred of the most powerful political-corporate-media complex the world has ever known being directed at him personally. But if some day they come for you, and the world seems dark and hopeless, never forget what millennia of experience have shown: that you are normal and they are the aberration. And like anything sick, empty, and unnatural, they too shall fall.