Purged By the Paleos: A Reflection

As we all know, personality conflicts among us is a terrible plague on our house. To the extent possible, and even a little bit more than that, we should avoid them. We should absolutely never write about them either. Of course, in my case it’s different. More than an attack per se, I would like to warn readers of this publication about my experiences with Thomas Fleming and Chronicles magazine.

In early 2014, Chronicles launched a new and finally bearable website. In tandem with this, they wanted to take on new, particularly younger, bloggers for the site. At the time I was writing under a name that was popping up with reasonable regularity on American Renaissance, Alternative Right, etc., and had struck up a correspondence with another dissident who had started writing for Chronicles. He reached out to me about blogging for the site and I was flattered. I told him that I did not write under my real name, and had written for sites a great deal more racial than the crowd at the Rockford Institute (the nonprofit that puts out Chronicles) were generally comfortable with. He told me not to worry, and that if I was interested he would talk to Thomas Fleming, the editor.

Here I suppose I should qualify and explain my interest in Chronicles to begin with. Yes, it has its faults: repetitiveness, overly-religious, and insufficiently racial being the big three. But it also has serious strengths: Chilton Williamson Jr. is a masterful writer, and his regular column “What’s Wrong With the World” is invariably a pleasure to read; Srdja Trifkovic’s foreign policy analysis is always excellent; and historian and American Renaissance conference regular Roger McGrath is a frequent contributor. I will also admit, there was a strong allure of writing for a publication that had been around for so long, and I liked the idea of following in the footsteps of Sam Francis, and of maybe getting printed in a non-digital magazine.

Dr. Fleming got in touch with me, and said he liked my writing and would love to take me on. So far so good. Then he said he needed to know my real name. I mulled it over, asked for advice from some fellow dissidents, and wrote back saying I couldn’t do that, and that I was sorry if that meant I could not write for him, but that was just the way things were. Much to my surprise, he wrote back to say: fine, no real name needed, just pick-up a Chronicles-only name.

I was okay with that, but then the problems started rolling in. There would be no payment, which was alright (after all, Radix doesn’t pay me), but I would have to write once a week — which was not so great. Then I learned Dr. Fleming does not know how to use Google Drive, which was an enormous hassle as I did not own a computer at the time. Then he informed me that I was no longer (as I had in the past) allowed to link to “racialist” websites like SBPDL, AmRen, and the like. Looking back, at that point I should have just stopped writing and cut ties. But I foolishly kept toeing the line — for reasons that now escape me.

After a few months, I got busy, and wrote in to say I would be taking a break for a while. I was informed that this was no problem, but a few months later, I was back on the site and realized my name was no longer listed anywhere. So I searched my name on the site and nothing came up. I dug up an old link to one of my pieces and it led to an error page. I had been purged. I and I was so outraged at my deletion that I went through the indignity of writing to Dr. Fleming asking for an explanation. Nothing. So I waited two months and wrote again, and again got no response. Somehow I managed to anger Thomas Fleming so much that he deleted all the writing I did for free for his new site and then stopped talking to me whatsoever.

Sure, it can all be found on the WayBack Machine, and Alternative Right re-published on piece, (on that note, anyone is free to republish anything of mine) but Dr. Fleming’s petty purge should not go unreported.

In the end, it may not matter though. As of this writing, the Rockford Institute does not even have a website, even if Chronicles got a new one. Their once famous and well-attended annual “John Randolph Club” has had a pitiful two public gathering since 2012.

Meanwhile, NPI is publishing books regularly, and the New Century Foundation (which is behind American Renaissance) just released another book. Both have regular conferences as well, as do other groups and figures that have fallen out with Chronicles: The Ludwig von Mises Institute has plenty of gatherings and schools, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has annual “Property and Freedom Society” conferences, and Paul Gottfried (yes, for all his paleo-inclinations, he got the ax from Dr. Fleming a few years ago) has the H.L. Mencken Club.

Even now that Dr. Fleming has stepped down, Chilton Williamson Jr. has informed me he is not interested in re-posting anything I wrote, and Tom Piatak won’t even respond to my e-mails.

Screen Shot 2016-02-13 at 5.43.33 PM

Screen Shot 2016-02-13 at 5.44.02 PM

 

And under the new leadership of both of these gentleman, Chronicles has seen a proliferation of anti-identitarian writing: Incidentally WhiteThe Cheap Trick of Whiteness, and White Like Me.

So I have to say: stay clear.

Purged By the Paleos: A Reflection

A Perfect Example

Albert Einstein said, “if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well.” I think there is great truth to the quip, and although it was likely not his intent, the effect it has had on me is to always seek perfect examples. Recently I came across one for Neoconservatism that is worth sharing. It comes from Joshua Muravchik’s Heaven on Earth, a book that attempts to track the “rise and fall of Socialism.” Despite being far from new, it is steadily becoming the book on the failures of Communism within the overlapping circles of Conservatism Inc and Libertarianism Inc — or the “Kochtopus,” if you will. Being a part of said circles, I trudged through all four-hundred-plus pages of it recently, and discovered this incredible passage, from its chapter on “Fascism”:

Fascism also borrowed much of the paraphernalia of socialism. Where the socialists decked out their legions in red shirts, the fascists countered with black or brown or silver. Where the socialists sang the Internationale, so the fascists had their anthems, such as the Italian Giovinezza or the German Horst Wessel Lied. Where the socialists hailed each other with a clenched-fist salute, the fascists, and not just in Italy, adopted the stiff-armed “Roman salute.” Like variations on a musical theme, these small changes were reminiscent of the way the Christian church devised its own versions of the Sabbath and the sacramental bread and wine of Judaism. They were reminders of Mussolini’s point that fascism was a heresy of socialism — bearing much the same relationship as Christianity to Judaism or other heretical schisms.

Dissecting the above is quite frankly, not worth my time. Perhaps the only other thing that should be noted is that the author of the above wrote another book as well, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny.

Originally published by Chronicles on June 6th, 2014

A Perfect Example

Why Are We in Jordan?

As an isolationist (perhaps so much so that the “i” should be capitalized), reading about the goings on of America’s military in places aside from the Rio Grande is not something I normally do. The US’s military hegemony is a fact I am aware of and completely against – why bother with the nitty-gritty of it when I could be reading Guy de Maupassant? However, I feel obligated to read the newspaper, so from time to time, catch a news story that drags me deep down a rabbit hole of weaponized surrealism.

A perfect example of this transpired recently when I read the headline, “Pentagon reportedly assigns 13k servicemen to first ever US-Jordanian-Israeli joint drill.” It struck me as jarring, 13,000 American soldiers playing wars games with Israeli troops in the Jordanian desert? Not quite. There are Americans playing war games in Israel and Jordan simultaneously, but not as one, with the 13K divided about evenly between the two nations. The exercise in Israel (Juniper Cobra) does not surprise me, but the one in Jordan (Eager Lion) did. I recall American military build-up in that country when Syria was in the news every day last summer, but sending in 6,000 plus soldiers seemed like overkill.

Apparently I could not have been more wrong. “Eager Lion” is now in its fourth year, and multiple countries participate every time, perhaps serving as a beard so President Obama can claim to be a conciliatory internationalist, as opposed to a Nobel-Peace-Prize-toting-imperialist. Last year, the United States left Patriot Missiles and F-16 jets behind “to counter potential threats from the civil war in neighboring Syria.” This year it was announced that no armaments would be left behind, but I can find no proof that it was announced beforehand last year.

Recent news of an American suicide bomber in Syria has more or less pushed out all other Syria-related news, but there are developments of note that pertain to Eager Lion. The fighting has been intensifying in the country’s south-west corner. In particular, just outside the city of Quneitra, which is close enough to Israel that said nation occasionally controls it, and Daraa, just a hop and a skip away from Jordan. One also wonders the coincidence of Eager Lion beginning the morning of May 25th, with the Pope having arrived in Israel the night before. The same goes for the fact that Syrian elections take place on June 3rd, and Eager Lion ends on June 8th.

Again, I am no expert in foreign affairs, but should Jordan ever end up with a serious number of American troops/bases, the US would have a line of armed satellites cutting the Middle East in half: Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Along with serving to block any kind of revamped Nasserism, it would serve as the penultimate step in geographically connecting the ever-expanding NATO to the Middle-Eastern oil-puppets. The final step would be installing a pro-West government in Syria, Lebanon, or Iran – unless a large Kurdistan were to come about. This would serve to neatly encircle Russia in a way that was never accomplished during the Cold War; and that doesn’t involve perpetual realpolitik with a rising China.

But remember, Russia is the aggressor, Israel our greatest ally, and democracy our highest ideal.

Originally published by Chronicles on June 2nd, 2014

Why Are We in Jordan?

The Death of a Girl

Recently, 19-year old Minnesotan Alyssa Funke, despite getting straight A’s at the University of Wisconsin, decided to star in a pornographic video. Shortly after it was posted online, someone watching it recognized her. Word spread. Harassment via social media ensued, as more and more people from her high school heard the news. She remained superficially defiant, tweeting “Pornstar Status” and “FAMOUS for dayzzzzzzz.” Three days later she shot and killed herself. To put it in cold statistical terms, that put her at about the halfway mark for the average life-expectancy of a pornstar — which sits at about 36. And in an odd coincidence, it happened almost exactly thirty years after Colleen Applegate committed suicide, also by a shot to the head. Ms. Applegate was also from Minnesota (her town is about a 45 minute drive from Ms. Funke’s), and had decided to become an “adult actress” in her teens. She lived to be twenty after a brush with fame.

The news story of Ms. Funke’s death is of course traveling like wildfire, and will of course completely disappear from the headlines in one week. What is most shocking, is how much shame and self-hatred this girl felt for what she had done, despite living in a pornography drenched society. A quick Google search can reveal statistics like, “Every second, there is an average 28,258 internet users watching pornography. Over 35% of internet downloads contain pornographic matter…. every 39 minutes a new pornographic video is made in the United States.” It also goes without saying how pornographic advertisements for clothes, perfume, etc. have become.

Pornography, and crass sexuality more generally, is part of the current American cultural landscape; and this has been so for at least a decade now. If this is the case (I can’t imagine a counter-argument), then how is it that someone can still be made to feel so ashamed of their formal entrance into porn that they take their own life? Given how much porn the US produces, consumes, and displays, why would anyone shame someone they knew who had entered the industry? It is a truly cruel irony. Alyssa Funke is like a sacrificial lamb for society as a whole; paying the ultimate price for a guilty populace that rather find an occasional whipping boy than change its destructive habits.

Originally published by Chronicles on May 24th, 2014

The Death of a Girl

Hunting

“I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob,” said Dianne Feinstein of the renewed pressure to investigate the Benghazi attacks. I find the sentence very clunky and confusing, but I believe she is saying that a crowd of people is working very hard to find another crowd, to commit a lynching. By which she means House Republicans are trying to stir up their base to go after Obama. Although I do believe my analysis of her meaning is correct, perhaps someone should remind Ms. Feinstein that generally speaking, when you are hunting for something, you kill it. Presumably she does not mean that House Republicans want to kill lynch mobs, since she seems disposed to thinking that Republicans are lynch mobs. True, colloquially speaking “hunt” does not always imply kill or harm; there is “house hunting” after all. But still, when you “house hunt,” you look for a particular thing that exists, the same goes when you are “hunting for a parking space” or some such. So if you were on the hunt for a lynch mob, you would be actively seeking a lynch mob you know to exist. But to do that, you would probably just go onto a neo-Nazi web-forum or ask an uncle of poor character. How would you find a lynch mob by forming a special committee in Congress? If the committee were created with the purpose of finding and rooting out lynch mobs, you could say it was on a “hunting mission for a lynch mob” — but the committee is investigating corrupt/lying politicians and an event that transpired in Libya. Although the people that killed four Americans in Benghazi just before the last election are generally considered terrorists, and sometimes “rioters,” one could probably make the argument that they constituted a kind of “lynch mob.” However, this new committee is not investigating the murders in far away lands, the committee is investigating the politicians at home (if one can refer to Washington D.C. as “home”) – and Ms. Feinstein certainly does not think of the Obama Administration as a lynch mob.

Were she a bit more articulate, she may have said something like, “I think it’s a mission to stir up a lynch mob.” The word “hunt” implies too direct an action to fit well in her liberal, race-baiting allusion. While no one should be surprised that Ms. Feinstein knows little about hunting, we should perhaps be surprised by her lack of eloquent diction; she did go to Stanford after all. What was it that the (always eloquent) late Joe Sobran said?

In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college

Originally published by Chronicles on May 21st, 2014

Hunting

us, them, and Him

“Splittism” is a word that seems to have been invented, and subsequently only used, by Communists. In the second half of the twentieth century, “splittism” was an essential part of every Marxist group across the planet. Much like Marxists themselves, the word has all but disappeared, but it was once used to banish all who disagreed with you within a party, on the charge that they were disagreeing because they wanted to cause a split. Somehow the irony was lost on everyone, that the punishment for this was to make an immediate split. It was the perpetual instances of splittism, and the subsequent splits, that makes tracking the history of Communist groups so taxing. How can anyone be expected to remember why the Left Socialist Revolutionaries split from the Socialist Revolutionary Party? Was it over whether or not the proletariat or the vanguard would lead the revolution? Perhaps it was about whether reform was acceptable as opposed to violent revolution. Maybe it was the “Christian question.”

Although I am glad that both of those parties are defunct, I must say I am disappointed that the word “splittism” has gone the same way. What better word can be applied to the eternal divisions within political minorities regarding matters only they care about? Already this month the “hard right” has seen a dizzying number of back and forths about each other’s relative purity, and, well, the Christian question.

Ready? The Matts of TradYouth were asked to take a break from racialist topics by their church, so they did. Greg Johnson of Counter Currents was livid and said many a harsh thing. Rod Dreher of The American Conservative said he was happy about the sabbatical, but lamented that the end result would be a turn to Neo-Paganism on the part of the Matts. Gregory Hood on Radix wrote a lengthy piece on the matter. Another church posted on TradYouth to express their disgust with the church that had brought about the sabbatical. More recently Matt Parrott has stated his sabbatical is already over, but that he was unsure when the other Matt would come back. Greg Johnson has so far stayed mute on this, and Dreher seems to be wrong about the Pagan prediction. Is all of that clear, comrade?

Writing something similar to the above about the positions regarding Ukraine within Paleo and Libertarian circles over the last few weeks would be just as easy, and just as complicated. There is always plenty of splittism to go around on just about every issue, though curiously, everyone is staunchly against splittism. Like with the Communists, splits must be had because others are causing unnecessary splits. Furthermore, for every piece of writing demanding the necessity of a split, there is one reminding everyone to focus on the bigger issues, maintain a big tent, and focus on the real issues. For a perfect template of this, see Robert Higgs’ old blogpost, Against Libertarian Infighting.

Thankfully, I have never felt the need to write anything declaring banishment or encouraging unity. I cannot imagine a more thankless and unproductive task. Splittism is an inherent part of politics, ideology, etc., Communists were merely the ones who made a word for it briefly common. With the naturalness of splittism, is the naturalness of reconciliation — and then more splits of course. Looking over this perpetual cycle is for me the best antidote to becoming a true political animal, and should strike a particularly strong among the faithful. These are human things, human quibbles in a very material world. If there is any solution to all of this, it lies in teaching (and reminding) people, that there is a life after the splits.

Originally published by Chronicles on May 10th, 2014

us, them, and Him

Show Me the Money

In Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, much attention is paid to the unraveling of America’s legal system over the last century; a topic worthy of more attention than it often receives from right-wing counter-culture-ists. While many of the cultural figures the late Mr. Robertson examined (Eldridge Cleaver, Susan Sontag, etc.) were well known, his documentation of lesser known but more powerful, Cultural Marxists (e.g. Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis) in the legal world makes for hard reading. Yet it was that section of his book that my thoughts naturally drifted to upon learning that a group of Democratic congressmen are agitating to have Donald Sterling pay taxes on the two and a half million dollar fine he has been saddled with. The author, who pulled no punches, (its author was also the founder and editor of Instauration magazine) wrote frankly:

The more minority influence has been brought to bear on the American legal system, the more its breakdown is becoming apparent. The English common law, which derived from Northern European folk law, functioned adequately, at times superbly, in the United States as long as the nation was dominated by people of English and Northern European descent. But when minorities became an important element in both the law-making and the law- breaking process, American law underwent a deep transformation.

It becomes harder still to ignore the above passage when looking over exactly which Democratic congressmen are behind the bill. It is being sponsored by one Antonio Cárdenas, who (at the time of this writing) recently tweeted, “Fixing broken #immigration sys=supercharge economy&allow top scientists&researchers 2 stay. They train&learn here, let them stay #TimeIsNow”. Sr. Cárdenas’ co-sponsors are: Joe García (D-Fla.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.). A complete dossier on each of this gang would reach a length inappropriate for a mere blog post, so only slices from each of their illustrious careers will be highlighted:

  • Sr. García was hand picked by President Obama to serve as director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact and Diversity of the United States Department of Energy
  • Sr. Grijalva was not only part of a radical Mestizo group in his college days, but has has lamented that, “In a perfect, perfect world we’d have an open border”
  • Ms. Napolitano may serve as the group’s token white, but she has served on Congress’s Hispanic Caucus, and gained some notoriety a few years ago for making a pretty penny by loaning money to her own campaign — at 18% interest rates
  • Sr. Ruiz’s website advertises (under “Standing Up for What’s Right”, no less) that, “The executive order to stop deporting young people who were brought here through no fault of their own is very important to me.”
  • Brother Rush requires no introduction for those of you who have been reading Steve Sailer regularly for more than a couple years. He is none other than the ex-Black Panther who trounced one Barack Obama nearly a decade ago in a Chicago election — by cornering the black vote.

What happy warriors they must be in their attempt to salt the wound of man who gave money to both the NAACP and the United Negro College Fund. And it must be as warriors that they see themselves; their proposal is the perfect example of using taxation as a political weapon — not necessary means in funding a necessary state. However, the same goes for those who levied the fine against Mr. Sterling in the first place, as fines have historically been used as either restitution for victims, or to pay for courts, police, public defendants, etc. The fine in this case serves no such function, and it does not pretend to. The fine serves to inform Mr. Sterling that he is bad and wrong, and a tax on the fine will serve to remind him of that all the more.

But the adulteration of law has never bothered those who have a divinely secular mission to make the world a better place, and anti-white politicians and talking heads are of course no exception. The real question at hand is, “if Donald Sterling can be fined two and a half million, and then likely taxed, how much can the rest of us be fined for saying… anything?” To appreciate the implications of this, read John Seiler’s recent Chronicles piece, “Bathroom Break” and consider what might happen if being charged with hate crimes were to suddenly be replaced with “hate fines.”

Originally published by Chronicles on May 7th, 2014

Show Me the Money