In The Forest Passage, Ernst Jünger references Oedipus and the Sphinx to illustrate that what he calls “the void” compels man to interrogate himself. By this he means that we stand confronted by an inner yet simultaneously higher mystery, the fear of which we must overcome if we are to optimize ourselves—just as the forest is at once a refuge, and a place of deep foreboding.
Jünger was a radical individualist, a believer in the ultimate prerogative of the rarified spirit—in some sense intensely Christian, yet also a Nietzschean relativist of sorts—and it occurred to me when reading him that Heidegger, in contrast, by asking “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” took man’s confrontation with the void in the exact opposite direction—into the desert, as Nietzsche might say. Although his Dasein is conceptually similar to Jünger’s forest, with this suicidally literal-minded question, Heidegger interrogated all of existence, except failed to look within. His approach is analogous to Nazism’s misspent intensity and titanic hubris.
Of course, Heidegger was an enthusiastic party member, while Jünger openly disdained the NSDAP, resigning from his WWI veteran’s association when its Jewish members were expelled.
Because they aren’t the party in power—far from it—I can’t quite take the same attitude toward the multifarious alt-right that Jünger once took to monolithic Nazism. In fact, I basically concur with nearly every alt-right meme—14 (if not 88), anarcho-tyranny, degeneracy, media coordination, biological determinism (to a degree), white genocide—and also realize that a lot of arguments against the alt-right amount to feckless denial, e.g., the assumption that because multiculturalism is inexorable, resistance is futile; or that redpilling precludes judging people on individual merit. Furthermore, although I’m half-Jewish on my father’s side and proud of who I am (as a wayward 21-23 year old, I even served in the Israeli army), I see the Jews for exactly what they are (a topic I’ll address in a forthcoming essay, along with the complicated question of why I choose to remain Jewish.) Still, I’ve had ample occasion to observe and ponder anti-semitism over the course of my life, and there’s just something so goddamned apoplectically cult-like about it. Once the JQ takes on enough importance for your worldview, you just aren’t saying yes to anything.
The following bit of cocksure bleating from the normally incisive Chateau Heartiste provides a good example:
Ted Colt notices,
“One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade
EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!
If your Alt-Right brand isn’t ‘anti-semitic’ then you’re not alt-right”
I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.
Wow. Ted Colt, huh? “Branding,” while bitching on the monetized interwebs about consumerism. “No further than Wikipedia,” indeed. Isn’t that a Jew-run outfit?
It tires me to argue with this middle-school caliber drivel, to rattle off litanies of phenomena that are driving world events, other than a lot of Jews being shitty, disgusting, and politically active; or to point out the very basic-bitch fact that what Zionists are doing in the US is no different than a great many other foreign grifters milling around, raining bukake on the bloated, insensate pudding vagina we have for a system in this country, hoping the next queef will blow their direction. What bears pointing out, however, is that Chateau’s sensibility is cribbed wholly and directly from Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist infamous for his thesis that Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy aimed at weakening Gentile host societies.
I’ll leave anyone who’s not familiar with MacDonald to do their own research. I’m also going to leave off rehashing the many criticisms that have been leveled at him. Moldbug, of course, provided a comprehensive alternate theory, though the one essay where he takes up MacDonald’s thesis itself is characteristically Spock-like and peremptorily dismissive. For being at once impishly understated and duly comprehensive, however, Derbyshire’s review is the most direct.
What you might take from MacDonald’s work is that inter-ethnic enmity is a two-way street—especially if you’ve been fire-hosed your entire life with the liberal narrative of perennial white/male/Gentile/hetero guilt. But in fact, MacDonald’s thesis is the exact inverse of that, so the street is still one-way:
With his thousand-year-old mercantile dexterity he is far superior to the still helpless, and above all boundlessly honest, Aryans…. While he seems to overflow with ‘enlightenment,’ ‘progress,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race…. His ultimate goal in this stage is the victory of ‘democracy’…. It is most compatible with his requirements; for it excludes the personality and puts in its place the majority characterized by stupidity, incompetence, and last but not least, cowardice….
….und so weiter. I guess a plurality’s better than a full majority. As for boundless honesty, that point can probably best be disputed by the Plains Indians, or anyone who has ever read Thucydides, Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Dale Carnegie. Was PT Barnum of Jewish descent, or just the bearded lady?
The full-retard anti-semite will usually balk at being associated with Hitler, calling it a libel although he agrees with der Führer entirely. But I didn’t just quote Mein Kampf in order to associate Kevin MacDonald with Hitler—there’d be no need for that. Rather, I’m quoting Hitler in order to provide the smidgeon of contrast necessary for pointing out how incredibly innovative and thoughtful a theory like MacDonald’s would be, in spite of every flaw—if it was original. But it isn’t. On the contrary, it’s the best attested theory of history in all of history. Feel free to agree with it, of course, but if you stumbled upon it as if upon a revelation, and felt your scattered erudition suddenly bundle itself tightly into a faggot (or fasces, if you prefer) of clarity and purpose, then you may as well be holding a bouquet of balloons there, luftmensch.
Judaism is obviously inflected with a snide aloofness that is eminently distasteful. And of course MacDonald’s right about the emotional intensity, the intellectual domineering and the history with money lending. But if you find all this more sinister than it is pathetic, and need three volumes with thousands of footnotes to prove it, then you’d probably rather just point to where they hurt you, because you’re not working with a full pack of crayons.
But MacDonald’s critique is not strictly of Judaism as a belief system—to the extent such a critique is contained in his work it’s just a lot of cherry-picked quotes employed to prop up a misapprehension of the historical context and theological nuance of the Hebrew Bible as egregious as any local rabbi’s. MacDonald has really just authored a prosecutorial brief, thereby updating village scapegoating (negative transference) for an age that demands the pretense of forensics, and that every boogyman archetype conform in flesh and blood to the news cycle and the temporal dimensions of the world-historic stage (e.g., terrorism, racism, the Russians, the patriarchy.) I’m happy to hear out any conspiracy theory, but if your smoking gun is evolutionary psychology, then we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves.
Not unlike Chateau Heartiste, I’ve argued here before that JQ-pill a la MacDonald is indispensable to alt-right thought. Clearly, it was equally indispensable to historical fascism in interwar Europe, and while I’ll grant that much of what we learn today about that subject in school and mainstream media is highly subjective and de-contextualized, no one seriously denies that the alt-right is neofascist. So if the JQ is one of a handful of wrongthoughts that will get you attacked in mainstream discourse, among the alt-right, there is only one wrongthought sufficient to warrant attacking anybody, and that is insufficient vehemence with regard to yidden, and to yiddishkeit.
It’s true there are a number of mainstream conservative figures who are respected or at least not reviled on the alt-right—e.g., Ann Coulter, Gavin McInnes, Tucker Carlson—and whose utterances are sometimes regarded as indicative of the movement’s effect on the Overton Window, just as there are a handful of alt-right Jews like Nicholas Stix who were plodding in obscurity before there even was an alt-right. But any emergent alt-media personality who avoids the question or gives the wrong answer (e.g., Lauren Southern, Jordan Peterson) is quickly called out in the comments section. Of course, attention whores of Hebrewish provenance courting hard alt-right audiences are rightly viewed as slimy, but while Milo shot more for mainstream appeal, Cernovich, for example, styled himself a pariah from the ill-considered niche of espousing every alt-right view except JQ, and is roundly despised for it.
The utility of this catechism as the proverbial rug that ties the room together is not lost on up-and-coming merch-pimps and aspiring alt-media gadflies. Getting slapped on an ADL hate list is now marketable martyrdom, such that cookie-cutter manifestos and Hitlerian little memoirs of awakening are regularly produced by figures as varied as Roosh V and Squatting Slav. The former, a self-styled manosphere pick-up artist, writes prolifically at a seventh-grade reading level about his sexual encounters on the road in impoverished countries. Undoubtedly by mawwing the requisite JQ-dribblings, he was able to secure a time slot to hustle his fetid self-publishings one year at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference, despite being a patently non-white immigrant with a beady-eyed charlatan’s countenance. Squatting Slav, meanwhile, runs a satirical pan-Slavic FB meme-page that can claim the minor feat of having united a few hundred-thousand former-Yugoslav followers, not only despite their own intractable enmities but in spite of the admin’s unabashed Serb-posting. Apparently unaware of the arming of the Serbs by Israel during the 1990s, and of the singularly barbaric massacres perpetrated against his people by and with the support of the Nazis, even he could not get past the apparent need to clear the air by regurgitating their theories into a handful of v-log tutorials on the subject of international Zionism. (If you’re awaiting his take on the Croat-Vatican-Deutsche Bundesbank nexus, you might not want to hold your breath.)
But these are just two examples. By far the omega exemplar of cynically chasing relevance in this field is Stefan Molyneux, who started out with a predictable Chomskean approach to Israel-Palestine, tinged with Hitchensian dismissal of all things bigoted (like Hitchens, at one point early on he was even claiming some vague Jewish ancestry) but has moved deeper into the JQ-space in accordance with market pressures, always just skirting the line so as not to ward off more risk-averse fellow travelers with larger Twitter followings on the incestuous alt-lite podcast circuit.
But at least Molyneux is inconsistent. The same can’t be said for Red Ice Radio’s wall-eyed Lana Lokteff, whose antipathy to all things yiddish is such that she is able to read rootless cosmopolism into the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucids, recounting it as an instance of Jewish meddling in the sovereign prerogatives of Gentiles. With logic like this being pervasive on the alt-right, one is entitled to ask whether anti-semitism is the punchbowl, or the turd—which brings us back to Chateau Heartiste, in an essay defending kid-fucking:
Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.
Of course, Chateau absolutely condones those tactics (that’s what his whole blog is about) unless there’s a semitic element involved—the latter reference being to Al Franken, whose indiscretion was at least perpetrated on a grown woman (and ended at first base.) But if this guy really believes that his hypothetical 14-year old daughter could give Roy Moore consent, then you’ve at least got to commend his intra-Gentile solidarity.
Is all this starting to make sense? Again, if you can’t stand kikes, I get it. But when your answer to everything is “the Jews,” there’s just no feat of mental gymnastics you can’t stoop to. Even the normally staid, rationalistic Steve Sailer gets in on the act from time to time:
[The] most obvious way for Jews to avoid criticism for stereotypically Jewish failings, such as exploiting shiksas as if they were members of a different tribe, is to try to behave better.
Is Roy Moore a Jew now, too? But you’re right, Steve, sexual assault needs to limited to the in-group, that must be why we never hear from you about the clergy, it’s just not the same. I wasn’t aware I’d been exploiting any shiksas, but now that you’ve shown me the way to avoid criticism, I’ll be sure to stop doing it.
Aside from the boomer alt-right at AmRen and VDare being mostly indifferent to the subject (though there are exceptions like Sailer), the one and only alt-right figure I’ve seen get away with expressing an empathetic view of Jews is the thoughtful (if purplishly self-conscious) Andy Nowicki, although Mike Enoch has managed to gain a large alt-right following despite the fact his anti-semitism is so inflected with tortured yiddishkeit it’s clear that if he’s not an agent provocateur he’s nothing more than a lurking little opportunist with a Snow White fetish and a hypertrophied superego. Or both. (His inside-job denial on 9/11 was conspicuously sly—I’m looking for the video to hyperlink it but there are like, a million uploads from those guys and life is short.)
But these exceptions only prove the rule, and the rule is simply that impassioned anti-semitism is a clownworld phenomenon. It’s certainly not the worst clownworld phenomenon—I think I’d rather have another six million murdered coreligionists than a transgender kid, for example. At least it’s grassroots. Then again, so is a lot of stupid shit. But do you know what isn’t stupid, and is grassroots? Crowdsourcing a sea-borne vessel to prevent people-smugglers from making their rendezvous with NGOs off the coast of Libya, or at least bring publicity to the issue. And when have you ever heard so much as a peep of anti-semitism out of Martin Sellner? Or AfD, le Front, Lega Nord, Britain First? At worst their anti-semitism is just business casual. Some leaders in these outfits are even pro-Israel, and of course some aren’t, but none are tainted with neoliberal or neoconservatism.
Like wine, cheese, and healthcare, pro-white activism is something that Europeans do far better than Americans. Perhaps this contrast can be explained by differences in mean IQ: Charlottesville, for example, was a dumpster fire of hilljacks, autists and agents provocateurs that cemented the movement as a webcast-only phenomenon. Whatever you think about white nationalism, Matt Heimbach, David Duke, Christopher Cantwell and Jason Kessler are nth-rate self-abusing creepazoids with nothing interesting to say. And whatever you think about Richard Spencer’s message, all he accomplishes by doing public speaking engagements is expose himself to jeering and tomato throwing at huge cost to municipal resources. He’s nothing more than Milo with street-cred. Pure clownworld.
Meanwhile, not only is Generation Identitaire getting massive exposure by staging flash demonstrations that cleverly go straight to the point—like throwing a burka over the Maria Theresa statue in Vienna—they’re running boxing gyms and paramilitary training camps for European youths to defend themselves from feral invaders. While Spencer condemns violence in a therapeutic lilt as people at his rally die of tidbit-nipply passive aggression gotten out of hand, Tommy Robinson—a truly heroic figure, whatever you think of his Zionism—solo scraps with migrants in Italian parking garages. So I’m sorry, but could you please explain to me again how indispensable vehement JQ-pill is to the salvation of white, western civilization?
Now, you may ask how Tommy Robinson’s criticism of Islam is really any worse than Kevin MacDonald’s criticism of Judaism. I’ll admit, to reply that Robinson isn’t criticizing a race would be a lame argument. Certainly his focus on Islam is overly simplistic: the cultural developments and political forces that drive societal breakdown have proven themselves more destructive over the course of fifty years than Islam was for most of the last thousand. But in direct effect, those are exactly the forces that Tommy Robinson is challenging. To quote Tropic Thunder: “Looks retarded, acts retarded. Not retarded.” Simplicity a la Tommy Robinson is actually exactly what’s called for. Indefatigability, stubbornness, hatefacts and basic-bitch arguments repeated over and over, in public, on camera, in the face of wild opposition. That’s what gets traction, and clearly it scares the powers that be a good deal more than Kevin MacDonald—who is regarded instead as an easily dismissible crank—ever has.
You might reply that MacDonald and his acolytes are focusing on causes while a Tommy Robinson focuses only on effects. If you can’t think of any causes but Jews, then like MacDonald, you’ll never be a real threat to anyone. Be that as it may, where the hatefacts indicate clearly that Jews are disproportionately involved in pushing bad policies and garbage culture (and they do), then I won’t just defend your right to rattle them off, I’ll stand with you while you do it. You’d be correct as well to argue that Jewishness is not incidental to their behavior. But neither does their behavior give a complete picture of Judaism. And Tommy Robinson isn’t claiming, for example, that sexual assault is somehow worse when a Muslim does it, like Chateau Heartiste claims about Jews. He’s claiming it’s just as bad, but deserves greater focus because it’s being enabled and treated with undue leniency as a matter of policy. Kevin MacDonald and his acolytes would certainly interject here that more attention to the JQ is needed for precisely analogous reasons. But in contrast with the likes of Robinson, the thrust of their argument is that Jews in general are bad people, that Judaism is monolithic, immutable, and wicked, and that this alone explains the present state of the world satisfactorily. Not only is that simplistic, it’s three volumes and thousands of footnotes (and now whole blog-roles and YouTube channels) of simplistic. It’s the definition of full-retard.
Never go full retard.