Eliminating white spaces

George Weigel at First Things sings the praises of Jackie Robinson, who broke the National Baseball League’s “infamous” color line.

Now, I strongly disagree with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that there is something iniquitous about separate public schools for separate races.  Races have their own distinct cultures, histories, and identities and rightfully wish to pass these on to their children.  Forcing blacks and whites into the same schools meant that only one people’s collective memory could be taught.  In this case, it was the collective memory of the negroes that was imposed on the whites, as we see from the fact that history and social sciences are taught from a relentlessly anti-white perspective, with no one even bothering to ask what motives other than malice whites might have had for building their distinct societies.  Still, it’s a legitimate concern that blacks will be at a disadvantage when their schools are inferior, and forced integration is one way to deal with this.

Similarly, I see nothing wrong with a golf club or other social organization that caters to only one race or ethnicity.  Spontaneous associations, what some American conservatives call “civil society”, are a good thing, and racial consciousness is not a bad thing.  Still, I have heard the argument that these groups are important places for professional networking, so groups not invited can be at a disadvantage.  This is not a strong enough reason to suppress monoracial clubs, but it is a legitimate concern.

What possible reason, though, could there be to object to whites having a sports club to themselves?  It’s not that blacks didn’t have opportunities to play baseball.  Robinson himself started in a separate negro league.  How does it hurt anyone else if white America wanted to have a sports league for just those of European descent?  How are blacks in any way at a disadvantage in school or in the professions because of this?  Weigel seems entirely incurious about the motives of these “bigots” who objected to yet one more of their spaces being violated.  One suspects that America’s “original sin” that he invokes but does not name is actually the existence of whites as a consciously distinct people.

If anyone wants to play the “Oh, how would you feel…” card, go ahead.  I have zero problem with other races having activities from which outsiders like me are excluded.  I don’t mind even when they’re the majority.  I’ve said before that I agree with Catholics being excluded from the British crown.  I’ve said before that the group of immigrants that included my ancestors were a net negative for America.  If my group were to end up in the position of blacks in 1940s America, some things about that would bother me.  The majority having a sports league to themselves wouldn’t be one of them.

How could the Alt Right have misjudged Trump so badly?

Donald Trump.  What a depressing topic.  For something cheerier, see my meditations on death now on the Orthosphere.

That President Trump is reneging on his campaign promises is itself unremarkable.  Even those who disregarded my advice and voted for him knew that he might.  His Alternative Right advocates always acknowledged that he was an ideologically mixed bag, combining social liberalism and irrational hostility toward Iran with some sensible beliefs.  They just pointed out that someone who says crazy things half of the time is preferable to an establishment that says crazy things all of the time.  Many also acknowledged that he might be unable to deliver on his promises, that he might be obstructed by the permanent government.  I personally suspected that a President Trump might ultimately turn to foreign adventures after being defeated in his domestic agendas, a typical path for a Republican president.  Yet although I argued against voting for Trump, I am close enough to the Alternative Right that like them I did not expect him to impulsively launch hostilities with foreign powers in an irrational emotional fit so early in his presidency.  Who could have predicted such a thing?

Everyone outside of the Alternative Right, actually.  The liberals always said that Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president; the mainstream conservatives also have always said so.  Liberals were always worrying about Trump “pressing the button” because he’s crazy, and I always dismissed this because his campaign message was less bellicose than his rival’s.  We knew that Trump is inarticulate and that he has vast gaps in his knowledge, but did we take sufficient notice of his recklessness, with how easily he is manipulated by appeals to his sentiment and vanity?  Most of the discussion on our side of the Right with Trump’s character had to do with his lack of chastity, which historically has only a very loose correlation with leadership skills.  Even his detractors like me failed to weigh sufficiently his lack of character.

That we did so is understandable.  The media always says that people who disagree with liberals are crazy, hateful, emotionally unhinged, as well as stupid.  No matter how careful we are to be rational and dispassionate in our public engagements, the characterization of the hate-filled lunatic is always applied.  Criticisms of liberal beliefs are always “screeds”.  Dissidents are always “bigots”.  We have learned to discount character attacks coming from establishment sources like the media.  This is a blind spot for us.  There really are nuts and con men out there.

If something happens that no one expected, there’s nothing remarkable in the fact that we didn’t expect it either.  When something happens that everyone except us expected, that should prompt some serious self-evaluation.

On Evola’s “Revolt against the modern world”

Revolt against the Modern World
by Julius Evola

In this book, Evola reconstructs a picture of “traditional” man, contrasts it with modernity, and tells a story of how the latter displaced the former through much of the world.  For most authors, tradition refers to that which is handed down to us from previous generations, but Evola’s “tradition” is something different–essentially timeless, subject to only accidental variations between cultures, found not in our elders but in ancient texts, and even there only in fragmented or esoteric form.  One might call Evola a sort of Protestant traditionalist, seeking to sidestep centuries of corruption to recover the original Tradition of the North just as the Protestant wants to access Apostolic Christianity unmediated by Catholic tradition.  This would be unfair, though, to the Protestants.  Unlike the Arctic Aryan god-men of Evola’s imagination, at least Apostolic Christianity actually existed, and the Protestant imagination is somewhat grounded by an existing ancient text.  For Evola, most recorded traditions represent the original tradition in partially corrupted form, or their true meaning is accessible only to someone of his spiritual discernment, so he has free play to take anything he likes as part of the true, original tradition and to discard whatever he doesn’t like, no matter how well-attested across multiple cultures.

One sees this clearly in his treatment of religion.  Evola claims that the “original” Tradition had little of what we think of as religion:  belief in personal deities and efforts to establish relationship and gain favors from them.  The numinous was rather thought of as impersonal forces to be appropriated and manipulated by these superior men.  Evola’s claim is outlandish but unfalsifiable.  Confront him with pagan petitionary prayers or pagan mythologies detailing the exploits of personal gods, and he can always say that the people in question were already corrupted by an inferior, “lunal” tradition, or else that you are reading the evidence in a crude, exoteric way intended only for the rubes.  Given his view of religion, Evola naturally thinks theistically-oriented mysticism inferior to Buddhist mysticism, which he thinks comes closer to his masculine ideal of detachment and self-sufficiency.  (His feminine ideal is complete self-abnegation, leading him to embrace a warped sexual ethic that endorses oriental abominations such as the keeping of harems.)  In spite of Christianity, he thinks a superior form of mysticism secretly existed among some medieval chivalrous orders, citing confessions of anti-Christian practices among the Knights Templar while failing to mention that these confessions were obtained under torture.  Evola’s use of data when evaluating traditions for their “solar” (good) or “lunar” (bad) qualities seems entirely arbitrary.  Thus, that Christianity has the cult of a woman, Mary, is pronounced significant evidence of its fundamentally feminine, lunar nature; that the Christian God is considered male is pronounced unimportant; that the Germanic pagans Evola admires reversed the sexes of major gods from the normal (a sun goddess and moon god) is deemed unworthy of mention.  One strains to comprehend his enthusiasm for Islam, since a more uncompromisingly theistic and egalitarian religion would be hard to imagine.  One senses that Evola uses the citation of facts (each page does have lots of interesting historical and mythological data) not as a means to rationally convince but rather to intimidate.  Thus, he will cite a number of obscure and tangentially relevant facts before making extremely dubious generalizations about major religions–but who will dare to disagree with the author, when he’s clearly shown that he knows more than the reader?


Religion is only one of Evola’s subjects, but my focus on it is fair because his hatred of Christianity is clearly the organizing theme of the book.  Christianity teaches that God is distinct from his creation, and therefore that humility is a virtue and Evola’s “heroic” type of man is merely stupid in his vanity.  It teaches that kings are not divine, but rule only by delegation from God.  Here we come to what seems to be the real sore point.  Evola’s Northern/Solar tradition is based on the idea that rulers possess some sort of inherent divine quality, and that their authority is grounded in this personal spiritual superiority.  Old feuds live long in Italy, and Evola the Ghibelline will never forgive the popes for their stand against his sacred empire.  It would be a mistake to read this in modern terms and say that Evola is a partisan of “state” over “church”.  Evola is no fan of free cities, modern nation-states, or secularism.  As a partisan of empire with spiritualistic and universalist pretensions, he achieves a genuine and important insight–the connection between the spiritual supremacy of the Church and particularism in the temporal order.  His claim that the Church won its battle for supremacy will sound bizarre to students of early-modern Church-state relationships, but Evola is not interested in what prerogatives the kings of England or France may haver wrested away from the papacy; they are not the same sort of thing as the Holy Roman Emperor.

Evola posits that the solar tradition he extols was originally spread through the world by a particular people originating in the far north.  Naturally, the inferior peoples whom they subjugated were not living in a spiritual vacuum.  They had their own inferior (of course) spirituality opposed to that of the Northern conquerers in nearly every way:  feminine rather than masculine; egalitarian rather than caste-hierarchical; ruled by priests in the name of earth goddesses rather than by warrior kings embodying a sun god; inclined to pantheism or hedonism or theistic religious devotion rather than heroic self-striving.  Evola may seem to be conflating many distinct things that he doesn’t like, but the differences don’t interest him.  Of course, extant cultural artifacts such as Hesiod’s Theogony are already mixtures of the two traditions, so Evola has unlimited freedom to pick and choose as he pleases.

I am disturbed by the influence this man seems to be exercising over many in the reactionary and traditionalist Right.  His construction of Tradition is entirely antithetical to the tradition of the West, the pillars of which include an understanding of the absolute ontological gulf between God and His creation, the need for divine grace as opposed to the pretensions of spiritual “heroism”, the superiority of the Church over the temporal powers, the legitimate particularism of these temporal powers, and the grounding of authority in public role rather than personal qualities.

Arguments against blogging

Suppose there were a fellow with a passion for writing poetry, but let’s say he didn’t want to expend his effort in the mundane business of getting a publisher to accept his works.  Still, he wished to share his creations with the world, so he took to scrawling poems on the walls in men’s public restrooms.  Let his poems speak for themselves; why should anyone care about the venue?  The trouble with this strategy is that reading time is a scarce resource for all of us, so we need some pretty crude filters to eliminate lots of possible reading material and bring the serious candidates to a manageable number.  One thing we do is pay attention to signals that the author himself was willing to invest in making his work be regarded as high-quality.

What’s the point of scientific peer review?  It certainly doesn’t guarantee that published papers are valid and original science.  It does guarantee that the authors were willing to expend a great deal of time and trouble (and perhaps money) to give their paper the appearance of valid and original science, and there is a loose but positive correlation between this and actually being good science.

The same thing with publishing vs. personal blogging.  Posting an article on my private blog is so much easier than trying to get a magazine to publish it, and this very easiness is a reason why readers should be a bit warier of investing their time; they know the author didn’t.


If you’re going to blog, more likely than not, you’re going to be withholding your personal identity.  There are lots of reasons we do this, but one obvious one is to avoid all the unpleasant consequences, social and career-wise, that come with voicing unpopular opinions.  Pseudonymity works, not because we’re impossible to track down, but because chances are you’re remain obscure enough that no one will feel motivated to do so.  There remains a downside.  Blogging as a hobby leaves you with a boring “secret identity”.  I’m sometimes jealous of the other professors in my department who have cool hobbies.  One is in a band.  Another wrote a novel.  Others play sports.  Blogging is not a cool hobby even when you can admit to doing it; there’s no skill involved.  But when you can’t admit to doing it, then you don’t have any answer when people ask you what you do with your spare time.  So, you need a second hobby.  (Any recommendations for me?)  So why keep the secret one?


There’s a problem:  blogging builds no skill.  It’s too private.  For example, has my writing style improved since my first essay?  How could it?  I haven’t had anyone critiquing my prose.  It has had no public confrontation that could result in failure.  Unimpressed readers usually don’t bother commenting.  Living in my own little world here, I’m free to imagine that all my essays are perfect.  If I had to submit my writings for a grade in a college rhetoric class, that would take a lot of the fun out of it, but I’m not sure that my disdain for such a thing is healthy.


The argument for blogging, I suppose, is that if I didn’t unburden myself of my opinions somewhere, I might end up popping off and inflicting them on people who would rather not hear or would not be inclined to let me get away with such opinions.


A blogger should overall spend more time reading and thinking than writing.  I’ve had little time to read for the last half decade, and I think it shows in my writing getting less interesting with time.


Miscellaneous on immigration, lesbians, and space colonization

The biggest weakness of the immigration advocates is that they won’t even address concerns that the native culture will be overrun.  They think it racist to even acknowledge this as a valid concern.  Many even promise that the native culture will be overrun, that we will become “diverse” and “multicultural”.  The biggest weakness of the restrictionist’s case is that our culture and collective identity is dying anyway and won’t be saved even if we stop the flow tomorrow.  White nationalism is an attempt to remain a European Christian society by inertia, without positively asserting the core commitments of our civilization.  If America is to remain what it has been, an English people, it must assert itself as such by public submission to the English monarch and the Church of England.

Recent events give us a good illustration of the flaw of the judiciary’s and the Catholic Church’s thinking of immigration in terms of “rights”.  In liberal polities, rights are trumps, meaning the prerogative of the individual with a right overrides any consideration of the common good.  No judge or bishop needs to consider what ruin will follow the influx of Muslims; they’ve got rights.

Patriactionary reports straight women have fewest orgasms.  I always trust stereotypes over “studies”, and lesbians are better known for being angry ideologues than being solicitous lovers, but in this case the result might be true.  I imagine there are a lot of asexual women, and most default to heterosexual since such relationships bring kids and financial support.

Just for fun, let’s speculate more about the lesbian apocalypse.  Recall, the idea is that as the social expectation of heterosexuality recedes, there’s no guarantee of a continued roughly 1:1 ratio of heterosexual men to heterosexual women.  There is some evidence that women have the more malleable sexuality, so we seem destined to have lots of lonely men.  I can see lesbianism becoming very high status and attractive to many women.  There seems to be very little of the visceral repulsion to it that male homosexuality elicits in many people.  I don’t remember how it came up, but my wife once mentioned that if I were to commit adultery, she’d rather I had sex with another woman than went gay.  I, on the other hand, would rather she cheated with another woman.  Both make sense.  Men are worried about paternity, with being supplanted.  What matters most of all is being the man to my girl.  Women are more worried about being inseminated with the best genes.  What matters most is lack of signs of defects in her boy.  A woman could fool around with other women much more than she could with men without alienating a future husband, so she may be less likely to end up bothering to switch to the future husband at all.  Another thing:  adoption would quickly become predominantly a service for lesbians.  Probably they will prefer girls even more than average adopters.

In a 2010 study, economists from the California Institute of Technology, the London School of Economics and New York University discovered, among other things, that adoptive American parents preferred girls to boys by nearly a third. The data was based on more than 800 adoptions that occurred between June 2004 and August 2009. The researchers suggested that this preference for girls might occur because adoptive parents “fear dysfunctional social behavior in adopted children and perceive girls as ‘less risky’ than boys in that respect.” Adoptive parents are even willing to pay an average of $16,000 more in finalization costs for a girl than a boy. Same-sex couples and single women showed an even greater proclivity for adopting girls.

Would bringing in foreign baby girls restore the balance of heterosexual women to men?  Or would these girls raised without fathers by potentially man-hating lesbians be unlikely to take any interest in men themselves?

It’s fun to read about plans to colonize space, but as a proof of principle, I think we should first get serious about colonizing Antarctica.  My God, what a paradise!  Breathable air at atmospheric pressure, protection from cosmic rays, lots of water ice…

I can still remember the almost religious awe I felt as a child for the idea of manned space exploration.  It was unthinkable for me that mankind’s fate might not eventually lie beyond the Earth.  As I said, I remember it, but I find I can no longer feel it.  Why would people ever want to go to any other celestial body?  Unmanned exploration is so much cheaper.  With falling birth rates in the developed world, overpopulation probably won’t be an insuperable long-term problem.  Not after the lesbian apocalypse, anyway.

Faith: another category to be vindicated

My new post at the Orthosphere:  Faith is honesty in doubt

A papal rebuke to globalism

Pope Francis:  indigenous people have rights over their land

The Pope said that indigenous people should have the final say about what happens to their land.

Pope Francis insisted on Wednesday that indigenous groups must give prior consent to any economic activity affecting their ancestral lands.

The pontiff met with representatives of indigenous peoples attending a UN agricultural meeting and said the key issue facing them is how to reconcile the right to economic development with protecting their cultures and territories.

“In this regard, the right to prior and informed consent should always prevail,” he said. “Only then is it possible to guarantee peaceful cooperation between governing authorities and indigenous peoples, overcoming confrontation and conflict.”

History’s first Latin American Pope has been a consistent backer of indigenous rights and has frequently spoken out about the plight of indigenous people in resisting economic development that threatens their lands.

“For governments, this means recognizing that indigenous communities are a part of the population to be appreciated and consulted, and whose full participation should be promoted at the local and national level,” Francis told the indigenous leaders Wednesday.

If the post-Vatican II mess puts an end to Pius XII’s idiotic “right to immigrate” I guess it won’t have been all bad (just almost all bad).