I can’t ignore the spate of apocalyptic or otherwise ominous predictions I am seeing in the comments; similar predictions and dire analyses are turning up in other forums as well. Here, for example. And here.
Then there is this Ethics Alarms comment (on the Big Lie #4 post) by Steve Witherspoon, which ends,
The 2020 presidential election will be a defining moment for the 21st century political left, they have too much invested in their social justice rhetoric to let up or turn back now. They have defined all things that are tot he political right of the extreme political left as evil, it’s time to move ahead full steam. The political left MUST nominate a non-white person to run for President or they risk alienating the entire non-white community and all of the social justice warriors, plus if they were to nominate a “white” person they will prove beyond any doubt that their social justice rhetoric is a complete fraud. Either they practice what they preach or they become completely irrelevant, it’s all in, or it’s nothing.
Regardless if you agree with anything I wrote above or not; we saw the reaction to Trump winning in 2016 and the followup three years of growing hate and irrational behavior from the anti-Trumpers, do you think the hyped-up irrational anti-Trumpers will react with same kind of devastating sorrow this time around; I don’t. Seriously, what happens if President Trump gets reelected in 2020?
Now much maligned Alizia Tyler comes forth with this fascinating exposition. Here is her Comment of the Day on Item #1 in the post, “Monday Ethics Warm-Up, 7/29/19: Reverse Racism And Listening To Dead People,” beginning with a quote from me:
“The gamble, I suppose, is that whites and men are really, really stupid and cowardly, and this divisive hypocrisy will prevail. I could be wrong, but I think it’s a bad bet.”
Well, there has been some interesting discussion on that topic. I mean, on what will happen when the ‘beast’ so-called is provoked. I am sorry to keep bringing this up — I say ‘sorry’ but I don’t quite mean that, I mean I regret that I have to keep repeating it — but it is important for thinking people to know the facts.
Here, Jordan Peterson talks about ‘masculinity’ as distinct from ‘femininity’ and the difference in their respective vision-quests (he is a Jungian of course!)
You want to know why I keep saying man? Because women do not have a hero’s journey. At best, women – you – are the goal of the journey. The prize, if you will. At worst, you are the temptress. For the true hero to achieve transcendence he must, as Joseph Campbell told us, ‘press beyond the woman, surpass the temptations of her call, and soar to the immaculate ether beyond.’ Today you have illustrated that point as well as any story I can think of. And let me tell you something else. You can consider this a prophecy. Inside the collective is a beast and the beast uses its claws. If you wake the beast the result will be violence. Chaos. I’m sorry to say that these continual protests by radical leftists are going to wake the beast. A beast that you cannot conquer but that will conquer you.
Now, Peterson has referred to the likely eventuality of ‘waking the beast’ (I guess he means Nietzsche’s ‘blond beast’) if the Progressive Leftists keep on with the ceaseless vilifications and reveals its power-mongering hand.
But Peterson is, after all, a Canadian centrist by-and-large: a conservative-leaning Progressive to put it bluntly. His notion of responsible adulthood is summarized in ‘keeping one’s room clean’. He can’t really speak about ‘preserving Occidental culture’ nor can he refer to the Grand Occidental Project. He steers people away from the more difficult and demanding definitions. And look how he labels what he terms the ‘violence’ of the beast: it is chaos. But wait! The entire Occidental process cannot be summarized as creating ‘chaos’. Thus he mistakes creative effort and creative effort — which is a form of violence if you think it through — as producing a negative state: chaos.
But the awakening of a man (and I think a woman can do and must do something similar, or exert an influence over men) to creative duties in this life and to a sense of mission is not to create chaos. It is more accurate to say that we live in chaos now. And if we really think of man as capable of using power (another term for violence if you think about it) in creative, cultural pursuits, then awakening the violence of men is necessary, and good.
And there is no doubt that undermining, disempowering, and reversing the trends of overt Marxianism that are now strongly in operation is a hero’s journey! Maybe that is how it must be defined? and how it must be spiritualized? (I guarantee you though that this language will begin to sound like certain Germanic romanticism and Volkishness . . .)
I am reading now The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich by George L Mosse. Mosse was of course an intellectual critic of Hitlerism and his book — super-interesting — describes the origins of the Germanism which has been soundly vilified. It was not, in itself, something evil (in my view) but when the state took it over it definitely became an evil use of power and ideology. Therefore, the issue is to pay close attention to what the state is doing in our present.
What must be understood — it is a vital piece of understanding — is that the ‘war against whiteness’ is really a war against the core of Europeanism. I am not making this up, not exaggerating. It is an ideological position, extremely virulent and aggressive, that is just one of the tools used by Marxianism in a process of cultural undermining. Marxism has a specific toolbox. You can say ‘white identity’ but that is a mis-guiding term. European identitarianism is closer but it also does not reveal the full story. The full story requires a long, foot-noted essay. In order to preserve what is being undermined, one has to be able to see it and explain it. In chaos one cannot do that . . .
If one does not see, and if one does not clearly recognize, the similarity in time between Weimar Germany and Weimerica in our present (as the right-wing critics ironically use the term) one is being deliberately blind.