Are Millennials Becoming Reactionaries?

When it comes to how young men feel about gender roles and sex, it appears that traditionalism may be on the rise:

Millennials, generally defined as people born between 1982 and 2000, were supposed to be the generation that forged what has been called “a new national consensus” in favor of gender equality. Indeed, in February the prominent Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs labeled the 2016 election, where an extremely qualified female candidate lost to a man with a history of disrespecting women, “a blip” on the road to the egalitarian society that will be achieved once millennial voters outnumber their conservative elders.

But the millennial category lumps together everybody from age 17 to 34, a group varied by race, ethnicity, religion, income, education and life experience. Don’t think for a second they are united. As a set of reports released Friday by the Council on Contemporary Families reveals, fewer of the youngest millennials, those aged 18 to 25, support egalitarian family arrangements than did the same age group 20 years earlier.

Using a survey that has monitored the attitudes of high school seniors for nearly 40 years, the sociologists Joanna Pepin and David Cotter find that the proportion of young people holding egalitarian views about gender relationships rose steadily from 1977 to the mid-1990s but has fallen since. In 1994, only 42 percent of high school seniors agreed that the best family was one where the man was the main income earner and the woman took care of the home. But in 2014, 58 percent of seniors said they preferred that arrangement. In 1994, fewer than 30 percent of high school seniors thought “the husband should make all the important decisions in the family.” By 2014, nearly 40 percent subscribed to that premise.

For anyone familiar with r/K selection theory (which I discuss in detail in Chapter 4 of my book), the fact that more traditional gender roles are favored by millennials in significant percentages shouldn't be surprising.

History, unlike the Marxist linear view, is cyclical. In response to the excesses of decades of heavy r-selection, the sexual revolution, and egalitarian and liberal dogmas, the culture finds itself naturally shifting a bit more towards K-selection.

Although interest in radical traditionalist literature is on the rise, I highly doubt that more than 5% of the men in the sample above are pouring over Evola and Nietzsche. Millennials, especially young men, are simply seeing the fruits of the sexual revolution and are instinctively shifting Right. The rabbits have muzzled the wolves for decades—both literally (through PC culture) and metaphorically—and slowly but surely, the wolves are beginning to shift the culture in their direction.

We are seeing this trend in churches too. Conservative churches are thriving, while the liberal ones are dying. Those attending the more traditional forms of Christian worship (like the Latin/Tridentine Mass or the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church) are, much to the dismay of our Marxist Pope, millennials.

This type of reactionary shift is always what liberalism and r-selection eventually create, and hopefully it is a sign of things to come.

WW2 Soldiers 'Betrayed' by Modern Britain

Via The Daily Mail:

Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, [writer Nicholas Pringle] decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences. 

He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves. 

There is the occasional bright spot - one veteran describes Britain as 'still the best country in the world' - but the overall tone is one of profound disillusionment.

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'

'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.

In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'. 

But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government. 

They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'betrayed'.

The veterans are most concerned with the radical change that Britain has gone through as a result of mass immigration and the culture of political correctness that stifles any dissent:

'People come here, get everything they ask, for free, laughing at our expense,' was a typical observation. 

'We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you ask?'

Many writers are bewildered and overwhelmed by a multicultural Britain that, they say bitterly, they were never consulted about nor feel comfortable with. 

'Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for care and are being refused medical services because incomers come first.'

Her words may be offensive to many—and rightly so—but Sarah Robinson defiantly states: 'We are affronted by the appearance of Muslim and Sikh costumes on our streets.' 

But then political correctness is another thing they take strong issue with, along with politicians generally - 'liars, incompetents and self-aggrandising charlatans' (with the revealing exception of Enoch Powell).

For all of their fighting, killing, and dying in WW2, the British lost their empire, their backbones, their soul—and their country. Would those who fought in Europe, and saw London destroyed from the air, have risked their lives and limbs again if they knew that this would be the Britain that their grandchildren would inherit?

Perhaps Pat Buchanan was right (again) when he called WW2 the "unnecessary war."
 

Pope Francis: Populism is Selfish and Suffocating

Addressing European Union leaders at the 60th anniversary of the creation of the EU, Pope Francis spoke out against the growth of populism and nationalism in Western countries:

The founding fathers had a clear sense of being part of a common effort that not only crossed national borders, but also the borders of time...

...For solidarity is no mere ideal; it is expressed in concrete actions and steps that draw us closer to our neighbors, in whatever situation they find themselves. Forms of populism are instead the fruit of an egotism that hems people in and prevents them from overcoming and "looking beyond” their own narrow vision.

Francis's remarks are a microcosm of the Left's collapsing narrative. Francis, a man steeped in Marxist Libertarian Theology who desperately wants to be oh-so-hip and progressive in The Current Year, is actually "behind the times" in regards to the philosophical and political directions the West is headed.

Communism is not really the driving force of the Left anymore; instead, it is an ideology centered around globalism, Third-Worldism, open borders, and anti-white, anti-West hatred. In response to decades of this, reactionary movements are spreading across the West, and, like the Left, Francis is clinging to a dying brand. 

Yet this would be the perfect time for the head of the Catholic Church, like the fictional Pope Leo XIII in HBO's The Young Pope, to re-assert traditionalism and supply the growing demand for an anti-modernist Faith. Instead, Francis pokes fun at the younger crowds who attend the Latin Mass, defends the Muslim invasion of Europe (and even says Muslim terrorism doesn't exist!), praises Marxism over markets, issues vague statements on key Church doctrine, and seems to go out of his way to reach out to everyone except actual Catholics. St. Pius X warned us about Vatican II and men like Francis.

It is no wonder so many Catholics are turning to sedevacantism, the SSPX, or even looking East these days.

Why Do Western Politicians Support Mass Immigration?

Since it isn't good for Western economies, culture, or social cohesion, the Z Blog has an interesting theory on why politicians continue to support third-world immigration into Europe and the US:

A better answer may be that this is the inevitable result of the feminization of Western civilization. The most important country in Europe is ruled by a barren old women, who started out in life as a communist. The most masculine politician in France is Marie Le Pen. Germany’s opposition party is led by a mousy little wood nymph named Frauke Petry. Even the Brits turned to a woman to lead them out of Europe after the Bexit vote and the collapse of Cameron’s government. The West is now a matriarchy.

Look at the reaction to Donald Trump among the ruling class of the United States. He is detested, mostly by upper class women. Their reason is he has a penis and enjoys using it. As a comparison, Le Pen’s support is lowest among upper middle-class women in France. Sweden, which now runs on the principles of the womyn’s studies department at your local university, is also  the poster child fro immigration restriction. The broads in charge of that country have destroyed at least two of their cities with Muslim migrants.

The fact, men and women are different cognitively and well as physiologically. This is not just old school male chauvinism. It is solid science. Women like drama and emotional theater. They also like the idea of the alpha male coming to their rescue. Put women in charge of a country and they will set about creating danger and chaos so that the males will come rescue them. That’s where the swarthy rapists from the south come in. Europe and America settled their differences and ran out of dragons to slay, so the gals created new one in the form of Muslim lunatics imported into the West.

The trouble is the men of the political class are mostly pussies. Look at the men in positions of authority in the West. Barak Obama was a wigger dork. Paul Ryan is a ridiculous pussy, afraid of his own shadow. The males in Western politics are effeminate, fragile peopel, who spent their youth in the library. There are no tough guys, former soldiers or adventurers in Western politics. It’s all power-skirts and the men who secretly wish to dress like them. The result is the female side is creating drama and the male side is sobbing in the corner, promising to hold the camera steady.

In our highly egalitarian culture, this can be a tough pill to swallow. But is there a better explanation?

Steve Bannon: Paleoconservative

In his analysis of Trump's Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, Justin Raimondo cuts through the usual media spin and hysteria:

The New York Times, in a remarkably dishonest—even for them—piece implied that the President’s chief strategist and senior counselor, a devout Catholic, is a disciple of the Italian pagan and protofascist Julius Evola.  The Nation described him as someone intent on starting World War III.  The “libertarian” Freeman echoed The Nation, and went on to accuse Bannon of being an “historical determinist” whose sway over Trump would lead to a cataclysmic disaster.

If one looks at Bannon’s ideology objectively, however—a feat that most analysts seem incapable of—one comes to a very different conclusion.  And the best way to analyze Bannon’s thought is to watch his 2010 film Generation Zero, a remarkable documentary about the past and future of our nation.

The film is roughly based on a theory of history expounded in The Fourth Turning, a 1997 book by William Strauss and Neil Howe: Every 80 years or so, the country goes through a revolutionary crisis, a “turning,” in which the institutions built up over the previous period are destroyed and consequently reimagined and rebuilt.  These turnings are augured by war: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II (two phases of the same conflict), and now our seemingly endless “War on Terror.”

The generational lessons learned in the midst of the last crisis are invariably forgotten or outright rejected by the children of those who weathered the storm—and therein lie the seeds of the next turning.  Generation Zero presents this cyclical theory of history within an economic framework.  And Bannon’s analysis should cause libertarians, in particular, to perk up their ears and listen, because it limns the theory of the business cycle as propagated by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, which locates the cause of severe downturns in credit expansion by the central-banking system.  Throughout the film, the responsibility of Alan Green span’s policy—the injection of vast amounts of cash created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, and subsequent “easy money” in the credit markets—for the crash of 2008 is underscored.

Watching Generation Zero is, in essence, like listening to a speech by Ron Paul, but with the one thing missing from the usual libertarian analysis: a cultural critique.  Rather than treating human beings as if they were Homo economicus, Bannon gives us a theory of cultural change to explain how and why the “easy money” economy went so wrong.

Raimondo connects Ron Paul's anti-Fed, anti-Establishment populist libertarianism with the paleoconservative's traditionalist cultural critique. There was a time, back in the early 1990s before Murray Rothbard's death, that these two movements formed a coalition. The right-wing libertarians (like Rothbard, Paul, and Lew Rockwell) and the paleoconservatives (like Sam Francis, Joseph Sobran, and Thomas Fleming) were to put away their minor differences to form a reactionary counter-movement to the pillars of Leftism: anarcho-tyranny, globalism, and multiculturalism.

Sadly, in a time before the Internet and instant, mass communication, this fusion did not last long. The paleocons were banished from the official, mainstream conservative movement, and the libertarians took a hard Left. But the growth of the Alternative Right is recreating a similar, yet far more energetic, movement: identitarians, paleocons, traditionalists, and right-wing libertarians in a loose alliance, mischievously slinging arrows at an even more entrenched Leftist order. Not only does the AltRight fundamentally challenge the dogmas and ideology of the Left, they also offer an existential, rooted, authentic alternative.

Raimondo continues:

[The economic/banking crisis] all came crashing down in the fall of 2008, wiping out “wealth” that had never existed in the first place.  One of the victims, among many, was Bannon’s father, whose savings went up in smoke.  And so the government bailed out the “too big to fail” institutions, owned by the very people whose greed had caused the crisis in the first place, while people like Bannon’s father were left to rot.

It’s personal with Bannon—and his hatred for the elites, which we saw reflected in the Trump campaign, illuminates Generation Zero like lightning at midnight.

You know the rest of the story: The Tea Party movement, which was a direct response to the bailouts, rose up and elected Republicans who subsequently betrayed the very movement that had elevated them into office.  But the “fourth turning” wasn’t over—not by a long shot—as Trump’s victory over the hated elites demonstrates.

There are no visions of World War III in Generation Zero, and the mystic fulminations of Julius Evola are nowhere to be seen.  To characterize Bannon as the mainstream media has is slander, pure and simple, but what else do we expect from these narrow-minded little ideologues of both the left and the right?

No, Steve Bannon isn’t a fascist, he isn’t a warmonger, and he isn’t a “Leninist,” as the neoconservative ideologue Ronald Radosh has charged.  He is a paleoconservative, one of our own—the very heart and spirit of the Trumpian revolution that our corrupt elites rightly fear.

Pat Buchanan raised Hell, but lost. Ron Paul desperately pleaded with the public to embrace traditional liberty, end the Empire, and restore the Republic. But no one listened—and now we have Trump and Bannon.

Another Speaker Shouted Down at Marxist Factory

University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson did not receive a friendly greeting when he was scheduled to speak at McMaster University. Via Breitbart:

Students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, derailed an event featuring University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson on Friday evening.

The event, which Peterson claimed was originally scheduled to feature a panel of three speakers, was whittled down to just himself after the school received threats for hosting the event...

...As a precaution before the event at McMaster University, Professor Peterson had students guard the fire alarms around the building so that protesters couldn’t set them off in an attempt to derail the event.

As a precaution before the event at McMaster University, Professor Peterson had students guard the fire alarms around the building so that protesters couldn’t set them off in an attempt to derail the event.

After the protesters successfully shut down the event, Peterson and the students in attendance were forced to move the talk outside where he was able to continue.

This isn't the first time Peterson has faced the favorite tool of the Leftist mob, either; whenever he speaks in public, crowds of commies shout him down.

Peterson has developed a huge audience in the past year for his (in)famous defense of sanity and reason in Canadistan. Tom Woods interviewed Peterson after he publicly opposes a proposed Canadian law that would make it illegal to not use "gender-neutral" pronouns with people of different "gender identities." Peterson also argues that the idea that there are dozens of gender identities has absolutely no basis in science, biology, and reality.

The fact that a figure like Peterson was screeched at by Leftists is, of course, nothing new. Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, which studied racial and sexual differences in intelligence, was recently chased out of Middlebury College in Vermont by an angry mob when he was invited to speak there. Milo's mere presence at UC Berkeley initiated violent riots, property destruction, and assaults upon those who wished to see him speak. It is also worth nothing that Milo, who speaks obvious truths about the absurdity of feminism, SJWS, and Black Lives Matter but otherwise takes very conventional and even neocon positions on everything else, was called a "Nazi" and "fascist." A gay, Jewish immigrant who attacks such low-hanging fruit is still considered a Fascist Menace by the Left.

There are countless examples of conservative and/or libertarians speakers being invited to speak at college campuses or other public venues being met with hostility, screaming, protests, and outright violence. On the other hand, during the 2016 presidential race, Bernie Sanders was invited to speak at Liberty University, a very conservative, evangelical Christian university. There were no riots, no protests, no assaults. The students and faculty politely listened to a man who would have them all shot or thrown in prison if they didn't cough up 90% of their income to the state.

Now, for the dying ideology of the mainstream conservative, this confirms their simplistic narrative. See! Look how intolerant and regressive the Left are! Dems R Duh Real Racists and Fascists because they won't let people with opposing opinions air their views! This type of conservative thinking, however, plays right into the Left's hands. Not only is this strategy incredibly ineffective, but by doing this, it cedes the intellectual and moral high ground to the Left and constantly moves the Overton Window in their direction.

Yes, we know, the Left are "intolerant" and unprincipled—this is why they win and conservatives lose.

Perhaps it is time the Right becomes a little less obsessed with "tolerance" and uses the Left's Alynskite against themselves. This is where the strength of the AltRight comes from; they refuse to grant the Left their egalitarian narrative and are willing to actually fight. Libertarians could learn a thing or two from this strategy.

This does not require an abandonment of libertarian principles, just the addition of some much-needed iron to a movement that is become an anemic, politically-correct shadow of its former self. The foundation of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), but unlike gravity or other natural laws, it is not self-enforcing. The democratic, Leviathan state, and its Cultural Marxist enablers, deny us our basic libertarian rights of private property and free association. This includes the right to exchange our property peacefully with others, the right to discriminate against those we do not wish exchange or interact with, the right to expel those who invade our person and property, and the right to use physical, defensive violence against those who aggress against, or threaten to aggress against, us.

These democratic political conditions make it nearly impossible to create a libertarian social order (since, through the vote, everyone can violate everyone's rights and Santa Claus will always win in a popularity contest against Ron Paul), the Physical Removal Principle (PRP) becomes the enforcement mechanism and the logical next-step of the NAP. 

As I argue in the final chapter of my book, with the PRP, no longer will we have to be sitting ducks as we wait for Leviathan and Cultural Marxists to destroy our civilization. The PRP represents an antiviral boost to the society’s immune system. Instead of shouting “NAP! NAP!” at those who would not think twice about having the state confiscate your property, or Cultural Marxists who refuse to allow our ideas to be heard in the public square, the PRP gives us a defensive tool to eliminate these threats to our liberty, property, and civilization.

What libertarians need to understand is that although we like to think that Left and Right are just differing opinions on political issues, there is a strong case to be made that, by and large, they are not political slants based on reason, logic, and evidence, but rather biological and epigenetic responses to resource scarcity. The Left, and Leftists, can only exist in the manner that they do because of government subsidies (paid for through the expropriation of the Right) and the dysgenic nature of the democratic welfare state. Take these incentives away, and Leftism dies. 

Given that this option is not on the table, however, there is the PRP. The Leftists who shout down public speakers, assault their opponents, or riot in the streets are not interested in dialogue, discussion, debate, or reason, and they have backed us into a corner. A libertarian society is a fantasy under our current political climate of the low-level civil war inherent in the democratic state. The creation of a reactionary counter-weight—whether it is called nationalist, fascist, or monarchist—is the only way a libertarian social order can be achieved in a society dominated by a cult of democracy, egalitarianism, welfare redistribution, and Cultural Marxism.

Libertarians just want to be left alone. We have begged, pleaded, reasoned, and philosophized for liberty, and yet the more we ask for it, the more our enemies double down and call for further expropriation. If you do not agree that there are fifty genders or reject the Left's abstract god of Equality, you will be financially or legally punished, harassed, and have your reputation ruined. We have asked for peace, and have been met with the barrel of a gun every single time. I would love a peaceful separation or secession, but the Left will never give it to us.

Eventually, the wolves who subsidize the rabbits are going to snap. After this switch goes off, the next time Leftists shut down a speaker they disagree with, burn down a city, riot, or conspire in public to further expropriate the liberty and property of those who build and maintain what is left of our civilization, they will be met with a reactionary wrath. This may involve free-falls from rotary aircraft or simply stripping them of their right to vote away our rights and property; and while some many initially be turned off by this, I would bet that nearly everyone not subsidized by the expropriated labor of somebody else would either cheer it on or look the other way.

So when will these hysterical Leftist mobs stop shutting down speakers and burning down cities? They will never stop on their own; it is only up to us, through the defensive, reactionary force of the PRP, to make them stop.

Truman and the CIA

Jeff Deist at the Mises Institute has a great article on President Harry Truman and his misgivings about the CIA he helped to create. But first, as Deist notes, for all of his faults Truman was a humble man of a different era, and unlike certain modern ex-presidents, had no interest in politics after he left the White House:

Say what you will about President Harry Truman, but at least he didn't leave the White House a suspiciously rich man. He also actually went home, to Independence Missouri, and moved into a modest house he didn't own. It was the same house belonging to his wife's family where he had lived with Bess (and his mother-in-law!) decades earlier.

Flat broke, and unwilling to accept corporate board positions or commercial endorsements, Truman sought a much-needed loan from a local Missouri bank. For several years his sole income was a $113 monthly Army pension, and only the sale of a parcel of land he inherited with his siblings prevented him from nearly "being on relief," as Truman allegedly stated. In the 1950s, perhaps almost entirely to alleviate Truman's embarrassing financial situation, Congress authorized a $25,000 yearly pension for ex-presidents Truman and the much-wealthier Herbert Hoover. 

Contrast this with the luxe post-presidential life of the Reagans in Bel Air, or the still-unfolding saga of the Obama's jet-setting life between Kalorama, Palm Springs, and Oahu!

Now, on to Truman and the CIA:

But even if Truman's homespun honesty and common man persona sometime wore thin, he deserves enormous credit for the startling admission that he regretted creating the CIA. Speaking to a biographer in the 1960s, less than 20 years after signing the National Security Act of 1947, Truman expressed a sense of foreboding about what the agency had become, and would become:

Merle Miller: Mr. President, I know that you were responsible as President for setting up the CIA. How do you feel about it now?
Truman: I think it was a mistake. And if I'd know what was going to happen, I never would have done it...

...Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on. They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to account to anybody.

That's a very dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it's got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to. And if I was back in the White House, people would know. You see, the way a free government works, there's got to be a housecleaning every now and again, and I don't care what branch of the government is involved. Somebody has to keep an eye on things.

While it certainly is a testament to Truman's character that he was willing to admit that he had made a mistake, this interview is a microcosm of the history of the American presidency.

Presidents comes into office and erect new agencies that quickly become massive, centralized, and bureaucratic. They burn money, and soon become monsters of their own, demanding increasing power and expanding budgets to solve "problems" that they most likely either created or helped to exacerbate themselves. Then, with the benefit of hindsight, the president says, "Whoops! Sorry."

Even Truman's successor Ike "saw the light" after it was far too late. Eisenhower loved the CIA and its ability to quietly wage secret wars and overthrow governments. Then, after eight years of allowing the war machine that we are still stuck with today fester and grow, he warns Americans of the dangers of this "military-industrial-complex" on his way out.

"Whoops! Sorry."

Turkey's Erdogan Calls for Baby Boom in Europe

Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wants a Turkish baby boom in Europe

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has called on Turkey’s citizens in Europe to step up their rates of procreation and have five children each, saying a booming Turkish population would be the best answer to the EU’s “vulgarism, antagonism, and injustice”.

Nearly a week after a diplomatic row between erupted between Holland and Turkey, Mr Erdoğancontinued what has become a daily ritual of hurling fresh antagonism towards Europe in front of cheering crowds of his conservative supporters. 

Speaking in the central city of Eskişehir, Turkey’s president urged “his brothers and sisters in Europe” to begin a baby boom in their new countries. “Have not just three but five children,” he told his flag-waving audience. 

“The place in which you are living and working is now your homeland and new motherland. Stake a claim to it. Open more businesses, enroll your children in better schools, make your family live in better neighborhoods, drive the best cars, live in the most beautiful houses.” 

Stake a claim to your homeland and new motherland? Sounds pretty explicit and imperial to me. Erdogan knows that Europe is weak, in decline, and ripe for the picking. But his goals are not new; the Turks have been eyeing Europe for centuries.

Ever since the earliest days of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks  have attempted to invade and conquer as much of Europe as they could. What was once Constantinople and home of an Orthodox Christian Empire was sacked by the Ottomans and is now Istanbul. After the Hagia Sophia was turned into a mosque, the Ottomans headed West and invaded Europe over and over again; they took Christian slaves, looted cities, and expanded their empire. In 1683, the Ottoman Turks threw everything they had at the Gates of Vienna, and in one of the most defining battles of European history, they were repelled by armies under the command of Jan III Sobienski, the King of Poland.

A civilization that used to repel invaders and defend their in-group now subsidizes their replacements, rationalizing it as some form of penance for the liberal guilt that cripples them. What will European civilization look like with a declining European population? If things aren't turned around fairly quickly, we will soon find out.

Congressman Steve King is right: demography is destiny.