Homosexuality and Identitarian Politics

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Han Fei says:

    All sins can be reduced to two: ignorance and indifference. If man knew the consequences of sin he would not dare partake in it, if he cared for what sin draws from, he would not suffer to become party to its existence.

    The connexion you draw here between homosexuality and far right politics is extremely contentious, for a number of reasons. Therefore it must be rebutted. However it must be made clear first that I am a non white listener and as such have no need to identify myself with the European radical right, though I do not deny that I harbor some sympathies towards it. It is indeed the case that notions of freedom, rights, civility as well as the cultural and scientific achievements have been predominantly the product of the European intellect, at least in the last 600 years. As an Eastern person I will say one thing – there is no concept of human rights or dignity as such that does not pertain exclusively to the sovereign existing anywhere in the post-Vedic East. This is solely a European, Christian and white idea, in a combination that cannot exclude any of its parts to be considered valid. If the Orient ever had inklings of these things springing forth, they were stamped out at their root, dead and long forgotten. The same reason why you rightfully concern yourself over the growing influence of states like Russia or China has to be the same reason why you must cherish, love and do anything to defend your European heritage.

    The interest of politics demands unification. The interest of party and vested interest holds sway over the tribe. The fundamental block to which people saw themselves as belonging in party and interest was the family, which in extended form became the tribe. Thus, when we look at the power struggle between parties over the course of history, we are primarily seeing the struggle between particular tribes and political authority seeking to subsume them.

    The first globalist that we know of from historical records was Alexander the Great. He sought to move all the peoples from Europe to Asia and Asia to Europe, so in that way to promote the greatest race mixing experiment in known history thus far. Fortunately, he died before such a plan could be realized. In your video, you say that it is possible for multiple ethnicities to coexist under one polity. This can’t be true. In any state with multiple ethnicities, one of them always predominates over the rest. Rome could not maintain its constitutional traditions and republican system when its sphere of influence extended across all of Italy. It took several civil wars and many decades before the question of the non-Latin share of power in Rome forced itself to be resolved. There no historical examples of long lasting multicultural societies without a strongly unifying central authority that one would associate with an autocratic form of statehood.

    There are many examples of this in history, but none are so strong as China. Before Qin unification, China was a collection of motley states, each characterized by a vibrant language and culture. The First Qin Emperor, after a succession of genocidal wars, put an end to this division, and the successive dynasties have hammered out an identity out of the Han on what seems to be a purely political basis. As a result, China became a united, powerful and a lasting state, at a cost of losing the cultural depth, richness and flourishing brought out by its once Greek-like diversity of languages and nations. As a result, when we look at today’s Chinese we fail to even consider the ancient ethnic distinctions, just as they have long forgotten them themselves. Reading the comments of today’s white nationalists, it becomes all too awfully clear that this is exactly the conception of the political goals of ethnic-based statecraft they seek to undertake – for Europe’s characteristic spirit lies in the interminable division between its constituent ethnic parts. To overcome that division under the banner of a common white identity, is to stamp out and erase the particularities that it is made up of. That is why to me at least, the cost of establishing a white ethnostate would necessarily be the spirit of whiteness itself. A white ethnostate- especially on the footsteps of previous century’s right politics, would be in essence, indistinguishable from modern communist China or A. Dugin’s vision for Russia – a deracinated, proletarian and egalitarian society held together by brutal autocratic rule.

    Going back to the present, the resurgence of the radical right can be attributed to a very simple reason and that is in a civil society, the conservative parties and forces have utterly failed. Conservatism can only hold sway over the public when it can draw from a certain common ground that the mass of the population understands as the starting point of every argument. When these commonly held grounds are questioned, subverted and ultimately dissolved, as has been so phenomenally achieved by the leftist media-academic establishment, there is no ground upon which conservatism can perform its main function, which is to balance the political forces in a civil society with its historical and ethnic foundations. With these solid establishing principles gone, what is there left for a conservative in Europe or USA to do but argue for the excise tax to be brought down by 2% or to promote yet another corporate lobby interest? Even what used to be face of reactionary politics in Europe, the Catholic Church, has dissembled itself into competing within the pool of “humanitarian” NGOs for influence in globalist institutions. The Pope disgustingly and hypocritically digs his face into the feet of African migrants in whose faces one can only see the barely constrained impulse to kick it. I have no blame for them in this case.

    On this spiritually desolate and depraved basis, a New Order will seek ground to arise in the West. The famous “hoaxer”, Leo Taxil, wrote most aptly that for occasion:

    “We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.”

  2. Robber Chih says:

    The above comment is a 2-for-1 deal on entering this podcast.. wow
    Thanks M. Malič and Han Fei.

    Although I do think that different ethicities can coexist in the same polity provided they have the traditional framework or or maybe ‘spiritual awakening ‘ of consciousness which sees the inherent value of otherness in a mutually reinforcing way leading to universal respect as opposed to a zero sum game of identitarianism.

    Carl Jung has pointed out in his essays On The Aspects of the Feminine a similiar line of thought and that is that marriage between man and woman is a fulfillment of the individual personality.
    Based on his theory of animus-anima, the union between the sexes is symbolic of the ultimate union (in the psyche) of the known-unknown, which plays out in the dynamic relationship between the individual and universal consciousness.

    Re ethnically diverse polities, a contact with the ‘other’ is that which begins to reveal what Jung calls the shadow of the personality, that is the element of the unconscious which is still personal or of the individual, a more shallow experience than union of the soul but a move in that direction. Ie psychic unity.

    In order to experience ourselves on a more profound level, we need encounters with the other and to recognize what it is we are actually encountering ie our projected selves which leads to a more complete personality. Failure to recognize this phenomenon of transference results in the situation of society which cannot be ethnically diverse since they are unconscious of projecting their own negative personal elements onto the other. Hence why ‘spiritual awakening ‘ is perhaps the more apt term.

    As a discipline, social anthropology and the techniques of ethnography should become universal subjects of study because as M. Malić has done in this podcast, it is so valuable to have a theoretical or intellectual framework for encountering the other (not reductionist identitarianism) if multicultural societies are to exist and prosper, as they can.

    The conciseness and thoroughness is much appreciated.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *