Author Archives: wayneallensworth

Tucker Goes There: The Great Replacement

By Wayne Allensworth

Well, almost there. For understandable reasons, Tucker Carlson had to pretend the Great Replacement is about “voting rights,” which is partly true, but he did not specify just whose voting rights the powers-that-be really aim to diminish. If you get that part of it, then it’s clear just who is slated for replacement, and why the globalist Blob goes ballistic when anyone raises the issue.  

One more quibble: It’s not just the Democrats who are supporting immigration policies that will overwhelm the American Remnant.

 Nevertheless, Tucker pointed out that the ADL supports national borders for Israel, which has no intention of allowing its people to be overwhelmed by Arabs. From the program’s transcript:

“Go to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) website sometime if you’d like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country’s national interest might look like. In a short essay posted to the site, the ADL explains why the state of Israel should not allow more Arabs to become citizens with voting rights:

‘With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world,’ the ADL explains, ‘Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically — and potentially physically — vulnerable.’

 ‘It is unrealistic and unacceptable,’ the ADL continues, ‘to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.’

Now, from Israel’s perspective, this makes perfect sense. Why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? Isn’t that the deepest betrayal of all? In the words of the ADL, why would a government subvert its own sovereign existence? Good question.”

We all know what happened to Joe Sobran when he raised some questions that were related to the nationalism for me, but not for you issue. Tucker was quite brave to bring this up. Surprisingly, Carlson was subsequently defended from an unexpected quarter–and just may stay on the air a bit longer.

Tucker’s segment on replacement through mass immigration was the best we could hope for. As Steve Sailer put it, it was an “Overton Window-smashing” event. Yet your faithful observer senses that a large part of our people are still struggling to convince themselves that it is not “racist” to resist being replaced. They are so concerned about seeing the Other’s point of view that they refuse to believe we as a collective should even have a point of view.

The white disease of obsessive racial guilt and pathological altruism is still pervasive and debilitating, even in the face of militant anti-white hatred that is itself now pervasive in our society.

Take a look at this, for instance. What can one say about a prayer for God to help a “weary black woman” hate whites? Even–or maybe especially–the “nice ones” who profess “not to see color,” but who (horrors!) watch Fox News and voted for Trump.

In a blog entry on the MSM attempting to turn everything into an occasion for attacking “whiteness,” Rod Dreher noted that when whites are attacked by a minority perp, nobody asks what the motive was. Dreher wrote “That is the standard the media have for killings in which the suspected perpetrator is a racial minority, and (especially) when the victims are white. This is definitely not the standard the media have for killings in which the (suspected) murderers are white people killing minorities.” Dreher concluded his blog post by asking a question (emphasis in the original): “Why are they teaching non-white people to fear and loathe whites? What are they preparing America for?”

Take a guess.

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor for Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood   

Horseman, Pass By: Larry McMurtry RIP

Your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. Acts 2:17

Celebrated author Larry McMurtry passed away at age 84 on March 25. (Read obituaries and reminiscences about him herehere, and here.) We will not see his like again. The world that produced him, a world where the cowboy culture was still remembered, a world where what he called “the book culture” flourished, is gone.

McMurtry was a man torn between his attachments to the place and people from whence he came and his impulse to escape them. He once wrote of his ambivalence about his origins as running “deep as the bone.” Larry McMurtry was born into a Texas ranching family. The world he knew as a boy was, as he sometimes lamented, a largely bookless one. He would eventually become a voracious reader. Books, the writing and collecting of them, would be his life. McMurtry observed more than once that he was only a passable horseman, and it was clear that he was not made for ranch life. He was meant for other things.

Larry McMurtry would wander far from his home in Archer City, Texas, but he kept coming back. When he had achieved fame and fortune as a writer, he filled the once practically bookless town with books of all kinds. Even after he sold off more than half his holdings in 2012, between his bookstore and his private collection, McMurtry still had about 200,000 volumes to his name. He once remarked that the “culture of the book” was a “wonderful culture, which we mustn’t lose.” McMurtry was dedicated to the survival of that culture.

McMurtry occasionally remarked that his intent in writing Westerns was to “de-mythologize” the West, and he sometimes went out of his way to subvert that myth. But what the author of Lonesome Dove actually accomplished was the revitalization of the myth by bringing it closer to the earth, out of the realm of stylized cowboys and sanitized versions of the conquest of the West. His Western protagonists, especially Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrea, were nonetheless heroic, perhaps more so, by being all too human. He once commented that the cowboy was a tragic figure who could not acknowledge his own tragedy, but aided others in creating the Western myth.

Whatever his misgivings about the life he simultaneously criticized and eulogized in his writing, it was clear that McMurtry respected those men. Like many of us, something tells me that part of him longed to be like them, to have seen the world that they rode through, even knowing what it cost. Texas Monthly‘s Jeff Salamon once noted that in Lonesome Dove, the deep and abiding friendship between Call and Gus is juxtaposed with the emotional conflicts they experience over tender feelings for women and, in Call’s case, his unacknowledged illegitimate son. Yet something powerful in the emotionally limited character of men like Call and Gus haunts us like an unsated desire. 

The epigraph to Lonesome Dove is drawn from T.K. Whipple’s Study Out the Land:

“All America lies at the end of the wilderness road, and our past is not a dead past, but still lives in us. Our forefathers had civilization inside themselves, the wild outside. We live in the civilization they created, but within us the wilderness still lingers. What they dreamed, we live, and what they lived, we dream.”

McMurtry loved the American West. “The West,” he once said, “is mostly a very beautiful place. There are all those lovely spaces. There are all those running horses. It’s a poetic imagery and it’s been there for a long time.”

McMurty recalled that his father “loved cowboys.” “That,” said McMurtry, “got him through his life. But he knew perfectly well, so did we, that it wouldn’t last another generation, it just was not going to last.” Much of McMurtry’s Western writing was elegiac, even wistful. In his debut novel, Horseman, Pass By, the aging rancher Homer Bannon clashes with his stepson, Hud. The old man is the embodiment of the roughhewn integrity McMurtry obviously associated with men like him. His son is the new, modern West. For him, integrity is just another item for sale. The epic cattle drive of Lonesome Dove is part of the closing act of a Homeric age nearing its end, something the novel’s protagonists are well aware of. The Last Picture Show chronicled the demise of a small town. Fittingly, the last film shown at the town’s movie theatre before it closes is a Western.

At the end of HorsemanPass By, Lonnie, Homer’s grandson, attends the old man’s funeral. After the church service, he thinks “of the horseman that had passed,” a reference to a poem by Yeats:

Cast a cold eye
On life, on death
Horseman, pass by!

Those words are the epitaph on Yeats’s tombstone. 

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor for Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood   

The White Disease

By Wayne Allensworth

If you have not noticed by now, dear reader, a fundamental theme in leftist/globalist discourse is “whiteness,” and how that condition is the cause of practically all the world’s problems. 

Wokeness in power means anti-”whiteness,” and the leftist mob takes every opportunity it can to demonize unreconstructed white people who have not yet denounced themselves and their race. White penitents appear to imagine that taking a knee before the woke religion’s gods will appease the mob, which will then anoint them as post-white acolytes of the church of wokeness. 

That’s probably a delusion.

In Oakland, California, for instance, unbearable whiteness excludes the melanin-challenged residents of that benighted city from an anti-poverty program that will send cash to families earning less than $30,000. The city’s mayor, Libby Schaaf, described the program as part of a “relentless campaign” to institute a national guaranteed income. It’s safe to assume that the good mayor does not imagine such a program will aid whites.

Non-woke whites must expect to be blamed for everything. The MSM’s “white supremacy” mantra is invoked whenever and wherever possible to drive home the anti-white message. MSM propagandists have predictably cast the Atlanta massage parlor murders as an act of brazen “whiteness” in action. As noted by VDare’s James Fulford, the aim of such propaganda is to blame “white supremacy” for a wave of attacks on Asians by black thugs. The same sources ignore or play down the racial animus of any criminal targeting white victims.

Meanwhile, anti-white “critical race theory” is in our schools. If parents object, they are treated as enemies of the revolution. In Loudoun County, Virginia, for instance, a group of self-appointed political commissars, including current and former teachers, have compiled a list of those who object. The purpose of the Stasi wannabes is to infiltrate the dissenters, use hackers to cut off their communications, and expose the ideological deviants. We should all know by now what such exposure may mean for them: the loss of jobs, harassment, perhaps even politically-motivated violence.

Meanwhile, in Mordor, formerly “the nation’s capital,” two Democratic senators, Japanese immigrant Mazi Hirono of Hawaii and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, have complained that even Joe Biden’s cabinet appointments are not “diverse” enough. “Diverse,” of course, first of all means “not white.” Duckworth proclaimed that “I am a ‘no’ vote on the floor on all non-diversity nominees. … I will vote for racial minorities and LGBTQ but anybody else, I’m not voting for.” The two harridans’ threats reportedly prompted the White House to make promises regarding “diversity” in exchange for their votes.

If you still don’t get it, take a gander at remarks by one Damon Young, who has proclaimed that “whiteness is a public health crisis.” It’s a “pandemic,” in fact. According to Young, whiteness “kills people.” “White supremacy,” opined Young, “is a virus that, like other viruses, will not die until there are no bodies left for it to infect. Which means the only way to stop it is to locate it, isolate it, extract it, and kill it.” Young, by the way, is “a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times,” not a marginal figure posting his anti-white bilge on Facebook. What’s more, Young’s genocidal remarks failed to prompt a response from the gatekeepers at Twitter. Twitter, by the way, has a “hateful conduct policy” that excludes dehumanizing language — like comparing people to a disease that must be eradicated. That policy apparently does not apply to whites. 

The American Remnant should not delude itself by believing the GOP will help it. Thus far, their latest imagined savior, Donald Trump, has not lifted a finger to defend even his most ardent supporters, who are being treated as part of vast, imaginary “domestic terrorism” network rooted in “white supremacy.” The GOP appears to be “allergic to praising its base,” as the Stupid Party is obsessed with “minority outreach.” Asking the Republicans to defend their own voters appears to be asking for too much.

White elites who have backed, or at least yielded to, the anti-”whiteness” mob are likely whistling past the graveyard, both literally and figuratively. The Z-Man recently noted that America, like the post-Brezhnev Soviet Union, is a gerontocracy. Both the Democrats and the GOP leadership are dominated by old white people. When they die off, the gerontocracy will die with it. The Z-Man notes that their descendants will be left to the tender mercies of an emerging non-white majority, the product of decades of unchecked mass immigration. 

We should not be sanguine about our future. Whites in South Africa, many of them afflicted with the real white disease of obsessive racial guilt and pathological altruism, yielded power to non-whites. They continue to pay the price. All the talk of reconciliation and rainbows did not save them. In the “land of the free,” many whites cannot muster the courage to defend themselves. Whites are the only people who appear ready to commit suicide to prove how broad-minded they are.

Those of us who still have a sense of self-preservation have a tough road ahead. We must convince our people that what we face is more than a political divide. It’s a question of survival.

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor for Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood.    

SI Makes History: The Norming of “Trans” Mania

By Wayne Allensworth

A creature who goes by the name “Leyna Bloom” is now, as Us magazine reports, “gracing the pages” of the 2021 Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. “Leyna” and SI are “making history,” we are told, since “she” is “the first transgender woman of color” to be featured in the magazine. SI had already established its “woke” credentials last year, when the once popular swimsuit issue featured its first “transgender” model. SI‘s editors were fully aware, no doubt, that more history was there to be made by featuring a “person of color” of the “trans” persuasion in its glossy pages.

SI‘s recent bout of lunacy makes one nostalgic for the good old days of Christie Brinkley and Kathy Ireland. The unstated assumption of the powers-that-be is that if “Leyna” doesn’t make the boys drool, they are all a bunch of “transphobes,” as the latest addition to the argot goes. We have been duly directed to find “her” desirable–“she’s” a victim, you understand, of patriarchal norms. In the benighted past, “Leyna” claims, “she” was told “she” was a “woman,” black (Us capitalizes “Black,” of course), and “trans,” and that “she” was, therefore, “at the bottom of the food chain.” But not now–bottom rail on top! And you had better at least pretend to like it. Capiche?

What’s going on here? 

First, sports journalism is competing for its place in the sun. Sports writers are no longer crusty fellows chomping on cheap cigars in cramped press boxes as they pound out copy for the unwashed. Perpetually rehashing the Jackie Robinson story just doesn’t hack it anymore. What better way to become “relevant” than turning the swimsuit issue inside out, so to speak?

Second, Big Brother is constantly on the lookout for thought crimes. The globalist Blob is a total system. It intends to encompass everything in our lives. Nothing can be allowed to exist outside it, as that would threaten the long-term prospects for permanently transforming the proles (especially whites) into a mass of UBI-collecting, cubicle dwelling, obedient drones. Testing the collective gag reflex of American males is great fun, and highly informative for the Blob’s Minions. Who will dare express repulsion at the charms of “Leyna?” Who will perform the requisite act of obedience and proclaim “her” desirable?   

Third, the demonic transvaluation of all values continues. The object of the nihilists, who hate the natural order, God, and anything associated with civilized society, is to invert all social norms, to proclaim the perverse and disgusting as beautiful and call Evil, Good, and Good, Evil. That which is beautiful must be subverted. Thus, the proliferation of people who mutilate and disfigure themselves.

Normalizing “trans” mania by trying to force “Leyna” on us is part of the program.   

And fourth, the left delights in destroying anything normal men–especially normal white men– enjoy. Whether it’s “trans” swimsuit models or rubbing their noses in the “Black National Anthem” at sporting events, the monsters must be made to squirm.

This sort of thing is not going to go away anytime soon. For decades, mainstream conservatives mocked “PC,” while not really taking it seriously. It was no joke, however. The woke crazies mean what they say, and there is nowhere left to retreat to that is beyond their reach.

Wayne Allensworth is a Corresponding Editor for Chronicles Magazine. He is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood   

Joe Sobran’s Real Transgression

By American Remnant

Declan Leary admires the late Joe Sobran, who passed on ten years ago.

Mr. Leary used most of a recent article he wrote for The American Conservative to praise Sobran’s many gifts and insights. Leary, for instance, called Joe Sobran “a rare talent, fueled by a remarkable mind.” He described Sobran’s writing as “unmatched” for its “clarity of thought.” Joe, noted Leary, citing comments by Sobran’s National Review colleague Matthew Scully, had a facility with language that made his writing appear easy, except that no one else could duplicate it.

Leary’s aim was to praise Joe Sobran’s contributions to conservative thought. Leary summed up Sobran’s “remarkable body of work” by concluding that his conservative thesis was “deceptively simple,” one that was based in “humility and gratitude.” Leary wrote that Sobran’s view of a conservative was someone “who sees that the world is good, rejoices in that goodness, and recognizes that he would not do very well to remake it from scratch. Just as this worldview, planted as it is firmly on the ground, discourages utopian endeavors, so too it mandates the preservation of what good we have built through conservative action.”

It is instructive, however, that Leary felt compelled to begin his fine essay on Sobran’s contributions to conservatism by dealing with how Joe Sobran has been “judged” for his ”alleged anti-Semitism.” Sobran, he wrote, “now tends to be mentioned only in sanctimonious whispers, as a hard-right crank and certified loon.” Leary wrote that Sobran’s “infamous” 2002 appearance before the Institute for Historical Review, which “peddles in Holocaust denial,” was something that “cannot be excused,” and he lamented what he called Sobran’s “reprehensible actions in later life.”

Nevertheless, Leary concluded that Sobran’s work had great value and that the “pall” that had fallen over his legacy “should not have fallen so heavily.”

No, it shouldn’t have.

Leary’s point is that Sobran’s ill-advised appearance at the IHR, something that he should not have done, was not the most important thing about him. What he misses is why that pall did, in fact, fall so heavily over Joe Sobran, and what that revealed about public life in our society. What’s missing goes a long way toward explaining why positive statements about anyone our establishment has cast into the outer darkness are commonly prefaced with a ritual condemnation.

The fact is that the powers-that-be had portrayed Joe Sobran as a “crank” and a “loon” long before his IHR appearance. He had been ostracized and vilified for years, especially by nervous conservatives, in a way that Al Sharpton, for example, was not. That’s the Al Sharpton who played an inexcusable, infamous, and reprehensible role in the 1991 pogrom in Crown Heights, an event of actual violence against Jews.

Yet Al Sharpton was not ostracized or dismissed by national media as a crank or a loon. He has prospered. No pall has fallen over Al Sharpton. Why is that?

The answer to that question is simple enough. The right reverend is black, a leftist, and a rabble rouser. In short, he is “diverse,” while Joe Sobran was not. What’s more, he is a useful demagogue for the left and our globalist elite. Thus, Al gets a pass, even for his part in mob violence directed against Jews, while Joe, who had never advocated violence against Jews or anyone else, did not.

But why did that pall fall over Joe Sobran in the first place?

The answer to that question is also a simple one, if, that is, one understands the dynamics of political power in our society.  

Joe Sobran behaved as if he were a free man still living in free country. And in doing so, he violated one of the most sacrosanct taboos in American public life. Joe raised the issue of the enormous power and influence of the Israeli lobby and its “Amen corner” in our country. Sharpton may have helped instigate a pogrom, but our establishment saw Sobran as far more dangerous. Ironically, in destroying Joe Sobran’s career and reputation, the American political establishment only proved how right Joe had been.             

The Texas Power Grid Disaster: Only the Beginning?

By Wayne Allensworth

The sun is shining now, and the snow and ice are melting.  I managed to take a walk around my neighborhood this weekend, something I haven’t been able to do for a while as a result of the “polar vortex” that wreaked havoc in my native state.

The power grid broke down under the strain, homes were left without electricity, pipes burst, and water treatment plants stopped functioning in some areas.  Millions were left without power, heat, and water. 

Why did this happen?

Revolver.news has posted the best thing I’ve read about this mess, a piece entitled  “Texas’s Power Grid Disaster is Only the Beginning.”  According to Revolver, there are lots of reasons for the system breaking down under the “black swan” event of the polar vortex cold snap, as  temperatures dipped below zero in a number of places in Texas.

Yes, growing reliance on solar and wind turbine power played an important role in the disaster. Conservative news sources took advantage of the opportunity to take a shot at “green energy,” gleefully highlighting photos of frozen wind turbines, but that apparently was not the only problem.  The Texas power system collapsed partly because of a lack of preparation—instruments froze up at nuclear power stations that had not been “winterized,” as well as at natural gas and coal facilities across the state.  Revolver compared the collapse of the Texas power grid to recent blackouts in California, but also noted that the USA’s power grid is dramatically less reliable than those of other developed countries. Revolver reported that aging infrastructure had not been updated or replaced.

Why hasn’t it been updated or replaced?  Because maintaining infrastructure is one of the “least sexy” budget items, and is one of the first things to be cut back during a “budget crunch.”  In the eyes of our esteemed legislators, there are far more “sexy” budget items to focus on.  As a result, according to the information presented by Revolver, infrastructure spending has been steadily declining.

It’s only going to get worse.

Revolver summed up our predicament like this:

“The mess with the Texas power grid is only the beginning. In the years to come, American infrastructure will fail more and more often, as America becomes less capable of maintaining the core elements of a First World country.

Why would America become less First World? That’s a simple question to answer: Because America is making itself less First World.” 

America is becoming more like an undeveloped country because major enterprises and government have institutionalized hiring employees and contractors based on their “diversity” points rather than competence.  Revolver highlighted the Washington DC metro system as an example of that practice and its results.  On top of that, Revolver noted that the globalists who run this country are making America more “third world” by importing vast numbers of low skilled (and, I would add, low IQ) immigrants from less developed countries, countries that are plagued by staggering corruption and incompetence.  Thus, “There are other reasons to be worried about America’s future supply of builders, technicians, and repairmen.” Yes, there are—we are talking about the country’s future stock of “human capital.”  

As for self-styled “conservatives,” the bulk of them have never been interested in conserving anything, not even the American ethnos. They have been wedded to “growth” as the holiest tenet of their ideology, espousing a bogus conservatism that recognizes no limits.  No wonder mainstream conservatism has been reluctant to embrace sensible limits on immigration.  The “mainstream” view is that one warm body is interchangeable with another, and the more warm bodies, the better.  It stands to reason that as more people have flooded the country, our aging infrastructure has been strained to the breaking point.

Blackouts and other infrastructure disasters are likely to become more common.  Get used to it.

Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood

Middle American Resistance, Nullification, and the Purge of the Military

By Wayne Allensworth

In earlier pieces on Middle American Resistance (see here and here, for instance), your humble servant wrote that gun control could be the issue that galvanizes that resistance.  From counties to whole states, a showdown with the globalist Blob has been shaping up over what may be the bridge too far Middle America won’t allow to be crossed.

Under front man Biden, the Blob is preparing to attempt to cross that bridge. The aim, of course, is not to halt the recent surge in “gun violence.”  That would mean throwing more black criminals in jail, wrecking the Blob’s “white supremacist” threat narrative.  The aim is to disarm us, the people the globalists really fear

County sheriffs, other county level officials, state governments, and towns and cities around the country have refused to enforce gun control measures in “2nd Amendment sanctuary” zones.  In January, after a number of Texas counties had done just that, Governor Greg Abbot stated that he wanted Texas to become a 2nd Amendment sanctuary state so that “no government official at any level” could infringe Texans’ 2nd Amendment rights. 

Nullification is a key weapon in Middle America’s fight for survival. 

The states are resisting on other fronts as well.  Texas, for instance, had previously sued the federal government over the Biden administration’s intention to end immigration enforcement, and is at it again. Gun control may be the emotional trigger that sets off Middle American resistance, but it is mass immigration that has been the Blob’s indispensable weapon of mass destruction in its war on “deplorable” America.  We must act to preserve a sanctuary for our people if they are to have any future at all.

The key question is what the Blob intends to do about all this, but the administration’s intention to purge the military may tell us something. As noted in this space previously, the “boots on the ground” are largely on our side, so it’s no surprise that the Blob is targeting “extremists” in uniform. 

Don’t expect any help from bogus “populists” in the national level GOP—and we should not take it for granted that Republican “beautiful losers” at any level are completely trustworthy.

Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood

Why do conservatives always lose?

By Wayne Allensworth

In my lifetime, social trends have inexorably tracked leftward. In a very short time in historical terms, our society’s popular culture, for instance, veered from The Andy Griffith Show to RuPaul’s Drag Race at a disorienting pace.  For every apparently good bit of news—divorce rates are down, for instance—we find a dark cloud behind a false silver lining: there are fewer divorces because marriage has collapsed, and with it, the family, the very bedrock of any social order.

Social conservatives have enjoyed few successes in recent decades. It mattered little who was president, or which party controlled Congress, or even who sat on the Supreme Court.  Yes, the court’s role in the revolution is clear, but were the justices determining social norms or following already extant trends?  Those “conservative” justices—vital to the survival of the republic, we heard again and again—had a way of “growing” in a way leftists did not. Something called “gay marriage” that was unthinkable not so long ago now appears to be widely accepted.  It’s difficult to believe that such a sea change in social attitudes took place because of a single SCOTUS decision.  The old social norms have evaporated like a glass of water in a desert.  The old unmentionables are becoming commonplace: homosexuality, cohabitation, even “trans-gendered” people.

What happened? 

American individualism was unmoored from traditional morality. Richard Weaver’s notion of an individualism limited by duty and responsibility in the “disciplined freedom” of “social bond individualism” is, as they say, ancient history. There are many interrelated reasons for that.  Urbanization, industrialization, increased mobility, and cultural homogenization undermined a sense of rootedness in our people. Deracination was the result. Those “little platoons” mainstream conservatives used to celebrate became fractured and atomized.

It’s no surprise that socio-economic structural changes were accompanied by a new zeitgeist that celebrated the myth of a completely autonomous individual, a demi-god unbridled by “oppressive” traditional institutions, a superior being capable of magical transformations.  No fault divorce and legal abortion were its products. The zeitgeist of the age promoted a “blank slate” theory of human nature that set the stage for mass, virtually uncontrolled, immigration from lands vastly different from our own.

Real conservatives tend to be wary of technological advancement and the social disruption that might accompany radical innovation. They should be. The sexual revolution, for instance, was not simply a matter of the legalization of abortion and pornography, or easy divorce. It could not have happened without penicillin and the pill. The former ended the fear of venereal disease.  The latter ended the fear of an “unwanted child.”  Sexual libertines had been around for centuries. The “liberated” world they desired could not have happened without the medical-technological advancements of the 20th century. 

What we as conservatives are confronted with is the late sociologist Zygmunt Bauman’s “liquid modernity,” a society that is in a constant state of becoming.  Our society sees “change” as a wholly positive phenomenon.  “Change” has no end point of perfection.  There is nothing “solid” in our new reality. “Trans-genderism” and “trans-humanism” are the next realms of exploration for a world that is constantly in flux. 

Conservatives lose because what we have to offer—restraint, traditional religious and cultural norms, self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, kinship ties, patriotism—has been unable to compete with “ye shall be as gods,” and the sense of omnipotence that accompanies the seductive power of modern technology.  Our young people are afloat in the sea of liquid modernity.  What attraction can a life of oppressive restraint, of blood, sweat, toil, and tears, have compared to the false promise of self-realization and instant gratification?  They wish to be “happy” and self-determined.  Our old notions of fulfillment are unappealing. 

All people long for a sense of purpose and direction. Drug addiction, depression, suicide, and the lost sense of place that haunt our society are the consequences of a vast array of structural, social, and economic disruptions. These are disruptions our self-styled mainstream conservatives celebrate, as they celebrate globalized capitalism’s role in creating a post-modern wasteland.  If there is to be any positive future for our people, we have to reject the tenets of a “conservatism” that can’t even conceive of conserving anything.

It may be that the present madness will have to run its course, that it will continue until enough people have experienced its destructive nihilism good and hard.  In the meantime, the rest of us will have a lot of thinking to do about how to survive, how to rebuild, and how to keep the old ways alive.

Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel Field of Blood

« Older Entries