Matt Parrott

I only have a few more months to speak as a "youth" before I turn thirty. After that point, I'll be on the other side of the looking glass, lavishing praise on "the future of our movement" while my mind and body decline into senescent irrelevance. Okay, not really. I'll surely get old, of course. But I consider the artificial delineation of people into chronological identity groups to be one of the less obvious, more insidious ways that Modernity has undermined our worldview and crippled us as a people.

Our society's one in which we attend school in chronologically defined "classes", relocate to special age-delimited dorms when we come of age, and get carted away to grimy nursing homes to hide our suffering and death from our more youthful family members. Even our churches, those supposed outposts of tradition, segregate youths into special "youth groups" that deliver a more hip, modern, and casual relationship with a less judgmental God than our parents worship.

I do spend my money on different things now than I did when I was a teenager, and my spending habits will evolve in predictable ways as I age. To the marketplace, my age is much more relevant than my race, my ethnicity, my religion, my politics, or my personality. Personally, I resent being defined by my age—even while it remains flattering. It seems to me that people who wouldn't dare define themselves by their ancestors or ethnicity are quick to carry on at length about their "generation", reveling in generational identity cues in the same way healthy human beings would revel in the identity cues of their families, communities, and congregations.

I watched My So-Called Life when it originally aired on MTV, and will always have a special place in my heart for Claire Danes. I listened to Pretty Hate Machine with headphones on, played Nirvana Unplugged in my bedroom while writing bad poetry, and (with the notable exception of the notoriously difficult Lost Levels) have played and won every major Mario Bros. title. To some extent, those things do define me. But I would prefer to be defined by the family and community I'm from. My late grandfather never watched MTV and my father imbibed a different decade's pop culture, but I cling to the belief that I'm more similar in more important ways to them than I am to random cohorts in my age demographic.

Based on what the media had told me all my life about my coevals, I had always assumed I was entirely out of step with my generation. But a funny thing happened on the way to the new world order: part of my generation started speaking for itself. Part of my generation has left the establishment speechless by rallying in support of Ron Paul. The septuagenarian contrarian has managed to leapfrog the Baby Boomer generation altogether to forge a fanatical majority of young conservatives without any of the puerile pandering to "Young Republicans" that the GOP establishment has been floundering at for years.

How could it be that a subset of the population raised on an exclusive diet of self-esteem boosting happy talk, big government propaganda, and multicult mythologizing is turning en masse to an old White guy who's closer to John Birch than Jon Stewart? Libby Copeland, one of the feminists in Slate's menstrual hut, is trying to dismiss this phenomenon with a confused theory that Ron Paul's message attracts young men because they're politically unrefined rubes who gravitate to simplistic ideas.

The notion that this year’s election is a choice between freedom (in the form of Paul) and tyranny (in the form of any other candidate) encapsulates Paul’s grand appeal to men in their late teens and 20s: He traffics in absolutes. Political scientists point out that age and newness to politics predispose young voters to a less nuanced view of the political world. They’re less likely to take the long view, less likely to have patience, less likely to spin out the implications of their political theories.

Do any political scientists subscribe to my hypothesis that young women's disproportionate support of Barack Obama in the previous election was due to the vapors? Of course not. These "scientists" who peddle broad and disparaging gender stereotypes only do so in the anti-male direction. The political scientist in question, Peter Levine, is the author of "Young, Black, and Voting", "The Civic Engagement of Young Immigrants: Why Does it Matter?", and an amateurish novel in which his protagonist outwits nefarious Nazi scientists. He is a veritable caricature of Prof. Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, and the notion that he's willing or able to objectively judge the voting, mating, or migratory habits of his historical nemeses—White males—is laughable.

Libby Copeland paradoxically condemns Dr. Paul's popularity and growing support base as mere branding because—wait for it . . .—he insists that his supporters immerse themselves in an extensive reading list of political and economic theory!

Unlike supporters of, say, Obama or Mitt Romney, Paul supporters tend to talk about an absolute truth, one that others would see, too, if they could just be persuaded to read certain materials. Among them: Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. These, of course, come from Paul, who gives an exhaustive list of recommendations at the back of what he calls his “manifesto.” [. . .] To the extent that voters try to communicate who they are through their candidate affiliation, Fairleigh Dickinson’s Cassino believes that what Paul offers more than any other Republican candidate is compelling branding.

Ron Paul is the anti-branding candidate, having actually made a point to eschew opportunities to deliver catchy sound bites and slick branding in favor of long-winded diatribes and relentless grassroots hustling.

“The Ron Paul brand is actually relatively intellectual,” Cassino says. It’s “A brand that’s about, ‘I’m smarter than you are.’ . . . ‘All the politicians are telling you one thing but I know better.’ ” This is the brand for those who feel different, who see themselves as a little bit brainier and more marginalized than everyone else. “If you’re playing Dungeons and Dragons, this is your political movement,” Cassino says.

Oh, snap! Copeland's article is one big desperate attempt to drag Ron Paul down to the same level as the majority of mainstream politicians from both the left and right. 'Sure, he seems intellectual, but that's empty posturing and it's really about subcultural status cues!' Frankly, it smacks of projection. By attempting to imagine what could possibly compel somebody to vote for somebody as extreme as Ron Paul, they betray a bit too much about what compels them to behave as they do. Ron Paul's supporter's aren't vapid hipsters self-consciously preening their political perspectives to achieve the adulation of their peers. They're men of my generation who are calling "bullshit" on the triumphalism and happy talk the Baby Boomer generation wallows in.

Men of my generation do share a thing or two in common due to our collective experiences. We were subjected for the first half of our lives to a school system that bloated our self-esteem with unwarranted praise and inflated our optimism with empty promises. Then the twin towers imploded on us. Then one sector of the economy after another imploded on us while our experts and educators insisted that everything was hopeful and changing for the better. More than anything, we've been longing for somebody on the national stage to level with us about how bad we suck, how disastrously off-course we've gone as a society and a nation, and how hope and change can only be had in exchange for deep and painful sacrifices and a radical realignment of priorities.

As a Radical Traditionalist, I reject Ron Paul's libertarian ideology as a misguided doubling down on the very mercantile morality that got us into this mess in the first place. I disagree with Ron Paul and his supporters on the scope and nature of the problem, but he has--more than anybody else on the national stage--embodied the deep visceral reaction to decades of pandering and pampering we've endured while it all falls apart around us. He has managed to become the voice of my generation because he's the last of a dying breed of men who roamed this country before this dark age of impenetrable arrogance, pandering to demographic focus groups, and all the happy talk. Our support for Ron Paul is the predictable "blowback" from decades of insufferable and irresponsible happy talk.

Richard T. Ford's new article, Rights Gone Wrong, laments the Alinskyite strategy increasingly deployed by White males of forcing the Civil Rights hustle to live up to its own rhetoric. He drips with contempt for his fellow males, appealing to his warped notion of "common sense". For him, common sense boils down to the unspoken premise of the Civil Rights Movement: It's a weapon to bludgeon White males. It's inappropriate and nonsensical to apply the statutes as written, because the intention is the opposite of what's written. It's a fig leaf of universal rhetoric over the giant throbbing obscenity of anti-White and anti-male zero-sum identity politics.

Ford's leopard-print thong is in a bunch because a man alleged sexual discrimination in a Mother's Day contest. Of course he was sexually discriminated against for being a man, it was a Mother's Day contest. Ford echoes the popular sentiment which is that the man should shut up and "man-up". In a sane world, I would concur. However, there's only one way to fight a social and legal system which is half-retarded and throws the retarded half in your lap: go full retard. There's nothing wrong with ladies' nights and Congressional Black Caucuses, but when the system sanctions fairness for thee and retardation for me, I have a moral obligation to support what this gentleman had the foresight and courage to do.

He was defeated, of course...

Christopher Hitchens has recently let his feelings about Middle America be known in a recent Slate article, "Has Bachmann Met Her Waterloo?" While it's ostensibly an attack on Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Hitchens main accusation is that she is from and of the small-town America that is too stupid, ignorant, and antiquated to produce federal leaders.

Where does it come from, this silly and feigned idea that it's good to be able to claim a small-town background? It was once said that rural America moved to the cities as fast as it could, and then from urban to suburban as fast as it could after that. Every census for decades has confirmed this trend. Overall demographic impulses to one side, there is nothing about a bucolic upbringing that breeds the skills necessary to govern a complex society in an age of globalization and violent unease.

He's angry at America in general and Michele in particular for failing to keep up with his insatiable appetite for more wars. In a long-overdue sign of hope, conservatives in the heartland have grown war-weary, failing to follow along with the neocons' threadbare arguments for further expansion of the empire. It's become outright necessary for the Republican candidates to feign an "isolationist" position on the trail, given that positively nobody outside of a Washington think-thank gives a damn about overthrowing Qaddafi. At this rate, the neocon Masters of the Universe are even having a hard time defending their ongoing operations from the anti-imperial Zeitgeist.

The comments section of a Washington Post article on McCain, Graham, and Lieberman hosting a press conference to kvetch about the decrease of troops in Afghanistan drives home just how far public opinion has drifted away from them. While they continue to get most of their wars, they're definitively on the retreat relative to where they were a few short years ago. In a way, this most recent impotent attack on Michele and the American voters is the prelude to the final defeat of his bankrupt ideology. A neocon Waterloo of sorts.

Michele's a bit of an unfair target of his wrath. She's actually been groomed for national leadership from a young age, having done her obligatory stint on an Israeli kibbutz. She has even confirmed repeatedly that she is more loyal to Israel than to the United States, invoking the tired Zionist heresy that all nations that fail to serve the Pharisaic State are subject to an actual (no joke) curse...

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States…. [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

But faith without works is dead. All her lapel pins and praises of Israel are for naught if she doesn't back them up with military aggression. What she's most likely doing is the same thing Obama did: She'll carry on about peace while stumping, then instigate more humanitarian operations, secretive drone strikes, and coalition projects once the trusting fools vote her in. Note that she, like Obama, continues to preach in specifics, arguing against this act of military expansionism or that one. She'll continue to refrain from actually taking a humble and sane position on foreign policy, which might prove embarrassing in the aftermath of an election victory.

Jaenelle instigated an epic firestorm with her recent article, "Where are All the Women?" Whether her position is correct or incorrect, she deserves credit for stepping up and starting the discussion. She's correct that the overt hostility toward women in some circles is an impediment to progress and she's also correct that women are generally less inclined—both by nature and nurture - to be a bit less politically vocal and comfortable with the concomitant competitiveness and hostility that comes with it.

Unfortunately, she leaves one with the impression that Women,  the identity group, are boycotting the good fight for our people and our future until a list of conditions are met. If a cause is both righteous and existential, then those who are awakened to the necessity of that cause have a moral obligation to fight for it regardless of what challenges they face from either their enemies or their "allies". To take up dissident political work is to be goaded into arena by spectators who are content to clap and cheer as the lion chases you in circles. It's not easy, but matter how off-putting some creeper bellowing about how you ought to shut up and make babies can be, it's not that guy's fault if women fail to do their part.

One might conclude if one didn't know better that Jaenelle is liable to run off and whimper on Morris Dees' gaudy red velvet sofa if we men didn't "shape up".

Her own actions contradict that interpretation. Jaenelle has been at the forefront of public advocacy, tirelessly working to organize and mobilize real world White Advocacy. As a co-founder of Hoosier Nation, she's played a pivotal role in building one of the most active and effective activist workshops in America from scratch. As the sole proprietor of Lighthouse Literature, she's doing as much as anybody to help spread the ideas behind our movement. She's faced down the illegal immigrant protesters and "antifa" thugs on the statehouse steps, choked on pepper spray, been kicked out of venues after bricks were thrown through the plate-glass windows,  had credible threats on both herself and her loved ones, and paid for much of that experience out of her own purse.

The real question is the very opposite of Jaenelle's. Men are the ones more or less absent from the struggle to preserve our White American heritage and way of life. Sure, there are relatively few women involved in the so-called "movement". But this struggle shouldn't be defined in terms of the "stuckment", but in on who is out in the real world struggling for White American interests and goals. By that standard, most hobbyists (and women are generally not hobbyists) who call themselves pro-White would barely qualify at all, and the vast army of moms, wives, and sisters keeping America segregated one neighborhood at a time would qualify.

Our enemies are quick to confirm that "racism" in America has taken on a softer, more subtle, more insidious tone. In other words, it's become more feminine. America's women are the ones putting their kids in "good schools", bothering the Homeowner's Association about all the cars parked next door until the Mexicans are forced out of the neighborhood, lobbying for zoning policies that prohibit lime green houses with purple shutters, championing the fascist zero-tolerance and anti-drug policies that make excellent proxies for race, and smirking warmly when their real estate clients propose to move into "that" neighborhood.

Had White America's women faltered to the extent that we men have in the past century, there would be nothing left for us to preserve. Where are all the men at? Had our women not found hundreds of millions of clever little ways to resist the federal government's tyrannical social engineering campaign, America would be a Brazilian circus by now. Had they contented themselves with bestowing grandiose titles upon themselves in the humid confines of their parents' basements and calling it "pro-White", we would all be hosed.

Steve Sailer has demonstrated that the phenomenon of "White Flight"—the first thing our opponents point to when attempting to name examples of Whites acting in their group interests - is driven almost exclusively by women of child-bearing age. Even the most confidently pro-White men find themselves going for the cheaper apartments that are closer to the office. Even the most liberal soccer moms find themselves going  for the lily-white subdivision. If, as Jaenelle suggested and many commenters put in more blunt terms, the men's work is overt political struggle and the women's work is practical local and familial toiling, then there's no contest.

Our birth rate is hovering below replacement-rate, now. Feminists are a big part of the problem. Heidi Beirich is still stomping around college campuses in search of "racism". There's much more that women can do to help, and I hope Jaenelle fleshes out her proposal for more female-friendly outreach and advocacy options. As a society, both sexes are failing to measure up to the legacy we inherited from our forefathers and pioneer mothers. If we're to earn the rich inheritance we've been entrusted with, both men and women must stop playing by the enemy's rules and thinking of our separate genders as competing identity groups. We must start thinking of ourselves as complementary halves of a singular tribe joined in a united front against the globalists and their third world minions.

When my brother and I are playing video games, we often give my nephew—a toddler—an unplugged controller. We encourage him to believe he's actually playing the game, congratulating him on playing well and cheering when he completes each level. He probably senses that his character's not quite doing what he wants him to do, but it's easiest to dismiss those concerns and play along. After all, he's playing as well as his adult mentors. Our scheme will probably continue to work as long as he feels like he's winning.

A toddler can be forgiven for this naivety. But what about the hundreds of millions of Americans who line up at the polls every other year to fall for this same scam being perpetrated on a sweeping national scale? Unlike the noble lie perpetrated by me and my brother, this lie is anything but noble. In every election, the people try to vote for smaller government, fewer imperial wars, secure borders, and safe jobs. Yet, the controllers deliver up more government, more wars, more open borders, and more free trade agreements no matter which buttons we press.

For decades, we Americans have absentmindedly played along because it seemed like we were winning. However, the unraveling credit bubble and the unmistakable impression that America is becoming "the sick man of the globe" is leaving many of us feeling less like we're winning, and more like we're this idiot in the middle . . .

We've become a nation of idiots. Alain de Benoist, a leading luminary of Europe's New Right, confirms the worst in his recently translated book, The Problem of Democracy...

The notions of citizenship, liberty, and equality of political rights, as well as popular sovereignty, were closely interrelated. The most essential feature of citizenship was one's origin and heritage: Pericles was the 'son of Xanthippus from the deme of Cholargus'. From 451 BCE, one had to be born of an Athenian mother and father in order to become a citizen. Defined by his belonging, the citizen (polites) was opposed to the idiotes, or non-citizen—a designation that quickly took on a pejorative meaning (from the notion of the isolated individual with no belonging came the idea of the 'idiot'). Citizenship as a function thus derived from the notion of citizenship a status which was the exclusive prerogative of birth. To be a citizen meant, in the fullest sense of the word, to belong to a homeland - that is, to a homeland and a past.

We're regressing from true citizens with a common heritage into isolated individuals . . . idiots. We no longer have the power or the will to direct this government, a government which no longer belongs to us in any meaningful way. While many of America's founding fathers were known for churning out universalist platitudes, the founding documents and the Republic they instantiated reflected the united spirit and will of a common people. John Jay explained it best in Federalist Paper No. 2 . . . 

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established liberty and independence.

In addition to John Jay, Louis March's Immigration and the End of Self-Government quotes Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, all corroborating the same basic vision of American identity. Abraham Lincoln, a racialist and ethnic nationalist by any standard, is conspicuously (though unsurprisingly) absent from this Southern gentleman's comprehensive list. Whether they were Federalists or Anti-Federalists, Yankees or Confederates, Democrats or Republicans, Americans shared an essentially Athenian conception of citizenship.

March contrasts this with Jewish neoconservative Nathan Glazer's contention that, "The United States is unique among the great nations of the world in the degree to which it refuses to define itself in ethnic or religious or national terms, as our basic founding documents make clear." A nation that refuses to define itself in national terms is a nation of idiots (to rely on the more common definition). Not that there's much of an American nation left...perhaps more of a global circus of "propositional" Americans propositioning one another.

For the past several decades, most Americans have eagerly parroted the multicultural platitudes on command but have implicitly identified with the traditional American ethnicity. This unexamined contradiction is increasingly strained by the demographic, political, cultural, and economic ramifications of having designed our nation's policies on those idiotic platitudes. The cognitive dissonance is reaching an inflection point, with more and more of us terrified on an instinctive level by our displacement, yet lacking the vocabulary to give voice to that fear. We're repelled by the progressive's "progress" yet remain indoctrinated in the progressive's ideological frame. More and more Americans perceive themselves as "standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop!'"

This growing unease with the status quo is an opportunity for us to sell Americans on a completely different type of progress, a radical alternative to idiocy. Unlike our opponents, who've been reduced to "waiting for Superman" to save them from their own mess, we can credibly offer a future worth looking forward to. Do you want better education? Remove diversity from the equation and our schools are among the world's best. Do you want to balance the budget? With a cessation of our imperial military adventures and gutting of the monolithic bureaucracies dedicated to social engineering, we can do that. Do you want better jobs? We can seal off the borders, broker trade agreements that protect America's strategically critical industrial infrastructure, and put Americans back to work. Do you want less crime? Well, you get the idea . . . 

The next few years will be crucial in determining whether Americans can break free of the progressive paradigm and embrace a traditional one, one in which progress is to be fertile instead of sterile, honorable instead of respectable, enriched instead of rich, and equal in the Athenian sense instead of the modern egalitarian sense. Recent developments are encouraging. Both mainstream academics like Robert Putnam and mainstream politicians like Angela Merkel are conceding that the global social engineering experiment in multiculturalism is dead. 

We know that we're not winning and we've lost faith in our elites. Sooner or later, my nephew's going to wise up and demand genuine and complete control of his character and determine his own course. Hopefully, we as a nation will stop being idiots and demand the same for ourselves.

A few months back, Entertainment Weekly published a feminist screed, 'The Social Network's Woman Problem'. In it, columnist Jennifer Armstrong, reviewing The Social Network, concedes that women generally aren't interested in computer science and that they don't feature prominently in the true-life story that inspired the movie. While she grudgingly admits that it wouldn't be appropriate to lie about events, she sniffs that, "[I]f this were fiction, the snubs would be inexcusable."

How refreshing! Here we have an admission that the female computer gurus are largely fictional, but that writers have a moral obligation to depict an inverted world that corroborates egalitarian gender fantasies. It would be inexcusable for gender egalitarians to suggest that males are the primary drivers of technological innovation.

Ironically, Larry Summers, the same former Harvard President who shooed the Winklevoss twins out his office in the movie would probably shoo Armstrong out as well. Back in 2005 he ignited a firestorm of feminist outrage with his frank attribution of the “underrepresentation” of women in science and engineering to “upbringing, genetics and time spent on child-rearing.”

And how did the Ivy League audience respond to the suggestion that gender differences in academic and professional outcomes owed to something other than victimization and systemic White male bigotry?

"I felt I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who listened to part of Summers's speech Friday at a session on the progress of women in academia organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. She walked out in what she described as a physical sense of disgust.

"My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," she said. "I was extremely upset." 

One lady in attendance angrily declared that, "That's the kind of insidious, destructive, un-thought-through attitude that causes a lot of harm. It's one thing for an ordinary person to shoot his mouth off like that, but quite another for a top educational leader."

Note the parallel with Armstrong’s position: that there's an empirical world of ordinary people who accept gender realities, and an intellectual one that must uphold a standard of reality denial.

Summers' remarks were correct: While there are always exceptions, women are on the whole less naturally gifted than men in science and technology. This is not to say that on the whole they are inferior to men; they simply tend to excel in different areas. The paradox underlying contemporary feminism is that feminists esteem traditional male roles more than traditional female ones, eager to achieve female equality at wage slavery, computer programming, and athleticism, while contemptuous of their natural areas of excellence, such as sociability, multitasking, organising, and holding a family together in times of crisis. Are the latter not important too?

We only need to watch the role that women play in this movie, how they are treated, to see what feminism has accomplished in the last 50 years. Zuckerberg and pals publicly humiliate them, liken them to farm animals, and use them as disposable sex toys. Armstrong describes these depictions of women as "50s-level sexist", but women in the 50s didn't act like the women in The Social Network, and neither were they treated like the women in that film. Their behavior and treatment in the movie is fully contemporary.

She and countless other feminists prefer to reside in fiction. The current degree to which women are "empowered" is unsustainable. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that their pensions and 401k plans will be raided or devalued in the coming decades, leaving them at the mercy of the families and community networks their careers left them too busy to create.

 The illusions they cling to are comfortable, while reality is anything but: They're not sexually liberating themselves—they're forfeiting the leverage nature gave them in the battle of the sexes to a subset of slick pick-up artists. Their barren wombs are not about "family planning", they're about not planning to have a family. Their careers are not making them independent, dependence is simply being transferred from husbands and fathers to Big Brother. That's well and good for their personal interests as long as the economy is strong, the government is solvent, and the pensions are well-funded. But are those safe bets?

Women around the world already envied their Western counterparts’ unusual freedom and autonomy well before feminism screamed for more. The greater freedom and autonomy traditionally enjoyed by Western women makes our society very attractive, but the current social model isn't sustainable. Like the mythical Icarus, feminists have been tempted to push the limits to breaking point and are setting all women up for a devastating fall. Feminists aren't the only ones in the West casting aside tradition in favor of illusory short-term gains, but of all the groups doing so, they have the most to lose in the long run. The continuing population replacement in the West by non-White Third World immigrants suggest that the White and Western cultural context that feminism depends on will give way to a Third Worldish social model that will rob women of their freedom... among much else.

Tradition isn’t regression and it doesn't mean a repetition of past excesses and injustices. It means working toward balancing the need for individual expression with the need to play a role in something greater than the self: in the family, the community, and the nation. It means having the humility to know your weaknesses and the wisdom to play on your strengths. We don't need fantasies about women developing virtual social network applications. We need women developing real-world families and community networks. That's the real social network problem.