Perspective

Under the Gaze of our Fathers

Jordan B. Peterson has well played the piñata recently for the Alt Right, and though I see no purpose in flailing the tattered remains of this argument, I don’t mind snatching a few of the candies that have fallen out. In particular, I would like to more closely address a favored fable of those who argue against identitarian politics, or against the identitarian worldview more generally—a fable which Peterson expresses very clearly in his fence-sitting essay “On the so-called ‘Jewish Question,’” as follows:

Once you determine to play [the identity game] … you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. [The abundant italics here are entirely Peterson’s.]

This notion is not, of course, limited to Peterson. It runs through a certain strain of libertarianism today, and emerges it would seem spontaneously from the viewpoint of people such as “Sargon of Akkad” and the rest of the so-called “skeptics” (who do not merit, incidentally, the dignity of the epithet they have taken upon themselves). It is a distinctly contemporary position; no one could ever have even dreamed such a view in any time but our fragmented and debased (excuse me—liberal) modern day.

Incidentally, this last observation alone is sufficient disproof of the idea: historically speaking, practically all of the great achievements of the West in terms of art, literature, politics, architecture, engineering, discovery, etc. etc., arose during historical periods in which men were accustomed to thinking in an “identitarian” way—not perhaps with respect to their race, but certainly with respect to their families, their nations, their peoples. Evidently, holding oneself to be part of a larger familial group is not so prejudicial to personal achievement as the Petersons of the world would have us believe.

Venice—a city built, as all European cities, by no one if not by identitarians. Evidently, the Venetians of old were not sufficiently versed in “psychology” to realize that their pride in their people should have prohibited them from accomplishing such grand works.

But objections can surely be found to this logic, and it is not our business to go sludging through historical disputes. Let us concentrate on the more general question, as it applies to us today. The idea submitted by these “individualists” is that anyone who takes pride in the achievements of some group to which he organically belongs (his race, his people, his nation, his family, etc.) will for that very reason tend to rest on their laurels, foregoing all personal effort. We are evidently supposed to believe, for example, that because Beethoven, Alexander, Leonardo da Vinci, Magellan, Kant, Virgil, Newton, Swift, etc., were all White Westerners, anyone who is proud of being himself a White Westerner will never see any reason to achieve anything in the fields relevant to these individuals, because he can simply piggyback on their attainments. By implication, we are supposed to believe that this same individual, if he simply up and decided to think of himself as some kind of raceless individualistic human monad, would all at once regenerate his ambition and set himself immediately to all sorts of “achieving.”

I confess, this strikes me as preposterous; and as so often happens with this kind of “psychological” argument, I am honestly tempted to wonder if the people who present it are simply exteriorizing their own psychological peculiarities. But faux psychology aside—both mine and theirs—let us address the matter straightforwardly.

Begin with an individual. Suppose this individual has accomplished something great in his lifetime—say, for instance, that Caesar has conquered the Gauls, or Michelangelo has carved the Pietà, or Shakespeare penned Romeo and Juliet. Or on a different level, suppose a man starts up a small business, or another takes a college degree, or another yet buys himself a piece of land to farm. Surely even the likes of Peterson or “Sargon” would agree that these individuals have every right to feel proud of their achievements, since these achievements are “all theirs”? Now, does that pride somehow obstruct them from future activity? Are any of these individuals somehow suddenly likely to stop up, saying, “Well, I’ve already accomplished this, I have no reason to do anything else now”? Is not the contrary entirely more probable—are they not likely, in general, to strive higher yet, on account of the height they have already attained?

But of course none of the “individualists” would ever make their “individualist” argument as regards particular human beings. Then it would seem that the question somehow morphs its aspect when a human being’s pride refers, not to his own deeds, but to those of a group to which he belongs. Yet the very same argument we have just presented applies to that case as well: for surely, all things being equal, a man is held naturally to higher, and not lower standards, who is the child of great or successful parents than that man who does not even know who his parents were?

Or how else is one to explain the Vikings, who sought ever to commit great acts, so as to be worthy of entering into Valhalla, where the spirits of their fathers resided? How else explain the will which brought men to found empires—not those individual marvels of egotism who wished to play it at emperor, but the commoner soldiers who fought and died for the glory of their people? Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome were surely two of the most identitarian cultures ever to exist; they even had a word which meant “everyone who is not us”: barbarian. Did their love of their people, their pride in their people, ever do anything but render them stronger and more ambitious? And is it not generally true that a man who feels himself to be the representative of his folk, his nation, his empire, his faith or his gods, expends a proportionately greater effort in the service of these proportionately greater things?

An older artistic expression of man against one from our own time. Which of these two is more “identitarian,” and which more “individualistic”? And which is more likely to press us to great ambitions?

But all of this is so evident as to be obvious, and in truth it has nothing to do with the real tendency of the “individualistic” premise we are discussing. In reality, as happens often enough these days, this “individualist” argument is actually not an argument at all, so much as a slur masked in a claim. Upon analysis, it quickly reduces to this idea: the identitarian worldview in our day acts as a kind of sanctuary to those idle, lazy types who do not want to do anything, giving them the justification for their inactivity. The Alt Right, for instance, is nothing but fly paper for the complacent, who willingly attach themselves to it so that they can use this sweet, sticky “pride in the past” as an excuse to cease moving altogether.

But this is patently absurd. White identitarians are no less active and productive—are in many cases quite more so—than the average “individualist.” Indeed, to look at them with an impartial gaze (something which is evidently impossible for almost every one of their critics, no matter what political point of view these last tend to favor), one even has the impression that they are much more keenly goaded to works, to acts, and to attempts, than are the better part of human beings now living. The explanation for this fact, which is mysterious to no one but the “individualists,” is not hard to find: we, unlike the man who (somehow) eschews all moral identification with all human groups, impose upon ourselves the same standards that carried our forefathers to their greatness; and these standards are far higher than those reigning in our present decadent and befuddled and essentially mediocre day.

Moreover, all those who argue the “individualistic” conception forget a fundamental premise, not surely of psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo, but of classical human psychology: that where there can be no pride, there can be no shame. Not only are we White identitarians held to sterner standards than the general run of men today, but we are also given keen incentive to avoid the degeneracy and the squalor into which so many today plummet, and in which it is much easier to descend and wallow when one believes oneself to be a totally isolated and unprecedented phenomenon, held to no expectations other than those which one might invent for oneself.

Standing in the shadow of the past, this magnificence of our White West which rises so high behind us that now and then it even takes the place of the sun, who among us is liable to rest indolent? Does the very grandness of our inheritance not spur us to act as finely, as loftily, as nobly as possible? Would it not be our unending great shame if we, as the sons of such fathers, did not rise, or at least attempt to rise, to some fragment of the dignity and excellence which they have exemplified?

Indeed, I will go further yet: The very opposite of what these “individualists” claim is in fact nearer the truth. The atomized individualism proposed by libertarians and anti-collectivists and all their ilk is often enough a refuge for those who despise all great standards, and who would like to forget that the past in innumerable ways is mightier than the present. It affords a welcome excuse to those men who would like to reduce their horizons to such a point that they can reach out and touch them, in which midget-world they, though doing wretchedly little, can still succeed in becoming protagonists and celebrities of the day. Complacency is theirs, not ours; they rest content with the limits of their worldview only because they have exempted themselves from the obligation of all higher perspective. And this, far from being a precept of some kind of “psychologizing,” is in fact the fruit of simple observation of the world as it stands today: for most men living today in our clearly individualistic time mark their success or failure by the size of their houses, the number of cars they own, and the cost of their cellular telephones. They have no ambition greater than passing their lives in the pettiest and timidest kind of hedonism, debasing themselves day by day without even showing some degree of fire or audacity in it, such as might at least render their self-destruction the more brilliant, if not the more justifiable.

Here is the final meaning of purely individualistic success—as anyone with his eyes open can clearly see, merely by glancing around modernity.

In the end, of course, neither the “individualist” position nor the identitarian is utterly incompatible with human striving. As always in human things, much depends on the individual. But this much at least can safely be affirmed: in general, in an overall vision of human life and human societies, identitarianism is more conducive to the human heights than a disintegrated individualism, in which each human being is thrust back wholly onto his own small powers. We are inoculated against the moral disease of modernity by the shame and contempt that our forebears would feel for it, and we are pressed to greater honor and nobility by the very pride we take in the lofty places which their passage has revealed to our eyes. For in truth, past achievement, be it individual or collective, is a spur to greater future achievement, and the superb excellence of our ancestors is as a summons to our better blood. Insofar as we truly stand under the gaze of our fathers, we stand the more upright for it.

John Bruce Leonard
John Bruce Leonard, Editor-in-Chief of Arktos, studied philosophy, letters, and languages in a university curriculum based exclusively on the great books of the Western Tradition. After taking his degree in Liberal Arts he moved permanently to Italy, where he nourishes his ever-living preoccupation with the heritage and the future of Europe.

70 Comments

  • Get a daily dose of Bach–it abstracts the perfect marriage of individualism and indentitarianism. Remove the upper and lower lines of a four-part polyphony and the remaining middle two parts are agreeable, interesting, and melodious. The whole thing working together is magnificent.

    Note that Jews are particularly drawn to Bach–even obsessively despite his obvious anti-Semitism (perhaps even because of it; Bach is strongly identitarian). It reminds Jews that each person needs to contribute as best he can while harmonizing with the collective. Bach is ours and we should not leave his lessons solely to our adversaries.

  • The philosophy of “individualism” seems to attract a lot of mediocre people, like Ayn Rand’s Kool-Aid drinkers. How does that differ from Special Snowflake-ism?

  • “How else explain the will which brought men to found empires—not those individual marvels of egotism who wished to play it at emperor”
    Considering that aforementioned Roman Empire was created by exiles and bandits, not brave warriors, I’m sure the will is quite well grounded in material needs.

    “but the commoner soldiers who fought and died for the glory of their people”
    This is the absolute peak of the biased historical observer’s delusion this article seems to be based around. “Commoner soldier” is a barely literate/illiterate savage who chose an army contract to laborious ventures like farming that are either too hard to maintain or legally/financially inaccesible to him (specifically why 90% percent of all “commoners” who are able to dodge the draft did so and chose a standard, stable life). I mean, even the modern terrorists are mostly pushed to war because of the fact that it gives a chance to escape poverty, gain protection, power over others and power for retaliation for some immediate acts commited against them in some way or another (bombing, invasion, etc), while having fundamental religion of choice (almost uniformly Islam) as a background decoration.
    Speaking of patriotic retaliation, if you want to see forced metanarratives reduced to mindless rituals, talk to any person with a bumper sticker “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” about what they really contributed to America.

  • The Vikings were big practitioners of miscegenation. Imagine being a fan of them and not knowing that. 😀 😀

    • Wherever did I proclaim myself a fan of the Vikings? To the contrary: though I am far from denying their specific virtues, I am equally far from considering their social order any kind of ideal. I only called them identitarians, and not even racialist identitarians, and used them as a counterargument, in that sense, to the notion that identitarianism somehow impedes human striving. I stand by that argument; if you see some way in which it is faulty, I should be glad to know.

  • “Not only are we White identitarians held to sterner standards than the general run of men today, but we are also given keen incentive to avoid the degeneracy and the squalor into which so many today plummet”

    Is it possible that this man Leonard has not heard of Andrew Anglin, Weev, Mike Enoch, or any of the other degenerates at DS or TRS? I don’t think so. Is it also possible he has not heard of a degenerate named Matthew Heimbach or his abused sidekick Matt Parrott? Being an European, I suppose Leonard may be completely unaware of any members of the American Alt-Right other than his boss. If that is the case, then he really shouldn’t be writing about it until he gets educated.

    • “This man Leonard” is himself an American, and alas he is only too aware that the universal adoption of identitarianism would not by itself be a nostrum to all social ills. But in point of fact, I do not believe I made the mistake of asserting that it was; and if I did fall into such a vulgar error, I gladly renounce it here and now.

      Now, you have listed some names, implying them to be counter-examples to my argument. To me it seems you are attempting to slander the rule with a few exceptions. Should one slaughter the chicken because a few of her eggs have soured in the sun? Or do you rather believe that a man’s moral faults are necessarily aggravated by his adherence to identitarianism?

      If you do believe the latter, then by all means, tell us how and where you see such a strict inner connection between depravity and identitarianism, for those of us who are concerned with virtue would dearly like to know.

      • This man Leonard is himself an American.”

        Oops. I thought I remember reading you lived in Italy. My mistake.

        “To me it seems you are attempting to slander the rule with a few exceptions.”

        Isn’t it funny how the exceptions tend to be the leaders? All those men I listed are or were leaders, not rank and file. If the TWP is full of good men, then what a tragic coincidence indeed that the incestuous, adulterous, wife beating backstabber got to be their public face and leader for so long!

        “do you rather believe that a man’s moral faults are necessarily aggravated by his adherence to identitarianism?”

        Maybe not. I do believe that groups like Alt-Right and Gamergate are popular with young men who want to break the rules, and that many of them are anti-social. Identitarianism (as you call it) is generally feared and hated in polite American society, therefore it will be seen as attractive to people who like breaking taboos. 4CHAN is the perfect example of this. In the 1960’s, there were true anti-war liberals among the hippies and riots, and then there were also hooligans who just liked breaking things. Same with the Alt-Right today.

        Now if you went back in time to the 1920’s, I do not believe you would find as many degenerates among the KKK as you find today on the Alt-Right.(Though as an egalitarian I oppose both movements.) Back then, Identitarianism was seen as normal and healthy, so joining a movement like the KKK was not breaking a taboo.

        • Here I think we can agree on a few important points, Gothic Joe. First, you are absolutely right to point out that identitarianism, or more specifically White identitarianism, represents today a kind of transgression, so that it often attracts a certain kind of young man. This is a strength of White identitarianism, but also a potential liability; and there can be no question that now and then the kind of people it attracts are not of the highest order, to put the matter gently.

          But, as I think you will agree, this is due, not to identitarianism as identitarianism, but rather to the present-day situation of identitarianism, its relegation to an almost taboo realm in which one cannot even so much as mention certain topics or terms in polite company which not fifty years ago were even quite banal. If you accept my premise (and I doubt that you do, though of course it is yours to present your own position) that we are living in a fundamentally unnatural historical moment, then it is obvious that the reinstatement of identitarianism might bring with it unhappy results, even as the cures for very grave illnesses often carry sometimes quite distressing side-effects.

          Given all this, however—and again, I agree with you entirely that these are extremely important matters which need be discussed—identitarianism is hardly at fault here; I would even claim (here I am almost certain that we disagree) that it is the unique path back to normalcy.

          As regards the question of leadership, here I must defer to the Platonic analysis that good men are not likely to seek positions of rule or authority without being in some way compelled to do so—and I think this is borne out clearly enough by the failure of modern democracy, and its evident tendency to attract scoundrels to positions of power. The same thing holds in a somewhat different way for the leaders of contemporary identitarian political movements: there is a strong impetus for mere lovers of infamy to rise to celebrity in any dissident movement, and we have certainly seen examples of that in White identitarianism. This is exacerbated by the fact that in order to be a leader in these movements one must often risk or sacrifice greatly; consequently, those who have least to lose tend to be the first to emerge.

          Nonetheless, we have also seen the contrary: namely, that the gravity of our situation has brought to the fore men of real caliber; it has served in this way as a flame, straining those of pure mettle from the scoria. All past mistakes must serve us as educators toward this end.

    • 1) Weev & Anglin are insane. They’re also not Alt-Righters. They’re full-blown Neo-Nazis, who are notorious for their mental issues. Neo-Nazis, like Alt-liters, are only Alt-Righters in the most attenuated sense. Strictly speaking, they are not Alt-Righters. However, the evidence of Weev’s degeneracy is rather limited. What, Auernheimer has experimented with psychotropics? Pretty marginal stuff. Indeed, the evidence of Anglin’s degeneracy is rather limited as well, wacko as he is.
      2) Enoch? What did he do, marry a Jewish girl? Is that “degeneracy”? Meh. To the extent it is, it’s a very mild form of it.
      3) Heimbach is simply a megalomaniac. His issue is not that he’s a terrible person, so much as he’s a damned cult-leader. Cult-leaders are notorious for getting drunk on power & doing questionably ethical stuff. Great power (even over a limited sphere) often turns even decent men exploitative & abusive.
      4) Most of the degeneracy you note is extremely mild. Not even sure it renders these Alt-Right “leaders”, who are neither leaders nor Alt-Right, are more “degenerate” than your average American.
      5) It should be noted that many Alt-Right leaders like Spencer & Taylor & MacDonald & many others, have never engaged in the kind of conduct (mild as it is) you’re obliquely referring to. The media tends to place the spotlight on the most extreme & embarrassing members of the movement so as to discredit it. That’s the only reason you know their names. Indeed, many of these folks are not really even part of the movement, strictly speaking. They are members of collateral movements.

      • 1) Weev and Anglin are the Alt-Rights problem. Hard Right, Siege Right, Bowl Gang purged them for being degenerate faggots and fake ass irony nazis. Weevs also a Jew. This is a fact and is not debatable.
        2) Enoch acts like a cartoon Nazi (heil gate was him) while being married to a Jewess, only to turn around and disavow real national socialists. Not only is he a dishonest sack of shit, lets be honest now, he’s also probably a Jew.
        3) Heimbach is a good guy, who made some awful choices. I don’t think anybody considers him their cult leader and nobody ever did.
        4) TRS forum is a cesspool of degeneracy and their fanbase consists of infantile 30 somethings who like sending interracial and gay porn to people who disagree with their gay AmNat meme.
        5) Everybody he mentioned is Alt-Right and it’s why so many people are abandoning the label. None of the people he mentioned are Hard Right, Siege Right, Bowl Gang, whatever.

        Sorry but Gothic Joe speaks the truth. I don’t like agreeing with liberals, but there you have it.

        • 1) I disagree that Neo-Nazis are Alt-Right, strictly speaking. Just as I disagree that Alt-Liters are Alt-Right. Both are fringe, fringe elements & are only Alt-Right if you define Alt-Right very broadly. Anyhow, they are not mainstream.
          2) Pro-rape? Meh. They’re just insane. Especially Anglin. LOL.
          3) Heimbach is a megalomaniac. Always has been. *Maybe* Alt-Right, but basically a cult-leader.
          4) Gothic Joe wouldn’t know the truth if it could be found in his boyfriend’s anus.
          5) The Alt-Right base is not declining in numbers. No one is really leaving and the brand is not toxic just because a few assholes did some asshole shit. It is healthy for a movement to shed its more unhinged members anyhow. Because we are not in an election season, the Alt-Rightosphere is not as engaged as it normally is & the hive is not buzzing like it was two years ago. In 2 years’ time, the Alt-Right will be as big as ever, & Gothic Joe will still be whacking it to family photos.

          • everything but heimbach bashing was pretty spot on. was not cult like in any way, they just had their own spot and their own particular ways. seemed like hardworking dude till the omg wtf moment.
            still seems weird and people were already suspicious of parrot. mighta been a pls fuck my wife on the sly we want another baby turning into him recording and telling heim’s wife when they agreed not to so she would turn on him too
            *tin foil hat removed*

          • 1) I never said that neo-“nazis” (Jew slur) were Alt-Right. The AR used to like to flirt with Fascism a lot, but hide behind layers of irony to maintain plausible deniability. But many of therank and file got to reading Mein Kampf, This Time the World, The Turner Diaries and Siege and became National Socialists. After this they had little use for the AR anymore as Hitler dismantled the entire premise of a big tent movement in Vol II Chap. 8 of Mein Kampf 93 years ago.

            2) I don’t disagree. Anglin and Weev both have mental problems. Personally I think Asian Sex Tourism with underage prostitutes and the White Sharia meme are degenerate but to each their own. The whole “Daily Stormer aren’t AR, their Neo-Nazis” might have worked a year ago, but Anglin has stated numerous times since then that NS is just a meme to him. He spent the last couple months in a flame war with real NS, trying to cleanse his website of them and he’s basically embraced Racist Patriotardism as the product that DS is going to push now as opposed to ironic Nazism. Anyone who listened to the Vox Day debate knows that Anglin never knew anything about the Fascist worldview in the first place. It really was all just a joke to him from day one.

            3) lol I was not aware that Heimbach ever obtained any power and I didn’t ever notice him flaunting it. I’m not uncritical of the TWP. There are a lot of things they could have done better, but they showed a lot of promise before they imploded. Community outreach and confronting the enemy > white civil rights/victim grievance politics.

            4) He seems to be following the movement more closely than many of the people who comment here .

            5)Bullshit. The Alt-Right imploded itself over optics and their hoping they can repair the brand in time for the 2020 election cycle. I guess to vote in another GOP do-nothing stooge. They might be able to pull it off, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Mainly because normies don’t differentiate between White Identitarians, White Nationalists and “Nazis.” To the normie these are all the same thing. Normies don’t hate the Alt-Right because of the clothes some of them wear or a flag one plant brought to CVille, they hate you because your white racists and a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine (education, media, entertainment, Silicon valley) has instilled in them the belief that that is the worst thing you can possibly be. A couple years ago nobody really knew what the AR was so you were able to operate under the radar mostly unchallenged. Since Cville that is no longer an option. Repression is going to increase come election time. You’re not going to avoid that by purging the more “unhinged” elements from the movement. Many of those unhinged elements were what really made the AR effective in the first place.

          • 1) The Alt-Right did not implode. Very few people who agreed with us before, don’t now. We are still a growing movement.
            2) The intensity of the persecution has increased. Thus our public presence is somewhat muted. People are being practical, looking out for their lives & livelihoods. However, as stated, we are still converting far more than are defecting.
            3) When the next election comes around, you’ll see, the Alt-Rightosphere will be buzzing again, & the media will be crying again about the return of the 3rd Reich.
            4) I didn’t say anything about purging fringe elements to avoid persecution & repression. I simply said it is healthy for a movement to shed destructive elements. Matthew Heimbach will never again be a serious person on the right. The media may treat him as one but he will never truly be one again.

      • That is because you and I have a very different definition for degeneracy. Anglin and Weev have both declared themselves “pro-rape” on countless occasions. Anglin says 13 year old girls are hot. DS chat rooms are filled with violent pornographic images, often combined with gore and involving children. This is not mild degeneracy.

        And no, Enoch is not a degenerate for marrying a Jewish woman. But he is a liar and a hypocrite.

      • To be precise, Weev and Anglin are full blown internet Nazis. An actual Nazi advocates for national socialism. An internet Nazi writes snarky articles on the internet blaming everything on Jews. It is appropriate to recognize that Jews have highly disproportionate power and influence, and often use their power to promote policies that are against white interests. It is another to insist that every last Jew is our enemy, or to let off the hook the many non-Jewish whites who promote the same policies, as if white people had no agency. I’m not much interested in what fraction of Weev’s ancestry is Jewish (I doubt it’s more than an eighth) but if you watch a youtube video with Weev in it you’ll realize that he’s not an entirely stable person.

  • “Jordan B. Peterson has well played the piñata recently for the Alt Right,”

    Mr. Peterson has at least a thousand times more followers and influence than any Alt-Right figure. I know this movement is filled with the most epic of delusions, but surely you know this. 😉

    • There is nothing incompatible in our day between success and clownishness; quite the opposite tends to be true.

      • True. I just thought it was funny how your pinata comment makes it seem as if Peterson has been publicly humiliated and defeated.

        • Joe, you just resist us, can you? The Left is intellectually stultifying and you’re bored with it, so here you are.

          • LOL! Yes, the Left is very boring and prudish as fuck. Former leftist myself, or better said, I thought I was leftist but I was not. One day I heard from a leftist leader here: “Conservative people are hypocrites: they go to the brothel on Saturday and to mass on Sunday”.
            I was shocked. At that very moment I understood I was a conservative without knowing it.

          • That statement is not actually prudish. It is hypocrisy to preach that lust is a deadly sin and then hire prostitutes at a brothel.

            But yes, a certain segment of the left has become very anti-sex in the way they demonize healthy things like “male gaze.” And the way they whine about cultural appropriation or white people doing Yoga. “Exiting the Vampire Castle” is an excellent essay criticising this segment of the left from a leftist perspective.

          • “you just resist us, can you?”

            What?

            “The Left is intellectually stultifying and you’re bored with it, so here you are.”

            This is not the only website I post at. I hang out with other leftists on Facebook and Mediaite, and engage with conservatives on Breitbart.

  • Anyone who has ever achieved anything impactful knows that having a strong network of friends, fans, and helpers–with the helping being reciprocal–is the sine qua non, the necessary ingredient. The implicit or explicit backing of a mighty ethnos, a proud nation, was the beating heart of the personal security, confidence, and inspiration felt by such achievers in the pursuit of their goals, no matter how much bantz and incomprehension they temporarily had to put up with from their fellows. But remove the social element, remove social pride and social goals, remove fellow-feeling, deracinate the individual genius, and his confidence drops: he has no audience, no one to write or compose or build or invent for. Life then becomes a pointless exercise in materialism or narcissism. That deracination is what (( Peterson ))) prizes. He is cancer.

  • What a fine article as always , from a very fine mind .
    It’s always a pleasure and an honor to me having Mr.Leonard here.

    Can I try and play devil’s advocate in regards to PALEO – libertarianism ( and the paleo brand ONLY)for 2 or 3 seconds here ?
    Rothbard always understood the need for a certain white civilization defense and a certain ,relative right to discriminate and identify by social ,cultural and racial groups.
    If one reads ” The right wing populist strategy ” , Rothbard’s critique of the fallacy of the modern , “generic ” libertarian with his desperate , failed attempt to address ” each individual cause they are all the same “and also Rothbard’s reasons for supporting David Duke’s runs in the same article , he really leaves no space to any doubts or reservations in regards to that .
    Or his Dixiecrats support ,or his defense of South African’s apartheid state , his reasons to support Pinochet, Franco ..and down to Pat Buchanan…

    On Hoppe…I don’t think anyone can doubt where the heart of this active participant to Stormfront site ,almost since the beginning of the site, stands , in regards to the white civilization.

    And then…finally :
    Yes ..then you have the mass of modern , generic , neo-libertarians with their fixed ,simplistic , idiotic two dogmas ..
    ” It’s the individual not the race or the social class !”
    Or :
    ” Everyone is free to do whatever he wants with his body ,sexuality ,his personal relationships etc ( When we already live in a socialized state ,and as if a man was some kind of perfectly isolated island )
    And ..in regards to those, the libertarian lower mass :
    the abject failure that is that type of idiotic ,generic , absolutistic ,modern libertarianism is more than obvious, just as the article describes .
    No doubts .

    • Stefano, many thanks for your kind words. Your qualifications are well taken, and it is undoubtedly true that libertarians of the highest rank, such as the two you mention (H. L. Mencken also comes to mind), certainly do not fall prey to the foolishness which I have sought to debunk in my article above. These men certainly deserve our respect, and more than that even, they deserve our attention, for they present an argument which very well might be valid and legitimate.

      To address them fully, one must first have a clear idea of the meaning of freedom. I might state briefly that I believe that even such libertarians as you mention work from a specifically modern idea of freedom (freedom as the elimination of obstructions toward action) which traces its heritage back to Hobbes (the first man to divorce the classical idea of libertas from the classical idea of virtus). I do not believe this idea of freedom is conducive to a full human life, and, though I am open to being disproven on this score, it often seems to me that the best instincts of the best libertarians bring them to contradict their own doctrines on fundamental issues. They seem to me inconsistent, in the most honorable of ways.

  • In a sense, Peterson is right. We should be critical of the kind of vulgar Identitarianism he has described.

    • Your point is well taken. Indeed, I think the strongest part of Peterson’s critique of identitarianism is that which I have not quoted in this article—namely, his observation that “victimhood” often forms a guiding motive for certain identitarians. This seems to me a much more acute danger than that of failing to achieve anything because one is too content with what one’s ancestors have done.

      I would say this, however. The arguments that Peterson presents can be taken, in an identitarian way, as a rectification of the behavior or stance of certain persons among us; it can be taken, that is, as medicine for the sick. But the sick cases are the exception, not the rule; Peterson argues as if they were the rule, and for this reason fundamentally misunderstands identitarianism. Most of those involved in our movement do not suffer from an exaggerated sense of victimhood; almost none of them run the risk of failing to accomplish anything because on account of proud complacency.

  • There is an arena where the high culture meets the common people: the church. I mean the church as a building. Getting into a byzantine church for the Sunday liturgy or getting into an old Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran church for the Sunday mass or service are a heavy quantum of identity and art. Not only plastic art but literature (Latin mass, Koiné Greek liturgy, old Slavic liturgy, Common Book of Prayer… it wasn´t Martin Luther the creator of modern German?) And what about the music played in the churches? Haendel, Bach, Gregorian chant?
    ((Them)): let´s remove that old buildings, let´s abolish the archaic rituals, let´s build ugly, cold, impersonal temples instead, let´s improve some shitty music for the singing, etc.

    • Great comment exemplifing how churches are just not a religious thing, but an expression of White culture. How can modern TV megachurches compare to the grace and architecture of 17th century cathedrals? Think stained glass, sculpture, etc. How can a media ready rant compare with the splendor of the Latin Mass? If you think about it, the cultural expressions of our ancient churches serve a much bigger role than simply a spiritual/religious one?

      • Don´t forget about the old churches being converted into nightclubs. A negro DJ in the altar playing negro shit.
        Mudsharks snorting coke in the former old wooden confession box.
        God dammed!

  • After a Full Hard Days Work of Manual Labor…..

    Tired and Exhausted………

    I came Here…….

    Hoping for Something Easy………

    It Refused…….

    But, I made an Effort…….

    And found a Gem……..

    Thank you……..

  • Mr. Leonard, you are like a warm lemon-lavender salt bath at the end of a long, hard day of housework and fretting about the children.

    Just look at the excellent comments below. You elevate us, which brings me to a point I want to raise about women on the alt-Right.

    As you rightly point out, a man who feels a deep sense of continuity with his ancestors will of course feel obligated to build upon their accomplishments.

    What about women? First of all, women are largely spectators of history, but that does not of course mean we are without human dignity. Indeed, according to Pythagoras, at the Games there were three types: the vendors seeking profit (bronze) the athletes seeking glory (silver), and the spectators contemplating the Games (gold).

    It is in this third aspect of human experience that women most nearly equal men, and of course it is no surprise that Pythagoras was a great friend and ally of learned women.

    This contemplative nature is inherently receptive (feminine). It opens us up to the appreciation of our men’s accomplishments, those living today and those who are dead, and impresses upon us our profound duty to renew the life of our people, physically, culturally, and spiritually.

    White women’s disenchantment with our White ancestors has been a very deliberate attack on our very essence and particular value as women, undermining the natural process by which we become women, when we turn outward and pass on what we have received.

    • I thank you for your generous words, Lexi, which as always are keenly insightful. Indeed, I think your observations open up a subtle and largely unexplored aspect of this question, to which we should absolutely give our attention, and which equally disproves Peterson’s assertion, only from the other side: namely, the degree to which pride incites its object to greater achievement.

      I am thinking, for instance, of the pride that parents take in their children, which encourages these children to attain more; also, and in many cases more powerfully yet, the pride that a woman takes in her man, or vice-versa, which if properly directed can be a great spur to their respective perfection. I believe that if one subtracted from the world all those works which men have accomplished in order to impress women, human history would be considerably poorer.

      As another facet of the same observation, when the pride of women is transposed, as it is today, from the plane of great achievements to the plane of material success, the result is a necessary shifting of society as a whole toward the base pursuit of mere profit. The pride that women take in their men thus reveals itself as a potent, if subtle, director of human fate.

  • Stick your chest out and be an obedient worker. If you can’t compete against Mexican stoop labor, then you deserve to die. Economic efficiency is the principal criterion of morality. You should feel ashamed for any kinship you feel for your kin: it means you have no personal worth. Yeah, these ideas are so brilliant. So helpful. So pro-White. If you are the one in a million who becomes a successful tough grifter under ((( Peterson’s ))) rules (rigged against Whites, and in favor of the hegemony of jewish networking, then you will have a “principled” life as a soulless atom just before Africa swamps the West, making it all your efforts futile. Frankly, if you follow ((( Peterson ))), you are a typical dumb goy.

    • “Stick your chest out and be an obedient worker. If you can’t compete against Mexican stoop labor, then you deserve to die.”

      Yep. Social Darwinism, it is.

      • LOL! Who would say the negros and the imbeciles would win the war of social darwinism?

        Darwin was wrong: it is not the survival of the fittest. Nietzsche was wrong: it is not the survival of the strongest. Etcoff was wrong: it is not the survival of the prettiest. Galton was wrong: it is not the survival of the smartest.
        It is the survival of the greatest breeders.

    • Unfettered capitalism is cancer, but working Mexicans are not the enemy of working whites. Automation threatens us all and that shall be made clear very soon.

  • It is quite clear the attack of cucks comes this way: first you should´t feel the high culture of your nation like your own because it seems you are a loser with “folie de grandeur”, then you should´t feel folk culture of your homeland like your own because it means you are a redneck, then you should not feel the Nature of your homeland like your own because it seems you are having serious mystic hallucinations like if you were a Native American who smoked too much peyote, finally you should not feel the genetics of your countrywoman Brigitte Bardot (in case you are a French woman) like your own because, again, you suffer from “folie de grandeur” by thinking that gorgeous woman is, in some way, like you. Accept it: you are nothing. Please, let us enrich you genetically and culturally with millions of third worlders.

  • I would´t call Jordan Peterson a cuck because he seems to be doing a big effort to understand the AltRight via struggling with it. Hopefully he will join the movement soon.
    He has to understand that high culture heritage and the folk culture heritage are parts of the DNA of people, as much as blood and soil.
    Nature, also, is part also of the DNA of people. Then, it is normal when Bertrand Russell said this: “When the time of my death arrives I will feel I have no lived in vain: I heard the Atlantic Ocean crushing against the cliffs of Cornualles”. The North Atlantic Ocean and the cliffs or Cornualles were part of the DNA of Lord Russell the same way they are part of the DNA of any Englishman.
    I know an Argentinian woman with Italian ascent, who told me that the first time she went to Calabria (the land of her grandparents) she felt like belonging to that soil. She told me it was “genetic memory”.
    Well, it seems many cucks -both libertarians and leftist- believe that a healthy human being should be like an atom (Thatcher dixit) completely free and liberated from any kind of bond with blood, soil, folk culture and high culture. Of course, if anybody feels a strong connection with the land of his ancestors that should be considered “magic thinking”, wishful thinking, superstition and probably, hallucinations.
    To be fair with some Jewish thinkers, it was Canadian Lou Marinoff one of the first intellectuals to point the “cultural DNA” in his work “The middle way”. Marinoff is a strong defender of the concept “Septentrion” before the term.
    If any American person from Oregon with Norwegian blood hears some Grieg´s music and feels that music like his own, should´t be ashamed of being a loser with “folie de grandeur” who claims responsibility for the accomplishments of a great Norwegian artist without actually having to accomplish anything himself. The right opposite: he should be feel proud and happy of feeling that art being part of him.

  • There are so many counter-examples to Jordan Peterson’s idea that ethnic identity is counter to individual achievement that it offends me that people like him get to hold PhDs.

    Should we just forget about the accomplishments of The Renaissance, which was defined by a rediscovery of Ancient texts and culture? Should we just overlook the great cultural and technological accomplishments of the Chinese or Japanese, who are profoundly communitarian, historical, and nationalistic? Should we just overlook the writings of men like Aristotle and Plato, who in many ways laid the bedrock for all of our traditional and modern institutions?

    What about the accomplishments of the German National Socialists of the 1930s, where they managed to rebuild an economy from nothing, created many new inventions (e.g., rockets), and embarked on large-scale national projects (e.g., the Autobahn) that forced nearby nations to pause?

    What about the great accomplishments of the original Enlightenment thinkers and pioneers like John A MacDonald, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc., all of whom acknowledged the obvious differences between the various nations of the world?

    What about all of the philosophers that Jordan Peterson himself cites as profound modern geniuses of great influence like Nietzsche, Jung, Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, etc., all of whom were profoundly aware of the conflicts and differences between nations?

    Even the Jews, who boast constantly about the great successes of their ancestors (e.g., Einstein, Freud, Maslow, etc.), and who Peterson holds as the only nation exempted from ignoring their cultural and racial identity, have shown great success in the context of their communal identity.

    So if none of the above examples can be considered as “successful individuals”, then Peterson needs to make it absolutely clear what he means by this hypothetical notion of the “successful individual”, because he is either not using the conventional definition of that term, he is being willfully dishonest, or he is just in reality not as smart as people think he is.

    Why would the great individual be impeded by the great accomplishments of his ancestors, and the possibility of being able to contribute to the future of his community?

    • Peterson seems to be able to rectify himself. He did it regarding MGTOW. Let´s give him the benefit of the doubt for a short while.
      Einstein, Freud, Maslow, Spinoza, Weiniger, Kafka, Wittgenstein, St, Paul, Proust, etc. Yes, brilliant Jews within European or Euro American culture. I guess such a high culture would not be possible in Israel.
      So… well, it seems it is perfectly OK if any person from central Greece totally feels relationship with reagetton or graffity but he feels relationship with Phidia or Euripides he is pathetic lazy loser.

      • I’m not as impressed with Peterson as others in the Altright seem to be for some reason.

        I’ll give him a chance I guess but I don’t think he will ever go farther than saying “boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina”.

        He’s already cucked on the JQ, and actively attacks us for pointing out his hypocrisy on the issue.

        The best thing he offers us in my opinion is a honey-pot where despondent and cynical truth-seekers, who are eager to start their red-pill journey, can be found.

    • “technological accomplishments of the Chinese or Japanese”
      I’m pretty sure all those unknown, minuscule breakthroughs are completely overshadowed by places like Silicon Valley and post-WWII US universities which were and still are filled to the brim with cultural and geographical exiles from all over the world.

  • People who have no past, have no future. If you have no sense of your people’s past greatness/glory/achievements, why even preserve your people & civilization? Love of race gives one a kind of biological, spiritual & civilizational objective. Without it, people tend to refrain from having offspring, they lose hope, they forfeit the future. Before you save a thing, you need a reason to save it. In this way, the power structure’s perpetual assault on white racial pride is an indirect attack on our very existence.
    What’s more, a sense of pride in one’s history, a strong sense of identity, etc. these things are, in fact, very good for psychological health.
    High white suicide, addiction & death rates are the direct result of whites having lost their country, their racial pride, & their place in history. The Alt-Right is the counter-narrative. We are our brothers’ keepers. There is another way.
    Great article.

    • “Love of race gives one a kind of biological, spiritual & civilizational objective. Without it, people tend to refrain from having offspring”

      Do you actually believe this? I have never heard any parent say or imply that the reason they had children was for “Muh race.” They did it because they love kids and having kids is a natural instinct to humans. Utopian race based fantasies have nothing to do with it. My cousin just had her third baby. Guess what? She’s in an interracial marriage.

  • Some good points in this post. It would be good if more like-minded individuals read a work such as The Genius Of the West by Louis Rougier just to get a decent overview of the subject, as well as ammunition against the globalist cult.

Leave a Reply