Convergence killing NASCAR

TV ratings are “plummeting” and attendance is down more than 50 percent at some tracks:

NASCAR has seen crowds shrink at virtually every track, many of which have removed seats, and its television ratings have plummeted. At Richmond, which once routinely seated more than 100,000 fans for races in the premier Cup series, only 60,000 seats remain and they were not close to full for Sunday’s 400-lap race.

“We’re not isolated here,” France said. “Every sport is trying to unlock the new consumption levels and fan interest by a younger demographic. Of course we love our core fan and everyone does, but every sport is thinking carefully about how to reach the millennial fan to get them excited about their sport.”

He said NASCAR will convene a summit next month in Charlotte, North Carolina, bringing in experts from various fields, to discuss the issue.

France also downplayed the difficulty that some teams are having securing sponsorship for next season.

Many NASCAR fans warned of this when NASCAR decided to stop focusing on its core audience in order to reach out to the new fans who, as many predicted, proved to be almost entirely imaginary. And if you think NASCAR’s management is going to learn from their catastrophic failure, then you really don’t understand how SJW convergence works.

The NFL is about to go the same way, I strongly suspect. Notice how, whether it is a sport or a church, the desire for growth combined with a disdain for traditional supporters always results in the same consequence, a rapid and unexpected decline.

That’s something that I was discussing yesterday with Markku. Is it better to restrict the comments and only permit the old school Dread Ilk to participate? That could be done through requiring registration, but doing so might be of limited value since others could still read them, unlike the current separate system. Or is it better to go to the other extreme and permit the sort of free-for-all we witnessed yesterday?

Feel free to express your opinion. I’m not currently planning to change anything, but it would be foolish to assume that VP and Castalia House are immune from the same pattern we observe everywhere from the Episcopalian Church to NASCAR.

Of course, it’s also possible that we are several orders of magnitude away from it being even a potential problem.

How bad must it get?

Two National Review cucks admit some sympathy for the “reactionaries”:

Andrew Sullivan: And is it any wonder that reactionaries are gaining strength? Within the space of 50 years, America has gone from segregation to dizzying multiculturalism; from traditional family structures to widespread divorce, cohabitation, and sexual liberty; from a few respected sources of information to an endless stream of peer-to-peer media; from careers in one company for life to an ever-accelerating need to retrain and regroup; from a patriarchy to (incomplete) gender equality; from homosexuality as a sin to homophobia as a taboo; from Christianity being the common culture to a secularism no society has ever sustained before ours.

Rod Dreher: I give Sullivan a lot of credit here. It hardly needs to be pointed out that he, as a gay man, has been one of the great beneficiaries of these changes. Yet he recognizes the staggering revolutionary nature of these changes — and, because he doesn’t believe that his homosexuality is the only relevant part of his identity, he also feels the loss of the old world, to a certain extent. He grasps the self-serving delusion embraced by so many Westerners today: that progress is not only inevitable, but always a good thing. Indeed, that’s why they call it “progress.”

But what if the changes are not progress at all, but rather regress? To call it “progress” is to have a fixed goal in mind, and to believe that we are steadily moving in that inevitable direction. The British political philosopher John Gray has powerfully criticized the modern view of progress, calling it (rightly) a secularization of the Christian belief that history is headed toward a fixed conclusion. Marxism adopted this worldview, and reframed the End of History as the realization of Full Communism, and the withering of the State. Progressives today, both of the liberal and conservative variety, accept unthinkingly that history is moving towards a global paradise of free markets and free individuals all exercising maximal Choice. In this sense, there is less difference between Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton than between Ronald Reagan and a contemporary reactionary.

Sully is not, however, a neoreactionary:

Sullivan: This, of course, is not to defend the neo-reactionary response. Their veiled racism is disturbing, and their pessimism a solipsistic pathology. When Anton finds nothing in modernity to celebrate but, as he put it to me, “nice restaurants, good wine, a high standard of living,” it comes off as a kind of pose, deliberately blind to all the constant renewals of life and culture around us. When Houellebecq has one of his characters sigh, “For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless,” I chortle. When Dreher hyperventilates that today’s youngsters “could be one of the last generations of this thing called Western civilization” and that American Christians today must “live lives prepared to suffer severe hardship, even death, for our faith,” I take my dogs for a walk. When Yarvin insists that “if the 20th century does not go down in history as the golden age of awful government, it is only because the future holds some fresher hell for us,” I check my Instagram account. There is something hysterical here, too manically certain, bleaker than any human being can bear for long.

Well, to be clear, I don’t at all agree with Yarvin or Houellebecq, and I don’t think I agree with Anton either. Only a few years before I was born, in my Southern town apartheid was legal, and black citizens lived under a reign of terror. I’m serious: read this 1964 magazine article describing events in my own town.  A few years back, I met three Freedom Riders who had been part of those events. It really happened. Thank God those days are over.

Yet we cannot easily dismiss the words that a melancholy older black man, a taxi driver, said to me in 1993 as he drove me down a decimated avenue of Washington, DC, which was then at the peak of its murder epidemic. He told me about what it was like for him growing up in segregated DC. He pointed to storefronts and buildings that were now vacant and decaying. “That was a bakery, and that was a drugstore,” he said. “Black-owned. We had something back then.” On and on he went, describing the way this blasted-out part of town looked in his youth, and cursing the young black men who do nothing but sell drugs and shoot each other. I squirmed in the back seat listening to this older black man tell these stories to me, a young white man, but he didn’t hold back. I got the feeling that he wasn’t even paying attention to me, but was rather just musing aloud. He ended by telling me that he wasn’t sure at all that there had been progress. Yes, segregation was gone, but look around you, son, at what we black folks in DC have lost in the last thirty years.

That is a reactionary sentiment. And it’s important. I did not experience that old black taxi driver calling for the return of segregation, or lamenting its passing. I experienced him as a man aware of  human tragedy. The progressive narrative requires that the old man’s views be suppressed. But he knew what he saw all around him.

It’s really rather remarkable what these self-styled conservatives are willing to give up so that no one will call them, or their society, racist. Is the complete economic collapse of that block in Washington DC really a price worth paying to end segregation? Is the decline of Black America into a dependent feral state really worth the superficial integration and pretend equality it now enjoys?

One has to ask the question, at what point is the price of this social progress too high? Do we really have to wait until Africans are raping infants and butchering people on the street in order to practice mutu before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to live amongst us? Do we really have to wait until Jews own 100 percent of all the corporations and real estate before we decide that perhaps they should not be permitted to engage in usury? Do we really have to wait before Muslims impose sharia across the entire West before we decide that Charles Martel and the Spanish reconquistadors had the right idea? Do we really need to permit the Chinese to take 100 percent of the college enrollment before we decide that submitting to the rule of a Chinese provincial elite is not in our best interests?

Obviously, all of these things cannot happen; each one tends to preclude the others. But the point remains: how far is too far? The reactionary says: things have gone too far. The cuckservative says: things haven’t gone so far that it is worth risking the possibility that someone will call me racist.

Of course, the fact that Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan are beginning to openly admit that there is a point to “neoreaction” is an early indicator that even the cuckservatives are beginning to crack. It is already clear to everyone that the liberal democratic order has failed. Sooner, rather than later, even the cuckiest of cucks will be forced to acknowledge that what they once considered enlightened moral and social progress is, in fact, dyscivilizational regress.

Soon we will all be Alt-Right.

Two reviews

In case you happen to be new around these parts, I do occasionally commit the fiction.



Arts of Dark and Light Book 1, A THRONE OF BONES:

I’ll never forget reading The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy one childhood summer. I was hooked on fantasy novels and read many series over the years. Eventually it started to get repetitive and I stopped reading the genre. After a long break, I read AsoIaF and found them interesting in that they were something different in the realm of fantasy stories. Although AsoIaF is a bit meandering and exhausting at times.


I have to say, A Throne of Bones really took it up a notch. The writing style has a nice precision to it, which I found refreshing. The battle scenes are the best I’ve ever read. I felt immersed in the battles from a strategic and tactical point of view. I wouldn’t have thought it until I read it, but Romans, Vikings, and a French monarchy set in a world with magic, elves, orcs, and such works flawlessly. The story has an excellent pace and never meanders.


This is a gem, and now I can’t wait to read A Sea of Skulls.


Thanks for a great book. So when is the mini-series?





Arts of Dark and Light Book 2, A SEA OF SKULLS:

Why did it take me so long to find Vox Day? What a great storyteller this man is, a grand master of multiverse chess.


After Summa Elvetica, I was hooked on this universe that Vox Day graciously shared with us all, the fantasy world of Tolkien creatures, the nobility and callousness of the Roman Republic and the grace and liveliness of the church as it might have been. It is a powerful mix, skillfully woven with terrific battle sequences and complex characters. In another review of his work, I mentioned the breadcrumb trails he leaves us in the past, in the characters and their relationships, in the objects that go from hand to hand and place to place. Day is the Master, with a deep understanding of the details of back stories and future lives of all the inhabitants and the reader is at his mercy, racing through the adventure at break neck speed.


There are no one-dimensional characters here. The prologue features a disturbing attack from the victims point of view and many chapters later, the same attack is remembered from the attackers point of view. We hear and see real human pain, but much later, we watch the orc trying to nurse his burned body back to use through his pain and fear. We see the humanity of a once enslaved dwarf and the inhumanity of ambitious men.


I’ve read some comments about this book that complain that it is nothing but filler material. I completely disagree. There is no great resolution offered in Book 2, but these characters matter more to me now, they have had their story lines filled out and are moving on to their great moment. Civilizations must fall in Book 3, but those Civilizations are fully fleshed now. The pieces are all on the board.


And the Grand Master of this universe will soon show us his great game.

Shutting down government

Ann reiterates… build the bloody wall already!

Fake News’ question of the week: Will Trump risk a government shutdown over the wall? 

The media flip back and forth on who’s to blame for a government shutdown depending on which branch is controlled by Republicans. But the “shutdown” hypothetical in this case is a trick question.

A failure to build the wall IS a government shutdown. 

Of course it would be unfortunate if schoolchildren couldn’t visit national parks and welfare checks didn’t get mailed on time. But arranging White House tours isn’t the primary function of the government.

The government’s No. 1 job is to protect the nation.

This has always been true, but it’s especially important at this moment in history, when we have drugs, gang members, diseases and terrorists pouring across our border. The failure of the government to close our border is the definition of a government shutdown.

This isn’t like other shutdowns. Democrats can’t wail about Republicans cutting Social Security or school lunches. They are willing to shut the government down because they don’t want borders.

Take that to the country!

As commander in chief, Trump doesn’t need Congress to build a wall. The Constitution charges him with defending the nation. Contrary to what you may have heard from various warmongers on TV and in Trump’s Cabinet, that means defending our borders — not Ukraine’s borders.

It’s not that hard.

  1. Build the wall.
  2. Drain the swamp.

If it’s truly necessary to fight a war with North Korea, so be it, but don’t let a little thing like nuclear war get in the way of the primary national interests. And if the swamp is excessively resistant, well, just park the USS Carl Vinson in Chesapeake Bay.

Mailvox: it’s an ECHO CHAMBER

Phat Rephat, whoever that is, complains that excessive moderation is turning VP into “an echo chamber”:

VD, I’ve been following you for quite a while and appreciate your viewpoint and the information shared. Of late, however, it seems you’re shifting to the echo chamber model. I agree with your desire to keeping on-topic and without profanity. But not allowing contradicting views or the calling out of the GE when he appears to be losing focus, is not of value to any of us; concern trolls aside.

Well, obviously I am terrified of VP being called an echo chamber. I mean, what could be worse than an Alt-Right echo chamber? Where else will people be able to find conservative, or liberal, or mainstream media views being expressed?

Clearly we must act! I will take his well-considered advice.

Trolls, defeatists, anklebiters, have at it. Comment as you see fit. Be defeatist. Be despondent. Share your contradicting views. Call out the God-Emperor. Insult your fellow commenters. I’m not going to moderate anything at all. Moderators, stand down and let the commenters comment freely, as they obviously desire.

I will also unspam every spam comment that catches previous trolls.

It’s certainly less work and time-investment on my part. I look forward to seeing precisely how much the comments are going to improve and how much value is going to be added to everyone.

UPDATE: Four hours and 47 minutes later:

Hello VD:

It’s Phat Repat; I get your point.

PS This is a Mea Culpa. 😉

Point? What point could that possibly be? I’m just astounded by all the added value!

Responsible governing means failure

Rush Limbaugh quite reasonably asks why anyone should vote for Republicans if the result is simply more of the same old swamp:

Why is anybody voting Republican, if this is what happens when we win?

We won the House, we won the Senate, we won the White House, and the Democrats thwarted everything we supposedly said we were going to do with our victory. Well, I don’t want to use the word “we,” ’cause I’ve got nothing to do with this. This is another reason why I do not get close to these people. I do not… I would not relish having to have you call here today and make me justify what all happened here, had I been out there promoting and ballyhooing. That’s why I keep my distance from these people, ’cause I don’t have any control over what they’re gonna do or say, what their policies are going to be.

But I think this illustrates a much larger problem that we are going to have to recognize, and it’s the real reason Donald Trump was elected. It’s the real thing that he has got to do, and he’s got to start doing it. And it is not going to happen if he continues to work with Republicans, because it is obvious, for whatever reasons — and we can get into them — the Republican Party has no intention of defunding Planned Parenthood, no intention of defunding sanctuary cities. They don’t want to pay for a wall. Who knows what they really want in Obamacare. But then again, is it really the Republicans? I think there’s something much larger going on.

There’s no reason to keep electing Republicans if this is what we’re gonna get with this budget deal, which pays — continually pays — for sanctuary cities, funds Obamacare, funds the EPA, gives money to Planned Parenthood and no money for the wall. If you’re asking, “What am I voting for Republicans for?” you have a legitimate question. This is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected. This is the swamp. This is what needs to be drained: The way the budget happens, the way legislation happens, who’s responsible for it. I’ll tell you where I’m going with this. I want to go back and play a sound bite from me on Friday’s program. This is the direction that I’m thinking this has to go…

Where’s Trump on this? For crying out loud, Trump’s elected president! Trump’s got a mandate. This was clearly part of it. Like building the wall, like any number of other things, repealing and place Obamacare was mentioned at every rally, so why doesn’t the president go in there and tell them what-for?

Let me try to explain this as best I can. When I saw this headline, it brought some things into focus for me, because this is gnawing at the edges here of irritation. The impression that I’ve had — you’ve had it, too — that something’s out of whack, something’s not right. We won the election. I’ve described it, I don’t see the glow of victory on Republican faces. I don’t see optimism. I don’t see happiness. I don’t see confidence. I don’t see an attitude that says, “Man, what an opportunity we have.” And as I say it’s just been eating away at me.

It seems to me that this is precisely what the presidential veto is for. Trump needs to be willing to call the bi-factional ruling party’s bluff. Let them shut down government. Let them show the entire country how unnecessary it is.

And build the damn wall. It’s pretty simple. No big beautiful wall, no second term. The wall is Trump’s “no new taxes”. If he doesn’t build it, for any reason, he loses his base. All the other stuff, being presidential and responsible and exhibiting gravitas and sportsmanship is irrelevant.

The God-Emperor should begin each day by looking at his schedule and telling himself two things.

  1. Does this help me build the wall? 
  2. Does this help me drain the swamp?
If anything on his schedule does not fit into those two categories, he should cancel it and replace it with something that does.

Busting Black Bloc

The first of 212 Black Bloc protesters arrested on Inauguration Day has pleaded guilty.

A Florida man with the radical “black bloc” protest network has pleaded guilty to felony rioting and assault for his role in the Inauguration Day chaos in the District. Dane Powell, 31, of Tampa, was the first to enter a guilty plea on felony charges brought against 212 protesters accused of rioting and vandalizing property during the Jan. 20 melee surrounding President Trump’s swearing-in ceremony.

Scheduled to be sentenced July 7, he faces a possible six years in prison for breaking windows and throwing a “brick, large rock or piece of concrete” at officers after joining a mob of masked black bloc protesters who moved en masse across 16 blocks in about 30 minutes, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The God-Emperor should, in his mercy, offer him the option of a nice helicopter ride in lieu of spending so much time in prison.

The authorities, they are no longer uniformly amenable.

Like monkeys studying the space shuttle

I will say this for New York Magazine. They certainly expended no shortage of man-hours and digital ink on a long and detailed piece about the Alt-Right by Simon Van Zuylen-Wood, Noreen Malone, Max Read, Andrew Sullivan, Park Macdougald, Jason Willick, Mark Jacobson, Maureen O’Connor, Gabriel Sherman, Ben Crair, Nick Richardson, and Mark O’connell with Claire Landsbaum, Jordan Larson, Amelia Schonbek, Matt Stieb, Nick Tabor, James D. Walsh:

To understand this new right, it helps to see it not as a fringe movement, but a powerful counterculture.

When did the right wing get so bizarre? Consider: For a brief and confusing moment earlier this year, milk somehow became a charged symbol of both white supremacy and support for Donald Trump. The details are postmodern, absurdist, and ominous — not unlike the forces that brought them about. In January, the actor Shia LaBeouf mounted an art installation designed to protest the president. The next month, neo-Nazis who organized on the message board 4chan crashed the show, where they started chugging from milk jugs — because northern Europeans digest milk well, or because milk is … white. In other words, an innocent dairy beverage as old as time had been conscripted as a Donald Trump surrogate on the internet. It was yet another message-board in-joke — freighted with political meaning — suddenly in the news.

But weirdness, perhaps, is what happens when a movement grows very quickly and without any strong ideological direction — from a disciplined party, from traditional institutions like churches and chambers of Congress, from anything more organized than the insurrectionist internet.

Here in America, in trying to describe our brand of the reactionary wave currently tsunami-ing the entire developed world, we’ve leaned on the term alt-right, which had been coined by white supremacists. Richard Spencer, the most press-hungry of that group, takes credit for it. For much of last year, the term was often used as shorthand for “racists, but … young?” Which is helpful, as far as it goes, but the full reality is much more complicated. The alt-right — or the new right, if you prefer to sound more like Tom Wolfe than Kurt Cobain, or the radical right, to properly acknowledge its break from mainstream conservatism — is a coalition comprised of movements like neo-reaction, certain strands of libertarianism, tech triumphalism, and even the extreme-populist wing of the Republican Party. All share with Spencer’s white-ethno-nativism the ideals of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism: a closed nation-state. Along the way, the coalition swept up “men’s rights” advocates and anti-Semites and cruel angry teenagers and conspiracy theorists and a few fiendishly clever far-right websites and harassing hashtags and even a U.S. congressman or two. Not to mention the White House.

But to approach the big messy tent of the new retrograde right — the international brigade of nativist-nationalists, tech-savvy anti-globalists, the porn-loving gender traditionalists — as primarily a political movement is to wildly underestimate its scope. Reactionary energy helped deliver all three branches of government to a Republican Party in the grips of an alt-right-curious anti-PC bomb-thrower the faithful called their “god-emperor” (or at least helped him along with last year’s affirmative action for white people, a.k.a. the Electoral College). But at no point during the campaign, even, could you have mistaken the unruly energy on the right for anything so organized as a party or as purposeful as a protest movement. It was — and is — a counterculture. One formed in the spirit of opposition to everything the existing Establishment stood for: globalist, technocratic liberal elitism. The amazing thing is, in November, for the first time in American electoral history, the counterculture won everything.

It’s the usual discredit-diminish-and-disqualify hit piece, of course. And while people have noticed some curious omissions – Guess whose name does not appear in a huge 20-part article on the Alt Right?  Hint: he’s the author of 16 Points of the Alt Right. – the much more serious flaw is the near-complete unwillingness of the 20 or so authors to actually quote anyone who is Alt-Right, or even in the Alt-Right’s orbit, about what it is and what it stands for.

Instead, they all ran out to get quotes from academics and others openly hostile to the Alt-Right, in order to better pontificate to their readers about what it is they think we believe and why we pose such a dire threat to the established political order. It’s rather like the sort of college course that is designed to provide the course taker with the sense that he knows the subject matter without actually teaching him anything about it. The one thing the small army of co-authors did get right, however, is to observe the fact that the Alt-Right is both a broad-based cultural phenomenon and a nationalist political philosophy, not a “branded movement” or a specific ideology.

It’s a pity that no one thought to send any of these indefatigable ideological spelunkers the version of the 16 Points best suited to their ability to understand the Alt-Right. And considering on their bizarre musings about the term cuckservative, you’d think it would have occurred to one of them to at least check Amazon. But the most egregious failure is without question their inexplicable inability to grasp the source of the God-Emperor meme.

Speaking of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right, I should mention that I finally got the Ukrainian translation posted earlier today, as well as the Esperanto and Irish translations. You can find them on the right sidebar as UK, EO, and GA.

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

Альтернативні праві : 16 тез

1.Альтернативні праві належать до правих політичних течій як в американському, так і в європейському значенні цього терміну. Соціалісти не є альтернативними правими. Прогресивні не є альтернативними правими. Ліберали не є альтернативними правими. Комуністи, марксисти, марксіанці, культуро-марксисти і неоконсерватори теж не є альтернативними правими.

2.Альтернативні праві стали АЛЬТЕРНАТИВОЮ консервативному мейнстріму в США, який номінально виражений «Десятьма консервативними принципами» Рассела Кірка, але в дійсності виродився до прогресизму. Вони також стали альтернативою лібертаріанству.

3. Альтернативні праві не сповідують оборонного світогляду, відкидаючи саму ідею благородної і принципової поразки. Це філософія зорієнтована на рух вперед і наступ, в усіх значеннях цього терміну. Альтернативні праві вірять у перемогу завдяки наполегливості і збереженню гармонії із наукою, реальністю, культурною традицією і уроками історії.

4. Альтернативні праві вважають Західну цивілізацію вершинним здобутком людства і підтримують три її стовпи: християнство, європейські нації і греко-римську спадщину.

5. Альтернативні праві прямо і відкрито націоналістичні. Вони підтримують усі націоналізми і право всіх націй на існування в гомогенному середовищі, не порушеному іноземними вторгненням та імміграцією.

6. Альтернативні праві – проти глобалізму. Вони протистоять усім групам, які працюють на ідеали глобалізму чи його завдання.

7. Альтернативні праві проти егалітаризму. Вони відкидають ідею рівності з тієї ж причини, що й байки про існування єдинорогів чи лепреконів, і відзначають, що людської рівності не існує в жодній зі сфер людської діяльності: чи то юридичній, чи то матеріальній, інтелектуальній, сексуальній чи духовній.

8. Альтернативні праві орієнтуються на науку. Вони зазвичай визнають сучасні наукові результати із застереженнями: в майбутньому їх можна буде переглянути і змінити; наукові кола теж піддатливі до корупції, а так званий науковий консенсус спирається не на науковість, а на демократію. Тож висновки в рамках цього консенсусу – ненаукові.

9. Альтернативні праві вірять, що ідентичність > культура > політика.

10. Альтернативні праві протистоять домінуванню однієї етнічної групи над іншою, особливо на своїй рідній землі. Альтернативні праві перебувають в опозиції до інородців, які прагнуть досягти вагомого впливу на місцевих мешканців шляхом клановості чи іншим способом.

11. Альтернативні праві розуміють, що різноманітність + близькість = війна.

12. Альтернативним правим все одно, що ви про них думаєте.

13. Альтернативні праві відкидають міжнародну вільну торгівлю і вільне переміщення людей, якого вимагає режим вільної торгівлі. Переваги внутрішньої національної вільної торгівлі не гарантують переваг міжнародної вільної торгівлі.

14. Альтернативні праві вважають, що ми маємо забезпечити існування білих людей і майбутнє для білих дітей.

15. Альтернативні праві не вважають, що якась одна раса, нація чи інша спільнота людей має перевагу і першість над іншими. Кожна раса, нація і людська спільнота має свої сильні риси і слабкості, а також – суверенне право жити у спокої в рамках власної національної культури.

16. Альтернативні праві цінують мир між різними націями і протистоять війнам, які є спробами нав’язати цінності однієї нації іншій, а також спробами винищити окремі нації шляхом власне війни, геноциду, імміграції і генетичної асиміляції.

Альтернативні праві – це західна ідеологія, яка вірить у науку, історію, дійсність та право генетичної нації існувати і урядувати у своїх інтересах.

Святий покровитель консерваторів Рассел Кірк писав: «Велика лінія поділу в сучасній політиці, як уже вказував Ерік Воґелін, пролягає не поміж лібералами і
прихильниками тоталітаризму. Ні, на одному боці цієї межі перебувають ті чоловіки і жінки, які приймають існуючий порядок як єдиний можливий, не помічають нічого, окрім своїх матеріальних потреб і вважають, що можуть чинити все, що їм заманеться зі спадщиною людства. На іншому боці межі – ті люди, які розуміють, що світ тримається на тривалому моральному порядку, незмінності людської природи та відчутті високого обов’язку перед духовним і громадянським порядком».

Якщо це й було колись правдою, то тепер усе інакше. Лінія поділу в сучасній політиці пролягла поміж чоловіками і жінками, які вірять, що визначальне значення має їхня нестійка точка зору, і тими, хто вважає, що таке значення має їхня генетична спадщина.  Альтернативні праві розуміють, що перше завжди програє другому, оскільки приречене змінюватися.

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

An Eite Dheis Mhalartach: Sé Phointe Dhéag

1. Baineann an eite dheis mhalartach leis an eite dheis, mar a úsáidtear an téarma sin i Meireacá agus san Eoraip. Ní den eite dheis mhalartach na sóisialaigh, na fórásaithe, na liobrálaigh, na cumannaigh, deisceabail Karl Marx, na Marcsaigh, na Marcsaigh chultúrtha, ná na nuachaomhaigh.

2. MALAIRT is ea an eite dheis mhalartach ar an ngnáthghluaiseacht chaomhach i Meireacá, atá in ainm is a bheith ag leanacht deich bprionsabal chaomhacha Russell Kirk, ach arb í fírinne an scéil go bhfuil sí dulta ar meath, ionas go bhfuil cuid de chosúlacht na forásachta tagtha uirthi. Malairt freisin í ar an liobraíochas.

3. Ní cosantach an meon atá ag an eite dheis mhalartach agus ní fiú faic léi díomua uasal prionsabálta. Is cuid dá fealsúnacht an breathnú ar aghaidh, an t-ionsaí, is an oilbhéim. Creideann sí gurb amhlaidh a bhéarfar bua, trí dhianseasmhacht is trí chomhtheacht leis an eolaíocht, le fírinne an domhain, leis an traidisiún, is le ceachtanna na staire.

4. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach gurb í sibhialtacht an Iarthair an gaisce is mó a rinne an duine agus tacaíonn sí le trí chrann seasta na sibhialtachta sin: an Chríostaíocht, náisiúin na hEorpa, agus oidhreacht na Gréige is na Róimhe.

5. Deir an eite dheis mhalartach go hoscailte go bhfuil sí náisiúnach. Tacaíonn sí le gach náisiúnachas agus le ceart gach náisiún a bheith ina thír féin, gan coimhthígh sa tír sin de dheasca ionraidh ná imirce.

6. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne an domhandachais agus i gcoinne gach grúpa a oibríos ar son idéal nó cuspóirí domhandacha.

7. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach frithchothromaíoch. Séanann sí gurb ann don chothromaíocht, díreach mar a shéanas sí gurb ann d’aonbheannaigh is do leipreacháin, mar tá sé tugtha faoi deara aici nach bhfuil an fear is an bhean cothrom le chéile, ná nach bhfuil daoine cothrom le chéile de réir toisí eolaíochtúla, ná de réir dlí, ná sa mhéid de mhaoin an tsaoil atá acu, ná ó thaobh intleachta, ná go spioradálta.

8. Cleachtann an eite dheis mhalartach modh na heolaíochta. Glacann sí leis na conclúidí a sroicheadh tríd an modh sin, ach tuigeann sí go bhféadfaí na conclúidí sin a athrú amach anseo, go mbíonn baol ann go gcorbfaí na heolaithe, agus nach ar mhodh na heolaíochta atá “comhaontú na heolaíochta” bunaithe ach ar mhodh an daonlathais, rud a fhágas go bhfuil sé neamheolaíoch ó nádúr.

9. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: féiniúlacht > cultúr > polaitíocht.

10. Tá an eite dheis mhalartach i gcoinne riail nó forlámhas a bheith ag grúpa eitneach dúchasach amháin ar cheann eile, go háirithe i dtír dhúchais cheannasach an ghrúpa atá faoi chois. Tá sí i gcoinne an iomarca tionchair a bheith ag grúpa eitneach neamhdhúchasach ar bith i sochaí ar bith, trí fhiníochas, trí threibheachas, nó trí mhodh ar bith eile.

11. Tuigeann an eite dheis mhalartach é seo: éagsúlacht + cóngaracht = cogadh.

12. Is cuma leis an eite dheis mhalartach céard is dóigh leat di.

13. Diúltaíonn an eite dheis mhalartach don saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta agus don saorghluaiseacht phobal a thagas d’éigean aisti. Cé go bhfuil saorthrádáil istigh sa náisiún tairbheach, ní thugann sin fianaise go bhfuil saorthrádáil idirnáisiúnta tairbheach.

14. Creideann an eite dheis mhalartach nach mór dúinn an cine geal a thabhairt slán ó éaglach agus todhchaí shlán a chruthú dá pháistí.

15. Ní chreideann an eite dheis mhalartach go mbeireann cine, náisiún, pobal, nó fospeiceas ar bith barr go huile is go hiomlán ar cheann ar bith eile. Tá a shainbhuanna is a shainlaigí féin ag gach cine, gach náisiún, gach pobal, agus gach fospeiceas daonna, agus tá sé mar cheart ardcheannasach acu cónaí gan cur isteach sa chultúr dúchasach is fearr leo.

16. Leanann an eite dheis mhalartach fealsúnacht ar mór aici síocháin idir náisiúin an domhain, atá i gcoinne cogaidh chun luachanna náisiúin amháin a chur i bhfeidhm ar náisiún eile, agus atá i gcoinne díothú náisiún, trí chogadh, trí chinedhíothú, trí inimirce, nó trí chomhshamhlú géiniteach.

I mbeagán focal: gluaiseacht bunaithe ar idé-eolaíocht Iartharach is ea an eite dheis mhalartach, a chreideas san eolaíocht, sa stair, i bhfírinne an domhain, agus i gceart an náisiúin ghéinitigh a bheith ann agus é féin a rialú ar mhaithe leis féin.