African Homophobia: Because White People

Jonathan Chait has recently been under siege by the Social Media Justice Warriors for daring to criticize the authoritarian mob-and-silence tactics of the New Left (a.k.a Cultural Marxists) in his NY Mag article Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: how the language police are perverting liberalism. His thesis is that SMJW’s are not letting the right White people (you know, liberal Jews like him and Hanna Rosin) speak, because they are, you know, White. He whines about how the New Left judges the authority to speak solely based on identity, and this makes him unhappy now that other identity groups have crowded their way up the victim-status hierarchy and now sit in the front of the bus, relegating Jews (who are now considered by the SMJWs to be privileged Whites) to the back of the bus, with cis-gendered male Jews (like Chait) sitting behind ‘intersectional’ Jews. It seems these modern day Leftists have a short memory when it comes to all the work that liberal Jews like Chait have done for the New Left agenda. They forgot that just a few years ago, Chait was one of the guys with a megaphone crucifying Dr. Jason Richwine for having said something racist (but scientifically accurate) in his doctoral thesis, like “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

Steve Sailer points out that Jonathan Chait is now being attacked for saying something other than “Cis-Gendered Straight White Males Are Evil”. Sailer asserts that truthful criticism is generally a ‘good thing’, and that it would be more productive and honest if, rather than pining for his lost ‘free speech’ privileges, Chait instead advocated the right of anyone to criticize anyone, no matter how sacralized the group. Sailer makes the case that criticism of White males may actually help the group to behave better. I can’t disagree. Perhaps many groups in America would benefit from some honest criticism. Alas, this would disrupt the narrative: CSWMs Are Evil.

Whites endure never ending criticism. There is nothing in this world that is not the cause of White people. It’s like 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon. No matter what the issue is, it can be linked to White people in 6 degrees or less.

Speaking of evil White people, did you know that African’s are ‘homophobic’ because ‘White people’? From the WaPo:

When President Obama praised the Supreme Court’s decision this week to overturn a law that had forbidden the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, he just happened to be in Senegal, standing alongside the country’s president. Naturally, reporters at the event asked Senegalese President Mackey Sall whether he might improve gay rights as well, albeit from a very different starting point, by rolling back his country’s law banning homosexuality. Sall no doubt knows that the Obama administration has long pushed African nations to improve gay rights. But he didn’t hedge: The answer, he said, is no.

“We are still not ready to decriminalize homosexuality,” Sall said. “These issues are societal. … We should not have one standard model that’s applicable to all nations.” He added, though, that Senegal is “very tolerant” and that “This does not mean we are homophobic.”

Yeah, it would be racist to think that African’s are homophobic just because they criminalize homosexuality. Obviously, this must be caused by White people:

Like so many pan-African trends, this one appears to have its origins in the colonial era, when a handful of European powers carved up the continent during the 19th and 20th centuries. (Before colonialism, at least some African societies appear to have accepted homosexuality, the Africa scholar Deborah Amory has written.) At the time, the rigorously conservative social codes of the Victorian era were sweeping through Europe, particularly the United Kingdom; this included passionately held and severely enforced laws against homosexuality. The colonial powers, organizing their African colonies within largely arbitrary borders and writing constitutions from scratch, imposed these sodomy laws across the continent.

See how you do that? African ‘homophobia’ > Colonialism > White People. Bingo! WaPo did it in only 2 degrees. This game is fun. You can play at home and contribute your findings in a comment below. Just do a search for some terrible injustice in the world and see how quickly you can you can find the link to White people.

We can call it 6 Degrees of Whitey Hatin’. Have fun!

The University of Neoreaction

I delivered a little Hat Tip to Pete Dushenski the other day, after spending a few days delving into his blog, and related sites. To my surprise, Pete actually took the time to do a little homework and replied with his critique of Neoreaction:

Spending all your time figuring out what kind of “-ism” you and your friends believe in so that you can call each other “whatever-ists” is no way to improve the world.

Yes, Pete, I have taken quite a shine to your writings and I appreciate the critique. I found the link to the site in Land’s Quote note (#144), linking to Pete’s article ‘The Revolution Was Fiat, The Reaction Is Bitcoin‘ and which Land dubbed as ‘glorious‘.[sic]

I actually agree with Pete’s analysis:

All in all, Nick’s blog, and the others like it that I came across, spend a lot of time and energy defining, redefining, debating, and trying to encapsulate their ideologies into a variety of “isms” so that the authors can then call their little cohort a “whatever-ists.” The neoreaction movement, such as it is, appears to be little more than some young men looking, somewhat aimlessly, for a shepherd to give them a sense of identity.

I agree with this, because I have  come to regard the Reactosphere as an Illiberal University System. Neoreactionaries do ‘spend a lot of time and energy defining, redefining, debating, and trying to encapsulate their ideologies into a variety of “isms”‘. That’s what academics do, isn’t it?

The entirety of the West is engulfed in Leftism, or perhaps ‘Revolutionism’ is more consonant with Pete’s parlance, being as he defends a dichotomy between the Revolutionaries and the Reactionaries.

I originally began to clarify a few points in Pete’s piece, but what it really came down to was semantics. Pete is a reactionary, and we are reactionaries. Sure, he takes exception to certain things that he found in Land’s work, but those exceptions are merely semantic, the underlying reactionary consensus is there. I don’t want to spend a lot of time dissecting these semantic non-differences.

Pete reads a couple of comments on Bitcoin and overly-quickly labels ‘neoreactionists’ as anti-Bitcoin. I have no reason to think that anyone in the quoted comment thread speaks with any authority on the topic of Bitcoin. Then Pete reads some of Land’s work, encounters semantic differences from those used in his sphere and spins out from there. Guilt by association. I can tell that Pete is personally, deeply, invested in Bitcoin. A few ‘neoreactoinists’ said he had an ugly baby. I get it.

Not many neoreactionaries know shit about Bitcoin. Are there some guys that just talk out of their asses like they know something? Yeah, that happens. What what did Land say about Bitcoin? He called Pete’s piece glorious. [sic]

Neoreaction has the writings of Moldbug, which essentially transformed the reactionary memeplex into a form that Blue-state Progressives/Brahmins could imbibe. It has Land and a number of very bright fellows tracking a subterranean change, a counter-current, an undertow of reactionary fervor. NRx is valuable because it spreads the reactionary memeplex. It allows those with the aptitude to delve into reactionary thought. That is worth something.

Neoreaction is not direct action, it is not a movement, nor does it need to be. It’s a school. The Reactosphere is a place to explore and express forbidden thoughts, to challenge the order of the revolutionaries intellectually. It is a place to de-program the Egalitarian memeplex that is programmed into every Westerner from birth. You attend the University of Neoreaction to get your Illiberal Arts Degree. It is a self-hosting, self-perpetuating, reactionary school.

Where else can you get that? Who else is doing a better job of maintaining a lively forum of reactionary debate? Who else is discussing the history and philosophy of reaction? Who else is offering the reactionary take on current events? I’m sure Popescu et al have some lively debates on #bitcoin-assets, but that’s a pretty closed system. I’m sure Alexander Dugin and Vladimir Putin have some great conversations too, but last I checked neither one of them hosted blogs with open comment threads for discussion and debate. I would surely love to sit around and hash it out with Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel, maybe Patri Friedman would saunter in, too. But, I never seem to get an invite to beers out with those boys.

Is NRx ‘an undergraduate-level circlejerk‘? Maybe. But one day you graduate.

By the way, Pete, great blog. I’m really into it.