Richard, Colin, and Andy discuss M. Night Shyamalan’s unsung and underrated provocative allegorical film “The Village,” and its thematic relevance to all those who strive to preserve safety and innocence in the midst of our dark and corrupt time:
Richard, Colin, and Andy discuss M. Night Shyamalan’s unsung and underrated provocative allegorical film “The Village,” and its thematic relevance to all those who strive to preserve safety and innocence in the midst of our dark and corrupt time:
At Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia– my undergraduate alma mater– President James Wagner is in hot water… make that boiling hot lava. He has ignited a furor not likely to die down anytime soon. Faculty, students, and administrators are all screaming at him like…well, to put it frankly, like a bunch of bitches. And when faculty, student, and administrative bitches be trippin’, presidential heads are liable soon to be rollin’.
“Oh dear!” you reply, voice resonant with grave concern. “What ever has the man done?? It must be something really beastly… after all, those employed and enrolled at prestigious American universities never lose their heads and throw a collective PC-hissy fit over something utterly stupid and of no real moment and ultimately insubstantial! The president’s transgression must be egregious indeed!”
And oh, it is! Wagner’s act is in fact so stunningly wicked that before I relate it, you may just want to ready your smelling salts, in case you pass out from the shock. Consider this your “trigger warning,” if indeed you are the type of person who cares at all about such things as decency, goodness, justice, and decorum.
Are you ready? Are you sitting down? Is your rectum good and clenched? Have you got a stong father figure by your side whom you can hug and on whose broad, strong shoulders you can cry copious tears of dismay and trauma?
Okay… here’s what he did.
This dastardly man… flagrantly used a historical metaphor in a newspaper column in order to make a rhetorical point!
“So what,” you ask?
Well, you see, it may not LOOK like a big deal, but it IS. Yea, verily, indeed. After all, the piece in question, which Wagner penned for The Emory Wheel, made reference to the “three-fifths compromise” following the end of the Revolutionary War, in which those pushing for black slaves to count the same as whites for the purposes of constituional representation, settled instead on letting each black vote count for 60 percent, or three-fifths, of the value of a white man’s citizenship. Wagner cited this instance as a time when one political faction, believing strongly in the correctness of their cause, nevertheless made concessions for pragmatic purposes.
Here is a summary of the brouhaha, as reported by the Wheel, the student newspaper that once ran a few of my own strident post-adolescent editorials back in the day:
(Note the ample and pungently unfurling scent of relentless butthurt from the various student and faculty groups chiming in to condemn Wagner’s oh-so-horrific words. Geez, what a campus of whiners!)
Yes, folks… that’s what it takes to ignite a campus controversy these days. It’s becoming easier and easier. To bring the militant multicultist mafia down on your head, you used to have to do something really provocative, like fly the “stars and bars” from your dorm room window, or refuse to spell “woman” with a “y,” or smirk in the presence of an AIDS quilt.
Now all it takes for a university president– a president, no less– to be undone is for him to invoke an ostensibly infelicitous, even if accurate, metaphor relating to antebellum Negro slavery in the midst of an altogether rather bland newspaper column encouraging clashing departments of his college to unite despite their differences for the sake of a greater good.
The American academic gulag metastasizes into an ever-more absurdist caricature all the time. What will be the next overblown kerfuffle to roil the legions of left-liberal brainwashed goosestepping minions? Will the plague of political correctness finally run its terminal course and perish, even as it kills its by now thoroughly spent and useless hosts in the ivory towers it inhabits?
One of the most liberating and eye-opening revelations I ever had was stumbling across the Anonymous Conservative blog, because it provides scientific evidence for something we’ve all suspected but were afraid to articulate: liberalism is literally a mental disorder. Once you junk the premise that feminists, anti-racists, men’s rights activists and other leftists are well-meaning but misguided and realize that they’re deranged, self-destructive lunatics, a lot of things become easier to explain.
Feminism, for example, is nothing but intellectualized psychosis.
How many times have you heard a feminist make the following argument on (or in response to) the manosphere:
“You’re all a bunch of sexist pigs who treat women like sex objects. Women are people, they’re not playthings for your amusement.”
I don’t need to cite a specific instance; throw a dart at a manosphere blog and you’ll hit upon someone, somewhere saying something like this. The thing about this line is that it’s total projection.
Let me explain.
A while back, Roosh posted a photo collage comparing women from the 1960′s to women today. This comment near the end sums up the objections to his article:
There are just as many ugly women as well as men now as there were in the 60′s. You can not honestly believe every woman was from planet babe back then. Its pretty obvious that the author of this found the absolute best pictures of women from the 60′s and the worst from the present day. You have to keep in mind as well that there are waaay more recent pictures easily accessible now partially due to the internet. You’re going to find a lot of “ugly” women, but you’ll also be able to find just as many “hot” ones.. though the way ive seen people post comments on here im sure no mortal woman could live up to the standards held by some of you men. to everyone moaning about how they wish they had a time machine i strongly encourage you to get the fuck over it because its not going to happen.. even if it did you would probably still be disappointed. The world has always sucked. Only a fool would romanticize the past like this.
But here’s the thing: Roosh’s post was not solely about looks. Sure, obesity has played a role in uglifying the average girl, but half of the modern women pictured were skinny or average weight. All else being equal, there’s probably little difference between today’s girls and the girls of yesteryear purely on the basis of physical attractiveness.
The biggest difference between women of today and the sixties isn’t in looks, it’s in attitude.
The women in the 1960′s pictures are smiling and joyful. They dress stylishly. They radiate confidence and playfulness. They look at ease in their own skin. Basically, they’re normal, well-adjusted, feminine women.
The modern women look mentally off. They’ve deliberately ruined their looks with stupid hipster tattoos, ugly Skrillex haircuts, and body piercings. They wear clothes that are either too tight to contain their jiggling blubber rolls, or otherwise make them look like homeless crack whores. They drink themselves into blackout puking. While they show more skin then the sixties gals, they wield their sex appeal like a mallet, showing not confidence but a weird mix of hostility and desperation. “I have TITS! LOOK AT ME!”
They’re the exact opposite of how women should be: insecure, aggressive and cunty.
One of my guilty pleasures is erotica and glamour photography from the 50′s and 60′s. A month ago, I came across a site featuring scans of vintage girlie magazines. Looking at the nudes on the site, I got the same impression I got from the photos in Roosh’s post; while there’s little difference between the women there and modern porn stars/models on a purely physical basis, the girlies beat out modern sluts purely on their feminine vibe. They’re happy and playful, exuding sexiness without coming off as slutty or trashy.
Now look at porn stars on YouPorn or Spankwire. Almost all of them look angry and hostile; there’s no life in their eyes, no mirth in their actions. Even if it weren’t for their whore makeup and silicone breasts, they’d still come off as fake and phony. They need artificial implants to even attempt to capture the flirty and feminine nature of Bettie Page, June Wilkinson and the glamour girls of yesteryear: and even then, they can’t do it.
Finally, I got a lot of heat from feminists last summer when I wrote a post praising Australian hurdler Michelle Jenneke for her confident, feminine demeanor. Dozens of manboobs and feminasties called me a “douchebag” or “creepy” for reducing women to sex objects, even though I explicitly pointed out that Jenneke wasn’t particularly attractive—she’s cute yes, but not stunningly so—nor her “sexy” dancing all that sexy. What makes her attractive isn’t her looks alone, it’s her aura, her attitude. In a follow-up post, I also talked about a couple of homely Hoosier ladies I met in Chicago who wowed me with their charm and girliness.
I praise women for being confident and fun to be around, and I’m the one who’s reducing women to sex objects?
The truth is that it is feminists who view women solely as sex objects. Mindless consumers whose only purpose in life is to punch numbers into a computer for a meager paycheck or rub their asses all over your crotch like they’re trying to send you to the hospital. Confused androgynes who pop antidepressants to keep from slitting their wrists in the bathtub. Men with vaginas.
In their revolt against the natural order, feminists have turned women into slabs of meat.
In America, the discussion of political issues is an endless and perpetually inconclusive cycle: Party mouthpieces formulate stock arguments, and the media disseminates them to the rank and file, who then absorb and regurgitate them. They are then repeated ad nauseam whenever a well-publicized event returns the question to the limelight. Solutions are never discovered. This has been standard procedure for at least the last three generations who, incapable of seeing outside the narrow parameters of bipartisan debate, accept it as the norm. But why?
Politics is not an academic discipline and does not involve the abstractions of that milieu; its matters and its terms are direct and concrete. Its subjects are familiar on a functional level to the majority of the population. If objective truth does exist then the questions being asked in the political milieu should end in objective answers. If Americans can calculate solutions to algebraic equations, they should certainly be able to do the same for poverty, crime, energy, and healthcare.
This has not happened, from which I infer two things: (1) that Americans are truly ignorant of what they speak about politically; and (2) their reason for engaging in political debate is self and partisan promotion, not the actual search for solutions.
Here it is noted that, like everything else in mass democracy, one’s political orientation is commercial, in other words a consumer choice. People select views (prepackaged for them) that satisfy their psychological disposition, and this reflects them in not only the political, but also the human dimension. Politics is merely a smokescreen for culture, fashion, and interpersonal interaction.
Conservatism and Liberalism function, not only as filters for reality perception, but as subcultures. Hence, they can be studied sociologically in the same manner as the music and art scenes.
One feature of subcultures is the possession of their own built in lexicon, a collection of terms used only by their members, and only to phatically communicate within the group. This is cliché regurgitation, and it is understandable: subcultures are the vehicle through which people satisfy their mental drives, mutually reinforcing each other in the process. Original thought – or thought at all – is not the point; nor is reference to things outside the group or interaction with people outside the group.
When analyzing the terms used within the subculture you will detect similarities between them and patterns will emerge. What are the most commonly heard terms in the liberal vocabulary? “Tolerance,” “sensitivity,” “inclusion,” “diversity,” “equality,” “humanity”…all phonetically soft, bright, and feminine. They all please the liberal ear in a manner.
Even if they are all essentially restatements of each other, each still possesses its own star in the liberal zodiac. Public figures use buzzwords for their emotive, rather than intellectual content; as such, their weight is connotative rather than denotative. Notice also that since the decline of Marxism the left has draped its periodicals, websites and t-shirts in aqua colors, all understood to evoke peace and tranquility.
Conservatism, for its part, is no different. The character it presents and the personality it attracts differ, but the dynamics uniting the two do not. Where the liberal’s lexicon is soft and feminine the conservative’s is hard and masculine: “tradition,” “hierarchy,” “history,” “nation” and all its derivatives. Note also the colors favored by the Right: earth tones.
It can be seen that the force driving politics is irrational, fueled by subjective preferences valued without reason. If politics is a manifestation of psychology, then so are such areas as culture, lifestyle, and pastimes, explaining the high rate of correlation between the two. One of our society’s central conceits, that people form their views after active research and modify them when presented with contradictory information, is a falsehood. Gun control, having recently returned to the limelight with the shooting in Newton, Connecticut, illustrates this.
But it is not even about gun control, as that would require dealing with issues and other people in a hard-headed and realistic way far beyond their emotional comfort zones. Instead it is merely about espousing gun control for consumption within the sub-cultural group. It is all about preaching to the choir, and ignoring the awkward realities beyond the swell of their own droning organ.
Would-be gun grabbers are invariably the products of urban areas in which gun ownership is not part of the culture; it is the rare exception. Their knowledge of guns, gun owners, and the issues, habits, and traditions that drive gun-ownership is miniscule. It never extends beyond the caricatures portrayed in popular culture.
Moreover, these people are “the Other.” They inhabit small towns in rural areas, where the ratio of church attendance and heterogeneity is unacceptable. Such are not America, or at least not what they wish America to be. In the liberal fantasy, they need to be redesigned so as to become unrecognizable, to fit the encroaching zeitgeist, but, again, this is essentially a fantasy.
Guns have no place in the antiseptic utopia that Liberals create as a group-wank-fantasy every time their subgroup interacts. In moments like this, Liberals naively believe that their motivation for stripping cultural and intellectual inferiors of their favorite toys would be a desire for public safety; in reality, their motivations are purely a matter of sub-cultural group interaction and acceptance.
Politics is a conflict of tribes, and of subjectivities. Who is the winner? Is it the man with the best information, most logically valid arguments, and finest ethical credentials? Of course not, for such a man exists in the desolate no-man’s land between the self-affirming and self-isolating herds of the subjective and emotionally-driven subcultures.
The latest episode of Vanguard Radio is live. (Unforunately, since we’ve changed hosts, we can no longer embed the audio files here at AltRight.)
In this week’s episode, long-time activist and organizer Kevin Scott joins us for a discussion of British nationalism and the creation of the British Democratic Party (which is designed as a successor to the British National Party.)
Also, note our new iTunes subscription feed.
When I first saw media coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) a few years ago my first reaction was “LOLWUT”. My next reaction was that it had to be a troll. I found it so hard to take seriously because the WBC represents in pure concentrated form every leftist conceit about the nature of their non-opposition. They are white, rural, religious and openly bigoted against the most celebrated victim group of the moment.
I am not going to condemn or defend the WBC. I find them mildly amusing, but beyond that I am indifferent. What I find interesting is why anyone cares about them at all. They are a tiny group with views so wildly out of the mainstream that it is hard take them seriously as anything other than trolls. Why grant them power? Why not simply remove them from the picture? The cultural left rules this country. They have the power to get rid of or ignore the WBC, so why don’t they? It can only be because they want them there.
Liberals would so dearly love for the WBC to be representative of their opposition that they hem and haw over their “free speech rights” to create disturbances at military funerals and trespass on private property. In a sane society people engaging in such activities would simply be removed with force, not pandered to and granted the “right” to engage in such behavior. Ironically, it is precisely such behavior that cultural leftists used to come to power in the first place. Whether intentionally or not, the WBC is aping the gay rights movement in tactics. At one point I thought perhaps the WBC was an elaborate ruse to wake leftists up to the social value of violently excluding undesireables. If so, this would at least be an admirable if ultimately futile goal.
In reality liberalism faces no enemies, so it must create them. What passes for conservatism in this country is basically warmed over liberalism combined with occasional unintentional self-parody. Yet liberals will pretend that they are a mighty force to contend with. As I have discussed elsewhere this is ridiculous. Whatever power non-liberal groups have in this country is ceded to them by the left in a desperate effort to create the pretense of conflict and opposition.
The human soul needs conflict and struggle to give meaning to existence, yet liberal ideology is entirely built around eliminating conflict from society. They have been so successful at this that the main issue of the day is whether or not men can “marry” men and the main argument in favor of the practice is that feelings will be hurt if society reserves the title of marriage for male/female relationships only. This is why the left keeps the WBC around. It gives them the pretense of struggle, the facade of conflict and thus temporarily fills the gaping void they feel in the souls that they deny they possess.
To give an example of this a friend (who shall remain nameless) that is a student at Vassar College, the WBC’s next target, shared this note he received in his inbox:
Vassar students, employees, and friends,
Many of you know of the statement yesterday by Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas that they will picket Vassar College on February 28 in protest of our open support of LGBTQ students, employees, and alums. Should the Westboro Baptist Church choose to come to Poughkeepsie, they will not be allowed to gather on campus. As a College, we look forward to any opportunity to counter messages of hatred and bigotry and to underscore Vassar’s values.
Vigorous conversations are underway online, on campus, and among all parts of our community on how best to express and reaffirm our values in relation to this picketing. All are invited to participate in these conversations, including one taking place tonight, Monday, at 10 p.m. in UpC, facilitated by students.
Vigorous conversations? Why even bother? Look forward to it? Of course they do. What else have they got to look forward to other than dildos and interracial porn? One of the ideas that came up as a way to respond to the grave threat of the WBC is this proposal to “crowd fund” a gay teen suicide prevention hotline.
The Westboro Baptist Church has announced that they will picket Vassar College on Feb 28th. In response, we are raising money for the Trevor Project, ”the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth.” Our goal is to raise $4,500, or $100 per minute that the WBC is planning to protest for.
How utterly facile. Of course this non-effort has been wildly successful precisely because it is so facile. The WBC represents everything postmodern liberalism could ever ask for. The caricature of an enemy, the pretense of conflict and risk free ways of “fighting back” and affirming the values of anti-values. What a joke.
Originally published at The Right Stuff
Due to ‘Earth privilege’ you may be interpreting the recent spate of asteroid stories in the wrong way. Our biased, Earth-centric media tends to portray the asteroids as the danger, when it is obvious that it is the other way round. Just the other day, one unfortunate interplanetary object, innocently following its predetermined elliptical orbit around the Solar System, was smashed to cosmic dust by the Earth straying into its path.
Earth privilege (or “human-hosting planet privilege,” as progressive astrophysicists occasionally term it) refers to advantages that a certain astronomical object obtains in media and cultural discourse beyond those commonly experienced by other astronomical objects.
The term connotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that the Earth and the people who live here may not recognize they have. This distinguishes it from overt hatred and prejudice against asteroids and meteorites that was common in earlier ages, when innocent comets were routinely blamed for plagues, famines, earthquakes, and invasions by the Mongols.
Thankfully, we have moved beyond such crass ‘astrologism,’ but the problem of Earth privilege, as these recent stories reveal, remains a constant and indelible stain upon our moral character.
Only by ensuring absolute astronomical equality can we make amends for several billion years of Earth privilege. As with overcoming White privilege and male privilege, the way forward is to deconstruct the social or, in this case, astronomical construct. This can best be achieved by dismantling the offending astronomical object into several million smaller pieces, possibly through a massive nuclear explosion. In this way, we can make enormous strides towards the final, absolute equality that will ultimately only be achieved with the heat-death of the universe.
The next few years in British politics could be the most interesting ever. The success of UKIP, which now regularly polls over 15%, shows that the main parties are losing the popular mandate. The Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat Parties are suffering from falling membership and increasing voter apathy. The people feel betrayed and resentful about the direction the country has been taken in. Quite simply an enormous political vacuum is developing.
But UKIP can only explore the vacuum; it can never fill it. It is essentially a shallow, opportunist party of little substance. The voters instinctively know this and treat it merely as a stick to beat the main parties. The real hope for Britain lies in the foundation of the British Democratic Party, a new party formed by nationalists who have finally moved out of the shadow caused by the collapse into irrelevance of the BNP.
Launched last weekend at a meeting near Leicester, the party provides a new standard for British nationalists to rally around once again in the struggle to save their nations, a struggle, it should be said, made all the harder by the mistakes of the past. The following is an account of the launch of the new party from the website of Civil Liberty:
Around 80 invited activists attended the national launch meeting of the British Democratic Party in Queniborough, near Leicester, on Saturday, the 9th of February, 2013.
Key policies discussed included a halt to all further immigration, Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and protecting the social and economic interests of the British people.
Addressing the meeting, the chairman of the new party’s steering committee, Kevin Scott, who is also the director of the independent Civil Liberty nationalist civil rights campaign group, said that the new party would respect the rights of those legal immigrants and their descendants to remain in the UK without fear or hindrance. In due course, increased resettlement aid would be offered to those wanting to return voluntarily to their ancestral homelands. He also said the purpose of the new party was to win back the nationalist movement from those who had wrecked it and then, ultimately, to win back the country for our own people so that they may live freely once again unhindered by multiculturalism and political correctness.
One of the main speakers at the launch meeting was Andrew Brons, the MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside, who was warmly welcomed by the invited audience.
The other speakers included Adrian Davies, the former leader of the Freedom Party, Sam Swerling, a former Conservative councillor in London, Jim Lewthwaithe, a former Bradford BNP councillor, Kevan Stafford, the main Leicester organiser of the new party, Andrew Moffatt, a former UKIP parliamentary candidate, Brian Mahoney, a former BNP regional organiser from Wales, and Ken Booth, another former BNP regional organiser from the North East of England.
One of the aims of the meeting was to kickstart launch meetings across the south of England and beyond and rally those nationalists who have left the BNP in disgust at the destructive self-serving antics of that party’s leadership.
The first part of the meeting discussed why a new party was needed, while the second half of the meeting discussed the way forward the new party proposed relating to the constitutional and financial controls it had developed over the last few months, the importance of ideology to the party’s core beliefs, the organisation and administration of the new party and the importance of grassroots activism and local elections in building the profile of the BDP (or Brit Dems, if you prefer) across the country. Valuable contributions were made by the invited audience following both parts of the meeting.
Party literature and policy statements were distributed to the assembled activists and membership forms were also made available so that potential members could sign up on the day as many enthusiastically did.
This new British Democratic Party is the third manifestation of the party name that we are aware of in British political history. The first BDP was formed by John Brown, from South Shields, in the North East of England, in March 1938. According to his manifesto, one of the aims of this first BDP was, “the destruction of Communism and Fascism and the winning over of workers to a belief in their own country.” John Brown had been expelled from the Labour Party only the month before for making speeches attacking the Labour leadership and his first BDP meetings on Tyneside were attacked by Labour and far-left thugs intent on destroying his new party.
Ironically, a photographer from the Labour party front group, Hope not Hate, turned up outside the meeting room in an effort to intimidate those attending the launch meeting of the new BDP.
The second version of the BDP was formed in early 1980 by Anthony Reed-Herbert, a Leicester lawyer and former leading light within the National Front at the time. Mr Reed-Herbert had split away from the National Front a few months earlier following the disappointing showing of the National Front in the 1979 general election. The BDP in Leicester scored some credible votes in local elections in the city before eventually merging with the British National Party when that party was established in 1982. A founder member of the Leicester-based BDP was present at yesterday’s meeting and brought along some original BDP literature from 1980 for the invited audience to examine.
Like everyone else at the meeting, that former BDP member from the 1980s recognised the enormity of the task ahead for the new party, but, third time lucky, is determined to succeed this time!
College is the place where people are supposed to learn to think, but instead join mass social movements with barren intellectual foundations to strut their terminal insecurity across the public spectrum.
I put this statement to paper not as some curmudgeonly Republican lamenting modern times as the few remaining years of my life tick away. Nor am I an individual pledged to the ultimate narcissism of Objectivist thought, ready to vilify all those who decline to accept the permeating vanity and cultureless basis of my beliefs.
Instead, the aforementioned claim is birthed in the mind of one very normal student directly integrated with the academic community of an institution lauded both nationally and around the planet for the quality of its education, while simultaneously being a beacon for the American Nation’s sprint towards debauched social oblivion: the University of Virginia.
For fairness’ sake, UVA is well-regarded, but unfortunately accolades are not enough to save its grounds from becoming the prime rookery for this generation’s finest collection of useful idiots, never hesitant to jump on a one-shot bandwagon toward society’s implosion so long as they get a seat at the “in” table. A table, as I like to describe it, of Brilliant Automatons, wound and pumping to get out into the nation and turn the fullest expressions of their sinewy political imaginations into reality.
Perhaps the finest rendition of Brilliant Automaton behavior comes in the reaction to last year’s sordid Helen Dragas Affair. Instead of responding to the removal of University President Teresa Sullivan by Board of Visitors rector Helen Dragas with the candor and free thinking which Thomas Jefferson would have admired, most of the student body morphed into a droning collective of anti-Dragas sentiment and launched a campus-wide campaign to have their heroine president divinized and the Banal Rector fired from her position.
Rallies assembled, insults flew in one direction, petitions were signed, and the vibrant groupthink guard seemed unstoppable in its mission to deflect attempts at what it imagined was a corporate coup. Ancient alumni and the local tabloid paper also got their share of visibility, trumpeting a steady note of condemnation and Occupy-esque rhetoric. So vehemently coalesced was anti-Dragas outrage that even the once-sacred memorial to slain student Morgan Harrington in Charlottesville found itself defaced with imposing “DUMP DRAGAS” graffiti months for after the scandal had subsided.
Never mind that Sullivan was once levied with a serious accusation of academic fraud along with her collaborator at the time, the Scott Brown-trouncing Senator Elizabeth Warren. Or the fact of her help in stymying advances in the University’s higher education program by delaying the advent of online course options. The only matters at stake to Dragas’ detractors were evil corporations, their encirclement of UVA’s first female president with patriarchal malevolence, and a general feeling of insecurity amongst the student body.
Of course, this latter issue of insecurity is precisely what creates the Brilliant Automaton. Despite having much credence in the realms of academic achievement, these students still require the fleeting comfort of a social groupthink team and thus submit to whichever is most readily available (and popular), regardless of its foundational principles. Facts fade away before their eyes and transform into the scintillating aroma of big-tent social groups. Barely thinking once, they seize up, lock step, and become the Brilliant Automatons, both well-educated and more than able to latch on to trends which threaten the very basis of traditionalist America.
If the students participating in “Dump Dragas” had been a lot of booze-addled pretenders at Arizona State University, they might have been dismissed as the harmless lemmings of modern society, not one of them holding the potential for anything beyond playful mischief. But this is not the case; UVA is highly respected, and thus many of its graduates are likely to enjoy positions of significant public authority in the future.
Diplomas from the school will line the neatly-kept walls of courthouses, teacher offices, business headquarters, and possibly the White House itself. Their holders stand to be on the frontline of countless public issues, at times enjoying the power to swing political and social histories in irrevocable directions. The notion of such personalities and their mob-like conformity possessing significant power in public affairs is both disheartening and grievous to the soul.
As traditionalist and nationalist culture faces continual assault, its guardians shall be replaced by the Brilliant Automatons, who can joyfully assist as contributors to the multiculturalist, feminist, anti-white, and pro-liberalism onslaught. And what is more, they will do so with the full honor of a university degree emblazoned upon their psyches.
Richard, Colin, and Andy are joined by journalist Roman Bernard, who discusses his experiences with the French right-wing youth movement and his observations regarding a “generation gap” between aging old-school European nationalists and younger activists with a more pan-European perspective.