Category Archives: Robert Johnson

Love–It’s the White Thing to Do

In these degenerate times, even to speak of love is to invite scorn, to be called a sentimental fool or a pathetic beta male. But it was not always so.

Love has been a central topic of discussion in Western Civilization. The early Greek philosopher Empedocles gave it the status of universal force. Plato, too, and the neo-Platonists dedicated many works to the topic. The myth of Eros and Psyche was a perennial theme of art, and the Grail legends still have cultural influence today. Similarly, our movies and television shows are pervaded with romantic themes. However, similar to Gresham’s law, paltry conceptions of love drive out grander ones. I shall not examine the decline here, but merely present some defense of the more noble conception of love.

This ideal of love is beset from two sides: that of the bro and the intellectual, as I shall call them. I hope to show that both positions, while understandable, are wrong-headed. Briefly, the bro position attacks love as mere beta male pussy nonsense while the intellectual holds that it is a puerile and mawkish idea. I will freely admit that in disproportion and in severance from real-world particulars it can become those, but it is not essentially that way. Ideals need defending from the cynicism and extremism of a degraded culture.

extremism of a degraded culture

To address the bro criticism let us look briefly and from a great height at the Middle Ages. One cannot doubt, in general, the dominance of patriarchy in this period. Conflict is common, man and nature are more dangerous than at present, and human muscle is the main driver of production. This too, on the other hand, is the age of chivalry and of the troubadour. Men utterly dominate the scene, yet (excessively) romantic notions of love are rampant. This is because, contrary to the narrative, it is the male that is the romantic, not the comparatively anaesthetic female. (Of womanly notions of love, I have little to say. It is a more concrete thing – tied to the more practical affairs of life, security and safety not least.)  To address a familiar theme, the male is the agent of romance, the female the object. The minds of men are more easily enthralled by abstractions, including ideals. When we rule our own societies, an abstract feminine is a motivating ideal whether she be a Helen or a Mary, a Gretchen or a Beatrice. Biologically, we crave the female, spiritually “the eternal feminine draws us on.”

Faust and Gretchen
There is no better paragon of alpha-infused autism than Faust. And even he had a soft-spot for 3D.

From the other side we have the sneering (((intellectuals))) and the jeering intellectuals. They constantly try to deconstruct or otherwise undermine the idea of love. Think of Lucretius and his flatulent Venus. I am sure a fair few of you have some Mencken quotations to hurl at me, but they do not bite in light of his Sara Haardt. The intellectual has more than his share of self-awareness. This causes both baseless romantic ideation as well as virtual paralysis in cases of real potential romance. This no doubt leads to embittered intellectuals. Among his peers, this creates an arms race for greater and greater cynicism. It is a situation made all the worse by the need for many intellectuals to seek novel views as well as to separate themselves from the rubes back home by disparaging their time-worn and hokey ideals. It is no coincidence, either, that the hipster must assume a tiresome aura of irony in his otherwise rabid quest for authenticity.

Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn't, they'd be married, too.
“Bachelors know more about women than married men. If they didn’t, they’d be married, too.” H. L. Menken.

Both the bro and the intellectual are bitter, their jadedness no doubt hard-won. Our culture still has the vestiges of white civilization; the idea of love is still out there. We see it in our movies and our television shows, especially older ones. A formerly common plot involved the discovery of old love letters or poems, for example. That plot still makes sense today, but it cannot be about today. At best it belongs to our elderly, but even that becomes less and less true. Similarly thousands of romcoms feature the ‘meet cute’ but that requires a functioning community and inviting public spaces. Can we really imagine our malls, train stations, bus depots, airports, parks, town squares and so forth as viable spaces for love? Of course not! Mugging and murder perhaps, but not love. Many such spaces are unsafe, unpleasant, and downright uninviting. Even those that are tolerable lack the social infrastructure to be relevant to non-utilitarian activities.

Our culture still indulges white ideas of love, but this just sets up white men for failure. Those ideas have no vital relevance. The failure that results when white men do what they feel they are supposed to do (and moreover what is instinctual) causes much sorrow and anger. We then turn to game blogs out of desperation, or become male feminists hoping for pity sex, or become embroiled in relationships that our culture actively wishes to fail and which sadly often do. The result is a lot of meaningless sex, a lot of failed relationships, and a lot of ruined lives. Women turn to pharmaceutical intervention while men turn to mechanically banging club sluts, and those are the ‘lucky’ ones! The man thinks of some sweet girl he once knew, the woman of the sweet girl she once was. That is if either can feel anything at all, beyond some vague hope that the next little death be a final death. The unlucky ones end with porn addictions and body pillow waifus or short blue hair and extreme adiposity. This is a profound disaster for our people, men and women alike.

I will not speak of this not-so-little rift within the lute without offering some notes of hope. One must first understand that I paint a far bleaker picture than is yet real. There are still safe and lively public spaces as well as happy and loving couples. We must not kid ourselves that these are not under heavy attack though. Our neighborhoods and our marriages are ravaged by our increasingly alien culture and laws. Awareness, a much-ballyhooed and misused word, is our greatest friend in this moral war. The recognition of our own values is of paramount importance. Love, like beauty and truth and freedom, is a core Western value; we should not so easily surrender it. The subversive nature of love has long troubled the utopians. That is until they hit upon the idea of rotting it inward until it molders away. They have replaced it with a mere simulacrum – an ersatz love that is solely sex. We have not lost yet, though. 

We still have some of our ideals and our ways of life. To counter our enemies, the sexes must work in unison. So go fall in love, it’s the white thing to do.

White-Knighting for Waifus

The alt-right has really come into its own over the past couple of years and with this comes growing pains. One trouble we face is the integration of women into the movement. Many alt-righters had manosphere days and many of us former libertarians have seen what happened with female entryism there. In normal times, it is fair to be skeptical of women in politics, but we are not in normal times and we are beyond politics. It is not simply a political movement that has arisen; it is a rational desire for an ethnostate and for the restoration of a white way of life. It should be obvious that a white society requires white women, but I intend here to assuage some legitimate concerns.

Before delving into specific comments, I feel that it is necessary to address a fundamental fact. Our (((enemies))) actively wish for the destruction of our people. Divide and conquer is a time-tested and effective strategy. Our enemies know this and have used it to devastating effect. The rise of (((feminism))) and its (((backlash))) have brought much ruin to our people. These ideologies (feminism and masculism) are truly foreign to our people. It is sad that some would elevate one putrid semitic religion to counter the poison of another. Do not mistake me for engaging in egalitarian nonsense. I support the truly Western notion of sexual complementarism: the sexes require one another to be a complete whole. Too many accept Eve or Helen as their level of anima, but to save ourselves we must seek Sophia. And so, let me now white-knight for waifus.

“Women who are into politics are nuts.” This may well be true, but consider the following: Jared Taylor frequently mentions how much more sane people with our political views are on average with the rise of the internet. Yes, the current crop of known alt-right waifus are probably abnormal by woman standards, but that does not mean they are completely off their rockers. My suspicion is that they fall into three kinds: 1) those red-pilled by male influence 2) those who are sperg-lasses 3) and those red-pilled by life. Of the first, little need be said. These girls were well-raised or have good taste. Obviously we should support them and ideally wife them. Of the second, we should not be surprised that slightly more autistic girls would be much more likely to abandon the ((((Narrative))). Of the third, we can imagine some lady faced with a frightening experience and then turning to, say, Coontown (RIP) or some other outpost of truth in the safer parts of the web. From there, we should hope she comes to us.

“Women should be making huWhyte babies.” Duh. Of course. But how much time does it take to send out a tweet or post a comment, or even join a podcast? We shouldn’t be watching TV or the like anyway. We moderns have plenty of free time, we should use it to good ends. I don’t think anyone is arguing that women should abandon their children to engage in online political activism. As for doxing, well, that’s a chance we all take.

“Women shouldn’t be leaders.” That’s reasonable enough, but don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If a female-led party is the right’s best hope, so be it. As for leadership in the alt-right, that seems a curious notion. As we are not a formal organization we do not have leaders. What we do have are content producers. Don’t like some lady’s content? Don’t support it. Disagree with it? Go make your own. And don’t whine about gals getting more support, you aren’t in competition!

“Women rent-seek.” Does anybody expect to make money off the alt-right? Some of our more talented content producers do need funds for their projects, and some of them will be women. Again, if you don’t like it, don’t support it. If you don’t like that other men support them solely because they’re thirsty, well, change human nature?

“Women and men are just different.” Again, this is true, but I think this is more of an argument for women in the alt-right, not against it. Men and women have different strengths and we should exploit that. Women are probably better at red-pilling other women. Even if they aren’t, the endorsement of our ideas by women gives them a normalcy that they would otherwise be denied. It is easy to attack a bunch of men as pathetic losers who masturbate to anime all day, but that becomes more difficult with women around. Also, if we wish to be degenerate, we can leverage attractive waifus to manipulate thirsty guys. Every movement needs cannon-fodder; we can’t all be philosopher-kings.

“Women suck.” Have you seen any men lately? We are all in bad shape. Ours is a degenerate age. Women are like amphibians: a bellwether for environmental destruction. They are also less able to engage in cultural defection, pulled down by the stinging bitchiness of their fellows. Degenerate women abhor good women and will bring their entire cold arsenal to bear in an attempt to drag them down to their level. None of us can engage in total unilateral cultural defection, but women need more help to de-poz themselves than men.

“I don’t want to wife some ‘recovered’ degenerate.” So don’t. No one sane is asking you to. I am asking that we remember the poisonous society we all come out of. If someone makes a good faith attempt at reform, we must allow them. Let’s not get caught in the sort of holiness spiral that afflicts SWPLs. We cannot afford to turn away those who repent. But you probably shouldn’t marry them.

“Women are just not as important politically.” Angry young men control the politics of a collapsing society – that much is obvious. But what are angry young men fighting for, if not for wives and girlfriends and mothers and so on? Much anger stems from the degraded quality of women, giving them a promise of good women helps bring them to our side.

“The Mannerbund.” Yeah, what of it? The existence of women does not destroy male companionship. It is true that the presence of a woman can disrupt a male space. The sexes do need separate spaces but we also need a commons. We aren’t just discussing pension structures or the benefits of light, we are trying to save ourselves. As the physical commons falls further into darkness, we shall badly need our digital spaces. Also, much of the fixation on this topic is predicated on some silly ethology. Humans (and dogs and wolves for that matter, to address some silly analogies) do not have rigid hierarchical structures (chickens do though). Dominance is primarily a pair-wise affair as well as being environmentally mediated. It need not be commutative nor does it always go from A to B. Humans have troop aspects but we also have pair-bonding aspects, especially whites.

“Waifus.” The identification of alt-right ladies as waifus is a good way to frame things. These women either belong to alt-right men as actual wives or girlfriends or they belong to the community until such a time as they can be united with their one true shitmate.

“I’m just angry/sad that I don’t have an Aryan QT3.14/88 by my side.” Aren’t we all? Either keep your whining to yourself or go out and make one. If you find you cannot, accept that the love-based northwest European marriage pattern involves high numbers of those who never marry. Devote your time instead to the cause, not moaning about bitches on the internet.

The “Social Construct” Trap

Leftists, and (((high verbal IQ))) types, love to create semantic traps whereby they can control, or ‘frame’, the conversation. A favorite is The Social Construct Trap, which works by giving us realists nearly irresistible bait–the claim that ‘X is a social construct’. (Where X is almost always race). Let us imagine a typical scenario, one which I’m sure many of us have lived: A couple of university students are discussing the role of poverty in life outcomes. One of them dares to venture that race has a role to play. The other student, recoiling in horror, invokes that talismanic phrase, “Race is just a social construct.” Our friend denies this. From there the conversation devolves into mere argument. Where did our friend go wrong? He forgot the rhetoric-dialectic distinction and he took the bait.

What, you may ask, is the problem with arguing against that stance, that race is a social construct? There are two subtle problems. The first is that this claim is simply a non sequitur. The example conversation is about the correlation of some phenomena ‘life outcomes/poverty’ and ‘race’. It is not about the ontological status of race, no more than it is about the ontological status of poverty. Our friend is as justified in saying, and perhaps more so, that poverty is “just a social construct”. He may respond like this: “You say race doesn’t exist because it is a social construct. Well, I think poverty doesn’t exist because it too is a social construct. You say humans have clinal variation, hence race is socially and arbitrarily constructed. Well, wealth and income show continual variation, so it too is socially and arbitrarily constructed.” This may be a fun rhetorical gotcha, but it hardly advances the conversation, given that some progtards would probably accept the non-existence of poverty, the non-existence of anything, just so long as they don’t have to accept race. Never mind that you are leaving some good arguments unused.

In many cases like this, our opponent is likely to let that word ‘just’ do most of the argumentative heavy lifting. “Race is just a social construct.” But what could it possibly mean to be just a social construct? I’m not sure we could say even unicorns are just a social construct. Horses exist, as do horns. This word ‘just’ or sometimes ‘merely’ is a major weak point, for all the work it does, like the reactor core on the Death Star. They probably mean to imply that what we call ‘race’ has no basis whatsoever in reality. Assuming they have any reason left, they should accept that skin color does exist, and that this has something to do with what we call race. If they accept this, then they must see that race isn’t just a social construct.

Race might, one must now admit, be considered, along with many other things like colors or money, in some sense a social construct. That is, human needs and capacities modulated through the medium of language give some shape to our world. The colors we perceive have, most assuredly, physical and biological foundations, but there are cultural variations in the number of color words. There is, supposedly a rainforest group that has many common words that pick out a wide number of shades of green. This should not come as a surprise considering their environment. Though English has phrases such as ‘forest green’ or ‘spearmint’ etc. these are more the talk of paint companies than of everyday life. My point being that many of our concepts have some aspect that might fairly be called social construction to them. (For more on this sort of thing, Google around for John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality; Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms; and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)

Lucky for us the social construction of race is not the significant part of their argument. Either they think social constructs aren’t real (whatever the hell that means), in which case ask them for all their money or they think racial divisions are arbitrary, in which case ask them to take a step. The first part we dealt with, let’s look at the second. They argue that because there is no distinct or objective boundary between races there are no such things as races. As an analogy, blue and green do not exist because there is no set point at which blue becomes green. This some may recognize as the sorites or continuum fallacy. To use the famous example, I start with a heap of sand and slowly remove grains of sand one at a time. No single grain removal causes the heap to go from heap to non-heap; therefore, no matter how many grains I take away I always have a heap. This is obviously ridiculous, and yet this fallacy is one of the most common of our public discourse. As for asking them to take a step, we all know that that is impossible under our Zenoian physics, an analogous problem applied to distance (see the famous example of the tortoise and Achilles). (That was sarcasm, folks.)

The fundamental problem with people who argue like this is their childish selectivity. If they were acting as a modern-day Parmenides, fine. But they are not, they are engaging in selective and self- serving skepticism. They aren’t acting as disinterested philosophers, but as motivated perpetuators of foolish ideas. The say race doesn’t exist, but happily endorse the notion of color, or of distance, or of time. The philosopher David Hume wrote, “Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not nature too strong for it.” That is, we would be completely skeptical of absolutely everything, but the demands of life prevent it except as philosophical exercise. But when one hates nature and is always in revolt against it, what is left but as much madness as the unkind intrusions of reality allow? What to do with these people? Hume provides, more or less, the answer: “Commit them then to the ovens: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and delusion.”

AI Academic Interview Series 6: Carleton Putnam

Gregory Ritter interviews Robert Johnson on the life and work of Carleton Putnam, American author and businessman. He is best known for his books Race and Reason (1961) and Race and Reality (1967), which give a prescient analysis of desegregated, multicultural America.

Read and learn, goyim:

PDF of Race and Reason

PDF of Race and Reality