Supporting marriage and opposing the matriarchy as a political proposal for white people
The case against not being divided by race
White Advocacy As A Political Paradigm - the case for focusing on race by Joel Davis
Below is the essay of Joel Davis with my response in bold.
All politics is identity politics. So called ‘conservatives’ who claim to oppose ‘identity politics’ in all its forms are either lying or are arguing against the practice of politics itself. But what is politics? Carl Schmitt in Concept of the Political offers us an answer to this question - “The specific distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.”
All politics is status politics. People argue about who should be in charge, which moral system to adopt, what its rules should be and who gets to interpret the rules.
Schmitt’s answer is brilliant because it gets to the core of why politics is even a thing in the first place, we do politics to defend our way of life and those we share it with (friends) against the forces which threaten it and them (enemies). And Schmitt makes it crystal clear that he isn’t talking about personal friends and enemies, but existential friends and enemies. In other words, politics is groups organising protection for communities and societies in which their shared form of existence can thrive. This is what I mean by stating that all politics is identity politics - if you aren’t protecting those with which you share a way of life (with which you therefore identify) from the forces which threaten their particular form of existence, you aren’t actually doing anything political.
When you are all the same race and religion, how do you make the friend/enemy distinction? The question of who benefits comes to be asked. If it is not clear who is benefiting, then the question of who objects most strongly to the status quo comes to be considered. In my view it is married parents whose interests are being undermined. It used to be the case that married parents were privileged over non-parents and unmarried parents were treated as social outcasts. The position is now reversed with the people who were most reviled ie transgender people, homosexuals and unmarried parents being treated as equal or higher in status to married parents. It was Aristotle who said that the greatest injustice is treating unequal things equally. Since the burden of married parents is greater than that of non-parents and LGBTs are the group most likely to be non-parents, equal marriage has in fact discouraged marriage. If being married parents is more onerous than being non-parents and unmarried parents, married parenthood is being effectively disincentivised when non-parents and unmarried parents are treated better than married parents. If once your school work were graded as A, B, C, D and F, why would you bother working hard if the only distinction is a certificate that is given out to everyone regardless of effort? Sadly, Joel Davis stubbornly focuses on race alone rather than married parents v non-parents/unmarried parents in his conception of the friend-enemy distinction.
Calls to rise above identity politics from conservatives are always coupled with statements like “regardless of colour or creed, we are all American/Australian/British/etc” - this is not rising above identity politics, its merely an assertion of civic identity as politically fundamental. So called ‘critiques’ of identity politics from the Left take two common forms; either the classical Marxist assertion of class identity as the only identity of political relevance, or the globalist-liberal assertion of a universal humanity within which any further distinctions of political identity are to be actively dissolved. Deep ecologists go a step further and assert a non-anthropocentric political identification with the Earth’s entire ecosystem. In the final analysis all politics is identity politics, the only question is - which identity?
The most important question of identity for white people is what moral system they should adopt. Will Australians choose to become an independent Islamic republic or do they choose to remain under the British Crown as part of a Christian kingdom? Do they want an independent foreign policy or do they want to remain British territory and be a vassal state of a vassal state unquestioningly following the orders of Uncle Sam now afflicted with degeneracy and dementia?
Further complexifying what I am calling the fundamental political question - the question of identity - is the phenomenon for which leftist academics coined the term ‘intersectionality.’ Intersectionality refers to the fact that people have multiple dimensions of sociopolitical identity; race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, sexuality, etc. The question of identity is therefore a contextual one of priority and emphasis. For example, in an ethnically homogeneous society during peacetime the ethnic aspect of one’s way of life is not under direct existential threat, in such a society divisions of class or religion will appear the most politically pertinent. However, today all ethnic groups of European descent face a mass immigration agenda which will reduce them to minorities in their own countries. Under such circumstances a politics which only focuses upon divisions of class or religion no longer appears adequate to preserve one’s way of life.
White people feel threatened by immigration and their ever lowering status in their own white homelands must be both alarming and distressing. The question to ask is why their ruling classes do not care about them. What is it about white people that makes their government want to replace them with foreigners? It must surely be something to do with the absence of a large enough number of white urban proletariat prepared to do the work that needs to be done. They refuse to do the work that needs to be done because the welfare state keeps them too busy claiming benefits to accept any jobs not offering a wage significantly more than what they receive in benefits. Slavery, that ancient and most effective form of workfare, has been abolished first by the British and then the Americans. Since neither the Bible nor the Koran forbids slavery, the British and Americans acted ultra vires in forbidding what God has allowed and are now paying the price. It is the nature of a welfare state to breed social parasites until eventually the number of parasites exceed the number of productive citizens. Once the parasites have devoured the productive citizens, they will start devouring each other in a civil war. As you can imagine, proposing the abolition of the welfare state and the reintroduction of slavery would be difficult in a political system operating indiscriminate universal suffrage. However, this is in fact what I do propose.
If the security and flourishing of the White Christian Anglo-Australian Heteronormative society I identify with (and its analogues across the West) is deemed incompatible with the ideal of universal humanity by victimological universalists, then they are my political enemies. Their appeals to the victimhood of whichever sociopolitical identities aren’t compatible with my own are rationalisations to attack my people and way of life, and I owe them no regard in the same way that we would owe the propaganda of a foreign invading army intent on genociding my people no regard. Yet unfortunately most of my fellow White men who share my sense of identity don’t share the clarity of my political resolve. If they did we would no longer face this existential threat because we would have already defeated it - the question therefore is how to teach my people that we both can and must take our own side to defend ourselves and our way of life.
The friend/enemy distinction in Australia should be made not only between those who want to restore the patriarchy and those who want to maintain the status quo of Sodom and Gomorrah, but also between those who want to remain a vassal state of a vassal state and those who think Australia is capable of having an independent foreign policy as an independent republic under a different moral and legal political system such as Secular Koranism.
Why would ethnic minorities surrender their ethnic identity to civic identitarianism if they don’t have to? The Left is offering a way for them to be included in their host nation as part of a coalition of minorities which enables them to preserve their ethnic identity. It would only become rational for ethnic minorities to surrender their identities to some inclusive “national identity” if the alternative was being subjected to a hostile dominant ethnic majority, the very thing which is suppressed by a political process in which civic identitarianism is the only form of opposition that ethnic majority offers against the Left’s victimological universalism.
The obvious solution to the left offering ethnic minorities more rights at the expense of the majority would be to become a one-party state. This was in fact George Washington’s advice in his farewell speech.
Why Was George Washington Opposed to Political Parties?
Civic identitarianism therefore is a failed attempt at compromise with an enemy which has no strategic interest in accepting it. In addition to this it isn’t existentially compelling, it can’t offer ethnic majorities nor minorities the preservation of their way of life and it offers no meaningful distinction in ultimate aims with the universal humanitarianism of the Left. If anyone no matter their ethnic, racial or religious identity can share the “national identity” then the national identity is functionally inclusive to any member of the human race. It is at its core in existential agreement with its supposed political opposition, which is why it can’t motivate anything close to the same moral confidence, courage, commitment or will to fight as its opponent.
How does Joel Edwards feel about the West including Australia having the identify of being a matriarchy?
Is he prepared to compromise with the enemy who are supporters of matriarchy just because they are white or will he make the friend/enemy distinction between patriarchy and matriarchy instead of insisting that non-whites are his enemies? He already knows immigrants come from traditional cultures that would have no truck with elevating unmarried mothers and LGBTs over married parents, so the choice should not be that hard to make, in theory.
It is no surprise that those who claim to “oppose identity politics” lack a compelling conception of identity, just as it is no surprise that an anti-political ideology destroys its own political leverage to compromise with the enemy in the very compromise it offers. These contradictions are the consequence of failing to grasp the insight that all politics is identity politics. Without this insight genuinely political thought and therefore action isn’t even possible.
The most important issues of identity for the white people are whether they are republicans or monarchists; whether they agree with George Washington about forbidding political parties and whether they think the Koran is the best available guide to humanity. If they do not think the Koran is the best available guide to humanity, what better guide can they propose? Are there really that many white people who think they will turn brown the moment they convert to Islam? If so, is Joel Davis one of them? Is there any point hanging on to Christianity if it cannot support the social conservatism needed to maintain the patriarchy? Is Joel just clinging on to the “Judeo-Christian heritage of the West” because of his identity as an Islamophobe? Is it wise to remain an Islamophobe when he must know it cannot be a good thing to suffer from having an irrational fear and hatred? Is his identity as a white Islamophobe more important to him than his identity as a white man capable of reading the writing on the wall and interpreting the future correctly? Can the future still be Christian when Christendom ended in 1918? Will his belief in the Abrahamic God guide him to a correct prediction of the future that if the West corrects itself it will correct itself with Islam rather than returning to the folly of Fascism or Nazism? Are Australian men capable of doing what the Fascists and Nazis did in the first half of the 20th century to get into government? Even if they are, would it be worth doing considering Fascism and Nazism crashed and burned and there is something with a better and longer track record?
The activist fights on the level of propaganda, narrative and terminology, not election campaigns. And this is the level of politics at which the antiwhite agenda must be fought, White identity politics are not simply being defeated at the ballot box - they aren’t even being contested at the ballot box because they have been delegitimised.
E Michael Jones: "Catholics have rights, White Supremacists do not."
In the first half of the 20th Century being openly “racist,” “chauvinistic” and “homophobic” was socially and politically legitimate in all Western countries, in fact not being these things was in many cases illegitimate. The shift in this paradigm of legitimacy was the product of human will and organisation - the social norms of an entire civilisation don’t just change themselves by some mysterious process beyond human agency, they are changed by committed and focused groups of people with a shared agenda. These groups are united by an existential mission to secure their way of life against forces they perceive to threaten it. It makes complete sense that Jews, non-Whites, communists and the sexually perverse don’t identify with our White Christian civilisation and want to destroy its identity in order to replace it with one more inclusive to them. Hence why they formed activist groups and pursued their cultural revolution against it. They (the radical Left) understood that all politics is identity politics, that politicians are followers not leaders and that voters have no agency. The Right failed to stop them because it failed to come to terms with these simple truths and organise an adequate defense to contest it at the level of activism rather than merely electorally.
Joel Davis has not noticed that Westerners have been progressively rejecting Christianity for the last 500 years. As long as they still supported marriage, their government policy still made sense. However, after the Swinging Sixties and the Sex Revolution turbo-charged by the Pill, they have in fact destroyed their own human stock and now suffer from dementia and degeneracy that can only be curable by a change of religion.
Studies show that immigrating from the third world to the first world quintuples one’s ‘carbon footprint,’ and increasing the populations of Western countries through mass immigration only makes their emission-reduction targets less feasible - nevertheless the regime cannot stop mass immigration because that would be “racist.” Non-white immigrants are far less tolerant of both ‘women’s rights’ and ‘LGBT Rights’ and also commit sexual assault at rates far in excess of Whites, yet the regime cannot stop mass immigration because that would be “racist.” Foreign illiberal regimes are criticised by Western governments for their lack of an open public discourse and political process, yet they also persecute prowhite dissidents and try to block their participation in both public discourse and the political process because they are “racist.” Western governments claim to be deeply concerned about foreign influence, infiltration and acts of terrorism for the sake of national security, yet they won’t stop importing immigrant populations from hostile nations because that would be “racist.”
We can only conclude that the Western ruling classes are indifferent to the people they govern, are corrupt and incompetent, or just mad, evil or stupid. To be white is to be allow this state of affairs to continue without being able to propose an alternative because of the fear of breaching taboos or because they would rather die than adopt the only solution that might work.
There are also some Nationalists who largely agree with my analysis of the problem, but refuse to embrace a fundamentally racial identity in favour of an ethnocultural one. The central problem with this approach is that it merely opposes the regime at the level of the nation-state rather than at the level of Western political culture in toto.
Is Joel Edwards saying he still wants Australia to be a vassal state of a vassal state with America as the overlord?
The exact same antiwhite ideology controls the paradigm of legitimacy in every Western country, this ideology is not an organic product of any single particular state but emerged and is sustained as a product of a common Western political culture. The activist struggle to delegitimise it therefore must also be waged at the same scale, a scale which only a White racial identity can encompass. This does not require us to abandon our ethnic identities of course, it only requires us to develop mutual sympathy between all White ethnicities in the existential recognition of our shared racial interests and ultimately our shared fate due to our shared political culture.
Do white people across the world have the same interests? Would white people who are Christians have the same interests as white people who are Muslims? Are Jews white? If Jews are white, with which religious group should they ally themselves? Would white British people who are republicans have the same interests as white people who are monarchists? Would white people who want a one-party state have the same interests as people who want to continue with representative democracy? Would white people who want to restore the patriarchy have the same interests as white people who want to maintain the status quo of matriarchy? Would marriageable white people who want their government to support marriage have the same interests as unmarriageable white people who want unmarried parents to receive more benefits than married parents? Don’t white men and white women have conflicting interests unless they marry each other to embark on the joint enterprise of rearing their legitimate children? Do white LGBT people have the same interests as white people who want to become and remain married parents? Do boomers have the same interests as their children?
Many White Christians claim that race isn’t so important to them and that they see their religious identity as a comprehensive basis for their politics. I am a Christian myself and I also want to live in a society which has Christian moral norms, but most fundamentally my identity and way of life is under attack for its racial not its religious character. White Christian children are not being indoctrinated by the education system with Christian guilt, they are being indoctrinated with White guilt. The enemy attacks us as White people, so we can only defend ourselves against these attacks as White people. That means you have no choice but to ally with your non-Christian fellow Whites to defend yourself against the antiwhite agenda.
If you are being attacked as white Christians, shouldn’t you cease to identify as either white or Christian to avoid being targeted as white Christians? What would be the point of identifying as Christian when it has been failing for 500 years? Recently, Joel Davis has said he is no longer Christian, so he is already doing half of what I have been advising all along.
The Word Salad served by Aarvoll to Joel Davis who is no longer Catholic
Christianity is the White man’s religion of course, and so defending it is fully compatible with White advocacy - but Christian politics which refuses to align itself with the prowhite struggle is siding with the ideological agenda of the Left against White racial interests. This is not only unacceptable to anyone who wants to secure a future for White people against the hostility we face, but it should be unacceptable to Christians opposed to the Left’s support for the breakdown of heteronormative family values and the privileged influence of Jewish, Islamic and other non-Christian religious communities under the guise of “multiculturalism.” Christianity is disrespected in contemporary Western societies relative to religious practices associated with racial minorities in large part because it is perceived as the White man’s religion.
The Western liberal establishment shows open contempt for Christianity, and this is noticed and picked up by non-Christian non-whites.
Now of course the negotiation of mutual recognition is not always successful, and conflict is the consequence - but if one side’s attempt at negotiating peace in good faith is rebuffed by a belligerent and unreasonable enemy, then they have no choice. This is likely a position White identitarians will one day find ourselves in, but if and when we do it will be justified. Conflict is costly and destructive, so negotiating peaceful relations where possible is in everyone’s best interest. The point however is that White people are not aggressing against anyone simply by asserting that we want to preserve our identity and way of life - conflict only becomes necessary with those who refuse to acknowledge the reasonableness of this demand. But if White racial interests are not asserted with any force of will and organisation behind them, there is no pressure on the other races to pay them any respect - and this is precisely what we see today.
White racial interests are not asserted with any force of will or organisation behind them because white society is now a matriarchy and a matriarchy is incapable of facilitating the group solidarity and male cooperation required to challenge and defeat the matriarchy.
White cowardice is not righteousness, the White race is under attack as a race - if it refuses to defend itself this is not morality, it is collective suicide. In fact, refusing to defend your family’s future and your race’s future (which is your extended family, ancestrally speaking) is immoral, it is an abdication of your responsibility to honour your ancestors and pass down the way of life you inherited from them to your descendants. The only thing stopping the White race securing a hospitable world for ourselves and our future is our lack of willful determination to do so, therefore we fundamentally have no one to blame but ourselves for our collective predicament. It is not dehumanising to non-Whites to politically assert White identity, but it is dehumanising to Whites to refuse to assert it. Only once the White race becomes self-aware enough to force the rest of the world to respect us can White people relate to the rest of humanity with any dignity.
Because white society is now a matriarchy, there will be no alpha male leader to defend its interests. Either white people are capable of understanding the moral imperative of restoring the patriarchy, or they are not. Or they do, but pretend not to in order to avoid having to obey their moral imperative of striving to restore the patriarchy because they would rather die than be seen to make arguments for it.
So whilst the current ideological order presents itself as universalist, it really isn’t - every identity which can be framed in opposition to White racial interests are the only legitimate identities to assert the interests of. The logical conclusion of it’s victimological framing of universal humanitarian interests is that they’re fundamentally incompatible with the White race’s assertion of our own. It is therefore not us who are denying humanity to the other races, it is this ideology of our rulers which is denying humanity to us. At its core, victimological universalism is an antiwhite ideology - making the question of whether the assertion of White racial interests are legitimate the fundamental political question of our time. The legitimacy of the ideological paradigm currently ruling the entire Western world and the legitimacy of White identity politics are mutually exclusive existential claims, politics today begins by making a choice between these two sides. There is no third position.
The brutal truth is that no people deserve a protected or dignified identity if they do not have a moral system at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality ensuring most parents in their society are married parents. Christianity is not such a moral system and neither is liberalism. Nationalism and Socialism have also failed. There are only five world religions and the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism are not good enough. Judaism is for Jews only and Christianity is kaput. What remains?
The only thing holding back the White race from politically defending itself is our collective lack of self-awareness and determination to embrace racial identity politics. And the only way that self-awareness and determination can proliferate among our people is for those who already have it to propagandise those who don’t with prowhite narratives and terminology. The only obstacle facing the legitimisation of White identity politics and the elevation of prowhite representatives as the new leaders of the institutional Right is our own lack of determination to advocate for our race. And that obstacle is broken down one White man at a time each time he chooses to commit his time and energy to White advocacy. The future of our people will be decided entirely within our own hearts and minds. Fight or die, there is no third position.
For “racial identity politics”, read “religious identity politics”. Since Joel is no longer Christian but still believes in God, there is still hope that his capacity to exercise moral reasoning because of his belief in God would lead him to arrive at the correct conclusion about which moral system to choose.