AMREN 2014 – The Saga Continues…

Dear Children of the Cathedral, gather around and hear my tale:

Thus begins the camp-fire story of many a post-Enlightenment father, waving a flashlight under his chin while teaching his adopted Haitian children the evils of latent European “racism”.  With every spooky vibrato he instills in them the prejudice and conviction of a new religious order:

“Once a year, when the moon is right, evil phantoms descend onto a Tennessee State Park, to utter their wicked incantations and pray to the long-dead gods of their ancestors…” 

Now isn’t that ironic?  Us white guys are the new “spooks”.  I’m going to lobby the priests of the Cathedral to have them call us “moon crickets” instead – I’ve always liked that one…

…and chirp we white boys did, as loudly as possible from the confines of a state park in the middle of a giant Tennessee forest, miles from the nearest Wal-Mart or Waffle House.

Far from a gathering of mysterious druids, we represented a diverse crowd of intellectuals, eager to make friends and fellowship with one another.  If the shuddering Cathedral kids would peak at us from under their covers, they’d see that for themselves.

And instead of hearing monster-movie music, they might hear Richard Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra” – a fitting theme to play in our minds as we imagine hundreds of awakening white boys heroically glancing into a sun-beam as they hear the call to attend Jared Taylor’s symposium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLuW-GBaJ8k

The score begins with a low rumble.  This should accompany our mental image of white men across the nation, neatly folding neckties and dress-socks, and placing them, with methodological precision, into utilitarian suit-cases.

The music rises as planes, trains, and hate-mobiles make their way to Montgomery Bell State Park.  The wildlife lines the narrow entry road, watching the procession with interest (all but the coons).  Upon arrival, (and as the music reaches its infamous crescendo), lines of well-dressed heathens file into the building, with genuine expressions of gratitude at meeting distant friends, awe at the scenery, and excitement for the lectures.

No hypno-whorish, techno-haze for these men.  Their humanity, in all its capricious glory, puts to shame the anesthetized Cathedral kids, and bursts forth, along with sunbeams and Strauss’ melody, onto the lodge where the conference is to be held.

And as AMREN conferences go, this one was excellent.

As usual, there was a unique conflation of Catholics, Protestants, jews, Pagans, and atheists in attendance.  AMREN has religious diversity, at least.  The religious discussion was especially interesting this year, as many attending are ardent fans of the Orthodox Church – including my good friend, and the future of organized hate, Matthew Heimbach.  I hope I represented the Protestant side with all the civility and grace a Southern Presbyterian could muster (there were a handful of us Kinists in attendance).

Of course, the sentiment seems to fall against Calvinists especially, making it difficult for Kinists to find sympathy among the “New Right”.  “That damned Cromwell!” is an oft heard oath, and at various points during numerous discussions, I had to defend the Evangelical movement from charges that it has facilitated the death of Western Civilization.

I attribute much of this anti-protestant angst to intellectuals in the New-Right like Tom Sunic and Alain de Benoist, who, along with many traditionalist Catholics, place the Reformation at the forefront of the downfall of Europe.  And while there’s much we Kinists might grant about the negative effects of the Reformation (the epistemological break-down of church authority, for one), it remains to be proven that our theology, itself, somehow leads to egalitarianism, universalism, and all the other damnable ‘isms’, usually attributed to it…but a defense of Kinism over and against the charges of the New-Right intellectuals must wait for a later time.

Even the great youtube personality RamZPaul, during his entertaining presentation about the Dark Enlightenment, took some digs at the puritans and Cromwell.

“How do you guys feel about the Puritans?” he asked.

The room was dead silent, except for one moronic country-boy up front, clapping and cheering…”Yeah!!”

RamZ’s talk, though, was resoundingly pro-Christian, and during the question period, the indomitable Richard Spencer, perhaps representing a more secular faction of the alternative right, asked (and I paraphrase from memory) if RamZ didn’t think it might be possible that the populace was giving up these old religions all together – and if society in general might not be functioning in some sort of Hegelian dialectical cycle…to which RamZ replied, with great applause from the largely religious audience, simply “No.  Next question.”

You all should have seen the look on Spencer’s face.  It was hilarious.

And speaking of Richard Spencer, I should mention there was serious anti-Spencerian sentiment among the lower dregs of the conference attendees.  I’ll not name names, but there were various statements of distaste, ranging from accusations of Spencer’s arrogance, to charges of foul-play directed at his shady dealings concerning the Christmas Day Purge of the Alternative Right web-zine.

For my part, I’ve never had much conversation with the guy, but, were a fella tempted to be frank: I can understand those who feel an air of condescension from him.  He comes across (sometimes), as if he’s one of the power-elite, here to mold, shape, and use the rest of us poor saps as he sees fit.

Still, I interjected a word or two on his behalf.  The guy is a strapping young Anglo-Saxon, and could easily play the role of Dick Tracey in a Hollywood flick.  He’s tall, strong, and intelligent, with the heroic jaw illustrators give to their comic book heroes.  This makes him the perfect front man for a controversial movement, serving to disarm potentially hostile left-wing journalists.

He’s an excellent writer, even if I have serious disagreements with elements of his thought.  He’s also an excellent speaker, as he proved at last year’s AMREN when he gave what was, in my opinion, one of the best talks of the conference. He called for an ethno-state and a return to a shared, over-arching meta-narrative in hopes of building a viable identity movement.  And while Andy Nowicki and Collin Liddell are ‘ma honkies’, and I feel a loyalty to Alternative Right, I suppose I can accept Spencer’s new “Radix” project, if only in a spirit of “the more publications, the better”.  I drop by from time to time and see if they have anything interesting to say (which, again, speaking frankly as a Kinist, isn’t often).

And since I’m defending controversial speakers, how about ol’ Jack Donovan, the “flaming” elephant in the room?  An avowed homosexual, Jack Donovan is a go-to expert in the so-called “man-o-sphere”, writing about masculinity and other such related topics.  He’s also author of the popular book “The Way of Men”.

His inclusion in the speaker line-up was the express reason many far-righters opted out of the AMREN conference this year.  On the other hand, these same guys find all sorts of reasons not to attend conferences.  “Jared Taylor supports the jews!” it’s often said.  Now they can add, “Jared Taylor supports homosexuals!”

But dear, dear children, hear me out:

One of the best things about American Renaissance is the way it serves as a colloquium.  When we think of Jared Taylor as less the leader of a movement and more the facilitator of a nation-wide conversation, then it becomes easier to bear with the failings of others in attendance.  We ought to expect there to be numerous voices involved in the discussion, many with which we’ll inevitably disagree.  And if, as I truly believe, our Christian and anti-homosexual ideals are as powerful as we all suspect, then we shouldn’t mind having them tested by fire in the arena of open and honest discussion. Leaving AMREN because of Donovan would be like leaving the internet because of anonymous meanies.

…and I hate to say it, but Donovan, despite his obvious flaw, had some decent things to contribute.  His speech navigated the complex waters of identitarian philosophy.  I particularly agreed with his suggestion that we need to combat prevailing “hipster” irony, with sincerity and expression of genuine emotion.

In this, he could have been re-hashing Dostoevsky’s theme in “The Idiot”.  The destitute and mentally unstable Prince Myshkin returns to Russia from Europe, and is accepted into the local society – a society that resembles our own in striking ways.  Myshkin is sincere and loving, almost to the point of naiveté; the cynical Russian socialites around him are disarmed.  His sincerity acts as a super-power causing him, time and again, to prevail against those who mean him harm.

I asked Donovan if he had Dostoevsky’s novel in mind when he gave his speech and he said no – I’m hoping that means far-right ideals from these major authors have filtered into popular rhetoric.  At any-rate, Donovan is on the same track as Dostoevsky, (at least, in that one way) and hopefully, will help the alternative right stave off the modern West’s descent into inhumanity and death; nevertheless, we need to ask ourselves how much bad we’re willing to accept in a person, in exchange for some modicum of good.  We’ll each have to decide that for ourselves.

One of my favorite speakers this year was John Morgan, who strutted to the podium like a bad ass.  There, in our midst, was the editor-n-chief of Arktos books himself, descending onto the microphone like an alt-right war-hawk plowing into a helpless field mouse.

He should have had a hard-core rock song playing as he approached “… love is like a bomb, baby come on get it on, livin’ like a lover with a radar phone…”

Come on guys, I know I wasn’t the only one hearing Def Leopard as Morgan took the floor!

At any-rate, his discussion of Eastern European nationalism was interesting (in its personal nature) and inspiring in that, they’re succeeding in ways we can only dream about here in America.

———————————————–

As usual, the friendship was outstanding; it wasn’t out of the ordinary to have a discussion about British Distributism or Italian Fascism while walking to lunch…topics the normal American would never, in their lives, broach.  While having drinks at a local bar, we discussed the finer points of the analytic philosophical tradition and how it diverged from the largely continental tradition of the Alternative Right … a conversation which had our waitress scratching her head.

Who talks like this?  What kind of sicko’s are we…discussing obscure Julius Evola citations in the context of critiquing equally obscure Misesian economic models???  We’re so far outside the mainstream of American discourse, we’ve become a new species of animal all together.

The dippy protestors who showed up might refer to us as cowardly dogs,

…but, I like to think of us as the new “moon-crickets”…chirping away against modernity.

Till next time, folks…

 

This entry was posted in Best of Shotgun. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to AMREN 2014 – The Saga Continues…

  1. Fr. John+ says:

    Sir- I’m sorry people who should know better, treated the Presbyterian/Reformed South shabbily. While I am Orthodox, I am Western Rite, and still find much of use in Cranmer’s ‘Calvinist’ Prayer Book, the syncretistic Eastern Byzantines notwithstanding! LOL

    But you have to admit that it WAS Cromwell who invited the Deicides back into England… if for nothing else, that is a grave sin, as far as some are concerned. Oh, and you lost me with the Deaf Leopard… don’t know nothing bout that stuff..

    Cheers. Blessed Easter/ Pascha Feast.

  2. Oh, I’m on board with the Cromwell bashing, at least ostensibly.

    One can’t read Belloc’s biography of Charles the I and *not* be. Reconciling my pseudo-Puritan political theory with my passion for monarchy and feudalist social orders, is going to be an important part of my growth as a Kinist.

    Thanks for the comments, and hopefully, one day, we’ll see you at one of these events. :)

  3. I’m afraid I can’t agree with the defense of Donovan. It doesn’t matter how good his speech was. Not one of our ancestors pre-1960s would have tolerated an open sodomite at any public event. The inability of the alternative right, and even of theonomists, to stand firm on this issue is mind-boggling.

    • On which issue?

      There’s a difference between discussing homosexuality in the abstract, and discussing how to deal with them in the here-and-now…the latter question is difficult at best, in any situation.

      • On the issue of sodomites having any legitimate place in a traditionalist movement or venue. I see that you argue for Amren being an open venue of some sort, but surely there must be a line where a venue turns from being constructive to being subversive. I would say that promoting an unrepentant sodomite as a learned expert or ally crosses that line. I don’t see any argument from our faith or from the traditions of our ancestors that says otherwise. And really, is there anything more absurd than promoting a fag as an expert on manliness?

        How is the question of dealing with sodomites difficult? When right thinking people control the government, sodomy is illegal. When we don’t control the government, we preach the sinfulness of the act in all circumstances and denounce those who promote it, and call for its criminalization.

  4. I may not have made it clear enough in my article, but I don’t look to Donovan as an “expert”…he’s touted that way by many, though, which was the point I was trying to make in the post.

    And I agree – it’s incredibly ironic that a homosexual presumes to be a leader in manliness. You can read his material for yourself and decide what merit his arguments may or may not have. I’m not in a position to offer any criticism of it one way or the other…all I can do is evaluate what I heard the man say.

    As for your last paragraph, it strikes me as a bit pollyanna…

    Are you telling me you’ve *never* had to share a workplace with a homosexual? My last few years in the military were replete with insufferable workplace relationships of that sort – how we deal with them is up to us as individuals, though, it’s never an easy situation.

    Separation is obviously the ideal reaction, but such isn’t always possible … then what?

    • Sharing a workplace with a sodomite is a bit different. At work, we are expected to abide by the rules of our employer and to do what we’re contracted to do. This usually doesn’t involve political discussions of any sort. I’m not saying that we should badger people about sodomy in every personal interaction.
      But it’s a very different story when it comes to political activity. Through your writings and past actions, you are a public figure in this movement, and your opinion does have weight. Presumably you don’t feel compelled to express your racial views in many personal interactions, while you certainly have felt compelled to do so as a political activist and blogger.

      Forgive me if I was a bit heated in my comments, but one thing that bugs me to no end is the move towards the acceptance of sodomy in the “new right” movement. I’ve been to kosher conservative gatherings where an openly homosexual speaker would have received a less warm welcome than I imagine Donovan did at Amren, and that’s just sad. I very strongly feel that Christian nationalists need to distance themselves from this filth.
      http://www.dailystormer.com/against-the-sodomite-right/

      • Well, for my part – I advocate for the execution of homosexuals, and have never backed down from that position.

        I just don’t know what we can do with the alternative right, other than completely separate from it (on the one hand), or deal with it as if it’s a public venue in which our discussions can be facilitated…

        I suppose I’ve drifted toward the second option.

      • civil rights apostate says:

        I agree, Mr. Terry, at least on the militants. Thankfully I don’t know any. Very few race realists support homosexuality, and very few homosexuals are race realists

      • I would agree that those are the two main options.
        Are you aware of a systematic Biblical/theonomic study that deals with the question of Christian political collaboration with non-Christians?
        That would naturally be the best way to come to some clear standard for what types of collaboration are acceptable.

      • Gary North briefly addresses the issue of ‘unbelieving citizens’ in his “Victim’s Rights”; I can’t recall the page number, but he basically says that they would have restricted social benefits or some such. As long as they don’t commit any public blasphemies (or any capital crimes), they’d be fine to live in their closets.

        I’m not aware of any systematic and thorough treatment of the topic, though. Maybe Bahnsen covers it in “Theonomy”? I’ll have to check.

      • I think that it’s an important question to settle for those of us on the pro-White right, simply because the differences between Christian and pagan/atheist nationalists are so huge.

        It will be interesting to see what Christian Reconstruction advocates have had to say on the subject, although I’m not sure if it will be completely relevant. From what I understand, they generally approve of working within existing political institutions (like the Republican party). Working alongside non-Christian Republicans might cause some conflict of conscience, but this situation is quite different from what exists in the pro-white movement.

        While Christians might justify working alongside non-Christian fiscal conservatives, the latter generally don’t have any quarrel with Christianity and would certainly never attack it openly. On the pro-white right, however, many (if not most) nietzcheans and neo-pagans not only reject Christianity, but they actually identify it as one of our main problems, as one of the main obstacles to be overcome in order to secure the survival of the white race. Many Christian nationalists, on the other hand, see our multi-cultural nightmare as punishment for the collective apostasy of our folk. That is, the two main ideological camps within white nationalism see the very essence of the other camp as part of the problem. Furthermore, if we Christian nationalists get our way, then much of the public blasphemy spouted by the sodomite right would certainly become illegal. I do not doubt that Christians would suffer a similar fate under a neo-pagan regime. It seems hard to conceive how such a coalition could ever get off the ground.

        I hate to sound hyperbolic, but would it not be like a faction of faithful Israelites allying with a rival faction that claimed that political salvation could come only by setting up statues of Baal in the Temple?

  5. This is a very fun synopsis Mr. Terry. I need to take a few pointers from you.

  6. Mac Tíre says:

    Kinists need to have a book table at next year’s AmRen.

Comments:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s