AMREN 2015: Dawn of the Aristocrats?

Le_bal_paré

I smoked my first Cuban cigar at this year’s AMREN thanks to my friend William Rome.  He, Matt Forney, and I skipped part of the conference, choosing Cuba and the beautiful spring day, over ideological dogmatism.  Besides, these conferences are about networking.  We could hear recordings of the lectures some other time.

Rome has classic WASPy features and a ready smile.  Forney is more serious, reminding me of a 1920’s gangster; one with uncharacteristic intelligence.  His anecdotes make up for the humor his face lacks.  Both men have enviable traits and I found myself (not for the last time) feeling inadequate in their company.

Forney is a big name in the “manosphere”.  I’ve criticized his work.  But despite what some desperate-to-remain-relevant people have said about him, he’s a dignified gent at least.  Far more imposing of a figure in real life than rapscallion podcasters make out.  After the conference, when some of us gathered in a local TN watering hole, my friend Matthew Heimbach challenged Forney to display his “pick up artist” skills, to which Forney replied that he’d managed to make us all like him, despite the fact we all expressed disagreement with him and his material.

Well done sir.  Well done.

——————————————

Antics inside the conference were a riot as well.

AMREN hosted its first ever debate although I’m still not sure what the parameters were.  Richard Spencer of NPI fame and the great Sam Dickson squared off against VDARE’s Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire.

Spencer and Dickson argued that we can no longer “work within the system” and that we ought to find white equivalents to Gandhi and baby King Jr.  Brimelow and the Derb argued that we could work within the system, “at least, change was theoretically possible”, added the Derb.

“I’m not arguing that it will happen” he said, “…just that it CAN!”.

At which point, Spencer had a devastating reply:  “if that was the case, then anything at all could theoretically happen from within the system.”  If we’re forced to be so vacuous in our position as to argue mere possibilities, no matter how far fetched, then we’re no longer speaking to the realities of our current situation.

Spencer clearly won the debate, almost single handed, although Dickson’s exchange with the Derb exemplified a level of rhetorical prowess (on both men’s part) that we simply wont see in mainstream politics.  Two masters at work.  I think Matt Parrott is right though – if someone as brilliant as the Derb has trouble defending the idea that we ought to work within the system, then it must be a truly awful one.

———————–

Some are interested in the protesters who show up every year.  They arrived this year as well.  A gaggle of white kids holding insulting signs congregated on the front lawn attempting to shame the evil racists in the building.

Not that I feel it’s a point of pride, but there was more “diversity” among the conference attendees than among the protesters, with Taylor having invited a tall, Amazonian-looking black woman, who seemed amiable to our views and had a generally nice air about her.  There were also a few Puerto Rican nationalists in the crowd.  Good kids but I don’t fawn over minorities just because they share our views.  While I wish them the best of luck, I’m not concerned with their folk.

Lamont Jenkins, the left’s Fat Albert and organizer of the protest, waddled into the conference restaurant, flanked by a few skinny-jean clad hipsters.  There, Heimbach and some other attendees had an interesting tete-a-tete.  When I walked in, Jenkins expressed concern that he didn’t see me at this year’s CPAC.  “That’s because you leftists didn’t pay my way,” I replied.

I couldn’t take much of their dribble.  Heimbach’s always been better at that.  I decided to leave.  But I like leaving on a high note so I told Jenkins it was nice to see him again.  He asked, sarcastically, “Is it?!”

“Of course” I said.  “I always leave our encounters certain that my ideas are far superior to yours”.

—————————

In my mind, it was Richard Spencer who set the tone of this year’s conference.  He made the brief remark that even if we (he specifically included himself) were not aristocrats, we ought to start thinking like ones.  Being future oriented in our plans.  This coincides well with the general agreement that, whatever we end up doing, it’ll take a long time to get done and wont spontaneously happen from “within” the system.

See you all at next year’s conference…

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to AMREN 2015: Dawn of the Aristocrats?

  1. Todd Lewis says:

    This may not be the best place to comment this here but Anarcho-distrubtist has become an atheist. Just look at his blog.

    • I was browsing his blog a few days ago in light of my current economic views. I’m not sure I need to retain a link to his material.

      • Todd Lewis says:

        What are your current economic views? Distributism? Free-markets?

      • I don’t know of a good label.

        I’ve come to reject distributism because it relies on an underlying presupposition of egalitarianism which I find distasteful. Who says property ought to be evenly distributed among the populace?

        My advocacy of slavery has me falling in line with the likes of Henry Hughes and Fitzhugh. Maybe Ropke’s view is a close contemporary model of where I’m at? Although, I’m not sure I agree with his view of central banking.

  2. Bubba Bob says:

    Fat Daryle Jenkins did what in the restaurant? He just wandered in and started arguing with people?

  3. Todd Lewis says:

    I’ve wanted to discuss with a Kinist exactly what they believe and how they differ from Theonomists. If your interested I can be reached via Skype at todd.lewis1987.

    • Most Kinists (with a capital K, representing our affiliation with Presbyterianism) *are* theonomists.

      Now, if you’re asking about the difference between us and non-Kinist theonomists, that’s more tricky, as the non-Kinist theonomist (speaking anecdotally) have no official position on the relevant matters and seem to respond mostly with knee-jerk emotion, rather than official dogmatic positions.

      The most concerted effort, in my opinion, seems to come from those who rely on Gary North’s material, specifically in his refutations of Rushdoony, which can mostly be found in his book “Baptized Patriarchalism”.

      These “theonomists” make bold and arbitrary claims that all tribal distinctions have ceased along with the covenant relevance of national Israel. As you can imagine, from our view as Kinists, this seems ad hoc and without support. It’s akin to arguing that the male / female relationship has ceased, now that Mary and Joseph have fulfilled their roles as the parents of Christ.

      “No, no”, we argue. The male / female relationship is normative for human couplings as is the tribal relationship. As theonomists, therefore, we argue that all such laws governing tribal relations in the OT covenant are still binding unless abrogated outright in the New, which they have not been (Galatians 3 not withstanding).

      • Todd Lewis says:

        “These “theonomists” make bold and arbitrary claims that all tribal distinctions have ceased along with the covenant relevance of national Israel. “

        Theonomy by its nature is always arbitrary kinism, or alienism. No two theonomists can agree on which of 617 Mosaic laws are still in effect or not. In fact to make such a distinction is ad hoc and arbitary.

        “As theonomists, therefore, we argue that all such laws governing tribal relations in the OT covenant are still binding unless abrogated outright in the New, which they have not been (Galatians 3 not withstanding).”

        You do know that position has no presidence in Christendom? Even Calvin was not a theonomist.

        ” Yet we see that amidst this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God—viz. murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.” Calvins Institutes Book IV Chapter 20 Paragraph 16

        This is not born out by scripture. The Law of Moses has be suplanted by the teachings of Chirst.

        Hebrews 8 specifically Hebrews 8:13: In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

        2 Corinthians 3 specifically 2 Corinthians 3:11: For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

        Sorry, but Galatians 3 won’t go away that easy especially Galatians 3:24-25: Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

        Also Jeremiah 31:31-37.

        Obsolete, passing away, tutor, I think Paul is trying to tell us something.

        I will attach a comment I made on one of theonomist resources videos:

        “You (Halbrook) mentioned that the covenental hermeneutic assumes that the OT commandments are to be held to unless they are abrogated. You then claimed that Matthew 5:18 needs to be interpreted in light of the rest of scripture. For example the food and cultic laws are not included int Matthew 5:18.

        The OT civil law is not contained in Matthew 5:18 either. Using the standards of theonomy the civil law is abrogated.

        Christ abrogates the lex talionis in Matthew 5:38-39. He directly quotes Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:2 and Deuteronomy 19:21, all declarations of the lex talionis in civil law. Christ is citing civil law when he abrogates the lex talionis. This abrogation shall be seen in practice below.

        Paul is certainly not a Rushdoony theonomist. According to Leviticus 20:11-12 a man should be put to death for carnally knowing his father’s wife. In 1st Corinthians 5:1 we see a man being charged with knowing his father’s wife. In 1st Corinthians 5:13 we see the solution is not capital punishment, but excommunication. In 2nd Corinthians 2:6-7 we see that the man caught in inquiry should be comforted and restored rather than punished and humiliated. This man is by many to be seen as the same man who had his father’s wife.

        Christ was not a Rushdoony theonomist in John 8 he does not demand the adulterous women be killed, but instead says John 8:11 that she is forgiven and not to sin any more.”

        I have meet the standard of covenantal hermeneutics in (1) highlighting a abrogation of the lex talionis and (2) two case one in John and one in 1st and 2nd Corinthians that the abrogation was used in civil disputes between Christians.”

        PS I had a long debate with somone from american vision a couple of years ago, I found debating, as you would call them, alienist theonomists to be unfruitful, hopefully engaging kinists will be more so. Funny though one of the editiors their did write an article in response to me.

        Here: http://americanvision.org/9346/postmillennialism-dr-riddlebarger/

        Here: http://americanvision.org/9383/christ-last-adam-loser-winner/ This would be that article.

        Here: http://americanvision.org/9494/american-pulpits-silent-christian-persecution-middle-east/

        Peace.

      • You might find your exchanges more fruitful if you try having them in venues meant for the purpose.

        I find little to respond to in what you’ve provided. Most is crass accusation (ie: claiming theonomy is “arbitrary”) or mischaracterization (ie: not realizing that I cited Galatians 3, not for the purposes of the theonomy debate, but because it’s so often cited by alienists and non-Kinists as a justification for wholesale race mixing), or tired arguments which have been refuted since the 70’s (ie: your short-sighted exegesis).

        I’d appreciate it if you’d not hijack my AMREN post to quibble about theonomy. If you think you’ve got some real intellectual challenges for theonomists, perhaps you and I could set up some sort of formal exchange and record it for posterity’s sake? Interested?

  4. Thomas Stuart says:

    Long time no see Shotgun! Nice blog!

  5. Todd Lewis says:

    “You might find your exchanges more fruitful if you try having them in venues meant for the purpose.”

    Fair enough, but I offered said venue and did not hear anything from you.

    “I find little to respond to in what you’ve provided. Most is crass accusation (ie: claiming theonomy is “arbitrary”)”

    No less crass than your criticism of alienists:

    “These “theonomists” make bold and arbitrary claims that all tribal distinctions have ceased along with the covenant relevance of national Israel. As you can imagine, from our view as Kinists, this seems ad hoc and without support.”

    Is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Or are alienists the only ones we are allowed to jibe?

    “or mischaracterization (ie: not realizing that I cited Galatians 3, not for the purposes of the theonomy debate, but because it’s so often cited by alienists and non-Kinists as a justification for wholesale race mixing), or tired arguments which have been refuted since the 70’s (ie: your short-sighted exegesis).”

    Crass and unimaginative comes to mind. Also these are not arguments, but emotive statements. Please kindly respond with arguments if you disgree with my propositions. If anyones exegesis is tired and short-sighed it is theonomist’s. I have refuted friends and alienists on the matter. If my objections have already been “refuted” then enlighten me it should not be hard.

    “I’d appreciate it if you’d not hijack my AMREN post to quibble about theonomy.”

    Fine then why did you not block me, it would have been easy enough. You don’t let someone comment and then guilt trip them afterwards. Clearly at some level you were Ok with my comments. This is really bad form I must say.

    Well how do I get in touch with people like you? I’ve tried to email David Opperman from FaithandHeritage, but got bupkis after one response. If ‘proper’ channels do not work then what else am I supposed to do?

    “If you think you’ve got some real intellectual challenges for theonomists, perhaps you and I could set up some sort of formal exchange and record it for posterity’s sake? Interested?”

    Sure. I already told you how to get a hold of me.

    • Don’t post on my blog again. Go write a book with all your brilliant anti-theonomic arguments, and maybe someone will respond to it.

      • Todd Lewis says:

        “Don’t post on my blog again.”

        But I’m a homosexual with no understanding of manly virtue, so I can’t help but post again.

      • Todd Lewis says:

        “Go write a book with all your brilliant anti-theonomic arguments, and maybe someone will respond to it.”

        I’ll probably write on how to instill feminine virtues in Christian men.

    • Tim Harris says:

      From the thesis, “the civil magistrate ought to enforce the law of God,” it does not follow that people who are not in that office (Jesus, Paul) should try to execute it privately.

  6. Alan J. Perrick says:

    A W.A.S.P. named “Rome”?? Must be a constant reminder of what we’re up against.

    I’m going to head over to Amren to see any other coverage. “Shotgun”, thanks for the blogpost!

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  7. It’s my nom de plume A.J.P. my actual name is totally English.

  8. Todd Lewis says:

    Listen Shotgun, I know you told me not to post here anymore, but I’m choosing to openly defy and disrespect you (on your own blog, no less), by getting in a few last words:

    Because I’m a post-Enlightenment rationalist (even though I don’t realize it), I disregard the social prejudices and European gut-reactions of our Christian ancestors, choosing instead to build my own, rationalized ethic from de-contextualized propositions I’ve selectively gleaned from the Bible.

    Now, I know that is a serious dishonor to God, but frankly, I don’t care, nor do my post-Enlightenment sensibilities allow me to feel and / or understand slights of divine (or human) honor. We puritanical zealots don’t care about those things.

    Just thought I’d drop a last, effeminate note of disrespect on your blog. Thanks again; I only wish I was able to recognize manly and chivalrous virtue so that I could appreciate your allowing me to post here one last time.

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