Walter Benjamin’s reflections on the impact of automation on the art object are pertinent to a consideration of what happens to the sexual object and its displacements in the modern era. I think one can speak of both an industrialization of sexual relations and a sexualization of industry.

The “industrialization” of sexual relations is well-illustrated by the stream of drawings, paintings, and objects produced in the early part of the 20th century by Francis Picabia and Marcel Duchamp that depict coitus as the coupling and grinding of machine parts.

The same images, of course, also depict the sexualization of industrial processes. But where this sexualization of industry achieves real significance is in the erotic allure that attaches to the commodity, the endowment of everything from cars to computers with a sexual aura.

Modernity coincides with a widespread hypersexualization of objects and bodies. This is a new thing. We are not talking about what to the ancients would have constituted beauty. Something else is introduced, which Marx called commodity fetishism, whose full meaning needs to include the sexual connotation.

What comes into view as peculiar to modernity is the simultaneous sexualization of production and consumption. On the consumption side, the commodity induces something like a sexual mania in the consumer. Modern consumption acquires a distinctly onanistic character, at once addictive and unsatisfying since like masturbation, compulsive consumption can only function as what Freud characterized as an “otiose” substitute for heterosexual intercourse.

The upshot is that consumer society is in essence a society of wankers.


Marx’s early insights into the shoggothic power of capital were remarkably prescient.

Money, then, appears as this distorting power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc., which claim to be entities in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence, and intelligence into idiocy.

Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things–the world upside-down–the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Today, the money-enabled “fraternisation of impossibilities” visible to Marx in 1844 challenges even the division of the sexes. The fact that progressives hail the overcoming of the gender “binary” as progress just confirms that they are capital’s useful idiots.

Taken on its own, the claim that gender is a social construction is a triviality. All distinctions whatsoever are ultimately social constructions. What is significant is only the moment when they begin to appear as such. When a culture begins to apprehend itself as merely a culture, its tenets and tastes as merely prejudices, it is moribund. The “deconstruction” that ensues is the labor of maggots.

It is not the constructedness of gender that the transgender fad reveals but the power of consumerism to transform anatomy into consumer choice. Everything that was default, natural, is made unnatural, subject to customization, available as paid option.

Those who would free us from the last vestiges of patriarchy are in actuality delivering us into the grasp of the mutagenic corporate Borg. Once it is removed from the patriarchal order that dignified it, the body becomes a machine whose parts can be altered at will. Transgenderism is but the logical expression of this desacralization of the body at the behest of the capitalist drive to reduce all of nature to product.


To support its self-regard, the elite needs to associate itself with whatever is uncommon. In the arts, for instance, the elite patronizes just those artists and designers whose work is inscrutable and even repugnant to everybody else. Thus the modern phenomenon of the avant-garde. But, elite snobbery expresses itself in moral as well as aesthetic taste.

Just as the elite patronizes the artistic avant-garde, it also supports what at any given moment pass for avant-garde attitudes, preferences, and lifestyles. The actual content of whatever ideas the elite embraces matters little because these ideas never serve the elite as anything more than fashion accessories. Outré ideas, ideologies, philosophies are easily embraced because easily discarded. The more perverse-seeming the idea, the greater its potential for displaying the elite’s extraordinary discernment. Thus, the same class of people who lauded Marcel Duchamp nominating a urinal to the status of art in 1917 today support a man nominating himself to be a woman and vice versa.

Progressivism has a longstanding association with snobbery, going at least as far back as the female-run salons of the 18th century that nurtured Enlightenment thought. In that particular instance, fashionable ideas did ultimately have unpleasant consequences for the silly blue bloods who entertained them, proving that the world is not entirely devoid of justice.


This “Cultural Marxism” that conservatives like to invoke as the source of every cultural outrage is really just a mask for the anti-cultural agency of capitalism itself. Progressivism has always nicely aligned with capitalism’s drive to dismantle all traditions that impede the absolute supremacy of money. This is why patriarchy and masculinity are objects of unrelenting progressive assault. For money to rule without restriction, all residual patriarchal notions of honor and integrity had to be discredited as outdated and oppressive. Unable or unwilling to comprehend what Marx had already figured out by 1848, that capitalism profanes everything formerly holy and turns everything solid “into air,” the right responds by invoking nostalgia for a slightly less developed less-monopolistic capitalism and wishing for the restitution of pre-1960s ideals of masculinity. Someone like Jordan Peterson, for instance, is reduced to advising his readers to clean up their rooms, stand straight, and refrain from telling untruths, advice that any schoolmarm might in the past have dispensed. He too rails against “Cultural Marxism,” but avoids noticing how well the evil designs of this phantom Cultural Marxism mesh with the requirements of corporate-driven consumerism: how, for instance, feminist and queer claims about the constructedness of gender feed into making gender a commodity, how the conscription of women into the labor force has undercut wages and benefited corporations, how identity politics has fractured the working class and disabled its resistance to capitalism.

So the net effect of “Cultural Marxism” has actually been to further entrench the globalist corporate order. Where is the “Marxism” in that?

Antimodern Moderns

The moderns I admire are those whose signal contribution to modernism consisted in devising means to portray the squalor of modernity. I have in mind T.S. Eliot, J.K. Huysmans, L.F. Celine, James Ensor, George Grosz, Otto Dix, Nathaniel West.


It is a disgusting modern conceit that assumes as a matter of course that we know better than our premodern ancestors, whose reverence for “myth” in our eyes renders them naifs.

The truth is that we are the intellectually impoverished ones, unable to apprehend anything beyond what is accessible to our senses. And yet, we regard this blindering, this hobbling of intelligence as proof of our superiority over the ancients, whose vigor, acuity, and strength of character far exceeded our own.


The “aesthetic” consequences of an idea offer good indications of its validity.

What is latent in an idea, covered up by appeals to sentiment or resentment, is exposed by its realization. An idea whose products are malformed, poisonous, ugly is revealed as a noxious one, irrespective of the high-minded arguments in its favor. Conversely, noble ideas are recognized by their ennobling effects. Most modern ideas that promise “emancipation” or “empowerment” have yielded freakish results. No further evidence should be needed to condemn them.

If you want to get the true measure of a civilization or a period within a civilization, examine its artifacts. It is what a civilization leaves behind when it can no longer speak except through its residue that justifies or condemns it.


An authentic traditionalist has to be willing to accept that tradition is in modern terms indefensible. The modern mind is a stunted apparatus that can only acknowledge and comprehend what is measurable. The eternal verities transmitted by tradition will not fit into the confines of this apparatus and would only be nullified by any attempt to force them into it.

In the same way that tradition is rationally indefensible, modernity and its abominations are rationally irrefutable since today reason has at its disposal only the vocabulary of utilitarianism. It is, for instance, pointless to look to genetics to disprove the pernicious doctrine of the social construction of “identity” because that doctrine is itself but one expression of the instrumental outlook upon which modern science is founded. After all, it is science itself that provides the surgical and pharmacological means to alter gender and, beyond that, the means to artificialize the human organism at the cellular level. These means today are glorified as “empowering,” as demonstrating our overcoming of the harsh cultural boundaries that hedged in our benighted ancestors. But what they actually indicate is the toxicity of modern science, whose effect is to render us ever more artificial and, therefore, ever more fragile. Thus, what we misconstrue as empowerment is actually the enlargement of our susceptibility to extinction.

Faith in tradition seeks no modern validation because it is fully cognizant of modernity’s evanescence. The freak menagerie assembled by modernity is not a harbinger of the future but an indication that modernity has no future. What will refute modernity will be its own perishing. Indeed, is modernity anything but a perishing?


The empirical validation of some fragmentary remnant of tradition always comes too late and counts for very little. This is because the truth of tradition is eternal, i.e. outside duration, invariant, primordial, whereas empiricism is always bound by the limited interval of observation and can never prove or disprove any principle that operates in cycles of a breadth that exceeds that interval. The modern conceit is that whatever resides outside the possibility of phenomenal observation is unknowable. It ignores and devalues faculties receptive to other, and superior, forms of knowledge. Consequently, there is something childlike about the enthusiasm that greets the occasional scientific validation of some truth that tradition understood implicitly, as if tradition had all these millennia been waiting for modern science to come along and give it a proper grounding. For instance, one can only be amused by the importance currently assigned to the scientific validation of sexual difference, a validation utterly trivial when compared to the vastly richer knowledge of sexual difference and its implications available to the ancients.

The wisdom of tradition is not amenable to empirical validation. Today, this wisdom can only reveal itself negatively, via the dismal consequences of what has replaced it.


I sympathize with victims up until they become professional, sanctioned victims.

Anytime I run into a professional victim, my involuntary response is that he or she needs to be reacquainted with whatever they claim to be a victim of.

Freak Show

Part of what constitutes our decadence, or maybe is the very essence of our decadence, is our cowardice in the face of ugliness, our willingness to compromise with it.

We know the difference between ugliness and beauty or we would not mount arguments against the unfairness of the distinction. But we are compromised: we cannot uphold beauty because we cannot uphold unfairness.

Now this would seem to be an inevitable consequence of what we call democracy given that beauty stands out because it is uncommon and that its appreciation must therefore slight the common. The antagonism between democracy and beauty is confirmed by the fact that the bulk of the beautiful things that have been handed down to us and that we take care to preserve were produced under decidedly inegalitarian and authoritarian conditions.

More fundamental to our predicament is that fairness is absent from nature, which is innocent of any notion of universal rights, and that our modern idolatry of fairness is, therefore, an expression of a radical alienation from nature.

Beauty and naturalness are intimately connected to the degree that beauty could be said to represent nothing else than perfect naturalness and the necessity that we perceive in naturalness. Conversely, ugliness and unnaturalness are synonymous. It follows that the affirmation of beauty is possible only alongside an affirmation of the order of nature.

Therein lies the root of the modern antagonism toward beauty. For modernity recruited its promoters and adherents by promising an emancipation from the constraints of nature. All our investment in the empirical sciences has been driven by that promise–which science has more than fulfilled but at the price of rendering us, its late beneficiaries, into wholly unnatural creatures.

The horrific mutants and aliens that populate sci fi are us. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was a vision of what post the ascension of the bourgeoisie, Western man was becoming.

Modernity is in its very essence the triumph of unnaturalness and ugliness. It is the age of the freak.

And this is why beauty has fled from us, and why we are powerless to resist the ever-more-hideous abominations that science and technology foist on us, be they misgendered and transgendered beings, architectural obscenities, or abysmal manners.

Today, ugliness has rights. And beauty is a detestable privilege.

And yet, we have not successfully eradicated all beauty. It lingers as our bad conscience, as a repressed awareness of our degradation. And to that extent, it lingers as our death drive, for deep down we loathe our ugliness and seek our own extinction, the means to whose realization science has also mercifully bestowed upon us.

Antiwhite whites

Blaming Jews for white self-hatred, as the alt-right is prone to do, doesn’t get us very far. Whatever anti-Christian and anti-white malice is ascribed to Jews cannot explain the susceptibility of whites themselves to antiwhite propaganda. The question remains: why are whites so anxious to run away from “whiteness”?

I suspect the reason is that whites tend to associate the qualities that define whiteness–which as with any other ethnocultural group are a congery of beliefs, tastes, and prejudices both pragmatic and xenophobic–as things that they left behind when they migrated to the cities and acquired a veneer of sophistication. White animus against whiteness then indicates the distance that whites have traveled from their rural roots and the pressure to sustain that distance by professing “superior” liberal attitudes that abjure what they now regard as their former hickness.

Thus, white liberalism is best understood as a form of snobbery, directed, as snobbery typically is, at repressing the memory of earlier uncouthness. Liberal, self-hating whites are basically fashion victims. That is why liberalism flourishes among the well-to-do. They are the only people who can afford it. The acutest manifestation of “white privilege,” is, in fact, white liberal hatred of white privilege, a hatred that white liberals can indulge because they are insulated from its consequences.

The question is for how long will antiwhite whites be able to enjoy this peculiar proof of their elite status?

Up until the moment that whites (along with everyone else) are cast back en masse into the straitened circumstances from which they emerged in the course of the anomalous postwar boom. The process is well under way, and a sign of it is the fact that liberalism and its pieties are increasingly perceived as the pretensions of an insufferable elite.


Hysteric phallophobia can equally express itself as either frigidity or “nymphomania.”

The hysteric, whose worldview is structured by the idea that she is a castrated man, is condemned to regard all contact with men as a potential violation. Most commonly, this results in a horror of anything that can be interpreted as sexual contact.

But hysteria can also prompt an attempted devaluation of the missing phallus via hypersexuality, which strips the phallus of symbolic meaning by repetitive and inconsequential consumption. (The feminist obsession with abortion is in this context to be understood as deriving from a need to deprive the phallus of both its semiotic and inseminating potency.)

However, in each case the result is the same: dissatisfaction. As long as a woman equates womanhood with a cosmic injustice, no satisfactory relationship with a man is possible.

This is why there is no cure for either hysteria or feminism, for what they express is not merely a chronic dissatisfaction but a will to dissatisfaction.


From the dawn of human society, humans have sought to model themselves on animals. Something more than a totemic relationship was involved. Animal idolatry was an antidote to the self-conscious artificiality of the human, which if permitted to completely take over leads to a kind of madness.

The nobility of the animal offered a means to honor what in the human is inhuman, unconscious, beyond the reach of deliberation or choice. The animal modeled for humans submission to the natural order and its fundamentally supra-individual logic.

All the freakishness of the modern world is the product of a humanistic reversal of inhumanism. From this stems the reduction of consciousness to a purely instrumental apparatus and the illusion this fosters of a mechanistic world that technology can alter at wiil. And yet this blindering of consciousness was greeted as Enlightenment. Conversely, the knowledge that was available to the ancients in the form of sacred revelation, in the modern world is dismissed as the product of dark ages.


Racism seems to have a lot to do with the need of modern European nation states to justify colonialism on moral grounds. This is a justification that premodern peoples, innocent of the peculiar notion of human rights, did not require. In the premodern world, conquest and subjugation were outcomes ordained by the gods.

It was humanism, and particularly secular humanism, that laid the basis for racism. The bestowal of rights on humans as a species forbids one group from subjugating another. In practice, this meant that technologically advanced European nations could only take advantage of their military superiority and acquire colonies on the presumption that the peoples they subjugated were not quite human and therefore not entitled to the same rights as Europeans, at least not until these putative primitives were properly civilized.

Today’s sanctimonious, antiracist “identity” politics remains locked in the same humanist frame, only with the terms inverted. Now the subhuman stigma is attached to “whites” in general and white males in particular. Thus, in its late form, humanism develops into a suicidal ideology. Perhaps this is the only way that its pernicious influence can be overcome.

Notre Dame

The fire that devoured Notre Dame is said to have destroyed a “cultural icon” and an “architectural marvel.” But Notre Dame and its sister medieval cathedrals were not built to be any of those things. They were expressions of the enraptured, visionary faith of the Middle Ages, which anyone born after the Enlightenment can barely comprehend. What the fire destroyed had already long ago been deprived of its spiritual potency.

The French banker promises it will be rebuilt. But if rebuilt, it will be rebuilt by faithless men, and will stand as nothing more than a monument to the technology of simulation. It might look identical to the original, but it will have been revived as kitsch.


I dismiss any and all statements prefixed by a declaration of “identity,”

When you tell me that you are speaking “as a woman” or “as a feminist” or as “as a gay man” or “as a person of color” or as a member of some other fashionable victim class, all you are revealing is the narcissistic conceit in which you are encased and which constitutes your mental prison. So what you’re telling me, effectively, is that you are a robotic bore with whom any attempt at conversation is a waste of time since you are only capable of ideological commonplaces. In addition, you are alerting me to the fact that your sole interest in any exchange is to browbeat your interlocutors with your assumed moral superiority.

The idea that identity grants intellectual authority (or, if it is the wrong identity, intellectual invalidation) is the grossest possible debasement of discourse. Yet it appears to be the currently dominant mode of academic discourse. Which means that a liberal education these days is an expensive way to learn how not to think.


The spiritual poverty of our times is reflected in the hideous things on which the wealthiest and most powerful lavish their wealth.

Past civilizations brought forth canonical forms rooted in what was sacred to each civilization.

Today, in a culture dominated exclusively by material concerns, the only cultural imperative is novelty, which translates into a cult of high-priced freakishness. The result in architecture, fashion, manners, and art is the endless supplantation of one ugly trend by another.


In the absence of a beyond of material existence, of an intimation of an order that is not purely contingent, no one has any reason anymore to be satisfied with their place in life. Yet what comes of the mass pursuit of empowerment is mass enslavement to phantasmic images of empowerment that exacerbate alienation and amplify the violence of the war of all against all.


Guénon noted that decadence brings forth forms that embody what previous civilizations had wisely left unrealized. From this perspective, modernity is the time that brings to life every monstrosity, every abomination, every perversion, every weakness, every stupidity abhorrent to tradition.

We witness all the filth that was held back by the decencies of earlier civilizations come pouring out, a veritable shit storm. And the last vestige of civilization, the last trace of sacred tradition, sacrificed to incontinence.


An intellectual refutation of feminism would be pointless since the very attempt would constitute an emasculation. Men distinguish themselves by deeds not words. It is women’s lust for violent men that refutes feminism.


It is difficult to comprehend what was lost when our experience of the world became psychologized. The very possibility of revelation is banished. All traffic between the world of the senses and the eternal world comes to a halt. Nullifying thousands of years of mystical experience, Kant declares the thing-in-itself radically unknowable, and in so doing imposes the limit of rational inquiry as the limit of all knowledge. This is the moment the modern world is born.