The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #racist #pratt #crackpot radishmag.wordpress.com

[From “Lothrop Stoddard’s Ghost”]

Dark arts: the Carlyle Club is resurrecting the great Lothrop Stoddard to deliver a warning from the past. Spooky![…]
When I tell you that the name of book was The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920), you will be able to hazard a guess as to why Lothrop Stoddard isn’t a household name[…]
White world-supremacy, politically speaking, was a simple fact[…]
Stoddard asked, “what assurance can the most impressive political panorama give us that the present world-order” — that is, white political world-supremacy — “may not swiftly and utterly pass away?”[…]
I think we can forgive Stoddard’s lumping together under “blacks,” along with the usual sub-Saharan African races, the[…]Aboriginal Australians, Papua New Guineans, and other Pacific Islanders. (Consider the similarity, not just in skin color, but also in certain societally relevant behavioral traits: low intelligence, high crime, rape[…]stabbing people, eating people, beheading sorcerers, general aggressiveness, welfare, etc)[…]
National Policy Institute reports that in 1960, white people still made up some 28 percent of the world’s population. By 2010, they were down to 16 percent. By 2060[…]white people will have dropped below 10 percent[…]
“Now what must be the inevitable result of all this?”[…]referring to the white birth rate declining while white political control caused everyone else’s birth rate to rise[…]
These protective dikes have been replaced by porous borders[…]in the name of ‘diversity,’ ‘multiculturalism,’ and ‘anti-racism’[…]
The sneaky practice of classifying anyone with any African ancestry — even if they’re visibly white, like Charles Drew — as simply “black,” for the purposes of inflating “black” accomplishments[…]or just muddying the waters of racial science[…]is hardly new[…]
Edward B. Reuter, President of the American Sociological Society, had this to say in his comprehensive 1918 book The Mulatto in the United States

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[From the article The Way of Men - Formatting in original]

Bro! The Carlyle Club is hogging the remote, refusing to ask for directions, and generally manning up for some guy talk on masculinity. (No girls allowed.)


Jack Donovan is an anti-feminist, anti-modernist, anti-populist anarcho-fascist who “moonlights as an advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue.” And what is “manly virtue”? The Way of Men is Donovan’s answer:

For decades, people have been talking about a “crisis” of masculinity. Our leaders have created a world in spite of men, a world that refuses to accept who men are and doesn’t care what they want. Our world asks men to change “for the better,” but offers men less of value to them than their fathers and grandfathers had. The voices who speak for the future say that men must abandon their old way and find a new way. But what is that way and where does it lead?
As I came to understand The Way of Men, I became more concerned about where men are today, and where they are headed. I wondered if there was a way for men to follow their own way into a future that belongs to men.
That’s the path of this book. My answers may not be the kind of answers you want to hear, but they are the only answers that satisfied my inquiry.

Ultimately, it boils down to this:

Relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes, the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut has to do with being good at being a man within a small, embattled gang of men struggling to survive.

The Way of Men is the way of that gang.


Evola’s thought can be considered one of the most radically and consistently antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular systems in the twentieth century.
Franco Ferraresi

(He says that like it’s a bad thing!)

The Sicilian Baron Julius Evola (1898–1974) was one of the most influential reactionary philosophers of the 20th century. Evola’s core trilogy comprises
[*][I]Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga[/I] in 1934 (PDF here),
[*][I]Men among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist[/I] in 1953 (PDF here, audio book here), and
[*][I]Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul[/I] in 1961 (PDF here).
(Would that every writer had the Baron Evola’s gift for subtitling.)
Most relevant to the Way of Men, Donovan’s way of the gang, is the Baron Evola’s conception of the Männerbund, introduced in Men among the Ruins, Chapter 2.

According to an old view, the State derives from the family: the same principle responsible for shaping the family and the gens, having been integrated and extended, allegedly gave rise to the State. Whether or not this is the case, it is possible, from a logical point of view, to trace the origins of the State to a naturalistic plane only by committing an initial mistake: to assume that in ancient civilized areas, and especially those populated by Indo-European civilizations, the family was a unity of a purely physical type, and that the sacred, together with a well-articulated hierarchical social system, did not play a decisive role in it. [—] But if the family is thought of in naturalistic terms, or in the terms in which it presents itself today, the generating principle of the properly political communities must be traced to a context that is very different from the one typical of the family: it must be traced to the plane of the so-called Männerbünde.

Männerbund (plural Männerbünde): German. Literally band of men. An all-male warrior band or gang.

Among several primitive societies, the individual, up to a certain age, being regarded as a merely natural being, was entrusted to the family and to maternal tutelage, since everything related to the maternal, physical aspect of existence fell under the maternal-feminine aegis.

We’re a generation of men raised by women.


“What would happen,” Jack Donovan asks in Chapter 11, “if men got spoiled, gave up and gave in to women completely? How would that society operate?” Well, we already know, because we’re living in it. Welcome to the Bonobo Masturbation Society.


Our society has almost no tolerance for unsanctioned physical violence. Children are expelled from school for fighting, and something as historically common as a weaponless, drunken brawl can land men in court or in jail.

A recent headline in Silver Spring, Maryland: ‘Boy, 6, suspended over finger gun’ (UPI). Not worth a headline in Silver Spring: ‘Lawless mobs periodically loot convenience stores’ (Unamusement Park).


Recall how Jack Donovan had to bring us outside civilized society to find “the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut.” He invites us to imagine ourselves as “part of a small human group fighting to stay alive. — You could be our primal ancestors, you could be pioneers, you could be stranded in some remote location, you could be survivors of a nuclear holocaust or the zombie apocalypse.

Whether you believe we’re living at Fukuyama’s End of History or restarting history from Evola’s Kali Yuga, — whether we’re Jack Donovan’s mindless, masturbating bonobos or Tyler Durden’s pissed-off “middle children of history,” — surely it bears consideration that one of the most popular shows on television depicts a zombie apocalypse and mankind’s forced return to that prehistoric condition of “raw masculinity,” “relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes.”

Ask yourself: why would the Last Man watch The Walking Dead? Not to mention Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Left 4 Dead, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, World War Z, Resident Evil, the Zombie Research Society, ‘5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen’ ([I]Cracked[/I]), ‘10 Essentials for Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse: A Practical Guide’ ([I]The Huffington Post[/I]), ‘Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse’ (the CDC, for God’s sake), ‘Montana TV Station Warns Of Attacking Zombies’ (NPR), ‘“Canada will never be a safe haven for zombies,” Foreign Minister John Baird tells House of Commons’ ([I]National Post[/I]), ‘Zombie apocalypse cancelled by Quebec government’ (CBC), and of course the Walking Dead zombie swimsuit calendar.

Jovus #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[Commenting on The Truth about Lynching - Link in original]

A further point: even had all the lynchings been born of racial hatred, and all the victims innocents who were merely caught in the crossfire of an ugly mob’s lust for the destruction of their fellow man, there just weren’t that many of them. There’s maybe, a thousand deaths, at the absolute highest number reported here? Over a period of roughly fifty years? (I admit, I am very loosely estimating, but anyone who likes can collate the numbers from the above piece.)

Them’s pretty good odds. To put that in perspective, ~ 300 people die to rifle shots each year in this our modern Republic. (The careful reader may object that there is a sizeable difference in population. I would agree. But even take a tenth of the number, multiply it by fifty for the number of years involved, and it still works out to more proportionally more deaths by rifle in the U.S. today than deaths to lynch mobs in their period of serious activity. And deaths by rifle are one of the least likely weapons of homicide at present: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[From the article The Truth about Lynching - Links in original]

The Carlyle Club hangs ’em high. Mighty white of us!


In this issue of Radish, we’ll learn the truth about lynching through Winfield Hazlitt Collins’ startling, rigorous, aptly named book The Truth about Lynching and the Negro in the South (1918), and a bit from Thomas Nelson Page’s similarly excellent book The Negro: The Southerner’s Problem (1904) as well.


We’ve seen one good example of abolitionist propaganda already. And then there is a certain booklet, ‘The New Reign of Terror,’ which was “published early in 1860, and in all probability compiled by [William Lloyd] Garrison himself” (pp. 14–15):


Now wait just one minute, you — rotten apologist for lynching! interjects the latter-day abolitionist. What sort of “intense excitement” could possibly make “law-abiding” men just murder — “with great reluctance” — all those hundreds of sweet, kindly — “dictatorial, inflammatory and menacing” — abolitionists — okay, maybe it was only one abolitionist, but whatever — “their propaganda did not comprehend even ordinary honesty” — whose only crime was a burning desire to share their lovely dream — “to impose their own half-blind perception” — of tolerance and equality — “of the way of the Lord, or their own ideas of what constitutes righteousness” — and an immediate end — with “regard for neither law nor common sense” — to awful evil racist slavery by you awful evil racist Southerners?

Who, for some reason, responded with a “bitter feeling.”

What sort of excitement indeed. To answer that question — which is only rhetorical if you see all Southerners as, essentially, comic book villains, twirling their mustaches as they concoct new and imaginatively sadistic methods of tormenting “the Negro” — we turn to Nat Turner’s slave insurrection, and the precarious position of white people in the South (pp. 15–17):

Could one reasonably expect that any man so situated would be inclined to be too ceremonious with any person, black or white, however innocent or saintlike his looks, who might be caught tampering with the Negroes and thereby jeopardize the safety of his family and those of his neighbors as well? When one considers the exasperating circumstances, the wonder is not that there were so many lynchings but rather that there were so few, comparatively.


It seems like once “the carpet-bag rule was in full operation,” although the so-called victims of lynching still pretty much had it coming, there were a whole lot more of them who had it coming, and the ones who had it coming were way more likely than before to actually get lynched. Now why might that have been?


Now the gloves are really off, as we near the end of Chapter 3 and Winfield Collins marshals human evolutionary history and human biological diversity to help us understand a uniquely Southern theory of law enforcement, particularly extrajudicial capital punishment (p. 59):

[T]he Negro, child of Africa, but lately removed from the jungle, because of the necessity of the habitat of his origin, has had developed in him by nature, possibly, stronger sexual passion than is to be found in any other race.

“To make up for the high death rate,” Collins notes.

But he is infinitely lacking in the high mental, moral, and emotional qualities that are especially characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon, and it is a grievous mistake to attribute such high qualities to him. When proper restraint is removed from the Negro he gets beyond bounds. The Anglo-Saxon, indeed, or members of that race, has a way of meeting extraordinary conditions with extraordinary means — hence lynching in order to hold in check the Negro in the South.

Indeed, a country occupied by two races so widely apart in origin, characteristics, and development as the whites and the Negroes of the Southern States — one race of the highest mental endowments and culture, the other of the lowest — one having a civilization that reaches back hundreds, if not thousands, of years, the other in the early dawn of civilization — might reasonably have two codes of law suited, as nearly as possible, to each race, respectively.

A mode of punishment that would be out of place as to the white man may be well suited to the Negro. Small-pox is not to be treated as chicken-pox. Barbarous criminals require barbarous laws.


See: the “unnamable brutality” of the ‘Knoxville Horror’ (here, here, here, and here), the “unnamable horrors” of the ‘Wichita Massacre’ (here, here, here, here, here, and here), the “unspeakable” Pearcy massacre (here), and so many more excellent reasons to reinstate the time-honored practice of extrajudicial capital punishment.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[Extracted from Slavery Reconsidered - All formatting in original]

Whip hand: the free-thinking Carlyle Club abolishes Whig history, serves up some primary sources, and cottons on to a south-side view in this, our masterful third issue. It’s bound to please!

Question: what’s wrong with slavery?


You know, it sounds like the good people of Detroit would benefit a lot from some sort of a combination of adoption, which provides stability, security, and lifelong support, and lifetime employment, which provides stability, community, and social harmony, especially for low-skilled workers (like in Detroit). Now, if only American history could furnish us with an example of a social arrangement combining adoption and lifetime employment— But I digress.


That reminds me of something Thomas Carlyle wrote in [i]Shooting Niagara[/i] (1867), a pamphlet considered extreme even by Victorian standards:

Servantship, like all solid contracts between men (like wedlock itself, which was once nomadic enough, temporary enough!), must become a contract of permanency, not easy to dissolve, but difficult extremely, — a “contract for life,” if you can manage it (which you cannot, without many wise laws and regulations, and a great deal of earnest thought and anxious experience), will evidently be the best of all. [—] Of all else the remedy was easy in comparison; vitally important to every just man concerned in it; and, under all obstructions (which in the American case, begirt with frantic “Abolitionists,” fire-breathing like the old Chimaera, were immense), was gradually getting itself done.


Anyway, since the practical, day-to-day realities of slavery were much better than you have been led to believe, this idea makes no sense, and you need to re-assess slavery. Maybe it wasn’t bad after all.

Are you re-assessing slavery?

You’re not re-assessing slavery, are you?

Okay, try the second idea: slavery was bad regardless of what it was actually like, because slavery contradicts Liberty, Equality, and other, miscellaneous abstractions (Human Dignity springs to mind), which are to be considered good regardless of how much misery they have created over the centuries. In that case, congratulations: you, like the abolitionists, have got religion. Kindly keep your Church far away from the State.

If neither idea suits you, it might be a combination of the two, sort of circular in shape: everyone knows slavery was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal, which was terrible for them, because they were whipped and beaten ceaselessly for no reason, and if you say they weren’t, why, you’re just excusing slavery, which everyone knows was bad, because the slaves weren’t Free and Equal — and round and round we go, abandoning even the pretense of straightforwardness, and always returning to Liberty, Equality, and we might as well throw in Fraternity, so ultimately the argument turns out to be a popular late 18th century murderous insurrectionary war cry.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries aspires to nothing less than maximum controversiality, and I for one believe we’re succeeding admirably. Huzzah! Jolly good. We’ve done slavery (Issue 3), we’ve done lynching (Issue 11) — well, we haven’t done them, but you know what I mean. Anyway, it seems only natural that we should stay the course and bring our gun turrets to bear on colonialism, completing a sort of reactionary racialist trifecta.


Ah, the Congo Free State. No one knows anything, but everyone has an opinion. Thus necessitating this appendix.


The lies and stupidity are endless, reader, and I have neither the time nor the patience to go through them one by one and refute them; instead, I simply present a selection from The Latest Phase of the Congo Question (1906). After that, you’ll be in a suitably skeptical mindset to do your own research and make up your own mind.


You may be wondering how modern-day critics of the Congo Free State have responded to primary sources such as these. The answer, of course, is that they have simply ignored them, and screamed a lot about racism. This is a classic Progressive debating strategy with an extraordinarily high success rate.

Anyway, the commission ultimately reaches this conclusion (my emphasis):

From the mass of statements, testimony and information gathered by the Commission it appears that the mutilation of dead bodies is an ancient custom which does not have in the eyes of the native the horrible character which it does in ours. The cutting off of certain parts of a dead body fulfils the natives desire to procure a trophy or simply a piece of evidence. The mutilation of fallen enemies frequently occurred in the wars between natives in certain regions. [—]

One point is beyond doubt: a white man has never inflicted such mutilations, nor caused such mutilations to be inflicted, upon living natives as a punishment for failure to bring in taxes nor for any other cause. Deeds of such a kind have never been stated to us by a single witness, and in spite of all our investigations, we have never been able to discover such a case.

But do read the whole thing (and whatever other primary sources you like) and decide for yourself — for this has gone on long enough, I think! Adieu!