To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera
Showing posts with label Nowicki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nowicki. Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2026

Amongst the Afrikaners

 

(original title: The 'Niggers' of the Earth)

JUN 12, 2025
Note: In December 2011, I visited South Africa for two weeks to compose a journalistic piece on the state of the Afrikaner people since the end of Apartheid in 1994. That article eventually ran in a journal which is now out of print. But with Afrikaners in the news again these days, I thought it would be appropriate to republish this article, in order to provide context for the complex historical situation facing the “white tribe” today.

Below is the full article, republished in its entirety. —A.N.

VIVA AFRIKANER!

“If you’re out of luck or out of work

We can send you to Johannesburg.”

Though I am neither out of luck nor work at the time, these lyrics from the Elvis Costello song “Oliver’s Army” nevertheless keep turning through my head during my grueling 15-hour flight from Atlanta, Georgia, to the notorious South African metropolis in question.

When Costello recorded this pop-punk classic, a deceptively sweet-sounding jazzed-up calypso tune harshly critiquing British military imperialism, the name of Jo’burg was synonymous with the White Afrikaner Apartheid regime, then still clinging to power. Back in the 1980s, it seemed that everyone and his mother knew all about the odious ideology practiced by the ruling National Party of South Africa. Apartheid was held, in the court of world public opinion, to somehow be a uniquely awful practice, as bad, in its own way, as Nazism had been. It was viewed with such loathing that South Africa in effect became the nigger of the world: ostracized from trade, banned from the Olympics, shunned by right-thinking people everywhere.

Forget the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and other repressive, murderous Communist regimes (so we were instructed by liberal opinion-shapers), it was South Africa alone which truly deserved our greatest contempt. Apartheid, after all, was racial repression, dominance of Blacks by Whites, and therefore fascist, and therefore neo-Nazi, and therefore another Holocaust in the making, which must be stopped at all costs.

Cue the production of movies like Lethal Weapon II, A Dry, White Season, and Cry Freedom, egregiously simplistic cinematic morality plays with noble and magic Negro/White liberal heroes and hateful, mean-faced, invariably Afrikaner villains. Cue also Artists United Against Apartheid’s ridiculous protest anthem “I ain’t gonna play Sun City,” (“Relocation to a phony homeland/ Separation of families, I can’t understand” being among its resplendent lyrics.) And cue the faithful, unthinking, conformist allegiance of the sheeple towards the “respectable” party line.

THE APARTHEID YEARS

To be fair to the propagandists, Apartheid was a lousy ideology, deeply flawed in conception, and often brutal in practice. But these ubiquitous blanket condemnations lacked any saving sense of proportion, whereby one acknowledged that, compared to the rest of Africa, under various bizarre and ghoulish post-colonial regimes run by Idi Amin and other native-born dictators, Blacks actually prospered in Apartheid-era South Africa, and that repression in that country, while deplorable, was relatively mild compared with the tyranny of most Eastern bloc nations of the period.

The Afrikaners—descendants of the original White (Dutch, German, and French) settlers of the African continent and original creators of Apartheid as an official state policy following the victory of D.F. Malan over Jan Smuts in the 1948 election—have long absorbed my interest, for reasons that must relate in some way to the outcast status imposed upon them by self-righteous rock stars and international leftist activist celebrities of the Reagan-Thatcher era. I have a soft spot in my heart for such unreconstructed “niggers of the world”-types, who thumb their noses at the “consensus” of the imposed Zeitgeist, and are hated and pilloried ever after for their effrontery, which is invariably construed as some sort of hateful and repugnant term with a suffix of -ism or -ia (racism, sexism, nativism, homophobia, etc).

In the West today, no one is ostracized more than an alleged thought-criminal, who rejects the a priori tenets of political correctness, and who remains unmoved by ad hominem assaults upon his integrity stemming from his refusal to toe the party line. Though I don’t consider myself a cultural American Southerner, I always enjoy seeing Southerners proudly fly the “stars and bars” of the Confederate Battle Flag, in brazen, stubborn defiance of the edicts of their societal “betters.” As an English teacher and writer, I have actively opposed the culturally-Marxist linguistic scourge of “inclusive language,” which demands that we say “humankind” instead of “mankind,” or “fire-fighter” instead of “fireman,” as well as determinedly rejecting the designs of “diversity” czars who want to dethrone the “Dead White Male” Western canon and have us all reading crappy books written by semi-literate Aboriginal Eskimo albino lesbian hunchbacked cripples out of deference to a specious “inclusivity.”

For almost half a century, the Afrikaner presented a “nigger”-face to a Western world, growing more and more inured to militant modernist liberalism. The Afrikaner wasn’t simply a “racist,” who rejected multiculturalism for favor of thoroughgoing racial separatism; he was also a strongly religious sort of chap, as well. Now modern-day liberals can tolerate conspicuous manifestations of religious fervor, provided that they’re expressed by people who aren’t White, but anytime ethnically-conscious Whiteness and specifically Christian religiosity are combined, the militantly tolerant multiculturalist tends to get all in a snit.

After all—they whinge— weren’t Hitler and the Nazis Christians, as well? (They actually weren’t, but then you can’t expect a modern-day liberal, busy as he is with conscientiously correcting the prejudice and ignorance of his less enlightened neighbors, to be bothered with questioning his own numerous unfounded prejudices or addressing his often grievous historical ignorance.) The Afrikaners, being the “niggers of the world,” had won my sympathy nearly two decades ago, after their leaders caved to world pressure and dethroned themselves, King Lear-like, handing the kingdom over to their enemies.

ARRIVAL— ‘INTO THE FIRE’

Now, in December 2011, I am finally getting to meet my far-flung soulmates. On the generous dime of my benefactors at the National Policy Institute, I have jetted across the world, leaving the relatively safe confines of the good-ol’ U.S. of A. for the southern tip of the Dark Continent, to experience these “niggers” firsthand, now adrift in their formerly recognizable homeland, wandering like poor, homeless, mad King Lear through a gathering, apocalyptic storm.

These days, following the implosion of the Apartheid regime and the advent of true “democracy” in 1994, which has ushered in nearly two decades of rule by the Black-dominated African National Congress, Johannesburg is newly notorious… as the unofficial rape and murder capital of the world.

For this reason, I—a nervous flyer—feel a strange combination of relief and apprehension as we touch down at O.R. Tambo (formerly Jan Smuts) airport. “Out of the frying pan, into the fire,” is a phrase that thrusts itself into my exhausted mind as I file out of the plane and shuffle through customs alongside my weary fellow travelers.

Of course, I am being (slightly) overly dramatic. Johannesburg is a very dangerous city, but—much lurid tabloid-like propaganda to the contrary— it isn’t exactly a war zone. If you exercise proper caution and avoid doing foolish or reckless things or traveling to obviously dodgy locations, you should be okay.

Still, one is immediately struck by the extent to which living and working units in the area are conspicuously fortified. Nearly every private residence and business location in the Gauteng province—an area which includes Jo’burg and its sister city Pretoria, as well as the notorious township Soweto—is a mini castle-keep, complete with a high palisades electric fence, with barbed wires curlicued across the top, and one security company or another advertised prominently at the front.

No resident of the area can simply visit a neighbor by walking up to his front door and knocking or ringing the doorbell; instead, you have to buzz in at the front entrance, and wait for your neighbor to trust that you aren’t a thief, a murderer, or a rapist, before allowing you to obtain entrance by activating the automatic gate.

One is tempted to wonder if this setup isn’t a hysterical overreaction on the part of Whites to the undeniably real crime problem in South Africa. But the more I talked to individual Afrikaners, the more I felt inclined to believe that these fastidious security precautions are eminently reasonable, even necessary.

TRUE HORROR STORIES

Indeed, it seems that everyone has a horror story of some form or fashion to tell, either of a family member or a friend, on a farm or in a city or in a sleepy suburban locale, who became a victim of an awful act of aggravated violence. . . A cousin of one man was relaxing in his home watching a rugby match on TV on a Sunday afternoon, when suddenly a gang of Black hoodlums entered; one of them made a run at his wife in the living room, and as he rushed to protect her, he was shot and killed… A woman’s uncle and aunt were savagely tortured and murdered in their home one night, and nothing was even stolen from the house. . . A fellow in his mid-30s relates that a friend of his once stopped to assist a group of young Black men on the roadway whose car had supposedly broken down; in so doing, he walked right into an ambush—the men attempted an armed robbery, and the friend was gunned down in the ensuing melee. . . Another man opens up about how his girlfriend was carjacked in broad daylight—she found herself set upon by four Blacks with guns at a busy intersection; fearing a gang rape, she left the keys in the ignition and fled in a panic…. A mother tells me of a girl who was suddenly attacked by a Black man with a machete, who hacked her to death without provocation on a dark street one night….

Then there are the less shocking, more numerous accounts of petty muggings here and there; ever-present “smash and grab” raids, whereby a criminal walks up to an unsuspecting motorist, shatters his window with a crowbar or other solid object, reaches in to snatch the driver’s purse or Blackberry from the dashboard or passenger seat; or simple home burglaries which take place while the homeowner is at work or out of town.

To be sure, Afrikaners and other Whites aren’t the only victims of crime—many decent, law-abiding Blacks have also been robbed, raped, and murdered—but there seems evidence to deduce that not a few native Blacks have turned on the Boer nation— their former rulers—with a particularly hateful ferocity. Indeed, illegal and nominally legal activity seem to stem from a similar motivation.

The ruling ANC government frequently changes the names of Afrikaans roads and locations in a transparent effort to punish the people who they felt oppressed them in the past, and imposes quite insane racial quotas upon businesses and social services—even to the point where, for example, prospective black doctors in medical school are held to far less rigorous standards than their White counterparts, in order to increase the representation of Black doctors (never mind, I suppose, how well they treat the sick!).

White farmers, meanwhile, are asked to cede ever more of their private property in the interests of agricultural affirmative action; meanwhile, farm murders continue apace in a steady, dreary campaign of terror.

The details of the murders and assaults of Afrikaner farm families are often upsetting in the extreme: children are raped; elderly couples are made to drink acid and set on fire; one hears of new, bloodcurdling attacks nearly every month. According to credible statistics, there have been nearly 2,000 murders of farmers and their family members since 1991, and the numbers, while fluctuating from year to year, show no signs of abating.

Many have become convinced that the government is in fact behind the murders, whether through deliberate manipulation or as a result of irresponsible, vindictive anti-White rhetoric and propaganda, creating an atmosphere of hate.

‘THE PURPOSE OF TERRORISM IS TO TERRORIZE”

In Pretoria, I speak with three representatives of the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), who openly declare their strong suspicion that some governmental authorities are complicit in the killings. General director Bennie van Zyl notes that many of the murders seem to take place in areas where the ANC has agitated for a greater degree of “land reform.” (Under the stipulations of “Black Economic Empowerment,” or “BEE” policies, farmers are required to let their black employees have part of their land after a certain number of years of employment.)

“There is certainly a link between violent attacks on farms and land claims,” declares van Zyl. “In provinces where the land claims are big, the attacks are big.”

Bennie Van Zyl
Van Zyl draws a link between what is happening to Afrikaner farmers in South Africa and what has happened all over the continent from time to time when one tribe or group seeks to dispossess another, the most egregious recent example being the savage massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in the mid-‘90s.

“It’s a pattern in the whole of Africa,” he says. “And I don’t think that the Western world recognizes this pattern. It’s very hard for us Afrikaners to understand it, and we grew up with those guys (the Blacks).” Using language that would make most North American and European Westerners, liberal or otherwise, blanch and titter as if they’d just heard a dirty joke, Van Zyl claims that in his view, it is simply a part of the African’s nature and mindset to conduct such murderous campaigns. “We (White Afrikaners) believe in God, but they (Blacks) believe in the power of their ancestors,” Van Zyl says. “We accept responsibility, while they replace responsibility. Their leaders want them to be perceived as a people with a deep-seated value system that attaches value to life, but the practice is very different.”

The world largely knows about the depredations of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF Party in neighboring Zimbabwe. In that country, Mugabe’s forces have systematically forced the White farmers off of their land, bankrupting many and physically attacking others. As a result, a once relatively prosperous African country has turned into a blighted, impoverished scourge of a land.

When I ask if South Africa might become the next Zimbabwe, the representatives of the TAU respond that it’s already happening, simply in a covert manner. “It’s a case of a velvet glove covering an iron hand,” says TAU service manager Chris van Zyl.

I shed my liberal leftism long ago, in my undergraduate years, and today I call myself a moderate racialist, yet I find myself discomfited by the implication that Black Africans have some sort of natural proclivity towards ruthless violence. I also find it hard to accept that the ANC, incompetent and corrupt as it may be, has actually organized a murderous campaign against White farmers. I admit as much to these men, who in response own that not all Blacks are culturally depraved; many, in fact, are perfectly nice people.

However, they also ruefully note that the current ruling political party of South Africa—one of whose rally songs is “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer”—isn’t exactly falling over itself trying to make a priority of stopping the farm murders, or stopping Black-on-White violent crime in general.


Even if they aren’t directly complicit, these men maintain, the African National Congress has very little interest, if any, in protecting Afrikaners from harm.

“If there is crime, it suits the ANC,” says Bennie van Zyl. “The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.”

SURREAL VIBES

During the time I spend in Johannesburg and neighboring Pretoria, the word “surreal” keeps leaping to mind.

It’s just hard to get a handle on this strange place. There is dire talk of continuing Black-on-White crime and even whispers of a coming Rwanda-style attempted genocide, an event supposedly predicted by legendary Afrikaner seer and mystic Nicholaas “Siener” van Rensburg, a kind of Boer Nostradamus who allegedly predicted the assassinations of Koos De La Rey and Hendrik Verwoerd, the advent of black rule in South Africa and the bitter blossoming of the deadly and virulent AIDS epidemic.

Though the Afrikaner nation is largely religious, spiritual devotion does not equate to superstitious credulity; not all buy into the “van Rensburg-as-prophet” notion. Yet there are mounting fears of a widespread, racially-motivated Krystallnacht-like “purge” against Whites taking place in the near future, whether provoked by official anti-Afrikaner ANC rhetoric, or merely as the result of uncontrolled mob violence following some galvanizing event (such as the death of Nelson Mandela) or mounting Black frustration over unemployment and poverty (which haven’t improved and have in fact largely worsened since Mandela’s election in 1994, but both of which are still commonly blamed on the “legacy of Apartheid” and White racism and colonialism).

Such fears of a looming mass slaughter strike me as lurid and overblown, even paranoid. Then again, this is Africa, where terrifying tribal violence has been, and continues to be, commonplace. It’s difficult to picture the world not intervening while Black mobs massacre Afrikaners in the streets all across South Africa… then again, “the world” largely didn’t intervene when Hutus slaughtered millions of Tutsis in Rwanda back in the mid-90s.

Nor has the “world” openly condemned the unrestrained violence against the South African farmer since the ascendancy of the ANC. But expectations of such impending horrors would be easier to digest if much of the country didn’t still strike this visitor as fairly “normal,” orderly, and familiar, in a modern, Western sense. You can, after all, find in this country all of the amenities most First Worlders have come to expect as their birthright. South Africa has posh shopping malls, hip coffee houses, state-of-the-art movie theaters (with stadium seating), fast food restaurants, and well-stocked gas stations (though they call them “garages”). It also has cable television, Internet service, and operational traffic lights (called “robots”).

Yet if you allow yourself to get lulled into complacency by all of this seemingly civilized Western-style prosperity, you might be in for a nasty shock. For example, if you spend too much time lost in thought at a red-lighted “robot,” you might suddenly find yourself carjacked, kidnapped, or sexually assaulted. This is a country where one is advised to run a red light in certain locations if possible, since to stop, that is to say, to obey the given traffic laws, means to make oneself vulnerable to property theft or bodily harm. It is a country in which many drivers plaster their vehicles with “Baby On Board” bumper stickers, not, as in America, in order to shame other motorists into driving safely around them, but rather to beg potential criminals to allow them to take their child out of his harness in the event of a carjacking!

I only have to imbibe this schizophrenia-inducing atmosphere—whereby, day after day, one hopes for tranquil normalcy while at the same time gravely fearing a sudden spasm of violent calamity—for a mere two weeks, and it nearly wears me out. One night I wake from ambiguously horrifying nightmares, gasping desperately for air, having been briefly assailed with some variation of cerebral shell-shock. If merely visiting South Africa produces such a reaction in a person, then how much more severe must be the psychic response to actually living here?

Dan Roodt
‘MY FIRST REALITY CHECK’

Dan Roodt, a distinguished writer and long-standing Afrikaner activist, meets me at an upscale “garage” halfway between Jo’burg and Pretoria. As we sit together and munch on our sandwiches, he reflects on what he calls this “extremely bizarre” set of contemporary circumstances in his country.

“In South Africa, we have the most violent peacetime society in the world,” Roodt says. “It’s almost like a low-intensity war. And there is always a risk that some incident could trigger riots and unrest.”

Roodt blames the “climate of hate” created by an ANC-dominated education system, which he holds responsible for much of the virulent racial antagonism raging among the country’s citizens today.

“South African Blacks are more anti-White than any population in the world,” he observes. “It’s a part of this whole ‘victim’ mentality. The ANC has created a fictional past ‘reality’ that feeds the present violence.”

By endlessly harping on the supposed evils of past White rule, and at the same time cynically playing on base tribal superstitions (President Zuma recently told voters that their ancestors would afflict them with sickness them if they voted against the ANC in coming elections), the present rulers of South Africa have “insured that they’ll never be voted out of office,” Roodt owns. At the same time, he says, many Blacks old enough to remember the Apartheid years will admit that, in many ways, things were better for them then than they are now.

“They (the Blacks) had jobs back then, and things were predictable,” Roodt says. “Social services were competent, unlike now,” he adds, noting the collapse of infrastructure and the graft, corruption, and incompetency that runs rampant among members of the current government.

Roodt is a lean, elegantly handsome, rather patrician-looking 54-year old man with a full head of thick silver hair and a gentle, unassuming, soft-spoken manner that seems in some ways at odds with his passionate, at times almost strident rhetoric. Like many Afrikaner intellectuals his age and older, Roodt began his academic career as a man of the Left, furiously critical of the National Party and its Apartheid policies, only later to take a severe Right-ward turn following the ascension of the ANC to power and the troubled times that followed.

“Our generation had the sense that our parents were conformists,” he says, recalling his turbulent adolescent years. “There was a sense of rebellion at the time. At our schools, some of the older teachers were bullies who abused their authority over us… Once I began rebelling against the way things were, I just went further and further.”

In fact, Roodt went all the way to Paris, France, in part to avoid being conscripted into the armed forces and forced to take part in the border wars South Africa was fighting against hostile Communist-backed neighboring regimes at the time. But he eventually became dismayed by the brazen ignorance and despicable malice displayed by many of his Parisian comrades-in-arms at the time.

“That was my first reality check,” he reflects. “These people I came to know looked at South Africa in a completely simplistic way.” Their perspective, in fact, was ludicrously “black-and-white”: that is to say, the Whites were brutal oppressors, and the Blacks were noble and righteous seekers of justice and liberation.

Roodt became irritated by such instances of typically leftist hive-minded groupthink, and he also began to resent how his home country got assailed with one economic sanction after another by country after country as the years rolled by. “Why should we be singled out for ignominy, when other countries have much worse human rights records?” he asked others at the time, never obtaining a satisfactory answer.

Then came the crucial turning point of his self-imposed exile from South Africa. In the late 1980s, Roodt was invited to meet with the cultural section of the African National Congress in a seminar set up by a certain left-wing “liberation theology”-minded church group in Germany. His experiences at this seminar led him to suspect that an ANC takeover would be disastrous to those of his ethnic and racial background.

“Even though I was still a trendy, liberal literary scholar, I felt a sense of rejection from the Blacks and Coloureds present,” he recalls. “That sent me thinking. On the way back from Germany, I realized that I couldn’t betray my own people to become one of these unreconstructed Communists.”

These days, Roodt is contemplating the best way to continue the struggle for Afrikaner self-determination. Among other projects, including forays into politics, he has alighted upon a (literally) novel concept: he is in the early stages of composing a science fiction manuscript, set on another planet in a distant future, that explains the contemporary clash of races in an allegorical sense. Through such an unusual format, Roodt said he hopes to open minds that are currently paralyzed by rigidly enforced PC dogma surrounding the issue of racial differences.

“I’m at the stage where I feel like I need to do something extraordinary to change people’s minds,” he says.

NEW HOMELANDS

Foremost among the goals of Roodt and others like him is to forge an authentic Afrikaner homeland, a place where the descendants of the historic “Boers” can feel safe and can be assured of their legitimate interests being protected.

Nearly everyone I speak with in Jo’burg and Pretoria said that they found the current state of things utterly untenable. Most fear creeping demographic disaster through massive emigration and low birthrates, continued economic disenfranchisement via relentlessly applied government-sponsored affirmative action and so-called land “reform,” and rising violence against their persons and property in the form of Black crime and terrorism.

Yet for all of the problems the 21st Century Afrikaner faces from without, his stubborn, individualistic streak hampers him from bonding with his kin and facing his enemies in a united front. An oft-heard, somewhat bitter joke I heard on several occasions from many sources, each independent of the others, runs thusly:

Q: What do you get when you put three Afrikaners on a desert island?

A: You get four different churches, and five different political parties.

Though there is much difference of opinion regarding which path to take out of the current quandary, there seems to be a general consensus that accepting the status quo indefinitely is a recipe for both individual and collective disaster, if not eventual ethnic extinction. Desperation hangs so thickly in the air that one can almost smell it. To many, it seems the future holds only the bleakest of prospects. Several hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners have emigrated from their home country to other places in the world since 1994—and even earlier, when the proverbial writing was on the wall that the Apartheid-era government was in its death throes.

Yet while many have left the country (and the continent) for such distant destinations as New Zealand, Australia, England, Canada, and the United States, and others have retreated within their heavily fortified homes behind barbed-wire fences and electric gates, hoping for the best while steeling themselves for the worst, a relatively small number of contemporary Afrikaners have opted to pursue a radical, risky, but potentially more rewarding course of action. Some, that is, have staked their hopes on the prospect of seceding from the current wreck of a “Rainbow Nation,” and constructing a kind of Boer ethno-state in its very midst, with the intention of reclaiming their genetic and cultural self-determination, and saving the Afrikaner identity from dilution and eventual extinction.

Currently, two such communities exist, though there is talk of more attempts to be launched in the near future.

KLEINFONTEIN

Kleinfontein is essentially a Pretoria suburb, located near “Diamond Hill,” the site of a legendary battle in the Anglo-Boer War. Orania, which has garnered much more national and international attention, can be found along an unassuming country road in the arid karoo of the Northern Cape. Both towns are 100 percent Afrikaner in ethnic composition, and the traditional Afrikaans language—an intriguingly uber-guttural tongue sometimes described as “bastard Dutch”—is proudly spoken and fiercely promoted.

The short-term game plan of both Kleinfontein and Orania, of course, is to peacefully coexist with the South African governmental powers-that-be, not to brashly declare themselves inheritors of a new nation, as if spoiling for a fight. One gathers, however, that the leaders of both communities are keeping a sharp eye on social and political trends and measuring their prospects for political independence in the near future, should present cultural deterioration continue apace.

Needless to say, the greater the peril that Afrikaners feel themselves to be facing in their day-to-day lives, the more attractive such radical living options will start to appear, and the more Afrikaners flock to places like Kleinfontein and Orania, the harder it will be for such communities to avoid being seen as dangerously insubordinate hotbeds of rebellion against good “Rainbow Nation” values. For now, however, both towns are basically left alone.

Kleinfontein is a fascinating and impressively-conceived, if dusty and somewhat hardscrabble little place, full of winding dirt roads and rambling country houses, protected by a pair of guards and a checkpoint at the entrance. A statue of Hendrik Verwoerd—former South African prime minister and fervent Apartheid organizer and promoter—stands at the center of the town square.

Verwoerd, who was brutally stabbed to death by a crazed Coloured man in the House of Assembly in Cape Town back in 1966, is an object of veneration to residents of both Kleinfontein and Orania, though both communities heavily reject the man’s policy of mandating racial segregation by law, if for no other reason than that it wound up making the Afrikaner spoiled and “soft,” reliant on other ethnicities to cook his food, clean his house, tend his garden, and otherwise perform his menial tasks.

The insistence that the Boer people need to relearn self-reliance was a constant refrain, one I heard emphasized by nearly everyone. One particularly mordant joke manages to reference both the fear of Black crime and apprehension that the modern-day Boer has lost the hardy, self-sufficient will that so characterized his intrepid Voortrekker ancestors:

Q: Who is an Afrikaner today?

A: Someone who’d rather get murdered in his bed than make it himself.

Kleinfontein’s founders hold that Gauteng is the most opportune province in which to establish a new Boer homeland, as the greater Pretoria region remains the place most heavily populated by self-identified Afrikaners. Still, even in Gauteng, the percentage of Afrikaners is quite low with respect to the general population. Country-wide, recent estimates are that Whites make up only 9 percent of the current population of South Africa—that is to say, around 5 million people in a country of over 50 million citizens (with the untold numbers of non-White illegal immigrants pouring in daily through the porous northern border, rendering the Whites of the country even more racially outnumbered). Of that five million, it’s estimated that around three-and a half million are of Afrikaner descent—the rest being chiefly British. With such dwindling minority status, Afrikaners zealous to maintain their heritage must take particular precautions.

ORANIA

With this perilous situation in mind, the founders of Orania planned ingeniously. They purchased land in the Northern Cape adjacent to the Orange River in the late 1980s, in sparsely populated country. Hendrik Verwoerd took pains during his lifetime to insure that the dry land in this area be irrigated; upon Orania’s establishment in 1991, its residents immediately began raising various crops and readying them for “export” to the rest of the nation, as well as to the world.

Today, Orania has grown impressively prosperous through sales of pecan nuts, alfalfa, wheat, maize, olives, apricots, and peaches, as well as through the manufacture of a diverse array of homemade products from jewelry to bricks to coffins. The population of Orania began quite small, but has grown incrementally through the years—now there are over a thousand residents, and many others who plan to move there in the future once they obtain the means and can obtain local work.

Kleinfontein and Orania are around the same size, but perceptions of late are that Klienfontein has stagnated somewhat, while Orania looks to be poised for ever-greater growth and development. It is difficult to tell if such perceptions are based on anything solid, or are merely indications that Orania’s founders and backers have run a cannier—and more ambitious— PR-campaign. In any case, I determine that my investigation of the current state of the Afrikaner nation would be incomplete without paying a visit to these mysterious and strangely alluring Oranians. I call ahead, book a room at a humble, rustic inn, rent a car, and one morning undertake my own “Great Trek” of sorts to a largely undiscovered country, seldom seen by American eyes.

MY ‘GREAT TREK’ TO ORANIA

The 350 mile drive from suburban Johannesburg to Orania proves to be exhausting. Partly this is due to the typical psychic discombobulation that inevitably ensues when a born-and-bred American driver suddenly has to get used to piloting a car with the steering wheel on the right hand side of the car instead of the left, and of having to stick to the left-hand side of the road, rather than the right.

But other factors don’t help, either. For one thing, even in the Jo’burg suburbs one is constantly set upon by vendors hawking their wares—newspapers, pamphlets, maize stalks, and all sorts of worthless knickknacks—at every stoplight. Occasionally beggars get into the act; there is indeed a strikingly formal manner to African-style begging—they cup their hands together, as if in prayer, and bow their heads humbly to you, looking as pitiful as a sinner before an angry deity. You learn early on to wave them away with a firm gesture of determined disinterest, scrupulously avoiding eye contact all the while.

Then there are the roads themselves. Major South African roads look like American freeways around the cities, but once you get further out, they begin to more closely resemble lesser-used and less-well kept American state highways, complete with potholes and sudden detours into desultory little towns full of cracked plaster and strewn rubbish.

Taking to the road in South Africa can be a challenge
The signage is often confusing, as well; for a while, I follow an arrow on a sign which seems to point towards the continuation of the road I want, but it actually steers me directly into a filthy, poverty-ravaged township. (When the road turned into dirt, I decide I must have misunderstood the where that arrow indicated that I go; I promptly whip a “U-ie” (as they call such a maneuver around here) and find, after returning to the spot of the mistake, that the place I needed to turn was just after the road I’d mistakenly taken.

Hopping onto the N-12 outside of Jo’burg, I then pass through Potchefstroom, then proceed south through Warrenton and Kimberley, in whose dingy city center I temporarily lose the trail again. I have to turn several more U-ies before I regain sight of the N-12; once again, I have been thrown off by ambiguous signage in the midst of a dizzying series of twilit intersections. I pause to purchase a “Zinger Burger” from a roadside KFC (the most popular American fast food chain in this country), and once more head south towards Hopetown.

Hitting this lonely stretch in the gathering dusk, I soon find myself utterly in the dark for a good couple of hours. Here in the karoo, the semi-desert terrain of the Northern Cape, towns are scarce, and this once major highway has essentially become a ragged country road. I grip the wheel, put my brights on when possible, and remind myself to “stay to the left, stay to the left, stay to the left.” Occasionally trucks pass from the other direction with a zoom and a whoosh, and I briefly hyperventilate at the friction of what seems to be a near-sideswipe. Finally, at Hopetown I turn left on N-396 and in forty kilometers, at 10 p.m. I arrive in Orania, where it appears the entire town has gone to bed.

MY ORANIAN ODYSSEY

John Strydom, the kindly if insistently industrious public relations officer of the town, escorts me through the rows of charmingly austere little houses and up a small hill, to where my accommodations have been prepared in a row of rooms still largely under construction. The wind whips madly through the lonely brush as I grab my suitcase and stagger into my spare but clean little suite, overtired and a bit grumpy and frazzled from the arduous trek I’ve just completed. Unlike the original Voortrekkers, I haven’t had to ride in a creaky ox wagon or fight off Zulu impis, but I still feel worn out and down for the count. I sleep well into the morning, but a buzzsaw from a nearby construction site provides a jarring wakeup call.

For the next three days, I explore Orania, talk with its residents and representatives, and take in the sights and sounds. Having arrived with no consciously preconceived notions, I find myself surprised just the same. It seems, in many ways, a very ordinary country town: clean, safe, possibly even a little bit dull.

Indeed, those seeking evidence of a weirdly sinister right-wing neo-Nazi cult in Orania are sure to emerge disappointed. I find the place fairly well bursting with friendliness and pleasant vibes. One is struck, in fact, by just how normal these people seem. They aren’t “freakishly” normal, in a 1950s Leave It to Beaver kind of way; they don’t look like they’ve emerged from any sort of a time warp or temporal anomaly out of a Twilight Zone episode; they don’t dress in ostentatious Victorian garb like characters in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, nor are they clad in unflattering prairie dresses and long patriarchal beards like dwellers of some unsavory polygamous settlement in the heart of rural Utah.

Instead, the Oranians wear contemporary clothes, sport modern hairstyles, listen to rock music and watch Hollywood movies. At the same time, they also seem focused on remaining apart from the larger society—indeed, it may be said that they practice a kind of voluntary “apartheid,” dedicated to “separate development” of a sort. Moreover, nearly all Oranians seem to be quite religiously observant, though not all belong to the same church. Many are Dutch Reformed, the historical Calvinistic faith of the Afrikaner nation; others are members of the Nederduisch Hervormede Church or the Gereformeerde Church, the more traditional-minded and austere versions of the DRC; still others are members of various conservative “house churches.”

But whichever church body they call home, the Oranians agree to disagree on certain matters of theological doctrine and pull together around issues they view as crucial to their contemporary survival. And they feel that they can only ensure their survival and the continuance of their beloved traditions if they unite around a common vision of the polity, one that lays emphasis on both culture and ethnicity.

There is much gloom and doom among Afrikaners today regarding their prospects for the future, but the architects of the Orania project seem to grasp instinctively that a message of grim, militant pessimism doesn’t sell well. The Orania campaign, thus, is to accentuate the positive. Posters around the town sing of Orania as a “dream come true.” The most prominent promotional photograph depicts five pretty, long-legged young girls, each clad in orange, leaping joyously into the air, alongside the perky proclamation “Welcome To Orania!”

The poster communicates youthfulness, vitality, innocence, even a kind of subtle (if wholesome) sex appeal. It causes the viewer to consider the town, not as a bitter refuge-spot for dead-enders, but as a fun place, where one can live free from care and dwell happily with one’s brethren, and maybe meet a potential wife or husband. And the pitch seems to be working: many do come to Orania, if only to stay temporarily. In addition to its export business of crops and commodities, around 30 percent of Orania’s draw comes from the tourist industry. There is a fancy spa and a chalet-style motel, and an upscale restaurant overlooking the Orange River, along with a camping site. Guests commonly spend a night or two in the middle of a trip to or from Cape Town to relax and recharge. Thus, news of the existence and mission of Orania continues to spread via word of mouth.

The overwhelming majority of the people I meet in Orania prove to be welcoming and warmly accommodating. The fact that I’m an outsider (“uitlander”), that I don’t speak the language, and that I’m there in the capacity of a journalist would all seem to be strikes against me. Orania has seen its share of newspaper and magazine writers over the course of its 20 year existence, and needless to say, most reporters have been of the “smirking liberal” variety—the type who are friendly and sympathetic to your face, take advantage of your sincerely offered hospitality, then proceed to write cruelly nasty articles about you. Despite the fact that the Oranians have no real reason to trust me, most are open with their thoughts, and only a rare specimen here or there seems in any way suspicious of my motives.

SEBASTIAAN OF ORANIA

Perhaps the most interesting person I speak with during my stay in Orania is a shy, retiring, rigorously intellectual 36-year old man named Sebastiaan Biehl. One would normally expect a man of his cerebral bent to be found in academia; in Orania, however, he works as a real estate agent. Biehl is an “uitlander” who, one might say, has gone native. He is from Germany, but he has found his calling, to dwell among the Afrikaners—one might even say he is an Afrikaner convert of sorts.

Sebastiaan Biehl
When I ask to confirm that he is German, he answers, “Yes, I was, originally.” But he now considers himself a thoroughly naturalized Afrikaner; he speaks Afrikaans as a first language, and has even published a novel, entitled Beslissing In Die Karoo, in Afrikaans. Biehl’s journey began two decades ago, when he began to correspond with a pen pal who lived on a farm in the Free State province. When he visited in the summer of 1992, he said, it had the effect of a “revelation.” Indeed, after working on his friend’s farm for a couple of months, he had the sensation of finally having found his place in the world.

“I felt like I had come home,” he recalls.

As a solitary, thoughtful lad, Biehl had long felt alienated from contemporary European mores. The erosion of faith in an increasingly secularized society had led, in his observation, to a culture that had grown “cold and immoral,” rife with social ills. Among the Afrikaners, Biehl says, he discovered “a deep-seated conservatism of the hearty sort,” and at the same time he experienced “a rebirth or a rejuvenation of faith.” When he returned to the country of his birth, he came to perceive ever more clearly that he didn’t belong there.

“I saw Germany with new eyes,” he recalls. “I found it superficial and materialistic and hectic and… godless. I couldn’t wait to get back to South Africa again. There was a feeling of freedom there, of wide open spaces. It was like stepping back in time.”

He went to college at South Africa’s Free State University in 1996, earning a degree in Political Science with a focus on History and Politics. Along the way, he changed his first name, adding an additional “a” to his given name of “Sebastian,” in the Afrikaner style. After college, Biehl settled in Bloemfontein, and then in 2005, after much soul searching, he opted to take up residence in Orania. He took a job as a realtor, though it had little relevance to his collegiate training, because he wished to choose a profession in which he could help his adopted hometown to grow and expand.

Biehl says he has absolutely no regrets about his radical lifestyle makeover. Though certain traits still mark him as an “uitlander”—he is, for example, a Lutheran in a community of Calvinists—he couldn’t be happier than to dwell exactly where he does. “Orania will always be where my roots are,” he says. “You have to pay a price if you want to be free.

I have business in Gauteng before I return to the States, so I leave Orania behind on an early Sunday morning while everyone’s at church, winding my way back to suburban Jo’burg. I opt, however, to spend an evening in the city of Bloemfontein to see the Women’s Monument, a site first christened in 1913, dedicated to the remembrance of the women and children who were rounded up by the British during the Anglo-Boer War and dispatched to concentration camps, where many thousands starved to death.

The main fixture of the site is heart-grabbingly powerful (see above). Before a massive obelisk, on a platform ten feet above the ground, there are three sculpted figures: a young woman bears a dead child in her arms, a desperately forlorn look upon her face; she is flanked by a middle-aged woman, who gazes into the distance stoically.

As I stand at the foot of this statue, I find myself tearing up a bit; the simultaneous torment and determined endurance on the faces of the two stone women somehow says everything one needs to know about the horrors of “total” war and its dreadful victimization of the innocent. During the Anglo-Boer war, the British resorted to horrifying atrocities in order to achieve domination over the scrappy Afrikaners; they slaughtered livestock, burned down farms, and doomed helpless civilians to sure, agonizing deaths. They weren’t the first ones to do such things—Generals Sherman and Sheridan, under the command of Abraham Lincoln, decimated the American South in much the same manner half a century before. Nor was the British army the last to go “scorched earth” on its enemies, as all familiar with the bitter history of 20th-century warfare, and the hardly less horrifying first decade of the 21st century, can attest.

But one cannot escape the sense that the British establishment of concentration camps represents some massively significant betrayal of ostensibly humane and “civilized” Western values, regardless of which side, the Brits or the Boers, had the more legitimate claim to political control over the Orange State and the Transvaal back in 1899. The Afrikaners suffered horrendously in this war, in manifold ways: physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Anger and bitterness for the wounds they endured at the hands of the British, in fact, still fester viciously to this day, over a century later.

THE VOORTREKKER MONUMENT

Three days after viewing the Women’s Monument in Bloemfontein, I visit another important Afrikaner landmark, and I once again find myself emotionally shaken, moved beyond measure for reasons I barely understand. The Voortrekker Monument sits atop a hill in the outskirts of Pretoria.

It is an imposing, cathedral-like edifice— somewhere near 130 feet tall—which can be viewed from a vast distance. In some ways, the Voortrekker Monument is the architectural antithesis of the Women’s Monument. Completed and christened in 1949, it celebrates a major victory for ascendant Afrikanerdom just as the Women’s Monument commemorates the horror and humiliation of an ignominious defeat.

The year before the construction of the monument, in 1948, the Afrikaner-favored National Party, led by D.F. Malan, defeated Jan Smuts, long-standing incumbent prime minister of the British-led United Party. A half century after losing the Anglo-Boer War, the Afrikaner had at last seized the upper hand and taken control.

Afrikaners tend to view Malan’s electoral triumph of 1948 the same way that most of today’s Black population sees Mandela’s ascension to the South African presidency in 1994: it was a moment, following a great, decades-long struggle, in which they finally won what they felt to be their birthright. Crucial in building this victory was a canny campaign to celebrate the heroic valor of the Boer Voortrekkers of the previous century, who under the leadership of Andries Pretorius, won what they felt to be a miraculous victory over far-superior Zulu forces at Blood River in present day Kwazulu-Natal on December 16, 1838.

Prior to the battle, the Voortrekkers had suffered several terrible defeats on the veldt at the hands of Dingaan Zulu’s mighty army, including a notorious “sucker-punch” ambush in which Dingaan invited Piet Retief and various other Voortrekkers to his camp under the auspices of signing a peace treaty, before directing his troops to torture and massacre the unarmed White men. Following this grievous incident, Zulu warriors conducted numerous destructive attacks on Voortrekker laagers, killing around 500 men, women and children.

Reeling with grief, and facing the prospect of impending utter extinction, the bedraggled camp of devoutly Christian pioneers led by Pretorius turned to prayer. On December 9, they took a vow, declaring before heaven that if God granted them victory in the coming battle, they would forever commemorate the date. A week later, on December 16, the ragtag 480 Afrikaners turned away a fiercely invading force of Zulu impis numbering somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000, killing over 3,000 of their enemy and suffering not a single casualty in the process. It was afterwards hailed as Geloftedag, or “Day of the Vow.”

Geloftedag is still a holy day in the traditional Afrikaner calendar, a day to remember the bravery and dedication of one’s ancestors, as well as being a time to give thanks to the Almighty for his manifold blessings. It is like Thanksgiving, Veteran’s Day, Passover, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one: a time for unabashedly celebrating one’s national and ethnic heritage, while also engaging in solemn, sober spiritual reflection.

Geloftedag services are held in churches, parks, and other locations across the country, but the Voortrekker Monument is the largest and most publicized of all such venues. The building itself is an extraordinary enough place to investigate even on a quiet day. One ascends its massive staircase and walks along the length of its impressive exterior, scrutinizes its high stone walls flanked by massive statues of bearded Boers holding huge rifles, and one is filled with a sense of awe, as well as a kind of terror.

This is a structure designed to intimidate; there is an undeniably brutal quality to its beauty. If the Voortrekker Monument had a voice, it would be low, loud, and thunderously threatening. It is the sort of building that Leni Reifenstahl would have loved to use as a set piece. To call it an example of “Fascist architecture” may be misleading, since ideological affinities between National Party-led South Africa and Nazi Germany are quite tenuous, for reasons already mentioned. Still, just as the National Socialists in Germany chanted “Seig Hiel” at their rallies, the Voortrekker Monument unashamedly demands that we “hail” a glorious “victory” for the Afrikaner tribe in South Africa.

THE MIRACULOUS DEFEAT OF DIGNAAN ZULU AT BLOOD RIVER

If one objects that everything seems crudely simplistic and shamelessly triumphalist in tone, it could reasonably be retorted that all sites dedicated to national accomplishments and ideals—from Mount Rushmore to Trafalgar Square to the Arc de Triomphe—share this characteristically unselfconscious “hurray for our side” spirit of chauvinistic bravado.

Today, of course, in our politically correct “post-colonial” age, historically White nations are discouraged from indulging in such sentiments, thus lending the Voortrekker Monument a rather delicious air of ripe, forbidden fruit. The majestic interior contains a marble frieze which runs across the wall from one side to the other—a pictorial history is presented of the Voortrekker movement. We see the Boers leave the Cape and escape British tyranny to forge a destiny for themselves in the wilds of a savage and untamed continent. We see Piet Retief’s disastrous—and fatal—mistake of attempting to make peace with the double-dealing Dingaan. We witness Zulu impis preparing to kill Afrikaner women and children; the Black warriors brandish their spears before helpless throngs of terrified Whites. One old woman holds a baby in the crook of her left arm while she reaches out with her right hand and grasps the muscular arm of a Zulu; she looks up at him beseechingly, but he glowers back at her with pitiless hatred. A boy tries to shield his younger sister from attack by putting his little arms over her head; another boy picks up a musket dropped by his dead father, and takes aim at his attackers, thus presaging the ultimate triumph of frontier gumption and divine will in the miraculous victory of Blood River.

The final scene in the frieze is, indeed, a depiction of this famous battle, in which the embattled Boers routed an army 20 times their size. For a people that now view themselves as outnumbered and existentially imperiled, every day losing ground to their enemies, the contemplation of such an incredible past triumph must inspire the same sort of pride and reverential longing that an observant Jew must feel when he ponders the notion of the Red Sea parting at Yahweh’s command, saving the Israelites from certain doom.

DAY OF THE VOW

On Friday, December 16, 2011, I attend Geloftedag ceremonies at the Voortrekker Monument. It is a bright, brilliant day, and by 8 a.m., a large crowd has already gathered. Once more, as at Orania, I am struck by just how un-striking the gathered throng appears. Most are dressed in semi-formal attire, as one would for church, but many more wear jeans, shorts, and sneakers. Very few sport 19th-century period costumes, which is a bit of a disappointment. . . I’d expected to run across some colorful, brash, outspoken, feisty characters, but for the most part, this crowd just seems like a lot of orderly, peaceable, well-behaved White folks. I would almost call them “innocuous.” Aside from the penchant of many children to go barefoot (a unique Afrikaner cultural phenomenon) and the prevalence of the Afrikaans language, these people could be amiable, mild-mannered suburbanites sitting beside me at an Atlanta Braves game at Turner Field.

Still, the fact that so many of them went out of their way to attend this event must be important, and it’s quite possible that I, an ‘uitlander’ who doesn’t speak the language, am missing something. The people pack into both levels of the building, while some find shady places to sit outside; led by a keyboard player and a cantor, the crowd duly sings patriotic songs and Christmas carols from a shared program.

A smiling minister delivers a sermon in a friendly, personable manner—an Afrikaner friend later tells me that he emphasized the importance of acting for the glory of God, not out of a desire for personal gain. Though this pastor related his message to the Blood River battle and its aftermath, the content of the homily still sounds like standard evangelical boilerplate, like something one might hear delivered by some blandly handsome young preacher at a Baptist megachurch in heartland America. It somehow seems like a “lite” version of Afrikanerdom, a watering down of the fierce, uncompromising spirit which built this edifice over half a century ago.

But just as I began to fret that the Boer cause may have been rendered utterly toothless by modernity, I found myself witness to a moment of real, almost elemental power, which convinced me otherwise. Of course, this moment has to wait until all of the singing, and the speechifying, has ceased. Afterwards, the crowd gathers around a cenotaph, or plaque, located in the middle of the bottom floor. Some lean over the railing of the floor above, and peered downward. On the cenotaph reads the words “Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika” (“We for you, South Africa”).

As the noontime hour approaches, a beam of sunlight shines through a strategically carved hole high above our heads in the roof of the Monument; the crowd buzzes excitedly as the circle of sunshine makes its way along the floor, before finally alighting on the cenotaph at exactly 12:00. Then the crowd suddenly stands, and in lusty, full-throated voices, belts out “Die Stem van Suid-Afrika,” the former national anthem of South Africa prior to 1994:

From the blue of our heaven

From the depths of our sea,

Over our eternal mountain ranges

Where our cliffs their answer give

We will answer to your calling,

We will offer what you ask

We will live, we will die, We for Thee, South Africa!

Following this impromptu performance, the crowd gives a hearty cheer, then several parents send their children to pose in front of the sunbeam as they take photographs. People are still standing in a circle, facing one another, and I feel myself in some ways witness to a nation facing itself, wondering what comes next.

It is grand and glorious to sing together, as if with one voice, of giving one’s life for one’s country, but what does one do when the song ends, and one recalls that his country, in essence, no longer exists?

It is a dire question that many in Europe and North America will no doubt be asking themselves in the coming years. Due to his immediate circumstances, the Afrikaner feels urgently compelled to ask it now. Whether he ultimately succeeds or fails to find the correct answer, we will find much to learn from observing the various steps he is currently taking to attempt to secure a proper homeland for himself and his children.

And if he actually manages to triumph, against all odds, and again emerges victorious, as his ancestors did at Blood River, then unreconstructed Westerners will find in the study of the Afrikaner’s present struggles an invaluable treasure, an ace that we can keep in the turbulent times ahead.

Andy Nowicki
https://substack.com/@andynowicki

Thursday, June 18, 2026

"They Look Like People": the horror of male loneliness. An extraordinary film about fear, failure, and friendship


In Perry Blackshear’s extraordinary and criminally overlooked 2015 film They Look Like People, two young men desperately attempt to stave off despair and the terror of relentlessly-encroaching psychic obliteration.

They Look Like People could almost pass for “mumblecore,” considering its brevity (a mere 79 minutes), its emphasis on character-driven, often improvised dialogue, its miniscule budget, and its no-name cast. Yet unlike most mumblecore fare, where the operative aesthetic is the very absence of aesthetic, They Look Like People looks and feels deeply cinematic. It bathes the viewer in fear and dread, through the use of grotesque visuals, frightening sound effects, and ominous voiceovers, creating a sense of rising tension and growing apprehension.

Though They Look Like People came out well before the “male loneliness epidemic” became a cultural touchstone, the film is a startlingly apt harbinger of this social crisis. Its two protagonists, Wyatt (MacLeod Andrews) and Christian (Evan Dumouchel), both lead lives of quiet desperation, albeit in very different ways.

Christian was once engaged to a girl named Kat, who appears to have left him recently. He now lives alone in a tiny city apartment on a desultory, nondescript street and works a dreary, nondescript corporate job. In spite of, or perhaps because of these unfortunate circumstances, Christian has passionately embraced a “self-improvement” ethos, and is determinedly willing himself to be optimistic about his future. He works out at the gym, and regularly listens on headphones to audio segments in which a sensual female voice tells him:

“You are a mountain. You are a hundred miles high. You are invincible. You are forever. You are an ocean. Weapons, swords, and knives all flow through you like nothing. You encompass the entire world in your depth. You are a fire. All that your enemies place in your way— betrayal, lies, poison— you devour and become stronger. You are unstoppable, you are holy, you are terrible.

Christian is convinced that he has turned a corner, and become a new man, one who is unafraid to pursue what he wants, one who is truly “dominant.” Yet it is obvious that in many ways, he remains painfully insecure. His efforts to flirt with his attractive work supervisor Mara (Margaret Ying Drake) are often awkward and ineffectual, in spite of Mara’s obvious reciprocity of interest.

Wyatt, on the other hand, faces an even more challenging— one might even say, harrowing— set of circumstances. Like Christian, Wyatt has seen a long-term committed relationship come to a painful end. While it isn’t clear who left whom, Wyatt believes that his ex-girlfriend, Hannah, has transformed into a hideous demon.

In fact, Wyatt has lately come to the conviction that a broad swath of humanity are being taken over by evil beings bent on humanity’s destruction. Not only has he seen it happen, he is getting terrifying phone calls in the wee hours of the morning, in which voices are warning him that the situation has grown dire indeed:

“Trust no one. Trust was no longer an option, once we discovered them. They were at Jericho. They surrounded the temple of Solomon. They were at Golgotha. They were once few, now they are everywhere. Their disguises have begun to fail; this is how we know they must strike soon. Even before you were one of the blessed, who could sense them, you knew they were out there. Suddenly they were right next to you. That is not a soldier with a gun, that is evil. That is not your co-worker, that is a demon. That is not a human, not a neighbor, not a lover, a brother, a mother, a father, a wife. That is a monster. That is your enemy. And that is what you must be ready to destroy.”

(Note: though many reviewers have assumed that Wyatt suffers from schizophrenia, it is important to note that the film never conclusively weighs in on whether his disturbing visions are hallucinatory or real.)

The ominous voiceover heard by Wyatt parallels, both in tone and treble, the hypnotic self-affirmations that Christian hears. Both men are enraptured by the voices that fill their minds; both are obsessed with the “mission” that each has been given. Though Christian is attempting the achievement of domestic dreams (“dominating” at work, finding a wife, having children), Wyatt is preparing for the commencement of all-out apocalyptic mayhem, but both are locked into their own private worlds… until the two men unexpectedly run into one another.

********************

By coincidence, or perhaps providentially, Christian one day sees Wyatt walking down a street near Christian’s apartment, and rushes up to greet him warmly. The two, we soon discover, are pals from boyhood, though they have been out of touch for a while. Wyatt is uncomfortable at first— he has only come to the city to see if a doctor he knows could possibly help with his condition— but he eventually agrees to spend a few days with his old friend.

After Wyatt accompanies Christian on an awkward would-be double date gone wrong, the two manage to reform their old bond. One night they hang out together, drinking, goofing off, and reenacting silly, long-forgotten childhood games. We begin to perceive that these two men share a deeply-rooted bond.

These moments of humor and levity, strangely, don’t seem out of place or tonally jarring, even in a movie that’s mostly a slow descent into deepening disquietude and alienation; in fact, Christian and Wyatt’s willingness to trust one another in spite of everything they think they know to the contrary, is what ultimately redeems the film’s otherwise grim proceedings.

*****************

Disaster eventually strikes for both protagonists. For Wyatt, of course, it has long been a foregone conclusion that the end is nigh; he has been preparing for such an eventuality for a while. Christian, however, is caught utterly by surprise when his professional life suddenly implodes, for mysterious reasons which are never made clear to him. Given that he has been optimistically projecting a ever-improving future for himself, Christian finds himself reeling on the ropes, like a prizefighter who has been sucker-punched.

Wyatt, meanwhile, is feverishly plotting how to respond to the start of open battle between the demon-parasite race and what remains of humanity. Over the last few days, he has witnessed numerous people, all of whom he thought he could trust, metamorphosing horrifically into monstrous entities. Now he fears the same thing happening to his boyhood friend, Christian, the one person in his life with whom he still feels a bond.

In the film’s final moments, the so recently demoralized Christian opts to put his faith in Wyatt, even though the latter seems increasingly unstable and his claims sound incredible. Wyatt, too, opts to have faith in Christian, even though everything he has experienced tells him to give up on his friend and consign him to oblivion.

It is a triumphant moment for both men, and a victory for humanity.

**************************

They Look Like People is almost impossible to categorize, genre-wise. It is equal parts horror, sci-fi, and paranoid thriller, with a bit of dark comedy thrown in for good measure. Though its “body snatchers” storyline is intense and riveting, the film is most moving in its depiction of Wyatt and Christian’s friendship, which endures against seemingly impossible odds, and redeems a lost, broken, despair-soaked world.

Andy Nowicki is the author of several books, most recently The Insurrectionist, Muze, and The Rule of Wrath, and now the shocking memoir The Secret Life of an Alt-Right ‘Operative.’

https://substack.com/@andynowicki

Weimar Germany vs Weimerica (bad vs worse)

 

Introducing "Esoteric 1933-ism

"Weimerica" is a term often used to describe the state of moral and spiritual degradation that has overwhelmed much of the West in recent years, with the United States being the undisputed leader of the Western world and the originator of its most nefarious and degenerate trends.

The referent to which it alludes is of course the Weimar Republic, a period in Germany which began after the catastrophic defeat of World War I in 1918, and remained in effect for 15 years, until it was brought to an end by the appointment of Adolf Hitler to the position of Chancellor in 1933.

The Weimar era was notorious for many things in Germany: economic upheaval, political instability, and a general collective psychic disruption due to living in the shadow of the catastrophe of the Great War. But the quality most often connotatively associated with Weimar is the onslaught of decadence.

Prior to the war, Germany was a staunchly conservative constitutional monarchy, which strictly held any public displays of impropriety in check. But after the chaos of late 1918 following the Kaiser’s abdication, the nation’s leadership was forced to sign the November armistice. That opened the floodgates: in the months and years to come, Germany was racked by chaos, turmoil, hyperinflation, and the sporadic sputter of attempted leftist revolutions. As a result, social mores were rapidly relaxed, and the results were often shocking, even horrifying.

Berlin proved to be the epicenter of much disreputable activity, which included but was not limited to the public flaunting of homosexuality, transgenderism, child prostitution, orgies, abortion, and other behaviors which had been forbidden just a few years prior. The nightclub culture of the period-- depicted so memorably in the 1966 Broadway musical "Cabaret" (later made into a movie in 1972)-- specialized in risque and ribald songs and dance numbers, which often openly celebrated aberrant sexuality.

Though some found the new openness “liberating,” it is fair to say that most Germans were not happy with this cultural shift. Yet, as with “wokeness” today, the bitter fruits of this largely unpopular societal transformation proved difficult to root out.

But what could one do? Times had changed. The war had been lost, Wilhelm II had slunk away into exile, his monarchy in ruins, the Versailles treaty had imposed humiliating restrictions on the German population, and a parliamentary democracy-- which nobody had really asked for-- had been installed. Tradition had been flung to the winds, but by whom, exactly, and to what end?

Germans largely felt, during this period, that their nation had been forced into a new phase by forces beyond their control. Changes had been imposed from above, not due to any settled consensus, and certainly not by "the consent of the governed."

***************************

Today in the West, we are faced with a similar situation. There is a sense of things spinning out of control, of our being ruled by unseen and largely unacknowledged forces who seem bound and determined to architect the degeneration of our societies. We are solemnly instructed to count ourselves fortunate not to live under despotic regimes like those that rule China or Russia, where human rights are not safeguarded as they are under Western "democracy," but this line, however superficially persuasive, quickly loses its flavor like chewed up bubblegum when one considers the disingenuousness of the sentiment.

It is true that the West has long enjoyed a higher standard of living than other parts of the world, and for the most part the rule of law obtains— insofar as late-night knocks on the door from the Stasi and coerced visits to the torture chambers of the Lubyanka, after you were overheard speaking ill of Party Comrade X whilst taking a cigarette break at the factory— don't generally happen here.

But an insidious "soft" totalitarianism (sometimes called "polite totalitarianism," though I resist this designation since I since nothing "polite" about it whatsoever) increasingly obtains in the West, whereby not conspicuously toeing the party line of the mandatory ruling ideology leads to the ruination of one's life, through the machinations of "soft" Stasi-like agents such as Human Resources commissars sniffing out objectionable internet content while antifa-affiliated "doxx" the addresses and job positions of intellectual deviants (and their family members). Before one knows it, one's use of Constitutionally-mandated freedom of speech to advance causes deemed “wrong” makes one effectively unhirable, and in some cases, deprived of a bank account.

It is true that dissidents in despotically-inclined non-Western countries generally have a harder time when it comes to facing imprisonment, torture, and other hardships from the state, but it is a sheer farce today to claim that Western countries' rulership work to protect their citizens' ostensible "human rights." As recent events have shown, it now not unusual for UK citizens to face jail time for posting "improper" tweets, and such brazen violations of free speech are the rule, NOT the exception, in Western countries today (the United States still remaining more "classically liberal" in at least this respect).

What is more, citizens of Western countries, which are, ostensibly "democracies," find themselves nevertheless constrained from being able to see their societal preferences met, if those preferences are trumped by the demands of oligarchic bodies, which wield inordinate power and seemingly cannot be vetoed, no matter how thoroughly disliked their edicts are.

The most glaring instance of this is the insistence of mass immigration, which, in tandem with an altogether apathetic disregard for the importance of border security, shows the contempt with which corporate and bureaucratic “elites” regard the well-being of the legitimate citizens of Western nations. It is considered “in bad taste” to draw attention to violence committed by illegal immigrants, and frowned on as “xenophobic” to emphasize the importance of protecting the border. But despite the best efforts of “nudge units” attempting to make people feel like reprobates for having common-sense perspectives regarding immigration (legal and illegal alike), a large number of the population still remain favorable to radical steps being taken to remove the “undocumented” population from the nation.

Even the Weimar authorities did not impose large numbers of cultural alien populations upon the Germans in the 1920s or early 30s. But those same authorities seemed unwilling to put a stop to the dismaying rise of cultural degeneracy spoken of above, a trend which tracks with Weimar going into effect in the first place and can be identified as one of its many disagreeable traits.

The conspicuous degeneracy of late-stage “Weimerica” is, of course, several times worse than that of Weimar Germany. There was nothing happening in Berlin that resembled “drag queen story hour,” nor did the Weimar period feature an actual campaign by establishment-affiliated medical professionals to convince parents to inject their children with hormones and mutilate their genitals, nor was it ever insisted that men pretending to be men should have access to women’s sports/spaces. Such contemporary outrages are, moreover, propped up by the corporate and bureaucratic establishment, who give billions of dollars to further these moral atrocities.

****************************************

Still, the parallels between Weimar and Weimarica are compelling enough to cause a person of traditional or simply “normal” beliefs and perspectives to earnestly wish for a “1933” moment, wherein an end is brought to all of this prevalent filth, and decency is finally restored. Whatever one thinks of Hitler or the National Socialist movement, they are at least to be credited for the decisive steps they took in 1933 to put a stop to Weimar forever.

May our own “1933” come soon!

Andy Nowicki is the author of several books, most recently The Insurrectionist, Muze, and Love and Hidden Agendas, as well as the just-published The Rule of Wrath.

https://substack.com/@andynowicki


The formation of a glad-cel - becoming at peace with the celibate life


I have taken no oaths; still, I am set upon celibacy for the duration

At the age of 54, having once been married, having fathered two now grown children, I have been lately experienced a nature-prompted diminution of the passions.

I find, in my late middle age, that the demon of lust has little dominion over me anymore.

I don’t mean to overstate things: sexual desire has not gone completely dormant, but it has decreased significantly. It was at one time a daily pest, if not an hourly one.

Now it only strikes on exceedingly rare occasions, and those moments, rather than lingering for an extended period of time, are instead usually over before I can even process their passing.

To be sure, it is not quite like being a pre-pubescent child again, when those of the opposite sex (save for my mother) played absolutely no role in my hierarchy of needs.

Girls at that time simply didn’t figure at all; it wasn’t that I had anything against them, but really, I have anything for them, either. Having to see a man and a woman kiss in a movie or on TV was absolute torment; it was grosser than gross to see, or even to think about, two people becoming physically intimate in any way.

I still recall how one childhood friend told me what was involved in the begetting of babies; he was basically right, although certain details were off (without getting graphic, none of us knew that girls had an additional hole in their nether region besides the one we were all familiar with). “When we get married, we have to do THAT!” my friend exclaimed, indignantly. Feeling a rising tide of disgust in my gut, I declared that I would never get married, and I meant it (at the time).

While my drive in late middle-age hasn’t retreated to pre-pubescent levels of utter dormancy, it would also be erroneous to understate the extent to which I am now no longer interested in sex. To be sure, I still understand the appeal of it, but I see no cause to go out of my way to try to obtain it. I can live perfectly well without it.

And on the rare occasions when I do happen to run across someone who stirs something up in my heart and/or loins, I am nevertheless held in check by a consideration of the dire state of contemporary womanhood, a controversial topic that I have seen fit to give some attention in these virtual pages lately.

What repels me most is the notion of having to encounter the requisite “shit test.” Even if my own generally senescent sexuality were to be roused enough to give someone a try, I would abandon (relation)ship the very first time she decides to treat me with blatant disrespect to see how I react. Likewise, I’ll jettison the affair as soon as she asks me a seemingly innocent question, then gets upset when I answer honestly instead of giving her the answer she wants (another form of the dreaded “shit test”).

****************************************************

Ironically enough, me breaking things off when put to the “shit test” would be, I suppose, a “correct” response, since it would signify that I “wasn’t taking her shit.”

My passing of her shit test would, however, result in her concomitant failure, since my shit test for her was for her to refrain from ever giving me a shit test. Since she would have failed in this regard, I would immediately exit stage left, without a shed of remorse. Neither subsequent pleas for forgiveness nor tears, regardless of how seemingly heartfelt, would sway me.

**************************************************

Of course, the scenario described above is a hypothetical one. It is predicated upon the idea of me still being wanted. Lest anyone labor under the delusion that I find this a likely eventuality, rest assured, I have no such exalted estimation of my own prowess.

But even if it turns out to be true that I am indeed unwanted— being old, bald and broke, as I am— that state of affairs would not mean that I fit the label of “incel.” Instead, I am a glad-cel: that is, one who is glad to be celibate, who revels in the peace of mind it brings me in my twilight years.

Andy Nowicki is the author of several books, most recently The Insurrectionist, Muze, and Love and Hidden Agendas, as well as the just-published The Rule of Wrath.

https://substack.com/@andynowicki

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

I have long harbored a conspicuous suspicion that I ought never to have come into existence in the first place

 

(...)

I feel, that is, ina sense “ready” to die. It is an altogether new sensation for me. I suspect that most people are graced with this disposition of resolute readiness much later in their lives, although many no doubt also come to this point quite a bit earlier than I have, and still others, to be sure, never reach this point, but always fear death’s inception, even when their end is most imminent. As for myself, in the interest of accuracy, I must admit that | cannot say for certain how I would react if I were actually brought face to face with the Reaper right now; I don’t know if I would quail and shake and beg anew for the life I had so recently felt I could do without. Perhaps, in truth, I cannot trust my newfound thanatos- thirst; it may be that, resolute though I feel, I may not possess all of the requisite resolution to “cease upon this midnight with no pain” or “shuffle off this mortal coil.” I should also clarify that anticipating and at times even wishing for death does not for me equate to contemplating suicide. Ending one’s life by one’s own effort is an entirely different proposition than finding oneself eager for the moment when one finally slips the surly bounds of earth, having at last gained true wings, to effect a complete and final departure from that which one knows... and loathes (familiarity with such trappings having bred a quite proper conviction of contempt).

Perhaps, in fact, I will still have to endure this fleshly cell for many more years to come. But I feel myself compelled to set down some “notes before death” just the same, to cast forth some fragments to buttress against the blight of my soul’s ruination. This work, indeed, must of necessity assume a fragmented form, because this collection of musings and observations is intended, in its humble way, to provide a sort of mediation on earthly existence, and incompletion is our lot in this life. We come from we know not where, we are thrust into this chaotic, carnal realm for a certain arduous span of time, during which we come to experience the violent truncation of joy, the forceful circumscription of bliss, the final corruption of sweet innocence, and the sorrowful transformation from vibrant sentience into degraded senescence. Were this earthly realm merely a place of torment, it would in some ways be more tolerable, since then it would never provide passing glimpses of delight, and we would then not have to endure the anguish of losing that which we loved and treasured, but which nevertheless fled from us, never to return.

In any event, a man’s assessment of his experiences can never be complete so long as he lives, since he cannot break the bars of his fleshly cage until that deathful climax, that occasion of an “awful daring of a moment’s surrender,” when he finally shakes off his flesh and breaks free.

And so notes composed before death (the only sort possible to compose, after all) can only take the form of jagged fragments, pieces of a greater puzzle which fail to fit together as an entirely coherent whole, but which still provide clues which, for the sensitive undertaker of ideas, beckon even as they baffle.

So this sojourner into the dusky depths of death proceeds with his task, at once knowing the hopelessness of it, but aware also that somewhere, in some purer realm, the whole he seeks to convey does indeed abide: non-truncated, unfragmented, rendered radiantly manifest; its jagged, festering blemishes stitched together and made whole. But before this light breaks forth, he must first fall through a great darkness: the darkness which he currently occupies, and which currently occupies him.

ALL WAS WELL, UNTIL IT WASN’T

I have long harbored a conspicuous suspicion that I ought never to have come into existence in the first place. Not that I ever had any say over the matter, of course. At least, I have no memory of an ante-existent “existence” where I can recall giving the expectant authorities the go-ahead to have me incarnated in a fleshly vessel and bundled away to this earthly inferno within which we all now languish. Nevertheless, according to some traditions, we all exist somewhere in a preborn state, and individual incarnation is a matter of willful volition. In such a perspective, we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t want to be, and we have no one to blame but ourselves if we don’t like it, since we knew the deal ahead of time, even if we promptly forgot about our foreknowledge.

Perhaps this is so. If it is, I can only observe that I must have known something then that I don’t know now, something that actually made the journey into earthly incarnation bearable, even worthwhile. If this scenario is actual, I hope someday to rediscover this originating conviction. What I suspect, however, is that I didn’t choose to come here, but rather was summoned forth, for some inscrutable purpose known to none but my Creator himself, and, that for equally undecipherable reasons, He chose to keep this discovery, as well as Himself, hidden from me.

To be sure, my emergence into the world gave joy to some—namely my parents and my extended family—not because of any especially endearing traits on my part, but simply because I was theirs. Once I squirted forth, I became a much-loved boy, a somewhat spoiled only-child happy to live largely in his imagination most of the time. And in these early years, I remained unaware of any misshapenness in my being, or of anything that would cause me any sense of dislocation with the universe that surrounded me.

Though admittedly an absent-minded lad who indulged heavily in elaborate daydreams, it didn’t strike me then that I was eager to escape from anything, not even boredom, and certainly not horror or tragedy. It wasn’t that I was unaware of pain and discomfort; at the time, I would mainly have associated it with the state of being sick with a fever, or a sore throat, or a stomach ache. Of course even illness had its attendant pleasures of mandatory relaxation and eventual recuperation. The sweetest moments I can recall were of being on the mend, still ailing enough not to feel any pressure to get off the couch, but nevertheless sure that my recovery was taking place and that in short order I’d be entirely well again.

Up to the age of 12, I can honestly say that I never suffered in the least from ennui, that malady which would alarm and distress me when | reached the threshold of adolescence. There was, I recall, never really anything to be bored with at this time, no possible reason to account myself “bored’; boredom simply never occurred to me as a possible scenario or outcome. Usually something interesting was going on around me somewhere, and if nothing of interest was happening, I could still always find some fascinating concept to ponder or satisfying sensation to meditate upon, even if it were a mere sense-perception, like the satisfying taste of a crispy, greasy piece of fried fish or the hearty warmth of a blazing fire in the living room hearth.

Simply existing, and being aware of the wonder of existence, was itself a kind of high. Pleasure back then came naturally, and when I speak of “pleasure,” | of course do not mean anything improper, untoward, or unseemly. Instead, my general state was a general state of comfortable equipoise. Of course, I don’t intend to imply anything exalted about my character or temperament as a child; like most children, I would occasionally sulk or pout if I didn’t get my way, but the point is that, at bottom, I felt safe, protected, and at peace. | never asked myself if I was “happy” —such a question would never have pierced my profoundly satiated child’s consciousness. My innocent, inborn hedonism was, in fact, tempered by a naturally calibrated moderation; though | wanted to have fun—and in fact, primarily lived for “fun” —I also instinctively knew, knew in my very marrow, that experiencing “fun” required keeping alive a sense of adventure, and that creativity was required in order to retain an aura of proper adventuresomeness always pulsing in one’s brain, and that creativity could only be maintained as long as one possessed a nimble, active, flexible mind, and that retaining an active mind necessarily militated against the intellectual lethargy that is the inevitable result of overindulgence.

To be sure, I didn’t think in such terms, not in the slightest, but the proposition nevertheless held true. As an infantilely instinctive Epicurian, then, my sense of enjoyment never corresponded with the commission of any bacchanal-esque escapades, or whatever would constitute a “bacchanal” for a child... Of course, I needed my parents’ stern rule to prevent me from eating too many sweets, and to get me to go to bed on time, and so forth—once more, I have no wish to assert that, as a boy, | was in possession of any sort of preternatural inclination to healthy, prudent moderation... except that, to some extent I truly did in fact retain an ease of restraint, and a inborn proclivity towards the “golden mean,” insofar as I was occasionally steered in that proper direction by my loving mother and father.

All was not well all of the time, of course—often little problems crept up here and there, as happens in even the most perfect of lives... still, in a profound, general sense, all was well. And all remained well for blissful years and years on end... until, without much warning, a fearful transformation occurred, and suddenly all became most emphatically not well.

AN EYESORE IN THE ARCHTECTURE

As has been extensively recorded elsewhere, things turned sour for me at roughly the time of my initiation into puberty. It was at this juncture that that I came to recognize that my previous impression of being at ease in the world had perhaps always been mistaken. Indeed, having become self-aware, I now saw that my very presence, when I dwelt with others, seemed to have the effect of making those others uncomfortable.

Increasingly, in fact, the distressing notion came over me that people would be much more at ease with one another if I weren’t around to muck up the works. My existence in itself seemed to be an inconvenience which caused them irritation and annoyance.

Had things changed, or had I changed? As long as I was ensconced in the sweet cocoon of childhood, I never reckoned myself an eyesore in the architecture, as it were. Then again, it never occurred to me to think of myself this way, so perhaps it was merely that my perceptive abilities had grown more acute. Yet when I peer at a photograph of myself at age seven, and compare it to one of me at age fourteen, I am struck by a transformation in countenance, one not attributable to mere natural changes. Instead, there is an unhappy absence where once there was a presence, and at the same time, a malignant presence where before had merely been an absence. In the earlier photograph, my face, while unsmiling, nevertheless lends an impression of dreamy, distrait bliss; one - obtains the sense of a child who knows that, should he fall, he will nevertheless be saved from harm.

The second photo, in which the subject betrays a tentative sort of grin, nevertheless evinces a budding aura of tragic disillusionment, as perceived from the perspective of one so new to being disillusioned that he does not feel at rest in the grip of its cold tentacles; instead, one senses that the young boy’s spirit throbs painfully between resolution and relapse, between the comfort of as-yet unwon despair and the agony of still-unkilled hope. It was the springtime of his youth, of course, and as the poet notes, springtime is the cruelest season, as it will not allow a boy simply to be alone with his newly-discovered grief, won't allow his consciousness to die to the world; it must instead torment him mercilessly with intimations of brazen optimism, whispers of a promised better tomorrow, considerations that, after all, in the words of the infernal Howard Jones, “things can only get better.” I could, however, never square these hopes with the reality which now pulsed so heavily through my perception. I was told that one day it would all make sense, that things would come together and reach rich fruition, that “before I knew it,” it would all coalesce properly, that “in the twinkling of an eye,” I would find that my overall state had, in fact, improved; I just needed to see things in the proper light. My temptation to be disillusioned was itself misinformed (so I was appraised); of course, they allowed, being as young as I was, it wasn’t surprising that I felt inclined toward such naive apprehensions ... but then, there really wasn’t any cause for me not to embrace the changes underway, both within myself and all around me. Change was good, they told me. I would become convinced of this eventually, in due time; I just needed to get some perspective on the matter. I’d find out, all right! (Here they would smirk a little at the racy and ribald implications of their forbidden knowledge, which they reckoned I’d soon discover, and which would be plenty compelling enough to get me to see things their way.) Soon enough, I’d uncover the wonderful truth, and when I did, I would again regain the happiness of my youth, in spades.

Oh yes, I’d “find out.” Boy, was I ever in for a delightful treat, once I finally grew up a bit and learned to accept what was happening to me, rather than always fighting it! These were the messages I was sent by my elders. And now, as an “elder” myself, I can testify unabashedly that my elders were, one and all, a bunch of smarmy fools. Of course most of them were no doubt quite guileless in spirit, in the main unconscious regarding the extent of their rhetorical skullduggery. That they didn’t know better, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that they shouldn’t have known better. Perhaps I am being too hard on them, but my severity is borne out of a very pronounced and definite sense of having been betrayed. After all, I trusted these fools, these speciously-informed, pseudo-wise, smirking, self-deceived, misinformed, irresponsible Pied Piping simpletons who fancied themselves counselors and relief-bringers.

I trusted them against my better self-judgment, trusted them in part because I wanted to believe their foolish lies. Yet at the same time, I somehow always knew the truth, even when I thought I’d convinced myself otherwise. I knew that things had changed irrevocably, and that change was in fact NOT good, at least not in this context, at least not as I had ever before understood the concept of “good.” To be sure, it may yet prove to be “good,” in the sense that all things supposedly turn out well, to those who subscribe to the notion of divine providence, wherein everything, desirable and undesirable, happens ultimately to benefit the victory of the-Good. But the changes that took place at the time were in fact of no good whatsoever, in any familiar usage of the term. No... change was plainly bad in this case. I suspected such at the time, but was implored to believe otherwise by authoritative forces; thus, out of seemingly called-for deference to authority, I refrained from mourning what should properly have been mourned, and instead trusted in my elders, only finding out later what I had truly known all along: that my elders were either deluded by or compliant in the corruption I rightly espied lurking behind their smarmy smirks.

REBUFFED

It was around this same period of time that I began to notice how my presence seemed to be a burden to others. I at times felt afflicted with the dreary conviction that it would indeed be better if I weren’t around, since when I asserted my identity it invariably caused discomfort. It sounds contrivedly angsty to declare such a thing, and I don’t blame any reader for feeling skeptical of so grandiose a claim, but I can still recall the arduous vividness with which this impression made itself felt at the time.

On various occasions, I would find myself caught up in what was-- by all accounts—a jovial conversation, involving a set of peers discussing one trivial subject or another. Over the course of these exchanges, my peers would fling forth witticisms, concoct bon mots, and dash off simple, unadorned observations, and each additional comment would be taken in stride by the rest of the group; whether it assumed the form of a dry query, a wry assertion, a glib rhetorical feint, or a bold and bawdy wisecrack, each participant seemed, in his own way, to be helping to buttress the overall structure, or meta-structure, of the thing being discussed. A sense of comradeship was being subtly achieved through the words that each contributor offered, each new remark acting as a new ingredient in the pot of delicious comradely fun being cooked up.

Yet when I chanced to say something, my words either went unheard or were ignored. After a few flailing attempts at becoming “part of the gang,” and each time being subtly but firmly rebuffed by all of its true members—never with overt mockery or outward expressions of contempt, but merely with a tactfully willed disregard, i.e., with everyone acting as if I weren’t truly present—I eventually slunk away, having taken the collectively-sent hint quite well.

FLAILURE

Presently, I managed simply to give up the ghost, to stop trying. But it took me some time to get to this point. At the inception of adolescence, I strove mightily, and rather pathetically, to include myself in the ranks of a proverbial “party” where 1) I wasn’t a member, and 2) I had never been invited. Eventually, however, I caught hold of the bitter truth, and realized that my place was elsewhere. Thus, I relinquished my once- perpetual proclivity to desperately wield those twin self-improvement instruments of hairbrush and hairdryer; I stopped cultivating the silly excuse for “fashion sense” that I had attempted to adopt upon earlier occasions. These things clearly weren’t for me, nor I for them. Yet with the distance of time, I find myself still slightly baffled concerning the fact of my exclusion.

For it was, indeed, a fact. There was no sentimentally mitigating interpretation possible. My status as a reject was in no sense “all in my head”; there had been no tragic misunderstanding; I wasn’t actually well- liked, but simply unaware of it, nor was it merely a case of me overlooking all of the many ways that my peers really treasured and adored me (though this was what my ever-optimistic would-be mentors tirelessly conveyed to me, and what I tirelessly attempted to believe). My alienated state wasn’t attributable to the fact that I had simply “not expended enough of an effort,” as my mentors tended to advise me, when they were in a slightly more severe, less indulgent mode... In fact, their message would vacillate with regularity, depending upon the degree of exasperation they felt with me, their inconsolably mopey, altogether hopeless charge. One day would find them insisting that I really wasn’t as alienated from everyone as I felt I was; but on the morrow their frustration would prompt them to launch into a lecture, wherein they would relIate the “tough love” lesson that if I feel alienated it was really my own fault—what I really needed to do was to TRY HARDER, to “fake it till I made it,” to refrain from acting so moody all of the time, to stop taking myself so seriously, to cease being so paranoid, to relax, to smile more, to be willing to make fun of myself, so that other people would see the wonderful person I was inside, to take care lest I become a self-fulfilling prophecy (“If you think you’re a loser who doesn’t fit in, then that’s all you'll ever be!”) and so forth... Hopeless! No, it wouldn’t do. I flailed against my fate; flailed ineffectually, and without result. I flailed on, and was only rewarded with a deep degree of what could well be called “flailure.” I flailed for weeks, months, years. I had in fact advanced well into my twenties before I ever left off my flailing routine, whereby my insides flopped around like a doomed, dying fish on a hard, dry surface, a being tragically ripped from the comforts of its true habitat. Yet I did not die, and the poisoned atmosphere which at first choked me somehow became my new, fitful home for what would prove to be the remainder of my life.
Indeed, I grew peculiarly habituated to conditions which by all accounts ought to have killed me. Yet it was a perverse adaptation, one which resulted in the spawning of an inwardly misshapen being, one which had learned to internalize the conflict which had previously battered and buffeted his soul from without. The resultant creature, staggering as from the wreckage of a terrible crash, should never even have lived an hour; his contradicting essential traits ought to have sabotaged one another immediately, causing a tragic but necessary stillbirth. I suppose, then, that one could consider it a “miracle” that I somehow escaped the clutches of oblivion; there was no reasonable explanation for why I ought to have emerged, body and soul intact, from such torment. Yet in adapting, I fear I may well have been complicit in a self-betrayal; that is to say, in choosing to adapt, rather than perish, I consigned myself to a far greater death, a kind of death-in-life. The very ghost I thought I had given up came back to haunt me.

THE IMPOSTOR

So contradictory have been my impulses that I have committed two acts I never could have imagined taking part in prior to giving up my ghost: that is to say, I have married... and I have reproduced.

These facts are particularly perplexing for me. I cannot fathom how such things could have taken place, given my general orientation to regard these and all such related activities as alien to my consciousness, and alienating to my sensibilities. And yet, I don’t view this unusual deveiopment as any sort of repudiation of the distinct convictions of my youth. My perspective, in fact, has little changed. I never was won over by my would-be mentors and their assurances that all would be well. In fact, all has not been well. In making this assertion, I am in no way expressing a repudiation of my wife or our children, whom I love dearly. In fact, I repudiate nothing—neither my nuptials, nor the births of my blessed kids—yet in pondering the oddity of having chosen this life, I conclude that the trajectory taken was one which could be categorized as “man bites dog”; indeed, it was a longshot that such a circumstance ever could have unfolded—something like a one in a thousand chance. In my case, that very “one” out of a thousand happened to be the one which was set into motion, and now, much to my shock and disbelief, I am a married man with two children.

How did I wind up in this position? It is inconceivable and inexplicable, but there it is. I have no compulsion to shirk my duties, yet I can’t help but feel myself to be a kind of fraud for having taken on that which I clearly was never meant to adopt. Indeed, my strongly-held impression as a youth was that I would remain celibate for the entirety of my life. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, though it was assuredly not reached due to any dearth of a sex drive. My appetite equaled or exceeded that of the average teenage boy, but unlike the average boy I instinctively saw the dangers lurking in heart-related affairs, and wished to have no part whatsoever in that ghastly business, even though my Joins certainly wanted every part of it. The price, to me, however, didn’t seem worth the alleged enjoyment of the experience.

As these matters are all discussed elsewhere (in my memoir Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker), there is no particular cause to redundantly reiterate them here. It seems, though, that a significant glitch took place somewhere in the warp and woof of reality, ultimately causing two new lives to enter the world. Yet my alienation from anything approaching the “normal” perspective on married life has always remained. There is still nothing “normal” to me about the state of being a husband and a father; even after having adopted these roles, | still cannot properly comprehend how I came to take on either one or the other, much less both. .

Perhaps it sounds startling and grandiose to you, good reader, that I should declare myself such a glaring exception to the rule, that I should indeed be a husband and a father, and yet a celibate at heart. I take my family responsibilities seriously, to be sure, and I have no shortage of affection for my wife and children (and yes, for those who must know about such matters, I do indeed have a carnal relationship with my wife), but there is still a general consciousness of being apart from others of my alleged “kind”; when I regard other husbands and fathers, I don’t think to myself: “There is another one like me!” Instead, at my essence, I am an unabashed acetic, even while I find myself inexplicably saddled with the trappings of a family man. This state of things cannot last, | am sure: my outer shell-- which resembles the guise of a “family man”- will surely crumble away from my spiritual body once I die and go to my reward, whatever reward that may be.

Indeed, though I have wound up engaged in the “worldly” pursuits attendant upon being a “family man,” (working to support my wife and children, doing the best I can to guide and assist my son and daughter to become happy, healthy, spiritually nourished, and morally scrupulous human beings), I also on many a day find myself looking upon myself with incorrigible incomprehension and bafflement, as one would regard a stranger who has somehow, by some disconcerting miracle, stepped into one’s own consciousness. Who is this impostor? How and why did he come to be here?

AFTER THE FALL

A great conviction has shaken me of late, familiar yet recently heightened in its intensity. This conviction has seized me in its grip with a harsh, violent, and terrible tenacity. It has so addled my perception that I cannot tell for certain if in fact this conviction is accurate, or if I have been put under the spell of some malignant delusion. But whatever may be the case, I must repeat the things that I discern. Readers may judge for themselves whether or not what I perceive is true, or if in fact I have been led astray. What I see, in part, is this: the complete degradation of human affairs is due to the permeation of carnality into every cranny and nook of our lived consciousness. An overripe, oversexualized age, with the spirit of eros run rampant and rendered spectacularly ghastly.

But I discern still more. Rightly or wrongly, erroneously or factually, I perceive that eros is, at its core, a destructive and degrading force. How it soaks us in all its slime! A more prudent age was at some level aware of this fact. It knew, of course, that, still and all, the vast majority of our species would still wish to partake in eros; nevertheless, it saw to it that the best among us would wish to do without this indulgence. The institution of celibacy, in all of its forms, exists because man saw that only in renunciation of the flesh could he find his way to his essential, purified self.

I know that this message jars at the ears of those indoctrinated into the current Zeitgeist, with its relentlessly enforced doctrine of “sex-positivity,” but I particularly perceive that one who has carnal relations has been “used up,” spoiled, and rendered morally hideous. Lest I be misunderstood, I don’t make this claim in what may be called a “misogynistic” context; I’m not talking of de-virginized women here as having an exclusive claim to the “used up” label. Indeed, though the hymen is an organ particular to the female sex, it is an apt universal metaphor—applying to males and females alike—for the very thing of which I speak; its rupture—that which is referred to in vulgar slang as “popping the cherry” —broadcasts the bloody-mess that is post-lapsarian life. The blood shed at the moment of penile penetration provides a poignant illustration of the horror of having been irrevocably degraded.

Not for nothing do we still refer to the initial act of coitus as a representing a “loss of innocence.” We intuit that sex is corruption from the very start, and no amount of social conditioning from our masters will remove this solidly fixed impression.

Yet even the older, more traditional mores of the previous dispensation still amounted to little more than whoremongering, ultimately, even if it was a more Subtle variety of that which is common today. Sex back then didn’t entirely permeate the culture, and its more deleterious effects were kept in check by still-prevalent force of traditional morality, but even the more innocent past was tragically soiled by the consequences of the Fall. The time of our corruption antecedes both the present and the past; there never was a time, in fact, when it was not, at least not one that lurks anywhere in our collective memory... and yet, we still somehow feel the irrevocable loss in our bones. And even if we were to regain the mores of the halcyon era, before the onrush of militant indoctrination into ever more malignant forms of degeneracy, we would still feel this loss.

Of course, it won’t do for a decently married man to see wedlock as merely a more sophisticated form of prostitution. Such a perspective demeans the perceived legitimacy of marriage—an institution which, as we all know, has already taken its share of knocks in recent years. However, I can’t help but view things the way they present themselves to me now. True enough: there are varying degrees of degradation, but sex within wedlock—the traditional norm—contains, as it were, the virus of corruption, even as it renders it less virulent and appalling in its effects. It does not, however, eliminate the degradation as a thing in itself. Of course, I am not suggesting that we should strive to eliminate it, since such quixotic crusades-- which attempt to extinguish entirely that which, for better or worse “comes naturally”—are almost guaranteed to cause more mischief than they are meant to curtail. No: eros is a force that can perhaps be contained, but never stopped; it is a force, indeed, of nature. Nature must have its reign, but that which is “natural” isn’t therefore good: that we are bound to tolerate it  [we aren’t VB] isn’t to say that it must be liked, much less loved.

It isn’t that sex isn’t agreeable or pleasurable; to be sure, it is both. [Its agreeableness and pleasurableness depend on perceptual distortion VB] Finding it loathsome in its essence and éffects isn’t the same thing as finding it unappealing as an activity. The wreckage of our bloody, oozy, ejaculate-flooded, hymen-perforated world, increasingly shorn as it is of every former vestige of innocence, is a testament to the fatal indulgence of this proclivity, “natural” indeed, but no less malignant for its naturalness, as might indeed be said... of a tumor.

ADULTERATED

“But it’s through that very force, which you liken to a ‘tumor,’ that life emerges!” So it will be objected. In response, it would only be appropriate to point out a couple of things. First of all, the fact that life comes into being due to sexual intercourse does not function as a pro forma argument, rendering the inherent goodness of sex self-evidently obvious. If one wishes to make such a case, one would instead need to demonstrate that life itself is inherently good—a considerably more dubious proposition absent the assent to some a priori doctrine on the matter. And even if life is an inherent good, it should not therefore be seen to follow --as the proverbial night follows the no less proverbial day-- that sexual intercourse is good simply because it is an act which produces life. In any event, while such an argument constitutes the basis on which the Church, and Christianity generally, has praised sex as a God-created good (provided it is kept within wedlock), it is most emphatically not the reason why sex is typically lauded in our day and age. Rather, to put badly, sex is lauded because it represents 1) raw pleasure and 2) the obliteration of innocence. What makes sex “sexy” isn’t the fact that it produces babies but rather that it signifies a version of “adult”-hood (as in turn is signified in related terms like “adult language” or “adult situations,” both of which are common descriptions of “adult movies” —and need we add terms like adulterate—meaning, “to render impure” —and adultery— meaning, “to be unfaithful” ?) Sex is distinct from other pleasures of the body in this way: unlike with eating, drinking, sleeping, and so forth, here the pleasure derives not merely from indulgence, but from having been seen or known as one who has participated in said indulgence. Hence the hullabaloo typically made about virginity; when one “loses” this state of being, it functions as a sort of initiation ritual into an “order” which, while not necessarily characterized by sin per se, definitely has the earmarks of moral complication and psychic besmirchment.

Finally, I offer that my point of view on this subject is not to be taken as the final word on the matter, (not that anyone is likely to feel tempted to take it this way anyhow). What I am relaying here are my impressions, valuable if read within certain prescribed limits, perhaps “thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season,” but no more fit to be dismissed for all that. Perhaps, though, there is something redeeming in sexuality, something I have always previously missed. Please note that I use the word redeeming, not merely “alluring,” “appealing,” “desirable,” or... “sexy,” but “redeeming,” as in salvific, as in not savoring of sin, defilement, or corruption.

The Catholic faith, to which I am a convert, seems to think this way. It has always taught the intrinsic good of sex between married a husband and wife. Yet through the vast majority of its history, the Church has mostly made reference to marital relations as a means towards reproduction. Only in the post-sexual revolution age have Church leaders attempted to defend the glories of sex as such, as with John Paul Il’s somewhat queasy “theology of the body” innovations. It is true, of course, that from its inception the Church engaged in metaphorical comparisons between Christ and the Church as being equivalent to that of a man with his newly-wedded bride; it is also the case that when nuns take their vows, they pledge their troth to Christ to express their spiritual fidelity.

Still, when it comes to the sexual act itself, the Church has wisely refrained from making any explicit parallels, in order to avoid any unseemly figurative ramifications. Again, we see reinforced the scarcely concealed admission that sex is a thing best not looked at too closely, a thing essentially loathsome and corruptive in nature.

DARK SPRINGTIME

As I write, it happens to be the height of the spring season, when a fine polien powder coats the earth like yellow snow. What is more, a powerfully musky scent hangs in the air, which plainly resembles semen. It is oppressively inescapable.

Springtime has been hymned and gloried in by poets and nature enthusiasts from time immemorial, and it is indeed a time of mystical resonance and power, since it is the time wherein life reasserts itself in all of its simultaneous glory and ghastliness. It is at the heart of the very notion of birth, a central mystery of existence, one whose origins can in no sense be properly addressed by applying purely mechanistic explanations.

Life is indeed a miracle, in the sense that it shouldn’t exist, yet does. But much as the poets and sentimentalists go on about the vernal wonders of springtime, they seldom pay attention to what could be called the dark side of the season.

********

“In spring a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.” So writes the poet, knowing well enough the resonances he is conjuring up. Springtime connotes carnality; just as the bee invades the bud of the flower to plant its seed, so the “young man” aches to deposit his seed within the womb of his lover. Tennyson couldn’t have expressed such a sentiment outright, of course; it would greatly have offended the sensibilities of his readers to be so forthright. Like most skilled writers, he merely hinted at a plainly undeclarable notion through subtle analogy.

I have known love, myself; the reader would be wrong to conclude that I take these stances on carnality without being acquainted with the matter on a personal level. Not only have I been in love, I have also (as previously noted) married and reproduced. I have watched my two children emerge into the world (each time, my attendance for this event was quite against my will; I would just as soon not have been present, and remained in the waiting room until afterwards, as was the norm in previous eras, but for my wife’s insistence). I love my children dearly, and wish nothing but the best for them, but seeing them spring from their mother’s womb didn’t cause me to fall in love with the process of birth, or make me eager to praise the manner in which new souls become incarnated. That it is “wondrous,” there is no doubt; that it is inexplicable, certain; that it is, in its way, a “miracle,” indisputable, but none of these conclusions necessitates that one ought to regard it with reverential adulation. To be sure, birth is awe-inspiring, in its way, much the same way that death is; that life suddenly appears is as weirdly arresting to the apprehension as is the notion that is suddenly disappears as well. Birth and death are intertwined wonders, for the one cannot exist without the other, and carnality—the means by which life, and therefore death, comes about-- is also a wonder, though, as with birth and death, its undeniable intriguingness doesn’t render it a good thing. Coming to such an arbitrary conclusion is at best intellectual sloppiness, at worst (and most typically), sheer anti-intellectual cant.

THE MARK OF CAIN

I have long held to these conclusions, based upon my deepest, unshakable convictions. I did, for a time, attempt to put these notions aside, the better to adopt what I understood to be the tenets of Christian orthodoxy. After falling in love, and getting married, I tried to convince myself—in accord with the doctrines taught by the Church-- that sexuality was an inherent good. I chalked my earlier thoughts up to youthful folly; I told myself that believing such things was just a testament to a priggish tendency to be overly extreme in my boyhood beliefs. Now, I congratulated myself to think, I had grown “mature” and “responsible” in eschewing such untenable and fantastic ideas.

The trouble was, I was never able to convince myself of my newly- amended tenets regarding sex. I recognized, of course, that there were gradations of corruption, and that not every manifestation of this proclivity was foul or objectionable to the same extent. Matrimony and wedlock tamed and contained this beast, it was true; still, the beast itself did not register to me as anything but beastly; it did not grow angelic once tamed. A temperate, well-ordered society which enforced monogamy was indeed better than a culture which promoted “free love” and hedonistic abandon; a nation which tolerated monogamy but most fully prized celibacy (as endorsed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and by Christ in his “become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” homily) was even better, but sex, wherever it manifested itself, still represented a tainted and compromised psychic condition, scarring the soul of the human race much like the mark of Cain.

Eventually, the truth, as I had originally comprehended it in my formative years, pushed its way back to the surface, and I found myself yet again seized with the sure knowledge that had come over me from the very inception of my transformation. It is, however, with something of a mournful heart that I find myself once again inhabiting these intellectual quarters. Not only is my belief in itself at odds with the impulses of my body (for I am not, nor have I ever been “asexual”), but my convictions are intensely alienating to most people. In fact, they tend to become astonishingly indignant when this point is raised... to the point that I seldom do raise it anymore, except in print.

The last time I argued for antisexualism was a couple of times when I was a teenager. I recall both occasions quite well, at least when it comes to certain particulars. One time was in a college dorm setting; my interlocutors draped themselves all over each other licentiously, as if in defiance of my unwelcome argument, while I sat alone, fittingly enough, and vehemently made my case with all the bravado of an arrogant and eloquent young man. On an earlier occasion—one that is more seared in my mind, for some reason—I was riding on a bus, during a summer school trip in Ireland, of all places. As we drove through an intensely picturesque landscape of forest glen under ominously overcast Celtic skies, a conversation got struck up somehow, for some reason, on the subject of sex: whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. I must have made some Opinionated, semi-belligerent verbal sally or other, else it would be unclear why the debate would have ensued at all; certainly none of my classmates hewed to such a strange and perverse doctrine that would actually disparage sexuality! As some outspoken wag would later put the matter: “Who the FUCK is anti-sex?” That he would use this particular profanity was telling: it reflected not only the emphatic incredulity of his response, it also showed the blatant carnality of even his metaphorical conception of affairs.

I don’t really recall much about the content of my argument. I think I may have focused on how sexuality causes us to be selfish, since we end of paying more attention to people we find attractive and caring less about those with the misfortune to be ugly or plain-looking. Also, I suspect that I honed in on the ego, and how it gets puffed up by sexual pursuits, to the point of chasing only its own gratification, whereas true love is self-sacrificing, rather than being acquisition-oriented. The “loss of innocence” angle didn’t really occur to me at the time, perhaps because I hadn’t yet achieved much distance from it, being still relatively fresh from the ravages of puberty and still in the throes of late adolescence.

Little as I remember about my own talking points, I have even less recollection of what my interlocutors said. It seems that there were four or five of them who chimed in from time to time, along with a few other mere interested (or semi-interested) spectators who said nothing. I was, to be sure, the only one among us taking this most intrepid stand. It seemed to succeed at agitating one of my classmates (though he was an easily agitated fellow); he grew eager to convey to me how much of an idiot I was, and how reprehensibly atrocious he found my point of view. He responded to my theoretical points as one personally offended. There was also a certain moon-faced girl who actually felt so hurt by my assertions that she broke down and cried silently. It mustn’t be thought that she was weeping out of compassion for me, however; she didn’t regard me as a tragic figure who had come to faulty conclusions and now was denying himself the comfort of carnal companionship and dooming himself to a lonely life in the process. No: though there would have been something touching about such a response, I’m afraid that hers was more the sulky apprehension of a frustrated, generally unreflective faithful believer in the presence of a shameless blasphemer.

Though our debate no doubt had the effect of alienating me still further from my peers—who at the very least found my ideas somewhat freakish, and at worst thought me odious for attacking what to them was close to sacred—nevertheless, I felt pleased with the interaction, since it at least indicated a level of engagement with them, something I had felt very little acquainted with as a youngster, being, as I was, a general “eyesore in the architecture” at that time. Here, I was at least being noticed, and noted, rather than scrupulously avoided, as was more typical. And hope kept stubbornly asserting itself: I found myself caught up in its clutches, pressed up against its fulsome bosom, where its deeply deceitful heart vibrated seductively, causing my own heart to flare with undimmed expectation. Perhaps, after all, I still stood a chance of being understood, accepted, embraced. I never admitted to myself that I desired such an outcome, because it struck me as a base betrayal of my better self; still, I indeed wished for it. (...)

NOTES BEFORE DEATH
Andy Nowicki