And another tidbit.
First, the other tidbit:
White does not Equal Posterity. The Irish and the Italians and the countless others of European extraction inflicted their own ruin on our posterity and founding state.
Quite right. Imagine if we didn’t have micks and wops like John Lindsay and Hubert Humphrey mucking things up, what a more racially healthy nation America could have been.
Now, to the main course.
Reproduced below, at the end of this post, is more of the animus-driven back-and-forth between Joyce and Johnson on the Mishima issue from TOO. I’d at this point just like to summarize my views on this in outline form:
1. I agree more with Joyce than Johnson on Mishima, not because I wholly agree with Joyce nor because of my personal distaste for Johnson, but simply because I view Mishima as a greatly over-rated figure on the Far Right, and Joyce’s piece is a long overdue and necessary corrective. Mishima can be viewed as an “intersectional” figure who has recently enjoyed an “uptick” in interest from the Far Right (back in the WN 1.0 days, I can assure you that none of we Nutzis cared a fig about this Oriental) since he appeals to a number of “movement” factions – Traditionalists, the Gay Cabal, the HBDers and Silkers who grovel before The Altar of Asia, as well as Millennials who want to be both “based” but have a cover for their “racism” (but, but, but…I like this Japanese guy too…).
2. Having said that, I’ll agree that Joyce’s piece can be viewed, objectively speaking, as a bit too harsh and one-sided. But that’s fine. I consider Joyce’s essay to be akin to Yockey’s Imperium in the sense that it is supposed to be a polemic and not a work of purely objective scholarship – so Johnson’s whining about Joyce’s alleged failings in that regard are, for me, irrelevant. Joyce is essentially making a political argument – that White Far Rightists should stop wasting their time with this bizarre, homosexual, inauthentic, organically unsound, over-rated, Japanese writer, and look to their own people for their heroes and role models. If that is its purpose, and I believe it is, then Joyce’s essay is effective.
3. Joyce can have focused more on the idea that Far Rightists admire Mishima not necessarily because of the objective things the man did, but because they view him as a symbol of rightist defiance against globalism, universalism, liberalism, democracy, consumerism, etc. So, in that sense, one can argue that the points brought up by Joyce about Mishima the man are irrelevant with respect to that motivation for Mishima worship. The problem though with this interpretation is that there are White historical figures who could serve the same role as inspiring symbols – and in those cases the historical figures are not only more racially relevant, but more authentic and have the advantage of actually having achieved things of value to the White race. This goes back to point one – why Mishma himself specifically has been chosen as this symbol rather than others who are more deserving (Codreanu for one).
4. Joyce’s “gay-baiting” accusations against Johnson are probably unfair as well. Although, as stated above, Mishima’s homosexuality likely plays at least a partial role in his appeal to some on the Far Right, I believe that Johnson’s interest in Mishima is more likely centered on Johnson’s interest in “traditionalism” and the idea that this “traditionalism” is embodied by the life, work, and symbolism of Mishima. If Joyce had critiqued Savitri Devi, Johnson may well have responded in like manner. All of this does not excuse Johnson’s snide (and as stated above ultimately irrelevant) remarks about Joyce’s commitment (or lack thereof) to quality scholarship.
5. Dr. Joyce – what the hell is your essay doing on the Unz site? Say it ain’t so! Are you an Unzian? If not, tell them to take your essay off that damn site. If so, why the hell why?
More of the cat fight:
January 16, 2020 at 2:06 am
First, there are many things to admire about Mishima as an individual, despite the fact that he was a very weird character: his literary genius, his immense productivity (34 novels, more than 50 plays, countless essays, all before his death at 45), his willingness to spend his prominence in society to buck the liberal democratic trend in favor of the Right, and, yes, his exemplary suicide — because if enough of our people overcame the Christian-bourgeois ethos and were willing to truly prefer death to dishonor, they would make short work of this system.
Second, it is simply wrong to say that Mishima does not offer “arguments.” I suggest you read Andrew Rankin’s Mishima, Aesthetic Terrorist, which is an admirably clear overview of Mishima’s cultural and political worldview. You may disagree with this views, in whole or in part, but it is simply inaccurate to dismiss them as lacking any sort of coherence or argument.
Third, I’ve already pointed out that despite claiming to have spent a year researching this matter, Joyce makes no reference to Rankin or a number of essays at Counter-Currents that actually present a pretty good explanation for why Mishima is a widely read figure in the New Right. I should also mention that there is an entire book on Mishima by the eminent Dominique Venner, Un samouraï d’Occident: Le Bréviaire des insoumis (Paris: Pierre-Guillaume de Roux, 2013) that might have thrown some light on this matter. But, again, there is no sign that Joyce has read it, although it was reviewed at TOO.
I am not going to speculate about Joyce’s motives for such lapses of scholarship.
Fourth, instead of actually reading and citing the relevant sources for understanding Mishima’s status in the New Right, Joyce simply offers what he calls the Mishima Myth. This myth purports to be a summation of New Right discourse on Mishima, but it is nothing of the kind. It is simply an attempt to make this discourse seem maximally vapid, which makes his demolition work much easier. In short, it is what scholars call a “straw man.”
Refuting straw men rather than real arguments is a blot on any scholar’s reputation.
I have read very little of Dr. Joyce’s work, so I don’t know if the lapses of scholarly probity that vitiate this essay are a pattern in his writing. I hope TOO’s and TOQ’s promotion of his work does not turn out to be a bad investment.
January 14, 2020 at 11:08 pm
I read Rankin’s book a few weeks ago, and found it lacking. What does emerge in his discussion of Mishima’s politics, such as they can be ascertained, is the same confusion and incoherency indicated by the other scholars named above. Again, I think your opinion is clouded by being a homosexual, and you’ve invested time and effort in promoting an ethnically alien and profoundly unhealthy individual simply because he is a homosexual icon.
January 16, 2020 at 2:29 am
This is a list of artists and intellectuals of the Right whose birthdays Counter-Currents more or less regularly commemorates:
January 3: Pierre Drieu La Rochelle
January 3: J. R. R. Tolkien
January 6: Alan Watts
January 8: Anthony M. Ludovici
January 10: Robinson Jeffers
January 12: Jack London
January 14: Yukio Mishima
February 6: A. R. D. “Rex” Fairburn
March 12: Gabriele d’Annunzio
March 29: Ernst Jünger
March 31: Robert Brasillach
April 12: Jonathan Bowden
April 16: Wilmot Robertson
April 16: Dominique Venner
May 13: Julius Evola
May 22: Richard Wagner
May 27: Louis-Ferdinand Céline
May 29: Oswald Spengler
June 13: William Butler Yeats
June 16: Enoch Powell
June 29: Lothrop Stoddard
July 7: Revilo Oliver
July 11: Carl Schmitt
August 4: Knut Hamsun
August 20: H. P. Lovecraft
August 22: Leni Riefenstahl
September 11: D. H. Lawrence
September 18: Francis Parker Yockey
September 26: T. S. Eliot
September 26: Martin Heidegger
September 30: Savitri Devi
October 1: Maurice Bardèche
October 2: Louis de Bonald
October 2: Roy Campbell
October 12: Aleister Crowley
October 15: Friedrich Nietzsche
October 30: Ezra Pound
October 30: Leo Yankevich
November 7: Guillaume Faye
November 15: René Guénon
November 18: Wyndham Lewis
November 19: Madison Grant
November 20: P. R. Stephensen
December 1: Henry Williamson
December 3: J. Philippe Rushton
December 7: Pentti Linkola
December 22: Filippo Marinetti
December 30: Rudyard Kipling
What all these people have in common is not that they were gay icons but that they were eminent intellectuals or artists who were also Rightists. That alone makes them worth commemorating in a culture dominated by the pretense that the Left is intellectual and the Right is not.
If Andrew Joyce were to publish unscholarly hatchet jobs on any of these figures, I would feel duty bound to defend them. So enough about my motives.
Readers are free to speculate about my motives all they want. But the same is true of Joyce’s motives.