May 21, 2015

Ethnic Cleansing in American Cities

via Henry Dampier

If you were given a job by a governor or a mayor to ethnically cleanse a city of a problematic group while maintaining plausible deniability, how would you do it?

In modern times, media technology is the most powerful coordination-generating tool available to any political leader. Mass media — and to some extent, the internet — has proven effectiveness in coordinating ethnic cleansing campaigns. ‘Hutu Radio,’ even in relatively primitive Rwanda, helped to stoke resentment against the Tutsis, and eventually to direct terror against them until they were partially exterminated and driven out of their territories.

That’s an extreme example, but you can accomplish similar feats over a longer period of time using more covert (if expensive and wasteful) policies.

In a recent post, I referenced the demographic progression of New York City during the 20th century — when Whites went from being close to 100% of the population to being a bare plurality throughout the city and in most boroughs. Only in Manhattan do they still maintain a bare majority.

This stunning population displacement in this city — which was more pronounced in others, like Detroit — has been a mostly conscious political policy of suppression of the White ethnic group (which is itself rather diverse and not all that descriptive).

In schools, Americans learn nothing but positive things about Civil Rights. They rarely learn much about the ethnic displacements of Whites from American cities except in positive terms.

Often this phenomenon tends to be called ‘white flight’ — and is attributed to ‘racism’ and a growth in crime rather than shifts in values.

Although the bussing policy that began after the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case has been widely acknowledged to be a failure, the commencement of the program tends to be portrayed as a victory. The enactment of anti-discrimination laws and all sorts of other regulations tends to be portrayed as a positive good.
The reality is that this was an ethnic suppression campaign that has been wildly successful. In NYC, America’s capitol of capitalism, the proportion of Whites was cut in half from 1950-2000, from 90% to about 45%. That’s about 7 million to around 3.5 million — a displacement of 3.5 million, which must include some fertility suppression as well.

Indeed, a recent NY Post article pointed to a historically low birthrate for the entire city. Black and Whites, the two groups who have suffered the largest relative recent population losses in the city, also have the lowest birthrates. The Black population peaked at 28% in the 1990s, after enjoying explosive growth — roughly tripling in the same time that the White population dropped by half.

Getting rid of 3.5 million Whites from one city in less than a century is an impressive feat, especially because it required no cattle cars or forced marches. How did they get it done, and with such clean hands, also?

Well, one easy way to do it is to teach in the schools that the ethnic group you want to get rid of is really evil and a source of all the bad things in history. Anyone who has been through the post-1960s education system knows that this is a major theme.

Another great thing to do is to encourage women in the ethnic group you want to get rid of to go in for long educations and strenuous careers, rather than having kids. If they have lots of kids, they’re harder to physically remove from the cities you want to get rid of them in. As we all know, this has been a major theme taught to the American White middle classes, who have been told to basically eliminate themselves or otherwise relegate themselves to the geographic fringes.

Also, it’s a great idea to condition the people you want to exterminate that non-procreative sex is awesome — far preferable to the kind that makes new life — and should be indulged in early and often, to build up habits which are difficult to break before forming a family.

You would also want to encourage women of all kinds to divorce if they do have children, and to live off the state instead of forming families. This makes family life even less attractive to members of the ethnic group you want to deplete from certain areas. Furthermore, it breaks up family fortunes, sending them into the grabbing hands of lawyers, family counselors, the state, and other hard-working professionals who only have the best interests of children within their big hearts.

All of this works great — in a short period of time, you can remove millions of people from the target ethnic group, forcing them to move to economically marginal areas, solidifying political control for your ethnic group and whatever coalition that you’ve brought along for the ride.

Finally, you want to soft-pedal the enforcement of criminal laws– especially symbolic, humiliating ones like rape — targeted against the population that you want to suppress or remove. Instead of executing criminals, you want to make a pretense of ‘rehabilitating’ them, providing them with long trials, generous probation periods, good-behavior releases, expensive prisons, and other forms of coddling based on relatively recent philosophical developments.

This makes it so that the ethnic group you want to get rid of knows that the police aren’t really on their sides, or are otherwise incapable of doing much. Meanwhile, you call any attempts at organizing defense by the group you want to displace either ‘terrorism’ or ‘organized crime.’

This policy is nothing more than a way of seizing territory and property from the people you want to get rid of. Using this policy, you can extract resources from healthy, successful people using coalitions of barbarians guided by glib sophists. It’s so effective that you can distribute the spoils from the millions of people you chase away to your cronies. Who said the era of rape & pillage was over? It’s just as effective as it ever was.

That’s democracy in the modern West. Conservative parties generally exist to prevent significant resistance to these campaigns from forming — by misdirecting attention to meaningless non-issues while people are prevented from living out good lives in the cities that their ancestors built in the wilderness.

In this all the anti-white-male rhetoric coming from every mouthpiece in the country in the same tone is entirely understandable. They’re doing a great job, and have the track record to show success at displacing millions of people from the most valuable real estate in the country without generating much of any controversy at all and no international condemnation of much significance. Actually, rather the opposite — the increase of ‘diversity’ tends to be celebrated as a wonderful thing, even when it actually just means the displacement of one ethnic group by others through the use of force as a matter of official state policy.

The point of mass immigration is in part to demonstrate the power of the state over its entire territory. If an ethnic group under control of the state can’t even defend its own land or determine who can and can’t settle there, then it has no authority. This is one reason why Stalin moved the Chechens from one piece of land to another — to try to break their resistance entirely.

Essentially we should understand the modern democratic politics as a way for one leadership population to loot other groups without actually turning to direct conflict. Why go through the trouble of killing a man and taking his property when you can just get him to flee — and have no children — instead?

And probably have him thank you for it afterwards — to consider his displacement and disinheritance to be a good thing? We can perhaps attribute some of that behavior to lobbying for some of the spoils, but not all of it. Some of it comes authentically, as an expression of genuine belief.

That’s really an impressive trick, and we have to doff our hats to the democrats and their friends for pulling it off.

A Potential ‘WIN - WIN’

via Western Spring

Many of our readers will not have had the opportunity to attend last Saturday’s London Forum meeting and will be disappointed to have missed the first public speech by Nick Grifford of White Independent Nation (WIN).

Nick has written for Western Spring in the past and has his own political blog in addition to the WIN website and we have featured some of his podcasts in past articles, and it must be apparent to all that there is a considerable overlap between the strategies pursued by WIN and the strategies pursued by Western Spring.

We are pleased that WIN, Western Spring and a number of other nationalist organisations are at long last beginning to gravitate in the same direction and while there are no plans for a merger, we are aware of the potential for synergy that could be created if we maintain the current momentum and increasingly collaborate on projects of mutual interest in the future.

Toxic Fantasies

via Radix

Just a few days ago, I was talking to a friend of mine who said that when she had kids, she wanted to take them places like Haiti, or the Dominican Republic. Not to “touristy” places. Well, if having your five year old kidnapped and sold for organs and/or sex is what you really want…

But no, she said that it would be good for “them.” Note the ambiguity. She didn’t specify whether “them” was her kids or the people living in plywood boxes. Natural follow up: I didn’t realize that these poor people benefited so much from the presence of your children.

“It’s not for the poor people, it’s for the kids.” Oh, okay. I guess I understand that. It’s like sending your kids to jail for the day and having convicts yell at them to stay off drugs. But sadly, it’s not like that. My sincere hope was that she would be capable of simply wanting to scare her kids straight. But no…she is afflicted with the pathological narcissism that affects so many young people today.

“I want them to develop a sense of compassion.” Translation: I want my hypothetical kids to be aware that there are poor people in the world, and feel bad for it. This guilt will allow them to adopt a position of moral superiority while still indulging in the pleasures of a first world country. And as an added bonus, it will teach them that moral feelings are more important than moral actions.

It doesn’t help that she’s Catholic, either. Not a real Catholic, but a liberal Catholic, which is another way of saying that she’s not a Catholic. At least Transubstantiation allowed Catholic guilt to become White guilt. God works in mysterious ways.

It was with this in mind that I went home and started browsing the Internet, because I enjoy impotent rage and am a masochist. At least SJWs and I have something in common. Except instead of looking at Upworthy for Whitebadfeels, I go there to make calibrate my Hate Meters.

Rather than Upworthy, I found this on Elite Daily, which for those who don’t know, is a website that specializes in more erudite clickbait like “Why Morgan Freeman Would Be the Perfect President for Millennials,” and “Keep It Up: 4 Reasons Why Showing Off Your Dad Bod Is Awesome.” And no, I won’t link to these articles. I respect you too much to do that.

So this article, which I did link (and you should NOT click. Just read my polemic and be satisfied) was my second run in that day with mentally ill Millennials. The triggering was great, by the way. It rustled my jimmies in all the right ways.

The article wasn’t all that well received, a mere eight comments. But the commenters were positive and complimentary. Ignore their fawning accusations of depth; they were made by people wearing water wings.

There isn’t a whole lot of substance in it, just a typical Millennial preaching the virtues of travel, but the typicality is what makes it so important. We see the Millennial mind in its naked, narcissistic glory. This woman is the voice of a generation, even if I’m the only one who realizes it.

With that said, let’s delve into the pathology of the modern mind. Important to remember is the story of Narcissus, and what it means. Pussy nerds are apt to fawn over the famous “Dark Triad” of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, and I guess I get the appeal of a psycho bad boy, but this isn’t the sexy kind of narcissism. It’s boring and cowardly.

Thanks to Freud, people think of narcissism as being overly self-absorbed. That’s because in the myth, Narcissus fell in love with his reflection in the pond. Freud got the moral of story wrong, and left out the important lesson of why Narcissus had such a lame life.

The answer was ignorance foisted upon him by his parents. Narcissus’ mother, the nymph Liriope, was told by the seer Tiresias that her son would live a long life provided that he never knew himself. What glories might Narcissus have achieved had he known himself? Conquer the world like Alexander? Become the Godhead? Maybe, but who knows. After realizing he couldn’t have his own reflection, he chose suicide. Something even worse than the straw death.

Real narcissism is lack of self-knowledge, and more importantly, a fear of acquiring that self-knowledge. And that fear will go to any lengths to prevent the individual from actually acquiring self-knowledge.

Our author, Miss Cawley, provides an excellent example of what that looks like. Here are a couple of choice passages from the article.

“I can’t sit still; I refuse to. I am moved by my own indeterminate, adaptive passions”
And perhaps more tellingly...

“I can’t live in one place. I’m a different person each time I exhale. I want to try cities on for size and discard countries with my winter wardrobe.” (emphasis mine)

Context for those who haven’t read the article, this woman moves constantly. If I were to read about a woman who moved to a new town every year or every couple months, and wasn’t doing it for work, I would have to ask, “What is she running from?” and “What has she done?”

Remember what I said about narcissism being boring. Because she isn’t running from anyone or anything. She’s running from herself. Don’t blame me if that sounds cliché. The modern world creates cliché people.

It isn’t what she’s done; it’s what she hasn’t done, which is anything. Narcissism isn’t just about not knowing yourself: It’s about avoiding anything that might lead to self-knowledge. After all, you might not like what you find. And don’t make it sexy. You are thinking that inside that Dad bod is some sweaty, charismatic, Jax Teller just waiting to be unchained. More like paunchy father of three. The secret is that there is no secret. You aren’t a Matryoshka doll hiding a kung fu master. You are what you do, what you produce. Nothing more and nothing less. The fantasies and idle daydreams are just ways of avoiding the reality of your own insignificance. Why better yourself when you can imagine yourself being better? It’s almost as good as the real thing, and certainly easier.

Back to Ms. Crawley and her chronically itchy feet. Living somewhere entails creating a certain amount of social capital. Constant moving is like saving up a year’s salary and blowing it on a Charlie Sheen-esque coke party replete with hookers and tiger blood. But it’s not even that. It’s more like wasting it on overpriced black tar heroin.

As soon as she begins settling in an area and developing a network of people she knows, she recoils. After all, “I’m a different person each time I exhale.” Why do you want to be a different person?

She refuses to stay in one place because she would be forced to confront herself. Who you are is revealed through your interaction with other people. The only way to do that is to lay down your war banner and challenge all comers. That means building a life. Traveling to find yourself is traveling to lose yourself. It gives the illusion of self-knowledge while protecting the ego from actual knowledge, since you can just push the reset button every few months.

After all, what happens when you aren’t the sexy new girl and just another townie? You become dangerously close to realizing that you’re just some low level NPC who doesn’t much matter in the scheme of things. But wait, you’ve outgrown this city. It’s taught you everything it can. Time to move on.

The common denominator in both my friend’s and Miss Cawley’s case is narcissism, albeit manifested in two different ways. My friend fails to grasp that sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul, and Miss Cawley does not understand that there are no do overs, no resets. You are not a different person each time you exhale, despite what you might tell yourself. Action is eternal, written in the immutability of the past.

Some of you are going to rush past what I said, point out the envaginated status of the two humans in question, and yell, “Female solipsism!” I don’t think that’s the case, but let’s say you’re right. Then let me ask you a question. Did you go to school? College? Do you watch television? Do you breathe?

If so, then you’ve been immersed in aerosolized female solipsism for so long that it’s irrlevant, and to call this a problem unique to women is to miss the point entirely. At this point in time, so misshapen is our culture that men think and act like women. Feminism, narcissism, female solipsism, whatever you want to call it, has been inflicted on you since birth.

You are a mere shadow, bound by gentle lies that encourage inaction. Fight it! The temptation is to blame the other, and it’s been that way forever--it’s just gotten worse in recent times. Mediocrity is a terrible fate, yet you impose it upon yourself, and to claim otherwise is just another excuse. No one cares what you could be, only what you are.

Taking responsibility for this ugly truth is the path to agency, and to begin the transformation from a cause into an effect. But doing that requires a painful realization--that you are very small. Who knows what you will do? Maybe it’s time to pack your bags and move on. After all, you’re a different person each time you exhale.

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 4

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

You are quite familiar with the situation in South Africa. How would you describe it now, and how do you see it in 10–20 years? Given the conditions in South Africa, should White South Africans be allowed to immigrate to countries like the UK and the Netherlands where their ancestors originated? If so, how can this be facilitated?

I’ve been exposing the injustices facing minority South Africans for several years now.

My commentary on the ongoing genocide perpetrated against South Africa’s minority communities, of which my Afrikaner grandmother and Anglo-Indian grandfather were part of, and work as Director and Spokesman for the NGO, Stop the Killing, has been shared in literally dozens of English and Afrikaans South African publications, including Dan Roodt’s Praag.

Dan in fact wrote an open letter to Nigel Farage after my suspension, informing him that UKIP’s actions would result in the loss of tens of thousands of South African expat votes.

My desire to see political recognition of the genocide of all Western people was one of the primary reasons I became involved in UKIP in the first place — the one party I was hopeful would show concern for this very important humanitarian cause. UKIP also knew this early on.

The situation in South Africa is dire, to say the least. Minority populations are being ethnically cleansed out of existence as the international media look on in amusement. I believe this is transpiring as the minority South African and Afrikaner in particular, is unfairly vilified as he/she is seen by the international Left as the last vestige of colonial rule. It’s why the genocide continues and people look on apathetically — sometimes even cheering for carnage. It is also why the Leftist international media do their best to conceal what’s happening to South Africa’s minority population, and why the situation won’t be improving anytime soon.

Regarding whether we should, or as I believe, have an obligation to take South Africans with historical ties to Britain. I’d say yes, certainly. The problem is, under our current immigration policy, it’s simply not possible.

Britain, England in particular, is bursting at the seams, literally flooded with culturally incompatible migrants from Eastern European, Africa, Asia and the Mid-East.

Withdrawing from the European Union and implementing an Australian style points-based immigration policy would enable us to allow entry to the culturally and ethnically compatible people from South Africa, into Britain. Currently, due to Britain’s membership in the EU, Britain is forced to take immigrants from former nation states of the former Soviet Union, and, due to EU law, non-White ‘migrants’ invading Western Europe. Because of our downright suicidal immigration policy not only do we reject people that can actually help us, we are rejecting people we can assist — i.e., minority South Africans. There’s simply no place for people hailing from South Africa under our EU imposed immigration policy.

Then there are our very own immigration needs. Britain’s inability to dictate its own immigration policy also means we’re simply unable to import much needed doctors, nurses, scientists and engineers required to drive our flourishing economy.

To fill our skills voids, I believe we should also be looking to South Africa and our cousins in Western Europe. Brits would welcome Portuguese, Italians, Spaniards and ethnically compatible Commonwealth people with open arms.

Minority South Africans are honest, speak our language, are culturally compatible. They typically have money in their bank accounts to pay their own way, and are often ready and willing to buy property. They do not need and would be ineligible for benefits, do not perpetrate crime, and have historical ties to our lands — often times even an English parent or spouse, and generally would make good citizens.

And to my critics in the press that have claimed that my controversial immigration proposal is racist I often point to the fact that besides blocking Third World migrants from entering the nation, my proposal would call for a moratorium on immigration of people hailing from Eastern bloc nations.

Although White Eastern Europeans make up less than 2% of Britain’s population, migrants commit more than 20% of the crime in London, with people from Poland and Baltic nations topping the list. It costs us literally hundreds of millions of pounds annually to incarcerate new-EU migrants, not to mention the monumental human toll they impose on their victims and on society generally. Polish is in fact now Britain’s second most spoken language, ahead of even indigenous Welsh. There are some towns where one has to speak Polish to get a job. In my constituency a local factory fired a Portuguese manager due to the fact he didn’t speak Polish. He was fluent in English, Portuguese and Spanish.

Ending EU migration would immediately reduce the ‘cultural footprint’ uncontrolled immigration is having on my country.

In your interview on the European Knight project website you referenced the people behind the rise of South Africa’s ANC, stating “The West is controlled by Leftists that can trace their roots back to former Soviet eastern bloc nations — men like Yossel Slovo [longtime leader of the South African Communist Party].” Can you elaborate?

There was a revealing story I believe published in Haaretz that claimed that the head count of the “white opponents (terrorist wing of the ANC) of apartheid read like a census list from one of the old shtetls in Lithuania.”

And they weren’t exaggerating.

Marxist radicals in South Africa, as is the case in contemporary Britain and the US — and as was the case in Czarist Russia — were undeniably predominantly Jewish.  That’s historical fact, not anti-Semitism as the media purport. [Ed.: See also Sam Davidson, “The Role of Jews in South Africa since 1948,” The Occidental Quarterly 11(2) (Summer 2011), 51–88.]

Yossel Slovo, Harold Wolpe, Ruth First, Albie Sacha, Ronald Segal, Dennis Goldberg, Rusty Bernstein, Solly Sachs, Helen Suzman, Raymond Suttner, Ray Simons, Wolfie Kodish are just a few of the names people familiar with the militant wing of the ANC will recognize. They were all Jewish.

Then there were the journalists and writers living in their comfy all-White suburbs that incited violence that impacted the nation’s poorest people — that are still responsible for inciting the racial hatred that exists in South Africa today. Women like Nadine Gordimer, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature for her writing in opposition to apartheid and whose family all fled to New York once the ANC came to power, had a major hand in South Africa’s demise. They too were predominantly Jewish.

Nadine Gordimer with Nelson Mandela
Nadine Gordimer with Nelson Mandela

I’m not saying change wasn’t necessary — just that this was never about human rights with these radicals. It was about carnage.

To deny Jewish involvement in the bloodshed-something Haaretz has no issue admitting, would be as academically irresponsible as to deny Jewish involvement in mass murder in the USSR, including the Holodomor, or Turkish involvement in the genocide of the Armenian Christians. And my pointing it out is not anti-Semitic. It’s just being honest.

Interestingly, after the interview I gave the European Knights project website where I’d been accused of anti-Semitism by the junior Mail on Sunday reporter that broke the story, UKIP brass were more bothered with the fact that I’d referred to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist than my insinuation that the bulk of the West’s leading Marxist terrorists were of Jewish origin.

UKIP’s head of candidates, David Soutter, told me in no uncertain terms that if had he known I thought that Mandela was a terrorist, I would never have been named a candidate.

I found that quite amusing.

Another top UKIP person told me that if he was Mandela, he’d “have killed more people in order to liberate his own.” When I pointed out that most of Mandela’s victims were black moderates he gave no response.

Just yesterday during a lengthy chat I had with UKIP’s chairman, my opinion of Mandela was still more of an issue than anything else.

Do you foresee the same fate of the UK when it has a non-White majority as is happening in South Africa now? That is, will Whites be increasingly victimized and will the criminal justice system be increasingly inefficient or unwilling to prosecute White victims of crime by non-Whites?

Yes, certainly.

The Left turn a blind eye to the murder and mayhem being perpetrated against indigenous Western European people and then guilt us into believing that due to our ancestors’ actions (mine were sugar plantation workers, labourers, soldiers, RAF pilots, seamen and bricklayers) we are somehow responsible for the violence.

I merely look at the state of both of our countries, where one is all but prohibited from mentioning the race of the perpetrator when the victim is White. Giving violent hate-filled felons a free pass to harm others is a recipe for disaster, and we’re seeing the result of that now.

Although Black people are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system, the British media gives them a free pass while our academic elite excuses their actions. We are taught to mollycoddle them, which only exacerbates the problem.

If we continue to allow the left to indoctrinate our children, run the media and tell us how to think, I can’t see how that will change anytime soon.

I’d like to mention that in South Africa many of the victims of hate crimes themselves are non-white and mixed race. There’s a massive Afrikaans speaking coloured community in South Africa, as well as a South Asian one that’s also being preyed upon. Non-blacks are deliberately being targeted as the state cares little about their well-being either. I think by being more inclusive in our sympathy we may be able to garner more support from the mainstream — something in fact a few of my Afrikaner partners have also realised and incorporated into their activism.

People might not want to hear this, but many South African Whites themselves have African ancestry and, by way of the one drop rule, have as much right to be in Africa as any full Black person. The fact that they present or self-identify as White doesn’t mean they aren’t African culturally or ethnically. One need only spend a few moments in South Africa to know that racial lines are blurred. Under Apartheid, families were often divided, with siblings from the same household attending different schools because of how mixed society in fact is.

When I was a child and the authorities were deciding where you’d attend school, they’d test your hair, measure the size of your lips and then, if you had dark skin, decide whether it was a product of the sun or not. Although I have an Indian surname I attended a White school whereas I knew children with lighter hair and Afrikaner parents that were placed in non-white schools, due to their facial features.

White nationalists seem to look at the White South African as some sort of pure White coloniser, when in fact many Afrikaners can trace their ancestry back to original settlers and their Malay, Indian and sometimes even Black lovers. Although unacknowledged by the nationalist government, Stellenbosch founder, Simon van der Stel, was himself mixed race.

To say that Afrikaner people, most of whom have no clue who all of their early ancestors were, have no right to be in South Africa, is wrong on so many levels.

Still with extremists on both sides deciding who’s oppressed and who isn’t, what race one belongs to or doesn’t, people will always be in a state of identity confusion that racial profiteers can exploit.

If it suits the narrative for a mixed person to be Black, he will be. If it suits them to be White, he will be. I merely think of Barack Obama. And the far left and right are both guilty of this.

I myself am viewed by the British establishment as a neo-Nazi and White supremacist —remarkably, this is how I am described on websites and blogs set up to expose racist politicians — simply because I came out against Jews.

One of the local reporters — a fella that has actually been quite supportive — has labeled me the West Lancs Hitler.

If I’d won the election my guess is I’d have been labelled UKIP’s first Asian MP in spite of the fact I have at most 25% Asian ancestry and look about as Indian as Cristiano Ronaldo.

I think encouraging predominantly White people who present as White to identify as white and fight for European and White causes is a sensible course of action.

A Kinist Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, Part 1

via Faith & Heritage

Even though its authorship is unconfirmed, and there are differing versions of it, the Apostles’ Creed is one of the earliest ecumenical statements of the Church. It was in AD 390 that Ambrose wrote, “Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled.” So its title and original formulation were, according to tradition, in fact, owed to its arrangement under the Jerusalem Council of the first century. Which is to say that actual apostles may have had a hand in its early formulation.

This is the rendition of the Apostles’ Creed known as the Textus Receptus, or “Received Form,” which is believed to have taken shape in the Latin somewhere in France around AD 700. This is the version which eventually replaced the old Roman Form, was accepted by the whole of Western Christendom, and is used most often to this day:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into Hades. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Though used by denominations regarded as conservative, its form as seen here is, at some points, quite modern. But we’ll get to that.
It has been surmised by modern writers, such as Cahill, that Augustine was, in his Confessions, the originator of the autobiography, and the first to say “I” as we do today. But this contention is undermined by the fact that the Western church had long prior invoked the Creed, in its various iterations, with that same personal emphasis, attesting to belief and experience in the first person; and Cahill’s argument is dispelled the more by much of the Scripture, as many witnesses therein speak “I” in the sense that we speak it. We’d have a good deal of difficulty even imagining many alternate definitions for the word, anyway. All of which is to say that modern thinkers often say and write very peculiar things, hoping to make dogma of their arbitrary musings.

Interestingly enough, the Eastern Church, perhaps following the Eusebian Creed of Caesarea (AD 325), took it in a different direction – rather than “I believe,” their profession came to emphasize more the corporate aspect with the words, “We believe.” Much has been made of this difference. Western individualism, expansionism, and modern science have all been attributed to the use of one word: “I.” Conversely, the Eastern church’s dogged persistence under the crush of Bolshevism has also been attributed to their emphasis on the corporate life over the individual.

Christendom, to be sure, does hang upon a word – the Word. But to hang the history of Christendom upon a word which represents not the Logos, but men, is to rewrite the terms of the covenant with man in the place of God. The emphasis of the creed itself upon Christ’s finished work, in both the personal and corporate arrangements, militates against this anthropocentric view of the creed. The creed, being Christocentric, grants no incantational power to men merely on the basis of their individualism, nor on the corporate emphasis of their profession.

Really, the nature of confessional statements is that they assume both the individual conscience and the life communal at once – that though the Church is a corporate entity, fidelity to a confession requires individual opposition to the corporate body in the case that the broader group is wandering from said confession. On these grounds, we take the Western use of “I,” in the context of corporate worship, to communicate both the personal and the corporate, sufficiently and without conflict.

What’s more, individualism was a predominant tendency in many Germanics and Latins, and especially amongst the Celts, long before the Gospel was brought to our ears. Yet despite our native individualism, we have also, until recent times, much exulted in our corporate associations, Church, Family, and Folk.

So when it is suggested that the Reformation were the fruit of this personal pronoun in the Creed, we may see the congruence of mutual reinforcement, but the assumption of causation is a field too far. For it is a textbook case of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and superfluous when one recognizes the native character of the German, for he was ever renowned as bold and individualistic. Or as Belloc summarized the old Protestant position:
 “[T]he Reformation was the revolt of a race – and of a strong and conquering race – against the decaying traditions of Rome.”1

As for scientific improvement, it has ebbed and flowed under many conditions and in many ages prior to the Christian era without association to any Christian creed whatever. So it is that the Roman aqueducts of antiquity are found to have rivaled in quality and efficiency any other like system until the twentieth century. Archaeology tells us that well prior to Rome, the people of Ur even had indoor plumbing in the days of Abraham. Ancient maps reveal the world to have been charted in its entirety at some time in the remote past – a feat not approached again until the days of Columbus, well into the Christian age. And Tubal Cain, an antediluvian infidel, became a skilled worker of metals only seven generations removed from Adam (Gen. 4:22), whereas such crafts continue to elude the African tribes even under the circumstance of modern Christianity.

No, the option of “I” in the Creed does not directly entail the rise or fall of the sciences, so pinning all subsequent advances, many of which are merely rediscoveries, on the beat of that butterfly wing, is as anachronistic as it is unnecessary.

Overall, we see in the creedal use of “I,” if not causation of our individualist character, definite correlation to it. For when Luther stood against Rome, he stood not as a disembodied soul, but as a German Christian, heroic in breed as well as creed. To that end, Kenneth Scott Latourette has noted that it was a profound turn of Providence by which Christianity had its boom amongst the Germanic tribes simultaneous to the rise of Islam in the East, for if it had been otherwise, there would have been no Clovis, no Charlemagne, no Martel, no Holger Danske to rout the Mohammedan incursions into the European heartland. The German was, indeed, a man of war providentially equipped to the task.

But even if the Christian faith were not the thing to create science, Christianity is the only frame of reference by which progress may be measured, directed, or justified. It provides the context which science requires to be meaningful. Aside from divine revelation, science lacks any touchpoint of objectivity, as all scientific processes of both induction and deduction presuppose things untestable and unprovable by the scientific method. The scientific method cannot itself be tested. Even the insistence that a theory be meaningful only if it is disprovable (the falsifiability criterion) is itself an unprovable tenet ruled out by its own standard. No, science rests upon faith. It is meaningful only to the extent that its practitioners acknowledge the design and purpose implied in men and things under God.

Men may, in spite of their rebellion, perceive functionality of (or utility in) the elements even while denying the teleological implications of such functionality and elemental tendencies (for the selfsame functionality is built into the minds of men), but the pagan scribes of natural revelation are in their sin natures averse to the foundations of knowledge in the Triune God which underlie nature’s laws. This endemic animosity between the pagan scribe of nature and the Lawgiver whom he refuses to recognize compels the scribe to distort and/or suppress the laws with which he interacts at certain points in order to avoid – or if it were possible, depose – the God of whom the very elements testify.

In all this, our fathers saw Christianity come redeeming the shadows of law in nature and folklore. With St. Anselm, they could say, Credo ut intelligam, “I believe in order that I may understand.” This turn of disposition to accept the Gospel as remedy to man’s alienation from God and His creation, itself a work of the Spirit, is the first link in the order of salvation, regeneration: a birth recapitulated, a genealogy restored. For it was only in the knowledge of Christ that we finally came to know ourselves.

Defying the solipsism which would threaten to imprison all men, apart from the Creator, the creed establishes man in terms of God’s creation, incarnation, redemption, and superintendence. This means that man, in his every aspect, is a contingent being, contingent upon all the intermediaries of creation – the family, tribe, and race – but ultimately upon God’s own self-testimony, for the eternal Three in One reveals Himself in the words, “I AM.”

Aside from the great I AM, man can neither think nor be, as he would be at a loss to distinguish his thoughts from his experience of the world, and if his thoughts were synonymous with himself (as even Descartes alleged), he were left with no means to distinguish himself from the world. So solipsism, in claiming man to be all, destroys man.

Yet man is. And he does think. If I am, and do, it is only because of Him who creates, distinguishes, and gives context to all things as contingent upon Himself. It is so by impossibility of the contrary.
The word “creed” comes from the Latin credo, meaning, “I believe.” The nature of the belief referenced in the creed is not a magical state of mind aimed at the reshaping of reality, as is the case with all the abstract ideologies of egalitarianism, cultural Marxism, and gnosticism, which today find expression in their heir apparent, Alienism. For all of these errors are, in their rebellion against God’s created order, according to Samuel, expressions of witchcraft, or morally equivalent to them (1 Sam. 15:23). And these rebellions are likewise expressions of the faith of that first rebel, the Devil (Jas. 2:19).

No, the belief of which the creed speaks is faith in the soteriological sense – in effect, an “amen” to Christ’s dominion over all reality and His jurisdictional claim to all things, seen and unseen. It is a tangible faith in and of His own flesh and blood. It is not cloistered away in the mind, but living and active in the affairs of men by the signs and seals of the covenant upon us and our seed that those holy clans might, in the honoring of their fathers and mothers, inherit the earth to a thousand generations, and all for His namesake.


  1. Hilaire Belloc, Europe and the Faith, p. 96

This Is the Elites Circling the Wagons

via Alternative Right

Folks on the "hard right" tend to regard commentator Ann Coulter as a GOP shill. While there is indeed much to justify such a perception of this photogenic motormouth pundette as displaying altogether too much partiality to Republicans and their agenda through the years, most infamously taking the form of overt praise for neocon-instigated bellicosity (e.g.: "Bomb their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity"), I have nevertheless always recognized in her a kind of brusque integrity, or maybe a certain relentless fury of temperament, an untamed intellect which cannot settle comfortably into any prescribed ideology.

Take, for example, this little segment (posted below), in which Ann speaks with certified[-kosher] GOP shill Sean Hannity and talks about the quite alarming case of Jeffrey Epstein (the name itself no doubt "triggering" to many of our readers!) Epstein, a billionaire banker, apparently "owned" a bevy of underage sex slaves, which he pimped to various high-profile friends, allegedly including former President Bill Clinton, hotshot law mogul Alan Dershowitz (double oy double vey!), Prince Andrew, and others. But being high-placed and well-connected with a legal "dream team," Epstein was generally able to evade the strong arm of the law, and got off (cough) with little more than prissy little slap on the wrist, and no charges have been brought against any of the other supposed malefactors.

In this spot, which aired on Fox News back in January, Hannity is eager to highlight the Clinton connection, but Coulter wants none of it. "This is the elites getting cozy, covering up and protecting one another," she declares. She further distances herself from the partisan tenor of the Fox broadcast by pointing out that an atrocious coverup of the case took place under the Bush administration, and that Republican favorite Ken Starr played a key role in orchestrating the smoothover of what ought to have been a bloodletting, ensuring that several big important Democrats escaped with their scalps, and thus as much as admitting that the players from both major parties are as good as in cahoots with one another.

Our rulers are disgusting, repulsive criminals who can, and do, get away with murder and worse. Our legal system is a joke, one which protects the fatcats and grinds their victims into meat. Give Miss Coulter credit for her discernment on this front. Let us hope that her commentary here doesn't merely represent one isolated "blonde moment," as it were, but instead marks a prelude to a great awakening.

Hermeneutics Circles Back to the Passions of Captain Chaos

via Majority Rights

Bobby Deniro in Raging Bull
I must say in defense of my father that he was never physically violent (aside from knocking-over the occasional sofa or hamster cage). But in display of rage, anger and hatred, Raging Bull was mellow by comparison, no comparison to my father, in fact.

This post may not ingratiate me any further with our Nordicist camp, but honest auto/biographical facts may help achieve a fuller picture of what we are up against and how we might cope. Although understanding can sometimes create more conflict than it alleviates, it is not necessarily the case that this will create conflict with the native national interests of northern, or any, European countries - and it may facilitate coordination of our interests.

Captain Chaos said: “Daniel, before you wedge your head any further up your own keister with all this talk of “hermeneutics” you should pay heed to this quote from the philosopher Hume”:

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”
Perhaps by “passion” CC was in fact suggesting something in line with what Ramzpaul was discussing with Stark  - that “you should follow and work on what you feel most strongly about, even if you can only manage it as a hobby… that way, even if you don’t make much money at it, you will still be spending your life in a way that you find meaningful and enjoyable.”

However, since CC posed empiricism in contrast to hermeneutics, I thought I’d draw upon an extreme example of “passion” to illustrate not only how passions might, probably should, be ameliorated, crafted and channeled better with hermeneutics.
There is no reason why hermeneutics cannot take heed of the passions, if not follow them - if I were being cute, I’d say that following them would be another narrative (say, like the story of “raging bull”), with its own logic of meaning and action, but particularly as we are talking Hume, I’d tend to look at this as an observation to take under consideration at the empirical end, a part of the “circular” process of inquiry.
It’s good feedback though and that is why CC has been missed here.
He must be right that rationalism can be exaggerated. Even so, it will be mitigated and subject to some rational consideration by socialization. If proposed as an alternative narrative by which to guide one’s life, the passions unbridled by the rational cultivation of hermeneutic process and its testing by social concerns would emerge quite speculative; life would be short and/or brutish.

Having been a very temperamental person (still am, some times), and not having had recourse to much rational discourse - being surrounded by people who gave free reign to their passions (temper) and wish to be expediently done with annoyances - I used to use my anger (which was intense, often a rage bigger than I was) as maps to show the way to social critique. It did seem to work to uncover some mysteries, but eventually it was used against me by those who know how to manipulate emotionalism - (as Truck Roy explains that sociopaths skillfully do; they are not moved by empathy with emotional appeals) - especially where I was not in Italy and sociopaths could stereotype me, “other” me and vilify me as a “crazy” Italian.
I figure that my father’s FANTASTIC displays of temper - histrionics of rage that honestly made “raging bull” seem fairly rational - were an evolutionary product of the small Italian village. It wasn’t so much a matter of serious competition, though frightening it was - it was more a matter of entertainment and display to break-up the boredom and monotony of a small village. That was apparent in his displays of fantastic rage over quite trivial matters. Where it was confusing and disorienting, which it was quite, everyone around in the village would be kindred enough so that someone was likely to have affinity and empathy enough to help pick up the pieces of a shattered cortex.

The problem with this evolutionary strategy for me was that I was in America, not an Italian village. Therefore, there was not a community of kindred people around who could be bothered to talk; in fact the rule of individuality, particularly for males, would tend to look upon any such request to talk as manipulative or weakly borrowing against sovereign individuality; thus, you were likely to get a very angry rebuke rather than finding one who could understand and help pick up the pieces in an efficient way. Taking for granted the level of emotionality as the Italian village did may have served in a common population, as Christianity may have served there as well, but not in the antagonistic heterogeneity of The U.S.

      “To be born is to be forced to choose to think” - Pascal
calabritto 1

My grandfather’s village,  Calabritto - a Nordicist might see signs of gang collective in this, or even beginnings of eusociality; the more well-disposed might see optimal communitarianism; and the honest might experience a nightmarish gossip-mill.

“You fucked my brother? Yeah, I did and”... scene from Raging Bull:

Remembering Julius Evola

via Counter-Currents

Baron Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola was born on May 19, 1898 in Rome. Along with René Guénon, Evola is one of the writers who has most influenced the metapolitical outlook and project of Counter-Currents, which is reflected in the fact that Evola is one of the most-tagged writers on this website. In commemoration of his birthday, I wish to draw your attention to the following resources. Counter-Currents has published the following writings of Evola’s:
The following articles deal exclusively or principally with Evola or employ him as the main frame of reference:
For those wishing to read Evola’s books, I would suggest three different starting points. For those who want to jump in at the deep end, begin with Evola’s magnum opus, Revolt Against the Modern World. For those who want to wade in, I recommend starting with one of Evola’s slimmest, most beautiful, and most seductive works, Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest. For those who prefer to begin with an overview of Evola’s life and works, I recommend his The Path of Cinnabar: An Intellectual Autobiography. I recommend the following websites on Evola:
Finally, as a treat, here is a video of the elderly Evola being interviewed in French on Dadaism.

Duke Professor Defiant after School Condemns Racially Charged Remarks

via American Renaissance

A Duke University professor was defiant after the school last week condemned his “noxious” and “offensive” words in a letter published in The New York Times in which he compared African-Americans unfavorably to Asian-Americans.

The school’s rebuke came after a student backlash against Political Science Professor Jerry Hough, 80, whose May 9 letter sought to address racism and the Baltimore riots. Hough said African-Americans don’t try to integrate into society, while Asians “worked doubly hard” to overcome racism instead of blaming it.

“Every Asian student has a very simple old American first name that symbolizes their desire for integration,” he wrote on May 10. “Virtually every black has a strange new name that symbolizes their lack of desire for integration.”

Duke students and faculty blasted Hough last week, and the school told The News & Observer of Raleigh that he was placed on leave and that 2016 will be his last year at the school.

“The comments were noxious, offensive, and have no place in civil discourse,” said Duke spokesman Michael Schoenfeld.


But Hough, in an e-mail to an ABC affiliate, said political correctness is getting in the way of thoughtful and frank debate.

“I am strongly against the obsession with ‘sensitivity,'” Hough wrote. “The more we have emphasized sensitivity in recent years, the worse race relations have become. I think that is not an accident. I know that the 60 years since the Montgomery bus boycott is a long time, and things must be changed. The Japanese and other Asians did not obsess with the concentration camps and the fact they were linked with blacks as ‘colored.’”


Amren Editor’s Note: You can email Professor Hough at

Like the Roman: The Brutal Truth

via Radix

Gavin McInnes brought the hurtful truth to Fox News last night when he told a Black-loving spinster what would make her happy. . . and it wasn't a successful career.

Hats off to you, Mr. McInnes. It's amazing they allow him on Fox at all--especially with comments like this.

Tragedy and Hope: Lessons from the Plight of British Nationalism

via American Renaissance

In his talk at the 2015 American Renaissance conference, veteran British activist Matthew Tait draws lessons from the meteoric rise and fall of the British National Party. He offers an evenhanded, insider’s account of both the party’s own shortcomings and of larger events that were beyond its control, and concludes with thoughtful advice for activists.

2015 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Award Presentation Ceremony

via Western Spring

Further to previous articles and the recent announcement of Richard Edmonds as the winner of this prize for 2015, I thought our readers would like the opportunity of seeing the announcement, which took place at the London Forum meeting on 16th of this month.

This video will give our members the opportunity to hear the reasoning behind the decision of our awards committee, an opportunity to see the genuine appreciation on the part of Richard Edmonds to receive this honour, and also the bonhomie engendered resulting in the recognition also of the sterling work that Jez Turner does in organising the London Forum. Jez is seen at the end of the video receiving a bouquet of flowers in recognition of his organisational skills from Lady Michèle Renouf.