Jun 17, 2015


via Majority Rights

Following a discussion on MR I wrote this as an attempt to amplify and clarify, particularly relative to the state. Anarchy is highly individualist, and those from antiquity who are known as innovators – Aeschylus, Archimedes, Socrates, Pericles et al – we also know as individuals. Everyone’s an individual, you might say, but how does that explain the classical period?

Modern Greece is just as state-minded as other European nations, though luckily exists in a type of stasis that preserves their heritage. Over in Syria, the Roman columns of Palmyra that are the very picture of picturesque stasis, are possibly going to get run over by Isil on their way to establishing a proto-Caliphate or Islamic State.

It’s not just the state that is so pernicious. What they call the free-market is actually governed by intractable rules, as we can see in the case of the leftist Syriza’s showdown with its European creditors. If the state is inherently against anarchic traditions, capital is even more so.

In the global system, every particle of monetary value is micro-managed to an absurd level. So, the capitalist nations – which include most of the world – are actually managed by capital systems that are on the lines of cybernetics or a computer data-base/robot.

Capitalism is supposedly not an ideology in the sense Marxism is; it’s just free competition. Except, it’s not free; as noted, it’s micro-managed on a global scale. As an ideology, Marxism seeks to change socio-economic systems. Capitalism has no such ideology, nevertheless still does change reality since, as noted, it is akin to cybernetics. Any traditional community, say a Greek island, that exists in relative stasis, has a type of anarchic energy. The villagers and the inhabitants exist mainly as individuals with no particular agenda other than to live the daily round, shop at the market, trawl for lobsters, sightsee, recite Homer etc.

The idea of stasis enables the tradition to speak for itself. I actually lived in Spain as a kid under Franco’s reign and the same was true then in the 60s, evocation of local color. Anything which essentially does nothing to alter things, such as stasis or anarchy, is a type of natural energy.

If there is social disorder in these communities (as there is in Greece with the anti-austerity elderly protesters) the local police are called in. Order and disorder exist side-by-side. This is actually the natural state of affairs and any attempt to change it simply destroys the natural energy.

Capital is very destructive since while seemingly non-ideological and invisible, is in reality a control and management system becoming more cybernetic by the week. This means it has an ontological effect, an effect on the energy of communities. What Marxism does with ideology, capital does by stealth.

The state or the corporate state is the biggest anti anarchic force in existence. We cannot therefore approach European ontology by way of the state. It’s not a political argument, it’s actually a classical one to do with restraint in all things.

The classical is a type of freedom that I relate to Tao, energy. Bruce Lee as I see it was more classical in his approach, not robotic. Lee was very aware of his Chinese heritage, but was against the imposition of strict tradition in kung fu styles - that argument is quite complicated. Routines that are imposed are like formulaic exercises. But to be “classic” means having an immediate felt expression. One cannot act systemically and still act spontaneously.

Relating this to communities, anarchy is there in the way places are governed by common consent, not imposition. This allows for conflicts to exist, to not need to be resolved, debate. Drama. I mean quite literally films and plays. The self-sufficiency of a small Norwegian town lends Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People an ethical context you would not otherwise find, as the townsfolk turn against the good doctor.

At the other end of the scale, Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13 has a disparate group of police and outlaws becoming ethically entwined as they face a prolonged siege by an unseen enemy that knows no fear (shades of Isil). There’s even time for a dash of romance for the condemned hero Wilson and policewoman Leigh. Carpenter’s nominally city-setting is more of a homage to Hawks’ Rio Bravo, even down to Lieutenant Bishop chucking Wilson the gun as the spooks emerge from a corridor.

Wilson’s line “I was born out of time” you could imagine is an attitude Carpenter shares, since he wrote the script. The West of yore is an archetypal example of individualism and self-sufficiency. I recall from the 60s The High Chaparral, set after the Mexican war, with the Chaparral operating as a sort of fiefdom with Hispanic connections in the hinterlands. Ethical drama is made from rugged self-reliance and ethnicity, the Spanishness of Victoria and her compadres set against the more dour rigging of the Chaparral speaks eloquently for racial heritage and traditions.

This is where I have to say that nothing should get in the way of racial epithets, since they presuppose racial traits. Modern dramas tend to be “color-blind” as if it’s a benefit that one is of no particular breed. If you allow for some anarchy in the way places are governed, though, the opposite is the case. Black Harlem, Spanish Harlem, that type of thing, where neighbourhoods are under informal rule in terms of ethnicity. That actually is a type of anarchy because there is no formal government. What you generally get is some civil disorder, gangs if you like, and law enforcement.

That situation is just made for drama in in its ethical context. What I am saying is that that type of anarchy enables races to be self-governing to quite a degree. There will be some disorder and law enforcement. Not only is there a natural energy to these communities, there are no formal restrictions on the use of terms like “kike” or “chink”. There are much fewer formal rules so speech is freer and spontaneous.

The fact is, societies of the past were much more individualist and spontaneous. There are no bars on thought or speech so you get racial tropes as in Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta. Racial tropes are a sign of informality and not the formal rules of government. Therefore, if you want to express a racial context, you can’t do it formally by way of the nation-state. The formality does not allow for free expression; anything rule-bound imposes itself on the individual.

On MR it seems caricatures are allowed as it’s a non-rule-bound situation. In the modern world the state prohibits this so what you are dealing with is some abstract, behind the scenes influence. This is the essence of a conspiracy, but it’s completely the product of an abstract mode of thought that the state engenders. Even if there were a conspiracy, you are still trapped by abstraction. As noted previously, you can’t confuse Amy Winehouse with a conspiracy as they’re two totally different things.

Obviously one could make a caricature of Amy Winehouse which would make a great deal of sense; the state might not “get” it which suggests anti-anarchy and anti-racism are closer than some might imagine. Another thing that strikes me is that the Eurovision song contest has morphed into almost a freak show for transgenders and anything goes entertainment as Europe widens its doors. Almost the idea of ethnicity is lost in the mix. There are still good acts to be found, but they tend to get submerged by the globalising brand (next stop China).

Where I live in S England, immigrants from the east tend to resemble Konrad Lorenz’s geese as they waddle round with their brood. They have truly been imprinted by anti-anarchy. The crux of the argument is we, the people, live off the land and not off the state. We need to be more like the French who do not allow their small farmsteaders to be conglomerated into the capitalist mix.

The mix is toxic because it amounts to an ultimate nothingness. Livestock herds are brought indoors so we don’t know they’re there. The argument is ecological because societies also have an ecology. An ecology of living with animals and an ecology of race. Sheep-husbandry is equally vital to political commentary or more so in a way.

The contrast with China is worth making here. Tao is celebrated in the famous dragon-dance as a type of untameable oneness. Historically, this principle is almost the opposite to the Chinese ideal of harmony, and in practice Confucianism aims at harmony with the anarchic energy of Tao as a curb on the power of the emperor. Harmony is something of a double-edged sword in that it gives the emperor power, and this is the basic difference with Europe which practised feudalism. Feudalism is actually quite an anarchic system, and was backed-up by the Church in its iconography of struggle and battle between good and evil (see In The Mouth of Madness).

The Church, as I’ve been trying to make out, has quite classical roots; in place of Apollo is Christ and in place of Dionysis is sin, lust. Although the fallen angel is supposed to be evil, the whole structure depends on the battle being fought. Without that battle you are left with pure goodness which just doesn’t exist. You need Judas in order for the whole thing to work dramatically and ethically.

So, the link to ancient Greece is there. The underlying message is that neither order nor chaos are good or bad in themselves; they define each other. This is remarkably similar to the concept of Tao, particularly as specified by Bruce Lee. This is what leads me to think Lee is quite classical in his approach to king fu.

Lee’s films are direct expressions of a Fist of Fury. This is not necessarily a Chinese trait. The Assassin by Hou Hsiao-hsien is up for a palme d’or at Cannes; a truly elaborate, florid, hypnotically atmospheric visual epic of encounters glimpsed through dappled woods and ornate interiors, of a female kung fu warrior who glides around mysteriously. That gilded harmony makes it quite Chinese, but less classical.

Harmony, as I say, is a double-edged sword; a typical Western view of the Chinks was Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon comicstrip. Someone with no moral compunctions. The Dragon Lady in Terry and the Pirates is likewise morally dubious (but who cares with those features?). Hong Kong used to be very Terry , with its carnivalesque water-traffic. Like a Roman Prefecture, the indigenous culture was self-sufficient with local institutions overseeing political-economy.

Chinese tend to aim at harmony, but their saving grace is anarchic Tao. Harmony, like Apollo, is the ultimate nullifier. Anarchy isn’t anti-social, it’s anti imposition. Therefore, it’s an essential counter to reason and any man-made attempt at harmony. Look on it as a type of gaiety, of loose spontaneity of a free people. Order cannot be established without its counter, because that would be stultified inertia. Bruce Lee uses the word constipation for set routines that are pre-formulated and negate any direct, unthought expression. Attack is defence (Artist of Life, page 158).

This to me means that Lee is being classical at least as much as he is being Chinese; it’s known that his views created enemies among the Chinese diaspora. To me, classicism is something that saw its peak in Greece, but differences are of degree, not kind. The technical perfection of Greek sculpture has never been bettered; that is set against Dionysic expression.

Pure technique is Apple, which happens to be the biggest (gay) company today. Their control is total, which is the negative thing. No restraint and no hint of chaos (gods forbid, ducky). I say “gay” because of their preciousness, everything just so. Steven Fry is their biggest fan. This is to be distinguished from gay in the Greek sense (all elitist societies are gay in a Blackadder sense, aren’t they?) There is quite a fad now for retro-tech and I think the reason is there. Technique set against expression or imperfection. Here’s a quote from Lee:
Many different “stylists” have become desensitized, patternised robots. They become these organized form, victims of conditioning handed down for thousands of years. A martial artist is never a replica of “this” style or “that” style. He is definitely not a product but a live individual, and remember, the individual is always more important than the system.
Artist of Life, page 157
For “individual” read man, woman, race.. anything which is not equivalent. Liberal “rights”, which are another type of social management, go against all these individual traits. Post-50s, through the hippy rebellion, the various “rights” have seen the state impose its doctrine of nothingness. In the US today killer cops are the end result (no neighborhoods, no compunctions). Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On, the first introspective eco-conscious concept-album resounds with neighbourhood in a Black streetwise sensibility sense – The Ecology, Dionysis Holler (dig it).

The less efficient the state the better; R Crumb and others fled to France. His view everything is turning into junk may not be far off. Everything has to be equivalent so we have feminism and then gay marriage. Germaine Greer said of Jane Fonda:
Poor old Jane has a replacement hip but not a replacement brain.
… a feminist speaking of a woman’s free choice. As Fonda said, it gave her “ten years of work”, and unlike Bardot she chose to act. Free choice. That is the mark of a society that recognizes antagonism, the relationship of predator to prey, harvest, intermediary (Levi-Strauss). From that relationship come materials, crops, woods, leather, hay and horses that have extempore qualities. Remember, Bardot is a lover of animals, not “humankind”. To a society that doesn’t recognize antagonism, everything is equivalent. In Godard’s Le Weekend, capital is a metaphor for junk.

Whereas for Freud capital signifies Eros, to Godard Eros has value in itself, like the grandiloquent sensuality of the Taj Mahal. Beehives, which happen to be in decline, are Eros supplying the abundance of honey, not money. Eco-value. Also artistic value, what I like to call craftwork. Here’s a quote on Russian icons:
Three to four days are spent preparing the lime, cedar and poplar board. Rabbit-skin glue is then carefully boiled to prime the board. A muslin cloth is glued in place and 12 layers of gesso applied. Once dry it’s sanded to perfection. Only then can a scene be created.
Not unlike a process of revealing the material, chipping away at clay (a metaphor by Lee). Sir Richard Temple notes:
The calm presence, the inner contemplation.. is the artistic energy that radiates through hundreds of years.
Lest you think I’m being religious, similar remarks apply to Roman frescoes at Pompeii. Here’s a quote from Georg Basilitz:
To create something that hasn’t been seen before, you have to react against something. But when I go to the Venice Biennale today it seems that young artists are too close together. Where are the scandals, where is the conflict today?
Condict Byulding


It’s about content, and where there’s content conflict, contradiction. Religious conflict is prevalent, I cop to it. Were there no conflict there would be no ecology, so you’re welcome to it. Religion is prejudice by nature, the Madonna is a woman. Also, creative outsider types tends to reveal similar attitudes. Pope Francis hasn’t watched TV since 1990, likewise R Crumb, Harlan Ellison.

The prejudice we see nowadays is towards equivalence, paraphrased as liberal rights. Being prejudicial in the other, Rightist, way though, is simply recognizing individuals as men, women or race as distinct from any sterile system.

This harks back to CC Beck’s quote on stereotypes; they are useful devices to summarise reality. An orthodox Jew in a tall hat is very easy to distinguish, and en masse fairly easy to caricature as resembling human penguins. That has a long tradition in Western artifice. Prejudice is mainly the ability to detect an individual who is other, man, woman, race. In ethology it would be predator and prey. If there was no other, everything would be equivalent.

More to the point, equivalence is a form of junk, of nothingness or sterility. It is a system of prefabricated reality, not free expression. How does one avoid such systems? As I said, by having a classical sense of restraint. If you take the medieval Church, it was not a temporal power as such but a spiritual one, presiding over a feudal system, something relatively anarchic. A system that is highly organized is never anarchic; for example, Isil have no conception of either order or chaos in their advance. They have no knowledge of, or place any value on, the ancient Aramaic culture that was infused with Greco-Roman forms. The only things they have are nihilism and money.

Antagonisms, not rights, are a type of natural order. Even thought is a type of energy, creative disorder, not prefabricated rules. The structures, as Levi-Strauss shows, are antagonistic. This reflects on social structure and speech patterns. Symbols are also antagonistic; a painting of the Madonna breastfeeding is a potent symbol of marriage (to God). Only women can marry (men) in that context. Maybe the Church should get onto it?

To do without systems is also good practice if they are increasingly cybernetic. Complex systems can become chaotic probably because there’s just no getting away from it. Then we get something that is both sterile and impossible logically to fathom. Natural systems are simple because antagonistic. Symbols, icons, myths, ibis, hieroglyphs.

Can the Ossis Save Europe?, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Sikorski: “The Polish-U.S. alliance . . . is
downright harmful, because it creates
a false sense of security.”

Contemporary Central Europe: Towards Decadence and Decline

The ruling establishments in Central Europe today — by which I here mean Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic states and the Balkan countries — are for the most part not an impressive lot. There is little original or interesting about them. Their only ambition is to “rejoin the West,” few ponder whether this is wise at the very moment when this civilization is committing suicide.
This ambition is understandable. The Ossis want Western standards in all things: Western wealth, Western security (notably vis-à-vis Russia), and Western good government. They rightly feel that their historical trajectories and national life have been distorted, that their destiny in the European mainstream was stolen from them, because of violent occupation by the Ottoman and Russian/Soviet empires.

The inequality between the West and Central Europe is enormous. On the one hand we have the Central and Eastern European Kleinstaaterei (“small-state mess”): twenty or so recently-established regimes, the biggest having 38 million souls and many being mere statelets. These countries are still recovering from the economic deformation and intellectual stunting imposed by communism.

In the West, there is the still-awesome power of the Euro-Atlantic constellation: NATO, the NSA, the EU, the enormous influence of Anglo-Zionist academia, media and pop culture . . . with all their seductive promises of wealth, law, and liberty. It would take a very self-confident regime indeed to be immune to this power of attraction. This makes the relative independence of mind of the nationalist Hungarian Viktor Orbán or the eurosceptic Czech Miloš Zeman all the more impressive.

This inequality also explains the fervent Europeanism (pro-EU-ism or even EU federalism) of a fraction of Central European educated elites, especially the young, Anglophone émigrés. When their country joined the EU, they earned the right to immigrate to Western Europe, a move which allows them to metaphorically leap into the future, enjoying standards of living and government far, far superior to that of their home countries — standards which their countries will not achieve for many, many years, and perhaps never in some cases.[1] They resent the allegedly retrograde, “uneducated,” superstitious, and chauvinistic views of most of their countrymen. EU government is preferred to their corrupt national governments. They also see in the EU a protection against Russia, a powerful and legitimate concern. Central European “EU federalism” then draws from many sources, partly from the “liberal cosmopolitan” values spread by the West, but just as much, paradoxically, from narrow ethno-national and class interests.

I have been amazed to see that the political consciousness of many educated Central European émigrés is determined by, and is firmly within the narrow bounds of, The Daily Show and The Economist. What a tragedy! Is there nothing unique in their national culture that they could share with the rest of the world? Or is one’s destiny to be but a pale imitation of a decadent, self-destructive, anti-national, Anglo-American with no feelings for the traditional peoples and cultures of Europe? (Isn’t the original always going to be more interesting?)

The liberal Central European comes from a region which has been wrecked by repeated ethnic and religious wars, and there are long-standing territorial disputes. This intra-European bickering, still common in Eastern European nationalisms, can indeed be disheartening for White Advocates, as Tomislav Sunić has repeatedly reminded us (e.g., here). Territorial disputes, whether between Russians and Ukrainians or Hungarians and Romanians, are wholly unproductive and pale in comparison to the threats hanging over all Europeans. The European Union, for all its faults, can be saluted for having to a certain extent overcome the relevance of these conflicts through human and economic borderlessness among Europeans.

Central European Russophobia is furthermore eminently understandable, even if I do not condone it personally. The Russian Empire’s oppressive presence in Central Europe long predates the existence of the Soviet Union (although that entity was certainly far more oppressive still). The Baltic states could well be re-annexed and indeed they have little history of national independence. Poland, that great martyr-nation, has been sovereign for less than 50 of the past 220 years.

Hence, one cannot blame Central Europeans for being too careful. In terms of Realpolitik, it is understandable that so many Central European governments collaborated in in the illegal invasion of Iraq or the CIA’s “extraordinary renditions” (in effect, a government program establishing a small, international “gulag archipelago” enabling the torture of Muslims in the context of the so-called “War on Terror”). They did this to curry American favor, to bolster ties with the only ally that can really stand up to Russia (the Germans and French being both largely unwilling and unable).

This collaboration does however make any Central European moralistic accusations against Russia rather hypocritical. The allies of Saudi Arabia, the collaborators in torture, and the destroyers of the enemies of Israel (entire nations: Iraq, Libya, Syria . . .) do not have much moral ground to stand on. But that is, unfortunately, the nature of tribal disputes: The in-group’s crimes are forgotten or excused, the enemy out-group’s crimes are magnified out of all recognition.[2] Tribal manichaeanism takes hold, all nuance is lost, and the enemy is collectively demonized. This is very frustrating for outsiders trying to have an objective view or to foster reconciliation. These disputes are extraordinarily difficult to overcome when the tribes are intertwined with each other, even under extremely stable and favorable circumstances, as in Northern Ireland for example.

In any case, the Central European regimes will seek to cling to the West for both economic and security reasons. This means that, even as they grow economically and become more secure, they will become infected with the suicidal culture of the West.
The cultural struggle continues. In the United States, there was first the cultural defeat of Red America, of the fathers, the small towns, the churches, the state governments, and the military, at the hands of Blue America, the hostile bi-coastal elites of Hollywood, academia, the media, and the Federal Government (particularly the judiciary). White America has been culturally delegitimized — with any White ethnocentrism condemned as evil and effectively blamed for all the problems of non-Whites. This transformation paved the way for the demographic replacement and reduction to minority status of the traditional White population. This is expected by 2043, a mere 80 years after the 1960s cultural revolution, a blink of an eye in historical terms.

Much the same thing is happening across Europe, and in particular Central Europe. The traditional ethnocentrism of this region is likely to diminish both as standards of living rise and with the encroaching influence of Anglo-Zionist culture and the EU’s liberal norms. There is of course resistance: In Poland the Catholic Church, conservative radio, and the iconoclastic (paleoconservative?) politician Janusz Korwin-Mikke have considerable influence. But this resistance will, eventually, give way unless decisive political changes occur both East and West. The traditional culture of Central Europe will decline; it will be considered “unfashionable,” backward, an obstacle to individual pleasure. And when the culture of critique hegemonic in the West spreads to our Eastern brethren, they too will fall.

Perhaps the least impressive thing about Central European elites is, with few exceptions, their disregard for catastrophic demographic realities. The fertility rate in Central Europe is universally low, going from 1.29 in Poland per woman to 1.58 in Lithuania. The latest European Commission projections estimate that between 2010 and 2060, the population of Bulgaria will shrink by 26.9%, Latvia by 25.8%, Romania and Lithuania by 19.6%, Poland by 14.6% Estonia by 12.6%, Hungary by 11.7%, Slovakia by 6.1% and the Czech Republic by 0.7%. The working-age population will shrink faster still and the elderly one will expand enormously. These figures are obviously liable to change, but they suggest the general situation: Central Europeans can be said to be disappearing, with no destiny other than being a minor economic and demographic appendage to the Euro-Atlantic constellation. As far as I can see, only Orbán’s Hungary has made a major political effort at addressing this issue, albeit with limited results so far.

Central European elites are, understandably, obsessed with wealth and security. But what good will that do if one’s country is reduced to a collection of shopping malls and retirement homes? A good society is not measured by GDP or big-screen television sets. Rather, a good society — one that can survive and prosper — is measured by physical and mental well-being, by a healthy, vibrant demography, and a healthy, adaptive culture: Mens sana in corpore sano.

Furthermore, there are no perfect guarantees of security in this world and especially not through alliances with fickle foreign powers. Rather, genuine national security comes only from a people’s own spiritual and physical strength. With these, a people can survive military occupation and even minorityhood almost indefinitely.

The case of Poland, by far the biggest and most powerful of the Central European post-communist nations, is emblematic. Polish leaders — who imagined themselves to have a “special relationship” with the United States under President George W. Bush — have been bitterly disappointed by lack of support from Washington. As then Foreign Minister Sikorski said in 2014 (he did not know his private conversation was being recorded):
You know that the Polish-U.S. alliance isn’t worth anything. It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security. Complete bullshit. We’ll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we’ll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. [We are] complete losers.
Sikorski went on to describe Poles as having “a Negro-like attitude” of deference [murzyńskość] towards America. U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks show similar disenchantment in the Polish government more generally. There is no question Poles have also been disappointed by the EU’s lackluster response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and interventions in eastern Ukraine.

Central Europeans have not been satisfied by their Western allies in their pursuit of security. Perhaps their best hope is that Russia be corrupted, as they are being corrupted, by Western liberalism — what Gregory Hood has called “geopolitical dysgenics”: Russian patriotism and power would then be dissolved by anti-nationalism, individualism, and egalitarianism, each Russian selfishly pursuing his plutocratic or consumer interest rather than that of his motherland. Russia would then, like Western Europe, be reduced to a vast glorified retirement home and open-air museum, impotent to oppose the American Empire, destined to be gradually submerged by the desperate masses of the Third World and their sullen, aggressive progeny. President Vladimir Putin, however, may have other plans.


[1]Interestingly, the Czech Republic and Slovenia are already richer than some Southern European countries. This suggests indigenous aptitude for modernity in these countries, despite the effects of communism, and the converse in southern countries.
[2]I personally came to the conclusion that Russia was not such an evil power, as far as these things go, when the most high-profile “dissident” group the Western oligarchic media could dig up to demonize Russia was the female pseudo-punk-rock band Pussy Riot (whose leading members had previously been part of the provocateur “art group” Voina or War). These people were engaging in acts meant to provoke the authorities beyond what could be tolerated in any country, their previous antics having included inserting raw chicken in their vaginas, trying to release thousands of cockroaches in a court room, and having group sex in a museum. Western media almost never mention this; instead, they present Pussy Riot as a girl-next-door teenage band, the better to portray Putin’s regime as an shockingly repressive autocracy. In Soviet times, the West had been able to find authentic dissidents such as Andrei Amalrik and Alexander Solzhenitsyn to undermine Moscow. Now the West has Pussy Riot, while Russia has Edward Snowden, the courageous revealer of Washington’s unprecedented mass surveillance program (far beyond what the communist German Stasi or Soviet KGB could dream of). The West of course has enormous resources — economic, cultural and otherwise — to reward subversives undermining their enemies. This was evident when Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Pussy Riot’s leader, was granted a cameo appearance on the popular TV show House of Cards. Nadezhda has “made it.” And to think that just seven years ago she was pregnant having sex “doggy-style” in Moscow’s Timiryazev State Museum of Biology. You’ve come a long way, pussy!

Themes in Innovation Propaganda

via Henry Dampier

When economic and political conditions in your nation-state are declining, you have a couple options: you can either face up to the crisis and make the changes necessary that could make recovery possible, or you go through an extensive messaging campaign to portray decline as advance.

One of the more reliable methods — used extensively by 20th century states — is to attempt to make inferior substitutions appear to be better than original superior product. In this way, you try to portray something like plastics which leak some chemical or another into food as superior to cheap glass or clay containers. Another example would be portraying cheap grain-based diets as healthier than diets high in fat, because the governing system has an easier time producing the former in the quantity desired by the masses.

Similarly, the new ‘digital’ culture, pushed most strongly in the United States, has been portrayed as superior to the old ‘bigoted’ culture in the territory which was destroyed by various misguided social and legal innovations like Civil Rights. You might not be able to walk downtown Baltimore safely at night anymore, but you can chat with people anytime you like on a portable super-telegraph that you can carry around with you.

Instead of owning equity in a home in a neighborhood that you can be reasonably confident will appreciate over time — given a stable legal order that respects property rights — any investment into real property is likely to be either interfered with or expropriated somehow. Either some politically connected buyer will be super-empowered with paper money to devalue your investments, some government agency will move bandits into your neighborhood, or the factory in your town will be shuttered by the EPA for environmental violations and the DOL for improper management practices, which will then depress the value of your real investments.

Modern propaganda is largely an exercise in misdirection — getting people to pay attention to irrelevant things to massage away discontent or nervousness about the stability and long term prospects of the regime. Certain groups of prestigious people, like bankers, are even paid to lie about financial conditions, to make them seem better than they really are.

Accounting structures are, everywhere and always, highly manipulable without extensive legal control and supervision. States have, always and typically, tended to play fast and loose with these structures. It’s the abnormal society that can support a state which mostly keeps accurate books, because usually the temptation is to fool with them to gain some advantage or another.

When faced with a troublesome reality, propagandists will often make simple matters appear to be more complex than they really are. They’ll bring up irrelevant facts &  issues, play games with numbers, and otherwise make it difficult to have a straight conversation.

Ultimately, though, narratives don’t really collapse — institutions do. Before Saddam’s government fell, his PR guy was still doing his job up until the last hour of the last day. What the PR guy says is irrelevant compared to whether or not the people propping up the regime believe what the PR guy says.

Right Question, Wrong Answer: Sympathy for Dolezal

via TradYouth

Rachel Dolezal: Crypto-Cracker
Our mission here at TradYouth is educating youth about identity and tradition. For most, both friend and foe alike, the slick word “identity” sounds like the latest euphemism for “race,” …with one especially fair and delightsome race in mind. The subject of identity is so much greater than one’s biological race, though.

While I have refused to compromise on my assertion that my racial identity is an integral and irreplaceable aspect of my “identity,” I believe that we’ll continue failing to persuade folks of the necessity of preserving our race until we successfully instigate and win an overarching conversation about identity.

The fascinating and sordid tale of Rachel Dolezal, the peachy Northwestern girl of Nordic breeding, pathologically lying her way into not merely passing for Black, but becoming a prominent regional figure in America’s Black community, is really a tale about the implosion of and vilification of White Identity, and the growing Diaspora of Whites and especially White males into identity groups which primarily exist as refugee settlements for those fleeing the shadow of Blood Libel hanging over those born White, or even worse, …White and male.

Contemporary White Americans strive mightily to find a precious redemptive drop of non-White blood in their ancestry. We even cling to our sexual perversions, having fabricated an elaborate pseudo-identity with a vast web of micro-identities around our private vices. To be homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or whatever in one’s appetite is redemptive, liberating one from the shame of whiteness and maleness.

To be “homosexual,” or “transgendered,” or one of the rapidly proliferating categories of novel micro-identities with lovingly crafted victimization narratives is to be granted at least a partial reprieve from the white man’s burden of guilt and shame for “privilege” and “oppression.”
Our Brave New World
Our Brave New World

Medical technology is keeping pace with this phenomenon, with gender reassignment becoming an accepted and encouraged solution for tens of thousands of young men who have grown uncomfortable with their identities. You can bet that racial reassignment won’t be far behind, with unscrupulous plastic surgeons promising comprehensive racial reassignments which will be more convincing than Rachel’s half-assed spray tan job.

Honestly, I don’t blame these people. Every white male and white female is born with an uncomfortable question imposed on them by today’s pervasively anti-white culture: the shameful stain of White Guilt. This question, how one responds to belonging to the guilty race of privileged oppressors, is the right question; Rachel just arrived at the wrong answer. She rebelled against the existential horror of belonging to the people of injustice by radically transforming her life, her behavior, her biography, and even her body into that of the people of justice.

Rachel got to belong to the heroic victim group, the underdogs struggling for justice, the people to whom the future belongs, the good people, for years and years until betrayed by her own family.

The whole world is laughing at Rachel Dolezal now. The Blacks hate her for trying to steal their…privilege. The Whites hate her because they’re jealous of her audacity and courage to try to escape our shared life sentence of guilt and shame. Most White Nationalists mock her for betraying her racial identity, and I get that. But I disagree. I agree with Rachel that being a contemporary White American is a wretched and shameful thing to be. I agree with Rachel that identity is of paramount importance, and that it’ll require audacity and courage to flee this sinking ship of self-hating, self-indulgent, impotent, infertile wretches.

Rachel’s attempt to sue Howard University for discriminating against her because she’s White seems absurd at first blush. She pulled a Heimbach! Like Matthew Heimbach, she refused to be ashamed of herself because of the color of her skin and battled her University’s anti-white double-standard. For a good long stretch, she managed to overcome it before being cast back into the private hell of White Guilt, a private hell which is especially tortuous for the morally sensitive.

Keep pointing and laughing at Rachel’s humiliating fate, but her fate is the destiny of all White Americans. If you don’t trumpet your aberrant sexuality on the hilltop, mutilate your genitals, or convincingly pass for another race, then this anti-White system will hate and humiliate you. There is another option, of course, reaching forward to a White identity which isn’t as diseased, derelict, and doomed as the White American one.

Gas chambers and death camps are an unnecessary logistical hassle. All but a remnant of (increasingly vocal) White Americans have been persuaded to believe that they don’t have a right to exist. They don’t have a right to identify with their ancestors or their future generations. They don’t have a right to life, at least not in a sustainable and stable way.

Rachel Dolezal refused to live a life of White Guilt, and escaped from the madhouse of White Guilt for a few years before being recaptured. She’ll be re-educated and re-shackled in short order, and will be publicly apologizing to Black people for attempting to join them in having an identity which is allowed to have pride, allowed to have vitality, and allowed to have a future.

I believe she arrived at the wrong answer, but I applaud her for asking the right question: Should I tolerate a life of guilt and shame for being born with white skin?

The End of Commercial Man?

via The American Mercury

A more than casual look at The Environmental Movement shows it to be mostly a facade of noisy rhetoric. If the speechifying is largely surrealistic, the problems are real. Basic resources for industry, as well as exotic ones, are getting scarcer. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Even if there are no real shortages at the moment, unlimited growth is a mathematical absurdity. Nothing is growing so fast as the population of the Third World nations. Neither governments nor professional ecologists offer more than symbolic solutions.

As the Sierra Club Bulletin (October 1975) summed it up: “In the ten-year span from 1960 to 1970, Americans alone consumed more raw materials and energy than were used by all of mankind before 1960,”

Rather than review all the frightening statistics, which has been done over and over again, it might be worthwhile to consider first what kind of mentality caused them. If we listen to the shamans of minority racism, we will hear the blame pinned on “the culture of white, Western masculinity” (Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends). There is an iota of truth here. Many of the leading polluters are indeed white males of Teutonic or Celtic descent. But the principal culprit is Commercial Man, a cultureless, raceless, unisex creature, who has purged himself of all ethnic feelings and devoted his whole being to the exchange of goods and services.

Commercial Man is not going to solve the environmental problems because he is the cause of them. He did not invent the modern technology which amplifies them, but he is the one who utilizes technology to turn everything in sight into goods and money. Science started out as the hobby of eccentrics. It was only in the nineteenth century that Commercial Man really took notice of the science kooks and decided there was unlimited wealth in store for those who could exploit science. A few geniuses like Edison and Henry Ford straddled both worlds and became legends in their own times.

The great fallacy of the ecology-minded is that modern technology is the key factor in environmental degradation. Technology is a factor, but irrigation and the stone axe could also do the job, as any serious study of the ancient world quickly reveals. Of course today’s advanced technology provides fantastic leverage for human stupidity. The scientists and engineers who created it are unfortunately lacking in the mental scope or emotional maturity needed to utilize such power properly. All they know is to speed up the growth demanded by Commercial Man. Konrad Lorenz has compared the situation to cancer (Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins). This is a perfectly valid simile, since the cancer cell has lost the ability to function cooperatively in the organism. It multiplies and multiplies and the malignancy grows and grows. The tumor fattens until the organism dies. Faith healers report that they have persuaded some cancers to reform in their own best interest. What are the chances of our social cancer coming to its senses? Very little. Antibodies are needed, not gentle persuasion.

Commercial Man cannot do anything meaningful to prevent this planet from being plundered and destroyed because very candidly that is his entire reason for being. In his socialistic, humanitarian garb his goal is to maximize the tonnage of human protoplasm on the earth and to provide these quivering masses of hominid tissue with goods and services. Optimizing the process is outside his scope; in fact it is antagonistic to his values and his way of thinking. His outlook on life is so one-dimensional that he offers only stopgap solutions for problems caused by his mindless quest for more of everything. Replication is his forte, not creativity. A billion mediocre things are better than one good one.

The mania for quantity and production has made efficiency a virtue. High efficiency means rigid stability. Natural processes operate at about ten percent efficiency. As efficiency rises above this level, the ability of a mechanism to adjust to changes declines dramatically. Lessons like this are totally lost on Commercial Man.

Commercial Man, in fact, is a creature of all humanity. He can be an Anglo-Saxon liberal member of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, a de-ethnicized American Jew, an overseas Chinese, a Hindu in Africa, a multiracial comprador in Latin America. His camp followers are the bureaucrats and intellectuals who sometimes claim to be his enemies, but are more appropriately his heirs.

The essence of Commercial Man has loomed over very diverse societies — the Third Reich, liberal America, the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Israel and the United Arab Republic. Having existed for a long time, longer than historical records, he serves a useful purpose, but becomes a serious problem when his is the dominant class.

Reading between the lines of liberal-minority environmentalists reveals their solution consists of eliminating technology, in part by downgrading white nations and eliminating white scientists and engineers. Since the Chinese, Japanese and other Asiatics have plenty of good engineers and plenty of good Commercial Men, the disappearance of whites will by no means signify the end of industrialism. If anything, what will vanish will be any and all restraints on industrial expansion. The world will not return to being a beautiful wilderness inhabited by noble savages. Instead it will be covered by an endless favela teeming with rats, lice, roaches and nonwhites. There is no way of telling how long this global squalor will endure before the last so-called human creature perishes. Probably not too long.

With little doubt Commercial Man’s days are numbered, just as they were in classical times. The only serious question is whether there are any alternatives to the world favela.

A return to the true values of the West would entail a rejection of the false and hypocritical humanitarianism of Commercial Man. The population explosion in the Third World would be halted. Each nation would eventually have the population it could support at whatever level it deemed suitable for itself. National liberation in the Third World would also mean national responsibility instead of anti-white racism. The liberal is indeed a perverse being who wants to destroy his own race and society, but only after he has made the rest of mankind just like him. He will be gone, thankfully, and this alone will make the earth a better, cleaner, healthier place to live.

With other nations and peoples pursuing their own destinies, the Majority could turn its attention to much needed self-improvement. Marginal souls could be discouraged from having children and the childbearing of those with genetic potential would be encouraged. Without racial antagonisms and recriminations, government could be used for solving social problems, instead of treating the symptoms and breeding the causes. Welfare budgets would decline. Freedom would be available to those who wanted it and security would be there for those who valued it more highly than freedom. An increasing ratio of brighter people would supply the drive to keep such a system going.

An unculled herd deteriorates. This is why we have suffered genetic decay. Society in contrast to nature selects not the best for massive reproduction, but the very worst. The poorest and least successful among us have the largest families, so the liberal democrats have the strongest voting blocs.

The gene pool of a race is not stationary. It changes with every generation. Without information inputs from the environment, such as differential reproduction rates and infant mortality, the race will deteriorate. Since we have reproduction rates favoring the worst of our own race, not to mention the worst of the blacks, things are getting bad very fast. This is what Elmer Pendell said in Sex and Civilization, and what has been known for thousands of years to animal breeders. It is formally demonstrable in the quasi-mathematical communications theory. Those who don’t understand the dynamics of genetic decay have been born into the wrong universe and had better find another one for their next reincarnation.

The nobility of the Middle Ages maintained large forest areas, despite a growing need for more agricultural land. Part of the motivation was the sport of hunting and varieties of game for the table; part was the need for a supply of lumber and other forest products. If the barons and earls allowed all the trees to be cut, there would be more, not fewer, hungry peasants and no game or wood for anybody.

The contrasting survival styles of different people is reflected in domestic animals. The dog is like the average Third Worlder. He breeds promiscuously and copiously until there are no more scraps and garbage to feed him. His cousin the wolf acts more like the nobleman. Commercial Man acts like vermin.

If we are not to sink into the mainstream of humanity and then out of sight, a small but influential portion of us must somehow move the rest off their collision course with the second law of thermodynamics (genetic entropy). Technology must be utilized to improve man, not tailor the world for increasing numbers of hard-to-feed bipeds.

The world’s mineral resources are fast disappearing. So are the genetic advantages of the American Majority. If we continue to tolerate the liberal, the bureaucrat, the financial manipulator and our own aimless whimsy, if we who know better continue to be the servants of Commercial Man, we will not only be his gravedigger but our own.

In Praise of Magna Carta: Celebrating the 800th Anniversary of Medieval England’s Famed Monument to Liberty

via Faith & Heritage

This June 15 marks the 800th anniversary of what has become known as Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a peace treaty that enumerated a list of baronial rights and civil prerogatives which the English noble class believed that the incumbent king, King John, had violated. The esteem that Magna Carta has acquired in the English and American political and cultural conscience has varied with time. Many Englishmen believed that Magna Carta did not go far enough in defining and asserting traditional English rights and liberties; others believed that the document was too overreaching in its limitations placed on the monarch’s royal prerogatives. Still others have correctly observed that the 1215 peace agreement fell apart almost immediately, and that it would still be several years until the propositions of Magna Carta became incorporated into English statute law, with only three of its clauses still in force today. Nevertheless there should be no doubt about the prominent role Magna Carta has played in the development of England’s unwritten constitution, as well as in the development of English attitudes regarding rights and privileges on both sides of the Atlantic. The issuing of Magna Carta stands as a watershed in the history of English jurisprudence, and the rights stated in the document provide a strong bulwark against arbitrary authority and despotism. As such, Magna Carta ought to be a point of pride for everyone of English descent, and the underlying principles should be reasserted as a rallying cry against the contemporary postmodern and anti-Christian conception of universal egalitarian “human rights.”

A Brief Historical Context

In June 1215, England’s embattled monarch found himself facing a full-scale rebellion from the English nobility. The dissatisfaction with John’s rule stemmed from several issues, including John’s penchant for pursuing the wives and daughters of noblemen, his disastrous wars to recover Angevin territory that he had lost in France, his taking hostages from the leading noble families of his kingdom, and his demands for taxes in the forms of fines for certain privileges and scutage. The confrontation between John and the English nobility was precipitated by John’s disastrous invasion of France in an attempt to reassert the control over western France that had been established under the Angevin dynasty from which John was descended. John’s combination of loose morals and foolish tactical decisions forced his confrontation with his frustrated nobility and earned him the moniker “Bad King John” by later generations. It was during this time that the peace agreement we now refer to as Magna Carta was struck in the small town of Runnymede outside of London.

The terms of the agreement were negotiated by Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury famous for devising the modern division of the Bible into chapters, as well as William Marshal, whom Langton called “the greatest knight who ever lived.” A fascinating aspect of the history of Magna Carta is the manner in which its vaunted status has been augmented over the past several centuries to the extent that the Great Charter has received a near-mythical reputation. In truth, the immediate impact of the agreement between the king and barons was minimal. Neither the barons nor the king considered the treaty as binding, and King John immediately sought and procured the condemnation of the agreement from Pope Innocent III. Hostilities resumed within months, and several barons actively sought to promote the cause of Prince Louis, the heir to the Capetian throne of France, as a legitimate contender to the throne of England on account of his marriage to Blanche of Castile, the granddaughter of Henry II. It was during an invasion of French forces at the invitation of disgruntled barons that King John died, leaving his nine-year-old son Henry as his heir. A Capetian victory was all but certain.

Prior to his death, John came to repent of many of his sins and crimes that had plunged his kingdom into ruin, and made overtures to restore friendship with those he had wronged. One of these men was the ever faithful knight, William Marshal, whom John named as Henry’s guardian in his will. Marshal used his influence to make overtures of peace to the barons who had allied themselves to Prince Louis. Marshal reissued an amended and abbreviated Magna Carta in 1216, and many barons eventually returned to the fold of the Angevin dynasty. Years later, King Edward I incorporated Magna Carta into English statute law, and its contents were studied and applied by English jurists and legal historians for centuries. The modern numbering of the clauses of Magna Carta come from Sir William Blackstone’s 1759 edition. Among them are famous guarantees such as the protection against having one’s life or liberty deprived him without a trial of one’s peers. The enumeration of rights in the Magna Carta serves as a foundation for the English political tradition which was the basis for the formulation of the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution. Americans owe much to the Magna Carta’s barons and churchmen for the political rights and privileges that have been our birthright for generations.

The Relevance of Magna Carta Today

What importance does an 800-year-old document have today? Most of the clauses of the Magna Carta are no longer a part of the statute law of England, and the age in which we live is a much different one from the medieval world of our forebears. Many people view Magna Carta and the principles set forth therein to be little more than a museum piece. The development of what have come to be called “human rights” is thought to have progressed well beyond the archaic social institutions of our supposedly unenlightened medieval ancestors, but is this really the case? While there is no question that some of the clauses of Magna Carta are outdated and have been for several centuries, there is still much value that Magna Carta has to offer those of English descent. One is the value of having particular rights and privileges set forth for a particular time and a particular people in particular circumstances. Many contemporary academics and scholars criticize Magna Carta for its narrow scope.

It is argued that Magna Carta sets forth rights and privileges meant to protect the English nobility from potential abuses of crown authority when it is arbitrarily exercised. This is true, but this was all the document was intended for anyway. The barons and churchmen who drafted Magna Carta had no intentions of enumerating a list of political rights for all classes of people in England (although certain clauses do apply to all English subjects), let alone for all people everywhere. The barons themselves understood that the rights that they were claiming were not necessarily universal, and that other societies might not be particularly suited to the English polity. This is because different nations will always be naturally inclined to the various laws and customs that comport with their identity and character. The English Constitution, a loose and informal collection of customs, principles, and practices of which Magna Carta is a part, is suited to the English nation and those nations that derive their ancestry, history, and traditions from England. The modern error is to believe that we can delineate a universal set of legal rights and principles that apply to all people under all circumstances. Accordingly, the classic traditionalist Joseph de Maistre comments on the errors of the revolutionary French constitution of 1795:
I will simply point out the error of principle that has provided the foundation of this constitution and that has led the French astray since the first moment of their revolution. The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him. . . . This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva. But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits. . . . What is a constitution? Is it not the solution to the following problem: to find the laws that are fitting for a particular nation, given its population, its customs, its religion, its geographical situation, its political relations, its wealth, and its good and bad qualities?1
This is not to say that there are no rights common to mankind as a whole. Those rights that are truly universal are derived from the reciprocal responsibilities of the second table of the Decalogue, which enumerates our responsibilities in regards to how we treat others. For example, everyone has the right to life because of the universal prohibition on murder, and everyone has the right to property because of the universal prohibition against theft. Beyond these basic and fundamental rights, civil rights and privileges can vary from time to time and from nation to nation. The modern attempt to create a universal standard of “human rights” beyond what is revealed to us by God has created an egalitarian order that seeks to strip away all particulars that make one of us human in an attempt to make each and every person the same or equal. Ehud is right: “human rights” are inhuman. Many will celebrate the anniversary of Magna Carta only because of the belief that Magna Carta was a preliminary salvo that led us to the concept of universal egalitarian rights so lauded by the West’s prevailing leftist establishment. The reality is the converse: Magna Carta is a monument to the ethic of ordered hierarchy that made Western civilization great.

While many today view the world and ethics of Magna Carta as backward and archaic, the reality is that the values of the contemporary West should be, and by God’s grace one day will be, viewed as obscene. It is we rather than the early-thirteenth-century English barons who live in a backwards and superstitious society. Our superstitions include the belief that the white race is rapaciously evil and has brought grave suffering upon the world and must be marginalized and eventually eradicated. Another superstition is the belief that there are no differences among the races of mankind, and that mass immigration and racial displacement for whites should be of no concern, since we are being replaced by people who are essentially the same as us. Today Western politicians and bureaucrats will invite non-white immigrants into their homelands and allow them to rape our women, often with impunity. Now Sweden has passed a law making criticism of immigration or of Sweden’s immigration policy a criminal offense, with other leftist regimes throughout Europe and North America sure to follow. It goes without saying that our concept of rights has taken giant leaps backwards since the famous summit of king and nobility at Runnymede. For this reason it is entirely appropriate to appreciate Magna Carta as a milestone of true liberty that we have inherited from our European ancestors.

Our task today is to reject the idea of Magna Carta as a relic of the past struggle for liberty which culminates in our egalitarian abstractions, and instead to celebrate our inherited legal tradition as one that is good, just, and prudent. Written documents are useful in that they provide a record of agreed-upon standards and practices, but they are powerless to enforce themselves. The constant usurpations of our politicians and bureaucrats against the limitations placed on their powers set forth in the U.S. Constitution is proof enough of this fact. We owe it to our praiseworthy ancestors not simply to admire their hard-fought achievements as one might admire the caged animals at a zoo, but to carry on their work and turn our heritage into a legacy for our children and descendants. Perhaps we need a new charter of rights for our people suited to our present circumstances, a charter in which we assert that we have a right and a duty to exist. We will not commit suicide; neither will we slip away quietly into the night in the face of our enemies. We who are descended from the nations of the West have a right to our own historic homelands in Europe and the Americas. We have a right to our own culture, art, music, architecture, and literature, all of which we will celebrate without shame or apology. In summary, we have a right to be who we are, just as it is for all the nations God has fashioned from Adam. This is to be our destiny, and that is surely something worthy of celebration!


  1. Joseph de Maistre, Considérations sur la France (1797). http://counterenlightenment.blogspot.com/2011/07/well-known-quotation-from-joseph-de.html

A Transformative Discussion: Why Can’t Rachel Dolezal Be Black?

via Radix

Maybe someday that question will find itself listed in a history book on what changed racial consciousness. In several mainstream media outlets, an awkward and exciting conversation has been started on race. Dolezal was born and raised White. She later decided to become Black and assimilated into the Afro-American community. She’s identified as Black for ten years now and became head of her local NAACP.

So if race—like gender—is a social construct, how can Bruce Jenner be a woman and Dolezal not be Black? That’s because the Black community refuses to accept those who were not Black at birth. Many of the same scholars who have paraded the idea that race doesn’t exist for years have revealed themselves as biological determinists. Race is real and it is genetic.

And the conservative response demanding to know the difference with Jenner drove the direction into a subversive direction.

Right after we learn that biology doesn’t matter with, we learned that it does with Dolezal. Considering how the “race is a social construct” meme is more deeply entrenched into our society than “gender is a social construct,” the episode with the Washington NAACP leader is a welcome setback to this cause. It is also a huge setback to those who think we can pick and choose our identity, rather than we are born with our identity.

In many ways, it was just what we needed after we were told to call Bruce, Caitlyn.

Denmark Veers to the Right as Immigration Is Top Issue in Upcoming Elections

via The Daily Stormer

Is this what you wanted?
Everyone but Germany is sick of immigrants. But Germany only loves them because they like the idea of punishing themselves for the Holocaust of the sixty trillion.

Denmark is a country which has remained resistant, and they are preparing to resist further.
An anticipated strong showing by the Euro-sceptic Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti, DF) may unseat the present ruling coalition led by the left-wing Social Democrat party at national elections on Thursday, as the public focus turns to immigration.
Recent polling suggests a swing in favour of anti-immigration, socially conservative and Euro-sceptic party DF. If that swing translates into votes it could put the party less than one per cent behind the main conservative party, Venestre, and hence in a strong position in a right-wing coalition.
Venestre has been Denmark’s largest party after every general election since 2001, but electoral arithmetic allowed Helle Thorning-Schmidt’s left wing coalition of parties to take control for the first time in more than a decade in 2011.
A projected swing from 12.3 per cent to almost 20 per cent would give a ‘blue alliance’ the MPs it needs to kick the reds out of power again.
Immigration is the number one issue in the world. Not just in Denmark. The Jews are trying to exterminate us, and if we don’t do something about it, they are going to succeed by default.

It’s time to stand up and be counted.

George Bernard Shaw and the Religion of the Future

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Today I am going to devote this program to the ideas of a man whose vision was the precursor and inspiration for Dr. William Pierce’s Cosmotheism — George Bernard Shaw.

Shaw (pictured), like many geniuses such as Ezra Pound, can sometimes appear confounding and contradictory. Shaw had his “GBS” persona and he did use satire, even laughing at his own positions through the characters in his plays at times. That’s the kind of thing you do when you have a 200 IQ — and, as Shaw quipped, when you are missing the phrenologists’ “bump of veneration.” With evident exasperation at the slow progress of human and social evolution, he endorsed any dictator in sight — “men who get things done” — as preferable to damnable democracy. He took public positions that were designedly shocking, and it’s easy to use the more extreme among these to attack him, as Crazy Glenn Beck and the other leaders of Conservakin have done.

But Shaw’s position on the primacy of the Life Force and improving the quality of human beings was a deeply serious one.

As a young man, he was an atheist. He later said he needed that stage in order to clear his mind of childish and obviously untrue myths. But in his mature years, Shaw openly espoused a religion — he playfully called it “Shawianity” — in which he posited that God is a work in progress: something yet to come, something that is even now evolving. He said that what he called the Life Force was trying to make man more and more godlike, and that this was the real meaning behind biological evolution.

We agree with Shaw that conscious upward evolution is the meaning of Life insofar as our limited minds are able to comprehend meaning at this stage of our development. Here are his words, from his varied speeches on religion, brought together for the first time and freely adapted by Daniel S. Forrest in his book Suprahumanism:

We must have a religion if we are to do anything worth doing. If anything is to be done to get our civilization out of the horrible mess in which it now is, it must be done by men who have got a religion. People who have no religion are cowards and cads. If you allow people who are caddish and irreligious to become the governing force, the nation will be destroyed, and that is what is the matter with us.

What I mean by a religious person is one who conceives himself or herself to be the instrument of some purpose in the universe which is a high purpose, and is the native power of evolution — that is, of a continual ascent in organization and power and life, and extension of life. Any person who realizes that there is such a power, and that his business and joy in life is to do its work, and his pride and point of honour to identify himself with it, is religious, and the people who have not got that feeling are clearly irreligious, no matter what denomination they may belong to. We may give this feeling quite different names. One man may use religious terms and say that he is here to do the work of God. Another man, calling himself an atheist, may simply say that he has a sense of honour. But the two things are precisely the same. Any man of honour is a religious man. He holds that there are certain things he must not do and certain things he must do, quite irrespective of the effect upon his personal fortunes. Such a man you may call a religious man, or you may call him a gentleman.

We are gradually getting rid of our idols, and in the future we shall have to put before the people religions that are practical systems, which — on the whole — we can perceive to work out in practice, instead of resulting in flagrant contradictions as they do at present. People, however, go from one extreme to the other, and when they do so they are apt to throw out the good things with the bad ones. Hence, they make little progress. The old-fashioned atheist rebelled against the idea of an omnipotent being as God of cancer, epilepsy, and war — as well as of the good that happened. They were unable to believe that a God of love could allow such things. And so they seized avidly upon the idea of natural selection as put forward by Charles Darwin. Darwin was not the originator of the idea of evolution — which long pre-dated him — but it was he that made us familiar with the particular form of evolution known as natural selection. That idea was seized upon with a feeling of relief: relief that the old idea of God was banished from the world. This feeling of relief was so great that for a time the horrible void which had been created in the universe was overlooked. Natural selection left us in a world full of horrors which were accounted for, apparently, by the fact that it as a whole had come about by accident. However, if there is no purpose or design in the universe the sooner we all cut our throats the better, for it is not much of a place to live in.

Most of the natural selection men of the nineteenth century were brilliant — but they were cowards. We want to return to men with some belief in the purpose of the universe — with determination to identify themselves with it, and with the courage that comes from that. As for my own position, I am and always have been a mystic. I believe that the universe is driven by a force that we might call the life-force. I see it as performing the miracle of creation, and that it has entered the minds of men as what they call their will. Hence, we see people who clearly are carrying out a will not exclusively their own.

To attempt to represent this particular will or power as God — in the former meaning of the word — is now entirely hopeless; nobody can believe that. What you have to understand is that somehow or other there is, behind the universe a will, a life-force. You cannot think of it as a person, you must think of it as a great purpose, a great will. Furthermore, you must think of it as engaged in a continual struggle to produce something higher and higher.

You begin with the amoeba: Why did it split itself in two? It is not an intelligent thing for anybody to do. You cannot pretend there is any particular accident in that. You cannot see any case that natural selection makes. But somehow the amoeba does it. It finds that perhaps two are better than one. At any rate it does split itself in two, from which there is a continual pushing forward to a higher and higher organization. The differentiation of sex, the introduction of backbone, the invention of eyes, the invention of systems of digestion — there is a continual steady growth, an evolution of life. There are forces that may not be explained — and this particular force is ever organizing, organizing, organizing. Among other things it organizes the physical eye, in order that that mechanism can see dangers and avoid them; see food and go after it; see the cliff-edge and avoid falling over it. And not only does it evolve that particular eye: It also evolves what Shakespeare called the mind’s eye. We are not only striving in some particular way to take more and more power, to develop organs and limbs with which we may mould the universe to our liking: we are also continually striving to know, to become more conscious, to understand the meaning of all.

We must believe in the will to good; it is unthinkable to regard man as willing his own destruction. However, in the striving after good that will is liable to make mistakes, and to let loose something that is destructive. We may regard the typhoid bacillus as one of the failures of the life-force that we call God; however, that same life force is trying, through our brains, to discover a means of destroying that malign influence. If that conception is grasped, an answer to those people who ask for an explanation of the origin of evil becomes available. Evil things are made with the object of their doing good; but they turn out wrong, and therefore must be destroyed. This is the most important conception for the religion of the future — because it gives us what we are at present, as well as courage and self-respect. It is ours to work for something better, to talk less about the religion of love — love is an improper subject — and more about the religion of life, and of work: to create a world that shall know a happiness that need not be the happiness of drunkenness — a world of which we need not be ashamed. The world must consist of people who are happy and, at the same time, sober. At present the happiness of the world is as the happiness of drunken people. We resort to factitious aids to life. We try to fight off consciousness of ourselves because we do not see the consciousness of a mission and, finally, the consciousness of a magnificent destiny.

What is to be the end of it all? There need be no end. Since it has proceeded so far there is no reason why the process should ever stop. However, it must achieve on its infinite journey the production of some being, some person strong and wise, with a mind capable of comprehending the entire universe, and with powers capable of executing its entire will.

Perhaps there is no God as yet achieved; however, there is a force at work making God, struggling through us to become an actual organized existence, enjoying what to many of us is the greatest conceivable ecstasy — of a brain, an intelligence that is actually conscious of the whole, and with executive force capable of guiding it to a perfectly benevolent and harmonious destination.

That is what we are working to. When you are asked, “Where is God? Who is God?” stand up and say: “I am God. Here is God — not as yet completed, but ever advancing towards completion, in so much as I am working for the purpose of the universe, working for the good of the whole of society and the whole world, instead of merely pursuing my personal ends.”

We are all experiments in the direction of making God. What God is doing is making himself — from being a mere powerless will or force. This force has implanted into our minds the ideal of God. Thus far we are unsuccessful attempts at God. However, if we can drive into the heads of men the full consciousness of moral responsibility that comes with the knowledge that there never will be a God unless we make one — that we are the instruments through which that ideal is trying to make itself reality — we can work towards such an ideal until we get to be supermen, then super-supermen, then a world of organisms who have achieved and realized God.

My thanks to Mr. Forrest, who weaved Shaw’s words together so poetically and perfectly from his various speeches on religion from 1906 to 1937.

It was Shaw’s vision that first captured the imagination of William Pierce, who furthered that vision by adding to it the essential element of race. For human beings do not evolve primarily by the Darwinian process being applied to individuals — as the Social Darwinists of Shaw’s time often maintained. Rather, it is groups that evolve: tribes, nations, races, varieties, subspecies. And races and subspecies are new species in the making.

European man, in a very short period of time in cosmic terms, has gone from being a stone-tool-making race — to an agricultural race that guides the evolution of other plant and animal species to serve his own will — to a race that has created machines that think and remember and calculate and have the power to destroy worlds if we will it.

The end result of this evolution, if end there be, can only be dreamt of. But I dare say that the power to create worlds, or even time and universes to come, is not out of the question.

And now we stand on the threshold of taking conscious control of our own evolution, something no known living being has ever conceived, much less done, before us. The steps we had taken toward that goal have been partially reversed by events since 1945. Now even the continued existence of European man is threatened — by the same forces that are thwarting our taking that next evolutionary step. But the religion of the future cannot be stopped. It is the goal toward which all the discoveries of science — and all the urgent demands of true morality, the morality of survival and evolution — are leading our best minds. Shaw inspired that vision. Pierce completed it. It falls to us, then, to make it the ruling idea of our society.

Camp of the Saints

via Western Spring

The Camp of the Saints (Le Camp des saints) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts what was in 1973 a largely hypothetical setting wherein Third World mass immigration to France and the West reaches such frantic proportions that it leads to the destruction of Western civilization. Now more than forty years after the publication of this book, the theme of which is increasingly being seen as prophetic, it has returned to the bestseller list.

The Camp of the Saints is a novel about population migration and its consequences. In India a “wise man” rallies the masses and exhorts them to make a mass exodus to live in Europe.

Most of the story centres on the French Riviera, where almost no one remains except for the military and a few civilians, including a retired professor who watches a huge fleet of run-down freighters approaching the French coast.

The story alternates between the French reaction to the mass migration and the attitude of the immigrants who have no desire to assimilate or adopt French culture, they simply want the material benefits of life in Western society.

Although the novel focuses mainly on France, it catalogues the invasion of Europe and the West, the liberal societies of which surrender to the migrant tsunami.

Since this book was first published it has been condemned as ‘racist’, ‘paranoid’ and ‘unrealistic’ by a host of liberal reviewers, however I have a feeling that in the light of recent developments, this will inevitably change and the book will increasingly be seen as an accurate reflection of what is currently taking place and a grim portent of what is to come.

Not foreseen by Jean Raspail in 1973 was the creation of the EU-Africa Partnership at a summit held in Cairo in the year 2000, which would lead towards greater political and economic co-operation between the countries of the African Union and the European Union, including the deliberate governmental facilitation of migration from Africa to Europe. Not foreseen also was the creation of an EU-Central Asian Partnership with similar aims regarding greater co-operation and integration with the countries and peoples of Central Asia and the adoption by the EU in 2005, of a ‘Global Approach to Migration and Mobility’ (GAMM), which is the “the overarching framework of the EU external migration and asylum policy”, and which in line with the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, views the facilitation of Third World migration into Europe from Africa, Asia and South and Central America as essential to the future development of the EU.

Watch the following promotional video and you will get a flavour of how our EU leaders think:

The tidal wave of Third World migration into Europe is no longer simply the result of population pressures brought about by the bourgeoning populations of the Third World, it is in fact a planned and facilitated phenomenon and an understanding of this point is essential if the White populations of the West are to survive and not become genetically obliterated.

No doubt many of our people will have become alarmed as we have viewed in televised news reports the growing numbers of migrants sailing across the Mediterranean in small, unseaworthy boats, and will have been perplexed: by the expressions of sympathy for the migrants expressed by our television newsreaders; by the apparent stupidity of the naval captains patrolling the Mediterranean, who have rescued the migrants from their flimsy vessels and delivered them to their European destinations; and by the governments of the southern states of Europe, who have made provision for the migrants and who have allowed them to stay once they have docked.

The natural reaction to such an invasion that we would have hoped for, is that the naval vessels would have taken the migrants back to the north African coast from whence they came, but this is not what has been happening. Far from defending our living space, our navies have been facilitating the foreign invasion and acting as an unofficial free ferry service!

Clearly the Third World invasion of Europe is a planned phenomenon which is taking place with the knowledge and consent of our European and national leaders and we must acknowledge that any statements of concern by national governmental and EU ministers are completely disingenuous. Not only are the migrants becoming bolder in their brazen crossings of the Mediterranean, as can be seen from the following video, they are becoming ever more brazen and aggressive in their attempts to cross the English Channel and gain access to our ‘benefits Shangri la’.

Upon witnessing the violent breaking into of lorries in Calais, can anyone doubt that there will before long be violence visited upon those who attempt to prevent such outrageous behaviour and upon the indigenous peoples of this country should we be slow to provide these opportunistic invaders with the benefits of our Western society. What reason is there to believe that men who are prepared to tear open the backs of lorries and force their way in, in order to enjoy our material wealth, will have any compunction should they later feel the need to force entry into our very homes for that same purpose?

As I have stated before, the mass migration of people from the Third World will not voluntarily stop until there are so many people in this and other European countries that our standard of living has been driven down to the same levels that exist in their countries of origin. Only then will there be no incentive for people from the Third World to migrate here, but should that time ever come, we the indigenous British will have been swamped and will no longer exist as a distinct people. Just think, should the EU-African Partnership establish a ‘single’ market for labour across both Unions, one-thousand million Africans will have the right to come and live within the EU – one-thousand million!

If White people are to survive in the long-term, we must cast out and punish the treasonous politicians who have facilitated mass non-White immigration into Europe and the West, we must once again reassert our right to primacy in our historic homelands and re-establish the homogeneous White societies we once had. This of course will take time and the political means to achieve this is denied us at present, and so we must ensure our survival in the short-term by forming intentionally White communities and a parallel counter culture until the political means once more are within our grasp.

To my compatriots here in Britain, I implore you therefore, to join Western Spring or White Independent Nation and support us in our efforts to build the militant White communities that will be the key to the future survival, proliferation and advancement of our people. To our supporters living in other lands, I implore you to create similar organisations/communities in the countries in which you live. The salvation of our race and nation may take many years, but with clear vision and determination we will succeed.