Jul 10, 2015

Do Whites Have a Right to Exist?

via Western Spring

With all the attacks on Whiteness on our streets and in the media,  the above question should be asked by every White person.

And, if you agree with me that we Whites do have a right to exist–and that right is ours because we do exist–then the next question becomes: Do Whites have the right to exist as Whites?

In other words, is it alright to want to be White, to remain White, and to like White culture and White ways?  Is it our right to exist as explicit Whites and to be as we are born to be and to become all we can become and to be perfectly happy and proud to be White and to never apologize for who and what we are?

And is it okay to want to live among other Whites, to send our kids to schools that are all White, and to marry only other Whites and to only have White children?

And then one must ask: If we Whites have a right to exist, then is it okay for Whites to work for our survival, our continued existence and our expansion and for our own best interests as Whites?

Another question then pops up: What does it mean to survive and exist as Whites?

Some people say that they are the people of the book, by which they mean that they find their people-hood in religious books.  To me, that’s artificial. Where are they in those books?  Books are just words on paper. There is no life in them.

People-hood is not written in books, it is written in DNA, which is the code of life. It is in DNA that a people is created and maintained. The Book of Whiteness is within us in every cell with a nucleus in our bodies.  It is written small within and written large without.  What we are within is seen without.

So, how do distinct peoples survive to exist and expand?  By making more like themselves.  It is no more complicated than that.  A people that is full of life and spirit breeds more like itself.  A people that is decadent, dying and on the way to extinction does not make more like itself. Those in this latter group are like whipped dogs lacking in the life force itself as they simply wait for death and non-existence. Don’t be like them.  Be ever full of life and hope for the future. Avoid weak-seed Whites who refuse to breed or who miscegenate. Spit! They are full of death and decay even thought they know it not. The stench of death is all around them. Flee from them lest they infect you with their yearning for non-existence.

Nature doesn’t care which living organisms live or die.  It is up to the living organisms themselves to ensure that they live. So I repeat: To live and to exist, one must have children like oneself. And, in the case of Whites it means we must have only White children.  No other kinds will do for our survival and existence. We must breed only with our fellow Whites.

I’ve had people full of religious altruism and moral codes that they have had placed on them by people of the book ask me why I don’t care about people other than Whites.  My answer is always that I practice indifference and non-inerference with non-Whites.  They are not my people and they are not my concern.  I don’t butt into their business.

And, while it is true that each of us is a part of everyone else and everything else on certain levels–we are all minerals, for example, and we all have DNA–I am most fully me within people of my own kind–White people.  And, my survival into the future depends on my family line remaining White.  If my children fail to breed or  miscegenate part of my DNA code will be absorbed back into the non-White masses and that part of me will no longer exist as White and I will cease to exist (in DNA form) in my most fullest Me-ness–my essential Whiteness.

Nature screams out to all types of organisms: Make more like yourself or go extinct.  Are you listening?  Are you doing?

Taking His Stand: Interview with Dr. Michael Hill

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: This interview was first published on December 6, 2010.

Dr. J. Michael Hill is a blogger, book author, historical researcher, and former history professor. He co-founded The League of The South in 1994. The League seeks to “advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable  means.” Dr. Hill left academia in 1999 to devote his full time to the organization.

The League of The South has members in 46 states and chapters in about 25 states, but only about half of those are Southern states, right?

Well, we have chapters in all of the states of the old Confederacy, plus Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. So 15 of those states where we have chapters are in what we consider to be the current South. The rest of the chapters or individual members are either copperheadsor Southern diaspora.

Those states you just named were considered sort of semi-Confederate states back then , were they not? And as I recall, Maryland would have been a Confederate state had Lincoln not preemptively arrested their entire legislature.

That’s exactly right, and those states are Southern enough. I know some people in Missouri, for example, who will get awfully angry at you if you don’t include them as a Southern state. That’s not to say that all the people in Missouri consider it to be a Southern state, but there are a significant number of people there who do. The same goes for Maryland, Oklahoma, Kentucky…

I have some friends from south Indiana who consider themselves Southerners.

I know some folks from central and western Pennsylvania who do, too.

So how much hate mail do you get?

I have gotten some death threats, but I figure if somebody’s really going to kill me they’re not going to tell me about it first. I get hate email sometimes, but most of it is just juvenile crap, so there’s no reason to pay any attention to it. I think we got more hate mail when we first started the organization than we do now. I think a lot of people have gotten used to the idea of secession and Southern independence. It’s not a novel idea like it was 16 or 17 years ago.

On the League’s website, you said that you seek a peaceful means to Southern secession. Suppose The American Empire collapsed under its own weight tomorrow and the United States of America was an entity only on paper. There are many people in The South who would rage against the birth of a new Southern nation. It’s true that many of the idle among them would vote with their feet and leave when they stopped getting paid to be idle, but still, the Deep South is facing ever-accelerating and ever more dire demographic changes right now. Would it not be wise for the theoretical Southern homeland to relocate itself in, say, southern Appalachia? Not that that would be easy, but wouldn’t it be easier?

I certainly see what you’re saying, and with the demographic revolution that’s taking place right now, I would never completely rule something like that out. But imagine how hard it would be for any true Southerner to leave his particular piece of ground, especially if that area had been home for generations. Think of all he has learned from his parents and grandparents about that place and his closeness to the culture and history that surrounds him. It’s in his blood. It’s part of his genetic memory.

Necessity can make you accept a lot of things, but I think it would be gut-wrenching for somebody from south Alabama, south Georgia, south Mississippi to have to say “Okay, I’m abandoning my home. I’m going to some other part of the South to re-establish myself.”

I know a lot of people from coastal Carolina. I’ve talked to them, just to gauge what they feel and think about something like that, and it would be very difficult for most of the people I’ve talked to. The Appalachian Mountains are such a different place, such a different part of the South, and to them it’s not the same as home.

I agree that that sense of homeland as an almost sacred place is crucial to the survival of a culture. I think having a living vernacular peculiar to that culture is vital also.

I have long despised that rough beast, Progress, and its handmaiden, Monoculture. Southern accents and dialects are disappearing rapidly, particularly in our cities and suburbs, and especially among younger people. I realize it’s a double-edged sword, but can The South exploit mass media technology for the good of The South, or will mass media make Southern speech succumb to American Empire English? 

There’s always a possible concomitant backlash that can accompany technology. Unexpected consequences, you know. But we’re certainly not Luddites. We like to think that if email and the internet and the computer and video and audio communication technology available to us now was available to Nathan Bedford Forrest, he would have used it and used it well, probably better than anybody else at the time. You just have to remember that any technology is simply a tool, and what really matters are relations between flesh and blood human beings, not between computer servers.

It is a problem, though, when you have that sort of universal means of communication and entertainment. It does tend to root out things like long-standing accents and dialects, particularly when generations of people are exposed to that kind of mass communication from infancy onward.

I’m not big into conspiracy theories, although I’ve studied history enough to know that important and powerful people do get together and talk about manipulating circumstances to their own advantage. But a lot of the wilder theories I don’t subscribe to, and that’s one of them, that a group of people conspired to take our dialect away. It is disappearing, though, and I’m sad to see it because I love our Southern speech. And our speech is certainly not monolithic. Being a native of Alabama, I can tell you, sometimes even down to the county, where a person is from just by listening to him speak, and I think that’s a nice thing.

Southerners, as you know, in the antebellum period, used British orthography. Some people have sort of laughed at us for resurrecting something that arcane, but we think it’s an important part of the culture.

It was good enough for Faulkner. That part of The South’s past wasn’t dead to him. It wasn’t even past.

That’s right. He knew that if you allow someone else to determine not only how you spell your words, but which words you can or cannot say, then you lose control of your language and your thoughts and your culture and you lose control of your life. Yankees like to look at us as dumb rednecks, but Southerners are very good with words. We instinctively know how to string them together and write novels and essays and stories and poetry as well as anybody in my opinion.

Wendell Berry is a Southerner who writes quite well in each medium you mentioned. You know him personally, don’t you?

Well, I’ve been to Mr. Berry’s farm up in Kentucky. He was a little under the weather that day, so we stayed for just a little while and we tried not to be a burden. We were on our way somewhere, anyway, so we just mostly drove around and looked at the property. But he was quite gracious and he has a beautiful farm there by the Kentucky River.

He’s something of an intellectual inheritor, I think, of the Agrarian philosophy of Allen Tate, Donald Davidson, John Crowe Ransom, et al. I find the tone of his essay, The Pleasures of Eating akin to  I’ll Take My Stand, particularly the introduction. How important to you is growing your own food and avoiding all that mass-produced industrial farming slop?

We are very opposed to big agri-business, mainly because we believe the motive there is not to provide their customers with good food, but only to make money. They’ll sell whatever they can get away with and if they have enough money they’ll bribe the FDA or whatever bureaucratic agency they need to bribe to get the stamp of approval, then sell whatever shit they want to sell and call it food.

I have a particular disdain for these people—though disdain is probably too mild of a word-because I have had gastric problems for some time that I think came from unknowingly eating GMOs,  genetically modified organisms, or whatever the hell it’s called. I think the bastards have been slowly poisoning me. Not because I’m a particular target, but because they’re poisoning all of us, making us all unhealthy and killing us before our time.

So, yes, we believe it’s good to dig up your backyard and plant an organic garden and save your vegetable peelings and start a compost, and have a well, and be as self-sufficient as possible.

Self-sufficiency, or sustainability, both for individuals, or families, and clans, or tribes, or communities, is one of those perennial virtues that came from the Old World and goes hand in hand with honor, and chivalry in traditional Southern culture. Do you believe it’s possible to reawaken those old virtues in Southern young people? Does the League have an active outreach to young people, and if so, what is their response like?

We are really trying to reach young people. There’s a vacuum in American youth culture, and something’s going to fill that space up, whether it’s baggy pants and a backwards baseball cap and rap music, or these kids learning who their ancestors were and learning to fit in to that mold. We try to help them do the latter, help them learn about the richness of their heritage, who their Anglo-Celtic forefathers were and what they believed in and what they stood for.

I quit teaching college about 11 years ago, and I was really alarmed at what was happening in academia then, though I’m sure it’s much worse now. I was a kid in the ‘50s and a teenager and then a young man in the ‘60s. I was indoctrinated even back then, and I know it’s gotten worse decade by decade. But these kids know they’ve been lied to, and there’s an innate, natural urge for them to try to learn who they are.

Tell us about your books.

Celtic Warfare was my first book. It was actually my PhD dissertation and it got accepted for publication in Scotland by a very reputable, prestigious publishing company in Edinburgh, and this was before I had even defended it. I had made a list of publishers, and I went to the top of the list and said if I had a choice, this is the company I would choose first to publish my book. Well, I went to them first, and they accepted my manuscript on my first try. So then I went back and told my professors, “I’m not just going to be defending my dissertation, I’ll be defending my book manuscript.” They said “What?” and I said “Yeah, I got my dissertation accepted as a book.” They weren’t very happy.

So that was published back in ‘85 or ‘86, I think. It’s a study of the Scots and Irish, mainly, their tactics, strategies, logistics, weaponry, the whole military thing from the late 16th Century on up until the middle of the 18th. I chose certain battles to illustrate certain characteristics and such. It was really fun to write and it got good reviews and sold fairly well for an academic type of book, because it was military.

Then I wroteFire and Sword which focused on a particular Scottish chieftain, Sorely Boy MacDonnell. I had run into him while researching Celtic Warfare. The guy was just a fascinating figure, but nobody had written anything about him other than maybe an article or two in The Sixteenth Century Journal. So I started doing the research and it was really like putting a puzzle together. It got published in ‘93 and got even better reviews than Celtic Warfare because it was about a figure nobody had ever written much about. Then I got a very nice congratulatory letter from the present Duke of Antrim, who is the descendent of this man, Sorely Boy. He asked me to come over and spend some time at his estate and go on a nautical journey with him around the British Isles in a 16th century ship replica. He was very appreciative that somebody had finally written a biography of his illustrious ancestor that nobody knew about except his family, so it was a lot of fun.

I really would like to shop the story around to somebody who maybe could turn it into a movie. I think it would make just a fascinating movie. I mean, the guy lived to be nearly 90 years old, and the only thing that stopped him from fighting at that advanced age was that he was losing his eyesight. But he was still a major force right up until the day he died.

The League of The South, as I recall, formed a kind of alliance with the Italian Northern League, who also claim a Celtic lineage. What about other similar groups, The Scottish Nationalists, for instance, or The Basques?

We try to keep in touch with some of the other devolutionist or secessionist organizations around the world, particularly in Europe and in Canada. We haven’t had regular, close contact with any of those groups, but we have had sporadic contact with them. Usually about every six months or every year or year and a half we’ll talk to or correspond with some of the leaders of these groups. For instance, if there’s something we are doing that we want to let them know about, or they’ll let us know what they’re doing and we’ll publicize it here.

But yes, we’re very interested in these groups, and certainly wish them well, though we don’t always share the same worldview. The Scottish National Party, for example, is a good deal more left-leaning than The League of The South is but, hey, you know, that’s their business.

Well, they believe in silly things. Carbon credits, for instance, and banning BB guns, though they don’t seem to think it’s a good thing that foreigners are replacing their indigenous population.

Yeah, we just have to overlook those kinds of things. Actually we have had closer contact with the French-Canadian Parti Quebecois than we have with any other group, though it’s been some time ago, probably 15 years. Two of our other board members and I went up to Canada and spent three or four days with some top-ranking Parti Quebecois people, and let them know what we were about and got to know them.

Regarding Lega Nord, or The League of The North, in Italy, we do have kind of a special relationship with them because of a former member of our board of directors, Dr. Thomas Fleming, who is the editor of Chronicles magazine. Tom travels to Europe quite a bit, and he got to know this guy from The Lega Nord who had worked with Berlusconi. So Tom was our link to The Lega Nord. We had pretty close ties with them. They would send somebody over here to appear at some of our events, and Tom Fleming would go over as a delegate for the League. We would send them Confederate flags and they would send us flags and pins and such from their movement. It was nice to have that kind of personal relationship, but ever since they have changed leadership we have drifted apart a little bit. But we still keep an eye on what they’re doing and try to maintain some contact with them.

We have tried to contact the Basques as well. We were going to try to have an international devolution, or secessionist conference, maybe in Atlanta, where everyone could fly in and meet at one of the airport hotels. We haven’t done it yet, just because we don’t think it’s quite feasible just now. The Basque separatists are on our list of people to invite, but so far we haven’t been able to establish any person-to-person contact with them.

I have followed politics, and how people behave because of politics, since I was a child, and something I’ve always noticed is how there is no liberal quite like a White Southern liberal, particularly a White Southern male. Have you noticed the same thing? What is it with that? Over-compensation, maybe? Speculate, please.

I tend to agree with that. I think that a lot of White Southern males who have aspirations of making it in their field, whether it’s journalism, academia, politics, whatever, believe that they have to be self-denigrating, if not self-hating, Southerners. They almost make a religion of it in front of their northern counter-parts to prove their bona fides and prove themselves worthy of friendship or employment or whatever.

I’m really being generous. I guess I’m saying that many of these people really don’t believe this, they’re just acting it. But on the other hand, some of them act like they really do believe it. A lot of that, I think, has to do with all the guilt that’s been heaped upon them, and they feel like they have to pay a penance. And you’re right, they are over-compensating. It’s disgusting to me, and I don’t see how it’s not disgusting to anybody in his right mind who observes it.

That brings up a good point. People like you and me are in a unique position. We are the only variety of person that it’s perfectly okay to malign and hurl slurs at, and evoke stereotypes of. In fact, attacking white Southern heterosexual males is something of a cottage industry.

Oh, absolutely.

And with the possible exception of a full-blooded Aryan German male, we’re the most politically incorrect demographic on the planet. The very fact that we exist is politically incorrect, if not unacceptable. We were born guilty. Just ask Tim Wise. Or, better yet, The Southern Poverty Law Center. I guess you know that The League of The South is on the SPLC “hate watch” list, and you personally are in its “intelligence files”?

Yes, and I have always considered that a great badge of honor.

Well, as the saying goes, you’re nobody till somebody loathes you. But at least you’re in good company. They hate and are watching Gordon Baum and the Council of Conservative Citizens, Peter Brimelow and VDARE.com, William Daniel Johnson and The American Third Position Party, Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, and Kevin MacDonald and The Occidental Observer, to name a few.

Yeah, they do have some good people on that list. But, you know, there’s only so many times somebody like Morris Dees can call you a racist and have it mean anything. Today the word “racist” has been overused so much that it’s virtually meaningless. My daddy used to say to me, “Son, if everybody likes you, you ain’t doing something right.” I’ve always tried to live by that. And they sure as hell don’t like us. You’re right about that. I would be worried if they did.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

In this first installment, Carolyn reads selections from the Introduction by Alfred de Zayas and the full content of chapters one and two. Some highlights:
  • Some history of war crimes investigations from WWI;
  • Learning from that war, the German govt. established a new war crimes bureau on Sept. 4, 1939;
  • Name, history and statements from some of the Wehrmacht judges;
  • The author's negative attitude toward the Third Reich and praise for members of the resistance brings up some issues;
  • Hitler's "Barbarossa Decree" of 13 Sept. 1941 is read in full and discussed. 1h33m

An idealist and United Nations advisor, Alfred de Zayas today still has hope for Democracy and the sovereignty of nations.

All Emperors Are Traitors

via BUGS

A society’s impulse to be dominant over others who are unlike its own people carries within itself its own destruction. The creation of an empire will enthrone an emperor of a sort who will betray people that so exalted him. The emperor maybe a president, a prime minister, a king, a dictator, a parliament, etc. He will rule over a tribe and others. He will in time identify with the whole his realm. This includes the Others against the originating source of power.

Alexander the Great conquered a vast empire and left behind a host of Macedonian monarchies that fought each other in the name of the peoples they took as loot. His troops mutinied after he took three wives from the conquered Persian empire and went native with his beloved Roxane. Alexander was no longer King of Macedonia, he was Emperor of Persia.

After the fall of the Roman Republic the emperors who succeeded the Caesars quickly became drawn from alien peoples and upheld the interests of Romans only to the extent that they did not conflict with the interests of Others within the empire.

The Roman Empire was eventually an Empire first and Roman, second.

The grandson of Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, founded the Yuan dynasty of China and it promoted Chinese interests against Mongols.

Padre Bartoleme de las Casas pleaded to the Spanish king the case of the Indians against those of the settlers from Spain who made his wealth and empire possible. The history of Spanish America is chapter after chapter of political battles between Madrid and the Creoles on the ground.

The Portuguese half of Latin America ended with the king abandoning Lisbon for Brazil – the emperors Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II. The polyglot Brazil is touted as our future.

The American Revolution was in large measure sparked by the annexation of the French North American colonies. George III saw himself as king of all his subjects. He and Parliament blocked the expansion of the core population of his North American Empire in favor of the interests of the Quebecois and the aboriginal tribes. Expansion over the Appalachians was curtailed. The thirteen rebelling colonies responded to this betrayal by founding the United States.

When the separation had been sorted a Constitution was contracted that clearly stated as its purpose in the Preamble the promotion of the interests of “ourselves and our posterity”. As America has expanded and taken on overseas roles Washington has increasingly identified with the Other – the “ourselves and our posterity”, the indigenous people of the United States, has been tossed into a trash can.

The American Empire’s “emperor” is a hostile elite that has a seemingly iron grip in Washington. It matters not who is President or serves in Congress, the interests of the Other will be treated on the same level as the interests of the Founding Stock at best or, as so often happens, will be discarded in favor of the Other.

This may not be an Iron Law of History but exceptions to it are not common. In 1994 F. W. de Klerk abandoned the Afrikaners. The saddest of bitter tales, race betrayal, has too oft been told.

This is where we are today. The Poobahs of Capitol Hill deem their constituents to be all the inhabitants of the globe. The White Christian population that empowered them are now an afterthought, under 3% of their great pool of their perceived subjects. We have no pride of place under Barack Obama, John Boehner or Janet Yellin.

We are lowest of the helots, denied the right to notice that we are being Genocided, along with all other White populations across the Earth. The collective leadership that stands in as our emperor betrays us daily. Trade agreements that mask the ethnic cleansing of all White countries and only White countries insidiously promote massive immigration schemes and limitations on free speech to obscure the cascading effects of the Genocide.

In our democracy we have to enact laws before we are permitted to read the murderous texts. A death sentence to our race is sugar coated as economic opportunity via the charade of free trade.

Washington is in the thrall of rootless cosmopolitans with no loyalty to “ourselves and our posterity”. We are a propositional nation that denies the fundamental proposition that the nation was founded upon – securing the interests of “ourselves and our posterity”.

Man is born free but in America Whites are held in chains that condemn any policy that will allow their flourishing as a unique expression of mankind. They are chased down in their most remote redoubts like the woods of Northern Idaho or streets of Lewiston, Maine. Whites are be melded into a coffee colored race of a multicultural heritage. This is not expected of the Others – Hispanics, Blacks, Jews or Asians. Just Whites.

In a rational decent world Whites would be listed as an endangered species, but instead it is a year round open season on Whites. The Gotterdammerung is nearing and our last best toss of the dice is the evolving and proliferating MANTRA. It now has many iterations and feisty offspring. It is the only proven, effective antidote to our impending extinction.

BUGSERS and the MANTRA are all about doing. BUGSERS are Doers. MANTRA is Action.

BUGSERS are the final fighting remnant of the once great White Race against the traitors in high offices. Within society we are belittled and mocked and, and – feared. From our isolated, marginalized citadel, WOL, sally forth today and with your virtual lance nail the Mantra to or in whatever post you can. We are betrayed and have no allies. We fight on.

We will win.

Talking with Bill Rhyes

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

I’ll be live with Bill Rhyes this Thursday night, 2 July 2015, at 8pm ET (7pm CT) on his program, The Might is Right Power Hour. You can listen and call-in via TalkShoe.

Chat via http://mightisright.net/. The mp3 download will be linked here when it becomes available.

We plan to discuss A Personal Disclosure, my role and focus, the White network, White suicide vs genocide, The 14 Words, Breivik, Roof, and more. Join us.

Freemasonry, Catholicism, & National Socialism

via Counter-Currents

Dieter Schwarz
Freemasonry: Ideology, Organization, and Policy
6th edition
Berlin: Central Publishing House, NSDAP, 1944

Freemasonry in Europe has long been suspected as a tool of Jewish influence. Masonic organizations were outlawed in Germany after the ascent of the Nationalists to power in 1933. In addition to groups designated by the name Freemason, other similar types of groups were also considered suspect—especially Rotarians and the Odd Fellows.

In response to this threat to Germany, in 1938 NSDAP produced a version of the present pamphlet under the direction of SS Obergruppenführer Heydrich. Subsequent editions were produced through this sixth edition, printed in 1944.

The booklet begins with the start of Freemasonry lodges in seventeenth and eighteenth century England, then follows the progress of the movement to France and Germany. Some of what the Freemasons were doing was capable of taking cover under the Eastern/Semitic influences inside the Western Church which were part of Christianity in the near East and were imported into Italy when Rome became the center of Western Christendom.

Early in the 18th century, the Catholic Church sent priests into some of the lodges the better to monitor and eventually turn them to the purposes of the Christian faith (p. 14). This failed, the Jews apparently having greater skills at internal subversion of organizations that their adversaries in the Roman Rite.

The first action taken by the Church against the Lodges began during the Inquisition in 1737 (55).

In 1738 Pope Clement XII had had enough of the Masonic lodges and issued the Papal Bull of April 28, In eminenti.

In Eminenti Apostolatus, April 28, 1738[1]

. . . Francs Massons or by other names according to the various languages, are spreading far and wide and daily growing in strength; and men of any Religion or sect, satisfied with the appearance of natural probity, are joined together, according to their laws and the statutes laid down for them, by a strict and unbreakable bond which obliges them, both by an oath upon the Holy Bible and by a host of grievous punishment, to an inviolable silence about all that they do in secret together. But it is in the nature of crime to betray itself and to show itself by its attendant clamor. Thus these aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil they would not have so great a hatred of the light. Indeed, this rumor has grown to such proportions that in several countries these societies have been forbidden by the civil authorities as being against the public security, and for some time past have appeared to be prudently eliminated. 

Providas Romanorum, March 18, 1751

Providas reiterates the earlier Papal Bull cited above.

The SS pamphlet Freemasonry notes

A second bull against Freemasonry (“Providas”) was issued by Benedict XIV in 1751. Lennhoff-Posner writes in this regard:

The results of this bull were even more serious in some countries than those of the first. In Spain, Freemasons were imprisoned by the Inquisition. Ferdinand VI decreed all members of the association guilty of high treason. The Franciscan Fra Joseph Torrubia, Censor and Revisor of the Inquisition in Madrid, had himself admitted to a lodge after being absolved in advance by the Papal Penitentiarius from the oath of secrecy which was to [be] taken. In an accusatory document, he stated that the Freemasons were sodomites and witches, heretics, atheists, and rebels, who deserved to be burnt in a devotional auto da fe for the greater glory of the Faith and for the strengthening of the faithful.

In Naples, Portugal, Danzig, Aachen, Avignon, Savoy, etc. as well as in Bavaria after 1784, Freemasonry was also exposed to persecution (55).

Fast forward 139 years, and the tone of the following Encyclical by Leo XIII is very different from the confident tone of Benedict XIV in Providas Romanorum above. The secular powers had by this time robbed the Pope of much his temporal authority, and the Holy Father can do little other than complain about the sad state of affairs now extant for the Roman Church in Italy:

Ab Apostolici, October 15, 1890[2]

Item number 4 . . . To lay Clericalism (or Catholicism) waste in its foundations and in its very sources of life, namely, in the school and in the family: such is the authentic declaration of Masonic writers.
Item number 6 . . . The action of the sects is at present directed to attain the following objects, according to the votes and resolutions passed in their most important assemblies—votes and resolutions inspired throughout by a deadly hatred of the Church. The abolition in the schools of every kind of religious instruction, and the founding of institutions in which even girls are to be withdrawn from all clerical influence whatever it may be; because the State, which ought to be absolutely atheistic, has the inalienable right and duty to form the heart and the spirit of its citizens, and no school should exist apart from its inspiration and control.
Item number 10 . . . it suffices to take note of the kind of future which is being prepared for Italy by men whose object is . . . to wage an unrelenting war against Catholicism and the Papacy.
Item number 11 . . . the Masonic sect, with all its boast of a spirit of beneficence and philanthropy, can only exercise an evil influence—an influence which is evil because it attacks and endeavors to destroy the religion of Christ . . .

The Holy Father was right about a future unrelenting war against Catholicism, but mentioned the wrong country. The revenge of the leftists was to come in Spain during the Spanish civil war of 1936-1939.

Altogether, then, the killing of nearly 7,000 clergy, mostly but not entirely within a few months, stands as proportionately the most extensive and also most concentrated massacre of Catholic clergy of which we have a record.

The terror was directed against Catholicism, however, not against all Christianity. The tiny Protestant minority, scarcely 0.1 percent of the total population, was in some cases identified with the left. Most Protestant churches in the Republican zone remained open. Persecution of Protestants was a feature of the Nationalist zone, where there were increasing restrictions, and where a small number of Protestant ministers were executed. . . .

. . . An enormous wave of vandalism and destruction of churches and other religious properties and art also took place. This did away with many priceless works of art, whose total value was incalculable, art which was not merely the patrimony of the Church, but the cultural heritage of all Spain. This vast destruction and vandalism was only the most visible part of the systematic looting and pillaging carried out in most parts of the Republican zone, part of it by Republican government authorities themselves. The slaughter of the clergy, the execution of many thousands of Catholics, the wholesale destruction of churches and religious art, and the elaborate sacrilegious rituals carried out at first in many towns in the Republican zone were not merely wanton acts, but were directed toward the fundamental goal of destroying Catholicism in order to replace it with the new secular religions, mutually conflicting though they might be. (113-14)[3]

Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937

Forty-seven years after Ab Apostolici, Pius XI issued Divini Redemptoris which is more remarkable for its timidity than anything said about communism. Denouncing the Bolsheviks is all well and good, but without referencing the source the Holy Father is merely addressing the symptoms, not the cause. The long, drawn-out battle between the Jewish operated Masonic Lodges and the Catholic Church had started out in the early eighteenth century as a battle in which the Church had the full backing of secular authorities. Indeed, the civil governments—at least some of them—cheerfully assisted the Church by applying laws against Masonic societies and punishing or running off transgressors:

“Goethe’s later opinion of Freemasonry is shown by a report written by Goethe in his capacity as Minister of State for Prince Karl August, when the lodge brothers in Jena filed an application for reinstatement of their lodge in 1807. In it, he stated: ‘Freemasonry creates a state within a state. . . .’ ” (18-19)

In the early decades of the twentieth century, the Roman Church was on its own, and now stood stripped of most of its former temporal powers. Pope St. Pius X, the anti-modernist Pope, died in 1914 just as the First World War began. In his place, a moderate liberal, Benedict XV was elected Pope. Thus began an unbroken string of liberal or pro-leftist Popes, each more radical than the last, which continues to this day.

Certainly, if the Jews were following these developments carefully, as surely they must have been, it was no doubt apparent to them that the time was ripe to give Western Civilization, which had withstood all adversaries for centuries, its coup de grâce. This opportunity would come with the advent of the Second World War.

Seventeen years after the War, an opportunity would arise to insure that an already compliant Vatican hierarchy would not again arise to defend Europe against its ancient enemy. This opportunity was the Second Vatican Council, held from 1962-1965. The Council essentially destroyed one of the oldest continuously extant defenders of European culture and civilization. The Church, however, was an uncertain ally of European man, helping in some ways, and hindering in others. One of the ways the Roman Rite hindered rather than helped, was its tendency to universalism.

The Eastern branch of Christendom, under the Orthodox Rites, made a better collective decision—dispensing with the central authority of the Pope and forming national churches. This, at least in part, is why we find today that Eastern Europe is in better demographic shape than the West. There are of course exceptions and other factors. Poland is part of the Western Rite, and yet still benefits from the protection against immigration invasions afforded by its postwar occupation by the Soviet Union.

Mit Brennender Sorge, March 14, 1937

The Freemasonry Pamphlet does not go this far, but Pius XI’s Mit Brennender Sorge serves to illuminate the path to the future beyond the time-frame of the SS booklet. This Encyclical mandates a return to an older, universalist, deracinated version of the Church, and is therefore a criticism of National Socialist Germany in its attempt to hold to a variant of the Faith closer to the ethno-specific Germanized interpretation of the early Middle Ages. To put it more plainly, Pius XI here enforces a more decadent adaptation of Church belief and practice prevalent during the decaying phase of the late Roman Empire.

Item number 7: . . . Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God . . . neither is he a believer in God.

Translation: Germany has harkened back to a vigorous and confident Christianity one of the chief marks of which is an unwavering opposition to the Jews. A number of Pontiffs have warned against the Jews over the course of many centuries. Any attempt to reverse this on the threshold of a war which would pit Catholic Europe against Bolshevism is a direct betrayal of the Church’s age-old constituency.

Item number 8: Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God.

You would think the Holy Father in item eight above was referencing the Jews. If so, you’d be wrong.

Item number 13: We thank you, Venerable Brethren, your priests and Faithful, who have persisted in their Christian duty and in the defense of God’s rights in the teeth of an aggressive paganism.

This is simply the pot calling the kettle black. The Roman Rite is an evolution of paganism, and is still polytheistic, especially when compared to low church Protestant denominations. The argument that the various saints, Mary, etc. are not deities properly speaking is mere hair-splitting. In any event, paganism or what, it was the early medieval Germanic peoples—most Europeans—that brought the Faith fully on board with the ethno-specific needs of European man. As noted above, the import version direct from the mid-East had an unfortunate universalist taint to it. The Germanic version of the Roman Rite was a step towards a nationalist or ethno-specific variant.

The late Sam Francis had this to say about the clash between the universalist version of the Catholic Church and the more racial variety in his review of the book Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity:[4]

His thesis is that early Christianity flourished in the decadent, deracinated, and alienated world of late antiquity precisely because it was able to appeal to various oppressed or dissatisfied sectors of the population—slaves, urbanized proletarians, women, intellectuals, frustrated aristocrats, and the odd idealist repelled by the pathological materialism, brutality, and banality of the age. But when Christian missionaries tried to appeal to the Germanic invaders by invoking the universalism, pacifism, and egalitarianism that had attracted the alienated inhabitants of the empire, they failed. That was because the Germans practiced a folk religion that reflected ethnic homogeneity, social hierarchy, military glory and heroism, and “standards of ethical conduct . . . derived from a sociobiological drive for group survival through in-group altruism.” Germanic religion and society were “world-accepting,” while Hellenic Christianity was “world-rejecting,” reflecting the influence of Oriental religions and ethics. By “Germans,” it should be noted, Mr. Russell does not mean modern residents of Germany but rather “the Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, Burgundian, Alamannic, Suevic, and Vandal peoples, but also . . . the Viking peoples of Scandinavia and the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain.” With the exception of the Celts and the Slavs, “Germans” thus means almost the same thing as “European” itself.[5]

Had the fortunes of the 1939-1945 war gone the other way, it seems at least possible that a revival of the early medieval ethno-specific Roman Catholic faith might very well have taken hold in Europe.

Item number 16: Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God . . .

In the pre-Vatican II Missal, the Gospel readings are taken from the New Testament. The first readings are variously from the Old and New Testaments. One of the constant refrains from contemporary Catholic Traditionalists is that Jesus ordained that the New Covenant was neither a modification of nor a supplement to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant completely overwrote and replaced the Old. Presumably then, Christendom was no longer bound by Old Testament Mosaic law.

Item number 17: The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand, it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternative such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood.

As cited above in the TOQ review, this is exactly the reverse of the facts. The Medieval Church was far more conscious of race and blood than the Church of late antiquity or the Church during and after the Age of Exploration. It is Pius XI that is re-introducing ancient corruptions into the practices of the Catholic Church which our early medieval ancestors had so artfully adapted to the needs of the European people. Apparently revelation is “final and permanent” until the Pope changes it. I will further note here that there is a disturbing trend intent on separating the question of race from the constant emphasis on and support of family in common Catholic practice for centuries. The most obvious example of this is the Holy Family itself. The Christmas celebration is in large part a celebration of marriage, family and parturition. Separating and demonizing the concept of race in the context of this venerable celebration of family is impossible as race is family writ large.

The full betrayal of a centuries old tradition which started in earnest in the modern era with the Pontificate of Pius XI in 1922 would come with the advent of the Second Vatican Council held from 1962 to 1965.


1. http://papalencyclicals.net/ereader.htm
2. http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/l13ms1.htm
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=4oIre16mWNsC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=number+of+Catholic+clergy+killed+in+spanish+civil+war&source=bl&ots=ks8tZk6c96&sig=FPnv7cuLY3AUgdGCEwVa3uULdqA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X4qEVcvyDtbqoATTjJqwBg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20Catholic%20clergy%20killed%20in%20spanish%20civil%20war&f=false
4. James C. Russell, Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)
5. http://toqonline.com/archives/v1n1/TOQv1n1Francis.pdf

Matter and Form: The Dionysian Race

via Gornahoor
The new victories of the maternal principle over the revelation of purely spiritual paternity show how hard it has been for men, at all times and amid the most varied religious constellations, to overcome the inertia of material nature and to achieve the highest calling, the sublimation of earthly existence to the purity of the divine father principle. ~ J J Bachofen, Mother Right
Having traced the stages of history from the Telluric to the Demetrian to the Apollonian or solar periods, the latter peaking in the Roman Imperium, J J Bachofen then identifies the Dionysian period. Julius Evola calls this the Dionysian Race.

The Dionysian race represents the paternity of the Apollonian falling back into materiality. The Apollonian ideal was unable to withstand the assaults of baser doctrines. The Dionysian stage prepared the way for a new victory of the feminine principle and the mother cult. The victory of Dionysus over Apollo was assured in the meeting of the Greek and Oriental worlds under Alexander. Bachofen points out the spiritual principle of the Delphic Apollo was powerless to overcome the lower material views of the sexual relation. He writes:
We see paternity falling back from Apollonian purity to Dionysian materiality, so preparing the way for a new victory of the feminine principle, for a new flowering of the mother cults. Although the intimate union which the two luminous powers concluded in Delphi seemed calculated to purify Dionysus’ phallic exuberance through Apollo’s immutable repose and clarity, and to lift it above itself, the consequence was the exact opposite: the greater sensuous appeal of the fecundating god outweighed his companion’s more spiritual beauty, and increasingly usurped the power that should have been Apollo’s. Instead of the Apollonian age, it was a Dionysian age that dawned.
This shows that the spiritual aspect alone is insufficient. Rome, instead, was able to maintain the Apollonian through its structure. Bachofen explains:
Mankind owes the enduring victory of paternity to the Roman political idea, which gave it a strict juridical form and consequently enabled it to develop in all spheres of existence; it made this principle the foundation of all life and safeguarded it against the decadence of religion, the corruption of manners, and a popular return to matriarchal views. Roman law maintained it traditional principle against all the assaults and threats of the Orient, against the spreading mother cult of Isis and Cybele, and even against the Dionysian mystery.
Evola’s final point seems to be directed against a Hans Gunther or his followers. Gunther, more than 80 years ago, was concerned about the “degradation” of the Nordic peoples, which resulted from factors like the decline in marriage and birth rates, particularly among the higher “more Nordic” classes. Obviously, that decline has continued in the ensuing decades. Evola attributed that decline to “processes of involution” on the spiritual plane among the Nordic people.

Impulse and Instinct: The Earth Race

via Gornahoor

Prior to the lunar or Demetrian cultural stage and the patriarchal, or solar, cultural stage, J J Bachofen identified, through the study of ancient myths, and even earlier stage which he called “hetaerism”. Julius Evola gives the name “Telluric Race” in the Sintesi to the guiding spirit of that age.

In such periods, marriage is unknown and women held in common. Bachofen explains:
Woman is not endowed with all her charms in order to grow old in the arms of one man: the law of matter rejects all restrictions, abhors all fetters, and regards exclusivity as an offense against its divinity.
Unlike the Demetrians, who developed agriculture, the Tellurians were associated with the natural flora and fauna of the marshy lowlands, as well as swamp cults. This life is represented by witches, who were involved with herb collecting and concoctions using lower life forms like toads and lizards. The battle between the Telluric and Solar impulses is demonstrated, for example, in the Nordic legend of the Virgin Spring, with Ingeri as the exemplar of the former and Karin of the latter.

The struggle between the Titans and the Olympic gods can also be understood in this context. The mlecchas were a degraded Telluric warrior caste, which the avatar Parashurama came to destroy.

Evola mentions that Keyserling comment in a few of his books, but I haven’t been able to locate the reference. The Italian title does not correspond to his published works in German or English.

The Future of Patriotardery

via Radix

Gallup polling has announced that “Extreme Patriotism” is in irrefutable, perhaps irreversible decline.
As Independence Day approaches, most in the U.S. say they are proud to be an American, including a slight majority, 54%, who are "extremely proud." The percentage saying they are "extremely proud" is slightly lower than in recent years and down from peaks at and around 70% between 2002 and 2004, after 9/11.

Is there not something odd and suspicious about people publicly saying that they are “extremely proud” to American? Is this not like the stereotype of a Communist who not only joins the Party but overpays his dues and informs on his neighbors? Does not Extreme Patriotism indicate a hidden doubt . . . a state of denial . . . or a state of fear? 

Putting that aside, there is no partisan political message to the data. Extreme Patriotism had a bump after the 9/11 terror attacks and during the invasion of Iraq and George W. Bush’s reelection campaign. This was the “Age of the Flag Pin,” color-coded “terror threat” alerts on Fox News, and the rest. Some 15 percent of the public became alienated with Extreme Patriotism during Bush’s second term, and haven’t returned it.
Also, many Extreme Patriots have probably died.

Older Americans, Southerners and Republicans Lead in "Extreme Pride" 

While most Americans are proud to be an American, certain groups are especially likely to say they are extremely proud. "Extreme pride" rises for each succeeding age group, from a low of 43% among those under 30 to a high of 64% among senior citizens. Extreme pride also varies regionally, from a high of 61% in the South to a low of 46% in the West. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans say they are extremely proud to be an American, much higher than the 47% of Democrats who say the same. As usual, independents are in the middle, at 53%.
In other words, the American cultural, media, and political establishment is seeking to dispossess the people who most fervently believe in its legitimacy. Perhaps some Extreme Patriots express their loyalty because they are being dispossessed, much like an abused child might desperately try to please his parents.

One other aspect that shouldn’t go unnoticed is the connection between Extreme Patriotism and religion. Looking at Gallup polling on religion, 56 percent of the public say that “religion is very important” and that “religion can answer all or most of today’s problems.” My guess is that the same 56 percent who are most Christian are those who identify as Extreme Patriots. In a way, Extreme Patriotism is a form of dissent against what is wrongly conceived as a counter culture. Another historical irony is that Christianity, despite its "other worldly" qualities, functions as a state religion.

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

The Dream of the Machine

via The Archdruid Report

As I type these words, it looks as though the wheels are coming off the global economy. Greece and Puerto Rico have both suspended payments on their debts, and China’s stock market, which spent the last year in a classic speculative bubble, is now in the middle of a classic speculative bust. Those of my readers who’ve read John Kenneth Galbraith’s lively history The Great Crash 1929 already know all about the Chinese situation, including the outcome—and since vast amounts of money from all over the world went into Chinese stocks, and most of that money is in the process of turning into twinkle dust, the impact of the crash will inevitably proliferate through the global economy.
So, in all probability, will the Greek and Puerto Rican defaults. In today’s bizarre financial world, the kind of bad debts that used to send investors backing away in a hurry attract speculators in droves, and so it turns out that some big New York hedge funds are in trouble as a result of the Greek default, and some of the same firms that got into trouble with mortgage-backed securities in the recent housing bubble are in the same kind of trouble over Puerto Rico’s unpayable debts. How far will the contagion spread? It’s anybody’s guess.
Oh, and on another front, nearly half a million acres of Alaska burned up in a single day last week—yes, the fires are still going—while ice sheets in Greenland are collapsing so frequently and forcefully that the resulting earthquakes are rattling seismographs thousands of miles away. These and other signals of a biosphere in crisis make good reminders of the fact that the current economic mess isn’t happening in a vacuum. As Ugo Bardi pointed out in a thoughtful blog post, finance is the flotsam on the surface of the ocean of real exchanges of real goods and services, and the current drumbeat of financial crises are symptomatic of the real crisis—the arrival of the limits to growth that so many people have been discussing, and so many more have been trying to ignore, for the last half century or so.
A great many people in the doomward end of the blogosphere are talking about what’s going on in the global economy and what’s likely to blow up next. Around the time the next round of financial explosions start shaking the world’s windows, a great many of those same people will likely be talking about what to do about it all.  I don’t plan on joining them in that discussion. As blog posts here have pointed out more than once, time has to be considered when getting ready for a crisis. The industrial world would have had to start backpedaling away from the abyss decades ago in order to forestall the crisis we’re now in, and the same principle applies to individuals.  The slogan “collapse now and avoid the rush!” loses most of its point, after all, when the rush is already under way.
Any of my readers who are still pinning their hopes on survival ecovillages and rural doomsteads they haven’t gotten around to buying or building yet, in other words, are very likely out of luck. They, like the rest of us, will be meeting this where they are, with what they have right now. This is ironic, in that ideas that might have been worth adopting three or four years ago are just starting to get traction now. I’m thinking here particularly of a recent article on how to use permaculture to prepare for a difficult future, which describes the difficult future in terms that will be highly familiar to readers of this blog. More broadly, there’s a remarkable amount of common ground between that article and the themes of my book Green Wizardry. The awkward fact remains that when the global banking industry shows every sign of freezing up the way it did in 2008, putting credit for land purchases out of reach of most people for years to come, the article’s advice may have come rather too late.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that my readers ought to crawl under their beds and wait for death. What we’re facing, after all, isn’t the end of the world—though it may feel like that for those who are too deeply invested, in any sense of that last word you care to use, in the existing order of industrial society. As Visigothic mommas used to remind their impatient sons, Rome wasn’t sacked in a day. The crisis ahead of us marks the end of what I’ve called abundance industrialism and the transition to scarcity industrialism, as well as the end of America’s global hegemony and the emergence of a new international order whose main beneficiary hasn’t been settled yet. Those paired transformations will most likely unfold across several decades of economic chaos, political turmoil, environmental disasters, and widespread warfare. Plenty of people got through the equivalent cataclysms of the first half of the twentieth century with their skins intact, even if the crisis caught them unawares, and no doubt plenty of people will get through the mess that’s approaching us in much the same condition.
Thus I don’t have any additional practical advice, beyond what I’ve already covered in my books and blog posts, to offer my readers just now. Those who’ve already collapsed and gotten ahead of the rush can break out the popcorn and watch what promises to be a truly colorful show.  Those who didn’t—well, you might as well get some popcorn going and try to enjoy the show anyway. If you come out the other side of it all, schoolchildren who aren’t even born yet may eventually come around to ask you awed questions about what happened when the markets crashed in ‘15.
In the meantime, while the popcorn is popping and the sidewalks of Wall Street await their traditional tithe of plummeting stockbrokers, I’d like to return to the theme of last week’s post and talk about the way that the myth of the machine—if you prefer, the widespread mental habit of thinking about the world in mechanistic terms—pervades and cripples the modern mind.
Of all the responses that last week’s post fielded, those I found most amusing, and also most revealing, were those that insisted that of course the universe is a machine, so is everything and everybody in it, and that’s that. That’s amusing because most of the authors of these comments made it very clear that they embraced the sort of scientific-materialist atheism that rejects any suggestion that the universe has a creator or a purpose. A machine, though, is by definition a purposive artifact—that is, it’s made by someone to do something. If the universe is a machine, then, it has a creator and a purpose, and if it doesn’t have a creator and a purpose, logically speaking, it can’t be a machine.
That sort of unintentional comedy inevitably pops up whenever people don’t think through the implications of their favorite metaphors. Still, chase that habit further along its giddy path and you’ll find a deeper absurdity at work. When people say “the universe is a machine,” unless they mean that statement as a poetic simile, they’re engaging in a very dubious sort of logic. As Alfred Korzybski pointed out a good many years ago, pretty much any time you say “this is that,” unless you implicitly or explicitly qualify what you mean in very careful terms, you’ve just babbled nonsense.
The difficulty lies in that seemingly innocuous word “is.” What Korzybski called the “is of identity”—the use of the word “is” to represent  =, the sign of equality—makes sense only in a very narrow range of uses.  You can use the “is of identity” with good results in categorical definitions; when I commented above that a machine is a purposive artifact, that’s what I was doing. Here is a concept, “machine;” here are two other concepts, “purposive” and “artifact;” the concept “machine” logically includes the concepts “purposive” and “artifact,” so anything that can be described by the words “a machine” can also be described as “purposive” and “an artifact.” That’s how categorical definitions work.
Let’s consider a second example, though: “a machine is a purple dinosaur.” That utterance uses the same structure as the one we’ve just considered.  I hope I don’t have to prove to my readers, though, that the concept “machine” doesn’t include the concepts “purple” and “dinosaur” in any but the most whimsical of senses.  There are plenty of things that can be described by the label “machine,” in other words, that can’t be described by the labels “purple” or “dinosaur.” The fact that some machines—say, electronic Barney dolls—can in fact be described as purple dinosaurs doesn’t make the definition any less silly; it simply means that the statement “no machine is a purple dinosaur” can’t be justified either.
With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the statement “the universe is a machine.” As pointed out earlier, the concept “machine” implies the concepts “purposive” and “artifact,” so if the universe is a machine, somebody made it to carry out some purpose. Those of my readers who happen to belong to Christianity, Islam, or another religion that envisions the universe as the creation of one or more deities—not all religions make this claim, by the way—will find this conclusion wholly unproblematic. My atheist readers will disagree, of course, and their reaction is the one I want to discuss here. (Notice how “is” functions in the sentence just uttered: “the reaction of the atheists” equals “the reaction I want to discuss.” This is one of the few other uses of “is” that doesn’t tend to generate nonsense.)
In my experience, at least, atheists faced with the argument about the meaning of the word “machine” I’ve presented here pretty reliably respond with something like “It’s not a machine in that sense.” That response takes us straight to the heart of the logical problems with the “is of identity.” In what sense is the universe a machine? Pursue the argument far enough, and unless the atheist storms off in a huff—which admittedly tends to happen more often than not—what you’ll get amounts to “the universe and a machine share certain characteristics in common.” Go further still—and at this point the atheist will almost certainly storm off in a huff—and you’ll discover that the characteristics that the universe is supposed to share with a machine are all things we can’t actually prove one way or another about the universe, such as whether it has a creator or a purpose.
The statement “the universe is a machine,” in other words, doesn’t do what it appears to do. It appears to state a categorical identity; it actually states an unsupported generalization in absolute terms. It takes a mental model abstracted from one corner of human experience and applies it to something unrelated.  In this case, for polemic reasons, it does so in a predictably one-sided way: deductions approved by the person making the statement (“the universe is a machine, therefore it lacks life and consciousness”) are acceptable, while deductions the person making the statement doesn’t like (“the universe is a machine, therefore it was made by someone for some purpose”) get the dismissive response noted above.
This sort of doublethink appears all through the landscape of contemporary nonconversation and nondebate, to be sure, but the problems with the “is of identity” don’t stop with its polemic abuse. Any time you say “this is that,” and mean something other than “this has some features in common with that,” you’ve just fallen into one of the corel boobytraps hardwired into the structure of human thought.
Human beings think in categories. That’s what made ancient Greek logic, which takes categories as its basic element, so massive a revolution in the history of human thinking: by watching the way that one category includes or excludes another, which is what the Greek logicians did, you can squelch a very large fraction of human stupidities before they get a foothold. What Alfred Korzybski pointed out, in effect, is that there’s a metalogic that the ancient Greeks didn’t get to, and logical theorists since their time haven’t really tackled either: the extremely murky relationship between the categories we think with and the things we experience, which don’t come with category labels spraypainted on them.
Here is a green plant with a woody stem. Is it a tree or a shrub? That depends on exactly where you draw the line between those two categories, and as any botanist can tell you, that’s neither an easy nor an obvious thing. As long as you remember that categories exist within the human mind as convenient handles for us to think with, you can navigate around the difficulties, but when you slip into thinking that the categories are more real than the things they describe, you’re in deep, deep trouble.
It’s not at all surprising that human thought should have such problems built into it. If, as I do, you accept the Darwinian thesis that human beings evolved out of prehuman primates by the normal workings of the laws of evolution, it follows logically that our nervous systems and cognitive structures didn’t evolve for the purpose of understanding the truth about the cosmos; they evolved to assist us in getting food, attracting mates, fending off predators, and a range of similar, intellectually undemanding tasks. If, as many of my theist readers do, you believe that human beings were created by a deity, the yawning chasm between creator and created, between an infinite and a finite intelligence, stands in the way of any claim that human beings can know the unvarnished truth about the cosmos. Neither viewpoint supports the claim that a category created by the human mind is anything but a convenience that helps our very modest mental powers grapple with an ultimately incomprehensible cosmos.
Any time human beings try to make sense of the universe or any part of it, in turn, they have to choose from among the available categories in an attempt to make the object of inquiry fit the capacities of their minds. That’s what the founders of the scientific revolution did in the seventeenth century, by taking the category of “machine” and applying it to the universe to see how well it would fit. That was a perfectly rational choice from within their cultural and intellectual standpoint. The founders of the scientific revolution were Christians to a man, and some of them (for example, Isaac Newton) were devout even by the standards of the time; the idea that the universe had been made by someone for some purpose, after all, wasn’t problematic in the least to people who took it as given that the universe was made by God for the purpose of human salvation. It was also a useful choice in practical terms, because it allowed certain features of the universe—specifically, the behavior of masses in motion—to be accounted for and modeled with a clarity that previous categories hadn’t managed to achieve.
The fact that one narrowly defined aspect of the universe seems to behave like a machine, though, does not prove that the universe is a machine, any more than the fact that one machine happens to look like a purple dinosaur proves that all machines are purple dinosaurs. The success of mechanistic models in explaining the behavior of masses in motion proved that mechanical metaphors are good at fitting some of the observed phenomena of physics into a shape that’s simple enough for human cognition to grasp, and that’s all it proved. To go from that modest fact to the claim that the universe and everything in it are machines involves an intellectual leap of pretty spectacular scale. Part of the reason that leap was taken in the seventeenth century was the religious frame of scientific inquiry at that time, as already mentioned, but there was another factor, too.
It’s a curious fact that mechanistic models of the universe appeared in western European cultures, and become wildly popular there, well before the machines did. In the early seventeenth century, machines played a very modest role in the life of most Europeans; most tasks were done using hand tools powered by human and animal muscle, the way they had been done since the dawn of the agricultural revolution eight millennia or so before. The most complex devices available at the time were pendulum clocks, printing presses, handlooms, and the like—you know, the sort of thing that people these days use instead of machines when they want to get away from technology.
For reasons that historians of ideas are still trying to puzzle out, though, western European thinkers during these same years were obsessed with machines, and with mechanical explanations for the universe. Those latter ranged from the plausible to the frankly preposterous—René Descartes, for example, proposed a theory of gravity in which little corkscrew-shaped particles went zooming up from the earth to screw themselves into pieces of matter and yank them down. Until Isaac Newton, furthermore, theories of nature based on mechanical models didn’t actually explain that much, and until the cascade of inventive adaptations of steam power that ended with James Watt’s epochal steam engine nearly a century after Newton, the idea that machines could elbow aside craftspeople using hand tools and animals pulling carts was an unproven hypothesis. Yet a great many people in western Europe believed in the power of the machine as devoutly as their ancestors had believed in the power of the bones of the local saints.
A habit of thought very widespread in today’s culture assumes that technological change happens first and the world of ideas changes in response to it. The facts simply won’t support that claim, though. As the history of mechanistic ideas in science shows clearly, the ideas come first and the technologies follow—and there’s good reason why this should be so. Technologies don’t invent themselves, after all. Somebody has to put in the work to invent them, and then other people have to invest the resources to take them out of the laboratory and give them a role in everyday life. The decisions that drive invention and investment, in turn, are powerfully shaped by cultural forces, and these in turn are by no means as rational as the people influenced by them generally like to think.
People in western Europe and a few of its colonies dreamed of machines, and then created them. They dreamed of a universe reduced to the status of a machine, a universe made totally transparent to the human mind and totally subservient to the human will, and then set out to create it. That latter attempt hasn’t worked out so well, for a variety of reasons, and the rising tide of disasters sketched out in the first part of this week’s post unfold in large part from the failure of that misbegotten dream. In the next few posts, I want to talk about why that failure was inevitable, and where we might go from here.

The Missed Lesson of Greece’s Financial Crisis

via traditionalRight

On Sunday, 61% of Greek voters rejected the European bailout referendum. The Greek financial situation has led many American conservatives (and neoliberals) to point to Greece as an object lesson in the failures of socialism. Focusing only on Greece’s spending habits, however, misses the underlying issue, and American conservatives need to understand this if they ever want to address the fundamental problem that besets ours and the world’s economy. For the record, I’m not sure the problem is solvable at this point, but we need to at least understand what it is if we hope to fix it, and the problem will not be fixed by just spending less and “living within our means.”

There are no good guys in the Greek situation. Conservative critics of Greece’s socialistic ways are correct that it is not realistic for a country and its citizens to expect to continually live beyond their collective means. Excessive portions of the Greek workforce are employed by the government, and Greece allegedly cooked the books initially to make their economic situation appear better than it really was.

However, what too many of Greece’s critics are failing to point out is that the world monetary system encourages debt because debt is how new money comes into the system. Every new Euro/Dollar requires debt. So the system wants manageable debt, rather than unmanageable debt, but it most certainly does not want no debt or large scale “living within our means.” Such would grind the system to a halt. So the system essentially wants the debt can kicked down the road at a slower pace than Greece is kicking it, but you still can’t avoid the ultimate day of reckoning.

It is a bit rich for U.S. conservatives to finger wag at Greece for living beyond her means. While American conservatives say they want to cut spending and balance the budget, they act indignant when Democrats suggest they want to cut this or that popular entitlement or spending program, and they want to perpetually increase spending on defense because they apparently think it is the God-ordained duty of the United States to make the whole globe safe for democracy. The reason the U.S. isn’t where Greece is is because we have our own central bank, but the printing press is the 800 lb economic gorilla in the room and our time is surely coming. A wag might conclude that the superficial lesson from the Greek crisis is to have your own central bank and printing presses.

The take home point is that it is not enough to lecture the Greeks for being profligate Socialists, while ignoring the fact that our unsustainable monetary system actually encourages debt (national and otherwise) and can’t run without it. This is a built-in feature of the modern banking establishment, but the last major candidate who attempted to make this an issue got labeled a kook by a lot of mainstream conservatives for his troubles. So please spare me the morally superior posturing regarding the Greeks’ spendthrift ways. Our time is coming, and no one will be able to say we weren’t warned.

Repentance Has No Place in Politics: Interview with Alain DeBenoist

via The Occidental Observer

Alain DeBenoist
Below is the interview Alain de Benoist gave recently to Boulevard Voltaire
Q. Shortly before his death, François Mitterrand said those definitive words to the perplexed Jean-Pierre Elkabbach: “France does not need to apologize.” Mitterand spoke of those famed “darkest hours in our history.” Today, however, “repentance” has become fashionable. What does that mean?

ADB: To put it in its simplest terms, repentance can be summed up as follows: people apologize for some wrongdoings they did not commit in order to please those who were never subject to those wrongdoings. Those about to repent committed no harm; to those receiving apology no harm was ever inflicted.  All of this is perfectly ridiculous. In fact, repentance means making a selective choice in our history by safeguarding solely some specific and same historical periods, i.e., slavery, colonialism, etc., considered “dark” in the light of the dominant ideas whose goal therefore requires official repentance.  A much imagined inherited collective guilt adds up to this major anachronism which consists of “throwing backwards” into the past the value judgments belonging to our present time frame. The past, having being reduced to the “duty of remembrance,” the present, consequently, is bound to become fleeting, self-referential, and existentially empty.

However, the whole process, is more than just a fashionable discursive game. On the one hand, it is designed to convince our compatriots that each time, when turning back to their past, they are bound to uncover the horror only.  Here is the corollary: identity is invariably of a questionable nature; novelty, by contrast, must be invariably better. On the other hand, and in an epoch when the victimhood status is becoming highly profitable, the whole point is granting to the alleged victims’ descendants all sorts of  benefits;  from bestowing on them good conscience to granting them moral superiority, all the way to the enactment of  “memorial laws”, plus financial compensations. The focus of those invocations of the past is located in the present: the “dark days” are posited or exploited in order to either legitimize or delegitimize current opinions. Monsignor Nunzio Galantino, the Secretary General of the Episcopal Conference, stated recently that “our welcoming of immigrants is a form of compensation for all the damage we did over the years […]. We owe hospitality to migrants for all what we did to their lands in the past.” Thus, the issue of immigration is being processed under the guise of the mea culpa.  Which in turn enables some minority pressure groups to plead by proxy their victimhood status and prop themselves up as the vigilantes of the present.

Q. During his time as pope, Pope John Paul II also made repentance for certain crimes committed by the Church in the course of its history. One can say in his defense that Catholicism is a religion that requires the faithful to regularly confess their sins …

ADB: What is certain, in any case, is that the dialectic of sin, repentance, atonement, reparation, or “teshuvah“, and forgiveness — all of them belong to the language of religion. They have, therefore, nothing to do with the political process. Across the board collective repentance should not, however, make us forget that European civilization is the only civilization to date calling itself into question, to the point of internalizing its own critique. As Jean-François Mattéi said: “in order to respond to its critics, reason needs to ask forgiveness, because it appears always before its own tribunal.”

Q. Is there a risk for those refusing to repent to fall into the opposite extreme, i.e. to deny purely and simply the existence of the gray areas in our history?

ADB. This, in fact, is a symmetrical risk. All the lands of the world have had their dark days and their shining periods. In a normal state, one teaches young people to be proud of their country by instilling in them the memory of what their country did in a most glorious fashion. This does not mean that the rest of the story did not exist; yet, one must firstly be aware that self-esteem begins with the respect of what was inherited, helping us thus to define ourselves. There is no reason to be proud of slavery, but there is no reason also to be proud of the sack of Béziers, or the massacre of Saint Bartholomew, or the “dragonnades,” the Vendee genocide, or the repression of the Commune. The whole question boils down to whether we wish to teach the French to be proud of themselves, instead of instilling in them shame or self-doubt.

As for the rest, it is useless and even harmful to harp ad infinitum on civil wars. History is wholeness and one won’t get very far by fingering rosary beads in a durable sequence of Clovis to Charles Martel, to Jeanne d’Arc, and imagine that this is the best way to answer those for whom History of France began with 1789 only. The past is not a “museograhic“ heritage, nor a static essence, but a complex narrative substance whose narration is constantly revisited, allowing a people to tell itself its own story. Wishing, on the one hand, to single out the “anti-France,” or for that matter restricting oneself only to a talk about “France, the land of human rights,” means in both cases to mutilate our history. Marc Bloch rightly said that to be truly French means to be able to vibrate with the memory of the coronation of Reims, as well as partaking of the Federation Feast during the French Revolution, July 14, 1790. This was also the opinion of Charles Péguy — and this is also mine.