Jul 17, 2015

Nationalist Unity

via Nationalist Alternative

During my time in the nationalist movement I have seen and heard about group after group sprouting up and then falling apart or splintering into different groups. This constant infighting will in time kill us with the certainty of a bullet to the skull. Our inability to work together will be our extinction. Our enemies are few in number, but they stick together through thick and thin. If we do not learn to do the same, we will all die.

I have identified ten issues that have been causing our movement to splinter, there are probably more so do not consider this list necessarily authoritative for all groups and situations. However, it would benefit everyone in our movement to read these points and be aware of the dangers presented by each issue.
  1. Irrational Optimism – nothing is used more for an excuse to not be involved in our cause than those who despite knowing the facts about our situation still hold onto an unfounded belief that if they do nothing, beyond complaining, the situation will just improve: “other people will do the work”, “people will wake up en masse before it is too late”, “brain washing cannot be this effective”, “most people are normal”, etc… No, we are in an existential crisis; that means we face certain extinction unless things change. Things will not change unless everyone is on board and active. A good motto for keeping things real is the Latin phrase “memento mori” or “remember you will die”. If you do not accept this fact you will not be able to make intelligent decisions for furthering the survival of our people.
  1. Lack of Integrity – our groups have been afflicted by a significant number of people lacking basic honesty and integrity. I think this is because we are so desperate for members we are willing to take in anyone. However, a liar is never a help and always a cancer. Every time a deliberate liar gets away with lying it emboldens them to lie more. Look at our enemies; they have gotten away with lying so often they tell huge lies casually. Do not tolerate liars, ditch them fast they are not worth having at all. We will spend more time cleaning up their mess than fighting for our people. 
  1. Religion – this is a hugely difficult issue. The Christian faith is Universalist and has no compunction to be loyal to us racially. If some Christians want to help us, that is great, but Christianity will never be a reliable ally to our cause. Indeed, the Christians working with us have divided loyalties as many of the invaders in our country are Christians. My personal view is to accept any Christian into our movement providing they have integrity, loyalty primarily to our race and are not pacifist. Alienating Christians altogether would hurt us more, especially as most Christians are honest, hardworking and decent folk. The religious war will need to be fought another day with another generation. We have the national war to fight today.
  1. Pacifism – apparently the idea that Christianity was a tolerant religion was introduced in the 18th century and was a top down program of governments to deal with rebellions in their countries. Governments preach pacifism in the public education system ad nausea while they actively promote use of violence for themselves through the police and military. The fact is few people will actually listen to what you say, but as soon as a gun comes into the room they are all ears. Hence politicians ignore polls critical of immigration policy but panic over civil unrest. Pacifism is making a virtue out of laziness and cowardice: “Do not get involved”, “if it’s violent it’s always wrong”, “don’t make waves”, “don’t rock the boat”, “hurting people’s feelings is violence”, etc…. Remember if violence is so wrong whye do police carry guns? Why do prisons exist? Why do militaries exist? Why do governments bully each other? Pacifism is the philosophy of the rabbit: always panicked and running away. Confidence dealing with conflict is courage and strength. My view on violence is to follow the wolf’s way of thinking: gentle and loyal to my kin, aggressive and vicious to my enemies. Completely diametrically opposed attitudes based on friend or foe. Forget this “family of humanity” nonsense the government pushes on us, everyone who believes in that will die.
  1. Economics – about half of nationalists are libertarian and the other half are socialists from what I can judge. This is going to be an issue in the future and it is worth debating socially now. However, although I am personally a libertarian I am happy working with socialists because national survival is more important presently. Once we have secured our nation’s survival, then let us settle this issue, right now if you are losing nationalist friends over this you are part of the problem. Race ahead of economics. We can both live under either system so long as it is nationalist, we can not live under either system if the government in Zionist.
  1. Symbolism – The communists have a highly developed stereotype of nationalists that they love to project onto us. That we are brutish, boneheaded, unkempt, idiotic, sociopathic and obsessed with marching and saluting. Whenever the media report on us they push this narrative onto us over and over again, even though we all know we are nothing like this at all. Yet it has become something of a teen rebellion phase of dressing up in Swastikas and looking the stereotypical Neo-Nazi that the mass-media portrays. These people are nationalists for the wrong reason. Often they are defective in their own lives and are not serious about politics. They are seeking attention to deal with their own low self-esteem and do not seem to care about respectability. They are not loyal and they are not representative of our movement. Our identity is as Australian Pan-European nationalists, not Hollywood style Neo-Nazis as shown in ridiculous movies like Romper-Stomper etc, and the more people who seek to adopt this negative stereotype the more harm they do to us. Tell these people to grow up or get out, we have no room in this movement for adult sized children. Professionalism is the key word.
  1. Narcissism – Speaking of adult sized children, narcissism rates in the under 30 year old demographic are at an all-time high. More prevalent amongst women, but still very high amongst young men too. Narcissists are bad news, they have brown fingers – everything they touch turns to shit. They lie compulsively, they have delusions of grandeur, they seek leadership positions yet have terrible judgement and they constantly start arguments and conflicts with everyone around them. They will use your virtues against you, they will exploit your honesty, generosity and patience without any guilt. If these people get any power within a group, they will split that group like an axe through timber. They are not in our movement for anyone but themselves. If you find a narcissist report them to your fellow nationalists and get rid of them. Theoretically confronting them about their mortality and the shipwrecked state of their life will help them mature, but reducing your contact with them is your soundest strategy. Our cause is about all of us as a whole and not about what individuals can selfishly gain.
  1. Environmentalism – Environmentalism is a complicated topic, despite what the media make it out to be: a moral crusade between clearly defined groups of good and evil people. Nearly all whites agree that taking care of the natural resources and beauty of the country is a high priority, but white people are completely divided on whether “climate change” or “global warming” is man-made, natural or if it is even happening at all. I have never seen anything fruitful come from nationalists arguing over this topic. Instead, I think we need to focus on our race-wide admiration and respect for nature. We value clean, intact and sustainable environmental and farming practices, let us stay focussed on what we have in common on this issue and not worry about the climate change issue until it affects all races equally. Presently, the sole function of climate change is to destroy industry in white countries and to expand it in non-white countries, which is effectively destroying our economies for generations to come. Focus on the damage the environmentalist policies are doing to our people.
  1. Infiltrators – The communists have a long and impressive history of infiltrating nationalists groups and destroying us from within. It is worth reading up on this, NKVD/KGB Directorate S for example trained Russians to infiltrate the German SS and rise to leadership positions commanding thousands of men. These infiltrators remained undetected for years and assassinated loyal, strong and intelligent members of our race. Getting killed by your “fellow” nationalists is a terrifying possibility in the future, more likely though they will just create conflicts and demoralise our groups, causing them to split and divide more. Infiltrators have been used to tremendous effect in destroying our movements in the past. I am not telling you to be paranoid, but be alert and sensible with what company you keep. Trust is crucial amongst those involved in this struggle.
  1. Race policy – This is probably the most divisive topic of all. What do we do with race-mixers? What do we do with their children? What do we do with all the invaders already inside our country? Those who have been systematically damaging our Nation for decades? These are issues no nationalist government has ever had to deal with. We have tens of thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands of cases like this to deal with. It is something we need to discuss, debate and reach consensus on key points. Failure to resolve these questions could easily destroy our movement. Every nationalists needs to put their feelings aside and look at the facts coldly and methodically to draw the most rational conclusion about what we must do. The five policies that exist, in order of extremity, are: integration, segregation, deportation, sterilisation and extermination. I am going to tell you that integration and extermination are immediately off my list. I will not tolerate these. We need to show integrity and not sink down to the level of our enemies. However, I am open to the other three. You all need to get a clear idea which of these five policies are acceptable to you, if only one of them works for you, you are going to be a stick in the mud. Try to have at least two options you would be prepared to work with your fellow nationalists towards. Do not be single-minded. Be flexible enough on this topic that we do not fall apart fighting over it.
As I said, there are probably more issues than the ten that I have just listed, but these are my biggest fears and concerns about the viability and unity of the Australian Nationalist movement. If there are some that I have missed out, please let me know about them. However, do think about them, do take these issues seriously, do talk about this list with other nationalists. Get these issues clear in your head so that as our movement grows and progresses we can avoid as many instances of disunity and internal conflict as possible.

Irish Lawyer Wants to Put Valuable Church Relics Back into the Hands of Rapacious Jews

via Carolyn Yeager

80 years ago, in 1935, some Jewish art dealers in Berlin sold a collection of medieval Christian relics, known as the Welfenschatz treasure, to one or more National Socialists “after they were unable to get a better offer.” The collection consists of dozens of gold and bejeweled relics that date to the Holy Roman Empire.

History of the collection according to Wikipedia

The collection of medieval ecclesiastical art was originally housed at Brunswick Cathedral in Braunschweig, Germany. Most of the objects were removed from the cathedral in the 17th century and dispersed in the 1930s.
 
Some of the precious artworks in the Welfenschatz collection (known in English as the Guelph Treasure) on display in Berlin. Below right: a cross from the collection.

The Treasure takes its name from the princely House of Guelph of Brunswick-Lüneburg.


In 1929 Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, sold 82 items to a consortium of Frankfurt Jewish art dealers Saemy Rosenberg, Isaak Rosenbaum, Julius Falk, Arthur Goldschmidt and Zacharias Hackenbroch. Items from the Treasure were exhibited in the United States in 1930–31.
Cleveland Museum of Art purchased nine pieces and more were sold to other museums and private collectors. 


In 1934 the remaining 40 pieces of the collection, which had been retained by several German-Jewish art dealers from Frankfurt, were purchased for 4.25 million Reichsmarks via Wilhelm Stuckart by the Prussian State under its Prime Minister Hermann Göring and displayed in Berlin.


According to a Boston Globe story of July 15, a Boston attorney named Nicholas O'Donnell, a partner at the law firm Sullivan & Worcester, is helping a private American Jewish group try to get possession of this collection from the German government. Please see here for more information.


The original Jewish art dealers were a consortium of three firms based in Frankfurt. They had purchased the treasure in 1929 as an investment and began trying to sell it as the Nazis rose to power. About half of the pieces were sold to the Cleveland Museum of Art and others, but the rest remained in their possession. [In other words, they were moving it outside of Germany where it originated and should rightly remain.] 
Here are the original art dealers who were working their trade in Germany in the 1920's and 30's. Isaak Rosenbaum (top) and partners (from left) Zacharias Hackenbroch, Julius Goldschmidt, and Saemy Rosenberg

The Jews legal complaint claims that the Nazis organized a boycott of Jewish businesses that quickly reduced the revenue of their ancestors firms to nothing. It alleges the transaction was made under duress for a cut-rate price.

However this narrative is vehemently denied by German authorities, who say the sale was thoroughly reviewed by an advisory panel and found to be valid.


The German side


The collection belongs to the German government and resides in the Kunstgewerbemuseum (Museum of Decorative Arts) in Berlin where it is on display.

A German panel ruled in 2014 that there was insufficient evidence to prove the sale of the collection was influenced by the Nazis’ persecution. In response to the first US lawsuit brought by the American-Jewish “heirs,” the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation said the price was “fair and appropriate,” given the worldwide economic turmoil that undermined demand for pricey art collections.


Hermann Parzinger, head of the German government foundation that controls the treasure, said days after the lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC that he was “astonished by this step,” and that “I am confident that any court ruling on the merits would reach the same conclusion that we and the advisory commission have reached.” 


What O'Donnell and his Jews claim


O’Donnell’s suit for his clients seeks to force the German government to return the $250 million treasure as restitution for alleged persecution under the Nazi regime. He said his clients are fighting for an acknowledgment that their ancestors were robbed of the treasure. The plaintiffs are only two, listed in the suit as Alan Philipp from London and Gerald Stiebel from Santa Fe, New Mexico


Of course, it's clear to us that they're fighting for $250 million dollars because they plan to sell the collection if they manage to get hold of it, just as their ancestors only wanted to profit from it. It was purely a financial investment for them, then and now. It goes without saying that Jews have no appreciation of Christian church art and symbols!


O’Donnell’s lawsuit is said to offer a detailed narrative (worthy of the holohoax, I'd say) of the years leading up to the sale. This is what it consists of, according to the Boston Globe story:

  • Correspondence filed as exhibits in the case purport to show that Nazi officials plotted to undermine deals with other potential buyers of the Welfenschatz to force the art dealers — Zacharias Hackenbroch, Isaak Rosenbaum, Saemy Rosenberg, and Julius Goldschmidt — to lower their price. [Sounds like normal business practice to me.]
  • In 1935, during final negotiations over the sale, Rosenberg stayed in a hotel along Potsdamer Platz in Berlin where, according to the complaint, he had a view of Hitler Youth demonstrations and could hear daily chants of “Do not buy from Jews!” [This is relevant? Was this supposed to have been instigated purposely to intimidate Rosenberg?]
  • In June of that year, after fruitless efforts to achieve a better deal, the dealers agreed to sell the collection to the Nazis. [Is anything proven here? Doesn't seem so.]
  • A few months later, the Welfenschatz was presented to Hitler. [Because it was given to Hitler on his birthday means the Nazis forced the sale? Circumstantial.]
  • A Baltimore Sun article used as an exhibit in the lawsuit reported that the ceremony was presided over by Goering. [And this means …?]
  • By Hitler's birthday, three of the dealers had already left the country; only Hackenbroch remained, and died two years later. [They were selling out because they wanted to leave. The fact that one did not leave shows their lives were not in danger.]
All of this is meant to invoke images and ideas of Nazi terror. It is sad that a law firm with the names Sullivan and O'Donnell would play a part in it. And I just learned of a new twist: The matter is complicated by the fact that in 2013 the Israeli Government officially requested Germany to return the treasure to the petitioners!!

Cultural Appropriation and the Confederate Flag

via TradYouth

Americans are having a national debate about the symbolism of the Confederate battle flag, but it’s the wrong debate being performed by the wrong people.

This renewed controversy about the Confederate battle flag, in all its variations, has brought about some interesting arguments and comparisons.  The flag’s opponents want to have an open and critical dialogue on the matter, but there are some important things for them to consider before going too far afield.

The Confederate battle flag is “nation wide” now.  The Stars and Bars have become the symbol of resistance for white people all across the country, and it continues to be a loved symbol even in South America.  However, the manner in which people are using the Confederate flag nowadays would have made CSA Vice President A.H. Stephens roll in his grave (provided that somebody doesn’t decide to dig him up under cover of darkness.)

But, how many of us really know what the flag of the Confederacy looked like?  I’ll bet that most people don’t have a clue.  The flag of the Confederacy was not what we’re arguing about right now.  The first Confederate National Flag consisted of,
“Three horizontal stripes of equal height, alternating red and white, with a blue square two-thirds the height of the flag as the canton. Inside the canton are white five-pointed stars of equal size, arranged in a circle and pointing outward.” [Wikipedia]
That’s what the flag of the Confederacy looked like.  What politicians and liberals are arguing about banning right isn’t even a historically accurate or relevant version of what was used by the Confederacy.  The current brouhaha is revolving around the Confederate Naval Jack.  A NAVAL JACK!  The flag that was until recently flown on the South Carolina capitol building’s grounds was used by the Army of Northern Virginia, and it wasn’t even used by the entirety of the CSA’s land army.

The argument at hand is many things, but it is also a perfect example of cultural appropriation.  People all over the country are trying to pick up the Confederate flag, or some variation of it, and use it as their own symbol for something that it was never intended.  I’m going to say it for the record: white people can commit cultural appropriation against other white people.  I’m not sure that cultural appropriation is specifically “bad,” I just think it’s something that happens as a consequence of two or more different ethnic or racial groups being close to each other.

 I’m sure we can find some instances of somebody, like, let’s say, Justin Bieber, using a stereotyped white trash outfit as a tool to express himself with in a public meeting, and while it might be disingenuous and insulting to those who regularly use overalls as part of their daily work routine I don’t think it’s worth getting as worked up over as Tumblr says we should.  According to Wikipedia, cultural appropriation is,
“… the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, especially if the adoption is of an oppressed people’s cultural elements by members of the dominant culture. Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group being seen as the new face of said cultural practices. As minority cultures are imitated by the dominant culture, observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them. This is often seen in cultural outsiders’ use of an oppressed culture’s symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech and social behaviour, among other cultural expressions.” [Wikipedia] (emphasis added)
That’s exactly what is happening here.  You would think that the Left would have a better grasp of this situation since they never miss a beat to attack white people for alleged micro-aggressions or appropriating culture from non-white people, but it’s lost on them.  If they realized what was happening they would know better than to get so worked up like this.

White people, some of whom have zero relation to Confederate veterans nor the South land are taking the flag as a symbol to rally under.  The flag is a symbol for cultural identity, just not the one the Left needs it to be, and that’s why there is a push-back from a large section of White America.  The people who are adopting the flag are appropriating it and using it to express or stand for something different than what it was originally intended.  Thus, the Left’s attack on the Confederate flag isn’t even an attack on the Confederacy or its values, but against white people trying to create a pan-American white identity.

When the Left fights against the Confederate flag they think they’re fighting against a remnant of the Confederacy.  When white people pick up any of the Confederate flags as an expression of identity or cultural values they think they’re promoting and defending something different.  Very few of the people at Confederate flag rallies have a strong grasp of what was happening in the South during the Civil War;  Very few of the people at Confederate flag rallies have any relation or association to Confederate veterans.  The one thing that all white people at Confederate flag rallies do understand is the need for white unity, that’s what this argument should be about.

The Confederate flag is a tool that we use for expressing ourselves and something about our own identity.  If we use the tool incorrectly or in ways that it wasn’t originally intended we can end up hurting ourselves or others in the process.  If you carry a battle flag into public and aren’t going to battle somebody when they steal it from you, then you’re “doing it wrong.”

White people across America who feel compelled to defend parts of their culture and identity need a flag to rally under.  However, the Confederate flag is not a one-size-fits-all tool for expression, and if you aren’t going to defend the Southern way of life you need to stop using it right now.  Southerners do not want, need or appreciate weak-willed men and women from other parts of the country watering down what it means to be a Southerner.

Why Dylann Roof Is RIGHT! – Whites UNDER-REACT to Racial Threats

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Rather than making a podcast of my own this week, I’m going to urge you to listen to this one instead. It was originally posted on YouTube. All I’ve done is carve out the unique commentary (leaving out the several other short videos the author attached to the end of his) and transcode the audio to MP3 (leaving out the author’s image slideshow). If you can, I encourage you to watch the whole thing in its original form.

As I described when I first linked the video a few days ago, this podcast contains some very sobering testimony from a White man in Africa, a Boer. Dedicating a post to it gives me a chance to say a bit more about it, and a few other Roof-related items and issues.

First off I’ll say that I had never heard from this Boer before, but was curious about what else he had to say and where his podcasts and other work was published. Starting at History Reviewed Channel, on YouTube, it’s apparent that he’s made several other podcasts, before and since this one. From URLs attached to some of them it seems he operates a set of similar-looking websites, including Ban Judaism, AfricanCrisis, AmericanCrisis, and HistoryReviewed. Some of the items on these sites are snippets of private chats, like this one. Some involve “The Editor”, a handle I recalled running across on Twitter, and which turns out to point back to the same person.

Regardless of who this man is, what he has to say in this podcast makes alot of sense. What he says comports, just as the general views attributed to Dylann Roof do, with my own view of reality, sanity, and morality – as far as I can tell, a more or less accurate description of what’s happening and why. I feel compelled to choose my words so precisely and cautiously because there are two strong currents among Whites which put forth more or less opposing views.

The first current, which is to condemn Roof, attacking his sanity and morality, I have already addressed. I consider this current itself to be not only mistaken but worthy of attack. The tragedy is that it’s proponents support and agree with Roof’s motives, but in joining the enemy to condemn Roof’s actions end up undermining themselves, calling into question their own motives and actions.

The second current, which is to dismiss Roof, attacking his reality, and thus by extension the White racial reality, I have not previously addressed. The Boer does so very briefly at the start of his podcast. In my own view this “psyops”/”truther”/”crisis actors” current is also mistaken, but not worthy of attack. More than anything else it is a distraction. It’s true-believing core proponents fundamentally disagree with Roof’s purported motives – at best because they are deracinated, at worst because they are anti-”racists” and jews. They present a false critique of the jewsmedia narrative, providing in fact an astroturf extension of the distortion and confusion the corporate jewish media creates, toward the same anti-White ends. In other words, they are part of, or at least participating in, the larger “psyop” they complain about. In this case I think the tragedy is in some jew-wise White racialists lending this surreal phenomenon credence and attention.

The authenticity of Dylann Roof, the Boer, and even myself is something Whites must judge for themselves. A measure of skepticism is normal and healthy, and I think Whites could use more of it when dealing with anything coming from the jewsmedia or academia. I think that if anything Whites underestimate the jews, their perfidy, and the confusion they very deliberately create around race, politics, and history.

That said, I’ll repeat that the manifesto attributed to Roof and the commentary coming from the Boer both strike me as authentic. If either are in fact coming from jews, who are presumably trying to discredit pro-White motives by tying them to violent acts, then they are failing. If it is jews, then they are doing a good job, making so much sense, that they do a bad job of discrediting White racial consciousness. My argument against the Roof-condemners is that they discredit themselves by arguing in terms of a morality or sanity they otherwise demonstrate they do not actually believe. My argument against the Roof-disbelievers is that they discredit themselves by arguing for a measure of skepticism and consciousness they otherwise demonstrate they do not practice.

The Boer well describes the current zeitgeist in Africa and America. Though he doesn’t identify it as such, he describes the jew’s oppression narrative behind this zeitgeist, driving it morally and ideologically, consistently excusing non-Whites and blaming Whites for everything, no matter the circumstances.

The Boer’s main point, with which I concur, is that the essence of “liberal”/jew power is lying, the con job, fraud. To that he adds the point that behind their dishonest rhetoric and argument they have other, hidden interests and loyalties at heart – either involving themselves personally, their employer, or non-Whites (and jews) more generally. That White “liberals” are race traitors, a worse kind of enemy compared to blacks. That their nightmare is that enough Whites will recognize that the threat posed by their lies is real, has to be taken seriously and stopped, especially by resorting to violence. And finally, based on his personal experience with the course of events over the past 60 years in Africa, he opines that “right-wing”/racialist Whites have failed because they have underestimated the extent and gravity of the situation, whereas the “liberal”/jew lying, and especially guilt-tripping, has been ruthless, and with devastating effect.

The Boer understands more about the jews than he lets on in his podcast about Roof. In another podcast, published just before Roof’s reprisal, he shares his attempt to describe the jewish problem to a friend. Whites colonised Blacks; Jews colonise Whites! – JEWS 101: Introduction to the Jewish problem puts it in a pithy way that any White should be able to comprehend, but especially those Whites outside Europe, for whom the colonialism guilt-trip hits closest to home. I would describe the relationship as parasitism rather than colonialism, and trace it back far beyond Spain 500 years ago, but the way the Boer sees and describes it is definitely on the right track. The colonialism analogy is perhaps even better for persuading someone who is still under the influence of Christianity, or finds an understanding rooted more in sociology than biology more appealing.

The Boer identifies two analogues to Roof – Anders Breivik, with whom most Whites are at least somewhat familiar, and Barend (Hendrik) Strydom, a Boer with whom most Whites outside of Africa are probably completely unfamiliar. As the various articles on the murderpedia.org page make clear, Christianity played an important role in Strydom’s mindset, which he shared with his family and the larger Boer White nationalist group to which he belonged. I found these passages particularly interesting:
By the time (Barend) Hendrik Strydom was sixteen he was already a member of a number of extremist right-wing organisations and had visions of an all-white nation being established in South Africa. He claimed to have attended a veldschool in Standard 8, where he had been warned against the communist system as well as drug and alchohol abuse. “We were taught to be proud of our country,”he said. “I began to read many books on politics in South Africa and also attended right-wing meetings. They were the only true political movements – unlike the Nationalist government which lies to the people.” He saw some of the reform movements introduced by the government as a ,sell-out. His views were encouraged by his father, Mr Nic Strydom, an ex policeman, an elder in the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk, and a former regional leader of the Heidelberg Afrikaaner Weerstands beweging (AWB). Mr Nic Strydom would later claim proudly in court that he had ‘planted the seeds of religion and right-wing political views’ in his son’s heart. He also maintained that his son was a dedicated churchgoer and a person who strongly believed in God. “I explained to him that, according to the Bible, each nation should have its own church and religion, which Hendrik accepted whole heartedly.” It was also Mr Strydom’s belief that ‘blacks were animals’. “Blacks are not human beings according to the Bible, and many books I have read, and in my eyes they are animals. Many books Hendrik and I have read state, among other things, that Jews of today are not whites, blacks are animals and all whites stem from the Israelites,” Mr Strydom added.
“I became more aware of the enemy, especially people belonging to the left-wing organizations such as the United Democratic Front and the so-called Workers Union and their affiliated organizations, which were all African National Congress front movements.” He saw the actions, which the government was taking to combat internal rebellion as ineffective and began to fear that South Africa was going to the communists.
Despite this realization, Strydom selected random blacks as targets, not White/jew communists. More important, he never expressed regret or otherwise betrayed himself, his cause, or his people:
On Wednesday, 17 May, Mr Justice Louis Harms found Strydom guilty on all counts and called for arguments in mitigation of sentence. “I see what I did as totally correct,” Strydom declared the following day. “If I had to do it again I would do the same thing”. When questioned about the Wit Wolwe movement, Strydom maintained that it had been established in February 1986, but would give no further details. The police claimed that investigations indicated that the Wit Wolwe was merely a figment of Strydoms imagination. When it was put to the accused that he was bragging in an attempt to make himself important, Strydom denied this.
Even more important, his family and his people, the Boere, did not abandon or betray him:
In a press interview given a few days after the sentencing, Mr Nic Strydom told reporters: “I’m proud of Hendrik because he sacrificed himself for his beliefs. He is an honest man and I respect him for that. He killed for love the love of a nation.”
Contrast this with Roof’s family, one of which supposedly expressed an eager desire to condemn and even “push the button” himself, not only before the trial, but before he could possibly have known hardly anything about what had happened or why. And though they should have been, knowing what they know, the many pro-Whites who similarly rushed to condemn Roof were really no better in this regard.

More about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, or Afrikaner Resistance Movement:
The AWB was formed in 1973 by Eugène Terre’Blanche and six other far-right Afrikaners. Terre’blanche remained the leader until he was murdered on his farm in 2010.
The AWB flag is composed of three black sevens (forming a triskelion) in a white circle upon a red background. According to AWB, the sevens, ‘the number of JAHWEH’, ‘stand to oppose the number 666, the number of the anti-Christ’. Red is considered to represent Jesus’ blood, while black stands for bravery and courage. The inner white circle symbolises the “eternal struggle”, or according to other sources “eternal life”.[30] The flag bears a resemblance to the Swastika flag used by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.
In the case of Strydom and the AWB, Christianity posed no moral obstacle to their racialism and even the use of violence in pursuit of their survival as a people. Likewise for some black nationalists, like the New Black Panthers. See, for example, Malik Shabazz Calls On Charleston Crowd To Finish “Mission” Killing “Slave Masters”. Shabazz urges violence and alludes approvingly to the black adoption of the oldest of jewish lies, their slaves-in-Egypt narrative.

Contrary to those White racialist naysayers who argue that it’s impossible to simply replace the jews in “what’s best for the jews”, in one way or another this is what nearly everyone actually does. It goes well beyond the confused racialism of black and White Christians who spell out their we-are-the-real-jews substitution more or less explicitly. Even those secular “liberal” (which includes most “conservative”) Whites who wouldn’t recognize it as such justify themselves with a mutation and expansion of the jewish moral code, a concern for “what’s best for jews/non-Whites”, which may in part even be sincere, but most of which is just a disguise for a narrower, “what’s best for myself”.

Monkey People and Solar Beings

via Gornahoor

I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s. ~ Mark Twain
In explaining the mystery of birth, Julius Evola makes it perfectly clear that his entire synthesis depends on metaphysical principles and cannot be explained in terms of biological heredity. His terse exposition needs to be expanded with references to Rene Guenon’s Multiple States of Being and the Hermetic teaching on Providence/Will/Destiny. Since this teaching is included in what he callse the “organic vision of the Germanic-Roman civilization of the Middle Ages”, we shall also rely on the spiritual Tradition of that civilization to clarify his points.

Obviously, he is not offering a logical or scientific proof, although the explanation is rational within the assumptions of Tradition. Ultimately, however, the proof lies in “remembering”, in bringing into the light of consciousness the awareness of who you are. Those encumbered with a scientific viewpoint have a self-understanding of being the descendent of a monkey; nothing here will convince them otherwise. At best this exposition may awaken dim memories in those who recognize themselves as coming from a higher, transcendent source.

We alluded to this previously in a post on the Theology of the Body. As an heir to the Germanic-Roman religion of the Middle Ages, John Paul II wrestles with similar issues. How am I a man or a woman? JP II treats the Genesis account as a “true” myth and tries to “remember” that originary state via a phenomenological analysis. He is then compelled to reject evolutionary accounts in favor of a transcendental source; one’s sex is not an arbitrary act of God but is essential to one’s nature.

Recall the traditional teachings on the two poles of essence (what you are) and existence (that you are). So we can follow the career, let’s say, of “Harry” from his essence to existence. In what sense does Harry preexist, as Evola claims? Obviously, the state of preexistence means “not yet existing”. Another way of putting it is that Harry is a “possibility of manifestation”, i.e., an idea or essence in the Divine Mind. Priority has several meanings, so Evola correctly notes that Harry does not preexist in the temporal sense of priority, but rather in an ontological sense.

As an essence, Harry has various qualities: e.g., he is a male, of a certain spiritual race, with qualities of a specific caste, for example. This is what Evola means by karma, or what Harry is bringing into the world that makes him Harry and not someone else. As such, it is part of his essence. So he will be born with compatible preconceptions as we pointed out in Esoteric Stoicism. That is why the awareness of one’s own true being is so important.

God, then, that knows Harry’s essence before Harry is born. Harry’s birth will come at the intersection of two lines. The vertical line is transcendental and outside of time; that is Harry’s essence. The horizontal line represents Destiny, i.e., the World Process, which includes the physical and psychical environment into which Harry will be born.

Guenon points out that Harry’s manifestation, or birth, must be compossible with other manifested beings. Hence Harry’s birth must coincide with the opportune moment in the World Process. Then he will come into existence in a particular place at a particular time. Note that the categories of being come into play: Harry is a substance, with certain qualities, existing in a place and time, with relations to family and community, and so on.

Note that Harry’s possibilities of manifestation are not exhausted just at birth. In his life he will have the opportunity, or actually duty, to continue to manifest all his possibilities. This is his dharma, or the path he needs to follow, not because it is some outside requirement, but rather because it is his own nature.

So in what sense does Harry will himself into existence, as Evola claims? There is a metaphysical principle that something potential cannot cause something actual. Specifically, Harry’s preexistence as a possibility of manifestation is only potential. Hence, pace Evola, he cannot will, or cause, himself into existence.

Evola correctly mentions that the Medieval Germanic-Roman religion teaches that God creates the intellectual soul at conception which then is the form of the body. To create means to bring what was potential into actuality. However, Evola neglects to mention that the intellectual soul is not Harry: the Person, the “I”, the Self of Harry is not the soul in Thomist teaching. The Person of Harry is a constant presence above all the psychical events in the soul.

So in what sense can Evola’s claim that Harry chose his birth be defended? His claim that the human Self is the production of a preexisting spiritual entity is rather strange. What could that entity be if it is not the Self of Harry? Since Evola rejects reincarnation, that entity must be the one and only transmigrant in Ananda Coomaraswamy’s phrase. That can only be God.

In another sense, however, as preexisting in the Divine Mind, Harry’s will and God’s will are united, since God is simple, without separate parts. Perhaps, then, there is the “Supreme Identity” before birth, so Harry willing of his existence is one with God’s willing of his existence.

Excursus on Reincarnation

Since karma and dharma are often associated with reincarnation in the popular mind, it is opportune to explain why this doctrine is untraditional. First of all, it is anti-essentialist. Harry is a substance. So who reincarnates after Harry? Well, it cannot be Harry since his time and place of incarnation were already determined by this essential nature. So, it if it is Dick, then Dick is a possibility of manifestation that is not Harry. There is nothing else to incarnate beyond Harry and Dick. Since reincarnationists believe that one can return as a different sex, or in a different state of life, then one no longer has a given nature and a fortiori no particular dharma to follow.

The other error is that karma gets reduced to the accumulation of accidents in life, and is not an aspect of one’s essential being. Dharma shifts from the duty to be faithful to law of one’s own nature to obeying some external laws or performing rituals in order to avoid accumulating more bad karma or “burn off” earlier karma.

From the Amazons to the Heroes

via Gornahoor

In the following, please refer to:
In Revolt Against the Modern World, Julius Evola expanded on the ages of these three races. The Amazonian period was a reaction against the male revolt. It represents the lunar principle that tried to restore the Demetrian race as it was being defeated by the Solar principle. We see the same mythological motifs return in our own day with the appearance of strong female warriors in virtually all action movies of recent years. All traces of vestigial patriarchy are being attacked to facilitate the return of the dominance of the Demetrian civilization.

Parallel with this movement, there is also the Aphroditic principle. The chthonic nature tries to reduce the masculine principle to the phallic. Men thus become enslaved to sensualism. Manifestations of this would include the addiction to pornography as well as the “hookup” culture. In the phallic, or genital, stage, sexuality is centered on the genitals and finds its fulfilment in intercourse. Yet, there is a further degeneration as predicted by Herbert Marcuse in Eros and Civilization: with the decline and overthrowing of patriarchy, people would become polymophous perverse, that is, they would find sexual gratification beyond the socially normative behaviors permitted by the patriarchy.

Thus, both through force and seduction, the hold of patriarchy is weakened.
The Heroic age represents the attempt to recover the primordial solar state by force. The Heroes retain the inner impulse toward transcendence and overcome the Amazonian and Aphroditic forces. He sublimates the phallic, erotic drive raising it to the “spiritual plane of virility”.

Esoteric Astrology

Evola makes a brief allusion to the esoteric science of astrology. In its degenerate form today, astrology has become merely materialistic and quantitative. Instead traditional astrology was spiritual and qualitative, as he explains:
The planets naturally are not the physical planets, but are designations used to define spiritual, super-individual forces, of which the physical planets are at most symbolic, sensible manifestations.
In other words, esoteric astrology represents our “essence”, who we are, what we are born with, something that in some way we ourselves have chosen or accepted. Pop astrology, on the other hand, is something that “happens” to us, from the outside, beyond our control, through merely material forces.

If you sense some truth in this, even if beyond the possibility of clear articulation, then you have the possibility to understand these ideas. We have been using the term “preconception” to describe this inner essence of who you are.

Manifestations of the Races of the Spirit

In the Sintesi, Evola brings up the idea of the relationship between the third level of race and the second and first. Obviously, the first place to start is with the civilizations that have been dominated by the various spiritual races. Here, Evola refers back to the collection of J J Bachofen’s writings that he translated under the title of La Razza Solare. I haven’t been able to track down any copies of that work. However, I recently discovered that it has been republished, sort of, as Le Madri e la Virilità Olimpica: Storia segreta dell’antico mondo mediterraneo; the other work apparently was never actually published.

That is why, in the German edition, Evola adds a paragraph making his ideas explicit since, obviously, German readers would have had no access to La Razza Solare. Here is the German paragraph as is followed by an English translation.
Was die Entsprechung anbetrifft, die sich normalerweise zwischen Rassen des Geistes, der Seele und des Körpers verwirklichen soll, können also vorläufig diese Anspielungen genügen: die sonnenhaften und heroischen Rassen sind artverbunden dem Stil der Rasse des Leistungsmenschen und – als physische Rasse – dem nordisch-arischen, arisch-römischen und arisch-abendländischen Menschen. Die lunare Rasse fände den gemäßesten Ausdruck in den seelischen und somatischen Merkmalen der ostischen Rassen und den Überbleibseln jener uralten mittelmeerischen Rasse, die allgemein „pelasgisch“ genannt werden kann. Die aphroditische und dionysische Rasse könnte gut zu einigen Zweigen der westischen Rasse, insbesondere – wie gesagt – in ihren keltischen Formen passen. Die dionysische aber auch zur wüstenländischen und ostisch-baltischen Rasse und, ihren gespalteneren Aspekten nach, zur vorderasiatischen. Ein titanisches Element könnte sich wohl in der Seele und im Körper des Menschen fälischer Rasse ausdrücken, schließlich würde das tellurische Element physische Rassenkomponenten erfordern, die aus nichtarischen oder vorarischen Stämmen hervorgehen, wie es beispielsweise bei den afrikanisch-mittelmeerischen und teilweise bei den im semitischen Typ vorhandenen Rassen der Fall ist. Es liegt also ein neues und weit gespanntes Forschungsfeld vor uns, für welches es hauptsächlich gilt, das ihm zustehende Interesse in den neuen Generationen zu wecken. Dann wird das schon Errungene entsprechend entwickelt werden bis zu einem wirklich umfassenden Rassenbewußtsein.

H/T to marcelkol for the following English translation:
In regard to the correlation that should manifest itself between the races of the body, the soul and the spirit the following remarks should suffice for now: the solar and heroic races are intimately connected with the nature of the man of achievement and – as physical race – with the Nordic-Aryan, Roman-Aryan and Occidental-Aryan human. The lunar race expresses itself in its most complete form in the soul and the body of the Eastern European races and the remnants of the old Mediterranean race which could generally be described as ‘Pelasgian’. The Dionysian and Aphroditic races could correspond to some branches of the Western race, especially – as already mentioned – in its Celtic forms. The Dionysian race could also correspond to the desert race and the East Baltic race, and – due to its conflicted aspects – to the Near Eastern race. A Titanic element could express itself in the body and the soul of the Phalian race, since the Telluric race would require a physical racial component stemming from non-Aryan or pre-Aryan lines, as is the case with the African-Mediterranean and some of the races of the Semitic type for example. We’re looking at a new and very broad field of research and priority should be given to awakening the interest of the young generations so our present knowledge can be developed further towards a comprehensive racial consciousness.

The Cimmerian Hypothesis: Civilization and Barbarism

via The Archdruid Report

One of the oddities of the writer’s life is the utter unpredictability of inspiration. There are times when I sit down at the keyboard knowing what I have to write, and plod my way though the day’s allotment of prose in much the same spirit that a gardener turns the earth in the beds of a big garden; there are times when a project sits there grumbling to itself and has to be coaxed or prodded into taking shape on the page; but there are also times when something grabs hold of me, drags me kicking and screaming to the keyboard, and holds me there with a squamous paw clamped on my shoulder until I’ve finished whatever it is that I’ve suddenly found out that I have to write.
Over the last two months, I’ve had that last experience on a considerably larger scale than usual; to be precise, I’ve just completed the first draft of a 70,000-word novel in eight weeks. Those of my readers and correspondents who’ve been wondering why I’ve been slower than usual to respond to them now know the reason. The working title is Moon Path to Innsmouth; it deals, in the sidelong way for which fiction is so well suited, with quite a number of the issues discussed on this blog; I’m pleased to say that I’ve lined up a publisher, and so in due time the novel will be available to delight the rugose hearts of the Great Old Ones and their eldritch minions everywhere.
None of that would be relevant to the theme of the current series of posts on The Archdruid Report, except that getting the thing written required quite a bit of reference to the weird tales of an earlier era—the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, of course, but also those of Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E. Howard, who both contributed mightily to the fictive mythos that took its name from Lovecraft’s squid-faced devil-god Cthulhu. One Howard story leads to another—or at least it does if you spent your impressionable youth stewing your imagination in a bubbling cauldron of classic fantasy fiction, as I did—and that’s how it happened that I ended up revisiting the final lines of “Beyond the Black River,” part of the saga of Conan of Cimmeria, Howard’s iconic hero:
“‘Barbarism is the natural state of mankind,’ the borderer said, still staring somberly at the Cimmerian. ‘Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.’”
It’s easy to take that as nothing more than a bit of bluster meant to add color to an adventure story—easy but, I’d suggest, inaccurate. Science fiction has made much of its claim to be a “literature of ideas,” but a strong case can be made that the weird tale as developed by Lovecraft, Smith, Howard, and their peers has at least as much claim to the same label, and the ideas that feature in a classic weird tale are often a good deal more challenging than those that are the stock in trade of most science fiction: “gee, what happens if I extrapolate this technological trend a little further?” and the like. The authors who published with Weird Tales back in the day, in particular, liked to pose edgy questions about the way that the posturings of our species and its contemporary cultures appeared in the cold light of a cosmos that’s wholly uninterested in our overblown opinion of ourselves.
Thus I think it’s worth giving Conan and his fellow barbarians their due, and treating what we may as well call the Cimmerian hypothesis as a serious proposal about the underlying structure of human history. Let’s start with some basics. What is civilization? What is barbarism? What exactly does it mean to describe one state of human society as natural and another unnatural, and how does that relate to the repeated triumph of barbarism at the end of every civilization?
The word “civilization” has a galaxy of meanings, most of them irrelevant to the present purpose. We can take the original meaning of the word—in late Latin, civilisatio—as a workable starting point; it means “having or establishing settled communities.” A people known to the Romans was civilized if its members lived in civitates, cities or towns. We can generalize this further, and say that a civilization is a form of society in which people live in artificial environments. Is there more to civilization than that? Of course there is, but as I hope to show, most of it unfolds from the distinction just traced out.
A city, after all, is a human environment from which the ordinary workings of nature have been excluded, to as great an extent as the available technology permits. When you go outdoors in a city,  nearly all the things you encounter have been put there by human beings; even the trees are where they are because someone decided to put them there, not by way of the normal processes by which trees reproduce their kind and disperse their seeds. Those natural phenomena that do manage to elbow their way into an urban environment—tropical storms, rats, and the like—are interlopers, and treated as such. The gradient between urban and rural settlements can be measured precisely by what fraction of the things that residents encounter is put there by human action, as compared to the fraction that was put there by ordinary natural processes.
What is barbarism? The root meaning here is a good deal less helpful. The Greek word βαρβαροι, barbaroi, originally meant “people who say ‘bar bar bar’” instead of talking intelligibly in Greek. In Roman times that usage got bent around to mean “people outside the Empire,” and thus in due time to “tribes who are too savage to speak Latin, live in cities, or give up without a fight when we decide to steal their land.” Fast forward a century or two, and that definition morphed uncomfortably into “tribes who are too savage to speak Latin, live in cities, or stay peacefully on their side of the border” —enter Alaric’s Visigoths, Genseric’s Vandals, and the ebullient multiethnic horde that marched westwards under the banners of Attila the Hun.
This is also where Conan enters the picture. In crafting his fictional Hyborian Age, which was vaguely located in time betwen the sinking of Atlantis and the beginning of recorded history, Howard borrowed freely from various corners of the past, but the Roman experience was an important ingredient—the story cited above, framed by a struggle between the kingdom of Aquilonia and the wild Pictish tribes beyond the Black River, drew noticeably on Roman Britain, though it also took elements from the Old West and elsewhere. The entire concept of a barbarian hero swaggering his way south into the lands of civilization, which Howard introduced to fantasy fiction (and which has been so freely and ineptly plagiarized since his time), has its roots in the late Roman and post-Roman experience, a time when a great many enterprising warriors did just that, and when some, like Conan, became kings.
What sets barbarian societies apart from civilized ones is precisely that a much smaller fraction of the environment barbarians encounter results from human action. When you go outdoors in Cimmeria—if you’re not outdoors to start with, which you probably are—nearly everything you encounter has been put there by nature. There are no towns of any size, just scattered clusters of dwellings in the midst of a mostly unaltered environment. Where your Aquilonian town dweller who steps outside may have to look hard to see anything that was put there by nature, your Cimmerian who shoulders his battle-ax and goes for a stroll may have to look hard to see anything that was put there by human beings.
What’s more, there’s a difference in what we might usefully call the transparency of human constructions. In Cimmeria, if you do manage to get in out of the weather, the stones and timbers of the hovel where you’ve taken shelter are recognizable lumps of rock and pieces of tree; your hosts smell like the pheromone-laden social primates they are; and when their barbarian generosity inspires them to serve you a feast, they send someone out to shoot a deer, hack it into gobbets, and cook the result in some relatively simple manner that leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that you’re all chewing on parts of a dead animal. Follow Conan’s route down into the cities of Aquilonia, and you’re in a different world, where paint and plaster, soap and perfume, and fancy cookery, among many other things, obscure nature’s contributions to the human world.
So that’s our first set of distinctions. What makes human societies natural or unnatural? It’s all too easy  to sink into a festering swamp of unsubstantiated presuppositions here, since people in every human society think of their own ways of doing things as natural and normal, and everyone else’s ways of doing the same things as unnatural and abnormal. Worse, there’s the pervasive bad habit in industrial Western cultures of lumping all non-Western cultures with relatively simple technologies together as “primitive man”—as though there’s only one of him, sitting there in a feathered war bonnet and a lionskin kilt playing the didgeridoo—in order to flatten out human history into an imaginary straight line of progress that leads from the caves, through us, to the stars.
In point of anthropological fact, the notion of “primitive man” as an allegedly unspoiled child of nature is pure hokum, and generally racist hokum at that. “Primitive” cultures—that is to say, human societies that rely on relatively simple technological suites—differ from one another just as dramatically as they differ from modern Western industrial societies; nor do simpler technological suites correlate with simpler cultural forms. Traditional Australian aboriginal societies, which have extremely simple material technologies, are considered by many anthropologists to have among the most intricate cultures known anywhere, embracing stunningly elaborate systems of knowledge in which cosmology, myth, environmental knowledge, social custom, and scores of other fields normally kept separate in our society are woven together into dizzyingly complex tapestries of knowledge.
What’s more, those tapestries of knowledge have changed and evolved over time. The hokum that underlies that label “primitive man” presupposes, among other things, that societies that use relatively simple technological suites have all been stuck in some kind of time warp since the Neolithic—think of the common habit of speech that claims that hunter-gatherer tribes are “still in the Stone Age” and so forth. Back of that habit of speech is the industrial world’s irrational conviction that all human history is an inevitable march of progress that leads straight to our kind of society, technology, and so forth. That other human societies might evolve in different directions and find their own wholly valid ways of making a home in the universe is anathema to most people in the industrial world these days—even though all the evidence suggests that this way of looking at the history of human culture makes far more sense of the data than does the fantasy of inevitable linear progress toward us.
Thus traditional tribal societies are no more natural than civilizations are, in one important sense of the word “natural;” that is, tribal societies are as complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent as civilizations are. There is, however, one kind of human society that doesn’t share these characteristics—a kind of society that tends to be intellectually and culturally as well as technologically simpler than most, and that recurs in astonishingly similar forms around the world and across time. We’ve talked about it at quite some length in this blog; it’s the distinctive dark age society that emerges in the ruins of every fallen civilization after the barbarian war leaders settle down to become petty kings, the survivors of the civilization’s once-vast population get to work eking out a bare subsistence from the depleted topsoil, and most of the heritage of the wrecked past goes into history’s dumpster.
If there’s such a thing as a natural human society, the basic dark age society is probably it, since it emerges when the complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent cultures of the former civilization and its hostile neighbors have both imploded, and the survivors of the collapse have to put something together in a hurry with nothing but raw human relationships and the constraints of the natural world to guide them. Of course once things settle down the new society begins moving off in its own complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent direction; the dark age societies of post-Mycenean Greece, post-Roman Britain, post-Heian Japan, and their many equivalents have massive similarities, but the new societies that emerged from those cauldrons of cultural rebirth had much less in common with one another than their forbears did.
In Howard’s fictive history, the era of Conan came well before the collapse of Hyborian civilization; he was not himself a dark age warlord, though he doubtless would have done well in that setting. The Pictish tribes whose activities on the Aquilonian frontier inspired the quotation cited earlier in this post weren’t a dark age society, either, though if they’d actually existed, they’d have been well along the arc of transformation that turns the hostile neighbors of a declining civilization into the breeding ground of the warbands that show up on cue to finish things off. The Picts of Howard’s tale, though, were certainly barbarians—that is, they didn’t speak Aquilonian, live in cities, or stay peaceably on their side of the Black River—and they were still around long after the Hyborian civilizations were gone.
That’s one of the details Howard borrowed from history. By and large, human societies that don’t have urban centers tend to last much longer than those that do. In particular, human societies that don’t have urban centers don’t tend to go through the distinctive cycle of decline and fall ending in a dark age that urbanized societies undergo so predictably. There are plenty of factors that might plausibly drive this difference, many of which have been discussed here and elsewhere, but I’ve come to suspect something subtler may be at work here as well. As we’ve seen, a core difference between civilizations and other human societies is that people in civilizations tend to cut themselves off from the immediate experience of nature nature to a much greater extent than the uncivilized do. Does this help explain why civilizations crash and burn so reliably, leaving the barbarians to play drinking games with mead while sitting unsteadily on the smoldering ruins?
As it happens, I think it does.
As we’ve discussed at length in the last three weekly posts here, human intelligence is not the sort of protean, world-transforming superpower with limitless potential it’s been labeled by the more overenthusiastic partisans of human exceptionalism. Rather, it’s an interesting capacity possessed by one species of social primates, and quite possibly shared by some other animal species as well. Like every other biological capacity, it evolved through a process of adaptation to the environment—not, please note, to some abstract concept of the environment, but to the specific stimuli and responses that a social primate gets from the African savanna and its inhabitants, including but not limited to other social primates of the same species. It’s indicative that when our species originally spread out of Africa, it seems to have settled first in those parts of the Old World that had roughly savanna-like ecosystems, and only later worked out the bugs of living in such radically different environments as boreal forests, tropical jungles, and the like.
The interplay between the human brain and the natural environment is considerably more significant than has often been realized. For the last forty years or so, a scholarly discipline called ecopsychology has explored some of the ways that interactions with nature shape the human mind. More recently, in response to the frantic attempts of American parents to isolate their children from a galaxy of largely imaginary risks, psychologists have begun to talk about “nature deficit disorder,” the set of emotional and intellectual dysfunctions that show up reliably in children who have been deprived of the normal human experience of growing up in intimate contact with the natural world.
All of this should have been obvious from first principles. Studies of human and animal behavior alike have shown repeatedly that psychological health depends on receiving certain highly specific stimuli at certain stages in the maturation process. The famous experiments by Henry Harlow, who showed that monkeys raised  with a mother-substitute wrapped in terrycloth grew up more or less normal, while those raised with a bare metal mother-substitute turned out psychotic even when all their other needs were met, are among the more famous of these, but there have been many more, and many of them can be shown to affect human capacities in direct and demonstrable ways. Children learn language, for example, only if they’re exposed to speech during a certain age window; lacking the right stimulus at the right time, the capacity to use language shuts down and apparently can’t be restarted again.
In this latter example, exposure to speech is what’s known as a triggering stimulus—something from outside the organism that kickstarts a process that’s already hardwired into the organism, but will not get under way until and unless the trigger appears. There are other kinds of stimuli that play different roles in human and animal development. The maturation of the human mind, in fact, might best be seen as a process in which inputs from the environment play a galaxy of roles, some of them of critical importance. What happens when the natural inputs that were around when human intelligence evolved get shut out of the experiences of maturing humans, and replaced by a very different set of inputs put there by human beings? We’ll discuss that next week, in the second part of this post.

Dylann Roof vs. the Jihadis: Who's the Terrorist?

via American Renaissance

Last month there were three murderous attacks that were treated very differently: the Charleston church shootings, the killings at a beach hotel in Tunisia, and the beheading of a Frenchman in Grenoble. The reaction from politicians, the media, and ordinary people can be summed up as follows: Dylann Roof’s attack represented the sins of all white people but Islam had nothing to do with the killings in France and Tunisia.

After Seifiddine Rezgui Yacoubi shot dead 30 sun-bathing Brits in Tunisia, Prime Minister David Cameron stated flatly that “these attacks are not in the name of Islam.”

There were other, more confused versions. On Facebook I saw a post that received thousands of likes: “No one believes the Ku Klux Klan is representative of Christians so why do so many people think Islamic State is representative of Muslims?”
When was the last time the KKK committed an act of terror against non-Christians in the name of Christianity? Christ opposed all violence. By contrast, devout Muslims waging jihad are following the example of their prophet Muhammad.

Dylann Roof’s attack got very different treatment. Internet commenters–both black and white–claimed the shooting proved that it doesn’t matter how blacks behave; they still get shot by white racists. Of course, statistics prove that the biggest threat to black men is other black men, not white racists.

Many people wondered why Roof wasn’t labelled a terrorist the way Muslim jihadists are. Muslims carry out hundreds of attacks and identify themselves as members of groups such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Jabhat al-Nusra, Hamas, and Boko Haram, which are routinely classed as terror organizations. Dylann Roof was a solitary psychopath. Members of black and Hispanic gangs are not called terrorists, even when they deliberately target people of a different race.

I also noticed that no blacks or Muslims made any excuses for the actions of Dylann Roof, unlike the many white people who look for the social causes of black or Muslim violence. Roof was living in a trailer park at the time of the killings, but no liberals blamed “poverty.” No one wondered if he’d been the victim of black crime or race preferences. No one thinks up “root causes” to explain someone like Dylann Roof.
But when Islamic violence was foiled at the “draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, the organizers were accused of “provoking Muslims.” When Muslims demonstrated earlier at the same venue in support of the jihadists who murdered eleven people in the attack on Charlie Hebdo, no one called that a provocation.

Dylann Roof was accused of committing a hate crime even before he’d been arrested. Why are Muslims who kill infidels because of their religion not accused of anti-religion hate crimes?

The disparity is clear: When a single white person commits murder it proves the existence of widespread white racism. (When Michael Brown commits strong-arm robbery, attacks a policeman, tries to take away his gun and gets shot, even that is supposed to prove racism.) When white people in Texas are targeted by jihadists intent on murdering them, it’s because they were provoked. And when Muslims kill white people who haven’t provoked anyone, you can’t blame Islam because jihad is a perversion of Islam.

The leftist website Salon.com expressed this view in its purest form. Two days after the Charleston shooting, it tweeted: “White America must answer for the Charleston church massacre.”

On April 22, 2013, after the Boston marathon bombing, it was equally emphatic: “Muslims don’t need to apologize for the Tsarnaevs.”


White people are held to a ridiculous standard that serves only to make some of them feel guilty. Whipping up hysteria over a white lone wolf will do nothing to stop black-on-black violence. Young black men will continue killing each other in cities across America every week to the sound of indifference. Black lives matter, but only when white people kill them.

But it may be even more dangerous to continue denying the reality of the Muslim threat. It only emboldens the jihadists when people in the West repeat to themselves that “Islam is peace.”

We are crippled by the fatal flaw of scapegoating white people for the sin of racism while excusing everyone else. Our civilization is under attack. And unless both political and community leaders are prepared to fight back it will spell the end of the West as we know it.

Anders Breivik -- Not One of Us: A Review of Asne Seierstad’s Book

via The Occidental Observer

A Brief Review of: Asne Seierstad, One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway, Translated by Sahar Death (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015).

I recently finished reading One of Us, a book on Anders Breivik by the well-known Norwegian journalist and author Asne Seierstad. The book was published in Norway in 2013. The English language edition was released this spring. July 22nd marks the fourth anniversary of Breivik’s attacks, and the subject is topical due, in part, to the June rampage by Dylann Roof. There are significant similarities and differences between Breivik and Roof.

Everyone recalls the news reports of the 2011 attacks, but this book details Breivik’s life, the events of July 22nd, and his trial the following year. Assuming that Seierstad’s account is accurate — and despite some left-wing bias, it appears to be, this can be said about Breivik:

He was not a National Socialist, nor even a racialist. He supported Israel. He was a cultural Christian. Although he did not have a strong religious faith and rarely went to church, Christianity was important to his identity. He was anti-Islam. He considered himself a revolutionary conservative and an intellectual, not a warrior.

It is unclear when Breivik became radicalized. He claimed he began planning his attacks back in 2002. Seierstad believes he became a revolutionary sometime between 2008 and 2010, one to three years before the attacks. Breivik was 32 years old in July of 2011. He had already gone through a number of transformations during his relatively brief lifetime.

In his early and mid-teens Breivik was a tagger — a graffiti vandal — and part of the Oslo hip hop scene. In his late teens to mid-twenties, he was active in the Progress Party, Norway’s neocon opposition. He attended Oslo’s Commerce High School, but failed to graduate. As with Roof, he was an intelligent high school dropout. For a time Breivik had success as an online entrepreneur. After some financial reverses, due in part to the Great Recession, he retreated into computer gaming.

Breivik’s father was in the Norwegian Foreign Service. He and Anders’ mother separated when the boy was very young. The elder Breivik was married four times and ended up estranged from all of his children — a good marker of sociopathy. Anders was living with his mother at the time of the attacks.

Breivik killed 77 people with his bomb and guns; probably 70 were ethnic Norwegians, a majority teenagers. He killed them for ideological reasons. His bomb at the government center in Oslo was a strike aimed at the ruling Labour Party. The shootings at Utoya Island targeted the party’s youth organization. The Norwegian Labour Party has Red roots, but is now social democratic. It supports multiculturalism at home and a globalist foreign policy.

One perverted and ironic element of Breivik’s violence was the killing of his own people for their ideological beliefs. Yet he himself had gone through many metamorphoses in his thinking.  To shoot a fifteen-year-old girl because she belongs to Labour’s youth group is sick. In four or five years, she might have changed her politics. Even if she did not change her beliefs, she might have become the mother of healthy White children. Breivik needed to think more biologically, less ideologically.

Was Breivik psychotic? No doubt he suffered from mental illness, but he fought against an insanity ruling, and the court found him competent to stand trial.

It was important to Breivik that he be found sane so that his manifesto would be taken seriously. One of the motivations for the attacks was to publicize the lengthy online document. This reviewer has not read Breivik’s manifesto, reportedly to be over 1500 pages. The first thousand pages have been described as a cut and paste job, the last 500 a personal testament. One purpose of the Roof shootings was allegedly to call attention to his short online manifesto.

There is no evidence that Breivik’s Knights Templar organization existed except in his mind. In fact, one remarkable aspect of his attacks was that he carried them out completely on his own. No one helped, no one even knew. With no military or explosives training, he assembled, delivered, and detonated a large bomb in central Oslo, and smuggled arms and ammo onto the island where he systematically executed 69 people. At times, Seierstad’s description of the Norwegian police brings to mind the Keystone Kops. The forensic investigation after the fact, however, was meticulous.

A couple of miscellaneous observations: There was no fight, just flight or freeze among the campers. With over one hundred young people on the island a small group armed with sticks and rocks could have, with a little organization and leadership, overpowered him. Perhaps that is expecting too much, but these youths were selected, in part, for their organizational and leadership abilities.

There is no evidence that Breivik was sexually attracted to men or boys. He had a couple of brief relationships with women including a six-month affair with a Belarusian girl. Yet some of those who met him were convinced he was gay. He was not gay, but he was narcissistic. It is interesting that even in this “enlightened” age, negative characteristics are often associated with homosexuality.

If one is curious to learn more about Anders Breivik and contemporary Norway, by all means read One of Us. It would probably be best to get the book from a library as the author is donating any profits to the En av Oss Foundation which, presumably, supports left-wing causes.

The Not-So-Dark Ages

via traditionalRight

The causal modern perception of the Middle Ages is that of an age of superstition, loss of classical learning, and general backwardness. To quote Hegel it was “smells and bells”. This view has been most popularized by Carl Sagan in his smash hit miniseries Cosmos and his book by the same name. The influence of Cosmos can also be seen in the 2009 Agora, about the life of Hypatia. He makes two rather ridiculous claims that undergird this entire anti-Christian fanaticism as it pertains to modern perceptions of the Middle Ages, that (1) the ancient pagans were proto-scientists on the verge of a scientific revolution and (2) that the knowledge-hating and bigoted Christians both burned down the Great Library and murdered Hypatia for their hatred of science, rendering her a martyr. This is absurd and the truth lies beyond the ability of the mentally challenged atheists who followed Carl Sagan. The Library was destroyed and rebuilt many times by Caesar in 48BC, Aurelian in the 270s AD, the Serapium (A temple to the god Seriphus which contained some remnant of the Library, mostly magical texts) in 391 AD by Theodosius, and in 640 by Caliph Omar. Hypatia was the sad victim of late Roman political intrigues and mob violence.

The root of this narrative of Christian war against science, in which the Medieval Era is center, is John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. As lying atheists these men had no compunction in distorting and down right falsifying history. No longer taken seriously by the modern scholarship on the subject we still have legions of braindead atheists and liberals who believe this account to be gospel truth. For a sound scholarly rebuttal of this myth see Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Inventing the Flat Earth.

Having cleared the underbrush of atheist calumnies what exactly was the intellectual life of the Medieval era like? In short it was decline, preservation, and discovery. The intellectual life of Europe from about 475 to 1453 can be divided into three broad categories: 475-636, rapid decline; 636-1200, preservation; and 1200-1453, discovery. The intermediate period of preservation would have been impossible without the erudition and scholarship of Irish and Anglo-Saxons in the West and Greek scholars in the East.

I chose the first set of dates going from the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the death of Isidore of Seville; the second set of dates stretches from Isidore’s death to the birth of Peter Lombard and the birth of Scholasticism; the final period stretches from the Scholastic era to the mass exodus of Greek scholars to the west beginning the Renaissance.

Central to the narrative of the “Dark Ages” is the loss of classical learning that occurred during that period. Yet to blame Christianity for that loss is the height of absurdity, as I will show later; in fact the real source of the loss was the upheavals brought about by Germanic migrations and invasions beginning in 375 AD, with the entrance of the Huns on to the European scene. This narrative is often used as a bludgeon by atheists and liberals to discredit Christianity and as a smokescreen to their questionable treatment of scientists in, for example, the French First Republic and the Soviet Union. Central to the falsity of the narrative is that there never was a 
“Dark Age” in the Eastern Roman Empire. That empire centered in Constantinople lasted for another thousand years and the mass exodus of its scholars after the 1453 sack by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II helped to facilitate the Renaissance. In short there is not even a correlation that Christianity leads to the demise of learning.

The rest of this essay will be devoted to giving a brief overview of the intellectual life and contributions of medieval Christendom. It will be divided into two parts: (1) Western Christendom and (2) Eastern Christendom. The importance of Eastern Christendom is seldom acknowledged in the Western Christian context, let alone the secular context, and I believe the Eastern influence was great as well, if not as well known. The second part will be released in another segment.

Western Christendom

The Western Christendom can be traced back to the permanent division of the Roman Empire into East and West by the Emperor Theodosius in 395. Organized around the Roman Imperial diocese, the Western Church developed in a trajectory quite distinct from the East. While both the Eastern and Western Christians were heavily inspired by Plato, the former were more influenced by his mystical philosophy and especially the works of Plotinus, while the West was more influenced by his rational philosophy. This of course is an over-generalization as there were certainly Greek rationalists and Latin mystics, but I believe that the theological and intellectual emphases of East and West conform to the broad counters of rationalism vs mysticism. With the triumph of barbarism in 476 the west dealt with a period of historical trauma of invasion and pillage that did not subside until the middle of the 11th century. In this political power vacuum the Latin Church based in Rome and the Celtic church based in Iona filled the void. These twin Western sources of light were the main reason why not all of classical learning was lost in the West. During the early part of this decline the Irish and Anglo-Saxon church played a dominant role; but as time wore on and the endless repetition of barbarian invasion and destruction was repeated the Latin Church began to supplant the Irish in intellectual endeavors. A proto-renaissance occurred in the late 8th and early 9th century under the Frankish Emperor Charlemange and his resident master scholar Alcuin of York. Viking invasion and legal succession crises terminated this hopeful turn of events. Italy in the 13th century witnessed the birth of Scholasticism, the culmination of the Latin Medieval mind. From Italy this philosophy spread to France, England, Scotland, Flanders, and Germany. Scholasticism in like manner would give birth to modern science in the persons of Roger Bacon and Copernicus to name a few.

Period of Decline 476-636

This period witnessed the birth of Latin Medieval thought’s four great Doctors of the Latin Church; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and Pope Gregory. No less influential men include St. Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, St. Aiden, Boethius, and the man for which I end this period, Isidore of Seville.

Ambrose of Milan is the first in our list of Western thinkers. He is most well-known for his role in converting his more famous pupil St. Augustine to the Christian faith. Yet in his own right he was a man of great erudition and laid the foundation of Medieval music by giving the Western World its first antiphonal psalmody. Ambrose is probably most famous for his courageous stand against Emperor Theodosius I. After Emp. Theodosius sacked Thessalonica and slaughtered 7,000 people as punishment for their uprising, Ambrose was incensed by this outrage and denied the Emperor communion until he performed penance for the act; even to the point of rebuffing Theodosius at the door of his own church as he was about to celebrate mass. The Emperor eventually repented and performed penance for his deeds. Seldom has such courage been shown in the face of absolute power; Ambrose must surely stand as one of the most shining examples of speaking truth to power.

Jerome, a contemporary of Ambrose and Augustine was a man of letters, philosopher, theologian, and historian. He is most well-known for his translation of the entire Bible into Latin, the Vulgate. In addition to his efforts at translation he also wrote numerous commentaries on the books of the Bible. Inspired by classical authors like Plutarch and Seutonius, Jerome wrote his De Viris Illustribus which was biographical work covering the great Christians from Peter to his own day.

St. Augustine was arguably the greatest mind of his millennium. His work in all aspects of Christian theology, philosophy, rhetoric, and invention of new genres of literature are unrivaled until the Scholastic era. One of the most widely read works of Augustine is his Confessions which was the first autobiography in history. His notion of free will and grace would lead to a rich development of Protestant and Catholic thought and as secularism rendered man in the image of God, influenced atheism as well. His forays into semiotics would later influence the 20th century deconstructionists. His pioneering work on just war, the most extensive revision since Cicero, rings down the ages. The very arguments for and against the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been inconceivable without Augustine’s contribution to this world of thought. His De Civitate Dei is a tour de force against the contradictions of ancient paganism and one of the most influential history books of all time. His notions of two kingdoms, one heavenly and the other earthy, influenced both Protestants and Catholics and his vision of the heavenly city was eventually secularized in modern socialism and Marxism. His philosophy of mind and the trinity casts a shadow that can still be seen today. For example, Augustine’s elevation of the willing aspect of God’s personality can be seen in the philosophy of Existentialism. For if God is perfected through his gratuitous will, and secular man deifies himself, then man’s greatest form of expression is when his will is also perfected. From Camus to Derrida and everywhere in between we can see the shadow of the Augustine-haunted West.

During the Ostrogothic successor to the Western Roman Empire we find a man who bridged ancient and medieval world in the West: Boethius. Boethius’ erudition extends to mathematics, logic, commentary and philosophy. Boethiu’s work in philosophy led to his formulation of the Quadrivium and the Trivium. The former pertains to arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music with the later pertaining to grammar, rhetoric and logic. His efforts at organizing and categorizing already existing disciplines influenced Western education for well over a millennium. Boethius was one of the few men of his time, in the West, who could read Greek. His efforts at translating the classical texts into Latin would be an invaluable foundation for future work.

Out of the many Briton, Irish, and Anglo Saxon monks of this period I will mention three: St. Patrick, St. Columba, and St. Aidan. The importance of these men is they transformed the British Isle from a fringe on the Roman Empire/Christendom to the cockpit of learning and science in the West, though that will occur in the second period which I will discuss later.

Patrick is famous for his conversion of Ireland, his youthful shenanigans and monkeyshines, and his courage. Patrick was kidnapped as a youth and enslaved by the Irish in the 5th century. His experiences as a slave led him in later years to free slaves and seek to abolish the trade itself. While not a great intellectual, Patrick’s courage and actions laid the foundation for the great flowering of Celtic learning in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries.

Columba, the son of a nobleman, from an early age was enrolled in the monastic education system, a rich and vibrant network of autonomous schools that studied Greek and Latin and preserved the classical texts. Columba founded the influential monastery at Iona. Iona is famous for its scriptorium which both preserved and produced manuscripts. Some of the most famous manuscripts were the illuminated texts, a famous example being the Book of Kells. Columba spent much of his life converting the Scots and Picts to Christianity from Scotland.

St. Aidan, a generation after the death of Columba, reconverted Northumbria to Christianity. He settled in Lindisfarne, a special dispensation from the king. From there Aidan paid for the freedom of slaves, fed the hungry, and built monasteries throughout the region.

A short place must be saved for the monastic system and its importance to the Medieval Era. The Monasticism originated in the East with hermits such as St. Anthony. The collections of wandering individuals were later organized into vibrant communities by men such as Pachomius and St. Basil. The first major Western monastic tradition was the Benedictine order. The monastic tradition was dominated by prayer, contemplation, work, service, and study. Men and women had to swear oaths of obedience, poverty, and chastity. The monastic communities themselves were self-governing and a combination of a church, a school, a hospital, agricultural center, and manufacturing center. This is not to say that all monasteries or monastic communities were composed of all these aspects, but these aspects were covered throughout the gamut of the system. The preservation of classical texts and creation of new centers of learning in the darkness brought on by repeated barbarian invasions from the 5th century to the 11th would have been almost impossible, given the absence of any unifying civil authority, to keep the light of learning alive.

With this trio of Celtic saints we see the triumph of compassion, love, and the Gospel over barbarism, violence, and hate, the triumph of learning, order, and reason over ignorance, chaos, and superstition. These were truly pivotal years in the development of post-Roman Europe and it is no exaggeration to say with Thomas Cahill that the “Irish Saved Civilization” through their steady and often unrewarded diligence to keep the flame of knowledge lit.

The last individual we will cover in this period is the polymath Isidore of Seville. I chose Isidore to end this period with, in part, because he is often termed “last of the ancient scholars.” This is true in the sense that he was one of the last Western Scholars to be proficient in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Isidore was a man whose accomplishments are so vast and varied that one is at a loss to understand how a man of his caliber could be totally unkown even to most educated people. As a cleric he aided in the conversion of the Visigoths from Arianism to Catholic Christianity, he headed the fourth Council of Seville in 633. As a scholar he wrote the first encyclopedia, the Etymologiae (a compilation of all classical and sacred learning covering knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, mineralogy, zoology, physiology, geography, agriculture, and medicine to name a few). He wrote works on linguistics, Differentiarum libri, on the sciences, De natura rerum, and history, works on theology, De officiis ecclesiasticis and Synonima. The scope and breadth of his learning is astounding and an example of the magnificent culmination of classical and Christian learning in the “not-so-Dark Ages.”

Preservation 636-1200

This period is primarily of interest as covering the Carolingian renaissance a period in the 8th and 9th centuries where the far sighted Charlemagne sought to keep the light of learning alive and rekindle the flame of which more will be said later. The primary center of learning during this time was in the British Isles; first Irish, then Anglo-Saxon converts led the West in intellectual thought, some of whom could still read Greek and their efforts culminated in the aforementioned renaissance. During this period of preservation I will cover four individuals: the Venerable Bede, Alcuin of York, Peter of Pisa, and Johannes Scotus Eriugena.

The venerable Bede, a monk from the Monastery of Jarrow, was the first native English historian. His work, the Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum has earned him the title “Father of English History.” He covers the period of Julius Caesar’s invasion of the Isle to his own time. He also wrote textbooks on grammar, De arte metrica, and orthography, De orthographia. He helped popularize in the West, via histories, the principle of dating time anno domini (in the year of our Lord). Bede also contributed to our knowledge of astronomy and time with his De temporum ratione. He was a biographer and poet as well. He was a light shining in the dark after the fall of Rome.

Peter of Pisa was an 8th century grammarian who would become Charlemagne’s latin tutor. As well as teaching grammar, Peter also wrote poetry.

Alcuin of York was, if you will, the mastermind behind the Carolingian renaissance. He was invited by Charlemagne to join his entourage of scholars such as Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Abbot Fulrad. Alcuin personally educated Charlemagne’s sons and sought to curb the rude barbarism of Charlemagne’s faith and his cruel policy toward the Saxons. Through the witness of Alcuin, the “Butcher of the Saxons” responsible for slaying 4,500 of them at Verden in 783, by 797 had rescinded the death penalty for paganism. Alcuin was made head of the palace school from 782-796 with a hiatus in England from 790-93. Under his guidance the Carolingian renaissance flourished. Major advancements in grammar and learning that we take for granted were developed for the first time. Of many firsts was Carolingian miniscule. Carolingian miniscule was a form of script written in small letters, which is the direct forbearer of our modern script. Not only were the letters standardized in size and shape, but spaces between words, punctuation, and capital letters were added. The quadrivium and trivium were standardized and made the basis of education. More books were written and published in this period than in the previous centuries after Rome fell. A migration of Roman art forms to the northern regions of Europe occurred during this period laying the foundation for the later Gothic art to flourish. Musical notation in the West originates in the year 800 as a result of Charlemagne’s attempts to aid French musicians in attaining the Roman standards of music.

The 8th century scholar Johannes Scotus Eriugena was known for his questionable theology, his mastery of Greek, translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius and his revival of the dialectic method of inquiry. He was the greatest Western neo-platonic thinker since Augustine.

A brief discussion of the renaissance itself I believe is needed. Unlike the secular 16th century renaissance, the Carolingian renaissance was deeply religious and led by clerics. A vast project of collecting texts and organizing them, creating superior translations and correcting errors was an empire-wide task. The classical Latin texts were used primarily for improving one’s Latin to read the Christian texts. Education was a major focus of Charlemagne, though the primary beneficiaries were the clergy. The twin catastrophes of Viking invasions of the British Isles, which destroyed and denuded the intellectual cockpit of Western Europe and the ceaseless fighting between Charlemagne’s heirs led to the gradual failure of the Carolingian renaissance in truly transforming the Western world.

The 10th and 11th century French Pope Sylvester II (originally Gerbert d’Aurillac) was a great student of the classics and his scientific and philosophical work helped recovered some of the lost classical knowledge. When Gerbert discovered the Arabic-Hindu numeral system he paired it with the lost technology of Abacus, thereby reintroducing it to Europe. Via his knowledge of Islamic scholars, Gerbert reintroduced the amillary sphere into Western usage. We see that Pope Sylvester’s efforts in the late 10th century helped translate Islamic rediscovery of ancient Greek learning into Western civilization.

St. Victor of Hugo, a 12th century Catholic German theologian was an influential individual in laying down the intellectual framework under which modern science would develop. Hugo divided science into three fields: theoretical (mathematics, theology, and mathematics), practical (ethics, economics and politics), and mechanical (carpentry, agriculture and medicine). Hugo’s work of organizing Christian thought in such a way that included the scientific process was of great importance to the development of such thought in the West.

Discovery 1200-1453

By the middle of the eleventh century the conversion of the Norse, Poles, and Magyars coupled with Spanish Reconquista had pushed Europe’s enemies far enough away from the France, Germany, and Italy triangle that the true rebuilding of learning and civilization could be begun. By this time the Moors in Spain had abandoned their crude ways for a more sophisticated way of thinking informed by the discovery of Greek philosophy. Many 11th century geniuses such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Al Gazhali laid a foundation of Aristotelian thought that later passed into Western Europe which in turn help sparked the rise of the Scholastic movement. The Latin Scholastic era is one of the richest in Western intellectual history, but the theological works of these men will not be the subject of this paper, but their philosophical, scientific, and mathematical accomplishments. We shall look at Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Theodoric of Freiberg and Nicholas of Cusa.

Robert Grosseteste, the Bishop of Lincoln, is one of the possible contenders for the father of scientific thought, the other being Roger Bacon. Grosseteste invented the notion of a controlled experiment, and though the original method was crude, it was vital and instrumental in the development of future scientific thought. Via Aristotle, Grosseteste developed the notion that through observing nature, one can deduce the laws that govern it. Through his work in optics and study of Boethius, Grosseteste concluded that the highest science was mathematics to which all other sciences were subordinate, a view that would dominate for centuries to come. Grosseteste wrote treatises on optics (De Iride) and light (De Luce) where he outlines a very correct view of the nature of color. It was the rediscovery of Grosseteste’s work that led to the University of Durham Ordered Universe team of scientists and historians to critically evaluate pre-renaissance science admitting it to be more advanced than previously thought.

The other contender to being the father of scientific thought is Roger Bacon. The English friar Bacon, much as Grosseteste, wrote extensively on optics. Bacon, indebted to both Grosseteste and Islamic scientists, wrote on eyesight, color, and magnifying glasses. He was an early advocate of calendar reform. He noticed that the Julian calendar had calculated the wrong number of dates in a year, this error over centuries had led to many days being added to the true date. It was not until three centuries later that Bacon’s ideas on the calendar were instituted. Bacon is also the first known Westerner to give the formula for gunpowder. He hypothesized about lighter-than-air dirigibles and actual powered flight. He observed the sun via a pinhole projector. His efforts were invaluable in advancing the frontier of learning.

Albert Magnus, famous for his theological and philosophical works, is thought to have been the first individual to isolate the compound arsenic. He reportedly heated arsenic trisulfide with soap and the result was nearly pure arsenic.

Theodoric of Freiberg, a 14th century German physicist in his study of optics, correctly described the rainbow. His work De iride et radialibus impressionibus, with use of geometry and the theories of observation, was able to describe both primary and secondary rainbows, the reversal of color in the secondary rainbow, and light paths necessary to form a rainbow. In his study of optics he correctly described the path light takes as it enters a raindrop. To simulate the droplets he made spherical glass globes and filled with water in a flask.

The fifteenth century polymath Nicholas of Cusa was renowned in his legal, philosophical, theological, and scientific writings. The subject of this paper will be his scientific work. Cusa argued that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that Earth’s magnetic poles were not fixed. He challenged the Ptolemaic view of the planets and their orbits by claiming that neither were perfect spheres. In manys was his work is a precursor to Copernicus’ work, even though Copernicus was ignorant of Cusa. In medicine Cusa argued that pulses should be counted. Cusa also observed that plants derive nutrients from the air, performed the first biological experiment, and proved that air had weight.

Conclusion

I have attempted in a very general way to describe the one thousand year contributions of Western Christendom. We have covered the last ancients, Augustine, Gregory, and Isidore and their accomplishments including, but not limited to semiotics, history, and the first encyclopedia, and the Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks who preserved the classical texts and led the valiant attempt at a renaissance in the early 9th century. We saw the recovery of Western knowledge and the first steps at laying the foundation for the renaissance with the Scholastics with major advancements in optics and astronomy, with respectable gains in chemistry and medicine as well. Contrary to the Carl Sagan view of history and the Draper-White view also, medieval Western Christendom was a vital and vibrant component of the Western intellectual tradition. They saved the classical texts, and improved upon them laying the foundation for the scientific revolution. We see the same process at work in Copernicus and Galileo. Their efforts would be inconceivable without the thankless work of the previous millennium. Given that this entire essay is a rebuttal of the misconceptions about medieval scholarship spread by atheists, I felt like ending with a brief note on Galileo. The standard story is that Galileo was a plucky scientist who proved the Bible wrong that the Earth was the center of the universe (even though the Bible makes no such claim), and that the Catholic church in its ignorance and superstition persecuted him and forced him to recant. The real story is a little more complicated. Galileo was not the first to propose heliocentrism; earlier Copernicus did the same with far less controversy. The controversy arose in Galileo’s confrontational attitude; he implicitly mocked the Pope in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo also did not help his case by demanding the Catholic Church accept his position as fact when very little experimental evidence existed at that time. The problem of parallax was thought to be an argument against heliocentrism. Parallax is the fact that when you observe an object from two or more different locations it appears to change position. In Galileo’s day the optical instruments were too crude to observe the parallax between the stars, but as optics became more refined later people were able to observe the differences in location of celestial objects. So again the atheist spin doctors got history wrong. Christianity, far from being anti-scientific, is the womb that birthed science in the first place. I will end where Thomas Woods began in his book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by quoting Wisdom 12:21: “but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.”