Jul 30, 2015

Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking Sign Open Letter in Hopes of Preventing Robot Uprising

via IFL Science

Autonomous weapons. They sound threatening, but these two words can't possibly encapsulate the grim reality that they would bring. Unmanned, armed machines that can search for and eliminate people based on a couple of preprogrammed criteria. Humans wouldn't even be needed to pull a trigger.

The prospect of this cold, clinical future has spurred over 1,000 high profile artificial intelligence (AI) experts and leading researchers to sign an open letter calling for a ban on "offensive autonomous weapons." The open letter can be read (and signed) here. It was presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aires.

The signatories include Tesla's Elon Musk, Professor Stephen Hawking, Google DeepMind's chief executive Demis Hassabis and Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak. With AI on the cusp of creation, it's imperative that it is used for the benefit of humanity as opposed to destruction. Otherwise, mankind could find that its creations are beyond its control.

Wired also spotted, among the signatures, a familiar name: Sarah Connor, of Terminator fame. If anyone was going to try to stop the autonomous weapons from rising up, then you can guarantee that her name would feature somewhere.

The letter states that "autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms," suggesting their development could prompt an arms race similar to the Cold War.

“The endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow," the letter said. "The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting."

The reality of autonomous weapons could be terrifying. Robots, armed with weapons, are given criteria to decide whether a living thing has the right to live based on some coding. The cost of mistakes is life or death, and it's not clear who would be accountable for the machines.

While autonomous weapons could make warzones safer for soldiers and military personnel, their potential to devastate human life has enough experts worried to warrant significant discussion on the topic.

They Call Me 'White'

via Counter-Currents

I have tried all my life to define myself as American. Until recently, I’ve never said “I’m a white man.” I’ve never said “it’s us versus them.” I’ve never said “we are superior to them.” I’ve never said “the problem is the blacks.” I’ve told my kids “We are Americans, a Christian family.” That’s how I have defined us. Not white. American and my family name. And my religion does not encourage me to have a racial identity: the apostle Paul wrote that there “is no Greek or Jew, slave or free,” but all are one in Christ Jesus. Nice thoughts — but not reality, otherwise Paul would not have made the point.

Over the last few years I’ve sadly come to the conclusion that I can no longer just be American. My President defines me as white. My employer defines me as white, my schools defined me as white, and the EEO police definitely define me as white.

“American” was such a nice, traditional, safe, and realistic way to think of myself. But my eyes have opened up.

“They” have identified me (straight white American male) as the enemy. They have made this division. I am not American to them, just “white.” The hatred in graduate school was particularly acute for straight white Christian males — that hatred has been mainstreamed. Whites submit because they’ve accepted the guilt of racism, sexism, homophobia, and on and on. Enough.

We have a president of that defines himself by his color more than his country. We have a cohort of race baiters who will not fail to point out every possible or improbably grievance and blame it on whites.

For generations Marxist university professors have defined European men as the enemy, and it has become mainstream. White people, white history, white culture are accused of all the problems for born by non-whites and non-males. Over the last four years I’ve woken up to the idea that I didn’t get a vote on how they define me.

University professors invented new unforgivable sins that can only be committed by their enemies (Men are sexist, whites are racists, straights are homophobic, and now Christians Islamophobic). What a bunch of fools we’ve been to accept these academically acceptable four letters words, confessing to false sins for which there is no forgiveness except submission. To have a chance at redemption one must become fanatically obsessed with proving a negative: “I’m not racist, see, I voted for Obama!”

I had a beautiful black woman once say years ago (she was a Human Resources officer) that it was OK to hate other races, just don’t bring it to work. Her counterpart, a white man, could not say enough to denounce thoughts of racial differences on pain of firing — “zero tolerance” was his mantra. Any hint of aberrant speech would result in immediate termination. But it was OK for non-whites to have their private race-based “associations” at work and meet on company time to advance their racial agenda. But not for people like me.

The power of guilt manipulation is not just about blacks and whites; it’s about about global economic rebalancing, open borders, gay marriage, and eliminating Christian influence. It is anti-rational and anti-intellectual. It is a crude, but effective power game, and we are losing. Badly.

I refuse to buy into white guilt. That’s not for me. And it’s not for my children. If the white people wake up to this non-sense it will all over. Speech codes are designed to prevent an intellectual and political awakening. Speech codes take entire areas of political debate off the table: “you can’t say that, it’s racist,” and that stops any talk of border control. “You can’t say that, it’s homophobic,” and there goes any conversation on gay marriage or gay Boy Scouts.

My days of innocence and naivety are gone because it’s become painfully apparent that there is no point at which they will be satisfied — there is no neutral ground, there are no boundaries, there are no lines that won’t be crossed. It is war against who I am; it won’t stop until one of us is dead, and we aren’t winning.

This does not make me happy. We have worked in this country for a long time to get over our racial differences, but the race manipulators have found a tool that gives them money and power, and they aren’t going to let it go. This will not bode well for the future.

The “so what” about racial identify is something we haven’t quite caught on to. I was of the opinion, like most whites I suspect, to let them have a little power, let them feel like they have a voice, let the vent some steam — “we’re big boys and we can take it.” But there is no point at which it will be “enough.” Already you risk your job to read something like this at work. Go ahead — print this out and pass it around to your colleagues. See how fast this gets you an EEO complaint. Are you a professor that hasn’t swallowed the poison of self-hatred? Why don’t you get up and say something like this in your lectures? Are you student? Why don’t you wear a T-Shirt with the American flag on it on Cinco de Mayo or with a quote from the Bill of Rights on it? Because you risk losing your job is why, or getting kicked out of school. You are a fool to think this will stop by letting it run its course.

If you are a Christian and believe in the Gospel how can you preach the forgiveness of sins when there is no sin? What was once good is now evil (straight marriages, a bunch of children, strong male role models, and the preaching of the Gospel) and what was once evil (homosexuality, riots, dependency on welfare, and emasculation a la Bruce Jenner ) is now good. Do you really think it’s going to stop here? They are just getting started — we are heading into a new dark age of totalitarianism and oppression. Time to intellectually rearm and defend ourselves from lies and manipulation. That’s where I’m coming from.

There is no peace without victory. Some hope that by shutting up and getting along they can all get by. Maybe they can. Maybe they don’t have anything worth fighting for. Maybe nothing is real to them. Maybe they have enough to get by on. I won’t go that way — and I won’t set that example for my children.

I’ll leave with with a quote from a black man of a century ago. I point out that it is a black man because race means so much to our politicians and to our secular religious leaders (university professors are the prophets and priests of our civilization):

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. — Booker T. Washington, Founder of the Tuskeegee Institute

Acclaimed White Novelist Banned from Publication in the US

via Thoughtcrime

Read Mr. Covington's novels and other
books here: H. A. Covington's Colchester
Collection profile page
On Friday, July 17th, I received notice in the mail that my book publishers, all three of them at once, are canceling their contracts with me to publish my fiction and make it available for sale through their online distribution networks.

It is, of course, impossible to obtain any details on how this decision was reached, or by whom; this whole business will almost certainly remain forever the responsibility of the usual amorphous, glutinous American “they.” (And we all know who “they” are, don’t we?)

My books are being pulled off the market—all of them, not just the politically and racially oriented ones. A total of fifteen novels are affected, of which only five, the Northwest novel quintet, are overtly racial or political in nature. It is not just those specific books that these people are attempting to silence. It is me.

If these publishers keep their word given to me in their letters and stick to the provisions of the contracts (which may not turn out to be the case in practice), then admirers of my Northwest novels have until August 14th to order any last copies of any of my books they want online. After that, no one will be able to purchase a copy of any Covington novel, Northwest or otherwise, unless you can find one floating around a used bookstore somewhere.

This is the American way of suppressing dissent while maintaining the fiction that the old Constitution is still in force. De facto, not de jure.  Banning and suppressing books is a blast from the past, the old ADL trick—while it will not technically be outright illegal to own or read a Covington novel, as it is in Canada, one simply will not be able to find a copy to read. Or so the theory goes, at any rate.

No reason was given for this decision in the formal letters notifying me of the ban. None is needed. We all know what I have done wrong. I have spoken aloud of the death of the king, an offense which in Henry the Eighth’s time would have gotten me boiled in oil, but which today is punished with more subtlety and, in some ways, much greater cruelty.

Americans are weak, high-strung, neurotic and brittle people. Cyber-shaming, silencing, rejection, Twitter-screamed abuse and “economic discipline” can in fact destroy Americans mentally and physically. I sometime joke about that ridiculous wog in Canada who has been trying to achieve his stated intention back in 1998 of driving me to suicide by saying bad things about me on the internet, but it’s not really funny. That very thing has happened with unstable people, often tragically young White kids who have never learned that the majority of other human beings are suppurating pustules whose opinions on anything are worthless, and who are to be ignored.

Fortunately, I’m one of the older models. A few of us are still around, although it’s increasingly hard to get parts.

I doubt if a visit from our friends in the silk suits to these publishing houses was even necessary. Somebody in a carpeted and air-conditioned office picked up the phone and called somebody else in a carpeted and air-conditioned office, and my books disappeared from public view, or will do after August 14th, again with the caveat that they keep their word.

The possibility that I might have a legal or moral right to be different, and to think different thoughts other than those approved by The One and the Democratic Party—the fact that this action on their part was unconstitutional, illegal, and utterly vicious and immoral never entered into these people’s minds. Nor would I have expected it to, ruled by who and what we are ruled by in this day and age.
Although the details of who picked up the phone and called whom may be obscure and will probably never be revealed, there is no mystery here. We all know who is behind this, at least in a general way. Frankly, I’m astounded and maybe even a little grateful that they left me alone for 15 years. 

WHO ARE THESE RATS . . . WHO ARE ATTACKING FREE SPEECH?


Ratman


The highest compliment that one man can pay to another is to attempt to silence him by force. To have one’s books banned and suppressed by a tyrant is perversely one of the greatest honors that any author can receive, and I feel honored. I am in good company now—Giordano Bruno, Michael Servetus, Copernicus, Galileo, James Joyce, Solzhenitsyn, a hundred others. I’m not as good as any of those giants and I know it, but I find myself sitting at the same table with them, and I am humbled and awed.

No kidding, guys, in a perverse kind of way, this is a victory. I have forced the United States of America into a humiliating expedient, one seldom availed of in the past because it was not thought necessary—but in my case, apparently it is.

Basically, I have beaten the U.S.A. They have now admitted that their laws, their society, their system is too weak, too confused, too quavering with senility to withstand my words and my ideas. And they’re right, of course, to be afraid of me. America isn’t strong enough to allow Harold Covington’s novels to be read. My words and my ideas are more powerful than America. Well, Obama’s America, anyway.

I’m not going to go off into a long oration about freedom of speech and all that rot. The mere fact that my books are being suppressed at all, without any appeal or recourse or discussion, tells us that there are no freedom of speech issues here, because there is no freedom of speech. People, I am dead serious—November 20th, 2014, burn that date into your memory! Since then we have been living in a Third World dictatorship which is ruled by the stroke of Barack Hussein Obama’s pen, in which the people’s elected representatives sit there like potted plants, cowering in their $3000 suits, and in which White males are third class citizens.

Okay, enough for now. It won’t work, of course. They don’t get to do this. Needless to say, steps will be taken to make sure that anyone who wants to read a Northwest novel, either electronically or from a printed volume held in the hand, will be able to do so.

I will leave this post up for a while and add on to the end of it a link to the official discussion thread on the Homeland blog. Oh, and I remind you—August 14th is the deadline. Make sure you order any last copies of any of my works you want to get hold of before then. I will publish a list of links on here in a few days.

— Harold Covington

Hungary Says 'NO' to White Genocide: Nationwide Protests Erupt

via Fight White Genocide

Dictatorships are not the only major type of oppression. Systems of social and economic oppression also exist. -Gene Sharp, author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action, the bible of modern civil resistance

On the 26th July a demonstration took place against illegal immigration in the second biggest city of Hungary, Debrecen with several hundred participants. This is not the first such demonstration as there were many protests lately in this city in the wake of the immigrant riots  on the 29th of June this year in the city center near the newly built “refugee” camp which is forced on the locals by the international anti-White elite. Protest marches spread across the country so as to oppose the permissive, anti-White immigration policies of the European Union.

pic2

For this reason we urge everybody to join our efforts and participate  in worldwide pro-White action in order to destroy the oppressive social structure of “multiculturalism” “diversity” and “anti-racism” – better called anti-Whitism – which oppresses us native Europeans. This enforced social structure prevents us from organizing ourselves, it also prevents us from standing up for our interests and from defending ourselves and our families. This tyrannical structure has overtaken our institutions and has to be disposed of since it is geNOcidal and sinful. Its supporters willfully conspire to commit geNOcide against us Whites by denying us the right to exist as a distinct racial, ethnic and cultural group. Anti-Whites should stop acting against the existence of our people, they should stop their crimes.

Here are some additional manuals which give effective weapons into the hands of weaponless, dispossessed groups which happen to be oppressed by dictatorships, foreign governments or tyrannical social institutions:


And the 198 methods of nonviolent action:


pic3


The other resistance manuals I previously suggested to you can be found here.

pic1

Let us go forward and wage our struggle, for we need to shatter and break the heart and spirit of the ideology of diversity! Let us toss its worthless ideals and “morals” into the dustbin of history and the sick, self-hating behaviors that come with it!

Remember you CAN’T vote yourselves out of this system, the only solution is REVOLUTION, so please stop being a spectator and begin to ACT! Start your resistance cell – a group of 3-5 people – today or begin to work alone. Change is possible even if you might not believe it now!

propaganda

pic0

This system will end when YOU do your part in dismantling it, however small your act of protest is. It can be a small act of resistance like internet activism or putting stickers on signs, you may decide to do something more spectacular like staging a protest  or organizing a flashmob, you may also decide to make a tremendous sacrifice for the cause and organize civil disobedience  with the aim of actively ignoring and disobeying this system`s oppressive laws. It is up to you, what risks you will take to tear down this international, tyrannical power and its institutions.

The ultimate choice is yours though. Life or death? Eternal life for you and your people or eternal death and damnation for all? It is an important question to decide because only through European blood can our ancestors reincarnate in us and we in the blood of our descendants.

Roundup of #Cuckservative Articles from around the Web

via Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor Editor's Note: Please add links to new cuckservative articles and memes in the comments below.  I’ll add them.

Wow, oh wow. The cuckservative meme, which started among the Dissident Right / alt-right, has gone completely viral. It is really quite amusing to watch. The real power of the cuckservative meme is it deprives the cucks of their masculinity, making them figures of ridicule. The very word cuckservative, cuck (a white man who watches his wife have sex with a non-white, usually a black man) + conservative, aptly summarizes cuckservatives who act as cuckolds by facilitating mass non-white immigration and other policies detrimental to whites.  The cuckservative does not know how to react.  He either thinks these people are “secret Democrat agents” or he just points, sputters and yells, “racist!”

Roundup:
The early incubation of the cuckservative meme seems to have started at MPC and TRS. The virus then quickly spread on Twitter by accounts like these:  here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here, and many more.

I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to write on cuckservatives: “What is a Cuckservative?

This was later cross-posted at Radix Journal:  “Cuckservative, A Definition

Popehat & Erick Erickson help ‘cuckservative’ go viral.

Matt K. Lewis writes at Daily Caller on ‘cuckservative';
TRS responds (great read);

Tommy Christopher points and sputters.

Heartiste provides a must-read tour de force on cuckservatives.

Many others weighing in:
Renegade Tribune,
The Right Drama,
Atlantic Centurion,
VDare (twitter),
RooshV (twitter),
Outside In.

Gregory Hood offers a must-read analysis of cuckservatism.

Mike Cernovich & Vox Day weigh in.  More TRS.

Hot Air:  “Don’t believe the cuckservative lie.” TRS responds (must read).

Radix Podcast: The Cuckservative Mind


Ethnocentric Indian Jeet Heer doesn’t like whites being ethnocentric. Gregory Hood responds:  “The Cuckening” (must read).

Buzzfeed: “Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter.

RooshV: “Ten Signs You Might Be A Cuckervative.”

Xenophobe: “Cuckservative Inc Stock is Tanking ($CUCK).”

Heartiste:  “Shit Cuckservatives Say” (must read)

Matt Lewis: “I do worry that this white nationalism business is starting to take off

TRS: “It Would Be Very Cuckservative” (podcast)

More:  Milo Yiannopoulos (misses the point on origin and meaning).

MPC: “Cuckservative mega threa.”

Theden: “The Cuckservative Civil War.”

TRC:  “The Alt-Right as Disruption.”

Age of Treason: “Calling out the Cuckery.”

TRC:  “Cuckservatism: The Alt-Right.”

David Weigel: “‘Cuckservative’ — the conservative insult of the month, explained” (decent overview for WaPO).

Obama’s "My Brother’s Keeper Initiative": More Anti-White Blaxploitation

via VDARE

Roger Scruton once observed that the reason Cultural Marxism holds such enormous appeal for our ruling elites is not because it is philosophically true, but because it confers on them the power to manipulate others and reconfigure the social order. This—and nothing less than this—is the driving force behind President Obama’s My Brother’s Keeper initiative to “mentor” young black males.

To the untrained eye, My Brother’s Keeper gatherings held at the White House and elsewhere seem harmless enough. President Obama stands up and gives a windy speech about policing and social justice, packaged in such a way that does not directly assail whites. Participants then break into small groups, form circles and hold hands, and talk. Lots and lots of talk. For Marxists, political education and group therapy are often synonymous. And this is continuing around the country. [City of Long Beach “My Brother’s Keeper” Task Force Holds First Meeting of Many, by Asia Morris, Long Beach Post, July 23 2015]

Nevertheless, all this talk points in the same direction. The purpose of My Brother’s Keeper is not to provide a positive mentoring network for young black men, but to mold a new generation of footsoldiers to take up the race struggle.

As far as I can tell, there isn’t much of a paper trail for My Brother’s Keeper, like many things in Barack Obama’s life. But if it has an intellectual antecedent, it is probably the concept of the Talented Tenth—the black (often mulatto) elite whose mission it is to lead the benighted black masses out of the wilderness of white civilization into a vague promised land of political and economic equality. Needless to say, they themselves end up being the main beneficiaries —the ultimate form of Blaxploitation.

Many people believe that the Talented Tenth was the original brainchild of W.E.B. Dubois. Actually, it was a white man, the Rev. Henry Lyman Morehouse who coined the concept. Morehouse (after whom Morehouse College is named) believed that, in educating the American Negro, one should make a special effort to identify and uplifts its exceptional men—the one in ten—who could really excel academically and professionally. These talented black men could then rise into leadership positions whereby they could then uplift the rest of their race.

W.E.B. Dubois quickly borrowed this concept from Morehouse and reshaped it to fit more neatly into his Marxist-socialist worldview.

Although few seem to notice, there is something terribly condescending about DuBois’s concept of the Talented Tenth. He assumes that 90% of the black population are too clueless to take care of themselves and that they need people like DuBois to lead them. This, despite the fact that DuBois himself had little in common with most black Americans.

WEB_DuBois_1918[1]W.E.B. Dubois was born a mulatto freeman in bucolic Great Barrington, Massachusetts and became the first black to earn a PhD at Harvard University. Dubois was also an unabashed elitist who often wore white gloves, carried a cane, and sported a Kaiser Wilhelm mustache that he picked up while doing graduate work at the University of Berlin.

Subsequently, the modern members of the Talented Tenth, such Lani Guinier, Deval Patrick, Henry Louis Gates, and Eric Holder, comprise a permanent mulatto upperclass that wields power over a permanent black underclass with whom they rarely interact—preferring instead to mingle among their own kind in enclaves in places like Martha’s Vineyard.[ Oak Bluffs, Mass.: A Place in the Sun, . By DeNeen L. Brown, Washington Post, August 20, 2009]

Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Dubois’s “conservative” nemesis—his famous 1895 Atlantic Exposition speech actually contained an appeal for immigration restriction to protect blacks—saw through the machinations of these self-appointed black spokesmen in his autobiography:
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. [My Larger Education; Being Chapters from My Experience (1911) P. 118]
Note that it would be hard to think of a better way to keep blacks down than to promote massive Third World immigration. And yet there is not a single black member of Congress or the Obama Administration who does not support high numbers of legal and illegal immigration—even though immigration has been a challenge to black employability since at least Reconstruction. Quite obviously, they see it as an anti-white policy that will enhance their access to power and perquisites.

In the old days, it was European immigrants—often Irish—who posed the biggest threat to black workers. But today, the immigrants are mostly from the Third World, and they are far greater in number.

At VDARE.com, we often write about the lawless behavior of blacks (if only because almost no one else will). But we also emphasize that black Americans are suffering terribly because of the anti-national immigration policies advocated by their Talented Tenth—policies that surely exacerbate the growing problem of black crime.

Many of the occupations that once employed large numbers of blacks—construction, hotels, restaurants, even the car wash—are now dominated by immigrants. Many urban neighborhoods that have been historically black—Watts, Compton, Harlem—have now been so thoroughly transformed by immigration that blacks no longer recognize them.

The numbers paint a bleak picture. As of this writing, the official black unemployment is 10.2%—twice the national average. But the real black unemployment rate might be three or four times higher. [Black Unemployment Rate Closer to 37.9%, by Larry Walker II, Natural Born Conservative, August 3, 2013 ]The black labor participation rate hovers around 60% while the black homeownership rate is barely 40%.

The black leadership has no credible response to these concerns, except to assert that the problems of blacks must be the fault of whites because white people have it much better.

Indeed, it is interesting how obsessed the Talented Tenth is with so-called “gaps” between whites and blacks: the standardized test gap, the achievement gap, the incarceration gap, the school discipline gap. But My Brother’s Keeper gatherings seem to emphasize the alleged “opportunity gap.”

Actually, I agree on this last point, but for different reasons. Blacks certainly do suffer a genuine opportunity gap—but that gap is not the fault of white racism, but largely the fault of the Open Borders policies that its Talented Tenth continue to support.

You might say, of course, that blacks do not suffer a genuine opportunity gap, given the number of Affirmative Action programs that target them. But even many of the Affirmative Action programs that are supposed to benefit black Americans have actually benefited black immigrants more than the descendants of American slaves.

In fact, many of these children of black immigrants, such as Barack Obama and Eric Holder, have gone on to become the leading racial agitators of the Talented Tenth.

This brings us to the name of My Brother’s Keeper, which sounds terribly paternalistic, like your treating these young blacks like pets or something. But the name also has disturbing theological implications, and frankly, I’m surprised more people aren’t weirded out by this.

The phrase “My Brother’s Keeper” comes from the biblical story of Cain and Abel. According to Genesis, Abel was a shepherd and Cain a farmer. One day Abel brought God some of the finest sheep of his flock as an offering while Cain offered God some crops from his harvest, but not the finest crops.God, therefore, expressed pleasure with Abel’s offering, but displeasure with Cain’s. So Cain later slew Abel out of jealousy. After the murder, God asks: “Cain, where is thy brother Abel?” whereupon Cain replies, “Why? Am I my brother’s keeper?”

In my reading of Genesis, Cain’s response to God is impudent, even bratty. Subsequently, God curses Cain for committing the first murder in human history: “When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

Am I the only one who thinks it strange to name an organization after the contemptuous response of the world’s first murderer and arguably the most cursed man in history?

Then again, maybe the name My Brother’s Keeper is ironically appropriate. For who can doubt that black America is experiencing a kind of slow moving death—and those who are turning the knife are the members of the Talented Tenth who support open borders, and the poisonous racial politics of Ferguson, Baltimore and Trayvon Martin.

If the black leadership actually worked to reduce legal and illegal immigration, they would surely do much to improve the quality of life for black Americans. But if that were the case, more blacks would be finding work, solving their own problems—and relying less on their political leaders.

Instead, the Talented Tenth keep the black underclass on a short leash, and that is why they will never drop their support for open borders, not just because they support any policy that they believe will undermine the white majority, but because they want to maintain their position as their brother’s keeper for all time, or at least until they successfully reduce the country to a pile of rubble.

Someday, of course, all of these so-called back leaders will finally pass from this scene and will, presumably, finally meet their Maker.

One has to wonder if they will face a judgement every bit as harsh as the one leveled against Cain.

The MLK, Jr. Boulevard/Drive/Ave Challenge

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Do you dare to accept the challenge?
The Confederate Flag must go, as must all memorials/grave stones/drawings/statues/and memories of the Confederacy. 

Every street and school must be renamed. 

It must all go, even the mural of Lee, Jackson, and Davis on Stone Mountain.

But the question one must ask is this: if Confederate symbols/flags/memorials must go, shouldn't we reevaluate the more than 900 streets/drives/boulevards/trails/highways named after Martin Luther King? 

Indeed, how many fatal and nonfatal shootings are there a week on streets named after Martin Luther King? [City streets named for Martin Luther King Jr. struggle across U.S., NJ.com, 1-20-14]:
A walk down the 6-mile city street named for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. yields plenty of images that would surely unsettle the civil rights leader: shuttered storefronts, open-air drug markets and a glut of pawn shops, quickie check-cashing providers and liquor stores. 
The urban decay along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in St. Louis can be found in other major American cities, from Houston and Milwaukee to the nation’s capital. 
"It’s a national problem," said Melvin White, a 46-year-old postal worker in St. Louis and founder of a 3-year-old nonprofit group that is trying to restore King’s legacy on asphalt. "Dr. King would be turning over in his grave." 
Nearly three decades into the observance of Monday’s federal holiday, the continuing decline of the most visible symbols of King’s work has White and others calling for a renewed commitment to the more than 900 streets nationwide named in the Atlanta native’s honor. The effort centers in St. Louis, where the small nonprofit is working to reclaim MLK roadways as a source of pride and inspiration, not disappointment over a dream derailed. 
White’s goals are ambitious, his resources admittedly modest. A neighborhood park is planned across the street from the group’s headquarters. An urban agriculture project to encourage residents to eat healthy and grow their own food has preliminary support from nearby Washington University, one of the country’s wealthiest private colleges. Above all, Beloved Streets of America wants to build community from the ashes of what was once a thriving retail corridor when White was a child. 
The template can be found just a mile away. Delmar Boulevard, which saw a similar decline, is now a vibrant retail corridor packed with restaurants, nightclubs, a renovated movie theater and a boutique hotel. The renaissance earned Delmar recognition in 2007 as one of "10 Great Streets in America" by the American Planning Association. 
Journalist Jonathan Tilove, who wrote a 2003 book based on visits to 650 King streets nationwide, called the King byways "black America’s Main Street.""Map them and you map a nation within a nation, a place where white America seldom goes and black America can be itself," he wrote. "It is a parallel universe with a different center of gravity and distinctive sensibilities. ... There is no other street like it."
Martin Luther King Drive/Street/Boulevard/Trail/Highway reprint a place where black America can be itself, and in turn create "shuttered storefronts, open-air drug markets and a glut of pawn shops, quickie check-cashing providers and liquor stores," from sea to shining sea...

So the Martin Luther King Drive/Street/Boulevard/Trail/Highway Challenge begins: can any ascertain the number of fatal/non-fatal shootings on streets named after King in a day; a week; a month?

If the number far outpaces the aggregate of fatal/nonfatal shootings for a similarly named drive/street/boulevard/trail/highway found nationwide (George Washington, perhaps?), then perhaps it's time we rename every drive/street/boulevard/trail/highway named after Martin Luther King.

For it seems a drive/street/boulevard/trail/highway named in his honor is the greatest harbinger of destruction, desolation, destitution, and degradation imaginable; then again, it's just a place where black America can be itself.

Becoming an Alpha Male

via The End of Zion

Listen Now

In our very 1st episode we uncovered what it takes to become an Alpha male. Topics covered, included men seeking validation/approval/attention, the weaklings in our midst, having principles and core convictions, maturity and a lack of male role models, along with the importance of leadership. This episode is short (27 minutes) and to the point. I read through an unpublished article I wrote some time ago titled: “Becoming an Alpha Male” thus the title of the episode. Future broadcasts will be much different, but I think I accomplished what I wanted to with this one. Enjoy it! Any comments are appreciated

It Must Be Something in Their Water

via Koinen's Corner

More lunacy on the loose.  So now, the ultra/radical-liberal lunatic left of the Oregon bureaucracy has set the stage for brainwashing, chemically disorienting and deluding, and sexually mutilating minor children with sex-change surgery without parental consent.

Accomplished without public debate or any specifically enacted legislation, and taking advantage of existing Oregon law which specifies the medical age of consent to be 15, a policy change made by the Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC) has now included 'cross-sex hormone therapy, puberty-suppressing drugs and gender-reassignment surgery as covered treatments for people [15 years of age or older] with gender dysphoria, formally known as gender identity disorder.'

What this means is that 15-year-olds in Oregon can now get a sex-change operation.  And they can do it without parental notification or consent.  And the State will pay for it through its Medicaid program (pay for it with taxpayer's money).  See full story here.

Yes, the entire concept is perverse, disgusting and repugnant; it is nothing short of bestial and monstrous.  Yes, to any decent and rational person's thinking, it is unbelievably, criminally insane.  Yes, it is outrageous.  And yes, 'doing the deed' under this policy should be a punishable offense (punishable by death in my opinion).

Once again, we have a case of government and bureaucracy run amok in the trampling of the rights of decent citizens.  This one is even worse -- far worse -- than the embarrassing and cowardly recent cases of Canadians capitulating to Muslims as described in an earlier post.

Surely, the minds of the delusionally liberal and Marxist rulers of the State of Oregon, at least some of whom are most likely sexual degenerates, queers, lesbos, or themselves 'transgendered', must have been damaged by something in their water -- and they surely are getting too much of it, whatever it is. The question being, are the brain-addling pollutants or chemicals coming from their excessive, cabin-fever-inducing rainfall, their groundwater wells, or the Willamette River?  Or, maybe the nutball culprits are mostly from the Portland area, and have been affected by Hanford nuclear site contamination of the Columbia River and environs?

In any case, some seriously intriguing questions come to mind.  For example, what should parents do if a child is actually sexually mutilated and mentally deranged in the process -- if for example their teenage boy's life is utterly ruined by this kind of quasi-legal (but unconstitutional) and surgical procedure -- a debacle of this kind and magnitude?  Would it be considered 'justifiable homicide based on natural instinct and a compelling necessity' if they were to kill one or more of the bureaucrats ultimately responsible for the tragedy, or the surgeon who actually butchered their child?  (Now to my way of thinking, that would fall under the category of 'parental rights.')  Could they file criminal charges with Federal authorities?  Or would they be forced to go through the effort, expense, and agony of filing a lawsuit, with little or no chance of recovering any damages? (Not that any of those things would do the young man any good.)

Maybe a more prudent and effective course of action would be for the parents (and especially the fathers) of Oregon to work up some well justified outrage over this, grow some balls, rise up, band together over this issue and organize, and then 'storm the Bastille' by changing the laws and policies. In the process, they could get rid of all the elected officials and appointed madman and madwomen (madpersons?) who were complicit in opening the doors to this horrendous, State-sanctioned trampling of parental rights and this assault on their innocent, sexually confused, and misguided children.

Oregonians would do well to give this matter some serious thought.  And then ask themselves -- how in the world did this sickening combination of law and policy come to pass?  How in the world did we allow it to happen in the first place?  Who was responsible?  And -- what would you do if your confused and no doubt misinformed and misadvised adolescent child became a victim and was brainwashed and drugged and then sexually mutilated by some perverted quack surgeon at the direction of some no-doubt ultraliberal bureaucrat faggot?

Cuck You!

via Alternative Right

Don't be fooled; he's only out to cuck you, too
Back in college, I spent two years in a dormitory called "Studio House," a residence hall for students with an interest in theater and the arts.

It wasn't anywhere near as faggy as it sounds, honest Injun.

The "Studio House" crowd, like most communities, developed its own distinctive lingo. Certain terms became hip and trendy, and caught on with nearly everyone. (I, however, was a consistently contrarian outlier on this front, being a curmudgeonly nonconforming grumpy old fogey even at the tender age of 19, albeit certainly vulnerable to manipulation in other ways.)

By far the most prevalent, and for me most insufferable example of irritating Studio House argot, was the (over)use of the term "random." If in the midst of a conversation, someone uttered a non-sequitur, others would giggle and say, "That was so random!" If someone returned from seeing David Lynch's Wild at Heart or the Coen brothers' Barton Fink, or some other surreally-tinged flick of the period, the cinematic summary would be: "Oh my god, we just watched the most random movie ever!!!" The wild, funky imagery in Deee-Lite's day-glo-spangled video for "Groove Is In the Heart" was creatively classified under the file of "totally random." President Bush's sudden mention of the New World Order in a presidential address on September 11, 1990 was, likewise, "random to the max"  If we were walking outside and a dog suddenly started barking, startling everyone, it would be called a "really random" event. You get the idea.

What "random" was to early 90s collegiate artfags, "cuck" is to mid 2010s alt-right fags. That is to say, its sudden overuse signifies both a lack of imagination and a conspicuous compulsion towards conformity on the part of its smitten adherents. The "catching on" of this term, to the point where it has now attracted attention and provoked consternation from various quasi-mainstream sources, confirms its newfound notoriety. However, the discerning observer detects that the explosion of "cuck" is generally due to the desire of some to "be like the cool kids," the better to signal their legitimate badassedness and thus feel that they truly "belong" as edgy rebels.

Unlike the valley girl-esque "random," "cuck" is a harsh-sounding term, with the rancid backwash flavor of a schoolyard taunt. Still, there is something ironically effeminate about those who most relish slinging this slur, alleging the emasculation of their foes. Hearing them carry on puts one in mind of a pack of lads who cluster around a core group of "alpha" leaders, like pledges to a fraternity; by duly expressing themselves in the prescribed manner, they carry out a ritual of self-abasement, in which they display fealty to their ostensible superiors. One might even say it's how the Fuhrerprinzip tends to play itself out among the non-Fuhrer caste.                                                                          

"Be cool. Say 'cuck'! Say 'cuckservative'!"

Indeed, a hierarchy, and a concomitant pecking order, has emerged among the alt-right, with certain "cool kids" perceived as the ones to follow, their rhetoric deemed most fashionable to emulate. (This notion of hierarchy qua hierarchy suits many in the alt-right orbit, but I can't say that I'm one such adherent. Though I of course share their aversion to the modern-day religion of "equality," I am deeply dubious of the concomitant assertion that one particular group is best fit to rule over all of the others, or has licence to behave like jackasses on account of their self-awarded ubermensch-status. But this is perhaps a subject to be elaborated upon some other time.) Thus the success of the "cuck" and "cuckservative" memes are largely due to what could be called the patently "cucked" proclivities of those who value social acceptance over intellectual independence.

Thus, I have declined to ride on the "cuck" bandwagon-- though I share the cuck-chuckers' general disdain for mainstream conservatism as currently constituted in the United States-- because I am wary of sudden shifts in popular vocabulary and what these shifts tend to signify. But there are a couple of other reasons why I see fit to eschew the converging cuck-opoly:

1) The term "cuckold" is, in essence, anti-male and ironically enough, pro-feminist in its implications.

Well before the current cuck-craze emerged, I published an article at the "old" Alternative Right page (since re-published at the current site), entitled "The Wail of the Cuckold." In that piece, I outlined the peculiar power of REO Speedwagon's lite-rock anthem, "Keep On Loving You." The speaker is told from the point of view of a man whose wife is repeatedly unfaithful to him; still, he is unwilling to cut the no-good hussy loose, because he clings to a hope that they can regain the love that they once shared.

While the eternally-loving, multiply-cucked wailer of the song is plainly pathetic, there is still something deeply poignant about his plight. Indeed, the song points up one aspect of the malignant moral hypocrisy so rife in our gynocentric age: namely, that while a woman wronged by her adulterous husband is correctly regarded with pity and sympathy, a wronged man in the equivalent situation is often looked upon with patent contempt. Hence the continued recourse to the ridiculing "cuckold" slur, a holdover from pre-feminist times, with the accompanying implication that if only the husband had been more of a man, his woman would have stayed in line.

In fact, the reason why women resort to infidelity is generally the same as that of men: namely, a deficiency of morals. The adulterous activity of an unfaithful wife is not ascribable to the husband being insufficiently manly; rather, as with unfaithful husbands, it is a symptom of a deeply-ingrained character flaw on the part of the adulterer. Yet the continued use of "cuckold" as a sneer word helps to advance the very gynocentric, uber-feminist, man-shaming paradigm that today's alt-right intellectual dissenters ought to be warring against.

2) Even if I were willing to ignore the conformist undertones and misandric overtones of the "cuck" campaign, I still can't support this trend, for the simple reason that it is metaphorically inaccurate.

Certainly I despise the sellouts, compromisers, and cowards within mainstream American conservatism, who would sooner bite off a finger than take any stand-- be it opposing mass immigration, lax borders, or the purging of the Confederate battle flag from the public square-- that would get them branded as "racists." But representatives of mainstream conservatism aren't gunshy on these matters because they are pathetic do-nothings who have been metaphorically cuckolded; this in fact gives them too much credit, since it presumes that these creatures are ineffectual but generally well-meaning.

Instead, the so-called "cuckservatives" are more accurately speaking, straightforward traitors, carpetbaggers, opportunists, and phonies; in short, they are, metaphorically, the cuckolding rake who despoils everything that is good, decent, and lovable, the better to fulfill their own brazen lust for possession, power, and control. If we give them our votes, our time, our admiration, or any assent whatsoever, it is we who have been cuckolded, not they. The only manly course of action is to refrain, withdraw consent, and give our would-be exploiters nothing but hell.

The Anti-Democratic Thought of Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Julius Evola

via Traditional Britain Group

Two books published in the early 1950s by two European aristocrats merit careful study by every contemporary European conservative since they express the authentic reactions of authentic noblemen to the revolutionary changes that Europe has for long suffered under the yoke of democracy and totalitarianism. These are Erik, Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of our Time (1952) and Barone Giulio Cesare Evola's Gli Uomini e le rovine (Men among the Ruins) (1953). Both Evola and Kuehnelt-Leddihn were opposed to democracy for its levelling tendencies which they considered to be a mere transitional stage towards totalitarian systems communist as well as capitalist. However, while Kuehnelt-Leddihn focused on the democratic mania of equality - which he considered incompatible with liberty or true freedom - without clearly attributing this mania to the middle classes, Evola unequivocally identified the bourgeoisie and their innate mercantile nature - which militates against the warrior ethos of the earlier aristocratic societies - as the source of the evils of democracy.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-99) was, as a member of the aristocracy of the Habsburg Empire, a monarchist and “arch-liberal” in the tradition of Alexis de Tocqueville. He devoted his career mostly to championing the liberties that he felt were threatened by democratic and socialistic doctrines. Between 1937 and 1947 he lived and taught in America, returning to America regularly after that time, from his native Austria, in order to lecture and continue his mission of improving American understanding of the mind and mentality of the Europeans. He was associated with the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty and, before that, with the Ludwig von Mises Institute from which the Acton Institute had branched off as a Christian offshoot. He was constantly aware of the difference between the Catholic monarchical order to which he belonged and the various democratic and totalitarian systems that sprouted all around him in post-1914 Europe, and his principal concern was to combat the levelling impulse of democracy which leads to totalitarianism and the deprivation of liberties.

Already in 1943, during the war, he had written a work on political history called The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at large (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Pub. Co.) which discussed the defects of democracy and socialism in Europe, as well as in America and Russia. I shall restrict my observations mainly to the second of his political studies, Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of our Time (Caldwell, ID: The Caxton Printers, 1952), and refer to the first only for contextual substantiation. The first part of Liberty or Equality is devoted to an examination of the inextricable connection between democracy and tyranny. In his earlier work, The Menace of the Herd, he had highlighted the connection between the bourgeoisie of Europe and the development of capitalism. He pointed specially to the Protestant Reformation as that movement which liberated the capitalist spirit by strengthening the prestige of the usurious Jews in European society. The Protestant countries of northern Europe particularly developed with extraordinary speed into capitalist states while the southern lagged behind in more traditional societies:

"Jean Cauvin's theocratic city state of Geneva had still a few aristocratic traits, but its soul was already essentially ochlocratic and bourgeois. At the time of his death we find a highly developed middle-class civilization and culture of a capitalistic and semirepublican character in the countries of the Rhine valley — in Switzerland, in the Palatinate, in Alsace, in Holland — but a similar process under the same accelerating influence can also be observed in districts further away: in southern France, in the British Isles, and in eastern Hungary."

The problem of this new rule of money and technology was that, unlike the Catholic south, it was culturally sterile:

"Apart from a few poets we see these followers of Calvin contributing very little to the arts and letters. They lacked painters, musicians, architects of originality; hilarity was for them suspect and their humor was limited."

There arose in the north also the dangerous slogan of “progress”:

"The old hierarchic and personal societies were hammered into shapeless masses by the two great products of "progress" — the megalopolis and the factory. "Progress" is (a) a collectivistic and (b) a purely urban ideal…"

And hot on the heels of this new-fangled idea of “progress” came the notion of “humanity”:

"Humanity as such scarcely existed as a living principle in the Middle Ages because man had in regard to eternity no collective existence. Individuals sacrificed themselves for their families, their manorial lords, kings, cities, rights, privileges, religion, their beloved Church or the woman they loved, in fact, for everything or anybody to which or to whom they had a personal relationship. The anonymous sand-heap "humanity" was unknown to medieval man and even the concept of the "nation" was not equivalent to a gray mass of unilingual citizens but was looked upon as a hierarchy of complicated structure … The collective singular "humanity" was only created after the Reformation as a living unit."

The bourgeoisie responsible for capitalism and democracy however were not in sympathy with the lower classes, which were more closely allied with the aristocracy:

"The capitalistic bourgeoisie of the nineteenth century (mainly if we consider the upper-middle classes) stood for an election system which excluded the lower classes even from indirect influence in the government. The middle-class "democrat" frequently dreads the manual laborer, who often sided with the aristocrat, and he usually hates the peasant politically, partly on account of the ingrained loathing of the agrarian elements against the city, partly on account of the conservative- patriarchal structure and tendencies of the farming population."

Thus the will-o'-the-wisp of “humanity” rendered men not more “fraternal” but less:

"Democratistic culture and civilization lowered them to the unhierarchic sand heap but, paradoxically, did not bring them any nearer to each other. The thought of a common creator and a common origin can alone unite human beings."

This is indeed the source of the alienation of modern democracies:

"In the hierarchic Tyrol, people are much nearer to each other than in "democratic" New York, and even the Albanian practising his vendetta is more good neighborly than the inhabitant of modern Berlin or Stockholm."

Interestingly Kuehnelt-Leddihn traces the beginnings of popular democracy or “ochlocracy” to the materialistic thought of Jean Cauvin and the denial of the next world by the Enlightenment thinkers who ushered in the French Revolution:

"There is little doubt that atheism, agnosticism, and the denial of the other world are partially responsible for the rapid technical development which gave us, apart from exquisite instruments for mass destruction, various means to bridge time and space."

Mass distribution of commodities through technology makes everything available to everyone because “Nobody should have the right to pride himself on being the sole possessor of a specific thing” and the sociological result is a rapid collectivisation:

"Democracy in its first stages is intrinsically a struggle against privileges and later democratism continues this bitter, depersonalizing struggle against everybody and anybody with the help of the demoniacal magic of technique."

Universal education too is identified by Kuehnelt-Leddihn as one of the “collectivist” features of democracy:

"Instead of sticking to the hierarchic principle in the most aristocratic of all domains — intellectual education — a whole corollary of compromises with the mass spirit were made in this field; education became thus finally nothing but another factor of leveling applanation side by side with industrialism."

It is significant also that the middle classes were especially opposed to the Catholic Church on account of its hierarchical nature and its preoccupation with mysteries, which in a democracy had to be rationalised by the half-educated masses. As he notes,
"It must also be kept in mind that the class most antagonistic to the Church has been during the past centuries the middle class, or the bourgeoisie. It is the middle class in France, Austria, Germany, Bohemia, and Moravia which shows the greatest percentage of Protestants."

Unlike Evola, Kuehnelt-Leddihn does not consider liberalism as a distinguishing characteristic of democracy but, rather, he considers democracy's characteristic obsession to be the desire for equality, which as mentioned above contradicts the natural desire for liberty. Freedom itself he defines in Liberty or Equality as the liberty to develop one's personality:

"The greatest amount of self-determination which in a given situation is feasible, reasonable and possible. As a means to safeguarding man's happiness and protecting his personality it is an intermediary end, and thus forms part of the common good. It is obvious that under these circumstances it cannot be brutally sacrificed to the demands of absolute efficiency nor to efforts towards a maximum of material welfare."

In this context, he takes particular care to distinguish Anglo-Saxon democracy from Continental, for the former is directed from above and retains the character of an “aristocratic republic”, whereas the latter tends to mass democracy.which leads to totalitarianism. He also reminds us that:

"Some of the best minds in Europe (and in America) were haunted by the fear that there were forces, principles and tendencies in democracy which were, either in their very nature or, at least, in their dialectic potentialities, inimical to many basic human ideals — freedom being one among them."

The principal defects of democracy derive from its materialistic concerns, thus its mass production, militarism, ethnic nationalism, racialism and all tendencies toward "simplification" that tend towards uniformity and sameness, what he calls “identitarianism”. He quotes Lord Acton's remark that “Liberty was the watchword of the middle class, equality of the lower”. This is however different from his own statement in The Menace of the Herd that “Liberty is the ideal of aristocracy, just as equality stands for the bourgeoisie and fraternity for the peasantry”. Indeed, if equality were the prime demand of the lower classes as Lord Acton had suggested, the levelling that Kuehnelt-Leddihn points to is clearly not due to them but rather to elites that organise them as “masses of men who are 'alike and equal' attracted by small and vulgar pleasures”. His quotation from Alexis de Tocqueville in Liberty or Equality indeed makes this quite clear:

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?"

We see from this description of the workings of democracy that the latter is a maternalistic caricature of the paternalistic political ideal that we shall see is propounded by Evola. Even though Kuehnelt-Leddihn does not, like Evola, blame the bourgeoisie for this forced levelling of the lower classes, he does notice that capitalist mass production and nationalistic militarism are creations of the bourgeois capitalists rather than of the proletariat.

We may note also that he considers racial nationalism as a form of “proletarianism” where whole nations are elevated to pseudo-aristocratic status. However, it may be inferred from his own discussion of the different attitudes to nationalism and racialism among Catholics and Protestants (see below) that this nationalism and racialism are not so much characteristics of the lower classes as of those who exploit the democratic system, which must be principally the capitalist middle classes.

In general, Kuehnelt-Leddihn does not accentuate the dangerous revolutions of the bourgeoise in monarchical or aristocratic states nor their baneful effect on the lower classes, which it has little sympathy for. He does not also clearly relate the Jews in European society to the transformations from monarchies to democracies and collectivist societies that European countries have undergone in recent history although he cursorily hints at the Old Testament roots of the materialism and obscurantism that mark Protestant democracies. His main concern being the defence of individual and social liberty, he studies the gradual transformation of democratic governments into tyrannies. If in democratic states actual dictators do not emerge on the scene, totalitarianism manifests itself nevertheless in the bureaucratic apparatus of the state which caters to the social welfare needs of the lower classes. Here again he is, on the surface at least, rather lenient towards the middle classes since he does not remark that a benevolent state bureaucracy might cater to the genuine needs of the people while it may also interfere in the financial ambitions of the middle classes.

In the development of democracy into totalitarian tyranny Kuehnelt-Leddihn rightly notices the crucial role played by Protestantism. Unlike Evola who does not discuss the nature or dangers of Protestantism in his critique of modern Catholicism, Kuehnelt-Leddihn squarely places the blame for democratic degeneration on Protestantism. He notes that, ideologically, democracies depend on relativist principles which are themselves characteristic of the Protestant movements:

"Relativism, which the clear thinker and logician rejects, plays an enormous role in the political and spiritual realm of democracy. We leave it to the psychologist to determine the feminine implications of such relativism. But relativism and readiness for compromise go hand in hand, and an absolute refusal to compromise on fundamentals (a Catholic rather than a Protestant trait) would soon bring democratic machinery to a standstill."

While Catholics are unpliable when it comes to dogma, Protestants are rather more subjective in their approach to doctrinal matters. Catholics are consequently more convinced of their principles and do not favour latitudinarianism. As he notes,
"Catholic dogma, except for an "increase in volume", has remained unchanged, and commentary on it has varied only within certain limits. Protestantism, on the other hand, is in a constant process of evolution. Whereas the faith of Catholics can be exposed to the process of diminuation de la foi ("diminution of the faith"), that of the Protestant is also subject to the rétrêcissement de la foi (”narrowing of the faith")."

On the other hand, Protestantism is a more fanatical religion that insists, in a mediaevalist and Old Testament manner, on God alone while Catholicism has always considered God and Man with equal care. This explains the wonderful artistic explosion of the Renaissance and the Baroque, which are relatively poorly represented in Protestant lands:

"Thus the key to the real understanding of the Catholic cultures of the European Continent and of South and Central America is, for the Protestant as well as for the Catholic of the British Isles and North America, an understanding and appreciation of the cultural, artistic and intellectual values of Humanism, the Renaissance and the Baroque."

The Protestant insistence that “religion is a private matter” is completely opposed to the Church's concern with the “totality of human culture” (39), culture itself being distinguished from civilisation, which caters to the merely material comforts of mankind:

"Yet while civilization is basically lack of friction, smoothness, comfort, and material enjoyment we have to look at traditional Christianity — with its violent opposition to euthanasia, abortion, contraception, pacifism, and individualism — as being something uncomfortable."

Protestantism and Calvinism also posses an Old Testament tendency to take earthly success as sign of divine favour1 which is absent in Catholic nations, “where the beggar is a 'useful' member of society and commercialism is not highly appreciated.”

Protestants fearful of social fragmentation naturally tend to the lowest common denominator that mark collectivist systems. Catholics, on the other hand, are more personally developed than the Protestants, who through their tendency to compromise, solidarity, cooperation, neighbourliness tend to be more conformist than Catholics, and even more bigoted. In fact one of the distinguishing features of democracy itself - for Kuehnelt-Leddihn as well as for Evola - is that it is 'anti-personalistic' and 'collectivistic' and its tendency to exert “horizontal pressure” results in totalitarian systems.

It is not surprising thus that “Calvin established in Geneva the first truly totalitarian police-state in Europe”.  The French Revolution too was of Protestant inspiration:

"It is also obvious that the ideological substance of the French Revolution is almost in its entirety the product of Protestant dialectics. Although there are some minor Cartesian and Jansenistic elements in the political philosophy of '89 and '92, the main impulses came from America, Britain, Holland and Switzerland."

This is why also, as Kuehnelt-Leddihn reminds us, “Count Keyserling calls America socialistic in a deeper sense and arrives at the conclusion that "most Americans want to obey as no soldiers have ever done."

Catholics, by contrast, are undemocratic by nature:

it is virtually certain that the Catholic nations, with their love for personal liberty, their earthly pessimism, their pride and scepticism,will never in their hearts accept parliamentary democracy.

Catholic countries deprived of monarchy tend to bureaucraticism, anarchy or party-dictatorships rather than to democracy:

"We have to ask ourselves whether in the most extreme cases, when violent temperament is combined with thorough ideological incompatibility (Spain, Portugal,Greece, South America), government from above on a bureaucratic basis is not the only safeguard against the alternative of anarchy and party dictatorship."

Catholicism is essentially paternalistic and hierarchical, qualities that Evola too prescribes for his organic conservative state. Catholics favour patriarchs but not policeman, they can even often be anarchists and militate against the State. While the uniformity of the ruling political parties in Protestant countries facilitates nationalism as well as totalitarianism, Catholics are not popular nationalists nor do they favour centralisation, but rather federalism (201). Kuehnelt-Leddihn gives the example of the Geman federalist Constantin Frantz (1817-91) who opposed centralised totalitarian regimes and he reminds us that the Prussians too were not pan-Germanic but rather dynastic.

The political solution to the inherent problems of democratic government that is propunded by Kuehelt-Leddhin is a hereditary monarchy with local organs of self-government. Unlike dictators, monarchs are restricted by Christian law and here the doctrine of human imperfection, or “original sin” serves as a moderating influence in monarchies as well as it does in democracies. Monarchy, like Catholicism, is paternalistic and not “fraternal”. The reason of the superiority of such a parternalistic rule - typical also of Catholic orders - is that it obliges the ruler to be more responsible than democratically elected leaders are. Monarchies are not oligarchical, plutocratic or prone to corruption since money does not rule the state as in democracies. Further, the monarch not only represents political responsibility but also fosters 'great' statesmen within his government possessed of a comparable commitment to the duties of a state. A monarchy is also more efficient with its bureaucracy than a democracy is and more capable of undertaking grand ventures.

Monarchs are in most cases biologically superior and hereditary rule constitutes an organic rule which is contrary to variable party rule. They are trained for rule from childhood and have a moral and spiritual education for their office. At the same time, they have greater respect for subjects and protect minorities since they do not depend on any majority support. Monarchies also tend to be international and ethnically mixed thus serving as a unifying force.

As democracies depend on what the Jewish Socialist historian Harold Laski called a 'common framework of reference' or consensus, there is in fact less freedom of expression in democracies than in monarchical states. This is particularly true of Catholic states which are marked by different levels of enlightenment and thereby do not fall into the trap of Protestant utopianism. Catholicism does not believe that all are capable of the same education and understanding since it is constantly conscious of the notion of human imperfection or 'original sin'. The liberality of the Catholic in general arises from generosity and not from relativistic reasoning that forcibly reconciles opposites.

Unfortunately the greater liberties enjoyed in traditional Catholic monarchies have been curtailed in recent times by Protestant regimes. But Kuehelt-Leddihn reminds us that only 13 percent of the population of European continent are followers of Protestant creeds. And it should be borne in mind:

"That the countries of continental Europe all need a mission, a final end, a metaphysical goal—which even elections, increased exports, more calories and better dental care are not going to obviate."

It is of vital importance therefore that one must “strive to help the European continent find its own soul”. Following Kuehnelt-Leddihn's discussion of monarchism and Catholicism and their natural opposition to republicanism and Protestantism, we may assume that what is needed is a restoration, insofar as it is possible, of the Catholic monarchical system - “Only thus can the Continent hope to become again what it used to be, a tierra libre y real—a Free and Royal Land."

The political tenets of the Sicilian nobleman Julius Evola (1898-1974) have been somewhat obscured by his 'traditionalist' interests in esoteric systems such as Hermeticism, Zen Buddhism and Yoga. People have a general notion that he was a sympathiser of both the Italian Fascist and German National Socialist movements but a closer reading of his later works especially his major political work, Men among the Ruins (tr. Guido Stucco, Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2002) will reveal that he was closer to the Fascist ideology especially as represented by the philosopher Giovanni Gentile than to the racialist thinkers of the National Socialist Reich such as Alfred Rosenberg or Walther Darré.

More forcefully than Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Evola identifies the bourgeoisie as the source of the problems of the modern world since they are the chief representatives of the doctrines of Liberalism based on the primacy of the individual. Liberalism is a materialistic and utilitarian philosophy insofar as it takes into consideration only the material needs of the individuals that constitute society. Its feigned campaigns of liberty are belied by the fact that exploitative capitalism is a natural result of bourgeois materialism:

"The turning point was the advent of a view of life that, instead of keeping human needs within natural limits in view of what is truly worthy of pursuit, adopted as its highest ideal an artificial increase and multiplication of human needs and the necessary means to satisfy them, in total disregard for the growing slavery this would inexorably constitute for the individual and the collective whole."

The individualism fostered by Liberalism results in an atomism and fragmentation of society that is then countered by forms of totalitarianism which are equally inadequate in their merely quantitative and economic concerns. Totalitarianism is, according to Evola, order imposed from above on a formless people. Marx was indeed right in attacking the bourgeoisies but erred seriously in forcing the proletariat to serve as the cornerstone of a utopian society that is characterised by sterile uniformity:

"Totalitarianism, in order to assert itself, imposes uniformity. In the final analysis, totalitarianism rests and relies on the inorganic world of quantity to which individualistic disintegration has led, and not on the world of quality and of personality."

Thus totalitarianism destroys all the vestiges of organic development that previous bourgeois states may have retained from their aristocratic past:

"Totalitarianism, though it reacts against individualism and social atomism, brings a final end to the devastation of what may still survive in a society from the previous "organic” phase: quality; articulated forms, castes and classes, the values of personality, true freedom, daring and responsible initiative, and heroic feats."

The exaltation of the “worker” in socialist as well as collectivist systems is also a universalisation of the essentially servile nature of liberalist economic thought. The solution to the problems inherent in any bourgeois ordering of society consists in the development of personality rather than individualism among the people. Among nations too autarchy should be encouraged rather than the internationalism of global commerce:

"It is better to renounce the allure of improving general social and economic conditions and to adopt a regime of austerity than to become enslaved to foreign interests or to become caught up in world processes of reckless economic hegemony and productivity that are destined to sweep away those who have set them in motion."

The necessary control of the economy can be undertaken only by the State. The class conflicts focused on by Marx should be corrected by a corporative system or a system of estates such as in the Middle Ages:

"The fundamental spirit of corporativism was that of a community of work and productive solidarity, based on the principles of competence, qualification, and natural hierarchy, with the overall system characterized by a style of active impersonality, selflessness, and dignity."

Of prime importance in the corporative system of earlier European history is the fact that, "The usury of "liquid assets"—the equivalent of what today is the banking and financial employment of capital—was regarded as a Jewish business, far from affecting the whole system."

In other words, Jewish usury was, if utilised by states, always regarded as a feature of outcasts of European society.

Evola's solution to the social injustice of capitalism focusses on the elimination of the parasitical capitalists and the deproletariatisation of the workers:

"The basic conditions for the restoration of normal conditions are, on the one hand, the deproletarization of the worker and, on the other hand, the elimination of the worst type of capitalist, who is a parasitical recipient of profits and dividends and who remains extraneous to the productive process."

Unlike Marx who sought to turn the proletariat into owners and directors of companies, Evola maintains that the proper eradication of the evils of capitalism should begin with the curtailment of the rampant profit-motivation of the companies and their directors by the State. All companies should therefore, in general, be responsible to the State. All national economic issues should be dealt with in the Lower House of parliaments while the Upper House should be the sole representative of the political life of the nation. The latter body cannot be an elected one but must be appointed – and for life.

In fact this Upper House should act as what Evola calls the ruling elite or “Order” of a nation. He would like to see the core of this Order to be constituted of members of the old aristocracies that are “still standing … who are valuable not only because of the name they carry, but also because of who they are, because of their personality.” Aiding this core would be a class of warriors, who are naturally not the same as soldiers, who are merely paid military employees. Warriors are ruled by concepts of honour and loyalty to the nation, such as were found recently in the Prussian military echelons, and the strict subordination of the mercantile class to this warrior class is an essential feature of Evola's political doctrine.

For the state is indeed essentially a masculine socio-political phenomenon in contrast to society, which is mainly feminine. The state formed by Maennerbunde or male ruling elites:

"Is defined through hierarchical, heroic, ideal, anti-hedonistic, and, to a degree, even anti- eudemonistic values that set it apart from the order of naturalistic and vegetative life."

The reason for the exclusive position of ruling males in a state is that:

"Every true political unity appears as the embodiment of an idea and a power, thus distinguishing itself from every form of naturalistic association or 'natural right,' and also from every societal aggregation determined by mere social, economic, biological, utilitarian, or eudemonistic factors."

This power is in its origins sacred, as it was for example in the concept of imperium in the Roman Empire for it expresses a transcendent order, a concept that will be familiar to students of the Fascist philosopher, Giovanni Gentile.

Democracy and socialism signal a dangerous shift from the rule of the masculine state to that of the feminine society and of the demos. A State is not a 'nation' either since a nation is typically a motherland, even if it is occasionally called a fatherland in some countries. The Romans, Franks, as well as the Arabs who spread Islam were all constituted of Maennerbunde at first, and only when they degenerated into democracies did they become 'nations'.

Since any conservative revolution needs to restore the primacy of the warrior ethos it must begin by opposing the mercantile one of the bourgeoisie:

"The 'conservative' idea to be defended must not only have no connection with the class that has replaced the fallen aristocracy and exclusively has the character of a mere economic class (i.e., the capitalist bourgeoisie)—but it must also be resolutely opposed to it. What needs to be 'preserved' and defended in a "revolutionary fashion" is the general view of life and of the State that, being based on higher values and interests, definitely transcends the economic plane, and thus everything that can be defined in terms of economic classes.

This would also require the formation of a new elite or Order:

"The essential task ahead requires formulating an adequate doctrine, upholding principles that have been thoroughly studied, and, beginning from these, giving birth to an Order. This elite, differentiating itself on a plane that is defined in terms of spiritual virility, decisiveness, and impersonality, and where every naturalistic bond loses its power and value, will be the bearer of a new principle of a higher authority and sovereignty; it will be able to denounce subversion and demagogy in whatever form they appear and reverse the downward spiral of the top-level cadres and the irresistible rise to power of the masses. From this elite, as if from a seed, a political organism and an integrated nation will emerge, enjoying the same dignity as the nations created by the great European political tradition. Anything short of this amounts only to a quagmire, dilletantism, irrealism, and obliquity."

Disregarding the norms of a socialistic state the organic conservative state must be a “heroic” one that is not based on the family nucleus but on the Maennerbunde which produce the leaders of the state. These men will even abjure a family life for a dedication to the task of ruling:

"As far as a revolutionary-conservative movement is concerned, there is a need for men who are free from these bourgeois feelings. These men, by adopting an attitude of militant and absolute commitment, should be ready for anything and almost feel that creating a family is a “betrayal”; these men should live sine impedimentis, without any ties or limits to their freedom. In the past there were secular Orders where celibacy was the rule ... the ideal of a "warrior society" obviously cannot be the petit-bourgeois and parochial ideal of "home and children"; on the contrary, I believe that in the personal domain the right to an ample degree of sexual freedom for these men should be acknowledged, against moralism, social conformism, and 'heroism in slippers.'"

The organic conservative state will be based not on individuals but on persons, whose raison d'être is their personality and its higher development. This realisation of the personality of an individual is equivalent to his freedom. The 'free' person is indeed free of the claims of his lower nature and demands a complete self-mastery. The most highly developed or differentiated person is the absolute person or leader:

"The 'absolute person' is obviously the opposite of the individual. The atomic, unqualified, socialized, or standardized unity to which the individual corresponds is opposed in the absolute person by the actual synthesis of the fundamental possibilities and by the full control of the powers inherent in the idea of man (in the limiting case), or of a man of a given race (in a more relative, specialized, and historical domain): that is, by an extreme individuation that corresponds to a de-individualization and to a certain universalization of the types corresponding to it. Thus, this is the disposition required to embody pure authority, to assume the symbol and the power of sovereignty, or the form from above, namely the imperium."

Thus, unlike Kuehnelt-Leddihn who championed hereditary monarchy, Evola seems to favour an enlightened dictator or one who belongs to a new aristocratic order of men.

The state formed by this elite will be not only organic but also hierarchical and firmly based on the principle of authority. In fact, this principle is the core of any organic state, which must necessarily grow from a definite centre:

"A State is organic when it has a center, and this centre is an idea that shapes the various domains of life in an efficacious way; it is organic when it ignores the division and the autonomization of the particular and when, by virtue of a system of hierarchical participation, every part within its relative autonomy performs its own function and enjoys an intimate con-nection with the whole. In an organic State we can speak of a "whole"—namely, something integral and spiritually unitary that articulates and unfolds itself—rather than a sum of elements within an aggregate, characterized by a disorderly clash of interests. The States that developed in the geographical areas of the great civilisations (whether they were empires, monarchies, aristocratic republics, or city-states) at their peak were almost without exception of this type. A central idea, a symbol of sovereignty with a corresponding, positive principle of authority was their foundation and animating force."

The basis of all authority is itself a “transcendent” quality, as Gentile had also insisted:

"Conversely, the organic view presupposes something 'transcendent' or 'from above' as the basis of authority and command, without which there would automatically be no immaterial and substantial connections of the parts with the center; no inner order of single freedoms; no immanence of a general law that guides and sustains people without coercing them; and no supra-individual disposition of the particular, without which every decentralisation and articulation would eventually pose a danger for the unity of the whole system."

Only an organic state can absorb all the manifold differences and conflicts that may exist within a state:

"Even contrasts and antitheses had their part in the economy of the whole; as they did not have the character of disorderly parts, they did not question the super-ordained unity of the organism, but rather acted as a dynamic and vivifying factor. Even the "opposition" of the early British parliamentary system was able to reflect a similar meaning (it was called "His Majesty's most loyal opposition"), though it disappeared in the later party-ruled parliamentary regime."

Nationalism too should be avoided if it is of the popular sort rather than one based on the concept of a spiritual nation:

In the first case, nationalism has a leveling and antiaristocratic function; it is like the prelude to a wider leveling, the common denominator of which is no longer the nation, but rather the International. In the second case, the idea of the nation may serve as the foundation for a new recovery and an important first reaction against the internationalist dissolution; it upholds a principle of differentiation that still needs to be further carried through toward an articulation and hierarchy within every single people.

His vision of a regenerated Europe is one of an organic, sacred empire, or imperium, centred not on 'the concepts of fatherland and nation (or ethnic group)' which 'belong to an essentially naturalistic or 'physical' plane' but on 'a feeling of higher order, qualitatively very different from the nationalistic feeling rooted in other strata of the human being'.

"The scheme of an empire in a true and organic sense (which must clearly be distinguished from every imperialism, a phenomenon that should be regarded as a deplorable extension of nationalism) was previously displayed in the European medieval world, which safeguarded the principles of both unity and multiplicity. In this world, individual States have the character of partial organic units, gravitating around a unum quod non est pars (a one that is not a part, to use Dante's expression)— namely, a principle of unity, authority, and sovereignty of a different nature from that which is proper to each particular State. But the principle of the Empire can have such a dignity only by transcending the political sphere in the strict sense, founding and legitimising itself with an idea, a tradition, and a power that is also spiritual."

The chief hurdles to the formation of a new Europe are American cultural hegemony, the yoke of democratic government, and “the deep crisis of the authority principle and the idea of the State”. But even though the task of unifying Europe may be a formidable one it must be attempted, with the planning and organisation undertaken from the top down, by the new elite 'Orders' of the various nations that constitute it.

As regards the religious foundations of a State or Empire, Evola is remarkably pessimistic in his estimation of the power of Catholicism to provide these since he considers it to be excessively committed today to a liberal democratic path which has deprived it of its traditional political force. In fact he considers the anti-Ghibelline or Guelfian movement of the Middle Ages to be the very source of the secularisation of the modern State. Thus it would be better:

to travel an autonomous way, abandoning the Church to her destiny, considering her actual inability to bestow an official consecration on a true, great, traditional and super-traditional Right:

In spite of his callous treatment of the Catholic Church and its potential as a religious basis for a conservative State, Evola does examine in greater detail the subversive effects of another international sect, Judaism, whose political ambitions were exposed in the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (1903) which, even if not based on fact, would represent a literary depiction of the totalitarian goals of the Jews. As Evola explains:

"The only important and essential point is the following: this writing is part of a group of texts that in various ways (more or less fantastic and at times even fictional) have expressed the feeling that the disorder of recent times is not accidental, since it corresponds to a plan, the phases and fundamental instruments of which are accurately described in the Protocols."

The principal evil of the design of the international Jews is their thorough economisation of modern life:

"The economization of life, especially in the context of an industry that develops at the expense of agriculture, and a wealth that is concentrated on liquid capital and finance, proceeds from a secret design. The phalanx of the modern 'economists' followed this design, just as those who spread a demoralizing literature attack spiritual and ethical values and scorn every principle of authority."

Not only was Marxism a useful tool of the Jews but also those biological and philosophcal doctrines that fostered atheism such as Darwin's evolutionary biology and Nietzsche's nihilism. The Jews further employ various tactics of subversion, having recourse to counterfeit doctrines of so-called “traditionalism” and “neo-spiritualism”:
The content of this "traditionalism" consists of habits, routines, surviving residues and vestiges of what once was, without a real understanding of the spiritual world and of what in them is not merely factual but has a character of perennial value.

The effect on the individual of these various subversive movements is
"To remove the support of spiritual and traditional values from the human personality, knowing that when this is accomplished it is not difficult to turn man into a passive instrument of the secret front's direct forces and influences."

The most efficacious way of combating the subversion of international Judaism or Zionism is for the new warriors to learn to operate on the metaphysical plane, maintaining an 'unconditioned loyalty to an idea' since that is 'the only possible protection from occult war; where such loyalty falls short and where the contingent goals of 'real politics' are obeyed, the front of resistance is already undermined.' As he warns those who wish to undertake a conservative revolution or counter-revolution:
"No fighter or leader on the front of counter-subversion and Tradition can be regarded as mature and fit for his tasks before developing the faculty to perceive this world of subterranean causes, so that he can face the enemy on the proper ground. We should recall the myth of the Learned Elders of the Protocols: compared to them, men who see only "facts" are like dumb animals. There is little hope that anything may be saved when among the leaders of a new movement there are no men capable of integrating the material struggle with a secret and inexorable knowledge, one that is not at the service of dark forces but stands instead on the side of the luminous principle of traditional spirituality."

We see therefore that unlike Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Evola focuses on the bourgeoisie as the chief source of the democratic degeneration of modern Europe just as his discussion of the “occult” dimensions of the ongoing subversion helps one to concentrate on the international Jewry as the principal agents of subversion that must be combated in a counter-revolution. Unfortunately Evola does not place much hope on either a hereditary monarchy or Catholicism as the twin foundations of traditional European society but instead seeks to build a new knightly Order that will yield strong enlightened leaders for the European states.

The lack of enthusiasm for Catholicism in Evola's discussion of the State is however corrected by Kuehnelt-Leddihn's perceptive analysis of the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. In strong contrast to Evola's negative attitude to the modern Church, Kuehnelt-Leddihn's account of political history places a marked emphasis on established religion, and especially on Catholicism, in his formulation of the conservative state. Any contemporary attempt to return Europe to its natural pre-democratic vitality may therefore have to start not only from Evola's warnings of the dangers of the mercantile bourgeoisie and of the surreptitious war of the Jews against the European aristocratic traditions but also from Kuehnelt-Leddihn's revelations of the deleterious effects that the relativist and materialist temper of Protestantism has had on modern European society.