Jan 13, 2016

Changing America, Part 1

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

KAS Editor's Note: In 2002 William Pierce created his first video production, entitled America is a Changing Country. The visual portion of the production was a bit amateurish and now looks quite dated — and we are seeking a video producer to re-make it to a much higher standard of impact and professionalism — but the audio content, Dr. Pierce’s actual words, are of high quality and permanent value. In this piece, William Pierce tells us how America has been changed for the worse by our enemies, why we are in a state of deep decline that may well prove fatal — and outlines for us the changes that we must make if we are to save ourselves. It is one of his most powerful speeches, and we will be presenting it to you today and over the next two weeks.

I give you Dr. William Pierce and Changing America, part 1:
 
* * *

America is a changing country. With more than a million non-White immigrants, both legal and illegal, pouring into the United States from Asia, Africa, Mexico, and the Caribbean region every year, the complexion of our population is rapidly becoming darker.

Our culture is changing too, reflecting both the changes in population and trends being pushed by the entertainment and advertising media. America is becoming less White, less European, less civilized and more like the Third World.

Demographers predict that White people no longer will constitute a majority of the US population at the middle of this century. The country already has declined from 90% White to 70% White during the past 50 years.

America still has a relatively prosperous economy and White Americans are still relatively well-off. Our economy still is being fueled by the technological revolution wrought by the most creative elements of our people during the latter half of the 20th century — with the invention of the transistor, the development of micro-electronics and the computer, the invention of the laser, and a thousand other technological marvels. But we’ve poured much sand into the gears of our economy in recent decades with increased welfare spending and increased government programs of every sort, many of which discourage thrift and individual initiative.

As the population continues to decline in quality, and as more American industries are driven into bankruptcy by uncontrolled imports from the non-White world, economists have increasing concerns about the inevitable decline in American productivity and the American standard of living. If we measure our standard of living by things other than money — by the quality of education, by the quality and safety of our neighborhoods, or by the fitness of our people — our standard of living already may be in sharp decline.

Considering everything, many White Americans are becoming increasingly pessimistic about America’s future. Suicide rates are up. Many young people see no prospects for themselves. They have no vision of their own future or the future of their country. They are very concerned about how their children and grandchildren will fare when non-Whites constitute a majority of the voters in America.

It wasn’t always this way in America. Until about 1960, America was a white country — racially, culturally, morally. We still had a civilization and a culture which were essentially European, essentially ours. We didn’t persecute or abuse the minorities here, but we didn’t mix with them. We understood that they were different from us, and that if we mixed with them, our civilization, our culture, our lifestyle, our standard of living, and eventually our people — our genes — would change irreversibly. We didn’t want that, so we remained separate: We kept our own identity; we raised our children our way; we controlled our borders; we didn’t coddle criminals; we didn’t tolerate racially mixed couples; we had laws against miscegenation. We didn’t put up with the sort of public behavior which has become common today. And we kept our society decent and orderly and White, with much less governmental intervention in our lives than we have today — because that’s the way our people wanted it.

That’s the way it was until the Second World War. After the war things began changing. The principle agent of change in America was television — which really became an important propaganda medium, reaching into every American living room, only in the 1950s. Subtly at first and then more and more blatantly, television entertainment began ridiculing and denigrating the beliefs and attitudes and values that had characterized pre-war America.

Television wasn’t the only agent of change, of course. Hollywood films were right in step with TV. So was radio, and so were the big city newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, and virtually all of the popular magazines. The mass media had a virtually unanimous party line, and that line was that White America was “narrow-minded,” “bigoted,” “unfair,” “repressive,” and “old-fashioned.” We needed to change, we needed to become more broad-minded, more tolerant, and less repressive, they told us. We needed to become modern, to become fashionable. We needed new ideas, new attitudes, new laws, new values, and new types of people in the country. We had been unfair and repressive in the way we had dealt with the Black minority in America, we were told. The only reason most of them were poor and uneducated and prone to criminal activity was that White people had kept them down. We hadn’t given them a fair chance. We had been very narrow-minded and old-fashioned in our attitude toward homosexuals, we also were told. It really was unfair of us to look down on them and consider their way of life less normal or less desirable than ours. And White men had been bigoted and unfair and repressive in their treatment of women, the media told us, trying to keep them at home, keep them pregnant, keep them from becoming US senators or corporation executives or fighter pilots.

By the 1960s, propaganda which had been subtle and occasional had become intense non-stop brainwashing. Popular television series such as All in the Family and Mash were heaping scorn on everything traditional, everything connected with the old order in American life. With the encouragement of this media blitz against traditional America all of the subversive, anti-White, anti-patriotic, anti-masculine, anti-heterosexual elements began coming out of their closets and out from under their flat stones. Blacks began demonstrating in the streets demanding new rights. Then they began rioting and burning America’s cities. City after city went up in flames during the 1960s. Communists organized openly on America’s university campuses. Huge demonstrations were held in Washington, supporting the Communist Viet Cong at a time when young American draftees in Vietnam were being killed at the rate of a hundred a day. And the government seemed as unable to prevent the Communist demonstrations, as it was unable to win its war in Vietnam.

This governmental impotence in the face of Black arson, looting, and insurrection in the cities — in the face of Jewish agitation on America’s university campuses and of massive Communist treason in Washington — greatly undermined the confidence of the average White citizen, not just in governmental authority and rectitude, but in all of America’s established social institutions.

The reason for the government’s impotence was the support by the media — sometimes implied and sometimes open — of the Black insurrectionists, the Jewish agitators, and the Communist demonstrators. The politicians and the government were fully aware of the power of the media to sway public opinion, and to make or break any political career. They understood where the sympathies of the media bosses lay: With the Blacks and other non-Whites, with the Jews, with the Communists — and they were unwilling to incur the enmity of the media by cracking down on any of these elements.

The reason behind the peculiar sympathies of America’s mass media is to be found in a common characteristic shared by nearly all of the media bosses, as well as by a very substantial portion of the mid-level media management and even the media rank-and-file: the assistant editors and the scriptwriters and the executive directors in charge of TV news programming and the vice presidents in charge of entertainment programming and the Hollywood film directors. The media moguls then, back in the 1960s and 1970s, were the Sulzbergers, and the Meyer-Grahams, and the Newhouses and the Sarnoffs and the Paleys and the Goldensons. Today they are the Sulzbergers, and the Meyer-Grahams, and the Newhouses — and the Eisners, and the Levins, and the Redstones, and the Bronfmans, and the Zuckermans — and many more with names having a similar ring. They are and were nearly all Jews –an astounding concentration of power for an ethnic minority making up only 2.5 percent of the American population.

How they came to acquire such a stranglehold on our media and what motivates them to use their power so maliciously and destructively is another story in itself. The fact is that they did acquire control of our media and they have used that control to transform America — deliberately — from a White America where men were men and women were women and there was no mistaking which was which; from a White America where neighborhoods were clean and safe and schools were orderly, disciplined institutions where our children and young people learned about their European roots, about the civilization built by their own ancestors, and also learned the techniques and skills and the work habits and strengthened the character traits that would make them strong and productive citizens; from a White America without rap and without drugs and without whiggers and without race mixing — they transformed our America to the multicultural degenerate mess we have today.

The media bosses transformed America and are continuing to transform it. They are orchestrating a cultural war against everything White, everything traditional, everything which in the past gave us a sense of identity, a sense of racial community, a sense of belonging and responsibility, a sense of pride and of solidarity. Through their unremitting propaganda barrage they are alienating our young people, cutting them loose from their roots, conditioning young men to be unmanly and young women to be unfeminine, brainwashing everyone to abandon the values and standards of our forefathers, and to accept new and alien values, alien customs, alien attitudes and behavior.

They are brainwashing us to feel guilty for believing in and wanting the things which are right and natural for us. They are brainwashing us to tolerate everything which should be abhorrent to us. They are brainwashing us to let the filth engulf us without resistance.

That is what has transformed America and will continue to transform America as long as we permit it — as long as we stand around with our hands in our pockets and watch it happening and do nothing about it.

You know, it doesn’t have to be that way.

I’m William Pierce, Chairman of the National Alliance. Our mission is to ensure that it doesn’t continue going that way forever. We are an organization of men and women of European ancestry, White men and women, who’ve set ourselves the task of freeing our people from the alien influences which are destroying us — and then providing healthy and constructive influences in their place.

Our ultimate goal is to ensure the survival and progress of our people. But, of course, we must approach that ultimate goal a step at a time. A huge amount of preparatory work is required. Nearly all of our efforts now are directed toward simply developing the means for communicating with our people.

Many White Americans aren’t really aware of what’s happening. They see the world around them only one day at a time. They don’t see the trends; they don’t compare the situation today with what it was in the past and then look ahead to what it is likely to be in the future. They don’t ask questions about what is happening or who is responsible for it, or what motives are behind it.

Other White Americans have sensed that our society, our civilization, and our race are under attack — but they haven’t been able to figure it all out. They haven’t been able to put all of the pieces together and see the big picture.

We must be able to communicate with all of these people. We must be able to provide to those who have sensed that something is wrong the vital information they are lacking, and then explain to them how it all fits together. We must show them the big picture. And we also must be able to catch the attention of as many as we can of those who haven’t even begun asking questions yet. We must wake them up, we must alarm them, we must provoke them so that they do begin to ask questions.

Unfortunately, many of these people who are still unaware of what’s happening really don’t want to know the truth. They aren’t really bad people or stupid people, but they are thoroughly under the spell of the controlled mass media and are determined to have only the Politically Correct view of the world. They are the ones we call “lemmings.” Many of them can’t be reached as long as the mass media are in the hands of our people’s enemies, because they will listen only to the loudest voice, the voice which seems to them to have the most authority behind it. It’ll be a while before we can speak to these people with a voice louder than that of Hollywood and the controlled television networks. But that is one of our goals.

The Teuton and His Relationship with the Wolf

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

Fenrir, the monstrous wolf referred to in the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda and the Heimskringla (Hákonarmál) is generally regarded with fear and/or loathing within heathen circles. However we must delve deeper, dig below the surface of things to begin to grasp the esoteric meaning of this creature and the myths associated with him.

Fenrir or Fenrisulf is the offspring of Loki from the giantess Angrboda. He features in two myths; the fettering of the wolf by Tyr and his unleashing at Ragnarok. What intrigues me the most is why the Aesir tolerated the presence of the wolf, why they bothered to fetter him instead of destroying him straight away. There must be a reason for this. Our Gods are not stupid: they are far wiser than us, their  descendants. Woden in particular has great in-sight and knew that the wolf would be the eventual undoing of the present race of Gods and at the climax of the age will cause His death-or rather His transformation.We know that He knew this for it is clear from Vafþrúðnismál when Woden questions Vafthrudnir that He already knew the answer to the question He was asking for this was a contest of wisdom, something that is not unusual in the Eddas and is worthy of analysis in its own right.
"Much I (Woden) have travelled, much have I tried out, much have I tested the Powers;
what will Odin's life's end be,
when the Powers are torn apart?"
"The wolf will swallow the Father of Men,
Vidar will avenge this;
the cold jaws of the beast he will sunder
in battle." (52-53, Larrington version of The Poetic Edda)
The Aesir thus chose to contain the Fenris wolf, to keep him close to their side. In Gylfaginning in the Prose Edda it is written:
"The Aesir brought up the wolf at home, and it was only Tyr who had the courage to approach the wolf to give it food."
So not only did Fenrir reside with the Aesir but he was fed by them! This is a strange thing to do when there are other options available. However this is a very human way of looking at things and the Gods are wiser, far wiser than us. Gylfaginning repeats what we already know from the older Poetic Edda:
"And when the gods saw how much it was growing each day, and all prophecies foretold that it was destined to cause them harm, then the Aesir adopted this plan, that they made a strong fetter which they called Leyding and brought it to the wolf and suggested he should try his strength with the fetter."(Faulkes translation)
The 'prophecies' that Snorri refers to undoubtedly include the ones concerning Fenris in Voluspa:
"The the second grief of Frigg comes about
when Odin advances to fight against the wolf,
and the bright slayer of Beli against Surt;
then the beloved of Frigg must fall.
"Then the great son of War-father,
Vidar, advances against the Beast of Slaughter;
with his hand he stabs his sword to the heart
of Loki's kinsman: then his father is avenged." (53-54, Larrington translation)
Aryan antiquity viewed history or the movement of time in cycles. It was never viewed in a linear sense. This distortion appeared with the xtianisation of our ancestors and has no place in a healthy Aryan life-centred, rather than man-centred cosmogony. Woden knows this also. He realised that it was necessary to keep the agents of destruction, ie Loki and Fenrir close at hand for not only was the end inevitable but Loki in particular on occasions would prove to be of use to the Aesir because of his sheer cunning and intelligence. It is only as we approach Ragnarok will the Loki influence be fully unleashed, no longer restrained as Fenrir and  Jörmungandr will no longer be confined. Indeed we see Jörmungandr doing his work today with the increasing volume and intensity of earthquakes and tidal wave flooding throughout the world, all in accordance with Eddic prophecy and the prophecies of Woden's Initiates alive today.

Now whilst I am NOT an advocate of the worship of Loki what I am saying is that this force or influence in itself is not necessarily 'evil' in the sense that man views evil. May I make the point here that when we talk about  'good. and 'evil' these concepts are more associated with the judeo-xtian-islamic world view than a healthy Aryan Weltanschauung for these words are suggestive of moral absolutes and it would be a mistake for us to be influenced by these concepts. For this reason I tend not to use these terms in my writings. Loki and his offspring are indeed at the end of each cycle of the ages catalysts of destruction and thus agents of CHANGE or development. Let us pause here and note a great truth: without change there can be NO life for change is the necessary dynamic of existence and without it there would be no life to begin with. We as physical beings change. We are born; we develop, we mature, we decay and we die. This all part of the Listian concept of ARISING-BECOMING-PASSING AWAY-NEW ARISING. Even the Gods are subject to these very same universal laws.

Thus our world has known multiple Ragnaroks but the Ragnarok which we are facing has a special dimension to it. It is a religious and indeed also a racial Ragnarok for it has been revealed by our Folk Warder that in this age Ragnarok=Korangar and as I myself have revealed we have the choice in the era of Ragnarok between Walhalla/Allahlaw. We see this being currently played out on the world stage. In the aftermath of the global conflagration between the two destructive Abrahamic religions-Islam and the pseudo-xtian 'New World Order' we will step into the power vacuum that will be left. Thus we must do all we can exoterically and esoterically to bring this about. In folkish Wodenism we are not concerned with the exoteric struggle-we will leave that to the youth but we are concerned with the esoteric struggle and we need to take this struggle into other dimensions, other worlds or planes of existence outside of Midgarth. In a Europe destroyed by Allahlaw we will usher in the Widar God force of Walhalla as the natural racial alternative to the slave religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not only will our peoples be freed from spiritual and racial contamination but the whole of nature will be rejuvinated as we are told in the Eddas:
"Without sowing the fields will grow,
all ills will be healed, Baldr will come back;
Hod and Baldr, the gods of slaughter, will live happily together
in the sage's palaces-do you understand yet, or what
more?" (Voluspa 62, Poetic Edda, Larrington translation)
The Thorpe translation words this passage slightly differently:
"Unsown shall the fields bring forth, all evil be amended;
Baldr shall come; Hodr and Baldr, the heavenly gods, Hropt's
glorious dwellings shall inhabit. Understand ye yet, or what? (verse 60)
In addition to the Fenris wolf there are other monstrous wolves which make their appearance at Ragnarok, namely Skoll who pursues the sun whilst it is on its course in the sky and Hati who likewise pursues the moon:
"Skoll a wolf is called who pursues the shining god
to the protecting woods;
and another is Hati, he is Hrodvitnir's son,
who chases the bright bride of heaven." ( Grimnismal 39, Poetic Edda, Larrington translation)
Snorri states in the Poetic Edda:

"High said: 'It is two wolves, and the one that is going after her is called Skoll. She is afraif of him and he will catch her, and the one that is running ahead of her is called Hati Hrodvitnisson, and he is trying to catch the moon, and that will happen." (Gylfaginning, Faulkes translation)
Indeed even mightier and more monstrous than Skoll and Hati is Moongarm or Managarm:
"Then spoke Gangleri: 'What is the origin of the wolves?'
High said: 'A certain giantess lives east of Midgard in a forest called Ironwood. In that forest live trollwives called Ironwood. In that forest live trollwives called Iarnvidiur. The ancient giantess breeds as sons many giants and all in wolf shapes, and it is from them that these wolves are descended. And they say that from this clan will come a most mighty one called Moongarm. He will fill himself with the lifeblood of everyone that dies, and he will swallow heavenly bodies and spatter heaven and all the skies with blood. As a result the sun will lose its shine and winds will then be violent and will rage to and fro. Thus it says in Voluspa:
'In the east lives the old one, in Ironwood, and breeds there Fenrir's kind. Out of them all comes one in particular, sun's snatcher in troll's guise.
He gorges the life of doomed men, reddens gods' halls with red gore. Dark is sunshine for summers after, all weathers hostile. Know you yet, or what?'" (Gylfaginning, Faulkes translation)
It would appear that Managarm only appears in the Prose Edda. The suffix Garm means destroyer and thus this entity is the destroyer of the moon. Managarm may be the same creature as Garm:
"Garm bays loudly before Gnipa-cave, 
the rope will break and the ravenour run free,
much wisdom she knows, I see further ahead
to the twrrible doom of the victorious gods." (Voluspa 49, Larrington translation)
There certainly seems to be an element of confusion between the exact roles of Garm, Managarm, Skoll, Hati and Fenrir!

The wolf is also a feature of Germanic legend and we know that certain members of the Volsung clan, namely Sigmund and Sinfjotli had the ability to transform themselves into wolves. Indeed the werewolf (man-wolf) legend is rife amongst the pre-xtian Germanic peoples. Those who lived outside the normal rules of scoiety were known as Ulfhednar (wolf-heads) and certain of these formed mystical warrior bands known as Männerbünde, dedicated to Woden. In the Eddas Woden is pictured as being in the company of His two wolves Freki and Geri which both mean 'ravenous'. Why exactly this should be one can only guess. However His two wolves share a connection with His two ravens, Hugin and Munin: they are all feeders off the battlefield dead and Woden is lord of the battlefield amongst many other functions which He has.

The name of 'Wolf' or 'Wulf' appears as part of the names of many heroes in Germanic legend and history. Kris Kershaw in his Odin: Der einäugige Gott und die indogermanischen Männerbünde states:
"It stands beyond question, that wolf names generally predominate amongst the Germanic peoples and especially with the Indo-Germanic peoples in comparison with dog names." (WOTANS KRIEGER'S TRANSLATION of the German translation of the original work in English!)
Even down to modern times this is still the case and we are reminded that the name Adolf is a contraction of Adalwolf-noble wolf. Clearly this relationship between Germanic man and the wolf is a reflection of the relationship between Woden and His wolves. Let us remember that man's best friend, the dog is basically a domesticated wolf with all the ferocious elements bred out of him although some breeds of dogs still resemble the wolf physically. The Wuffinga dynasty of East Anglia takes its name from their ancestor Wuffa, a descendent of Woden. The Wuffas are in reality the Wuffingas-sons of the wolf!

It behoves us to reflect on Germanic man's relationship with the wulf for it is a complex one containing both negative and positive attributes. This is most especially urgent because we are living in the Wolf Age prophesied in the Voluspa. It is inevitable and indeed right that we should explore the wolf part of our natures as a weapon to be used in the struggle that faces us. In folkish Wodenism many of us have adopted the name of Wulf and there is a reason for this and it is rooted in the Blood Memory.

A Gun Problem or a Race Problem?

via American Renaissance

Listen Now

Jared Taylor talks gun control with Paul Kersey.

Media Jews Continue to Panic over Trump

via First Light Forum

Guess who’s the Jew . . . the nose knows
Ruth Marcus is a JEWISH journalist, currently writing an op-ed column for The Washington Post. In March 2007, she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

Ruth Marcus was born in Philadelphia and grew up in a Jewish family in Livingston, New Jersey. Both her parents were pharmacists. She attended school in Livingston with and has remained a close friend of fellow columnist Mona Charen. She studied at Yale University where she wrote for the college newspaper.

RuthMarcusAfter completing her Yale degree, the Jewess Marcus wrote for the National Law Journal, before attending Harvard Law School, from which she received her J.D. in 1984. Marcus began writing for The Washington Post while still in law school, and formally joined the paper after graduation.

From her Washington Post biography:
“Marcus has been with The Post since 1984, beginning as a reporter on the Maryland staff, covering local development and other issues, and then transferring to the District staff to cover lawyers and legal issues. She joined the national staff in 1986, covering campaign finance, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court and the White House. From 1999 through 2002, she served as deputy national editor, supervising reporters who covered money and politics, Congress, the Supreme Court, and other national issues. She joined the editorial board in 2003. She identifies as a liberal with the Democratic party.
Marcus is married to former Federal Trade Commission Chairman and Democrat Jon Leibowitz. The couple have two daughters, Emma and Julia.


Counter-Cultural Ruminations, Part 2: The "Culture War"

via Majority Rights

Part 1

This second part of my thoughts on culture and counter-culture represents something of a departure for me.  Although every nationalist is a cultural critic of sorts, I am not a very practised one.  I tend to a critique which is more psychological in its address, with an occasional gesture in the direction of philosophy.  Where possible, of course, psychology prefers fact over proposition.  The hard ground of genotype and sociobiology ... of Nature intruding into the Mind and into the lived life ... is an amenable place for a fact-junkie like me to seek permanent truths and, too, an understanding of Nature’s bounds and limits, and of the pathological pretence in the culture beyond that the natural bounds can not only be broken, but that we can be freed by breaking them.

Culture ... that fabulously coloured, capacious, elusive thing ... is a carrier of the natural too, of course.  The trick for anyone seeking to interdict or reform or revolutionise it should be to exorcise its pathologies by means of appeal to that nature.  It should be straightforward.  After all, people are able to struggle for existence, and in that cause to discriminate for good over evil, and for truth over lies.  They routinely refer to their instinctive interests and preferences as determinants of what is good, and what is natural, healthy and normal, and so on.  So you might think this would be easy … that the mind’s supervenient natural qualities must predominate ... that working with Nature’s grain must lead to a life-giving outcome.

Yet, the condition of our people in the pre-Globality (let’s call it that, in the absence any generally accepted term) is such that little common understanding and agreement obtains on what constitutes pathology and what health, and little perception even that anything really fundamental is wrong.  Life’s truths have been forced down into a morass of moral relativism and bare-faced ideological aggression, and disgorged of their vital, identifying signs.  As a nationalist, one actually has to teach health, such is the confusion within the people whom we love and, because we love, seek to advantage and to serve.

The revolution in the European culture

Of course, there is no doubt as to why.  In large measure, a double revolution - one philosophically Jewish revolution of the left of liberalism a half-century ago and one rooted in Austrian School economics of the right a decade later – saw to it; building, as both did, on older, telling deficiencies in the religion, philosophical canon, and economic culture of our race.  The former, particularly, was a revolution not of politics but of campus culture, linguistics, and the activism of the left.  The governing generation of the West, which in its youth had been used up in a six-year, fratricidal war and was still standing guard, facing down the Soviet bloc in the 1960s and 70s, was not just out-manoeuvred in the cultural blitzkrieg, it didn’t even notice something was wrong.  Its old-school moral order fell to the culture of youth almost at once, without a single effective ideological shot being fired in reply.

Nor was there any significant resistance from elsewhere among the elite class.  In Britain since the 1930s at least, students enrolling upon a course in the humanities encountered a steadily marxising professoriate – people who, as Orwell had it, hated their country with a will.  The nature of the beast was already difficult going on impossible.  The spark which initiated its change of revolutionary focus from economics to sociology was the setting up of an historians group by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1946.  That was only two years after Horkheimer and Adorno published Dialectic of Enlightenment, and pre-dates the latter’s The Authoritarian Personality by four years.  The other intellectual pillar of the New Left, Marcuse’s selective attack on prescription and control, One Dimensional Man, was still eighteen years away.  Class war would remain a staple of the Labour Party until the 1983 election defeat, and of the union movement until the defeat of the miners in 1985.  It would be killed off, finally, by the momentous events in the east in 1989.  But by that point the university left had decamped into Critical Theory and culture war decades earlier, and decamped again into postmodernism.  Somewhere along the way the professors’ hatred of their country had morphed into a po-faced, snotty hatred of their people.

As for their students, they proved to be meek and suggestible, and fell in with it all, including the hatred.  We, as nationalists and dissenters by spirit, can only gaze upon their bland, innocent faces and wonder at such lightness of being and incapacity for independent thought.  But, then, obeisance before authority is the human condition, and moderate intellectual ability provides no immunity, just as vanity and ambition provide susceptibility.  As graduates, the infected individuals carried the pathology into the orthodoxy of government, the media, judiciary, and the public sector generally.  As doctorates they entrenched it in the academy.  They were not simply unwilling to question the new dogma or to face up to its logical consequences; they were actual proponents and agents of it, as Gramscian theory predicted.

By the middle of the 1980s – the point at which postmodernism began to assert itself as a force in the arts, a decade after it had done so in architecture – these new activist elites seem to have relegated serious thought to the sidelines, and said “Enough, we know what we must do!”  Perhaps the post-structuralist Derridian obscurities simply did not yield enough hard politics for their taste.  Perhaps, as mere Gramscian captives in most cases, captivity was the only framework in which they could think.  Perhaps, with Reagan politically dominant in America and Thatcher in Britain, party politics as an agency of change was closed to them, but a coercive, destructive extra-political contingency was not - even the literary theorist Terry Eagleton, a bona fide culture warrior, once crisply observed “We are the worm in Thatcher’s apple”.  It suited their temper, anyway.  Certainly in Britain, there was a terrible, destructive energy abroad as the Tories systematically dismantled union power and struck (in two ways I will address in the next essay) at the very roots of the left’s communion with the traditional working class.  It had to go into something.

In any event, beginning on the American campus with, one must presume, very second-rate sociology teachers, an activism arose which, while it is in line with basic post-structural paradigms, reduced the latter’s linguistic idealism to the crude but spectacularly effective stratagem of appropriating the language for the revolutionary agenda.  It is not too extreme to define that agenda as the literal erasure of the identity of the European peoples, their kinship, their past, and their future.  It was, and is, a strategy of ideological enforcement by denunciation and threat – and by physical violence where possible or necessary (the former not being especially contingent on the latter).  As such, it has powerful echoes of the coercive ideological homogenisation which characterised the 20th century totalitarian states, and may owe its appearance in our time more to that than to any line of descent from Jewish-authored philosophy.  Its undoubted schwerpunckt, anti-racism, was also imported from without the philosophical line, though its adopted form was still Jewish originated (half-a-century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld).

Rather meekly but successfully labelled “political correctness” by the American right in the early 1990s, its working method is threefold, regardless of which minority or interest group it purports to serve: (i) it makes a specious claim on truth; (ii) it dehumanises all opposition to that claim, (iii) it licences destruction of the opposition.  Thus in respect to race and immigration: (i) multiracialism of the European living spaces is “enriching” … is “a strength” … is “historically normal” ... is “human progress”, etc, while homogeneous white society is “dull” and even “hideous”, (ii) the defence of European peoples in any form is automatically “racism” … is “hate” ... is “xenophobia” ... is “supremacism” ... is “fascism”, etc, (iii) “racism”, “hate”, “fascism”, etc, are the ultimate crimes in our time; “racists” and “haters” and “fascists” are anti-human, and their existence in “our” society … on “our” streets … in “our” world cannot be tolerated.  And so it goes.

By this means, not eggshells but linguistic land mines were scattered beneath everybody’s feet.  The freedoms of speech and association – common goods for which our forefathers fought and died - were put away as if they had no value at all, because “the project” was the only consideration of value.  Therefore, ideologically correct thought was the only legitimised basis for saying anything actually relevant to life.  Because the project is an expansive, escalating, trespassing thing, ever more unnatural, polarising causes were adopted, each cleaved to with a blind, partisan intensity.  Inevitably, within a very few years a general climate of moral paralysis and self-censorship obtained among our poor, benighted kind.

Today, it is so bad that an extensive industry of offence-taking by proxy has sprung up, and barely a day seems to go by without its well-publicised, synthetic fury falling upon the head of some unfortunate who has said too little or too much, or the wrong thing entirely.  Characters are routinely assassinated.  Livelihoods are destroyed.  Fines and prison sentences are handed down by the courts.  If, at its post-war beginnings, the revolution had some pretense of service to the common good, rather than sheer, bloody spite and racial destructiveness, its outright intolerance and repression leaves no doubt as to its nature now.

None of this presents any kind of moral crisis for politicians and governments across the West.  The most sincere response of British politicians to every outrage committed by the diverse and enriching is to instruct us in tolerance.  In Germany, the strange creature Merkel considers it “haughty arrogance” for Germans to question the slow but steady Islamification of their nation (which she is striving to accelerate).  In Sweden a former Prime Minister has stated that it is the immigrants who own Sweden, not the Swedes who “invented borders”.  The newcomers, after all, are creating a New Sweden and this, for some unexplained reason, will be a “stronger” Sweden.  Besides, the old Swedes are “an uninteresting ethnic group”.  When, finally, some degree of border control does have to be asserted, the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister announcing it cannot hold back her tears!  Of course, little Nicolas Sarkozy, with his demand from 2008 for métissage, holds the world record for outright offensiveness - but then there is always that question of who he really is, ethnically speaking.  Anyway, the sainted Enoch Powell would not have hesitated to describe all of them as “mad, literally mad”, and who are we to argue?

Plainly, tolerance without limit, even unto the perception of the dissolution and replacement of one’s own people as a great good, is completely demented.  It is a post-Christian religious mania.  But it is also the only non-statutory means the political elites can concoct that could, in their wild imaginings, do for the multicult what blood and love, land and history do for real peoples.  Naturally, it will not work.  But the essential thing is that the elites can point to us and say that that is our failing.  Yes, they have to prevent ISIL outrages, mass sexual assaults at train stations, the trafficking and prostitution of white children, negro lootings and arson, etc.  But they do not regard any of those as reasons to question, never mind terminate the multiracial project.  Rather, these setbacks must never be allowed to “stoke up bigotry” and “far right extremism” among the existentially guilty ethnicities of Europe.  They really do think that it means nothing ... nothing at all ...to kill us, and that the world will be better without us.  There is simply no other interpretation which can fit the facts.  They just can’t admit publicly to it.

Official deceit, therefore … a cold, deathly need to propagandise and lie to us ... hangs over government thinking and policy-making (and over the media which unfailingly gives succour to that).  And, ultimately, this, too, is a product of the revolution in the European culture; a product of denying Nature; of subjecting the normal to a violently radical redefinition; of dehumanising dissent and criminalising conscience.  To reprise, all official respect and regard for the person and life of our people ... all official recognition of our natural right and interests ... everything that should be accorded us quite automatically and unreservedly, as it should any people of the land, is withdrawn.  Indeed, the very idea is spat upon.  In our case … solely in our case ... belonging, mutuality … the things of identity, the things of the blood … are officially repudiated.  Indeed, these, too, are spat upon and associated directly with racism.  At every opportunity, meanwhile, the foreign flood is lauded and, if at all possible, excused its vilest crimes against us.  In every conceivable way its trespass is incentivised and facilitated.  Not a moment’s official thought … at least, thought that is not hostile ... is given to the meaning of it all for us.  We are utterly betrayed.  Short of a full-bore genocide by moving us off our own land, the situation could hardly be more extreme and unbearable.

But that is by no means the whole of the revolutionary problem.  In the mid-1970s a second revolution took place, this time on the political right, and this time in the economic culture of the Anglosphere and beyond.  In part 3 of this series I will investigate the long-run effects of that momentous event.

Rape, Race, and the Pathology of "Western" Individualism

via Alternative Right

Unless you've grown so sick of the modern West's dysfunction that you've decided to completely tune out, then you're all undoubtedly aware of the rape wave that transpired in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve. Understandably, those of us on the alt right are outraged by these attacks on German women. Colin Liddell has already written an excellent article on migrant rape, highlighting the many problems it poses for modern Western countries like Germany. However, what rankles me so much about this incident – just the tip of the iceberg as far as diversity related rapes in Europe are concerned – are the responses of various white elites and pundits, which range from lackluster to downright absurd.

I say lackluster because we all know how majority groups in non-Western countries would react if outsiders violated their women. For example, the rumor that six Uighur men raped two Han Chinese women was enough to incite deadly communal violence in Western China. Ditto for Burma, where reports – again, mere rumors – that a Buddhist woman was raped by three Rohingya men galvanized angry Buddhist mobs, who promptly launched brutal attacks on the Rohingya community. Indians likewise consider sexual assaults on their women serious affronts, as evidenced by a large mob that broke into a jail in order to kill an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant who was suspected of raping a local woman. For just about every non-white group in the world, raping their women is more than just the crime of rape; it's an assault on the group as a whole.

Contrast this with Germany, where the former police chief of Cologne was "shocked" by these depredations, even going so far as to declare it a "completely new dimension of crime." Such shock demonstrates just how individualistic and atomized the West is compared to tribal, collectivist cultures; it also demonstrates that, for all their talk about diversity, pro-multicultural whites have a piss-poor understanding of the non-Western world. Even more absurd was the mayor of Cologne exhorting women to take steps to ensure their safety. Before anyone accuses me of white knighting, I'm certainly not condemning Henriette Reker for "blaming the victims" or not putting the onus on men "not to rape" the way feminists are. Rather, what's galling about her safety advice is that women from the dominant majority group are expected to take special precautions just to protect themselves from newly arrived immigrants – immigrants welcomed with open arms by the German state.

However, it's this editorial from Al Jazeera – my favorite site to mine for leftist absurdity – that really takes the cake. As good leftists, the authors admonish us to not traffic in generalizations about immigrants and refugees:
"It bears mentioning, however obvious, that to stigmatize all refugees on the basis of the actions of a few is pernicious. It’s an extrapolation that is the very definition of racism. One million refugees entered Germany last year, in Europe’s largest movement of refugees since World War II, and to suggest that this entire group is a threat to women in Germany reproduces the worst stereotype of the invading, barbarous moor — a centuries-old trope that has long fostered discrimination without providing any traceable safety for the women it purports to protect."
Obviously, this is a load of nonsense, especially in light of the fact that the left has no problems assigning collective responsibility to whites or men (often both). In fact, the authors do just that near the end of the editorial (emphasis mine):
"Some European nations have taken a specific approach to educate newly arrived male refugees. Norway offers new classes in which sexual norms and related laws are taught to men more accustomed to conservative values. They teach that types of violence perhaps considered honorable in certain spaces are illegal and disrespectful in Norway. Similar classes are being proposed in Denmark. It is, prima facie, preferable to educate in an effort toward integration, as opposed to scapegoating and rejecting. It would be far better still if these anti-rape, respect for women classes were standardized across Europe, offered not just to new and feared brown-skinned arrivals. Men everywhere are in desperate need of such lessons." 
So in other words, making generalizations about brown people is wicked stereotyping; instead, we should treat all men as suspect and educate them about consent – men apparently being moronic monsters who need to be "taught" not to rape. This is just another vexing example of a very common left-wing tactic: shifting blame from a "protected class" onto a "privileged" group. In other words, if non-white men commit crimes, it becomes the fault of "men." If Israeli Jews run an apartheid state, then it's treated not as a Jewish crime, but another extension of white European racism and settler colonialism. Ad Nauseam. Needless to say, we all know how liberal pundits would react if groups of white men went on a sexual assault spree, real or fabricated.



Putting all of this aside though, there is something completely baffling about the subdued reaction of Germans – and white people as a whole. Norway's classes on sexual norms are especially bewildering. Sanity dictates that it's on alien immigrants to respect their host country, which includes its women. If they can't recognize why raping or molesting a country's native women is wrong, then they're either idiots or completely contemptuous of the country that graciously let them in; either way, they don't belong there. Every non-Western country would agree, yet whites haven't gotten the memo.

It's as if white people are so individualistic and bereft of racial consciousness that they cannot summon the anger that normally accompanies such outrages. This white man on The Young Turks, in typical liberal fashion, even defends Arab Muslim culture by pointing to our supposed "rape culture." Don't you see? We're just as bad as them, if not worse! Consequently, imported foreign crime is no worse than our homegrown crime.

Such pathological, deviant beliefs are precisely the reason why I believe the time has come to jettison Western individualism. Yes, I know, individualism has a long and rich history in the Western world. However, context is key. Individualism is all fine and good when a society is homogenous and high-trust. Unfortunately, in diverse societies where every other group but your own practices tribal collectivism, embracing individualism amounts to unilateral disarmament. It goes without saying that individualism puts whites at a competitive disadvantage, as cohesive groups will always prevail over atomized groups – numbers be damned. Among other reasons, such cohesiveness plays a role in the disproportionate wealth and power of the Jewish community. Likewise, I suspect that the reason why many immigrants feel emboldened enough to target native white women is because they subconsciously recognize that whites won't retaliate. Whites simply don't stand up for themselves as a group, and you can't blame anyone else for that.

Now, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying that you should go and lynch non-white men suspected of raping white women. While we can admire the collectivism of the Third World, we must not descend to their level of violence. At the same time, something has to be done. Telling native women to be more careful, acting as apologists for Arab Muslim culture, and – worst of all – continuing to import yet more young men from radically different backgrounds are definitely not what the doctor ordered. On the other hand, draconian immigration laws, swifter deportations, aggressive assimilation, and raising native birthrates are all non-violent ways to reverse the current lunacies plaguing the European continent.

If that means abandoning certain sacrosanct Western values, then so be it. Such are the bizarre times we live in.

More than 808,000 Children of Immigrants Turn 18, Eligible to Vote Each Year

via American Freedom Report

Nearly a million U.S.-born citizen children of immigrants are turning 18 each year and will be eligible to vote, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data issued this month by the Center for Immigration Studies.

In a short assessment of the overall totals of immigrants and their citizen children in the U.S., CIS’s Steven Camarota reports that in 2014 there were 42,235,749 immigrants in the U.S., and 16,773,337 U.S.-born children under the age of 18 had either an immigrant mother or father. This means, combined, there are are 59,009,086 immigrants and their U.S.-born children in the U.S.

The analysis further highlights that each year 808,128 U.S-born children of immigrants turn 18 and, as citizens of the U.S., are eligible to vote.

Immigration activist groups have pointed to the newly voting-eligible U.S. citizen children as a ripe bloc to register and encourage to vote.

Included in that total is 503,718 children of immigrants from Latin America, 66,081 children of immigrants from English-speaking countries, and 42,163 children of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. Additionally about 124,295 of the U.S. citizen children were born to immigrants in poverty.

Earlier this month, for example, the Latino Victory Foundation and the National Partnership for New Americans launched an effort called the New American Democracy Campaign aimed at registering the citizen children of immigrants and encouraging eligible immigrants to naturalize and register to vote.

Friends of Hillary

via The Occidental Observer

Hmmm, I’m noticing a pattern here: Corruption within an ethnic nexus. Of course, it’s not Hillary’s ethny.

Richard Pollock, The Daily Caller: Ethics Complaint Says Big Clinton Donors Got State Dept Access
The non-profit government watchdog group [Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust.] filed the complaint with the Office of Government Ethics, asking it to conduct a “full investigation” into [Hillary] Clinton’s “apparent breach of ethics rules.” A copy of the complaint was exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The organization charged Clinton gave “preferential treatment to individuals with which she had financial ties” and “regularly granted access” to rich donors, celebrities, and even powerful foreign nationals. …
Clinton granted access to such people as billionaire George Soros, philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates, designer Diane von Furstenberg and her husband Barry Diller, retired Citigroup Chairman Sanford Weill, real estate magnate Walter Shorenstein, former Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz and media mogul Haim Saban, according to appendices attached to the complaint.
Clinton met twice as Secretary of State with Soros and appointed his personal candidate as the U.S. Government’s special envoy to Albania during a period of political unrest in that country. Soros has given at least $2 million to super PACs supporting Clinton, according to the Washington Post.
“Georg Soros is anxious to see you before he leaves for Europe next Tuesday,” an aide wrote to Clinton in one of the emails. “Could I fit him in for tomorrow,” the aide asked. “Yes,” Clinton replied.
Melanne Verveer, a top aide who followed Clinton from the White House to the State Department, transmitted to her the views of Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch who married the daughter of former Ukrainian Communist president Leonid Kuchma.
The Clintons met Pinchuk, attending his 2014 annual conference at Livadia Palace, the last Russian czar’s summer retreat on the Black Sea. He has given at least $13 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to The New York Times.
Civic reform groups widely criticized Kuchma’s presidency as riddled with corruption and nepotism. The former communist leader was tainted with allegations by a Ukrainian prosecutor that he was tied to the grisly murder of a prominent anti-government journalist, whose headless and mutilated body was found in 2000.
FACT founder and former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker charged in an interview with TheDCNF that Clinton “allowed insider access and pay-to-play politics” where donors to the Clinton Foundation and to her political campaigns received “regular access” to her office.
“There’s a growing narrative surrounding her in the way in which she does business,” he said. “Essentially if someone wants to have access to her, they need to be a significant donor to her political campaigns or to her philanthropic endeavors.” …
Of course,  Pollock, may be cherry picking, but I can’t find a complete list. Let’s just say Jews are over-represented. It gets worse:

Associated Press report discussed in American Thinker:
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law [Marc Mezvinsky] on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm to meet with her or other State Department officials after one of the firm’s investors asked Chelsea Clinton’s husband for help setting up such contacts, according to the most recently released Clinton emails.
The lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals Inc. came while Clinton — now the leading Democratic presidential candidate — was advocating for an Obama administration push to win Senate approval for a sweeping law of the sea treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.
Clinton ordered a senior State Department official in August 2012 to look into the request. Her action came three months after an investor in the mining firm emailed Marc Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton’s husband and a partner in Eaglevale Partners LP, a New York hedge fund, asking for his help in setting up State Department contacts.
Clinton relayed a copy of the investor’s email to Mezvinsky to Thomas Nides, then a deputy secretary of state and now vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, a major New York financial services firm. “Could you have someone follow up on this request which was forwarded to me?” Clinton asked Nides. He replied: “I’ll get on it.”

FACT complaint, December 14, 2015, alleges that Mezvinsky was acting at the behest of Henry Siklas, an investor in Neptune Minerals, Inc. and an employee of Goldman Sachs. It also notes that Goldman Sachs employees donated to her 2008 presidential campaign and directly to the Clinton Foundation.

Sarah Westwood, Washington Examiner (December 10, 2015):
Siklas said Neptune was a client of Goldman Sachs, an investment bank to which the Clintons have extensive ties. Executives at Goldman Sachs were among the top donors to Clinton’s Senate campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Hillary Clinton and her husband together earned hefty sums by delivering speeches to Goldman Sachs, with the former secretary of state netting $225,000 each for three different speeches to the bank in 2013 alone. …
The maze of permits and licenses required for companies to mine in international waters is difficult for any firm to navigate. With an ally in the State Department, Neptune may have had an easier time securing the rights to mine select stretches of sea floor.
Although the company didn’t exist in the U.S. until 2011, by the end of 2012, it already had multiple licenses to operate in the Pacific.
“Neptune has an exploration license covering the Kermadec arc north of North Island, New Zealand, and either holds or has applied for licenses at several other places in the western Pacific Ocean,” a Dec. 2012 issue of Mining Magazine said. “It has been putting particular emphasis on the Solomon Islands.”
Siklas’ request to Clinton’s son-in-law came seven months before that article indicated his company had successfully obtained licenses. It is unclear when or how Neptune secured permits for its Pacific mining.

Technocratic Mythology Decoded

via Soul of the East

Before there was Back to the Future, the world was treated to an early phase of science fiction embodied in Fabian misanthrope H.G. Wells’ 1895 novella The Time MachineWells’ work is both entertaining and important for the course of modern literature, yet it also calls for an analysis given the prevalence of propaganda functioning at many levels within the novel. Functioning as a popular serial and eventually published, the story has captivated generations as a supposed cautionary tale of the potential dark future of mankind unless we’re willing to heed the new priestly caste’s dictates of reason, science and methodical empirical deduction. The novel also displays an early example of environmentalist themes, preparing the way for the dubious threats of man-made global warming, human disruption of the biosphere, the burning out of the sun and stars, as well as the propagation of Marxist class struggle and eschatological utopianism – succeeded by dystopianism, and all predicated on one catch-all mythos – Darwinism.

With The Time Machine, we’re shown a clear example of what has been elucidated in many of our analyses. The new mythos of scientism and its revolutionary offspring, Darwinism, came to enjoy such prominence through the promotion of its primary source: oligarchic funding and global academic control, courtesy of the Royal Society. Illustrating even more clearly the close relationship between Fabian Socialism and Masonry, Wells himself was a Mason and “crafted” his novels with tell-tale references to the so-called craft. We also witness the close relationship of the leftist-socialist revolutionaries espousing proletarian revolution with their phony counterparts, the faux right with their core revolutionary values of scientism and empiricism, though still maintaining a wholly illogical predilection for property rights and family. Spawning as always from perfidious Albion, Marxism and socialism were connected from the very beginning to Masonry and the London banking houses, despite Wells’ or Bertrand Russell’s masks of anti-monetarism. Liberal republics and their socialist “parties” worldwide are actually controlled by this secretive Orwellian “Inner Party.”

The Time Machine not only demonstrates the paper-thin façade of the socialist and communist project, but it simultaneously reveals, like Huxley’s Brave New World, the suppression of real metaphysics, science and cosmic truths. All the while the elites provide the masses cheap knock-offs of education and culture with the intent of stunting, devolving and undermining the populace for a gradual, incrementalist (the Fabian plan) integration of the continents into a global technocratic age. Hardly anyone could be chosen as a more prominent or notable figure for the preparation and programming of the socialistic technocratic state than H.G. Wells. And as we will see, the present novel undoubtedly encodes many of the same themes and messages as Huxley’s dystopia, yet with other hidden angles.

If you like this analysis, pre-order my book Esoteric Hollywood by clicking this image!
Pre-order by clicking on the image!

Speaking of angles, the first curious reference in the book relates to the notion of higher dimensions. Like the Victorian era novel Flatland by Edwin Abbot that explored similar themes, or Madeleine L’engle’s later A Wrinkle in Time, the idea of the next dimension up being a certain mathematical reality is casually inserted. Wells seems content to slip the notion into the novel at the outset under the guise of a fictional hoodwink. The protagonist, the Time Traveller, engages in a lengthy discussion with other academic and establishment colleagues concerning the reality of the 4th dimension as immaterial and most likely time itself. Glorying in his scientistic approach to all reality, the Time Traveller touts the empirical scientific method as the only path to knowledge while making fools of his unnamed colleagues, the Journalist, the Psychologist, the Medical Man, etc. The anonymous naming signifies the preeminence of the “scientist” for Wells, despite Wells’ own self-satisfaction in his role as fiction propagandist. The Time Traveler’s philosophy of pragmatic empiricism is also compounded with a close associate:

Morlock Sphinx.
The Sphinx of the Morlocks
‘Then there is the future,’ said the Very Young Man. ‘Just think! One might invest all one’s money, leave it to accumulate at interest, and hurry on ahead!’
‘To discover a society,’ said I, ‘erected on a strictly communistic basis.’
Future utopias, he is convinced, will be erected on the basis of pure communism, having cast aside the impediment of symbolic monetary exchange and any preference for personal property. For the materialist, such dreamy philosophies have always been a grail of secular salvation, despite their utterly irrational foundations and completely off-base appraisals of “human nature” and the “human race” (which Wells lauds often). Rather, reality is something even Fabian Wells appears to light upon in his story – that mankind is not fundamentally rational, nor are his social structures, and on top of all that, nor is empirical scientism itself founded upon Pure Reason.

Wells must have had quite a laugh to himself, as he proposed immaterial, invariant dimensions at the start of the novel, and then proceeded to declare the dogma of scientism elsewhere. Indeed, for Wells the rationale is such that because the human body is a machine – he distinctly notes his preference for mechanistic conceptions of man and his universe – then a like machine for the body might be constructed. As the mind traverses the linear progress of beginning to end within time inside its machine, the human body, so might a machine for this machine be made in which man might overcome the dominance of time in his quest for secular apotheosis.

Known fraud, Peking Man presented as scientific truth.
Known fraud: Peking Man presented as scientific truth

Crystals are curiously what power the time machine, though we are not given any mechanics of the device. Crystallography has, as we have detailed in the past, many subtle mysteries and properties that actually do have a connection to higher dimensions, through the example of the quasicrystal and Roger Penrose’s tiling. Penrose tiling exhibits the same geometrical and mathematical matrix structures of quasicrystals, as well as those of the hypercube or tesseract. It is therefore interesting that, in a scientistic fiction novel that also references Platonic Allegory of the Cave motifs, we also have similar ideas to the higher dimensional discussions found in Plato’s Phaedo, as we have previously explained elsewhere.  Like Huxley’s technocratic World Controller, Mustapha Mond, the reality of metaphysics must be suppressed and dead-end empirical materialism promoted.

The next curious feature of the novel is the Sphinx, a great ruin the Time Traveler discovers as he reaches the year 802,701 A.D., a monument now decaying from years of disuse as the utopian civilization that once dawned had now fallen. The Sphinx is Wells’ masonic code for the Craft of Masonry itself, as Albert Pike explained:
“Masonry is the veritable Sphinx, buried to the head in the sands heaped round it by the ages.” (Albert Pike, Book of the Words)
The sphinx is also spoken of as relating to time and space, and in some traditions the creature is associated with the Cherubim, as the wheels of Ezekiel are associated with the governance of the natural forces of the Cosmos. Here, the sphinx and the ancient mysteries have been decoded and surpassed, as Wells’ scientistic hero usurps the previously-accorded divine role to traverse time and space in his divine chariot. No longer is the body limited, but a new body, a new chariot, allows man to bend time and space like the angelic hierarchies and the Chariot of biblical theology.

Having overcome bodily and temporal limitations, man is then subjected to absurd fear-porn from Wells, a scenario where the future is bleak – the Golden Age which had returned was once again lost due to the long evolutionary trek of the human race, now divided between Eloi and Morlock. Blonde and 4 feet tall, the Eloi are surface dwellers who eat only fruit and graze like cattle for the ravenous troglodyte monkey-men cave dwellers, the Morlocks. Promoting the mythology of Paleolithic “cave men” and notorious frauds like Piltdown Man or Peking Man, Wells’ propaganda was quite successful in boosting the Darwinian ethos envisioning imaginary aeons of millions of years, in the course of which humans arise from muck to walk upright. For Wells, the loss of reason and science (embodied in the decayed Green Porcelain Museum) has doomed man once again to the crass ways of primal cannibalism, as Morlocks emerge at night to devour the Eloi.

Wells’ novel also features another highlight of Marxist lore: the alienation of man from nature, the inevitable struggle of social Darwinism and the external threat of the decaying and dying environment. Indeed, quite early in the game Wells was seeding the idea of man as a threat to the biosphere, where uncontrolled population must be curbed through draconian measures to prevent Malthusian disasters.  Despite the glowing praise of materialism, Earth is treated as usual amongst this ilk as a “living being,” for whom mankind is a cancer.  Wells, in fact, warns the entire cosmos is “dying” as his hero’s journey to the end of time results in the burning out of the stellar luminaries and the beginning of evolutionary process resumes anew as prehistoric monsters and creatures emerge from the oceans.

You guys are soooo chill.
Groovy grapes, man!

Cyclical history rears its head once again, all a complete repackaging of ancient mythology under the cover of science! The crucial factor to note here is that we see the real origins of where most gain their assumptions of Darwinian tales – science fiction preparation, not in any empirical observation of amoebas from muck or Peking Man. For Wells, the socialist end goal must annihilate man as man, especially the family. Instead we’re supposed to cheer on the androgyny of alchemical gender bending:
“I felt that this close resemblance of the sexes was after all what one would expect; for the strength of a man and the softness of a woman, the institution of the family, and the differentiation of occupations are mere militant necessities of an age of physical force; where population is balanced and abundant, much childbearing becomes an evil rather than a blessing to the State; where violence comes but rarely and off-spring are secure, there is less necessity—indeed there is no necessity—for an efficient family, and the specialization of the sexes with reference to their children’s needs disappears. We see some beginnings of this even in our own time, and in this future age it was complete. This, I must remind you, was my speculation at the time. Later, I was to appreciate how far it fell short of the reality….
‘But with this change in condition comes inevitably adaptations to the change. What, unless biological science is a mass of errors, is the cause of human intelligence and vigour? Hardship and freedom: conditions under which the active, strong, and subtle survive and the weaker go to the wall; conditions that put a premium upon the loyal alliance of capable men, upon self-restraint, patience, and decision. And the institution of the family, and the emotions that arise therein, the fierce jealousy, the tenderness for offspring, parental self-devotion, all found their justification and support in the imminent dangers of the young. Now, where are these imminent dangers? There is a sentiment arising, and it will grow, against connubial jealousy, against fierce maternity, against passion of all sorts; unnecessary things now, and things that make us uncomfortable, savage survivals, discords in a refined and pleasant life.”
The family and gender, mere social constructs that merge and then submerge back into nature’s blind, meaningless force, are subject to the same deterministic Necessity that Wells upholds, like all other materialistic constructs. Chaos reigns supreme in the evolutionary paradigm and never ceases to cancel out the supposed rationality that it stands upon. There is no reason in a world without telos or purpose, and Wells seems to acknowledge this with his admissions of geometric entities. In a great irony, the Time Traveler escapes his underground captors through the use of matches, symbolizing the Masonic use of reason, as if reason were a god to be summoned by Promethean man. How absurd, then, that the high priests of scientism never delve into the question of what exactly reason is, or how it is attained and functions universally as an invariant principle. None of that matters, only the grand fairy tale of the long march of history and “science” versus the “darkness” and night of superstition, as in Mozart’s
Masonic Magic Flute.

With Wells we’re awash in irony, given that scientism endlessly touts the “freedom” it offers from the self-imposed tutelage of superstition, as its partisans then promote numerous environmental catastrophe warnings never to manifest, from Malthus to global cooling to warming to climate change. Even genetics is trotted out as a fear tactic, with the added bonus of class warfare that is the source of both evolution and devolution. The wealthy end up docile cattle while the retarded Morlocks become sub-human. For the Fabian Socialist, it becomes clear that despite the supposed opposition to Nazi eugenics, it is the Fabians who are overtly behind the policy of covert dysgenics. In fact, one might even detect a hint of this most insidious strategy in The Time Machine, noting the close correlation to Darwin and the completely mythological speculations and the “natural” state of all things dying and returning to an amorphous center:
“I think I have said how much hotter than our own was the weather of this Golden Age. I cannot account for it. It may be that the sun was hotter, or the earth nearer the sun. It is usual to assume that the sun will go on cooling steadily in the future. But people, unfamiliar with such speculations as those of the younger Darwin, forget that the planets must ultimately fall back one by one into the parent body. As these catastrophes occur, the sun will blaze with renewed energy; and it may be that some inner planet had suffered this fate. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the sun was very much hotter than we know it.”
maxresdefault
“We just walked into the wrong dance club.”

As a member of the same elite caste as the Huxleys, Wells reminds us time and again through the strategy of admission by science fantasy what is fact: real metaphysics and science is suppressed, and the masses are fed garbage to keep them in a prison. While not as subpar in prose as most science fiction, and certainly an entertaining story, Wells’ novella was much more than a fantasy tale for pulp publications. The Fabian Socialist strategy was always designed to utilize all means necessary to gradually move the Masonic atheistic-scientistic presuppositions into the realm of confessional dogma, with the masses gleefully exulting in their own enslavement, believing they follow “reason” as they are degraded into irrational beasts. Like Huxley’s 1932 blueprint, Wells’ novel is a propaganda piece that reveals as much as it conceals, including early hints of transhumanism. The Time Machine also functions to pave the way for manufactured environmental crises and bogus cosmologies where man is situated in a purely chaotic universe of infinite flux, doomed to return to nothingness. Such ideas are a wicked pack of lies, as Controller Mustapha Mond explained to John the Savage in Brave New World:
“We don’t want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.”
Science? The Savage frowned. He knew the word. But what it exactly signified he could not say. Shakespeare and the old men of the pueblo had never mentioned science, and from Linda he had only gathered the vaguest hints: science was something you made helicopters with, some thing that caused you to laugh at the Corn Dances, something that prevented you from being wrinkled and losing your teeth. He made a desperate effort to take the Controller’s meaning.
“Yes,” Mustapha Mond was saying, “that’s another item in the cost of stability. It isn’t only art that’s incompatible with happiness; it’s also science. Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled.”
“What?” said Helmholtz, in astonishment. “But we’re always saying that science is everything. It’s a hypnopædic platitude.””Three times a week between thirteen and seventeen,” put in Bernard.”
And all the science propaganda we do at the College …””Yes; but what sort of science?” asked Mustapha Mond sarcastically. “You’ve had no scientific training, so you can’t judge. I was a pretty good physicist in my time. Too good–good enough to realize that all our science is just a cookery book, with an orthodox theory of cooking that nobody’s allowed to question, and a list of recipes that mustn’t be added to except by special permission from the head cook. I’m the head cook now. But I was an inquisitive young scullion once. I started doing a bit of cooking on my own. Unorthodox cooking, illicit cooking. A bit of real science, in fact.” He was silent.

Every Little Helps!

via Western Spring

Following on from Frederick Dixon’s call to boycott Halifax Bank I would like to outline and suggest direct action that will both facilitate this boycott and raise funds for Western Spring and all persons undertaking this strategy. In a similar vein to Small Acts of Rebellion this article –prefaced with the handle “Every Little Helps”– is the first of several such articles proposing small acts of rebellion that we can all initiate.

Here’s how it Works

Nationwide Building Society is offering its customers £100 for every new person the customer recommends to Nationwide and who subsequently switches their present account to them. (Please note that your present account need not be closed and I encourage you to leave it open and dormant to irk your present bank in having to maintain it). If this £100 alone wasn’t impressive, the recommended person who switches their account to Nationwide is also credited with £100. And so, £200 is available for each such transaction. Indeed, “On completion of the switch we will credit your account and the account of the person you recommended with the offer payment by the 20th day of the month following the month in which their switch completes” (see point 7).

So how profitable can this venture be? According to Nationwide’s Q&A, “You can recommend as many friends as you’d like, and they will each receive £100, but we will only pay you a maximum of £1000 in any 12-month period.” Therefore all existing Nationwide customers with the requisite account (see point 3) may recruit ten persons and thus be credited £1000 for their troubles. The ten new Nationwide customers –each receiving £100 for their part in switching– can then do likewise and recommend ten their persons and thus receive their £1000 –so on and so forth. This can be repeated year after year, bringing in considerable financial gain for all parties involved –kinsmen who I hope will follow my example further on in this article.

A short overview of how it works can be found here along with the terms and conditions.

How Do We Do It?

You might not know, from your immediate circle of family and friends, anybody who wants to switch from their present bank to Nationwide. For whatever reason they might be content with whomever they bank with. But if you want to switch your banking to Nationwide –either because presently you’re with Halifax Bank and wish to heed the call to boycott –or you simply wish to get involved in this venture and earn yourself (and hopefully Western Spring) some money– but cannot find someone to recommend you, then please consider the following.

I propose that both interested parties –those already holding the requisite Nationwide account, and those wishing to boycott/leave their present bank and switch to the much-more favourable building society– register their interest with Western Spring who will act as intermediary and facilitator. This will then ensure that neither party –the recommender and the recommended– will be in receipt of each other’s details. Only one person –the facilitator of the transaction– will temporarily be in receipt of said details, after which they will, in the honourable fashion befitting Nationalists, be destroyed. This procedure will allay any concerns surrounding the maintenance of both parties’ private and financial security. On this point it should be noted that the prospective new customers, those seeking to be recommended by a Nationwide customer, need only provide their full name as shown on their current account, their date of birth, and an email address. This is hardly jeopardising information. Alternatively, if you want to undertake this initiative and have friends who hold said Nationwide account, you can contact them directly to facilitate the transaction and simply fill in this form.

For my own part, Western Spring has my details needed for my part in the transaction. If I can recommend ten persons then I will profit by £1000 (£100 per new customer I have recruited). As I said, each person recommended and then switching to Nationwide also receives £100. My intention is donate to Western Spring half of all monies credited to my account by Nationwide. So, if I successfully recommend, say, five people then I shall donate £250 of the £500 credited; if I successfully recommend ten persons then our Cause is £500 better off. I hope too that my example will be followed by those I recommend to Nationwide –either by donating the 50% I have pledged or at least a portion of the £100.

Why Nationwide?

Apart from the obvious financial lure of this initiative there is the prospect of heeding the call to boycott (if presently with Halifax Bank) or exerting retribution for the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the subsequent largesse bailout the banks received that our grandchildren will be paying for. Also, there is a big difference between banks and building societies –with the latter “seen as more trustworthy than their money-grabbing, sales-driven counterparts.

With Nationwide I often see extremely low interest rates (at times much better than their competitors) together with great offers and deals. Online banking with Nationwide is exceptional and all telephone calls are free. Their online communication messaging service is exemplary, with messages answered the next day. Very often fees and charges are waived upon kind protestation (I had last year three £30 charges and £100s in fees rescinded, and I know of at least two other Nationwide members in the Cause who have so benefitted and thus share my considerations). This does not, and will not, happen with banks. Building societies are owned by their membership, not by their stakeholders. To my mind Nationwide is, essentially, the best of a bad bunch.

Also there is the prospect of you becoming a fellow member of the society of Nationwide Building Society. With sufficient numbers of Nationalists as members, this means perhaps we can collectively exert significant pressure and influence as a voting block when opinions are sought prior to the society’s AGMs. For such opinions ought to be expressed: Nationwide –from personal experience; on its website at least– occasionally promotes the phony family of the White woman, her abettor Black man, and the resultant child that looks nothing like either of them. But it should be noted that in Nationwide’s TV adverts –lapped up by cross-legged innocent children sitting before the Idiot Box–such social conditioning is not present. Herein is a big difference.

On a final note we return to Frederick Dixon’s call for a boycott. If you choose to follow my suggestion, switch to Nationwide and earn yourself £100, then after closing the account (or leaving it inactive and tiresome for them to administer, as I have recommended) please contact your respective customer services and state why you have taken your business elsewhere. You might, for instance, give mention of the promotion of miscegenation and the obvious anti-White advertising the bank has employed. Or else, for those wishing to err on the side of caution, you can simply highlight their PC rhetoric.

If enough of us are willing to do this, the venture could multiply and result in exponential financial growth for the Cause and well as profiting the individual. It will of course also deliver a bloody nose to some banks, the majority of which hopefully being the anti-White Halifax Bank and the drug-money-laundering HSBC.

Together we can make a difference –for Every Little Helps.