Mar 25, 2016

The Election: The Rise of White Political Consciousness

via traditionalRIGHT

The 2016 presidential election campaign is about far more than who gets elected. It represents a widespread grass roots rebellion against the political Establishment, similar to those that elected Andrew Jackson and supported William Jennings Bryan. One of its more portentous components is the rise of White political consciousness.

This phenomenon is not restricted to the Republican Party, where, thanks to his defiance of political correctness, Donald Trump is the Whites’ candidate. In the Democratic Party, Whites are supporting Bernie Sanders, while Clinton is dependent on the black and Hispanic vote. Writing of the Democratic Michigan primary, the March 9 New York Times noted that “Mr. Sanders [was] performing well with white voters and Mrs. Clinton [was] the overwhelming favorite of African-Americans” in the primary Sanders won. The day after the Ohio and Florida primaries, the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote that
In Ohio exit polls, Clinton was far ahead among black voters, but she and Sanders were drawing roughly the same support from white voters.
In Florida,
Clinton drew support from about 7 in 10 Hispanic voters and nearly 8 in 10 black voters. She was backed by a slim majority of white voters…
As has been the case with other racial and ethnic voting blocks, White political consciousness is rising in the face of persecution. The Establishment’s ideology of cultural Marxism, commonly called “political correctness” or “multiculturalism”, says that all Whites are inherently evil “oppressors” and “racists”. This is true regardless of what individuals do. Whites are for cultural Marxism what the bourgeoisie and capitalists are for classical economic Marxism: devils who must be expunged from society.

Not only do Whites find themselves everywhere denounced, government now tilts the tables against them in everything from university admissions to employment and promotion. “Affirmative action” is legalized discrimination against Whites (and Asians) in favor of blacks and Third World immigrants. White cops who shoot blacks are now automatically in trouble, while the fact that the back rate of violent crime is twelve times the White rate is never mentioned (to do so would be “racist”). Racist black hatred of Whites is now more widespread than White hatred of blacks, but cultural Marxism says blacks can not be racist. All opprobrium is reserved for Whites, while blacks have PC’s sacred “victim” status.

In response, Whites are beginning to see themselves as a political block, one with interests that need to be protected by voting for candidates who appeal, overtly or covertly, to Whites. Cultural Marxism labels this the ultimate evil. Whites are supposed only to grovel before blacks and Third World immigrants, apologizing for “discrimination” and offering “reparations”. Any White who acts or votes for White interests is “another Hitler”.

Whites are fed up with it. They are eager to vote for someone who defends and represents them.

In a Trump vs. Clinton race for the presidency, Trump’s status as the White candidate and Hillary’s as the black candidate could be decisive. Substantial numbers of voters from other ethnic groups, including Hispanics, may welcome and use an opportunity to vote against blacks.

Trump need not and ought not be explicit about his status as the White candidate. The culturally Marxist Establishment will do that for him, and already is. Establishment PACs are running ads denouncing him for it. He does need to not reject that status, as he did in Ohio by running a television ad featuring blacks. That will not get him the black vote and it will endanger his support among politically conscious Whites.

The only surprise about the rise of White political consciousness is that is was so long coming. Whites have been discriminated against for decades. The cultural Marxists relied on psychological conditioning to keep Whites forever on their knees. In this election cycle, the conditioning is losing its power and Whites are standing up for themselves as Whites. That is a political development of large importance.

Safe Spaces

via West Hunter

Recently a fair number of college students have been complaining that various symbols and words (often false flagged) are making them feel ‘unsafe’. I am reminded of something Jim Chapin said: He felt ‘unsafe’ when a couple of 16-year old Irish kids had him down in the gutter and were trying to kick his ribs in. That’s pretty close to my personal definition, although there were three of them in the case I’m remembering….

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that a lot of our present and future ‘elites’ would develop some valuable perspective from having someone beat the living crap out of them. Certainly worth a try.

Mjolnir III: Up Close and Personal

via Alternative Right

The Alt-Right is largely an internet phenomenon, so it is heartening to see that it is moving beyond that mercurial but evanescent realm, and out into what is still referred to as "the real world," with people meeting, groups being formed, and trees being cut down and turned into books, journals, and magazines, like the latest edition of Mjolnir.

This is Dave Yorkshire’s meta-political cultural venture, which aims to pull together art, poetry, fiction, and more from the broad spectrum of the Alt-Right.

While the first issue of Mjolnir had the usual teething troubles to overcome, it still managed to send out a signal of strength and got the ball rolling. The second issue hit the ground running with a potent theme – "War" – and some excellent fiction. For the third installment, the theme is "Personae," a multifaceted term that can refer to a range of ideas, from the roles and guises we assume for various purposes to the much deeper question of character and identity.

Once again, the magazine is graced by the fluid and allusive poetry of Juleigh Howard-Hobson, this time focused on a number of White nationalist "personae," including Sir Oswald Mosley, Unity Mitford, and Enoch Powell.

Poetry is always strongly represented in Mjolnir, perhaps because the magazine's pagan roots – the name is, of course, a reference to the hammer of Thor – pushes things towards acts of incantation. One suspects that before the greatness of the White race can be fully restored, a good many of us will have to come together in covens and cabals to chant it back to life, which is certainly the intention of my own poem, The Lion's Return, which leaves its paw print in the middle of the magazine.

The main poetry-related item, however, is Yorkshire’s examination of the life and work of Lord Alfred Douglas, a delightfully unexpected choice, as most of us only know of him as the gay sexual partner of the famous wit Oscar Wilde. Yorkshire makes the case that this relationship was merely a youthful aberration or an illness, and one that led him to resent Wilde for taking advantage of him:
"That Douglas saw the failing in himself for what it was is commendable. His subsequent attacks on Wilde must be taken in the context that a man sixteen years his senior had taken advantage of an ill young man barely out of his teens."
After this period of his life, Douglas became a much more respectable citizen, and developed a range of opinions that align quite well with the Alt-Right, in particular becoming a critic of British globalism, which led him to clash with Winston Churchill, who sued him for libel with the result that Douglas ended up in prison, where he used the time writing poetry.

Wilde and Douglas
His view of poetry was defined by the idea that it should be a blending of style and sincerity, one being an Apollonian striving for order and control, the other a wilder and more Dionysian element. Yorkshire’s erudite essay then leads into Douglas's In Excelsis, a work not published for over seventy years on account of its politically incorrect language. In this poem we get a sense of Douglas still fighting a battle with his youthful, errant self, but growing stronger as a consequence:
Perfection's fortress is impregnable,
but her saint-trodden way allures us still.
She bids us cherish what our senses hate,
And entertain where we would fain repel;
And love at last constrains the inconstant will
To make the bitter choice deliberate.
Not only does Lord Alfred Douglas get an essay and a lengthy poem, but the magazine also contains a comical skit, loosely based on Wilde's famous trial, in which Douglas, of course, played a prominent role. This is larded with a fair degree of pantomime humour of the vulgar British variety, as well as camp double entendres of the Kenneth Williams, Graham Norton variety. Why? Mainly for the visceral joy of being politically correct, I guess.

Another "dramatic" contribution that deserves mention is a review of The Return of Odysseus, a play that I reviewed for The Occidental Observer. This is by Michael Walker, a veteran nationalist who, through his magazine The Scorpion, was pivotal in introducing the ideas of the French New Right to an English-Speaking audience. Nick Walsh's review emphasizes the play's intent to work meta-politically, inculcating insights and attitudes without any ostensible intent to convert.

Working in a similar way are the songs of the nationalist French group Les Brigandes. For this issue, Dave Yorkshire travelled to their secret lair in France for an interview. There is a great irony about political music: no matter how political a song's lyrics are, its success is always dependent on it meta-political elements – its music and the poetry of its lyrics.

This is the difference between a "political" song by Bob Dylan and the much more forgettable work of the left-wing singer-songwriter Billy Bragg, who is hardly known these days outside left-wing circles, despite constant attempts to boost his career by the media establishment.

With Les Brigandes, the message is clear, but it is the more nebulous and artistic elements – the music, the mood, the personalities of the singers, etc. – that breathe a mysterious fire into the message. Les Brigandes are masters of this paradox, and Yorkshire's article about going to meet them has the same kind of honesty and openness to experience that one finds in the travelogues of Paul Theroux.

While there is much to read as usual, what makes Mjolnir stand out is its strong visuals. While the magazine is still struggling with certain technical limitations here, its visual feel is gradually becoming more assured and confident.

Alongside one of my own paintings – a surrealist interpretation of Vladimir Lenin painted on an old Risk board – the most impressive art are the nicely photographed low reliefs of the Dutch artist Vig Scholma. These are inspired partly by his time in India and a New Age sensibility and partly by a Nordic sensibility that evokes the art of Arno Breker. Scholma’s work has a calm intensity that perfectly evokes the Nordic spirit. His rendition of a winged warrior, entitled "Furor Teutinicus," with its quiet but potent mood, put me in mind of Rudyard Kipling's poem, The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon:
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
But while Mjolnir is never shy about expressing the justified passions of European man, including his hatred, this publication is dominated by the more positive emotions – humour, love for one's own, and a spiritual yearning to become what we are. For that reason I bid you all to buy it, read it, and support it with your own contributions – if they are good enough.

Why Do Jews Look the Way the Do?

via EGI Notes

I have been seeing some “far-right” sites discussing the issue of Jewish physical appearance, and I remember one site having its members put up a rather extensive gallery of pictures of repulsive Jewish celebrities, which quite literally made me physically nauseous.  These sites usually discuss theories for the stereotypical physical appearance of (Ashkenazi) Jews, often invoking the “inbreeding” argument (see below).  Although I am really not interested in these HBD-style discussions, the trauma inflicted by viewing some of those faces has led me to propose my own ideas on this subject.

Two points.  First, this is not meant as any type of criticism or insult toward Jews.  It is instead a relatively dispassionate discussion of a very real phenomenon.  Most people, including I believe most Jews, understand that this is a group known for brains not beauty.  Of course, there are always exceptions; in biological phenomena, outliers always exist.  The existence of these exceptions by no means invalidates the reality that the typical Ashkenazi Jewish phenotype is very well represented by the likes of Anthony Weiner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Second, this is a hypothesis, not a dogmatic insistence of reality.  Unlike the “movement” and HBD, I do not have The Lathe of Heaven Syndrome, there is no solipsism here.  Therefore, I do not cite data but merely provide ideas that constitute a hypothesis that requires more empirical testing.

I’m not going to bring up “Jewish inbreeding” as a mechanism for their physical defects, for the simple reason that some HBDers (e.g., Cochran) have been making a big song-and-dance about how the whole bottleneck/inbreeding thing for Jews is not true; I haven’t really looked at the data since I am not very interested.  I can make my arguments without invoking inbreeding and will therefore go ahead and do so.

Instead, here I assert that two major mechanisms account for the typically repulsive physical appearance of (Ashkenazi) Jews: their particular ancestral origins in the modern Middle/Near East coupled to admixture, and the lack of subsequent sexual selection for improved (mostly female) appearance.

Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have originated in the modern Middle/Near East in historical times, followed by entry into Europe and a significant initial degree of admixture with native Europeans (the paradigm is Middle Eastern males with European females; the Europeans initially were likely mostly Southern Europeans, with, later, Germanics and Slavs entering the picture as Jews infiltrated to the north and east).  The Middle Eastern origin of Jews is well revealed by the phenotypes of Jews such as Weiner, which betray (the nose! the nose!) the Near Eastern-Semitic-Araboid antecedents.  Many stereotypical Jewish physical traits, particularly facial traits, likely have their origin in this derivation from NEC Middle Eastern population streams.  However, that is not the full story.  After all, despite similarities, there are differences in appearance between Jews and Arabs; furthermore, the distinctive Ashkenazi appearance has more to do with an overall disharmonious, discordant, off-putting “affect” than it does with any grouping of single features (e.g., noses).  Therefore, it is not only the Middle Eastern origin that is the mechanism here, but the subsequent hybridization with European stocks, which led to a discordant mismatch of NEC and European features, a disharmonious combination of features that fit poorly together.  Even further, one can speculate that this combination never stabilized into a harmonious blend because of a lack of sexual selection for physical appearance, which is the subject of the next part of this analysis.

Many (most?) human groups have undergone some degree of sexual selection for physical appearance.  In many (Eurasian) groups, this is most directed at the female, but of course male appearance is also affected through inheritance of maternal traits.  Some HBDers (e.g., Frost) assert that this mechanism was most highly developed in the northern climes of Europe during the hunter-gatherer times (cue “movement” heavy breathing at the mention of hunter-gatherers), and this is likely true.  In any case, sexual selection for appearance occurred throughout Europe and in many areas of Asia as well.  It may well have also occurred in Negro Africa, but there focusing on male appearance (I do not speculate on Amerinds, but possibly they too partook in this mechanism, for which sex predominantly I do not know).

Jews, however, I see as different.  For them, sexual selection was about intelligence, ability, family connections, business or intellectual success.  A physically grotesque Jewess may very well have found eager marriage partners if she was the daughter of a successful businessman, rabbinical scholar, or some other sort of community leader. Thus, she would pair up with an equally grotesque male Jew, from an equally successful family, and they would produce ugly yet intelligent children, with a greater probability of survival than the children (if any were produced) of less intelligent Jews (of whatever physical appearance). Thus, for Jews, there was no “gracilization” of physical appearance that could have attenuated the distortions and unpleasant features derived from their unique ancestral origins. The Weiner and Bader Ginsburg phenotypes were thus perpetuated, along with high verbal intelligence, high ethnocentrism and neurotic intensity, and other stereotypical Jewish traits.


To summarize: The hypothesis is that the stereotypical (Ashkenazi) Jewish appearance is due to their origins rooted in the modern Middle/Near East, coupled to discordant admixture with European stocks, creating phenotypes that never became aesthetically stabilized and gracilized due to a lack of sexual selection for beauty.

Mommy Professor Is a Priest; His “God” Is Time

via BUGS

I remember very well when Communism was the Future.   In the 1950s, the only alternative to a Communist future was a democratic socialist future like the one being imposed on Britain by the Labour Party.

Today the Labour Party spends a lot of time insisting that absolutely nothing it does has anything to do with “Old Labour,” the Labour Party policies that were once Mommy Professor’s Inevitable Future.

Today polls in RUSSIA say that RUSSIANS who did not live under the Soviet Union want it back.

But nobody else does.

Mommy Professor’s kids under Bernie Sanders STILL insist that “the times are on their side.”

And many sincere religious groups insist, as they have for two thousand years, that the Day of Judgment is AT HAND.

As even Jesus said, God will come when HE wishes.  Even Christ did not know the time.

Marxism is a religion.

Instead of “God Wills IT!” they shout, “It is Inevitable.”

They keep insisting that they must be right because “This is 2016,” just as they used to insist “the Labour Party must be great because this 1952.”

Reality is not affected by a Marxist calendar.

It’s time we put those who say they know History in the same category with those who claim to know the hour of the Judgment Day.

Talking with Henrik Palmgren, Hour 2

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Part 1

The second half of my conversation with Henrik, recorded on 21 September 2015. The first half was published in mid October.

In this half, before getting into the invasion and rape of Europe, the rise of Trump, and anti-Nordic hostility, we touched briefly on the discovery of Homo naledi, which was described in a NOVA episode titled Dawn of Humanity.

As I mentioned, The Ugly Nationalist Politics of Human Origins is an example of the legacy of Franz Boas, the jewing of race science, with contemporary Boasian storytellers like Jonathan Marks not only hijacking the objective authority of science to promote a reality-distorting anti-”racist” narrative, but relatively openly describing how and why.
What and who were our ancestors?
It might seem as if the answer to this question is simply a question of biology, but in his new book Tales of the Ex-Apes: How we think about human Evolution anthropologist Jonathan Marks argues that the story we tell about our origins, the study of our evolutionary tree, has cultural roots. Evolution isn’t just a question of biology, he argues, it’s also a question of mythology. Our scientific facts, he says, are the product of bioculture and biopolitics.
The study of who we are and where we came from is inherently political, even as science. Understanding what he means by this is best explained by way of example. Take, say, race. In the U.S. the 19th-century “American school” of physical anthropologists used racial features to hypothesize that there were separate origins for the races. As late as 1962, the evolutionary “fact” that the black race was 200,000 years less evolved than the white race was used to argue in favor of segregation.
Evolutionary biologists often explain the emergence of morality in terms of Darwinian imperatives about survival and breeding.
This is about who gets to partake in, and to tell, the authoritative scientific story of our origins. It’s a lot more than biology.
There is much more to say about the semitically correct migrating/mixing/Out-of-Africa narrative and how it distorts science and morality. A recent, typical demonstration of the effect was provided when Bill Clinton preached his understanding of racial purity and mixing.

Heard around Town

via Gornahoor

Arseny’s soul wanted to touch Ursina’s soul … Get used to separation, said Death, it is painful, even if it is only temporary. Will we recognize each other in eternity? asked Arseny’s soul. That depends in large part on you, said Death: souls often harden during the course of life and then they barely recognize anyone after death.” ~ Eugene Vodolazkin, from Laurus
 

Potter’s Field

The potter’s field was a mournful place… There lay the plague dead, pilgrims, the strangled, unbaptized babies, and suicides; those drowned by waters, taken by battle, murdered, and stricken by fire. Suddenly surprised, those who had fallen from lightning, dead from frost and every sort of wound. The lives of those unfortunates were varied and it was not life that united them: their resemblance to one another consisted of death. It was death without Confession. ~ Eugene Vodolazkin, from Laurus
That was the situation in Russia, some six centuries ago. Potter’s field was an open pit into which the corpses were dropped. Once a year, a priest gave a blessing, the pit was filled in, and another one dug.

If sudden death with benefit of the last sacraments is a curse, then presumably a slow death, preceded by a gradual breakdown of organs, must be a blessing.

A few years ago I was sitting across the desk of a specialist. He looked at my medical history and test results, then looked up at me. He read another page and looked up again. Finally, after he had read the full report, he said to me, “Well, at least you look good!”

Mohammed and Charlemagne

I made Julius Evola’s review of Mohammed and Charlemagne available for its possible relevance today. Henri Pirenne’s thesis has been influential, even today I believe. As Evola points out, it has the defect of explaining everything in terms of material causes: economic activity, trade routes, etc. There are several things to notice in the review.

Pace materialists: Attention must be paid to the difference between necessary and sufficient causes. Even if certain material circumstances apply pressure to social structures, that alone cannot explain everything. Specifically, material forces are the passive elements, leaving out the active elements. Agency must be accounted for and cannot be explained in material terms.

Pace neo-pagans: The Holy Roman Empire was Germanic, true Indo-European civilization. Evola used the word “Aryan”, but that word has changed its meaning since 1939. Rather, we can understand Indo-European in the way used by Georges Dumezil. Today, we often hear of saving “white” or “European” civilization, which is an imprecise way of expressing it. This is what is meant by that:
The Middle Ages took on its own appearance and which, in its great political-social structures, reproduced essentially the distinctive traits of all the [Indo-European] civilizations of Antiquity
So to be precise: there must first be a tradition to save. “Europe” as a geographical designation or “white” as a biological category, are simply forms of materialism and would suffer from the same explanatory defects mentioned by Evola about Pirenne.
That Tradition, as Evola asserts, was the Catholic religion (whatever you may think of its current manifestation). That religion was the bearer of an older tradition. Evola explains:
We find these traditions [i.e., the Germanic] in a state of involution and degeneration in the course of the period that we have called the interregnum, but not at the point of preventing, under certain conditions, a resumption, an awakening, a galvanization. That is exactly what happened, thanks to the tradition already mentioned and to a certain heroic morality, when an historic conjuncture led to the formation of the Holy Roman Empire. Here, the Roman symbol was the common reference of a supernatural order proposed by Christianity, which acted, so to say, as a catalyst on the manifestation and the survival of latent spiritual and racial forces.
There was no mistake, no deception as neo-pagans claimed. To the contrary, they don’t even seem to know what that latent tradition was, in terms of its understanding of the supernatural order, social order, and even a heroic morality.

Pace capitalists: Capitalists and leftists regard Medieval society as regressive and decadent. In the communist historical scheme, capitalism replaced feudalism and communism will replace capitalism. Hence, capitalism is just one stage of the revolutionary mindset.

Evola asserts, on the contrary, that the disdain for mercantilism represents a higher value. Hence, the agrarian and feudal system, centered on the transcendent, represents a higher value.

Pace Evola (perhaps): It is unclear how Evola regarded the influence of the transcendent, or perhaps he regarded it all as the expression of transcendent values. In other words, a genuine Tradition not only has a theory of the supernatural order, it also provides access to that order. The third dimension of history, then, implies divine interference.

Therefore, a Traditional society should be the beneficiary of divine blessings. Hence, the emergence of Europe, from the time of Charlemagne as long as it was Christian prospered. The French revolution, which inaugurated a new worldview was the overthrowing of Christianity. That process was completed with the end of last remnants of the Holy Roman Empire last century. Since then, Europe has been in turmoil, with periods of death and destruction, with what seems to be a lack of the will to live.

This is the result of the re-paganization of Europe, which has failed to catalyze “a resumption, an awakening, a galvanization” of traditional values. That is simply a fact. Pagans will consider this condition to be the will of the gods.

Information, Understanding, and Esoterism

I have guarded in my memory two precious treasures of knowledge which I received from the Messenger of God. One of them I have made public, but if I were to divulge the other, you would cut my throat. ~ Abu Hurayrah

Information is the accumulation of facts, scholarly documentation, and so on. Without understanding, that is, without the ability to grasp the accumulation as a “whole”, there is only effete erudition. It is necessary to learn to think like the angels, who understand a myriad of specific facts because of the understanding of a paucity of higher principles.

Here are some steps to reach understanding:
  • Follow logical consequences of a thesis, even if not explicitly affirmed
  • Put ideas into a larger whole,
  • Bring out the inner meaning of ideas
Frithjof Schuon explains the last step, which may require some thought:
Esoterism refers to the nature of things, hence to intrinsic, and not legal or conventional, values.
These days, one hears a lot about “tradition”, whether such and such idea or some so and so is “traditional”. The first question to ask is: “Can you build a civilization on it?” For example, can you build a society on the basis of a man-made myth of Cthulhu? Some seem to think so.

Putting on a Show

Someone asked me recently about whether Guenon was “putting on a show” with his conversion to Islam. A rather strange question, since who would you be when the show ends? To put on a really big show, you have to go all in and not pretend.

Gangs of Feral Men

Another distortion of Tradition comes from a new movement calling itself neo-reaction. Rather than being formed by years of immersion in the likes of Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, and their many followers and expositors, they read a web site last month.

A recent result is the claim that bands of feral men were the source of civilization, rather than the threat they really are. In the face of all of history, common sense, and higher thinking, he asserts that the family is not the foundation of society. There is no understanding of “organic”, since it is asserted that it is the result of some “male competitive instinct”. Rather, organic is intrinsic and essential; that is, is cannot be the result of something more fundamental, since it is fundamental. A group of random men getting together for a contingent purpose is just the opposite of “organic”.

A foundation of a real civilization is not some pseudo-Nietzschean will to power, but is rather its transcendent source. Thus, according to Evola, the Goths called their kings “divine heroes” and they believed their origin was divine, not instinctual.
The essay assumes some strange update of Rousseau’s Social Contract and asserts that women are the “property of men”. If you decide to read that essay and want to restore your sanity, then you can start with Family values

And for an alternative view of the origins of civilization, try Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

Of course, the thesis that men will naturally arrange themselves in a hierarchy can be easily proved, when the intellectually inferior begin to defer to their intellectual superiors.

Genetics and the Gods

I read one comment about the existence of some deviant behavior. It must have some survival value, the comment asserted. But that is precisely the pagan view: whatever is, must have been willed by the gods.

Obviously that is both bad science and bad theology. Whatever genetic features (assuming even that it is genetic) exists is not necessarily selected for. Rather it could be mutations that have not been eradicated. Deleterious mutations in the genetic code, or “genetic load”, are always arising. Moreover, there may be group selections: a disordered society may select for various psychological disorders.

True Providence is the Realm of Being, of possibilities of manifestation, the world of perfection. That is what God wills. The Realm of Existence, or Becoming, is less certain. Therefore, it requires discernment to determine the will of God in any situation.

Detachment from the World is Attachment to God

I listened to an online sermon with that title.

Detachment from the World is Attachment to God

Thanks to youtube matching, it pulled up a lecture by a yogi with the same title. It was not in English, so I don’t know what was said. I assume the point was the same.

The Last Judgment

He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. ~ from the Athanasian Creed
Before this throne, in my vision, the dead must come, great and little alike; and the books were opened. Another book, too, was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged by their deeds, as the books recorded them. ~ Revelation 20:12
The just shall appear whiter, more beautiful, and more resplendent than the sun. … on the other hand, the bodies of the reprobate shall appear black and hideous, and shall send forth an intolerable stench. ~ St. Alphonsus Liguori, Preparation for Death
According to the saints, the general judgment is the third coming of Christ, not the second that is commonly supposed. At that time, all souls will be exposed: some will be pure, most will be hardened and barely recognizable.

The purpose is to demonstrate the justice of the judgment. The consequences of one’s thoughts, words, and deeds will be fully revealed. In our current condition, we can seldom see them beyond a few people close to us or a few years in the future. However, in the general judgment, we will see how our thoughts, words, and deeds rippled through the world and down through the generations. One bad choice now may be felt for several generations.

Our innermost thoughts will be exposed. Perhaps you lusted after your neighbor’s wife, or worse, his daughter, or even worse, your own step-daughter. Maybe you gossiped about or harshly criticized a friend or relative behind his back; that will all become known. You get the picture. The point is to prepare for it by keeping your soul pure right now.

You say you don’t believe in such superstitions. Does that really make it OK? Do you really mean that you can lust, hate, steal, or bring pain just because no one will ever find out? That is really sad. You would be better off believing the superstition than believing you own denials, lies, and self-deception.

After Brussels: Let’s Try Collective Punishment

via Counter-Currents

Paul Cézanne, Pyramid of Skulls, circa 1901
Dear Western “Leaders,”

It’s time for that talk again. Another round of terror bombings. Again? Already? Dozens more innocent men, women, and children dead and hundreds more maimed. Obama, detached, announcing stricter security measures; our world “leaders” and “national security experts” patiently lecturing us about how we shouldn’t “give in to Islamophobia.”

But we do not want to be more thoroughly screened at airports. We do not want to be coaxed into giving warmer hugs. We don’t want more advice on how not to offend or reminders of how brave it is to go about our day as if this hasn’t happened again so that the terrorists don’t “win.” We don’t even want retaliatory airstrikes in the Middle East. We want you to listen to us for a change.

We have noticed that you have moved into a new phase in your attempts to shape public opinion about these things. Your media aims now to convince us that this is “The New Normal.” Nothing will change, we are told. We are conditioned so as not to expect it to change. We are all African slaves now, thrust under a yoke that, if we want to be good and righteous and go unflogged, we must bear without too much complaining.

Our news helps you lull us into this state of holy victimhood. On the night of the Brussels attacks, NBC nightly news’ Harry Smith sentimentally sermonized to us, accompanied by soft piano arpeggios like the intro to a Coldplay song or an Audi commercial. “Our guard is up again,” He droned, “just like every other time this happened. California. Paris. We hold our loved ones closer and realize this feeling will fade in a few days. But we also know this will happen again.”

But what if we don’t want this to happen again? What if we don’t want this to be the New Normal? What if the loved ones that we are urged to hold closer have been shredded into bloody spaghetti by shrapnel? Your “experts” never seem to offer any other strategy than the one that hasn’t been working. Bomb them there in the Middle East. Invite them here to the west. Kill them there. Be nice and hospitable here. So many of these so-called experts (such as Robert Pape on CNN) promote precisely this strategy. They do so now after the Brussels attack, parroting the same advice they gave after the Paris attacks four months ago. They keep insisting that the meaner we are to Muslims the more we will suffer their terror bombings. So we should embrace them instead. We should let them come into our cities in even greater numbers and build yet more Mosques and maybe impose a bit of Sharia law and surely all this terrorism stuff will eventually go away. Right? After all, the best way to extinguish bad behavior is to reward it.

This doesn’t sound like instructions for how to get along with people. It sounds like a primer on how to keep smiling while your nation is taken from you and your wives and daughters, and even sons, are raped — or, what’s worse (because it is never-ending), are beset with an alien culture in which rape is par for the course.

Not all of us in the west are going to play along with this plan of inaction. There is an instinct to fight back. But before we get there, before we throw open the Gates of Vienna and start shooting, let us try, just this once, a different strategy. Let us consider collective punishment.

What? Is he mad?

Vasily Vereshchagin, The Apotheosis of War, 1871
Vasily Vereshchagin, The Apotheosis of War, 1871

In Defense of Collective Punishment

The consensus in the liberal west, guided by Article 33 of the Geneva Convention and muh feelings, is that collective punishment is a non-starter, ineffective and utterly immoral. But calm your tits for a moment and hear us out.

(A quick, parenthetical aside: why should we be bound to this mere document penned by old, dead, white guys anyway? Come on liberals! If you can argue that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is obsolete, why can’t we argue the same about the Geneva Convention?)

Ok. Let us first note that Article 33 prohibits subjecting groups to “all measures of intimidation or of terrorism.” But isn’t this what the Jihadists are doing to us? So the almighty Geneva Convention is already out the window. Are we supposed to play by the rules while our adversary does not? As Trump would say: “Not gonna happen, folks.”

It is right that we should bring in Trump here, because we think he comes near the right idea on this. He first floated the idea of collective punishment in interviews following the Paris and San Bernadino massacres: “We’re fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.”

For this statement Trump was called the usual bad names — angry, hateful, sadistic — in the mainstream press. But was this proposed policy really the product of such emotions and inclinations? We don’t think collective punishment is meted out from some need to vent uncontrolled rage or depraved sexuality, or from an inability to distinguish the individuals who attacked us from their kinsmen who didn’t.

Though admittedly a so-called necessary evil, collective punishment is a rational, pragmatic response. It serves a purpose.

Collective punishment is an effective means to force a group, in this case Muslims, to more thoroughly police themselves. It incentivizes Muslim leaders and moderates to discourage radicalism and even to rat out suspected Jihadis in their ranks.

The strategy has a long history — because it works.

Anglo-Saxon England had, instead of a police force, a system of Sippenhaft or Frankpledge wherein communities were organized into Tithings, ten adult males who were held collectively responsible for each other’s actions. William the Conqueror used this system to establish order; each Tithing or Hundred (ten Tithings) that failed to produce the murderer of one of his followers were subjected to heavy fines.

This system worked so well that within twenty years, according to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle of 1086, a man could walk across England mid his bosum full goldes ungederad — with his bosom full of gold, unhurt.

This system doesn’t seem particularly inhumane. But this isn’t the same, you might argue, as “taking out their families.”

Well, true. But harsher measures are not at all unprecedented. Treason in ancient China might get you and all your relatives executed. In ancient Rome the system of Decimation, slaughtering every tenth man, helped insure that the cohorts didn’t misbehave or mutiny.

Collective punishments are used to achieve such objectives today in Israel, where suspected Palestinian militants get their houses leveled to the ground by massive, armored bulldozers. This puts pressure on Palestinian leaders, who in turn dissuade the youth in their communities from striking Israelis.

Similarly in the Chechen Republic, the former rebel leader Ramzan Kadyrov imposes some semblance of order on the region by collectively punishing his erstwhile comrades. Suspected Islamic militants can expect their apartments to be demolished — sometimes with them and their families still inside. To avoid such a fate, whole communities have been conditioned to immediately rat out any budding militants. Putin is demonized in the west for installing Kadyrov and endorsing these practices. But the fact that Moscow has been free of Chechen terror in recent years has been largely attributed to them.

Still these methods are a shock to our refined, liberal sensibilities. But should they be so shocking? Isn’t it odd that the same liberals who express horror and outrage at this idea of “taking out their families” have no qualms about collective punishment when it takes the form of retaliatory airstrikes in distant lands, which to us seems a harsher hit on a more arbitrary and potentially messier target. This can be said for Dresden and Hiroshima, for the “Shock and Awe” strikes on Baghdad, and for our penchant in the present for drone-bombing hospitals and wedding parties in remote corners of the Hindu Kush.

Airstrikes and distant military destabilizations in general are preferable to you, though, because they can be whitewashed in the media while still giving us the impression that something is being done, somewhere, about something. But what is really being achieved? Apparently only the creation of more displaced, angry migrants. More victims for us to accommodate. Don’t be racist xenophobes and do open up your hearts and lands and legs to these poor lost souls who, we promise, won’t be terrorists this time.

Considering the alternative, then, which is the status quo of terror strikes and airstrikes in which everyone seems unhappy, let us make this strategic adjustment. We don’t need to go so far as the Chinese or Trump and execute all relatives of a terrorist. But let us call off our airstrikes, call back our military and, instead impose a new Frankpledge on every Muslim community in the West.

Let us offer, for instance, this modest proposal: if we should find that members of a particular mosque have committed an act of terror or a rape, all the members of that mosque will be frog marched into the town square and get put in stocks, there to be flogged with bacon for ten hours. If it happens again, the mosque will be leveled to the ground and all its members will have their thumbs removed with a sharped pig jowl.

Under these conditions, we think it won’t be long before there is peace. A nationalist peace. Muslims will happily go back to their caliphates, their homelands, where bombs are no longer falling, and we will be free to be nice to each other again. More trusting. Doors unlocked. Bags unattended.

Anne Frank Diary Authored by Her Father, Otto Frank

via Solar General

The Diary of Anne Frank was not solely written by the young Jewish girl, but was in fact co-authored by her father, Otto Frank, after the war, the foundation which holds copyright to the book has finally admitted.

According to an article on the personal blog of Peter Winter, Holocaust historian and author of the best-selling The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, the copyright holders to the diary have admitted Otto Frank’s involvement in an attempt to extend their control of the manuscript.

According to Winter:
The Basel, Switzerland, Anne Frank Fonds (Anne Frank Fund)—which controls the copyright to the Diary of Anne Frank—has admitted that the book was in fact at least co-authored by Otto Frank, Anne’s father, after the war.
The admission proves that the book, which is still heavily promoted as a “holocaust memoir,” is in fact largely a postwar fabrication which contained parts of the young Anne’s diary with extensive additions added by her father. 
This is obvious from even a cursory look at the actual diary. See, for example, the image below of two pages from the diary, which shows both Anne’s real youthful handwriting and her father’s obviously adult handwriting—although he signs his entries as “Anne Frank.”
As the New York Times has pointed out, when “Otto Frank first published his daughter’s red-checked diary and notebooks, he wrote a prologue assuring readers that the book mostly contained her words, written while hiding from the Nazis in a secret annex of a factory in Amsterdam.”
Normal copyright on books extends only 70 years after the author’s death. As Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen Belsen in February 1945, the book theoretically entered the public domain in February 2015. 
But, as the New York Times went on to say, the Anne Frank Fonds has now decided to try to extend copyright on the book past the 70 year cut-off period—by admitting that Otto Frank, who died in 1980, was indeed a “co-author” after all.
The implications of this admission are obvious. As the New York Times put it:
While the foundation, the Anne Frank Fonds, in Basel, signaled its intentions a year ago, warnings about the change have provoked a furor as the deadline approaches. Some people opposed to the move have declared that they would defy the foundation and publish portions of her text.
Foundation officials “should think very carefully about the consequences,” said Agnès Tricoire, a lawyer in Paris who specializes in intellectual property rights in France, where critics have been the most vociferous and are organizing a challenge. “If you follow their arguments, it means that they have lied for years about the fact that it was only written by Anne Frank.
Otto Frank

New York Time & Anne Frank

Our Way of Life

via Radix

Our way of life is under attack.” It’s a phrase that lingers in the wake of every terrorist attack in our postmodern West. From 9/11 to yesterday’s attacks in Brussels, those words have weaved in and out of our lives for the past two decades.

But what is “our way of life”?

Defined by our elites, your way of life is but a never-ending celebration of “diversity,” “freedom,” and other buzzwords designed to reinforce belief in their dying faith. In the wake of violence, it is to only hem and haw about “not all Muslims.” In its most extreme cases, it is to resign to admit that “the West had this coming.” All of this is a sign of exhaustion.

The calls to “embrace diversity” in order to assimilate aliens start to sound as hollow as the cheery directions to “go shopping for the economy” did on 9/12. Europe and its descendents are facing a choice. They have not reached The End of History, but merely the closing paragraphs of one of its chapters.

The cries from the official organs are to just “get used to it” and ignore any alternatives. That rag of banal bromides The Economist ran an article with the sub-headline reading “Europe must confront the possibility of such attacks on a regular basis”.

That’s right: Europeans should learn to live with these threats rather than endanger the One World™. There has been more vitriol directed at Donald Trump for accurately predicting the end result of Muslim inflow into Europe than on those that have perpetuated this barbarism. The multi(death)cult that forms Western opinions instead sees this as another cludgel to attack anyone who speaks out in a meaningful way on the state of the West.

The increasing anarcho-tyranny of our daily lives and the vacuity of our “culture” cannot go on forever.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders says:
“The cause of all this bloodshed is Islam. We need to de-Islamize the West. That is the only way to safeguard our lives and protect our freedom”
But the sad fact is, Islam’s rise is the outward sign of our own decadence. We Europeans have lost sight of who we are and have abandonded ourselves to a seemingly endless rotation method of life. Must we confront Islam? Yes, but it is not enough.

The “freedom” Wilders talks about was merely the prelude to the Last Man mentality of today. As Gregory Hood writes:
Our post-society is the rotten fruit of “liberty” and classical liberalism. We are told that once they are free of the dead hand of tradition, individuals can determine their own identity, inherently possess limitless potential to achieve perfection, and create the best kind of society by pursuing enlightened self-interest. Instead, we find technological wonders and vast wealth in our subjugated Europa and her cultural colonies in America, Africa, and Australia, but the denizens of these depraved outposts of supposed civilization can’t even be bothered to sustain themselves.
But there is another way. That way is to fight.

In order to do this, our people must shake off the egalitarian shibboleths from which they have drunk and re-discover their identity. The hour as always grows late, but in the words of T.S. Eliot, “there is no such thing as a lost cause…our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors’ victory.”

All of European history from Homer onwards has driven us to this point. Brussels shouldn’t be another blip. Another color coded warning on today’s “terror threat.” It should be the final shock that awakens our slumbering people.

“Our way of life” is rapidly coming to an end.

It’s time to a build a new one.

Archbishop of Canterbury Endorses BNP's Position on "Immigration"

via BNP News

The Archbishop of Canterbury has publicly announced that it is ‘absolutely outrageous’ to label the BNP anti-Immigration stance 'racist'.

In a public address recently Church of England leader, Justin Welby, announced:

“It is outrageous to describe people who are worried about the impact of migration as racist.”

Furthermore, he declared that the BNP’s anti-Immigration message was ‘genuine and justified’, adding that those who tried to label people ‘racist’ for objecting to Immigration had ‘nasty motives.’

“Of course we welcome the statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury,” explained BNP Chairman Adam Walker.

“Courageous members and supporters of the BNP have been near enough crucified over the years for speaking about against Immigration, now we’ve received complete vindication from the highest level of the Church of England.

“The greatest concern is that we've been saying this for years and it’s taken the other political parties and the Church of England thirty years to catch up with the BNP.”

“Is it going to take them another thirty years to recognise that Islamisation is a threat to the lives and well being of the British people and that Islam is incompatible with the British culture?”

The BNP is campaigning for a ‘National Security Moratorium’ on Immigration – stopping ALL Immigration into Britain until the shambles can be sorted out and those here illegally are deported.

The Atrocities in Brussels

via Counter-Currents

Thanks to the “ragheads” who slaughtered over 30 innocent people in Brussels, I now know why the internet was invented. It was so that multicultural societies wouldn’t fall apart and could subsist.

You know what I mean. Every time this happens – and it’s always the same thing happening – you have the exact identical response, namely people reposting soulful messages about hate not winning or letting off steam with a few comments along the lines of  “How could our leaders be so stupid?”

And then, of course, there are those sheep-like individuals who simply change their Facebook or Twitter filters to reflect the nominal flag of whichever part of the West has been utilized for the latest atrocity, before returning to their kitten-posting.

The internet’s rise coincides quite well with the escalation of multiculturalism in the last 20 years. It’s easy to understand the synergy. What the internet mainly does is create virtual space, virtual communities, and virtual gestures for the actual spaces, communities, and emotions that have been lost to multiculturalism, the same blight that hollows out the social vacuum and thus facilitates terrorism.

When this kind of event happens, you always have the same emotional trajectory – a sense of something happening and of an emotional group response that we momentarily feel might reach to the highest corridors of power and transcend our impotent atomized condition.

This usually lasts all the way to the first nebulous comments from our leaders that this is just a meaningless attack by a “few bad apples” and that we have to double down on our tolerance or “hate will win.” By then our rage, fear, or concern has been largely dissipated and dissolved in the vent of cyberspace.

When this kind of event takes place, you invariably run into the same narratives – the sensible ones and the stupid ones. Two of the most idiotic are:
  1. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists so stop blaming all Muslims
  2. Someone is simply using these incidents to divide us
Yes, of course, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, even though they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists, rapists, welfare parasites, or other societal negatives.

The thinking behind this idea is that, despite these negative behaviors, there are good Muslims who would suffer if we judged them collectively in this manner; and also that judging them in such a manner would increase their tendency towards such behavior.

Whites, of course, can be judged not only collectively but trans-generationally going back hundreds of years. If Muslims might be pushed further into terrorism and child rape by collective judging, isn’t there at least a slight danger of Whites being pushed into Nazism and slave-holding by the same mechanism? But I digress.

The main flaw with this way of thinking is that it ignores the complexity of human individuals and groups, and postulates a simplistic notion of atomized individual creatures who either obey or disobey fixed societal norms. This is a childishly simplistic model of human behavior.

Firstly, it ignores the existence of groups. Supposedly Muslims are only Muslim because they came from Muslim countries. Their identity is simply a designation of origin, and must in no way be seen as determining how they act or interrelate with their own kind or us. To think otherwise, according to this view, is to be racist and to deny them their full potential as individuals in our society.

Secondly, this view ignores the competitive nature of groups – and therefore represents a form of unilateral disarmament by those who subscribe to it.

Given the conditions under which Muslims came to the West, of course, only a tiny minority will resort to radical violence, but how do the rest of the Muslims feel about it? I believe that they have a dual attitude. On the one hand they have no wish to be directly blamed for the actions of others, but they also enjoy the aura of strength and virility that these acts project, and the leverage they gain by being seen as potentially violent and dangerous – something along the lines of “Don’t fuck with us, we’re Muslims.”

Also, many normal Muslims see themselves as the ascendant group in the West, one that is steadily growing in numbers, while viewing Westerners as decadent and declining. But they also occasionally put themselves in our shoes, and think how they would act if the roles were reversed.

Even in our degeneracy they expect some kind of backlash. This might incline some to taqiyyah and keeping their noses down until the numbers favour them, but even such a Muslim has a concept of societal struggle with the indigenous population that must make his attitude to terrorism extremely ambiguous.

“As long as the Kufar remains weak and confused maybe a little terrorism is a good thing,” he may think deep in his heart.

This kind of mindset would certainly explain the surprisingly high support in the Muslim community for suicide bombers, as revealed in polls.

The other trope mentioned above – the notion that someone is committing these acts as a false flag in order to “divide us” – is indeed laughable, not because false flags don’t happen – they do – but because the ancillary supposition of this trope is that we must work hard to overcome these divisions in order to demonstrate to the “evil elites” or secret cabals committing these acts that we cannot be divided by their sinister plans.

This view is simply one part conspiracy theory, one part utopian poppycock. But, of course, you can’t prove that it isn’t a false flag, as such theories are constructed to be unfalsifiable in that any proof to the contrary is claimed to be planted and therefore is merely confirmation of the plot. One is reminded of the Victorian Christian notion that god planted the dinosaur bones merely to test the faith of Darwinists who doubted the Creation.

But if you should run into this opinion, it is relatively easy to deal with. Rather than going along with the notion that we should sing “Kumbaya” with our Muslim brothers, simply point out that nothing plays into the hands of malevolent elites quite as much as an inherently divided society, in which racial and religious divisions can be easily used to set us at each other’s throats. The obvious thing to do in such a case is to dismantle multiculturalism. Brussels is yet more proof of this stronger glowing truth.