May 12, 2015

Despite Miliband's Loss, UK Elections Represent Total Zionist Victory


While Ed Miliband will not become Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister since Benjamin Disraeli, it would be wrong to view the British election results as any kind of defeat for Jewish extremists. Britain’s Jews lined up squarely behind proven sabbath goy David Cameron to continue as prime minister of the UK, which has become a Zionist satellite in very close orbit. Cameron himself may only be one-eighth Jewish, but it was from that Jewish great-grandfather that he derives his inherited wealth, and he no doubt understands the financial clout of the self-chosen people.
Meanwhile, George Galloway, the courageous critic of Israel from the fledgling Respect Party, lost his seat in parliament. Nigel Farage, the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, also failed in his bid to give UKIP a seat in Parliament. Farage has been a campaigner against massive immigration, but he timidly declined to use his considerable soapbox to draw attention to Jewish domination of British politics and media. 

Miliband out as Conservatives win in Britain

(JTA) — Ed Miliband, the first Jewish leader of Britain’s Labour Party, is resigning as British Prime Minister David Cameron definitively won reelection.

Cameron’s Conservative Party had by midday Friday secured 331 of the 650 seats in the British Parliament, media reported. Cameron fell short of a majority in the last parliament and led a coalition with Liberal Democrats.

Miliband out as Conservatives win in BritainThe surprisingly strong showing scuttled Miliband’s ambitions of becoming his country’s first Jewish prime minister.
“I will never give up on fighting for the Britain that I believe in,” he said at his party’s headquarters on Friday, the BBC reported.

Benjamin Disraeli, one of the preeminent 19th-century British prime ministers, was born Jewish and was proud of his heritage, but also was converted to Anglicanism as a child.

Cameron and Miliband had appeared locked in a tight race, pre-election polling suggested. Labour was almost wiped out in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party resurged.

According to polls, British Jews strongly favored Cameron, in part because of Miliband’s relative coolness on Israel and the Labour Party’s shift to the left since the departure of Tony Blair, who led Britain in the 1990s and the first part of the 2000s.
Poor showings by the anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party led its leader, Nigel Farage, to resign on Friday. Also resigning was David Clegg, the leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats.

Also defeated was George Galloway, the leader of the tiny Respect Party known for his strident anti-Israel rhetoric. He was soundly rousted from his seat in Bradford, in northern England by Labour Party candidate Naz Shah, 19,977 votes to Galloway’s 8,557, according to AFP. Galloway last year had declared his district off-limits to Israelis, including tourists.


via Radix

It looks like America isn’t the only place where Blacks have had enough of the police. Israel, of all places, is now seeing a wave of protests and general unrest over the supposed harsh treatment of Ethiopian Jews.

Yes, Ethiopian Jews.

Even though they are granted the privilege of full-citizenship in the Jewish ethnostate thanks to their faith, they still live their lives as second-class citizens. Under the law, they have the same rights and privileges as their Ashkenazi and Sephardic counterparts, yet they are still treated a level of suspicion usually reserved for Arab Muslims. They complain of racism and 43% of Israelis disprove of intermarriage with Ethiopians. Granted, they are still above Muslims in Israel’s social hierarchy, but not by much.

This largely unnoticed problem—at least for the West—is now blowing up due to the furor surrounding the vicious beating of an Ethiopian Israeli soldier at the hands of Israeli police. Ethiopian Jews are demanding social acceptance and the easement of tough policing on their communities. They’re Jews, too—so why should they be treated any differently?

And the answer to that question lies with Israel’s status as an ethnostate. It is not a state based on the Jewish faith, it is a state based on the Jewish people—particularly the Ashkenazi. Ethiopian Jews both look different and have a different history from that of the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim who constitute 98% of Israel’s Jewish population. They also have lower IQs and are more likely to commit crime, which explains why they are poorer and treated more harshly by the police. Sephardic Jews are more capable of fitting into this society due to their somewhat similar appearance and similar culture to Ashkenazi. They also make up the majority of the population, are committed Likud voters, and have high intermarriage rates with Ashkenazim.

What the protests in Israel reveal is a challenge to the nation’s identity and its definition of what it means to be a Jew. To most Israelis, Bar Israeli Jews are not truly Jewish due to their race. As an ethnicity-based faith, it takes more than religious belief to earn Jewish identity. Thus, it is highly probable that Black Jews will find no home in Israel as long as the nation continues to exist as an Ashkenazi/Mizrahi ethnostate. If they do assimilate, that could spell the end of Israel’s identity and open up the possibility for granting citizenship to Arabs and other non-Jews who live in its confines.

In any case, this is a needed reminder for those Americans who like to think of Jews as nothing more than a religious group that that’s not the case.

NOT Beyond Freedom of Speech

via Alternative Right

In his latest "Nameless" Podcast, Andy Nowicki, a proud and unabashed "free speech absolutist" reflects upon the phenomenon of censorship by proxy, whereby those with "unacceptable" opinions or beliefs are commonly hounded by Establishment-engendered lynch mobs, while the demagogues all the while maintain a glib plausible deniability concerning the fact that they're behaving like censorious tyrants. Lastly, Andy considers Richard Spencer's recent take on how "there is always a line to be drawn" when it comes to free speech. Is there a line, really? Andy says no fuckin' way.

Listen here, ye fire-yeller:

A Response to Andrew Anglin’s Meninism

via TradYouth

Boadicea Haranguing the Britons 
-John Opie
>> Women; Can’t Live With Them [Anglin]
Where the White Women At [Parrott]
A Response to Matt Parrott’s Feminism [Anglin]
I generally resist the urge to get the last word in on back-n-forth arguments. Once both sides have clearly laid out their positions, there’s a point of diminishing returns with repeated exchanges which serve only to dwell on more details and inspire more enmity. That being said, Anglin and several others claimed that my original post was unclear, confusing, and even self-contradictory. I’ll attempt to explain my position on the Woman Question a bit more clearly this time around, contrasting it with Anglin’s.

Against Feminism

Anglin accuses me of feminism, a charge which I firmly reject. I believe that men should be raised and expected to leaders and women should be raised and expected to submit to masculine leadership and authority. I believe the husband should be the unchallenged head of his household and family. I believe that God, through his design of the natural world, designed the sexes for a steward/servant dynamic which is intrinsically encoded in our respective natures and extrinsically required to thrive and succeed in His world.
That’s certainly not feminist.

I accused Anglin of “misogyny” and “dishonor” in my original piece, advisedly, as he has contended without retraction that our women are at least as destructive as Organized Jewry. I’m not in the habit of calling those who disagree with me on theory “dishonorable,” least of all Anglin, but to insist that our mothers, wives, and daughters are, as a class, worse than Jews sort of requires it. While the term “misogyny” is overused in today’s society, and it’s typically associated with feminism, feminists, and degenerates, the irrational hatred of women is a thing, and to compare our women to Organized Jewry is that thing. 

Against Meninism

Feminism is a Modern phenomenon, and its antithesis within the overarching paradigm of Modernity–meninism–is also a Modern phenomenon. There are only three valid cardinal identities a Traditionalist should carry, and that’s his family identity, his folkish identity, and his faith identity. In a coherent traditional society, those three dimensions of identity are seamlessly symbiotic, with all of one’s family belonging to one’s folk and sharing the same faith. In our current hellscape, things are fractured and splintered, with mixed and broken “families” whose members each have their own subcultural and transracial identities subscribing to their own customized spiritual remixes.

But neither maleness nor femaleness are valid identities for a healthy individual. I have no loyalty to “men” whatsoever, and women should have no loyalty to fellow “women.” A man can have loyalty to his literal, tribal, or religious “brothers,” and a woman can be loyal to her literal, tribal, or religious “sisters,” but there are no legitimate “men’s interests” or “women’s interests” in the strict metapolitical sense. Men and women are incomplete halves of a singular whole, and our broken gender dynamic must be approached and resolved as a whole system.

Men going their own way and women being sassy and independent should both be shunned and ignored as degenerate and destructive to the pivotal work of resuscitating healthy homes, functional communities, and active churches. A response to feminism is required, to be sure; but it’s not Anglin’s defiant and alienating meninism. There’s certainly virtue and truth in much of the “men going their own way” idea, namely the constructive advice to stop attempting to seek the approval and affection of degenerate women. One should only seek the approval and affection of regenerate ladies, and if there aren’t enough of them to go around then celibate focus on martial and spiritual pursuits would be the ideal. Celibacy’s perhaps too much to ask for many men, and it should be noted that resorting to honest whores for sexual gratification is indeed preferable to courting or marrying degenerate girls.

Against Orientalism

A recurring problem with Radical Traditionalism among Western scholars is that of Orientalism, the construction of false dichotomies between East and West which invariably frame “them” as virtuous and traditional and “us” Westerners as degenerate and modern. There’s some truth, perhaps, in that the East has lagged a bit behind the West in its race to the bottom. Rene Guenon and Andrew Anglin take this too far, essentially condemning us at our root and proposing that we emulate the alien Oriental customs and cultures. He took that to the logical extent and converted to an alien Oriental religion.

Even when Western women are sweet and virtuous, they’re still more ambitious, creative, and object-oriented than Eastern women, for biological reasons. Anglin and others embrace the notion that women are to be more submissive than they’re currently being, then extend that to conclude that they should be as submissive as East Asian and other racially alien women. Our Tradition must be Western and it must be racially White. Within the White tradition, even at our most virtuous and traditional, our women were always a tad more pushy, assertive, and politically active than any other race of women except perhaps for African women for completely natural and organic biological reasons which needn’t be approached as flaws unless they’re taken to excess (as they are in the contemporary Western world).

White women have the highest average aggressiveness of any women aside from African women. White women are more abstraction-oriented than any other race’s women, lending and tending them toward political and social opinions which can and should be afforded avenues and opportunities for expression. Anglin repeatedly dismisses Western women who have strong opinions on identity and tradition and wish to struggle alongside us and support our struggle as supposedly unnatural and abnormal. Perhaps compared to your typical East Asian or Middle Eastern woman, this is indeed the case, but the oldest written accounts from our racial ancestors confirm that our women are simply too assertive and active-minded to be crammed into the Orientalist box which many Radical Traditionalists would wish to cram them into.

White women are a bit sassy, and that’s okay. They always have been and always will be. It’s part and parcel of the strength and boldness of our race, and should be celebrated when it’s properly channeled. Even when they’re being authentically sweet, submissive, and traditional, they have a relatively aggressive and assertive way of going about it, compared to the comparatively anemic and timid natures of East Asian, East Indian, and Middle Eastern women. I’ve seen a White Nationalist girl lead the charge in a bar fight against the Reds. I’ve seen them stand their ground as men twice their size scramble to hide their faces and scurry away.

I’ve seen incredible boldness and courage on behalf of our struggle from white girls with my own eyes, and it’s a beautiful thing. It’s not a defect or a problem, as Anglin suggests. The dimorphic nature of gender differences ensures that white men resorting to Asian women to achieve the desired timidity will have sons who are lacking in the abstraction-orientation, creativity, and alpha disposition which propels so much of what we cherish about our racial identity and its collective achievements.

I’m not implying that white women should be encouraged or even allowed in military orders or combat roles. I entirely get the point of fraternity and embrace and support the cultivation of both implicitly and explicitly male spaces. Males should be encouraged to be more aggressive and females should be encouraged to be more sweet. But we are not only traditionalists but also biological realists, and ought to work with rather than against the natural, normal, and healthy diversity of personality types and dispositions our race presents.

Against Dehumanization

One error frequently encountered when grappling with human biodiversity is the temptation to grasp at solid evidence of significant differences to dehumanize the other. Blacks are genetically more aggressive than Whites, but that doesn’t make them less human. With the right leadership and structure, they’ve proven themselves capable of thriving and functional communities. Even then, they’re not communities you or I would be comfortable or even welcome in, of course. But that’s beside the point. Are we less human than Asians because we tend to be more aggressive than them? I certainly don’t believe so.

I don’t even believe that the confirmed variations in intelligence imply superiority or inferiority. Following from the premise that mere intelligence makes one more human, then Ashkenazi Jews are the most human of all. In which case, I would like to trade in my humanity card.

Regarding gender, Anglin has collected a bundle of truths about how women are more emotionally-oriented, more inclined toward social harmony than social conflict, and more inclined to reflect rather than project ideals to conclude that women can and should basically be disregarded politically as essentially beneath political thinking altogether. Anglin’s habit of distilling things down into black-and-white terms and contempt for exceptions and variations makes for great agitprop and is indeed helpful when pushing back against Jewish propaganda. The Jews are indeed our racial and political enemies, and dehumanization and the development of stark contrasts is a time-honored and necessary component of warfare (and this is all fourth-generation warfare). To afford the Jew an opportunity to quibble about details or name exceptions is strategically foolish and Anglin’s approach is superior to the more “thoughtful,” “nuanced,” and “academic” approaches of other opponents of Organized Jewry.

But our women are not valid targets of propaganda warfare, and this dehumanizing and starkly black-and-white approach to discussing and working through gender issues is self-destructive to our familial, racial, and spiritual welfare. Feminism can and should be fought, and the women who are promoting feminism can and should be attacked and isolated as vigorously as any other opponents. What I’m arguing for is essentially a reformed “white knight” position which is specifically limited to our racially-conscious and traditionally-oriented women. The women who file in behind us and look to us for leadership and support should receive precisely that, leadership and support. They shouldn’t receive derision, disrespect, or indifference.

Electing for Occupation

via YouTube

Podcast no. 51 from White Independent Nation

UK Election 2015

via The Occidental Observer

Now that the smoke has cleared somewhat after Britain’s election there is one result that should be absorbed by anyone who cares about the future of the West. The Labour MP for Rotherham, a woman who presided over a vast child rape epidemic and noticed nothing, was re-elected with a substantially increased majority.

After months of lurid media coverage, after the exposure of the local Labour establishment, the resignation of the entire Labour council, the sacking of Labour-appointed culpable officials,  when no-one in the entire local Labour establishment could pretend they did not know what was going on, Sarah Champion was still able to pull in nearly twice as much as her closest rival, a UKIP candidate.

This is a woman who consorts with Muslim politicians who still deny the child rape epidemic. Her only response  was to say that White men are the main culprits nationwide.

For those who say that the only thing between us and a White awakening is a free media, it is a fact worth pondering over for a moment.

But we also need to bear in mind the precariousness of White working class life in northern towns like Rotherham where White communities have been devastated by unemployment, blighted by single-parent households are the most demoralising places you could imagine. There is none of the ethnic cohesion and family life you see in Muslim areas.

Most White people live a “pay as you go” life where you earn money to pay the next week’s rent and that is it. These communities are run on welfare-ism by an overseer class of public sector bureaucrats who have as physically little to do with their clients as possible.

It is this overseer class that the Labour Party now serves. A devastating article on the death of the Labour Party and how it now belongs to chancers like Sarah Champion, appears in Spiked-online by Brendan O’Neill.

A website comment mentions some truths that are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media coverage:
But surely what this vote might also indicate is that Labour is also now largely propped up by the votes of ethnic minorities from the Commonwealth and more recent arrivals from Africa and Eastern Europe. In fact couldn’t it be said that Labour is now, not just the party of the middle class liberal left, but also, working class ethnic minorities. Hence it’s strong support in London and parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Those results couldn’t have been achieved purely on the backs of media luvvies, teachers and social workers. Odd that you don’t raise that possibility. It ties in with my own suspicion that Labour has come to represent ethnic minorities through its close ties to Multiculturalism, while quietly abandoning its old core voters among the indigenous English working class.
For the Jewish community it was, of course, win-win, whatever happened.  Two of Labour’s victories were hailed as good news by Israel supporters in the other parties! Both defeated MPs were in the largely Muslim city of Bradford in Yorkshire and both were defiantly anti-Zionist.

One was George Galloway, a veteran Marxist and longstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause. He has never held back from his opinions about Israel. He seems to hate Israel almost as much as he hates White self-determination.

The second is David Ward, a Liberal Democrat MP, who has long been an indefatigable thorn in the side the Jewish community in the UK for his vocal condemnation of Israel’s actions.  The silencing of these two anti-Israel voices has brought a lot of satisfaction to the Jewish community.

So what is the Jewish attitude towards UKIP? Distinctly hostile is the answer. A Jewish Chronicle survey said that only 2 per cent planned to vote for them and this article in Haaretz seems to confirm why.

There was a UKIP Friends of Israel and even baffling Jewish candidates like Jack Shamash who seems to have spent most of his life in Israel, and is frank that it is Islam that is his pre-occupation. In the MEP elections in February, there was even an orthodox Jewish UKIP candidate in Manchester who refused to shake hands with women!  Far more importantly there was also a donation of £1 million from Richard Desmond, the publisher of the Daily Express. This may be the reason why the contours of free speech are just as sharply defined with UKIP as with every other party.

This was discovered by another UKIP candidate Jack Sen the hard way. He  gave an uncompromising interview in which he revealed his own feelings about international financial power.

It was all coded but no matter. No sooner had his words been published than young Jack found himself unceremoniously sacked as an official UKIP candidate to his utter bewilderment. (He still stood and got more than 6000 votes in West Lancashire, matching UKIP’s average vote nationally.)

Reading his interview, it is clear that if he had known the meaning of “controlled opposition” then he would have known exactly how far he can go.

Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs were members of Conservative Friends of Israel before the election and it looks as if the percentage of the new intake might be even higher. There are shoals of them.

Typical is Lucy Allan, the new MP for Telford — she visited Israel in November 2013 at a cost to CFI of £2,000. Candidates Christopher Green, Bolton West and Royston Smith, both now MPs, were also on this all-expenses-paid trip. Strangely though, no details of any of this are on their political websites.

Hampstead and Kilburn was narrowly won by a Labour Muslim female called Tulip Siddiq, but being chosen as Conservative candidate for this seat was an appropriate reward for Jewish candidate Simon Marcus, who was also on that CFI trip. At the last election Simon Marcus had stood as a Conservative candidate in Barking and Dagenham which had become a BNP stronghold with a dozen councillors elected. Despite being a Conservative, Marcus worked closely with another Jewish candidate, Labour’s Margaret Hodge, to defeat the BNP. Having already won 12 council seats in Barking and Dagenham, the BNP had high hopes for Nick Griffin standing there. But together with a huge effort from central government, trade unions, widespread street intimidation and voter fraud, they managed to marginalize the largest working class White nationalist vote that London had ever seen.  Again there is not a word of any of this on his political website this time around but he has boasted about this to his own people. It is some consolation that Mr. Marcus lost to Labour’s Tulip Siddiq in Thursday’s election.

Despite the loss of Nigel Farage and a daily media cannonade of slime and bureaucratic intereference, UKIP have now crept into position as Britain’s third biggest party with 13% of the popular vote. Given that the previous third biggest party — the Lib Dems — were part of the last coalition government, that is a real achievement.

The strategy of making gains at 2020 now looks very viable. In most, formerly solid Labour, northern towns they are comfortably established as Labour’s main rival. If Labour’s support on the White working class continues to disintegrate then it will be UKIP which benefit.

The only problem is that Britain’s first past the post system means that can never translate into more than two or three seats until they get more than 20%. The main reason for this system is that it excludes “extremist” parties. So it means five more years of mass immigration. And five more years to gerrymander the next election.

'Antiquated Views:' The Confederacy and Progressive Triumphalism

via Theden

Before I get into the meat of this post, permit me a brief detour.

Sometimes when I read articles that are particularly irritating to me, I dig around a little bit for the author’s bio, mostly to check and see if it matches up to my preconceived notions of who the enemy is. I did that after I read this article, and Mr. Beutler doesn’t disappoint: educated at Berkeley, led coverage of various reforms, worked at Salon, et cetera, et cetera. One thing jumps out though: in July, 2008, he’d been shot in a—I’m sure—“botched robbery attempt” by two black thugs in Washington, DC. He later wrote an article about the incident, in which he mostly brags about how it didn’t make him racist and you shouldn’t be either. Standard fare. I’d like to highlight part of his post-shooting account, however:

They loaded me into the back of the ambulance, snipped off my clothes, and did their level best to ignore my impolite demands for pain medicine.
“What’s your Social Security number?” I gave it to them. “Can I have some drugs?”
“What’s your dad’s cellphone number?”
“If I give it to you will you give me some drugs?”
I knew it was a lie, and I was angry.

He goes on to, in a word, embarrass himself further in the hospital, enter a several month-long period of pathetic self-pity, and then courageously overcome the trauma (and the internal urges towards racism) to return to health and happiness. What a hero!

Allow me to contrast that account of trauma with another: that of General Albert Sidney Johnston, of the late Confederate States of America, a man whom Mr. Beutler views as a traitor not even “worthy of politeness.”

At about 2:30 p.m., while leading one of those charges against a Union camp near the “Peach Orchard”, [Johnston] was wounded, taking a bullet behind his right knee. He apparently did not think the wound was serious at the time, or even possibly did not feel it, and so he sent his personal physician away to attend to some wounded captured Union soldiers instead… The bullet had in fact clipped a part of his popliteal artery and his boot was filling up with blood. Within a few minutes, Johnston was observed by his staff to be nearly fainting… Seeing Johnston slumping in his saddle and his face turning deathly pale, Harris asked: “General, are you wounded?” Johnston glanced down at his leg wound, then faced Harris and replied in a weak voice his last words: “Yes… and I fear seriously.” Harris and other staff officers… desperately tried to aid the general by trying to make a tourniquet for his leg wound, but little could be done by this point since he had already lost so much blood. He soon lost consciousness and bled to death a few minutes later.

Johnston, at the time of his death, was 59 years old, probably at least twice the age of the young and virile Mr. Beutler at the time of his unfortunate incident.

You might think holding these two isolated incidents up for contrast is a mite unfair, and you’d be right. But I believe both men are fairly typical of the societies which produced them and that this is illustrative of a greater truth. The bottom rail—the weak, the foolish, the pathetic—is now on top, and, like a preteen boy victorious in an online shooter, cannot help but get in some undignified gloating. So we have Mr. Beutler advocating for nothing less than the eradication of the last vestiges of an entire civilization. A civilization which, had it succeeded in its mighty struggle, in all likelihood would have prevented him from getting shot in the first place, and, perhaps less likely, could have molded him into something of a man.

Of course, this view is lost on the young Mr. Beutler. He disregards, or perhaps it has never occurred to him, that the soldiers of the late Confederacy, men like General Johnston, fought, bled, killed, and died for their descendents, men exactly like him. Even if they were misguided, that deserves a bit more than an effort to cleanse them from history in my book. Mr. Beutler clearly disagrees. He says, “We aren’t being polite to anyone worthy of politeness, or advancing any noble end, by continuing to honor traitors in this way.”

I don’t doubt what he would have to say on the matter: they fought for no one but themselves, so that they could keep the boot on the necks of their black slaves, that they were the very personification of evil. And so, he has declared his own sort of war on their ghosts. He wages his war from behind a computer on men who cannot defend themselves and whose few supporters are scattered and powerless, with the entire weight of the modern world—indeed, history itself, to hear him tell it—behind him. Why does he do this?

For the paycheck, in all likelihood. But surely, his pay isn’t significantly supplemented by these types of articles. The idea to destroy all remembrances of the late secessionists isn’t exactly novel—it’s been proceeding apace for decades, after all. It is not solely for the pay. He also doesn’t seem to suspect any resurrection of the Confederacy any time soon. No, it is the symbol which Mr. Beutler wishes to eradicate. The Confederacy is anti-progressivism to the core. It may be a ghost now, but it retains some power in the minds of its enemies if nowhere else. They cannot rest while it still lurks in the background, waiting and watching, a figure in their fevered imaginations like Sauron or Emperor Palpatine. The attacks didn’t cease in 1865; they continue today, and must continue perpetually. Such is Leftism. It is not enough to simply defeat your enemies. You must exterminate them, first from the physical world, then the mental and spiritual.

Mr. Beutler bemoans the fact that the Federal Government cannot simply legislate this destruction at a stroke, so he proposes an alternate solution: to celebrate General Lee’s surrender. The ghost of the Confederacy, if it will not dissipate of its own will, can perhaps be assuaged by dancing on its grave. At the very least, some laughs can be had.

Do not fear, dear Southerner. Mr. Beutler has just you in mind when he makes these proposals. He understands us, you see; understands that we are a benighted and befouled race, staggering under the mental strain of so much vileness in our history, in our monuments, in our souls. He has come to help us, to show us the way. In this follow-up article, he tells that it is all really quite simple: “From such a great distance, it shouldn’t be difficult—for those inclined—to stop internalizing attacks on the confederacy of the 1860s as attacks on the South today.”

There we have it, dear friends. All we need to do is forget. Forget, and we might enter the gated city of Progressivism. Cut our ties with the past, become rootless deracinated robots like Mr. Beutler and company. This is how we can become Enlightened—all we need to do is stop Being. Cut those bonds to kith and kin. If we are good, we might be allowed to keep our funny accents and good food (well, sans Paula Deen). Retaining more than that is to continue stewing in this cauldron of ignorance, stupidity, and hate; and frankly, if we do that we are just asking for more stringent measures to be taken.

We cannot stop there, of course. After we have severed our past, we must sever also our future. We must emancipate our wives; for are they not oppressed? Then our children; who are we to lord over them? Sever ourselves from our God; for didn’t our malignant ancestors pray to Him? Sever all ties everywhere, for what is a tie other than a restriction? Freedom is the word; we must be free. Free to love, free to purchase, free to vote, free to despair.

The Confederacy and the society for which it fought remains alive and well as a symbol of axiomatic anti-Progressivism. It represents an alternative worldview; one in which community exists, where men conduct themselves like men and women like women, where the past and the future are not forsaken but held close. The Confederacy is dead, and the Old South with it; but the principles for which those men fought and died are eternal, and can never be fully excised. They will ebb and flow, but they will never be doomed as Mr. Beutler and his ilk are doomed. They are, in the end, powerless. Powerless to stop being victimized, to stop whining for drugs, to rise above the pathetic lives which they’ve embraced. Let us remember General Johnston and look to him as an example, though they may rip his monuments down and tear the very flags from his grave.

Aiming Higher Than Mere Civilization

via Counter-Currents

Emericus Durden
Aiming Higher Than Mere Civilization: How Skeptical Nihilism Will Remind Humanity Of Its Long Forgotten Purpose (Emericus Durden Philosophy Series Book 1)
Radical Academic Press, 2014

“I don’t want to be a product of my environment. I want my environment to be a product of me.” — “Frank Costello,” The Departed 

“Everything you know is wrong.” — Firesign Theatre[1]

Who is Emericus Durden?

At first, literally the first few minutes at most, I automatically assumed it must be a pseudonym, referencing Fight Club’s Tyler Durden. This was reinforced by the photo purporting to be the “author,” whose style (surely deliberately, as he purports to be a photographer as well) rather resembles the avatar used by “Tyler Durden,” the moderator of the financial blog ZeroHedge.

Being a natural born cheapskate, the best part of the kindle revolution is the plethora of books cheaper than hard copies would be, even if available at all, and liable to sudden, unexplained drops to $0.99 or even less; a plethora so multitudinous that I subscribe to an email alert service to notify me of sudden price reductions.

So when a kindle entitled Aiming Higher Than Mere Civilization: How Skeptical Nihilism Will Remind Humanity Of Its Long Forgotten Purpose, by one bearing the name Emericus Durden, and costing zero, zip, nada, appeared on my update, I could not stand to live another minute before downloading and examining it.
According to his Amazon page:

Mr. Durden strives to create works that are intellectually challenging, perhaps even disturbing, though always exciting, suspenseful, and entertaining. In his writings, Mr. Durden has focused on a wide variety of topics, ranging from the sublime — philosophy and spirituality (e.g., “Aiming Higher Than Civilization”) to the much more hellish — murder and brainwashing (e.g., “Two Heads Equal Two Hands” and “Great & Mighty Things”).

Since a lot of this alt-Right literature I’ve been looking at recently indeed seems to gravitate around the hellish,[2] I was glad to take a break from all the vampires and losers and attend to something more sublime.

The book certainly tries to rise above the usual hipster nihilism of today:

The book represents an attempt by Emericus Durden to sum up, codify, and present in clear language a practical method of allowing each and every human being to rise above their own humanity, surpass the norms of civilization, and become a higher being.


The goal of this book is to wake people up — to awaken them from the sleep of their most cherished beliefs and allow them to become the sole authorities over their own lives.

Waking someone requires disturbing them, and of course “no one likes to be disturbed, and therefore everyone resists being awakened”; in addition, “they believe they, and only they, are right about themselves.” [Durden’s italics].

Perhaps as an enticement, Durden adds that not only will grasping this point benefit the reader “far more than you can imagine,” but if that reader continues on, completing not only the book but practicing the exercises provided, the reader will be transformed into “something else beyond humanity.”[3]

You might think that sort of thing would be attractive, but you would be wrong. To become something beyond humanity is terrifying to almost everyone, since it contradicts everything we have been taught, seemingly “destroy[ing] all human knowledge and truth.”

First, awakening implies that there exists a higher realm, independent of human beings or indeed of any biological organism, immaterial, beyond the reach of scientific research, instruments, or devices. But the rejection, or more precisely, the relativization, of the god Science is anathema (think of the squawking of Dawkins, Hawking, and other intellectual scolds).


Secondly, there is the implication that you can gain access to that immaterial realm, become a higher being yourself, and that of course runs afoul of our so-called “Judeo-Christian heritage.”

And finally, transforming yourself into this Higher Thing implies that

You can create whatever world or reality you exist in, based on your inner vision, imaginations, and the focused intentions underlying belies you choose.

And that, as the reader may have already exclaimed, contradicts plain old common sense.

So far, we are on solidly Traditionalist ground: the refusal to restrict knowledge to that which is revealed by the scientist’s gauges, the corresponding appeal to a kind of higher empiricism that rejects religious “faith” in favor of “work on self” with the aim of attaining higher states of being, and the world-creating powers of that higher being, the Realized Man or Chakrravartin at the Center of the Garden or the axis of the World Tree, are well documented in the works of Guénon and Evola.[4]

Speaking of Evola, Durden also deals with the pesky accusation of elitism in an especially Evolian tone of voice:

Democracy and democratic ideals are second only to scientific progress as my favorite “punching bag” of skeptical nihilism.

Once awakened however, we become part of a “higher” order. So let’s be honest here — the awakened ones form a kind of aristocracy in the sense they have a superior (“higher,” “transcendent”) perspective on humanity compared with the sleepers.

Indeed, Evola’s defense of the Traditional notion of an Elite is based almost entirely on it comprising the members of a spiritual Order whose Authority is legitimized by their access to transcendental realms, vouchsafed to them by their ascetic practices;[5] while, conversely, the justification of a Traditional society is its ability to produce and sustain such Orders (rather than, say, the good of the greatest number, progress, la gloire, Lebensraum, and other paltry materialistic aims).

Indeed, Durden then goes full Kali Yuga on us:

A fourth implication of the idea is that centuries of so-called “progress” have, in fact, been quite the opposite, a steady retrogression and reduction in our creative abilities. Rather than a belief we are the active creators of the world we exist in, we have, in the name of progress, chosen a belief . . . that we are reactive participants in a universe govern by impersonal, random physical forces. [Durden’s italics]

Durden wants us, the sleepers, to wake up, by realizing that, contrary to what we’ve been told our lives long, our much vaunted “knowledge base” is actually “a field of persuasion and disposable beliefs, leaving us without a foundation of truth.”

Although he immediately brings up Nietzsche, I find his language here extremely reminiscent of the Grand Old Man of that boring old school of analytic philosophy, Willard Van Orman Quine, who famously dismissed the whole idea of our knowledge having “foundations” composed of empirical “data” uncontaminated by the theories to be proved by them, or of “logically true” propositions that no one could doubt; instead, there was a “web of belief” in which any proposition, however “central,” could be rejected if one were willing to make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere.[6]

Quine, I understand from those unfortunate enough to have been his teaching assistants, was not one to suffer fools gladly, and I can only imagine the distain he would greeted any darwinomaniac, student or the Oxford “Professor of the Public Understanding of Science,” who suggested that the acceptance of a mere biological theory like natural selection was the criterion of rationality, to say nothing of the stern warning that an increase of .000128 ppm in atmospheric CO2 will bring about global disaster.

To get back to the “method of skeptical nihilism,” it basically consists in itemizing all our beliefs (especially the “core” beliefs such as “there is no higher realm of being” or “only science produces knowledge,” etc.), then locating their origins in “a particular place and time, unavoidably limited by history and locale,” and then concluding that they are “necessarily lacking in any universal qualities.” And then reminding oneself that such half-assed beliefs are “not any more deserving of your respect and admiration than any other.” Repeat as necessary until you recognize “your total detachment from beliefs and habits” as manifested in “a state of awareness devoid of fear, hope, and desire.”

This sort of “genetic” skepticism is often associated with Nietzsche,[7] but although Durden mentions Plato and Descartes as forerunners of his method, it really seems to originate with the Greek Skeptics, such as Sextus Empiricus.[8] Hence, therefore, “skeptical nihilism.”

Rather than getting into this millennia-long discussion, readers are encouraged to try what Durden rather grandiosely calls his “exercises” for themselves; their mileage may vary from his or mine. What’s more interesting is his next move.

Durden immediately sets himself apart from “all those brilliant thinkers . . . from Descartes through Hume to Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and the postmodern philosophers” by pointing out that nihilism is “very useful if you know what to do with it and how to act on it.”

Here again, we find Durden sounding like Evola, who lauded Nietzsche for his very useful destruction of bourgeois complacency, while mourning his lack of access to the transcendental dimension that would have given his whole project a telos in the beyond, and prevented his tragic destiny.[9] Thus “nihilism” is not really the right word for this, although it does still have a sexy ring in some quarters. We might call this “completed nihilism” or “integral nihilism,” as per Evola.

“Cologero” makes a similar point in this context:

Nietzsche needs to be adapted to Tradition, not the reverse. This is what Evola tries to do. . . . In the Traditional view, the world, too, is absurd, since it is the result of an illusion or a fall. The task, therefore, is self-transcendence, to overcome the world. Yet, Nietzsche’s naturalism does not recognize any such transcendence; hence, the world can only be overcome by more power. Unfortunately, that is a Sisyphean task and can only lead to insanity. . . .

Evola rejects the “revolution of nothing” and claims that Nietzsche is merely using rhetorical techniques to appear shocking or sensational. His real target, in Evola’s view, is really “petty morality” and “herd morality,” in order to make room for the higher morality of the superman. It should not be necessary to point out, however, that many Nietzscheans today simply stop at the point of idol smashing and immoralism, i.e., those who cannot recognize any higher principle within themselves. I suppose this is the “danger” that Evola refers to.[10]

Durden is clearly on Evola’s side here, proposing that “what we will do with nihilism here . . . is use it as a tool to transform ourselves” [Durden’s italics]. When our all our beliefs — all — are firmly out of play, we will become aware of ourselves as being really, always already, an immaterial, timeless center of pure awareness.

And just as nihilism is incomplete without that transformation, so the transformed being, as Plato recognized, is incomplete without his return to the social realm, which can now be reconstructed in an optimal manner, based on a new set of “core beliefs” free of the restrictions of scientism, faith, and “common sense.”[11]

It’s useful, I think, to dwell a bit on some aspects of his portrait — apparently from personal experience — of the Higher Being and its lifestyle.

One odd point is his going to the trouble of pointing out that there are
no indications that [his] awakening caused the human organism to vanish or become modified in some unpredictable way . . . it does not affect the general appearance or functioning of the human organism.

“Functioning” might address the rather mundane concern about physical well-being, rather like those New Age books that have a preface about not being a substitute for medical advice, etc. [12]

Otherwise, it seems to be directed at Guénon’s idea that the Realized Man, having transcended the conditions of space and time, would essentially resolve into a point and then just disappear, like a three-dimensional creature in Flatland.[13] If Guénon is right, it would appear that Durden has not achieved the ultimate level of transcendence.

What he purports to have achieved, however, seems consistent with the best accounts of so-called “mystical” experience:

Because awakening from the dream of your beliefs puts you into contact with a “higher” inner reality, your attention or awareness is now “split,” as it were, between two realities, the higher reality you “discover” using this book’s exercises and the lower, human reality you have experienced since birth. The way you access the higher reality is through internal processes like imagination, feeling, contemplation, and meditation.

This picture of the Realized Man’s conscious awareness taking place on two, simultaneous levels, one recognized as relatively “dreamy” and the other, higher level accessed through a process of contemplation, is easily recognized as a recapitulation of Plotinus.[14]

As is the next point, the more you give attention to the higher, or inner, reality, the more you realize that, contra Dawkins, “it is the inner reality that gives rise to the outer reality.”[15]

While the Traditionalist will agree with Durden’s validation of higher realities, one place Durden goes off the rails in that perennial (if you will) bugaboo, reincarnation.

Our identity, then, is located forever in the higher reality, not in the lower reality where human organism exists. And if we do choose a human experience, we will unavoidably be at the mercy, so to speak, of core beliefs 1 through 4 (and only those beliefs, not one more, not one less). [Italics Durden]

The nonphysical point of awareness may enter, exit and reenter human experience as many times as it chooses. This process we might call “reincarnation.” The tendency to choose the same human experience over and over again. . . . we might call “karma.” The opposite tendency of choosing a series of widely different human experiences we might call “consciousness expansion.” Indeed, the intentional exploration of a wide variety [of] human experiences could itself comprise a science of sorts, though one quite different in its structure and assumptions form physical science. [Italics mine]

Indeed, there is such a science, and it is very different from physical science. It’s called “metaphysics,” at least as defined and practiced by Guénon. In that light, he is correct to emphasis that the nature of the experience chosen depends on what he calls “core beliefs,” which here correspond to what Guénon would call the “conditions of three-dimensional existence” (space, time, and extension). Unfortunately, Durden, as he repeats almost obsessively, seems to be completely hung up on “human” experience, to which the reincarnating spirit is assumed to return, varying only in the type of human experience chosen; however “widely” it may vary, it is still recognizably human.[16]

Here we see, as so often before, the spiral replaced by the circle; rather than exhausting the possibilities of a human existence, and then circling back — at one higher degree of pitch to the screw — into an entirely different type of existence, with utterly unimaginable conditions of experience, Durden, and so many “new agers” like him, imagines that any such “return” would be a circling around back to the same place.[17]

Understandably, Durden swings between Nietzschean nihilism, for maximum academic hipster cred, and occasional hints that all this can be found in the mysterious East,[18] to appeal to the hippie types. His method, examining and discarding all beliefs as “relative,” recalls Nietzsche in its appeal to history and psychology, but the basic method can be found in the epistemological disputes of the Greek Sceptics. The latter, however, seemed to think that once all opinion was silenced, a state of ataraxia would ensue, whose blissfulness was in itself a goal.[19] Durden, fitting his pseudonym, has a different goal: to change oneself, and then to change the world.

Actually, as I’ve pointed out before, all this can be found already in our native Neoplatonism, our home-grown Hermeticism, our two-fisted Traditionalism, the New Thought or Mind Cure movement (a.k.a. “The Secret”) from the turn of the previous century.

Like these more academically respectable systems of thought, New Thought relied on the notion of a creative Spirit or Consciousness behind the material world, and accessible by each of us by withdrawing within ourselves. Each of the New Thoughters, in line with their penchant for self-reliance, had their own method to establishing this connection, which provide interesting parallels to Durden’s methods.

Christian Larson, for example, favored a transcendental approach rather the more contemporary nihilism; our ability to control our thoughts now and then proves that we have a point of view superior to them, which can be accessed at any time and therefore at all times.

For example, in Mastery of Self: How To Develop Your Inner Forces And Powers (1909), Larson urges his readers to abandon the “position of influence” in which our mind, and thus our reality, is shaped by external influences (Durden’s “core beliefs”) and instead assume the “positon of self-mastery”:

Your supreme idea should be that you are above it all, superior to it all, and have control of it all. You simply must take this higher ground in all action, thought and consciousness before you can control yourself and direct, for practical purposes, the forces you possess. . . . And though this phase of the subject may appear to be somewhat abstract, we shall find no difficulty in understanding it more fully as we apply the ideas evolved. In fact, when we learn to realize that we, by nature, occupy a position that is above mind and body, this part of the subject will be found more interesting than anything else, and its application more profitable. (Chapter 2)

In the first chapter of Mastery of Fate (1910) Larson writes that

When man thinks what he desires to think, he will become what he desires to become. But to think what he desires to think, he must consciously govern the process through which impressions are formed upon mind.

To govern this process is to have the power to exclude any impression from without that is not desired, and to completely impress upon mind every original thought that may be formed; thus giving mind the power to think only what it consciously chooses to think.[20]

Before man can govern this process, he must understand the difference between the two leading attitudes of mind — the attitude of self-submission, and the attitude of self-supremacy; and must learn how to completely eliminate the former, and how to establish all life, all thought, and all action absolutely upon the latter.[21]

When this is done, no impression can form upon mind without man’s conscious permission; and complete control of the creative power of thought is permanently secured.

To master the creative power of thought is to master the personal self; and to master the personal self is to master fate.

This “State of Self-Supremacy” corresponds to Durden’s Highest Being. In both cases, the road to true freedom is to realize that we are free already, only at the moment we have allowed ourselves to be bemused by the ideas forced on us by society (Stirner’s “spooks”).

There is such a thing as being influenced by conditions that exist in our surroundings; but when we transcend that influence we are in it no more; therefore, to say that we are in it when we are out of it, is to contradict ourselves. And we equally contradict ourselves when we state that we are controlled by environment after we are convinced that we are inherently masters of everything in the personal life.

While you are conscious of the principle of self-supremacy, you are unconscious of the influence of environment; therefore, to speak the truth, you must declare that you are complete master in your own domain.[22]

More recently (post-WWII), Neville Goddard (d/b/a “Neville”), the Alan Watts of New Thought (with a bit of Criswell thrown in), also sounds the Durden note in a more positive, less “nihilistic” way:

If I can deny the limitations of my birth, my environment, and the belief that I am but an extension of my family tree [abandon all “core beliefs”] and feel within myself that I am Christ [the “Higher Being”], and sustain this assumption until it takes a central place and forms the habitual center of my energy [as we’ll see, Durden emphasized the need to enliven that center by concentrating our feelings on it], I will do the works attributed to Jesus [rebuild the world in accordance with new, or at least newly chosen, ideas]. Without thought or effort I will mold a world in harmony with that perfection which I have assumed and feel springing within me.

Any enlargement of our concept of Self involves a somewhat painful parting with strongly rooted hereditary conceptions. The ligaments are strong that old us in the womb of conventional limitations. All that you formerly believed, you no longer believe. You know now that there is no power outside of your own consciousness.

A transformation of consciousness will result in a change of environment and behavior. However, our ordinary alterations of consciousness, as we pass from one state to another, are not transformations, because each of them is so rapidly succeeded by another in the reverse direction; but whenever one state grows so stable as to definitely expel its rivals, then that central habitual state defines the character and is a true transformation.

Neville simplifies the initial process, from skeptical argumentation to simply choosing to believe what you want to be:

“Assume you are already that which you seek and your assumption, though false, if sustained, will harden into fact.”[23]

But Neville and Durden both emphasize that the process requires far more than the relatively simple first step (the college freshman’s “It’s all relative, man” or Oprah’s “Just believe it”). Durden says that

Finding that state of identity with a higher reality, feeling it, then sustaining it over time takes a tremendous amount of concerted effort, and it’s very subtle work. [My italics]

In Neville’s case, the suggestion is not only to simply assume what you want to be, but to hold it in your mind, adore it, feed it, keep it warm, until it becomes a reality in the physical world.

Concentrated observation of one thing shuts out other things and causes them to disappear. The great secret of success is to focus the attention on the feeling of the wish fulfilled without permitting any distraction. All progress depends upon an increase of attention. The ideas which impel you to action are those which dominate the consciousness, those which possess the attention.

To the unenlightened man this will seem to be all fantasy, yet all progress comes from those who do not take the accepted view, nor accept the world as it is. As was stated heretofore, if you can imagine what you please, and if the forms of your thought are as vivid as the forms of nature, you are by virtue of the power of your imagination master of your fate.

Your imagination is you yourself, and the world as your imagination sees it is the real world.[24]

All of which recalls the “Three Ways” discussed in an essay by “Abraxas” (Ercole Quadrelli) collected by Baron Evola in the first volume of his Introduction to Magic.

You must generate—first by imagining and then by realizing ita superior principle confronting everything you usually are (e.g., an instinctive life, thoughts, feelings). This principle must be able to control, contemplate, and measure what you are, in a clear knowledge, moment by moment. There will be two of you: yourself standing before “the other.”

Then, in contrast to the mystical, or Christian, path, where the Principle remains Other, and the Self remains in the feminine position of need and desire,

In the magical, dry, or solar way, you will create a duality in your being not in an unconscious and passive manner (as the mystic does), but consciously and willingly; you will shift directly on the higher part and identify yourself with that superior and subsistent principle, whereas the mystic tends to identify with his lower part, in a relationship of need and of abandonment.

Slowly but gradually, you will strengthen this “other” (which is yourself) and create for it a supremacy, until it knows how to dominate all the powers of the natural part and master them totally. [Then,] the entire being, ready and compliant, reaffirms itself, digests and lets itself be digested, leaving nothing behind.[25]

All of which is to suggest that Durden is incorrect to claim that

This is the first time, so far as I know, anyone has used this sort of reasoning as a means to a higher end rather than as a logical parlor trick ending in exclamations like “Well, there you have it — everything is relatively true — there are no absolutes — anything goes.”[26]

Or, to put it more positively, he’s in the mainstream of esoteric thought.

Speaking of “mainstream,” Europeans like to mock Americans’ “self-help” obsessions, but it’s a perfectly European trait, or rather, a Roman one. Despite all the guff about “democracy” on the one hand (Athens) and the “shining city on a hill” (Jerusalem) on other, Americans have always turned to Rome for serious matters, from our capitols and Senators to the fasces decorating the wall behind the Speaker of the House.

The Greeks of course knew about philosophy as a way of life,[27] but it was the Romans who demanded practicality in all things; under Roman domination, even the Greeks looked more to solace than theory.[28]

Speaking of Stoics and Epicureans, Durden makes an interesting contrast with Lovecraft. The weird author regarded all religious or philosophical ideas of meaning and purpose to be

Very largely the accidental results of traditions rather than basic antidotes, as we may see by comparing the mods of different types and individuals – older and younger, unsophisticated and sophisticated.

Sounding very like Durden, Lovecraft insists that to have “any chance of holding any genuine opinion of value regarding the universe” requires a “slow and painful process of courageous disillusionment.”

Lovecraft, however, derived his ideas less from the Skeptics or Stoics than from the Atomists, like Lucretius, from whom he learned a materialistic, scientistic “skepticism” that confined itself to questioning religious dogmas rather than itself.

What most persons can rationally expect is a kind of working adjustment or resignation in which active pain is cut down to a minimum . . . the highest consistent and practicable goal of mankind is simply an absence of acute and unendurable le suffering – a sensible compromise with an indifferent cosmos which was never built for mankind, and in which mankind is only a microscopic, negligible, and temporary accident. This is the most which the average person will ever get out of life, and he might as well trim his sails accordingly.[29]

Lovecraft never examined his own prejudices,[30] which are also a part of Durden’s relativized “core beliefs.”

Thus, for Lovecraft, the superior man is someone who is honest and brave enough to face oblivion without religious comforts (“I desire only oblivion”). To Evola or Durden, thus would be admirable enough but incomplete, since scientism and “common sense” (Lovecraft’s “local traditions”) are left in place; thus, like Nietzsche, we can call this “incomplete” nihilism, needing to supplemented by something like Evola’s hermetic tradition or Durden’s Absolute Being.[31]

Ironically, Lovecraft, for all his Anglo-Saxonism, would not be considered by Evola as having a truly Aryan attitude in this. In the chapter on “Discernment of the Vocations” in his Doctrine of Awakening, Evola notes that the Aryan does not, as the American Buddhist/hippie cliché has it, react to the perception of the relativity (as Durden would say) of our beliefs about the world with “pain” or “suffering” and seeking an escape, but with sovereign contempt for mere Becoming and a thirst for true Being (as Durden would say). Lovecraft’s comfy Epicureanism is a relatively degenerate attitude.[32]

Ordinarily I might say, you pays your money and you takes your choice, but it occurs to me that all this stuff — from the Stoics to Neville, and even Durden if you keep your eyes open and can wait for the occasional sale — can be found on the ‘net for free, if you just look around a bit.

So it really comes down to whatever works for you. Durden writes well; no fancy touches, just good solid philosophical prose, meaning that anyone with a college degree, let’s say, should be able handle this.[33] You might think the New Thoughters are too earnest and old-fashioned, but I rather find them comforting.[34]

On the other hand, you may prefer Durden’s more up to date version of what the kids might call “hacking your brain,”[35] finding ways to avoid the prison of existing programing (Durden’s “core ideas” such as “only what empirical science can prove is real”); or, as the anarchist collective Crimethinc say:

Putting yourself in new situations constantly is the only way to ensure that you make your decisions unencumbered by the nature of habit, law, custom or prejudice – and it’s up to you to create the situations.


1. “Dogs flew spaceships! The Aztecs invented the vacation! Men and women are the same sex! Our forefathers took drugs! Your brain is not the boss! Yes, that’s right — everything you know is wrong!” Firesign Theatre. Everything You Know Is Wrong. Columbia Records, LP – KC-33141 (1974).
2. See, for example, my review of the Hopeless Books “split single” Black House Rocked, here.
3. “If you were never a special person, you are a special person now.” — Firesign Theatre, op. cit.
4. Evola, in particular, given his focus on practical methods of realization; see his Introduction to Magic: Rituals and Practical Techniques for the Magus (Inner Traditions, 2001) and The Hermetic Tradition: Symbols and Teachings of the Royal Art (Inner Traditions, 1995) From the former: “Those who are called “scientists” today have hatched a real conspiracy; they have made science their monopoly, and absolutely do not want anyone to know more than they do or in a different manner than they do” (p. 4).
5. Daniélou remarks somewhere that far from the invidious picture of the Brahmin lording it over the lower castes, the Sudra laughs at the Brahmin, who cannot enjoy a nice juicy steak and must spend all day reciting boring scriptures.
6. Quine, W. V. O., “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60: 20–43. Reprinted in From a Logical Point of View (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). This “paper [is] sometimes regarded as the most important in all of twentieth-century philosophy” — Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), pp. 30-33. Read about it here.
7. E.g., his Genealogy of Morals(1887); for an account of the work and its influence, see here.
8. My view of the Sceptics, especially Sextus Empricus, derives from a reading of Scepticism by Arne Naess (Universitetsforlaget, 1968), rather than the rather duller works of classical scholars such as Michael Frede or Myles Burnyeat. See David Hume and Contemporary Philosophy, edited by Ilya Kasavin (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013 ), p58, Notes 1-2 for a discussion of Naess vs. Burnyeat
9. See Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul (Inner Traditions, 2003) especially Part 2: In the World Where God Is Dead.
10. “Evola and Nietzsche, 40 Years Later,” by “Cologero;” here.
11. Evola’s interest in Guénon’s Tradition was sparked by the idea that his previously arrived at notion of the Absolute Self could be grounded in historical reality by being identified with the primordial lawgivers of Tradition; see The Path of Cinnabar (London: Arktos, 2009). See also the discussion of how the Realized Man reconstructs his own new, immortal Diamond Body (Tantric Buddhism; cf. St. Paul’s resurrection body) in The Hermetic Tradition.
12. In Salinger’s Franny and Zooey, Franny’s doltish boyfriend, Lane, listening to her narrate her spiritual crisis, observes that “you could do some real damage to your heart” by synchronizing it, as suggested by The Way of the Pilgrim, to recitation of the Jesus Prayer.
13. I think this is towards the end of his Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2001).
14. See Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul by H. J. Blumenthal (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971) and Nature, Contemplation and the One: A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus (University of Toronto Press, 1967; Paul Brunton Philosophical Foundation, 1991), by John N. Deck (who taught a popular “gut” philosophy course entitled “Dream Worlds and Real Worlds”); see especially “Is Nature “Real” For Plotinus?”
15. See Deck, op. cit., especially “Making and Efficient causality.” It’s important to note that this does not involve a cliché “dreamy” or “otherworldliness;” historians record how Plotinus was sought after for practical advice and even toke over the guardianship of several orphans; Durden notes that the “mundane daily decisions of an awakened one” are “no longer based on selfish desires and needs” but on higher laws; this is what makes ordinary consciousness, by contrast, the true “dream world.”
16. At least Durden resists the especially New Age fantasy of reappearing as an animal or plant. In The Big Chill, an admirer of the group’s dead pseudo guru Alex reminisces that “He believed in reincarnation. He never ate meat. He said he was afraid he would come back someday as a steak.” See my essay on The Big Chill as an initiatory drama, “Of Costner, Corpses, & Conception: Mother’s Day Meditations on The Untouchables & The Big Chill,” here and reprinted in The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).
17. “And the same shit starting all over again” — Karl Marx. See the letter explaining, and gently critiquing, Guénon’s position by Marco Pallis in Studies in Comparative Religion, Vol. 1, No.1, online here.
18. Referencing among others Nagarjuna (see T. R. V. Murti’s The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (1955; Routledge, 2008), whom Alan Watts liked to pair up with St. Dionysius as masters of the negative way seeks to “remove obstacle to the direct experiencing of reality” — Alan Watts–Here and Now: Contributions to Psychology, Philosophy, and Religion by Peter J. Columbus and Donadrian L. Rice (SUNY, 2012), p. 69; see my review, “There & Then: Personal & Memorial Reflections on Alan Watts (1915-1973),” here.
19. Why bliss, rather than sheer terror, was the result of skepticism is a mystery, to me at least.
20. Training the mind to slow down awareness until impressions can be felt, and judged, before allowing them to enter our consciousness, is a basic initiatic practice; see Evola, Introduction to Magic, op. cit.
21. “I have founded by affair on nothing” — Goethe, and the epigraph to Stirner’s The Ego and His Own.
22. “If you don’t recall which episode of Seinfeld “The Contest” is, then you probably have never seen Seinfeld. But, just to refresh your memory, after George is caught by his mother masturbating, the A-plot concerned a contest between the four main cast members about who could go the longest without self-pleasuring. The episode actually garnered Larry David an Emmy Award for Best Writing, and it launched the catchphrase “Master of my Domain” as a euphemism for masturbation.” — “Master Of My Domain: 5 Fascinating Facts About ‘The Contest,’ ‘Seinfeld’s’ Best Episode” by Dustin Rowles, 10.2.13, here. BTW, “The nearly 30 million viewers who watched the rerun is like three times more than saw the Breaking Bad finale, which has to make “The Contest” the most popular rerun of all time.”
23. Nelville Goddard, Five Lessons and Q&A, Chapter Two.
24. The Power of Awareness, Chapter Six
25. Julius Evola, Introduction to Magic (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2001), pp. 88-91. The process of “cultivating” the Other as part of the process of initiation is referenced in The Silence of the Lambs, where Buffalo Bill cultivates a rare species of moth: “Somebody grew this guy, fed him honey and nightshade, kept him warm. Somebody loved him.”
26. A knock against Paul Feyerabend’s “anarchist theory of knowledge,” which he summarized as “The only rule of science is ‘anything goes’”? See note 31 below.
27. You could read Foucault on this, but you’d be better off reading Pierre Hadot, such as his Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Wiley-Blackwell, 1995).
28. The classic work on how much life sucked under the later Empire is, of course, E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine; (Cambridge, 1991 [1965]). In general, see The Cambridge History of Latin, Greek and Early Mediaeval Philosophy; edited by A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge University Press, 1967).
29. Lord of a Visible World: An Autobiography in Letters by H. P. Lovecraft, S. T. Joshi (Ed.), David E. Schultz (Ed.), (Ohio University Press, 2000), pp. 302-04.
31. Starling to Lechter: “You see a lot, Doctor. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don’t you . . . Why don’t you look at yourself and write down what you see? Maybe you’re afraid to.” Dr. Lechter recommends Marcus Aurelius to Starling when giving here the clue to Buffalo Bill’s identity. Joshi notes that the Skeptics DID question themselves.
31. The suggestion that Lovecraft’s “indescribable horror” is actually what a later generation of less uptight seekers would call “the ultimate high, man” has been developed by Erik Davis (see my review of his Nomad Codes here) and used by myself to contrast Lovecraft and Evola in the title essay of The Eldritch Evola … & Others. For a more completely skeptical approach to Science, though also without any necessary connection to transcendence, see Paul K. Feyerabend’s “epistemological anarchism,” which I discussed several times, most recently here.
32. Evola, in Doctrine of Awakening, is keen to promote what scholars call Early or Pali or Hinayana or “primitive” Buddhism as authentically Aryan, regarding the later Mahayana schools as popularized and degenerate; thus he confines his attention to the earliest presentations of the doctrines. Durden, however, as noted above, finds the Mahayana school of Nagarjuna to be simpatico with his project.
33. The kindle presentation is excellent, with no spelling irregularities or odd formatting; however, although the essay is relatively short, if it’s going to have number and title sections why not hyperlink them from the table of contents for easy navigation?
34. They kinda remind me of Prof. E. C. Buehler, who appears in many educational shorts of the ’50s, such as “Speech: Using Your Voice” (Centron, 1950), online here. (And don’t miss Centron regular Herk Harvey; in about ten years, he’ll be filming Carnival of Souls!) I like reading them out loud as if they were being delivered in his earnest, Dale Carnegie voice. “One, you must be heard. Two, you must be understood. Three, you must be pleasing.” Hey, it makes as much sense as Durden’s insistence on using a comfy chair.
35. A phrase I owe to the blog Practical Application of Neville Goddard Principles Today, here.

The Counter-Revolution: The Time of Our Peace Is Past

via Cambria Will Not Yield

Now we can only wait till the day, wait and apportion our shame.
These are the dykes our fathers left, but we would not look to the same.
Time and again were we warned of the dykes, time and again we delayed.
Now, it may fall, we have slain our sons, as our fathers we have betrayed.


“We must understand why the blacks are rioting and then address their grievances,” the liberal newscaster intoned. I do understand why the blacks are rioting; it is the liberal media and their clerical allies who do not understand why the blacks are rioting. Blacks are rioting because they hate white people, not because of a “legacy of racism,” or because Freddie Gray died during his ride to jail. The guilty verdict won’t “bring peace to the community,” because blacks are not looking for peace. They want power. And every time they stage a successful riot, which was the case in Baltimore, they get closer to complete power. Of course complete black power would mean the end of the white race, just as it did in Haiti, but it would also send the black race back to the Stone Age. Without the whites to sustain them, blacks will be forced to live in a modern jungle where every man’s hand is against them and their hands are against every man. Why would they act against their own self-interest? Why did the swine plunge over the cliff? Both are possessed by the devil. The black savage is completely incapable of looking ahead to the consequences of his actions. He sees an opportunity to riot and he takes it; he sees a woman and he takes her; he sees that whites won’t take any action against him, no matter what he does, so he attacks ‘Whitey’ whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. Last week it was Baltimore, next week it could be New York or some other city or town. The black violence won’t stop when whites become less “racist,” it will stop when whites become racist enough to love their own while hating the liberals and their black gods as they hate the devil, whom the liberals and the blacks serve.

I don’t see the proper hatred in the European people, the hatred that stems from love and causes a man to cry, “Stop, this must not go on,” when he sees those he loves attacked by a cruel, merciless foe. It is from such a heartfelt determined hatred of the cruel and merciless that counter-revolutions are born.

Is there anything remotely resembling a counter-revolutionary spirit developing in white people? It seems almost impossible to believe that negro worship has consumed the souls of every last white. But then again, you never hear even a whisper against the black gods of Liberaldom. Perhaps that is Satan’s intent. He wants every white person with a heart that still lives, to feel he is the last white man on the face of the earth. “Despair and die,” the devil tells that last white man. But let’s assume that there are some white men left on earth whose hearts still indignant break when they see the black hell that enslaves their people. What are the obstacles such people face?

The first obstacle is the liberals. They are in power in church, state, academy and the military. In some nations, such as Chile in the 1970’s and Spain in the 1930’s, counter-revolutions were launched from the military, but in the modern European nations there are no counter-revolutionary movements; the democratic virus has sunk deep into the souls of the men who chose to enter the military in the modern European nations. It’s far more likely that the military will be used against white counter-revolutionaries than the alternative – that the military would turn on the liberals. Nor will there be any counter-revolutionary encouragement from the organized churches. They have made peace with the liberals. So long as both worship the negro neither will forsake the other. So any counter-revolutionary effort must proceed without help from any institution in Liberaldom. Nor can a counter-revolutionary hope to win the liberals over by exposing the inhumanity of negro-worshipping liberalism, or by proving the suicidal nature of negro-worshipping liberalism. The liberals’ hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s, and they must believe in the negro come hell or high water, because without him they have no religious life at all. Whenever liberals gather for serious business, in Church or State, they discuss the negro and how to help him by “fighting racism.” And of course it is always the “good” racism, namely white racism, which unfortunately is in very short supply, that the liberals are fighting. The black racism, which comes from the devil is never a concern of the liberals.

If we overlook the obduracy of the liberals and waste all our efforts in trying to “win them over,” we will be forever bound to Lear’s wheel of fire. Ever since the 1970’s men such as Samuel Francis and John Tyndall have been telling us that we could still reverse the blood red tide of color by voting, because whites are still in the majority. But whites were not in the majority then, and they are even less in the majority now, because the liberals with the black hearts will never side with the whites. A majority coalition of liberals and colored tribesmen will always win the “one man, one vote” plebiscites. There are a great many white grazers who privately favor the views of white men like Samuel Francis and John Tyndall, but they will never publicly state such views themselves or defend white people in public. Why? They will not do so, because they fear the consequence of the slightest deviation from liberal orthodoxy. And their fears are not unfounded; the liberals have set up a vast infrastructure designed to ferret out and punish all those who are not enthusiastic supporters of negro-worshipping liberalism.

The second obstacle that a counter-revolutionary European encounters is the “make a living” obstacle. A counter-revolutionary must spiritually separate himself from all things liberal. This is difficult to do when one must make a living, for the reason that it is hard to “be among them but not of them.” It takes great spiritual discipline to hold fast to counter-revolutionary convictions while working amongst liberals and grazers. And it gets harder still when you see your children suffer financially when your lack of enthusiasm for liberalism is detected and you lose your job. But the counter-revolutionary vocation is not something chosen, unlike the revolutionary’s vocation. The revolutionary, in a Christian society, has chosen to rebel against God, because he worships darkness and not the light. The counter-revolutionary in a satanic society, to use the Shakespearean term, has had the counter-revolutionary vocation thrust upon him, because his heart will not permit him to forget or denounce that which was lost, namely Christian Europe.

The counter-revolutionary spirit stems from a love of the past while the revolutionary spirit comes from a hatred of the past. Hence, the counter-revolutionary’s desire to bring the spiritual values of the past into the present and the ruling revolutionary governments’ desire to bury the past in favor of the glorious present and an even more glorious future. What Fitzhugh said about governments is apropos here:
All government proceeds ab extra. Neither individuals nor societies can govern themselves, any more than the mouse can live in the exhausted receiver, or the clown lift himself by the lapel of his pantaloons. The South is governed by the necessity of keeping its negroes in order, which preserves a healthy conservative public opinion. Had the negroes votes, the necessity would be removed, because the interest of the governing class would cease to be conservative.
Fitzhugh makes the same point that Burke made when he stated that a nation is much more than a geographical spot on a map, it is a moral essence. When revolutionaries take over a government, whether they have done it by bullet or ballot, they change the moral essence of a nation. That change should turn all conservatives into counter-revolutionaries. Burke maintained that the real French men were the throne-and-altar aristocrats in exile. And in Europe today, the only true Brits, Danes, Dutch, etc., are the men who want to destroy the democratic, revolutionary governments of their respective nations.

A conservative ought not to be concerned with preserving the democratic process. That is only a means to an end. If it is a means to an evil end, the conservative should oppose it; he should not — as is the case in the European nations today — defend a revolutionary, tribunal government just because white people are allowed to vote for their executioners. Voting is not a sign of liberty or of Christianity. In fact, Christianity always declines in thoroughly democratic nations, because everyone but Christians are given the liberty to practice their faith: Religious liberty for Muslims, Jews, tree-huggers, and voodoo priests and priestesses, but no liberty for Christians. The “some are more equal” doctrine is in effect in all the European nations. The only Christianity that is permitted in Liberaldom is state Christianity, which is the complete antithesis of European Christianity.

The liberals have authoritatively decreed that the 21st century will mark the end of the European. Like the demon possessed swine in the Gospel, the liberals must flee from the God-Man whom they hate with an unremitting passion. And their flight has taken the form of institutionalized negro worship. They think that such a system is their best refuge from the God-Man. For this reason the Christ-bearing European will always be an anathema in Liberaldom.

The European counter-revolutionary does not see the 21st century as the end of the European. He sees only one vision: It is the same vision that his European ancestors saw when Odin pointed them to Christ, the true God and true kinsmen of the European people. The racist gamut is designed by the liberals to keep the European away from the source of his strength, his racial and familial hearth fire. If there are no European hearth fires there will be no William Tells and the Gesslers of the world will reign unchallenged. The European grazers are kept in line by fear, the fear of being perceived as racist. They won’t lose that fear until they see what they have not seen in this generation of white men – a man who is not afraid of being called a racist. Europeans are not primarily motivated by economic considerations. That is a fiction created by the Marxists and the capitalists. They are primarily motivated by a desire for the approval of their peers. And since their peers live in Liberaldom and have liberal values one must adhere to liberal values in order to win the approval of one’s peers. “How well do you serve the negro?” is the credo of the white every man living in the modern European nations. Hence the declaration, “I will not serve the negro,” is the most counter-revolutionary statement a man can make. Through the narrow racial gate a counter-revolutionary must go, “for there reigns love and all love’s loving parts.” For all their talk of love, the liberals’ heaven on earth has no love. That is the dark secret of their utopia: Where there is no racial hearth fire, there can be no love; thus, the liberals must feed off the remnants of a civilization that was built by a people who loved much. Consistent liberalism is pure negation, so the liberals have institutionalized the hatred of all things Christian and European while reserving the hypocritical right to visit relatives on Christian holidays and raise their chosen children in houses rather than jungle huts, away from the savage barbarians of color who they are supposed to worship and adore. (1) But the liberals cannot feed off the remnants of Christian Europe forever. Men and women need to love and be loved. That need can never be fulfilled in a world consecrated to the loveless, barbaric gods of color.

The counter-revolutionary European, by some miracle of God’s grace, has not lost his capacity to love and hate with his whole heart and soul. He can match the passion of the liberals’ hatred of the light with his passionate love of the light. Charity is not weak; it is fierce in defense of all that is good and pure and noble. Dickens, like all the great poets of Christian Europe, knew the strength and fierceness needed for a loving, charitable defense of one’s own:
Madame Defarge looked coldly at her, and said, “The wife of Evremonde; where is she?”
It flashed upon Miss Pross’s mind that the doors were all standing open, and would suggest the flight. Her first act was to shut them. There were four in the room, and she shut them all. She then placed herself before the door of the chamber which Lucie had occupied.
Madame Defarge’s dark eyes followed her through this rapid movement, and rested on her when it was finished. Miss Pross had nothing beautiful about her; years had not tamed the wildness, or softened the grimness, of her appearance; but, she too was a determined woman in her different way, and she measured Madame Defarge with her eyes, every inch.
“You might, from your appearance, be the wife of Lucifer,” said Miss Pross, in her breathing. “Nevertheless, you shall not get the better of me. I am an Englishwoman.”
Madame Defarge looked at her scornfully, but still with something of Miss Pross’s own perception that they two were at bay. She saw a tight, hard, wiry woman before her, as Mr. Lorry had seen in the same figure a woman with a strong hand, in the years gone by. She knew full well that Miss Pross was the family’s devoted friend; Miss Pross knew full well that Madame Defarge was the family’s malevolent enemy.
“On my way yonder,” said Madame Defarge, with a slight movement of her hand towards the fatal spot, “where they reserve my chair and my knitting for me, I am come to make my compliments to her in passing. I wish to see her.”
“I know that your intentions are evil,” said Miss Pross, “and you may depend upon it, I’ll hold my own against them.”
Each spoke in her own language; neither understood the other’s words; both were very watchful, and intent to deduce from look and manner, what the unintelligible words meant.
“It will do her no good to keep herself concealed from me at this moment,” said Madame Defarge. “Good patriots will know what that means. Let me see her. Go tell her that I wish to see her. Do you hear?”
“If those eyes of yours were bed-winches,” returned Miss Pross, “and I was an English four-poster, they shouldn’t loose a splinter of me. No, you wicked foreign woman; I am your match.”
Madame Defarge was not likely to follow these idiomatic remarks in detail; but, she so far understood them as to perceive that she was set at naught.
“Woman imbecile and pig-like!” said Madame Defarge, frowning. “I take no answer from you. I demand to see her. Either tell her that I demand to see her, or stand out of the way of the door and let me go to her!” This, with an angry explanatory wave of her right arm.
“I little thought,” said Miss Pross, “that I should ever want to understand your nonsensical language; but I would give all I have, except the clothes I wear, to know whether you suspect the truth, or any part of it.”
Neither of them for a single moment released the other’s eyes. Madame Defarge had not moved from the spot where she stood when Miss Pross first became aware of her; but, she now advanced one step.
“I am a Briton,” said Miss Pross, “I am desperate. I don’t care an English Twopence for myself. I know that the longer I keep you here, the greater hope there is for my Ladybird. I’ll not leave a handful of that dark hair upon your head, if you lay a finger on me!”
Thus Miss Pross, with a shake of her head and a flash of her eyes between every rapid sentence, and every rapid sentence a whole breath. Thus Miss Pross, who had never struck a blow in her life.
But, her courage was of that emotional nature that it brought the irrepressible tears into her eyes. This was a courage that Madame Defarge so little comprehended as to mistake for weakness. “Ha, ha!” she laughed, “you poor wretch! What are you worth! I address myself to that Doctor.” Then she raised her voice and called out, “Citizen Doctor! Wife of Evremonde! Child of Evremonde! Any person but this miserable fool, answer theCitizeness Defarge!”
Perhaps the following silence, perhaps some latent disclosure in the expression of Miss Pross’s face, perhaps a sudden misgiving apart from either suggestion, whispered to Madame Defarge that they were gone. Three of the doors she opened swiftly, and looked in.
“Those rooms are all in disorder, there has been hurried packing, there are odds and ends upon the ground. There is no one in that room behind you! Let me look.”
“Never!” said Miss Pross, who understood the request as perfectly as Madame Defarge understood the answer.
“If they are not in that room, they are gone, and can be pursued and brought back,” said Madame Defarge to herself.
“As long as you don’t know whether they are in that room or not, you are uncertain what to do,” said Miss Pross to herself; “and you shall not know that, if I can prevent your knowing it; and know that, or not know that, you shall not leave here while I can hold you.”
“I have been in the streets from the first, nothing has stopped me, I will tear you to pieces, but I will have you from that door,” said Madame Defarge.
“We are alone at the top of a high house in a solitary courtyard, we are not likely to be heard, and I pray for bodily strength to keep you here, while every minute you are here is worth a hundred thousand guineas to my darling,” said Miss Pross.
Madame Defarge made at the door. Miss Pross, on the instinct of the moment, seized her round the waist in both her arms, and held her tight. It was in vain for Madame Defarge to struggle and to strike; Miss Pross, with the vigorous tenacity of love, always so much stronger than hate, clasped her tight, and even lifted her from the floor in the struggle that they had. The two hands of Madame Defarge buffeted and tore her face; but, Miss Pross, with her head down, held her round the waist, and clung to her with more than the hold of a drowning woman.
Soon, Madame Defarge’s hands ceased to strike, and felt at her encircled waist. “It is under my arm,” said Miss Pross, in smothered tones, “you shall not draw it. I am stronger than you, I bless Heaven for it. I hold you till one or other of us faints or dies!”
Madame Defarge’s hands were at her bosom. Miss Pross looked up, saw what it was, struck at it, struck out a flash and a crash, and stood alone—blinded with smoke.
All this was in a second. As the smoke cleared, leaving an awful stillness, it passed out on the air, like the soul of the furious woman whose body lay lifeless on the ground.
Ah, that’s what the counter-revolution is all about, Charlie Brown. The ability to recognize evil and to fight to the death to protect our own from that evil. Miss Pross, William Tell, and all the men and women of Europe who love much are the stuff that counter-revolutions are made on. 


(1) My mad-dog liberal sister sent her daughter to an all-white private school, thus avoiding the negroes whom she professed to worship.