Jun 1, 2015

NPI Conference: Last Chance for Discounted Registration

via Radix

Dear Friends,

NPI’s fall conference—Become Who We Are—is set to be the highlight of the year. It will be a tremendous opportunity for networking, reconnecting with old friends, and having fun in Washington, DC.

Speakers include:
  • Kevin MacDonald
  • Guillaume Faye
  • Jack Donovan
  • Richard Spencer
  • Keith Preston 
  • Roman Bernard.
Also featured will be a special guest, who will be addressing a public identitarian gathering for the first time

R.N. Taylor (of the band Changes) will perform live music in a festive atmosphere on Saturday night.

Put simply, there will good food, good drink, good music, good friends, and special guests.

The event will take place this Halloween, October 31, 2015, at The National Press Club in downtown Washington. Registration is $225 and includes three-course meals for lunch and dinner on Saturday and everything mentioned above.

We are offering an “Early Bird” discount of 20% to those who register in the month of May.  Registration drops to $180—a substantial savings.

To take advantage of this offer, use the code May-20 when purchasing your registration online at NPIEvents.com or at Eventbrite.

Discount Code: May-20

Today is your last chance!

Discount or not, the best way to attend our gathering is to join The Sam Francis Circle for $750. This package includes priority seating at the conference, along with two three-course meals on Saturday. You will be booked for a two-nights stay (October 30-November 1)  in a four-star hotel in downtown Washington. You will also attend our two special events, where you’ll get a chance to meet the conference speakers and organizers: on Friday night (October 30), a steak dinner, with complimentary open bar; on Sunday morning (November 1), a Champagne Brunch.

Register here.

I look forward to seeing you in Washington!
Richard Spencer

N.B.: The code is not valid for Millennial Registration, which is already discounted more than 50% for attendees who are 30 years old and younger. The code is also not valid for reserving hotel rooms or reserving places at our special events on Friday and Sunday.

What I Don’t Like about Blacks: A Reply to Jared Taylor

via American Renaissance

This is a reply to Jared Taylor’s article, “What I Like About Blacks,” which appeared at The Unz Review.

In his Unz Review article, Jared Taylor claims he has a “reputation for writing rude things about blacks.” But I’d venture that honest blacks know that the critical and unflinching things he has written are true. In his essay “The New Black Double Consciousness,” from Authentically Black: Essays for the Silent Black Majority, writer and linguist John McWhorter writes that “when it comes to race, the sense that black success requires white guilt leads to an assumption that anyone who strays beyond a narrow range of leftist perspectives on race is either naive or inhumane.” I’d wager that “naive” and “inhumane” are two of the more polite words that have been ascribed to Jared Taylor and American Renaissance.

Mr. Taylor notes that “deep down, everyone knows the truth about blacks, but a vital requirement for respectability is to pretend you don’t.” This is true for whites, but for blacks, knowing but denying this knowledge is a vital requirement for avoiding verbal or physical harm from other blacks and as a shield from shameful labels like “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo.”

It might also be protection from the nervous breakdown that occurs when blacks truly see we have problems that have less to do with white people, slavery, or capitalism than they do with genetics, evolution, and IQ; at best and at worst, they are a combination of those things.

James Baldwin was speaking for many of us when he wrote in Notes of a Native Son that he supposed that “the most difficult (and most rewarding) thing in my life has been the fact that I was born a Negro and was forced, therefore, to effect some kind of truce with this reality. (Truce, by the way, is the best one can hope for.)”

James Baldwin
The discontent you feel with yourself and blackness as a whole can be crushing. You discover that aside from the tall African tales of Alex Haley, Underground Railroad figures, and peanut proprietors, there’s not much there. And on top of that, these historical footnotes arise from a new world that is leaps and bounds beyond the stone-age existence in which your ancestors were found. As Baldwin put it, “It is quite possible to say that the price a Negro pays for becoming articulate is to find himself, at length, with nothing to be articulate about. (‘You taught me language,’ says Caliban to Prospero, ‘and my profit on’t is I know how to curse.’)”
Artistic depiction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The 250-million-dollar building opens in 2016.
Artistic depiction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The building, which opens in 2016, will cost $250 million

Mr. Taylor finds the way blacks speak English entertaining, and I would agree in part, though most modern black English is so dumb and vulgar that I wouldn’t be surprised if clicks and grunts will be making a comeback. The only black vernacular I find endearing is that of my late, Southern grandmother, in particular one of her favorite retorts, “I ain’t studyin’ you!” (‘studying’ means to pay attention to or care about) or the way “sure” became “show-yul” when she said it.

Mr. Taylor’s account of the flashing incident in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district was entertaining. While it would not have solved his problem with the bold “blonde,” I’d pay him to say, “Stop yo’ playin,’ nigga, or I’ll beat yo’ ass” in his distinctive diction so it could be my new ringtone. Mr. Taylor writes that “ ‘black lives matter’ is so limp a white guy must have come up with it,” but I disagree. Think of all the possibilities that arise from that phrase, such as “Black Lies Matter” or “Crack Pipes Matter.” I’m certain that whites came up with those jabs.

According to Ralph Ellison in his 1970 Time magazine piece, “What America Would Be Like Without Blacks,” “if there is such a thing as a Yale accent, there is a Negro wail in it–doubtless introduced there by Old Yalie John C. Calhoun, who probably got it from his mammy.” I completely disagree with Ellison. The effects of blacks on certain parts of American English are evident in a few places, but the history and development of English follows that of the white native sons and tongues of Shakespeare and Chaucer, not the assorted (non-written) languages of west African chattel slaves. This is one of the things that I don’t like about blacks; their tendency to lay claim to the building and resulting greatness of the West.

Picking cotton, tilling soil, and whipping up sweet potato pies were helpful and important in their own way, but were nothing like the establishment of private property rights or the implementation of Enlightenment-era ideals in the New World, which guided the nation for generations. It would be akin to a Native American claiming that, because his ancestors shared corn and turkey with early European settlers one fine November day, they are as important as the descendants of those white settlers who would fight the British and build the America in which we live today.

Slave family in cotton field near Savannah, Georgia, 1860.
Slave family in a Georgia cotton field, 1860
Some black men–though not all–define their manhood by their “manhood,” ignoring the fact that an anatomical appendage doesn’t build or maintain civilization, compose documents like the Magna Carta or US Constitution, or send men safely to the moon and back. Some–though not all–black women brag about their lips, booties, and hips even though none of these attributes is patented, and plastic surgery can now (sadly) attempt to make women into anything, even living Barbie dolls or cats.
Mr. Taylor cites a lack of inhibition, cheerful spontaneity, and the paying of compliments as likable black traits. I don’t like the way most black men pay compliments. Even if they are genuine compliments, such as “I like your smile” or “You’re pretty,” the very next sentence is usually a tactless rush to judgment: “Can I get yo’ number?” or “Do you wanna go out wit me?” It is healthy and normal for men to notice physical attributes, but personality type, future plans, or courtship are alien concepts to many black men.

When I was growing up, MTV and BET booty-centric music was all the rage. In the middle of the hall at school or at the bus stop, black girls would “pop, lock, and drop it” as their audience whooped and hollered. It always seemed so crass, and the highly sexual nature of it made me uncomfortable.


Whenever there is an “urban” shooting, I loathe the bellowing black mothers on TV mourning their “good boys,” who were, so often, not good at all. I’m practically certain that those boys were at times on the receiving end of a hell-on-wheels beating with a house slipper, hair brush, or extension cord as those same mothers repeated the axiom, “I brought you into this world, and I can take ya out!!!” I’ve heard that one a few times myself while getting a whooping as a child with all the aforementioned instruments except the cord, thank goodness. I’m more afraid of an angry black mother with a thick switch than white public servants like Darren Wilson or the current unlucky six officers in Baltimore.

Black men have peddled their faulty, highly inaccurate “hip and cool Mandingo” image to the world and, in some ways, benefit from it. Black women have given the world one of the worst character profiles ever: Grendel’s mother meets the matriarch of the film Throw Momma from the Train: fat, loud, snide, obnoxious, struggling, quick to anger, uncouth, and scary.


A host of entertainers have profited from this black female profile, even white women such as comedian Kathy Griffin with her stand-up special, Strong Black Woman. It has and continues to be such an obstacle that any black woman who defies this characterization becomes a dusky, modern day Sisyphus.

Aisha Tyler pokes fun at her lanky, “ass-less” body, enjoys home-brewing beer, and playing Halo. The Oreo Experience deconstructs typical “blackness” and “whiteness” with self-loathing satire. In “Rolling the Rock Up the Hill,” the author describes mentioning a production of the Greek tragedy Medea, only for the rock to roll downhill when someone assumes she is talking about having seen a Madea romp from Tyler Perry’s “chittlin circuit.”

Returning to Mr. McWhorter’s essay: “[T]the reason black America fell so hard for the line that residual racism spells defeat is . . . it offers a balm for something sitting at the heart of the African-American consciousness: a sense that at the end of the day, black people are inferior to whites.”

If you just change “inferior to” to “different from” there’s nothing diabolically damning about Mr. Taylor’s views or any of the distaste and frustration I’ve expressed here. If we accept this change, black and white people can begin to take race realism and historical facts into consideration, and set aside their feelings.

Notions of good or bad, better or worse, and racial blame and shame hold down the collective American spirit, and prevent a race-realist approach to public policy. If blacks stop blaming whites for keeping them down, and whites stop blaming blacks for being stupid for stupid’s sake, we can consider average group differences, and then like and dislike each other based on quantifiable measurements rather than untraceable, disembodied doubt or disgust.

The average black person needs a clear way to understand why blacks are, on average, exceptional basketball players, sprinters, and crooners, but not Rhodes Scholars or web developers. If blacks understood this without demonizing whites and Western Civilization, perhaps their lives could be become less angry and resentful. I know mine was after I took this approach. But I’d imagine that rationally taking the bell curve into account isn’t as fun or delusional as rallying for rights, reparations, and retribution.

There are many whites, Asians and Jews who will never have the brainpower of Stephen Hawking or the ability to counter Einstein’s theory of relativity. That doesn’t prevent them from remaining gainfully employed or active at the head of their households. If your average white man was told that he wasn’t going to be a world renowned neurosurgeon with Patrick Dempsey’s looks, I don’t think that he would damn God and engage in daily shootouts with other whites or police officers. He’d get a job as an accountant, butcher, or baker and live his life to the fullest.

Here I leave you with a quotation from Baldwin’s Notes of a Native Son. I can live with the slight sadness expressed in it. Instead of filling me with dread, I can confront it and understand it. Baldwin and I also, like Antonio in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, realize that “what’s past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge.”
I know, in any case, that the most crucial time in my own development came when I was forced to recognize that I was a kind of bastard of the West; when I followed the line of my past I did not find myself in Europe but in Africa. And this meant that in some subtle way, in a really profound way, I brought to Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt, to the stones of Paris, to the cathedral at Chartres, and to the Empire State Building, a special attitude. These were not really my creations, they did not contain my history; I might search in them in vain forever for any reflection of myself. I was an interloper; this was not my heritage. At the same time I had no other heritage which I could possibly hope to use–I had certainly been unfitted for the jungle or the tribe. I would have to appropriate these white centuries, I would have to make them mine–I would have to accept my special attitude, my special place in this scheme–otherwise I would have no place in any scheme.

The History of the League of Empire Loyalists and Candour

via The Occidental Observer

The History of the League of Empire Loyalists and Candour
by Hugh McNeile and Rob Black
Published by the A.K. Chesterton Trust; 150 pages

One of the most remarkable aspects of the collapse of the British Empire was the relative lack of people who seemed to care about it. Resistance to the process was extremely muted, both from the Empire’s elites and the mass of its people. This was baffling considering its two-hundred-year stretch of global dominance, its enormous impact, and the millions of people around the world whose interests were directly tied to its existence.

The sheer inexplicableness of the event tends to throw up either glib and dismissive explanations, or dark and dastardly ones that seem more like paranoid conspiracy theories. In short, either the Empire was done to death by secret cabals and nefarious networks or it was simply on the wrong side of history — and accepted that fact with an all-too-easy grace and sense of resignation.

Today it is difficult to get a sense of what really happened. Mainstream history, of course, has its narratives worked out — Britain was exhausted after its war with Germany and Japan, attitudes to race had been transformed, and the “Winds of Change” blew in shortly afterwards followed by the “Winds of Multiculturalism.” Thanks to the alternative history now possible due to the internet, this narrative now faces some opposition, but because the period is rather remote, such opposition usually comes from those with a particular axe of their own to grind.

A better way to get at the truth is to focus on those few who were most concerned about the demise of the British Empire, and to consider their experiences. In this respect one of the best books is Hugh McNeile and Rob Black’s The History of the League of Empire Loyalists and Candour, published last year.

The core of the text was written in the 1980s by McNeile (thought to be the pen name of the late Dr. Kevan Bleach). It has recently been edited, augmented, and updated by Rob Black of Candour and the A.K. Chesterton Trust. Candour was the journal edited by A.K. Chesterton that served as the mouthpiece of the League of Empire Loyalists from its foundation in 1954 until its merger into the National Front in 1967.

Chesterton looms large throughout the book and was the guiding spirit of the movement. A nephew of the famous writer and man of letters G.K. Chesterton, he was briefly a member of Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and also served in both world wars, each time in Africa, where he was also born.

He inevitably comes across as one of those stiff-upper-lip, ramrod-for-a-backbone types who made the British Empire such an enduring and efficient organization in its days of glory. But he also had his artistic and humorous sides, writing poetic prose, a comedic novel (Juma the Great), and at least one excellent play (Leopard Valley). But it was his uprightness and integrity that were at the heart of the man.

For this reason he is a clear prism. The forces acting on him are never dissipated in murky doubts, self-interest, fear, or confusion, but thrown into sharp relief by his always upstanding response to them. At times this gives him the aura of a hero from a Greek tragedy as we see him reacting to the forces of dissolution  and pursuing, without compromise, his own self-realization and political destiny.

The first chapter “Beginnings” details how A.K. was set on his path. He was then working for a magazine called “Truth”:
It specialized in a particular brand of vigorous, independent journalism that possessed a John Bull quality in its proclamation of the virtues and values of the British Empire. The Manchester Guardian once described it as being ‘almost the last remaining home of the declining art of invective.’ A polemical writer of A.K.’s calibre could not have felt out of place on its staff with his talents in that field! (p. 13)
But made to feel “out of place” he soon was, in accord with the new post-patriotic culture of the post-war period:
A particularly objectionable effort was made shortly after he joined Truth to have A.K. removed. A deputation of Jews called on Collin Brooks, the journal’s editor, with the very strong suggestion that he should dismiss A.K. from his service. (p. 14)
This move, motivated by his previous link with Mosley’s party, was unsuccessful, but in 1953 Truth was acquired by new owners and subjected to an editorial policy in line with the internationalist outlook of the Conservative Party’s post-war leadership. A lesser man than A.K. might well have found a way to adjust to the new realities, but A.K’s response was to stay true to the spirit of what Truth had once been by founding the journal Candour.

It is at this point of the story that we meet the mysterious R.K. Jeffery, a millionaire Englishman based in Chile, who proved to be A.K.’s greatest benefactor, donating the large amount of money that Candour and later the League of Empire Loyalists (LEL) needed to stay in the fight. One of the most interesting parts of the book concerns the later death of Jeffery and the apparent shenanigans carried out by his relatives that prevented the inheritance coming into the hands of the LEL. Who knows how Jeffery’s millions might have impacted on British nationalist politics?

Jeffery’s generous donations during his lifetime, however, were essential to the running of Candour, as it was exactly the kind of publication that, in our pre-internet era, could not but lose money:
As 1954 progressed, Candour’s nature was becoming more and more clear. It was following in the tradition of what Hilaire Belloc meant, just after World War I, when he referred to the ‘free press’ — little papers, unsubsidised by advertisements, consequently running at a loss and necessarily not of mass appeal. (18–19)
But A.K. was not content to sit back and simply run Candour on donations. He soon decided on a more activist approach. He felt that the magazine and its mission would be best served by kicking up some controversy.  So, just as the founding of Candour developed directly out of the betrayal of the original purpose of Truth, so the foundation of the LEL addressed a direct need to garner publicity by challenging the acquiescence with which most of Britain was accepting the post-colonial, globalist settlement.

Rather than being a political party, as it is sometimes described, the LEL was designed to be a pressure group “which would force upon existing parties policies favourable to national and imperial survival.” Because of its position on the political spectrum, however, it was always going to exert much more of an influence on the Conservative Party, especially as the UK was in a prolonged period of Conservative rule (1951-1964).

It is sometimes said that the chief British sin is politeness, because it allows a multitude of other vices to flourish unchecked. There was an element of this in 1950s Britain, where important issues like non-White immigration, the future of Britain’s colonial possessions, and the country’s increasing subservience to America were considered “awkward issues,” which tended to be swept under the carpet.
The role that the LEL found for itself was to show up at these exact points and kick up a fuss. The methods employed were a variety of eye-catching stunts that the mainstream media would find hard to ignore.

The book contains several examples. While A.K. was the “spiritual leader” of this movement, it was people like John Bean, Austen Brooks, and Leslie Green who carried out the actions necessary to catch the headlines. The best way to describe this to the present generation is to compare it to a pre-internet and very physical form of “trolling.”

Brooks in particular was an ideal example of the LEL activist — a large man with a bushy red beard who was prepared to do anything to challenge the cosy consensus of the post-war world.

When a Soviet delegation, including Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin and Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev, visited the UK in 1956, Brooks and other members had a large wooden spoon constructed, which they then delivered to 10 Downing Street, making the point that those who “sup with the devil” need a long spoon.

Brooks was also on duty in 1962 to deliver a bargepole to 10 Downing Street when the Kenyan leader, Jomo Kenyatta, associated with the Mau Mau and other vile atrocities, visited the UK.

Other stunts enacted by the League included heckling meetings of the Conservative Party and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (often with physical removal from both), defacing posters, disguising as bishops and non-Whites in order to infiltrate meetings, and seizing the UN flag two years in a row on UN Day. There was one issue for which League members were prepared to go a little further, namely insults to the Queen:
The dripping wet Tory peer, Lord Altrincham, had his face publicly slapped by the diminutive 64 year old Phil Burbidge for having written an article attacking the Queen. Pictures of  ‘that slap,’ as it became known, filled the front pages of all the dailies and were wired to newspapers in places as far apart as New York, Durban, and Hong Kong. (p.49)
There is a prankish quality to a lot of the activities mentioned in the book that brings to mind student rag days. To many, attempting to give Prime Minister Anthony Eden a coal scuttle because he had “scuttled” the British Empire by backing down over Suez, seems almost buffoonish. But there was a logic to these acts, in that they gained some mainstream media publicity and showed that the post-war consensus was not as cosy as some liked to pretend it was. In short, given the League’s limited resources, it was an efficient way to get their points across while also, no doubt, boosting sales of Candour.

But the LEL was not simply limited to “trolling” government ministers, as they hobnobbed with Soviet politicians and African leaders. The movement also built up an international network of like-minded people. A.K. made several trips abroad, particularly to Rhodesia and South Africa, where he had been born.

As long as the LEL was mainly attacking the incumbent Conservative party, it faced little organized opposition itself and retained the initiative, although Tory stewards resorted to increasingly strong arm tactics, as at this 1958 Blackpool rally, addressed by Prime Minister Harold MacMillan:
The roughest and most brutal handling was reserved for Don Griffin. As MacMillan spoke on unemployment, he shouted out that membership of a free trade scheme with Europe would only worsen it. At this, the temper of the Tory stewards broke in all its fury on him. The News Chronicle’s reporter saw one hold the Loyalist’s arms fast to his side, another gripped his nose, a third covered his mouth, and a fourth lunged at what could be seen of the rest of his face, while an outraged Tory matron assisted by twisting his testicles. (p.68)
It is hard to deny that there was a kind of symbiosis between this incarnation of the League and a Conservative Party that was then moving fast towards the centre and increasingly betraying any sense of British interest.

As Labour started to come to the fore — they were elected into power in 1964 — the LEL lost much of its reason to exist. As a pressure group on the right of the Conservative Party, it was difficult for them to exert a similar kind of pressure on the Labour Party; and with the Conservatives now out of office, they had less ammunition to attack that party. This was reflected in falling membership and funding issues. This strengthened the tendency towards the LEL becoming a political party that would see it merge into the National Front in 1967.

Today there is a tendency to see the LEL as quixotic types, firmly ensconced on the “wrong side of history.” But this perception is questionable. The African leaders, like Kenyatta, whom the LEL ‘trolled’ with a barge pole, really were filthy in every way, from indices of corruption to metrics of murder and massacre.

The same could be said for the Communist leaders whom they also opposed. In 1956, Khrushchev might have been able to point to the scientific pretentions of the Soviet Union and claim that this was “the future.” But, of course, it is old school Communism that now lies rusting on the scrap heap of history.

As for empire, immigration and free trade issues, was the League really far wrong there? On immigration the trends increasingly march in their direction, while on the subject of decolonization, it is obvious that Black Africans were not ready to run their own affairs at that time, while ordinary Blacks in Africa have never been less free and more oppressed than they are now.

A.K. was a firm realist about Africa and knew the continent and its people intimately. Given the inability of African countries to succeed on their own, it is conceivable that sometime in the future, there might well be a need for some kind of formalized mentoring relationship between Europe and much of Africa, not entirely unlike the latter stages of British colonialism or Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

While a creature of the past, one suspects that the League and its narratives may yet acquire a new relevance in the future. This is the spirit in which to read this lucid and well-written book, not merely as a remnant of a fading past.

One last thing to mention is that the book is illustrated with dozens of photos, which help the reader to put faces to names. Highly recommended for White Nationalist bookshelves!

Our Suicidal Immigration Situation

via Koinen's Corner

These are the kinds of articles that should be read by every White man and woman in America.

Most of us racially enlightened White people know this is going on, but sadly, most of our 'average American' citizens do not.

First up, an insightful essay by an Hispanic student about the way we Whites are just 'giving it all away.'  If only more of our own people could have this kind of understanding of this terrible immigration problem.

Then, we have this article about the involvement of our own government in facilitating this 'genocide-by-immigration' situation we are faced with.

And lastly, we have this story about the racial demise, via our insane immigration practices, of another of our American cities in a different part of the country.

Do you know what I think?  I think that if we really dug into the background facts behind each of these articles we might even turn up some involvement on the part of Jews in positions of power in government, politics, and the media. Most likely a lot of Jewish involvement.  But of course that is rarely if ever mentioned, even in articles such as these which do expose the insanity of what is going on in America these days in the area of immigration.

Manipulated by the 2%rs: Phoenix Anti-Muslim Rally’s Real Agenda

via TradYouth

The mass media as of late comes in two varieties of demagoguery: “liberal Jews”, starting with Trayvon Martin, have been busy agitating black violence against whites across the country, while conversely, neo-conservative Jewish money has been busy trying to recreate the Zionist vs Muslim “clash of civilizations” in the United States. There is a certain segment of white Americans being  manipulated by almost exclusively Jewish stirrers against the estimated 2.5 and 5 million population of Muslims,  most of whom are doctors and small business owners who generally keep to themselves.

Of course, Middle Eastern mass immigration is no good, but in the American context, this isn’t even in the top hundred problems whites face.

America’s 2%rs

In Phoenix, where the “Free Speech Rally Part II” hosted by self-proclaimed “atheist” Jon Ritzheimer is taking place, the Muslim population is about the same size as the Jewish one (approximately 2%), but there is a major gulf in their negative influence on the affairs of Arizona. Additionally, more than 30% (45% of Phoenix) of the state’s  population is composed of Mexicans, many of which arrived in the United States illegally and have transformed large swaths of the Southwest into “little Mexico”, while simultaneously displacing white workers. This serious demographic problem continues to go without much, if any, address; and Arizona will soon be minority white, just like neighboring Texas–the capital of Islam hysteria.

The sole voice of reason actually addressing the real issue is Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County. It’s likely that many of the bikers looking to force people at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix to look at images of Muhammad are also concerned about illegal immigration, and it’s safe to assume a large contingent support Arpaio in some shape or form. But the people sabotaging control of the US-Mexican border or the work of Sheriff Joe are not named Abdul and they’re not members of the Council on American Islamic Relations, they’re in fact, America’s 2%rs: wealthy, politically organized, rabidly Zionist Jews. The Lithuanian-Jewish ex-Mayor of Phoenix, Philip Gordon, for example, was instrumental in abusing his administrative power and siccing the FBI on Arpaio for enforcing existing immigration laws.

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee–two Israeli fifth columns that practice willful cognitive dissonance in their support for the Middle Eastern racial state putting non-Jewish immigrants in concentration camps–were instrumental in organizing and leading “protest” movements against Arpaio and the concerned white citizens of Arizona, as well as the myriad of frivolous “civil rights” lawsuits that have kept Maricopa County under permanent siege. The Jewish-controlled mass media further fueled the fire in demonizing whites in the region, and while Sheriff Joe continues to fight, the system may be too big for Maricopa County to defeat–especially when the most active citizens of Arizona are busy wasting their time and energy on wild Muslim chases.

Counter-Jihad: Whites as Jewish cannon fodder

The two main catalysts for anti-Muslim agitation in the West and even Europe are the wealthy neo-conservative Jews Pamela Geller and David Horowitz. They function as economic benefactors for anti-Muslim writers and activists around the world. Gentile facades such as Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Pastor Darrel Whaley, Brigitte Tudor, Guy Rogers, and many others have been revealed as getting anything from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars from Horowitz in particular.  While both entities pay lip-service to concepts of free speech and Western civilization, their real motive lies in reversing public disenchantment with American military interventions on behalf of Israel after the recent catastrophic failure in Iraq.

Fools beware of Jewish racists pretending to be the friends of European-descended people. The New York Jewess Geller, in a Februrary 2010 blog post on her website allowed her real beliefs briefly seep out, by endorsing Israel utilizing the “Samson option” on Europe:
“I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina.
Not to mention Europe.They exterminated all their Jews, but that wasn’t enough. Those monsters then went on to import the next generation of Jew killers.”
The Jew Horowitz is even more shameless than the GOP clown car of candidates trying desperately to distance themselves from the Iraq war. Even after the almost entirely Jewish think-tank behind the Iraq war, the Project for a New American Century, was forced to dissolve and rename itself due to backlash, Horowitz continues to defend the pointless Gulf War intervention that deposed secular Arab leader Saddam Hussein and ignited an ethnic powder keg that birthed ISIS…simply because it benefits Israel and hurts Iran.

It’s obvious that the Jews behind the counter-Jihad movement do not have any Gentile interests in mind.  The neo-conservative agenda, embodied by Jews like Horowitz, is as destructive to the West or more so than the Leftist one. The attempts by Geller and Horowitz to bring the wars Israel is starting in the Middle East to America is insidious to say the least.  Let the Jews fight their own “clash of civilizations.”

The Real Enemy

Many of the individuals involved in the anti-Islamic rally in Phoenix are veterans of the Afghanistan and especially Iraq war. These men, some of whom have returned minus a leg, or arm, or deformed by burns, or with irreversible mental trauma after Iraq, may find the hollow vindication of war mongering globalist Jews like Geller and Horowitz emotionally appealing, especially now that the Republican party has completely changed its tune on the war Jews lobbied and bribed them into supporting. What needs to be said, however, is that nobody will find closure from fighting and sacrificing for a bogus cause by repeating the mistake a second time.

War veterans who have been manipulated and wronged by the system would find it more fruitful to undo the machinations leading to these conflicts, as well as taking up the cause of legitimately protecting America’s borders. Just like leeches don’t cure ailments, Israel is not an “ally” of the West–it is an enemy that sucks billions of dollars and thousands of lives from non-Jewish populations to further it’s Talmudic ambitions.

There is no realistic prospect of “Sharia Law” in America, either. In fact, majority Muslim nations that are hotbeds for extremism, like Pakistan, do not even have Sharia law. Veterans and bikers would instead be wise to take a look at what’s happening on the Southwest US-Mexico border, where tens of thousands of people are killing one another in a full-scale drug war that has already spilled into the United States.  If ISIS chopping people’s heads off in Syria is a problem (that Assad and Iran are trying to mitigate, while America and Israel support the Jihadists), perhaps the Los Zetas drug cartel decapitating children only a few miles from the American border deserves a second look. The Jewish media, in fear that such footage would exacerbate popular opposition to the elite’s open border agenda, has more or less hidden the extent of organized cartel violence in Northern Mexico, but a quick google will bring up the gory beheading videos if you have the stomach for it.

“Judeo-Christian” Obsession with Islam

After manipulated veterans, “Judeo-Christian” religious huckster types are big on the Muslim hysterics. Zionist Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network has been a major figure in advancing this Jewish agenda. The CBN specializes in trying to make common cause with Jews on Iran, but there is no real foundation to this.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, the only explicitly and entirely Islamic state in the world,  does not reduce non-Muslims to “dhimmitude” or make them pay a “jizya” tax. The more enlightened Shi’ites, in fact, enshrine the rights of religious minorities such as the ancient Persian folk religionists of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and even Judaism (the largest population of Jews in the Islamic world lives in Iran) into their legal code. According to Article 13 & 14 of the Iranian constitution:

“Article 13:
Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education.

Article 14:
In accordance with the sacred verse “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes” [60:8], the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Of course, there are some cases where specific marginal religious groups are persecuted. For example, Evangelical Christians, who are well-known for being more loyal to Israel than the United States, are viewed with suspicion when they try to advance pro-Israel propaganda to Muslims in Iran. The Baha’i, a made-up religion that preaches globalism, miscegenation, and liberalism, have also been the focus of certain cases of restriction. Aside from that, Christians are guaranteed seats in their parliament, allowed to consume alcohol, eat pork, and live according to their own values.  Iran today has additionally become a host for Christian refugees fleeing ISIS and American and Saudi backed Jihadists in Iraq.

Hezbollah fighter genuflecting inside of a Christian church destroyed by Syrian rebels
Hezbollah fighter genuflecting inside of a
Christian church destroyed by Syrian rebels
Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Muslim patriotic force from Lebanon, has been fighting a number of pitched battles against ISIS and Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front in Syria, including in a number of Christian districts that have been besieged and destroyed by the Zionist supported fanatics.

In a powerful gesture after the liberation of the Christian town of Maloula from Israeli-backed Al-Qaeda fighters, Hezbollah rang the bells of the village Church in a symbolic show of solidarity. This is why Arab Christians booed the shill Ted Cruz, the only context in which they have witnessed Israel is when its fighter planes illegally rain death on their liberators on behalf of their tormentors.

Jewish Cynicism in Phoenix and the Real Agenda

Perhaps the biggest and most brazen hypocrisy of all is that local organized Jewry in Phoenix is planning to have a rally in “defense” of the Muslims against the bikers. Jews know that Arabs perceive them as the major force behind the popular opinion against them, and so the use by neo-cons of very “goyish” looking bikers against them provides an amazing window of opportunity.  Rabbis such as Lee Weissman are planning to capitalize on this by presenting himself and Phoenix Jewry as the friend of Muslims against white people. The agenda is similar to what Northern Marxist Jews did with blacks at the Scottsboro Boys trial in 1931. They have no love for the Arabs, but seek to  turn the struggle between Jews and Arabs over the fate of the Middle East into a confused garbled mess where it is not clear who is the enemy for anyone except Jews.

Any Jew who supports Israel is anti-Arab by default. The agenda of Leftists and Jews who come to the aid of Muslims against problems they themselves created is to turn the anger of the Arab world away from their Jewish oppressors and the cultural Marxist poison they foist on them, and towards the people of the West.

The anti-Muslim biker rally in Phoenix is not just silly, it’s potentially dangerous. While the Islamic center that is being targeted has released a statement that supports the right of people to exercise their racial or religious opinions (unlike the Anti-Defamation League), there is no telling what a black prison convert motivated by racial animosity more so than religion may respond with. Hopefully Jews like Geller won’t get the chaos and violence they’re hoping for.

Instead of tumbling down this ideological neocon rabbit hole, we need to start talking about real issues: The final granules of sand in the hourglass are dropping, and whites are sleeping through it.

Community and Society

via Gornahoor

As I was working on a post, three items came to my attention for review. Since they touch on similar topics, I’ll weave traditional notions as part of the review. These are:
  1. From the German Conservative Revolution to the New Right (200 pages, softcover), by Lucian Tudor. The book deals with writers such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, Othmar Spann, etc.
    It is published by Identitas/Círculo de Investigaciones PanCriollistas, an identitarian group of Latin American Creoles
  2. Transcendence & the Aristocratic Principle, by Edwin Dyga, published in Aristokratia III
  3. Testament de Ybarzabal, an obscure work by Sidney Vigneaux, which Rene Guenon considered to be of interest from this review of the Protocols of Zion. (H/T Avery for pointing this out and locating the French text.) This will come later, since I have to translate the French text while Aeneas is translating the Evola essay mentioned by Guenon.
The first two works will be reviewed from a specific perspective, which we will make clear. Unfortunately, there is the persistent idea that the New Right and Tradition have something in common and are aiming for the same goal. It is clear from these works that the New Right is a patchwork of ideas with little in common among those associated, either willingly or unwillingly, with that movement. Fundamental terms such as “Right”, “Identity”, and the “modern world” are never clearly defined, certainly not in a positive way.

Unlike the New Right, Tradition is not a “movement” among other movements vying for power or influence. Rather, Tradition sees itself as the True, which supersedes all “movements”.

So let’s start with some premises as a working hypothesis. Of course, since Tradition is understood in its fullness only by a higher intellect, there is not, and can never be, scientific proof or a logical demonstration of its truthfulness. Nevertheless, it is not irrational so these premises can certainly be grasped with a little effort. If you disagree, or are uncertain, treat it as a “what if”, or a language game that you can learn to play once you figure out the rules. If you think about it, you may even come to see that they are true.


Great civilizations have been founded on certain metaphysical principles which Rene Guenon has brought to light. These principles he called “Tradition”. However, that is an abstract term, a genus, that requires a species. Hence, you can no more be a “Traditionalist” than you can paint your house a “color”. There is always the follow up question, “Which color?”, “Which Tradition?” Qualifying Tradition with the adjective “radical” adds nothing although it sounds way cool in some circles.

What, then, is the Tradition of the West? Here we agree with St Augustine’s assertion that there has been but one Tradition, now known as Catholic. In this, Guenon agrees, and its fulfillment was the civilization of the European Middle Ages. Hence, to follow Tradition in the West means to be a Catholic (with some qualifications to follow). If Tradition is true, then a fortiori the Western tradition is true.

Degeneration and Regeneration of Tradition

Now Guenon was motivated to a large extent by what he saw as the decline of Tradition in the West. A Tradition in itself cannot degenerate. Rather it can be forgotten, neglected, or the titular heads of its institution fail to understand and transmit it.

This is a point in which we agree with the Association Boris Mouravieff:
If Tradition, and the teachings attached to it, follow the historic evolution of Man and Nature since Creation, it doesn’t generally appear in plain sight. Esoteric teaching has always been given to certain persons most often via oral transmission. Christian esoteric tradition, notably, has been preserved intact for centuries under the protection of Hermetism. … Hermetism has constituted for quite some time the safeguard for tradition.
As Valentin Tomberg describes it, Hermetism has followed a parallel path to the Institution, preserving its teachings independently while not actively opposing it. The time has come to make these teachings more public, although oral transmission can still not be dispensed with.  Hence, group work is actually the most important part of Gornahoor.

Community and the Individual

The importance of community and the rejection of individualism is common to both Tradition and the New Right. Unfortunately, we have poor examples to follow. Guenon became a Sufi as part of his “personal equation”. Evola created a post-Christian idiosyncratic personal philosophy.

Guenon justified his choice on the grounds that some men are advanced to be able to choose their own tradition. In a sense, that is true. Tomberg claims in Letter XX that such an individual is less tied to the family, people or race. (575) However, the higher individual is born into a community that is suitable for him:
The individuality, in the case where his incarnation is ruled by the law of the vertical, descends consciously of his own free will to birth, into an environment where he is wanted and awaited.
So it would be unusual to reject that environment, which includes family, nation, race, religious tradition and so on. In other words, while most men may be attached to a community by family, habit, custom, or social pressure, the conscious individual chooses to belong to it by his own free will. In other words, his soul elements are in harmony, viz., his instinctual attachments, emotional bonds, intellectual commitment, and will all align. That is Identity.

Loyalty and Fidelity

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens. ~ J.R.R.Tolkien
Tudor, in his book, mentions Ferdinand Tonnies’ distinction between Community and Society. Community consists of the organic relations and a sense of connection and belonging which arise as a result of natural will, while Society consists of mechanical or instrumental relations which are consciously established and thus the result of rational will.

Community designates a social entity which is based upon solidarity, bonding, a sense of connectedness and interdependence; it means belonging to a supra-individual whole on a deep spiritual level. In a Society, the unity between individuals exists only on a superficial level, where individuals are not united by spiritual bonds but by practical, legal, economic, or other artificial relationships.

Keep this useful distinction in mind. At the end we will see that Tradition is a Community and the New Right a Society. It is Gornahoor’s contention that the organization of an intellectual movement should mimic its doctrine.

The Wail of the Cuckold

via Alternative Right

"It was us baby, way before them!"
The lyrics of most modern-day pop songs are dippy, dopey, silly, sappy, and altogether crappy. But every so often, we have an anthemic event which simultaneously rocks the airwaves and also captures an essential component of the Zeitgeist with poignant alacrity. In early 1981, that event was REO Speedwagon's power ballad anthem, Keep On Loving You.
The song is generally regarded as a stirringly romantic proclamation of a man's enduring commitment to the one true love of his life. And Keep on Loving You is plenty stirring, just not for the reasons typically believed. In fact, if one pays attention to the lyrics, this is a plainly shocking song: one that expresses the raw, wounded perspective of a desperately humiliated man in deep denial, who finds reality impossible to bear. It is, in short, the pitiful, heart-piercing wail of the cuckold.
In our feminist age, saturated with grrl-power rhetoric and riddled with anti-male sentiment, indulged in from an early age (the oft-heard middle school jeer, "Girls rule; boys drool!" sets the tone), a woman's virtue is presumed, while a man is regarded as a sexed-up, lying, cheating dog until he thoroughly demonstrates himself to be otherwise.
Still, when it comes to matters of recorded infidelity, an old double standard from pre-sexual revolution days still largely obtains. A woman whose man has cheated on her is regarded- quite properly, I might add—as a wronged creature who deserves recompense; she will be attended with sympathy and accorded respect by all decent people. A wronged man in a similar circumstance, however, is seen almost immediately—both by women and by other men—as weak and pathetic. To be sure, no one says this out loud, nor does anyone explicitly hold that a cheated-on fellow deserved to have his trust betrayed by his cheating wife or girlfriend; still, their internalized assessment clicks in almost automatically, even if they never admit it to themselves. The notion that will not entirely leave their minds runs something like this: “If only the guy had been more of a man, his woman never would have strayed in the first place.”
It was out of a general sense of a cheated-on guy's contemptible unmanliness, and the widely-held derision thereof, that the term "cuckold" first came to be used. The "cuckold" concept was apparently first conceived in medieval times; the name derives from the female cuckoo bird, which commonly takes its eggs to the nest of a male bird who is not the true father. The notion came to be conceptualized through references to "horns," alluding to the custom of stags, who meekly give up their mates after losing a fight with a rival.
Cuckolds are still largely mocked today, even in our supposedly enlightened times. Masculinist game-obsessed self-styled "alphas" tend to view them as beta wussies who got what was coming to them, while feminists often justify female infidelity as positively "empowering," as it helps to undermine the "patriarchy," or something like that. (Also, to have a negative opinion about a slut behaving sluttily amounts to "slut-shaming," which is invariably seen by feminists as bad, of course, even if the slut in question is eminently worthy of shame.) So the cuckold is out of luck. Who will feel his pain, and treat his plight with compassion, rather than greeting him with mocking laughter and derision?
Who? REO Speedwagon, that's who!
In Keep On Loving You, (see full lyrics with accompanying music here) the speaker claims to "know all about those men" with whom his wife has been intimate. (Note, "men," plural.) Yet though he "know(s)" this fact, he still wills himself to believe otherwise; indeed, he claims, "still I don’t remember." The cuckold refuses to dwell on the fact that his wife cheated on him multiple times with multiple partners, since to "remember" such a thing would destroy him. Yet he tells himself that it's all about remaining true to a love that in some way means more because it came first, chronologically speaking.
"It was us way before it was them, baby.
And we're still together."
Moreover, the cuckolded speaker wants to believe that his eagerness to deny the undeniable whoredom of his wife (again consider, "all of those men" — gee whiz, just how many are we talking about here, guy?) is motivated by love, and by a principled commitment to the vows he swore at the altar:
"And I meant every word I said
When I said that I love you, I meant that I love you forever."
Which leads into the rousing chorus of the song, in which our hornswoggled hero reveals that he's so obsessed with loving his faithless wife that he's going to "keep on" doing so, no matter what. He doesn't even intend to sleep, in fact, so doggedly determined is he upon fulfilling this task, whatever it might entail.
One who pays attention to the words cannot help but be moved by the poignancy of the speaker's heartbreak, sublimated though it may be by his declarations of ardent affection for his wretched lover. Plainly, he cannot admit to himself the extent to which the woman he chose as a life partner is simply no damn good. We admire him, in a way, for attempting to deal with his humiliation in a manner that retains a semblance of dignity, but just how in the world could it ever work, given the repugnant track record of his wife, and her seeming lack of repentance about her behavior? (When he confronts her, she is recalcitrant, even hostile: "You played dead, but you never bled/ Instead you lay still in the grass, all coiled up and hissing.")
In sum, Keep On Loving You gives voice to the cuckolded male in an age that shames "slut-shaming" and invites victim-blaming, provided that the victim is male and his victimizer is one of the sanctified "sluts" promoted by feminism. The song packs a surprisingly powerful punch; the chilling desperation of its underlying theme of male helplessness in the face of female heartlessness haunts the listener long after its final note resounds into oblivion.

The View From Olympus: ISIS’s Culminating Point?

via traditionalRIGHT

Has ISIS reached its culminating point, the point where a military offensive or a movement (ISIS is both) runs out of gas?

ISIS’s success in Ramadi and Palmyra seem to suggest the answer is no. On the physical level of war, it is moving from strength to strength. Its defeat in Tikrit was not so much a defeat of ISIS as of the Baath. That was not to our strategic advantage–or would not have been, if we had a strategy–because we should be seeking an alliance with the Baath against the Islamic puritans who front ISIS. That  would be a strategy. But as John Boyd often said, few people in Washington can do more than spell the word. America’s “strategy” is bombing.

To answer the question, we need to move from the physical level of war to the moral, which Boyd argued was the most powerful level. That is certainly the case with any movement.

We also need to factor in the Brinton Thesis, which I have mentioned before in these columns. Created by historian Crane Brinton, whose specialty was the French Revolution, the Brinton Thesis postulates that all revolutions move in an ever—more radical direction in a series of coups leading to the left (left—right is not relevant here; rather, the spectrum is religious-secular). A final coup of Thermidor, the month in the French Revolutionary calendar when that coup occurred, restores the center.

So our question becomes more specific: on the moral level of war, is the faction of ISIS which represents the religious puritans reaching its culminating point?

That point is currently covered by clouds, so even Olympus must speculate. But some evidence suggests it may be.

The first is that the puritans have turned Islam into a cult that demands human sacrifice. I am no friend of Islam, which is a religion of war and always has been (there are peaceful Moslems, such as the Sufi; peace be upon them). But from a religious standpoint, there is a vast difference between war and human sacrifice. The headless corpses that dominate the picture wherever ISIS goes are human sacrifices, no different from those offered to Baal or to the Aztec’s Hummingbird Wizard, Huitzilopochtli.

Every Moslem knows that Allah is not a god who demands human sacrifices. So ISIS, when it offers them, is offering them to a god who is not Allah. For a religious movement, that creates a problem of legitimacy–the most dangerous weakness such a movement can have on the moral level.

Where this may lead is pointed out by the Aztec’s example. The reason Cortez won is because all the other indians joined with him against the Aztecs. It seems they had grown tired  of feeding old Huitzilopochtli.

ISIS cannot turn off the human sacrifices, because it depends on puritan recruits to fill its fighting ranks. Any move toward moderation, in any form, would make it impure and set the state for another coup leading yet more to the extreme.

This points to a second critical vulnerability ISIS has on the moral level. It depends heavily on foreign troops.

As we found out in Iraq and Afghanistan, foreigners are not loved in tribal societies. Now, conquest by ISIS means conquest by foreigners. Those foreigners intentionally disrespect many local customs, which they regard as un—Islamic, i.e., impure. ISIS’s physical assaults on the monuments to the history of the local peoples is also an affront. The destruction of history we are now likely to witness in Palmyra will not make the locals happy–again, destruction carried out by foreigners.

If the United States had a strategy for dealing with ISIS–Republican calls for more direct American military action are equally absent any strategy–it would seek to leverage these vulnerabilties of ISIS on the moral level. It cannot do so directly, because it also has a legitimacy problem in that part of the world. The more directly we act, the more we weaken the parties we are trying to support and buttress ISIS.

The most promising strategy is to work behind the scenes to support the Baath against the puritans within ISIS. We might, for example, tell the Baath we would support them in creating a “Sunnistan” out of the remnants of Iraq and Syria. The Baath are the most likely source of the coup of Thermidor, which is what is needed to put an end to Islamic puritanism. That would be our strategic goal, if we had a strategy.

As it is, the best we dare hope for is that our mindless bombing does not so strengthen ISIS at the moral level that it overcomes the critical vulnerabilities at that level its own actions are creating. It would be an unpleasant irony if, just as President George W. Bush created ISIS, the U.S. Air Force were to save it.

The Question of Race in Spengler & its Meaning for Contemporary Racialism

via Counter-Currents

Michael Kunze, Oswald Spengler


It is a tradition at Counter-Currents to remember the great German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler, on the anniversary of his birth, the 29th of May. This year, I would like to take the time to critically reflect on Spengler’s views of race within his magnum opus, The Decline of the West (1918–22), and, in particular to discuss the importance these ideas hold for modern day racialists and ethno-nationalists.

Some of these issues were touched on by Greg Johnson in his 2010 essay, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?,” and my arguments here are largely in response to some of the questions he poses therein. In brief, my intent with this piece is to (1) provide a brief overview of Spengler’s racial doctrine, (2) illustrate the disjunctions existing between the Spenglerian conception of “race” and materialistic ones, and (3) to explore what the Spengler being correct on the question of race means for those currently involved in the various shades of racial preservationism common among Counter-Currents’ readership.

When discussing “race,” it is common parlance among racial preservationists to adopt usages of the term derived from the great physical anthropologists and anthropometrists of the early 20th century. It is in works such as Carleton S. Coon’s The Races of Europe (1939) or Bertil Lundman’s Nordens Rastyper (1940), that the highly developed and nuanced models of the different human races are exemplified. And, it is from works such as these that contemporary discourses on race within preservationist circles find their genealogical root. Primary examples of this can be seen in the wide selection of early-twentieth century literature hosted on the website of the Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology (SNPA)[1]—an organization “founded in January 1999 […] by three university students” with the goals of reviving the theories of “the nature and phylogeny of human biodiversity” which dominated academia “prior to 1950.”[2] The SNPA’s website is presently hosted by a racial preservationist web forum, The Apricity, one of whose most active sub-forums is devoted to classifying both forum members and celebrities according to the racial typologies such as Lundman’s or Coon’s.[3] The deep relationship between pre-1950 physical anthropology and contemporary racialist discourse is hardly unique to The Apricity, and can be found throughout racialist websites and forums.

This biological view of race—focusing both on the phenotypical and genotypical variations both within and without Europe—is, however, quite far from what Spengler means when uttering the word “race.” While he does not deny that there is a biological dimension to race, Spengler does not reduce race to biology.[4] Rather, for Spengler, the notion of race was one which included the material, but supervened over it to include psychological and cultural dimensions as well. Later in life, this non-reductionist position would put him at odds with the high-profile members of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP), particularly with Alfred Rosenberg, whose racialism bore more in common with Lundman and Coon’s physical anthropology than with Spengler’s anti-materialism.[5] What, however, is meant by an anti-material conception of race? If Spengler did not reduce race to physical characteristics, how did he understand it?

Spenglerian “Race”

In his own words, Spengler defines a race as “the cosmic-plantlike side of life, of Being, [which] is invested with a character of duration.”[6] Race is, he tells us, “determined by the fact that the bodily succession of parents and children, the bond of the blood, forms natural groups, which disclose a definite tendency to take root in a landscape”—with “race” standing in for the “fact of a blood which circles, carried on by procreation, in a narrow or wide landscape.”[7] Prima facie, this definition of the term does not sound too far a cry from those of the physical anthropologists. However, as Spengler develops his thesis within The Decline of the West, his position emerges as one which is far closer to the völkisch landscape mystics of the Bodenbeschaffenheit movement, such as Hermann Keyserling.[8] We see this connection emphasized in the relationship Spengler postulates between race, landscape, language, and culture. In terms of the connection between race and landscape, we see Spengler advocating for a fundamentally formative and governing impact of the latter upon the former:

A race has roots. Race and landscape belong together. Where a plant takes root, there it dies also. There is certainly a sense in which we can, without absurdity, work backwards from a race to its “home,” but it is much more important to realize that the race adheres permanently to this home with some of its most essential characters of body and soul. If in that home the race cannot now be found, this means that the race has ceased to exist. A race does not migrate. Men migrate, and their successive generations are born in ever-changing landscapes; but the landscape exercises a secret force upon the plant-nature in them, and eventually the race-expression is completely transformed by the extinction of the old and the appearance of a new one. Englishmen and Germans did not migrate to America, but human beings migrated thither as Englishmen and Germans, and their descendants are there as Americans.[9]

In this, we see that Spengler’s view on race is such that it can be essentially treated as a function of a specific landscape and place—with individual races being inextricably tied to their geographic birthplaces as peoples.[10] The differences between this conception of racial formation and Darwinian models of evolution are more pronounced when we consider as well that Spengler’s philosophy treated a race not as a collection of related organisms, but rather as a single organism, and that the physical and psychological formation wrought by the landscape was collective rather than individual in nature. This collectivism is seen in the relationship Spengler posits between race and language as well, with the two complementing one another in a way analogous to body and mind in an individual:

In the limit, every race is a single great body, and every language the efficient form of one great waking-consciousness that connects many individual beings. And we shall never reach the ultimate discoveries about either unless they are treated together and constantly brought into comparison with one another.[11]

This relationship between a people’s race and its language, then, is one wherein each necessarily complements one another, with both being fundamentally necessarily to the integral unity of the singular organism. Carrying the metaphorical comparison between the individual and the people further, we see culture emerge from this race-language dyad as the natural expression of the two as they exist in the world. Spengler sees language as essentially two-fold, being divided into talk and speech, with each linguistic mode being proper to one “of the two primary Estates” such that “talk belongs with the castle [the state], and speech to the cathedral [the church].”[12] By means of its expression through these two estates, Spengler sees language as participating in the “waking relation that has Culture, [and] that is Culture.”[13] In this way, culture emerges as the activity of the interaction of the bodily race and mental language of a people with their given landscape.

This conception of mankind which Spengler elucidates is not anti-material in that it denies the material dimensions of race, but is so in that it does not treat a people as being reducible to mere physiological characteristics and differences. For Spengler, the very term “people” is not a simple designation for a group with physical or political or linguistic ties, but is “a unit of the soul,” designating a unified collective spiritual internality shared by all members of the group.[14] For Spengler, this racial soul was expresses most fully through the peoples’ modes of cultural production—namely through the arts. He saw racial virility as being intimately tied to artistic expression, with the development of High Art being “a mark of race,” rather than of learning.[15] He tells us that “the great art by which the Culture finds its tongue is the achievement of race and not that of craft.”[16] In this, Spengler is saying that the art whose expression comes to define a people (e.g. the relationship between Gothic architecture and Western man) is essentially racial in nature, and not a learned skill—insofar as the art itself is the cultural “vocalization” of the race’s experience of the world.[17]

It is with this sense of both the terms “race” and “art” that we can make sense of Spengler’s assertion that “the creators of the Doric temples of South Italy and Sicily, and those of the brick Gothic of North Germany were emphatically race-men, and so too the German musicians from Heinrich Schütz to Johann Sebastian Bach.”[18] For, in this, he is saying that these great artists throughout history exemplified through their works the inner experience of their race, and as such were great men of race. The art of these great men, which forms the core cultural expression of Western man, is for Spengler, thus seen not as the products of artistic education achieved by individuals. Rather, it is a fundamentally racial production, which can no more be separated from the race of the people who birthed it than can that race from its language, nor the race from its landscape. It is through cultural production generally, and through art particularly, that the genius of the race is made manifest—its strength and vitality being translated into forms which supervene over the brute materiality of phenotype and genotype.

Questions of Preservation

If Spengler is correct, what does this mean for contemporary racialists and racial preservationists? To begin, let us examine one of Spengler’s best known statements on the question of racial purity and preservation, from The Hour of Decision (1943):

But in speaking of race, it is not intended in the sense in which it is the fashion among anti-Semites in Europe and America to use it today: Darwinistically, materially. Race purity is a grotesque world in view of the fact that for centuries all stocks and species have been mixed, and that warlike—that is, healthy—generations with a future before them have from time immemorial always welcomed a stranger into the family if he had “race,” to whatever race it was he belonged. Those who talk too much about race no longer have it in them. What is needed is not a pure race, but a strong one, which has a nation within it. This manifests itself above all in self-evident elemental fecundity, in an abundance of children, which historical life can consume without ever exhausting the supply.[19]

In this passage, we see Spengler vehemently rejecting the purity-based racial theories prevalent within the NSDAP. But, what is the nature of this strong rejection? At its root, what we see in Spengler is a sharp contrast between his characterization of (a) the raceless man’s engaging in discourse on race and (b) the man of race’s non-discursive lived experience of race. The former discursive behavior, we see Spengler treat as degenerate and weak—the latter non-discursive behavior, as vital and strong. As Johnson notes, one of the key differences between these two behaviors is the activity’s vector; where “racial consciousness is backwards looking […] the feeling of race is forward-looking.”[20] The former is an after-the-face reflection on the past activities of race men; while the latter is the present experience of the man of race, impelling him to reach new creative heights in the cultural expression of his race.

Spengler would argue, then, that the discursive activities of contemporary racialists and racial preservationists on maintaining racial purity not only miss the point of race entirely by reducing it to mere physical characteristics, but also that such discursive action is a decadent and unhealthy way of approaching race. The man of race would view, Spengler tells us, such concerns with racial purity as entirely backwards-looking, seeking to preserve what his race once was. However, the non-discursive experience of one’s race is correspondingly forward-looking, seeking to actualize and create a strong and vital future culture. Johnson tells us that Spengler would argue that “the racial purist looks to the past, not the future, because he does not have the vitality in him necessary to create a future.”[21] The racial consciousness of the preservationist is defined entirely by his race’s past—a past which is, by definition, immutable and fixed; his engagement with race, then, is wholly discursive, merely talking of past glories and present ills. It is not defined by the action born of the inner experience of race-feeling itself.

These unhealthy manifestations of discursive preoccupations with racial purity run counter to the healthy non-discursive race-feeling and its resulting cultural production not because the discourse of the purist is wrong. Indeed, as Johnson argues, “decadent people can be right, and healthy people can be wrong.”[22] However, in terms of effective action, there are more important things than simply holding “correct” opinions, or engaging in “correct” discourses. What is needed so much more than mere discourse is the action which springs naturally from the healthy man of race’s vitality. In, correctly in my estimation, judging “White nationalism in America” as “as overwhelmingly degenerate movement,” Johnson concludes his musings on Spengler by asking the question: “what would a vital white nationalism look like?” We know now what a movement whose primary activity is discourse on race looks like; it is what we have today—a decadent movement which produces a near endless stream of discussion and literature on the topic of race. How would a vital and healthy movement differ from this? Johnson speculates:

A vital white nationalist movement would be a utopian, progressivist, eugenicist mythical-cultural phenomenon. It would not be founded on empirical studies of how race influences culture. It would not propagate itself through academic conferences and policy studies. It would be founded on a grand culture-creating, race-shaping myth, propagated through art and religion, that enthralls and mobilizes a whole people. It would be less concerned about the race we were or the race we are than about the race we can become.[23]

In terms of Spenglerian views on the question of race, we can imagine a healthy movement as one whose primary activity is not discourse, but cultural production. A healthy movement would not necessarily be wholly unconcerned with “correct” discourse on race, but its dominant and overriding concern would be the cultural production stemming from the non-discursive experience of the vital feeling of one’s race. The healthy movement would by defined not by polemic literature on the “dangers” of race-mixing, but by grand works of art expressing the inner experience of the race. It would be a movement whose “celebrities” were not the authors of books on race, but men whose entire being was devoted to the furtherance of their race’s artistic expression.

In this way, Richard Wagner, stands forth as the near-ideal example of Spengler’s man of race. Wagner was not unconcerned with the question of race, or with discourse on race, but when we look at the scope of his life and work, his activities were overwhelmingly defined by cultural production rather than discourse. We remember Wagner not primarily for his writings on race. Rather, we remember him because the art he produced was a force of nature, which expressed to purely the soul of his race that it drew together thousands upon thousands of the German people—giving rise to sweeping cultural movements. Taking Wagner as our paradigm, then, we should perhaps revise our questions. Rather than asking what would a vital movement look like, perhaps we should ask how can I become a Spenglerian man of race? It is my contention that if we are to succeed—to win, as Johnson puts it—it will not be through the endless discourse we have engaged in thus far; nor will it be through grand plans to re-shape the movement from the top-down.

Our success will come through individual change and progress. It is not necessary that we cease engaging in racialist discourse, or that such discourses are wrong, but this is not the means of our victory. Rather than through imitation of racialist authors like Francis Parker Yockey, our success will come through the imitation of cultural producers like Wagner. Naturally, such a movement would be characterized by physical vitalism and fecundity as well, but it would not be limited to such. It would be equally—if not moreso—characterized by cultural fecundity and strength. In this way, a reevaluation of our very idea of “race” in Spenglerian terms proves to be of the utmost importance in providing a pathway to success.


Bolton, Kerry. “Oswald Spengler: May 29, 1880–May 8, 1936.” Counter-Currents Publishing: Books Against Time. 29 May 2012. http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/oswald-spengler/ [accessed 25 May 2015].

Borthwick, Stephen M. “Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Words for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student.” Institute for Oswald Spengler Studies. https://sites.google.com/site/spenglerinstitute/Biography [accessed 25 May 2015].

Brown, David Henry. “Metaphysical Presuppositions in Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes.” PhD diss., McMaster University 1979.

Coon, Carleton S. The Races of Europe. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939. http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm
Dreher, Carl. “Spengler and the Third Reich.” The Virginia Quarterly Review: A National Journal of Literature and Discussion. 15, no. 2 (1939).

http://www.vqronline.org/essay/spengler-and-third-reich [accessed 25 May 2015].
Duchesne, Ricardo. “Oswald Spengler & the Faustian Soul of the West, Part 1.” Counter-Currents Publishing: Books Against Time. 2 January 2015. http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/01/oswald-spengler-and-the-faustian-soul-of-the-west-part-1/ [accessed 25 May 2015].

———. “Oswald Spengler & the Faustian Soul of the West, Part 2.” Counter-Currents Publishing: Books Against Time. 5 January 2015. http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/01/oswald-spengler-and-the-faustian-soul-of-the-west-part-2/ [accessed 25 May 2015].

“Essays & Excerpts.” Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/index2.htm [accessed 25 May 2015].

Farrenkopf, John. “Spengler’s Historical Pessimism and the Tragedy of Our Age.” Theory and Society 22, no. 3 (1993): 391–412.

———. “Spengler’s Theory of Civilization.” Thesis Eleven: Critical Theory and Historical Sociology 62, no. 1 (2000): 23–38.

“Introduction.” Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology. http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/introduction.htm [accessed 25 May 2015].

Johnson, Greg. “Is Racial Purism Decadent?” Counter-Currents Publishing: Books Against Time. 10 July 2010. http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/is-racial-purism-decadent/ [accessed 25 May 2015].

Lundman, Bertil. Nordens Rastyper: Geografi och Historia. Verdandis Småskrifter 427. Stockholm: Albert Bonnier, 1940.

Noll, Richard. The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. 2 vols. Revised edition. Translated by Charles Francis Atkinson. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961.

———. The Hour of Decision: Germany and World-Historical Evolution. Translated by Charles Francis Atkinson. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2002.


[1] “Essays & Excerpts,” Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology.
[2] “Introduction,” Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology.
[3] “The Apricity: A European Community.”
[4] Farrenkopf, “Spengler’s Historical Pessimism and the Tragedy of Our Age,” 395; Borthwick, “Historian of the Future”; Johnson, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?”.
[5] Dreher, “Spengler and the Third Reich”; Bolton, “Oswald Spengler.”
[6] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:113.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Noll, The Jung Cult, 95–103.
[9] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:119.
[10] Brown, “Metaphysical Presuppositions in Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes,” 223.
[11] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:114.
[12] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:153.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:165.
[15] Spengler, The Decline of the West,
[16] Ibid.
[17] Farrenkopf, “Spengler’s Historical Pessimism and the Tragedy of Our Age,” 396; Farrenkopf, “Spengler’s Theory of Civilization,” 24–25.
[18] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 2:118–19.
[19] Spengler, The Hour of Decision, 219.
[20] Johnson, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?”
[21] Johnson, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?”
[22] Johnson, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?”
[23] Johnson, “Is Racial Purism Decadent?”