Jun 10, 2015

What Makes a Community?

via White Independent Nation

Community Building & Socialism (Orbiston)

In 1841 Goodwyn Barmby coined the phrase communism when he founded The London Communist Propaganda Society. Barmby was a “utopian socialist”  and a follower of Robert Owen’s benevolent and philanthropic philosophy.

Owenism was the driving force behind a community experiment in Orbiston (1825-28), near Motherwell in Scotland. The objectives of Owenism, and indeed the Orbiston project, were “the employment, instruction and comfort of the labouring classes and of the poor... the education and universal happiness of mankind,” but the principle motivator behind Orbiston was to provide an example to others and promote Owen’s “New System” of social reform based on the equal distribution of wealth. Considering the depression that pervaded Britain following the Napoleonic War, it is not difficult to appreciate why the likes of Robert Owen were urged to contrive an alternative to the poverty and distress of post-war Britain.

After purchasing land and undertaking construction work at the site, the architects of the scheme began the settlement process. This was to become the undoing of the Orbiston dream.

Another founding member involved in this exercise of community building was Abram Combe, a tanner from Edinburgh. Combe’s views of the earliest denizens of Orbiston where recorded in the Orbiston Register of 19th August 1827:
“A worse selection of individuals, men, women and children, could scarcely have been made — a population made up for the most part of the worst part of Society. The adults were steeped in poverty ; lazy, dirty and thriftless : the smell of tobacco in almost every house, and a dunghill beginning to rise under almost every window. The children and youths were no better ; they were quarrelsome, unmannerly”
It is clear that Combe believed that the poor folk seeking refuge at Orbiston were fleeing the designs and misery of the Old System, “rather than to seek the advantages of the New.”

The co-operative, anti-capitalist nature of Owen's New System created tension between the administrators and the communitarians themselves. And, although various trade persons and artisans were initially attracted to Orbiston, the community itself could not generate enough wealth to permit complete autarky and it began to borrow in order to remain buoyant. Internal factionalism and animosity began to tear Orbiston apart and, following the death of Combe in 1827, bankruptcy finally ended the first overt demonstration of pantisocracy on British soil.

But Robert Owen appeared blind to the eminent failure of Orbiston and in 1828 he wrote:
“It will gratify you to learn that the good cause is progressing substantially in all countries, and that your exertions, although not crowned with immediate success at Orbiston, have contributed essentially to make the principles known, and to prepare the way for their practice in many places.”
Some previously involved in the Orbiston project later become entrenched in the trade union and Chartist movements, but most slipped back into what Owen had termed the Old Order.

What can we learn from Orbiston, Owenism and, more broadly, embryonic concepts pertaining to what we now refer to as Communism? It would be useful to define the word community in the first instance and contrast it with what we know about egalitarian socialism. A standard dictionary definition of the word is reproduced below:
“Community: a group of people bonded together by a common religion, nationality or occupation."
 It really is a coup d'état on behalf of modern day Marxists that the word community became embroiled in something so anti-community and culturally anaemic as Communism.

In entomological terms, community represents the synergy of the French for ‘common’ and the Latin for ‘fellowship;’ a Common Fellowship - what could be a more common fellowship than that of race?

The Orbiston experiment, and communism per se, can be ably summerised by the great warmonger, Winston Churchill. In 1920 Churchill observed:
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played... a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
It is plain that the imposition of both ‘equality’ and ‘community’ on a group cannot succeed in real terms. The former disregards a basic fundament of human nature, which is that no two individuals, of whatever race, are intrinsically ‘equal’. The latter attempts to enforce a commonwealth-style amalgam that is neither organic or representative of the concerns, skills, expectations and ambitions of a large body of people. Imposition is rarely organic, thus we are reminded of the millions who were murdered beneath the tyrannical banner of the good intention, misdirected magnanimity and outright violent social reformation.

There is, in fact, very little difference between our own mindset and that of Robert Owen; he too felt that his undertakings were operating in the best interests of our people - of society as a whole, especially those most requiring relief and assistance - and that the outcome would be, without qualification, beneficial. In our case, this benefit is inaugurated with a basic notion: the survival of our race, genetic inheritance and our eventual ascension. The radical difference between the socialist standpoint and ours is that we comprehend nature’s eternal laws and enjoy the advantage of being capable to objectively analyse historical events and drawn them together as if they were component parts of an intergenerational tapestry (more commonly known as history).

A study of Orbitson reveals the following:
  • The creation of a new community is likely to attract those who seek an immediate escape from the old (collapsing) manifestation and our interests are liable to conflict;
  • The imposition of a community based on any theory that has not been empirically explored in the natural environment - no matter how well intentioned - will inevitably produce hostility and, in time, the dissolution of the community;
  • Finance is such a governing factor that it is best not to, in the first instance, attempt to completely fund any community building project.
Based on the above, it is evident that only the gradual and progressive influence on an existing, and suitable, community will yield any long-term and wide ranging results. The distinct merits are these:
  •     By selecting an appropriate area we can determine those who we associate with;
  •     The community is already in existence--although its bonds my be sorely stretched--so energy does not need to be exhausted in the establishment thereof. a process of subtle effect can therefore take place immediately;
  •     Financial resources can be better utilised as the members of an existing community will not rely on us for their staple support.
The pertinent question that must be asked is where should W.I.N. community influence take place?

Areas of relative affluence not only attract high property prices, and as such cap any investment opportunities, they are also, on the average, either heavily multiracial, mostly urban, areas or semi-rural locations with an aging demographic and little infrastructure required to maintain growing White families.

Avoiding multiracial environments is essential. Concentrated multiracial towns and cities are certainly suitable recruiting grounds for nationalists, but to generate community cohesion - avoiding the inevitable, negative attentions of our competitors, hostile anti-Whites, and the political police - will become impossible and, eventually, debilitating.

Isolated locations must also be circumvented for the opposite reason provided above: they are frequently not suitable recruiting grounds and, due to very low population density, revitalising a sense of community on any significant scale is impractical.

Areas of 'White flight' must certainly be considered as good potential target areas, although a pertinent question hangs over the heads of those who, in the end, chose simply to run away. The answer to this can frequently be gleaned from the study of voting records.

Regions with low house prices, low levels of multiracialism, but acceptable White demographics and a relatively buoyant rate of employment, represent sound investment opportunities.

Another factor is the opinion of the average resident towards the government and its policies, which roughly follow similar trends no matter the party 'brand' in power. Those who feel that they have been badly let down by their political representatives during the great transition of industry abroad in recent decades, are far more likely to be willing to accept an alternative message of national rejuvenation.

This gauge of not only the general character of the people, but of their resilience to counter the economic treachery of successive British governments, is key to selecting a target area. An examination of voting patterns is also useful: a history of strong nationalist support is most certainly a boon.

Furthermore, there is no advantage to pouring funds into an area and attempting to set up a conscious indigenous community when folk flock in droves to the first Chinese or Indian restaurant to appear on the high street or immediately begin breeding with any recent African, for instance, arrivals. A cautious and scientific assessment is crucial to a successful enterprise.

What remains is a post-industrial location that is predominantly White; enjoys lower than average house prices; has a steady economic environment, dominated by small to medium-sized businesses; and is stocked with enough people, from a wide age spectrum, to promote community interests and cohesion. Such places do exist.

How then can the machinations of an openly racist government be negated? Geography plays an important part. A proposed location must not be within a traditionally “multicultural” locality in order to avoid the likelihood of estate mergers or overspill. This unequivocally rules out districts close to large, multiracial towns and cities in spite of other more positive features.

The proposed location must also be not particularly high-profile or attractive to the town planners, therefore the lack of a large employer of unskilled or semi-skilled labour is obligatory; small to medium-sized independent businesses must proliferate the area in question.

If the target area is fairly inconspicuous and particularly unattractive to the 'social mobility' commandants, then it will be a notable number of years before their magnifying glass happens across our area. By which time, our influence on the public consciousness, and local councils, must have become intractable.

Taking into account these variables, we have a good chance of building conscious indigenous communities resistant to the scourge of 'diversity' and ethnic cleansing that is becoming all to common in Britain’s larger cosmopolitan population hubs.

These are the set characteristics of a favourable target area, but in order for it to triumph we must adopt a potent work ethic and the obstinate will to win.

Ice Cream, Hitler Worship, and Western Liberals’ Cluelessness about the Non-White World

via Occident Invicta

The new, disturbing face of genocide
A few days ago, ice cream merchants in Robert Lindsay’s favorite punching bag, India, inspired outrage when they launched a new brand of ice cream cones bearing Hitler’s name and image. The good white liberals of Germany, in a display that would make Abe Foxman proud, voiced their disgust over this transgression. Of course, this is hardly the first time that Indians have demonstrated affection for history’s most notorious racist. In the realm of television, the decision by India’s Zee TV to retain the title of Hitler Didi for one its soap operas was deemed “unfortunate and disturbing” by the ADL.

The article in the Daily Mail asserts that Indians are simply ignorant of the true horrors of the holocaust; the implication is that the noble brown people of South Asia would never endorse Hitler if they knew what he really stood for. This argument is patently absurd for the obvious reason that if Indians know enough about Hitler to attach his name to T.V. shows and ice cream crones, then they should have at least some idea of why he’s so infamous. Even in a country as destitute as India, information is readily available, especially to educated members of the middle class who have long comprised the bulk of Hindutva supporters.

Speaking of Hindutva, if one peruses the writings of famous Hindutva architects such as Vinayak Savarkar and Madhav Golwalkar, these educated Indians unambiguously praise Nazi Germany. Such attitudes have trickled down to regular Indians, who admire Hitler precisely because they embrace his intense nationalism, chauvinism, and strongman rule. Despite their high illiteracy rates, Indians are not stupid. They certainly don’t subscribe to Hitler’s beliefs regarding non-white inferiority. Rather, many apply Hitler’s exclusive and aggressive nationalism to their own context. Instead of promoting Aryan domination and anti-Semitism, they champion Hindutva and the demonization of Muslims.

Such logic also applies to other countries. Back in high school, I read Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner, whose primary antagonist is a Hitler admiring, Pashtun-German mix named Assef. At the time, I was nonplussed that someone of mixed background – who would have been sent to the wall had Nazism triumphed – consciously heaped praise upon an Aryan supremacist. However, knowing what I know now about the non-Western world, it doesn’t seem as surprising. Like Indians, Assef simply applies Hitler’s racist logic to his own ethnic and cultural context. As a dominant Pashtun in Afghanistan, Hazaras are the Jews in his eyes. One could easily find similar patterns in various other countries.

When Western liberals act shocked or wax indignant over incidents such as the latest ice cream controversy in India, they betray their ignorance of the non-Western world. They regard non-whites as innocent children, tolerant and benevolent by default. If and when they ever engage in offensive behavior, it is only because they lack knowledge or have had their immaculate selves contaminated by white peoples’ pernicious influence. These colored children simply aren’t held up to any moral standards. Contrast that with the punishment meted out to a Greek soccer player for performing a Nazi salute. Despite his assertion that he was unaware of what the salute meant, his ignorance was no excuse. As a white European, he should have known better.

As human beings with agency, non-whites also know better. Most are simply much more socially conservative and passionately nationalistic than white Westerners. Learning more about Hitler’s misdeeds won’t provoke revulsion or compel Indians to embrace left-wing anti-racism. If anything, such knowledge could inspire greater fervor among the more hateful ones. Hindutva chauvinists have already displayed their propensity for brutal violence, which makes David Duke look like Morris Dees by comparison. The popularity of ultranationalistic figures such as Bal Thackeray and Narendra Modi – who like Hitler were/are fascist and charismatic figures – demonstrates that Indians who romanticize Hitler know precisely what they are doing.

Non-whites are not white people who just happen to be melanin enriched. Their cultures, values, and unwavering tribalism distinguish them from the bulk of Westerners. Naive whites underestimate these differences at their own peril.

The Language of Racial Psychology

via Age of Treason

This short article, How Evolutionary Psychology Illuminates Everyday Life, by Glenn Geher, highlights a few common idioms which have to do with group relations. These two are particularly interesting:
4. Eye for an eye.
I’ve written extensively that we are giving, altruistic species (see Geher, 2015). But we’re not dumb. The nature of altruism in a species like ours is conditional – we tend to help in a strategic manner. We tend to help people who have helped us in the past. Helping others who don’t help you leads to a scenario of possible exploitation, and evolutionary forces would have selected against such non-reciprocated helping (see Trivers, 1971). Similarly, it’s not good social policy to be a punching bag. If you let someone walk all over you and don’t retaliate, then (a) that person learns that he or she can continue to be a jerk to you and (b) others come to see you as exploitable. The whole “eye for an eye” things helps us understand all of these dynamics.
2. Tail between your legs.
Across many species, dominance hierarchies exist in social contexts (see Geher, 2014 for a summary of this concept). And lots of non-verbal behavior is associated with dominance-related contexts. When two dogs squabble for dominance, the loser takes on a unique and highly observable posture – it walks away with its tail between its legs. This is a signal that it has tried to achieve a higher status position than it really warranted – and is now signaling all this information to the others. When a person makes a bold social move that fails, you can see it in his or her face – as if he or she is a dog walking with its tail between its legs.
It’s easy enough to apply these terms to the anti-White/pro-jew zeitgeist. In the wake of the last big squabble for dominance seven decades ago the non-reciprocating eye-for-an-eye jerks have dominated and exploited the dumb punching bag losers, flaunting “our” altruistic norms not only without retaliation but with Whites instead tucking tail.

This way of describing the psychology seems more illuminating than the “pathological altruism” rhetoric I’ve been criticizing recently.

Fire and Ice: The Solar Race

via Gornahoor

This is the first of several posts about the various races of the spirit by Julius Evola: The Solar Race. Evola owes his typology of spirits of the race to J J Bachofen‘s study of Mother Right, although with a creative misreading of the text, Evola extracts a deeper meaning from it.

Bachofen delineated a historical process of cultures from haeterism to matriarchy, culminating in patriarchy, which he admitted was.
the highest calling, the sublimation of earthly existence to the purity of the divine father principle.
Bachofen traces the patriarchal system in the ancient world to Athens and to the Roman Imperium. In them, there was Solarity.

As we have seen, however, Evola rejects any notion of “progress” in history. Rather he sees a degeneration. Certain ancient peoples were feminine in nature, and hence endured various matriarchal systems as described by Bachofen. On the other hand, the Hyperborean, or Nordic, peoples, were originally masculine, or equivalently Solar. Subsequent racial degeneration has led to the situation of the present era.

Although Evola gives us a very brief outline, he entire oeuvre is dedicated to the description of the Solar race. Fire and Ice are the paradoxically conjoined symbols of the Solar qualities. The Solar beings are described by Evola as being in this world, but not of it: they feel themselves as strangers in a strange land. Only ignorance or a waking “sleep” keep them bound to specific modes of being in the world. Gnosis, or awakening, what Guenon calls the Supreme Identity, liberates them from attachment to the world. Evola claims that such doctrines of awakening can only apply to the Solar race; attempts to extend such ideas as universal can lead only to misunderstandings.

This series, we hope, should make clear that the problem of the modern world is not a problem of thinking but rather of being. The error of the intellectual type is the belief that thinking the correct thoughts will somehow rectify things. Hence, there is incessant chatter and debate, which, apart from a few random conversions, always ends up in aporia.

The fundamental thing that matters is a change in the level of being.

In Support of Unity for Freedom of Speech against Islamic Extremism and Communist Intimidation Tactics

via Nationalist Alternative

It has come to our attention via social media that “The Great Aussie Patriot” aka Shermon Burgess, leader of the United Patriots Front, has made a call to arms for all Nationalist and Patriotic groups to work together for the sake of unity. Shermon Burgess has thrown down the gauntlet to get all Pro-Australian organisations to work in coalition for the Reclaim Australia Rallies on both the 18th of July in Melbourne and the 19th of July nation wide. We at Nationalist Alternative welcome this initiative, some of our members were at the recent Anti Communist rally in Richmond and at the Reclaim rally prior, we accept the invitation to work in alliance with other Pro-Australian groups from across the country for these rallies. As Nationalists we value any mass movement that wishes to defend our great nation.

Nevertheless, it must be remembered that many of the groups attending have different interests at heart. We realise the threat of radical Islam and Islamification of the Western World. But we also understand that the issue of Islam is the one of the many symptoms of mass unrestricted immigration into Western Nations, the blame for which lies with successive Liberal and Labour governments and powerful lobby groups. The system uses the Communists/Anti Fa as useful idiots.

Those on the Far Left (Communists, Anarchists etc) take up the fight for Muslims because they have the delusional belief that they are an oppressed minority. This is a fallacy because Islam is more than capable to fend for itself and do not take too kindly to Far Leftists, Homosexuals and deviants in those countries which are predominantly Muslim.

The violent silencing tactics by those on the Far Left do not win them over any new allies either. Every time there is a protest the Far-Left are involved with violence and altercations are guaranteed.  The police know this very well and it is why they face them and have their backs turned to the Nationalists and Patriots. Questions remain as to why the police really do so little to outright shut down and arrest these violent thugs – who is ordering them to allow it.

Now it is common knowledge that those amongst the Pro-Australian movement have their differences. Particularly on issues like Zionism, Israel, immigration and Multiculturalism/Multi Racialism and White Genocide. However, it is important that we put aside any problems we have for the upcoming Reclaim Australia Rallies to stop the Political Correctness Thugs and enable a platform for all of us to speak. Together working as a team we can achieve much more in a mass movement to protect Australia and it’s culture, heritage, people and way of life.

Overall, we believe in the freedom and self determination of all peoples. That is what Nationalism is all about. We wish to defend our Nation against any threats whether they be external or internal. The future of Australia is in great peril and it is our duty and obligation to meet any obstacles head on. That is why we shall put aside any differences we have with other various political groups for the love we all share for our great southern land, Australia.

The Riddle of Conan

via Radix

If you need evidence as to how far White civilization has fallen in just a few short decades, and seek that record in popular cinema, you hardly need reach as far back as The Fifties, that relatively pristine postwar decade. You might merely watch a film from that equally pseudo-conservative golden age—The Eighties. 

Certainly the style of this era is, to our jaded eyes, lamentable. Goofy and ridiculous might be the best words to describe it. Yet objectively speaking, the manner is more upright, energetic, honest, and optimistic, still naively believing in a happy, uncomplicated future. Shirts are still tucked in; sexes are still relatively differentiated; and a kind of innocence marks the female oriented teenybopper romances, while a credible toughness marks the action heroes.

Indeed, these action heroes were hardly actors at all; they were rather men—somewhere in the evolution from John Wayne to Daniel Craig, somewhere between a man for whom "acting" and "emoting" were as anathema as lying and someone who can masterfully and skillfully assume the taciturn, reclusive, irritated and aloof affectations of a man. One thinks of an aging yet still virile Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, and Stallone and notices a nearly inverse proportion between manliness and acting ability. And among all the films of the '80s, action or otherwise, none is a greater celebration of masculinity—and the increasingly besieged White masculinity—than the remarkable and subversive film Conan the Barbarian. With the possible exception of 300, Conan is American film's greatest ode to European manhood since Birth of A Nation (1915).

In brief, the plot runs as follows. Conan is a child living with his family in the land of Cimmeria during the Mythical pre-historical Hyborian age. Here, his father introduces him to the “Riddle of Steel” positing it as a sort of philosophical quest in life, something that, if fully understood, will grant great power.
For no one, no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts.
[points to his sword]
This you can trust.
Shortly thereafter, an army, headed by the sorcerer Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones) and indoctrinated into the Serpent Cult of Set, descends upon their village. Both Conan’s parents are slain in the raid, and Conan himself is sold into slavery.

As a slave, he matures into a giant of a man—filled out by Schwarzenegger at his physical peak—and is eventually trained as a pit gladiator, developing into a seemly invincible, almost demonic fighter. He is freed on the whim of a drunken and sympathetic master and from there seeks out a new life, with vengeance still on his mind.

Through a series of adventures, he soon finds his opportunity to face Thulsa Doom and the Serpent Cult, as well as the opportunity to rescues a king’s daughter from this same wicked sect. So with a small band of adventures he acquired during his travails, he sets out with the “Steel” of his sword against the Cult of Set, which uses charm and mind control to enslave and indoctrinate the “Flesh” of its members. The rest, as our narrator describes, is a “tale of high adventure.”

What to make this film, which can so easily be dismissed as a frivolous, if politically incorrect, summer blockbuster?

First, there is Schwarzenegger. Perhaps he's not so much a embodiment of masculinity as a caricature of it. In this way, he's a symbol of the “pumped up” artificial growth of the '80s (whether it be through steroids or easy money). Had director John Milius a Gerard Butler, a young Russell Crowe, or a Hugh Jackman, he might have cleaved closer to Robert E. Howards vision of Conan (as well as the vision of him brought to life through Frank Frazetta’s paintings).

In the end, Schwarzenegger is, in a funny and charming way, a brilliant casting choice, and the film is unimaginable without him. To the contemporary mind, Schwarzenegger is Conan. And therefore Conan even further transmuted into the “Hyborian” Hercules he resembles. It is important to note here that Milius, who has said he intended his version of Conan to be a “Northern European mythic hero,” succeeded in making Conan even more “Nordic” than the “black-maned” hero of Robert E. Howard's novels. And in a Jungian sense, Schwarzenegger’s Austrian background is also not to be ignored. Indeed, what does it say about Americans and the moviegoing world that, some 40 years after World War II, yet another Austrian Superman would emerge from obscurity—only this time as a benign conquerer of the box office?

Secondly, there is James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom, the high priest of the Serpent Cult. Most notably, James Earl Jones is Black. Making him the arch-villain was and is, by itself, subversive. And further, he is, conspicuously, the only Black in the film, which could have gone in for more “diverse” casting, so as to reassure the audience that not all Blacks are evil.

Arguably, race played less a role in Jones's selection than his iconic voice, which everyone remembers from the Star Wars movies. Jones voiced the popular villain in cinema history, so villainy was in his pedigree. Yet James Earl Jones is also in this role because the character he plays is a Stygian, which in Robert E. Howard’s world are unmistakably depicted as Black. John Milieus—who was the co-author of the first two "Dirty Harry" movies and whom I'll describe (for the moment) simply as "right leaning”—would unlikely have caved on this point for the sake of modern sensibilities.

Yes, the Midwestern Milieus was, by all accounts, the manliest members of the group Steven Spielberg dubbed the “mouse pack,” which included such prominent filmmakers as Francis Ford Coppola, Brian DePalma, Martin Scorsese, and Spielberg himself. At the time, Milieus fancied himself as much a military general as a film director, in some cases insisting on directing scenes from horseback (!). He idolized John Ford, and, like Paul Schaefer, who obsessively pulled the trigger of an unloaded handgun while writing his scripts, Mileus was likewise fixated with weapons, once insisting that an expensive rare gun be included as compensation for the completion of a script.

And Conan the Barbarian is shot through with militaristic machismo. We see as well a Northern Europe tendency to correlate strength and valor with a lack of refinement, especially in the casting of actors and the directing of performance (though not in writing; men can write). Milius, to his credit, never aspired to be more than a B-movie director. Know thyself, it is said. . .

Nevertheless, despite some shoddy filmmaking in spots, Conan is a truly great film. It has a stirring, if slightly crass, score composed by Basil Poledouris, which was inspired heavily by Grieg, Orff, and Wagner. And the script, though hated by many critics along with most other aspects of the film, is well written in its cheeky way. Some of the lines are lifted from no less than Genghis Khan, and they never fail to bring a primal, barbarian grin to our faces.
Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies—see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
And the script is Nietzschean through and through. Take for example Conan’s prayer to his god, Crom, before the last climatic battle: Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you! Conan's words are hard, undeceived, and defiant—in other words, beyond good and evil. Fittingly, the film opens with the title card: That which does not kill us makes us stronger. Furthering these themes, we see Conan as a sort of Anti-Christ. He is pitted against the Serpent Cult of Set, which can only be presumed to represent an early strand of Christianity, still incubating in a primitive, gnostic, Dionysian form—something intriguingly akin to '60s hippie-ism.

It is an ostensible religion of peace and love (even "free love") that nevertheless sees fit to conquer with sword and fire whenever its sorcery and enchantment are resisted.

At one point, a captured Conan is literally crucified by Thulsa Doom. Conan somehow survives the travail, through the aid of sorcery. This act of overcoming is doubtlessly designed to be understood as a symbolic overcoming of Christianity (and most definitely not as Conan becoming a Christ figure). This is even more clear in Howard's short story from which this crucifixion scene is derived (“A Witch Shall be Born”); here, Conan’s crucifying antagonist, in a clear reference to the founder of the Roman Church, is named "Constantius."

I’ve written before that the figure of Set can be understood as a Jewish figure in Egyptian Mythology. Yet in the context of Milius’s film, and Robert E. Howard’s universe, at least the intended reading is somewhat different. Howard’s notion of Set, transmogrified through the theosophy of Helena Blavatsky, by which the young Howard was clearly influenced, denies the Jewishness of Set, at least officially. In the context of the film, Set is only Jewish in the sense that Christianity, in the Nietzschean understanding, is also Jewish, indeed, impossible except as an outcome of Judaism. And certainly it is unlikely that Milius, himself a Jew, intended that the cult of Set serve as an analog for Judaism.

This stands at least as far as intentions are concerned. But looking closer at the film, we discern perhaps a subconscious, Jungian admission. Here, we have a cult that, like Christianity, is warm, fuzzy, hippy, and peace-loving on the outside, yet esoterically, in Thulsa Dooms inner Sanctuary, contains a den of predators, who use their “one true religion” to obtain obedient slaves. In a grotesque scene, the audience is shown that these slaves are even used food by the cult’s wicked and perverted elite. Is this, whether wittingly or unwittingly, a metaphorical depiction of Judaism, as not merely the origin but ultimately the esoteric core of Christianity (as well as its branches, such as liberalism and globalism)? Is this a depiction of Judaism as the herdsman who charms his flock through Christianity (or righteous liberalism) so that he may eventually fleece and consumer it, resource and all? Subversive indeed.

That said, by making Thulsa Doom Black and not Caucasian (consistent both with Howard’s world and Blavatsky ‘s cosmology), the resonance of this idea is attenuated, and the film is made less subversive and potentially anti-Semitic. A Black is made the fall guy and scapegoat, whom Conan finally punishes. One can’t help but think of the hapless figurehead Barack Obama and the ire he’s drawn from Red State Whites.

Sacrificing the Liberal Monster

Oliver Stone, who wrote the first draft of the script and, importantly, first conceived of Set as the adversary, is also influential. Consider the following: the three films that Stone and Milius worked on (both independently and, in the case of Conan, jointly) within the span of four years feature essentially identical denouements. These are Apocalypse Now (1979; Milius, writer), Scarface (1983; Stone, writer), and the least acclaimed, though perhaps the most interesting, Conan The Barbarian (1982). In each, the reign of terror of a “mad man” is ended by an assassin who sneaks into the mad man’s “temple."

In the case of the anti-hero Scarface (Al Pacino), the temple is a “temple to self”: a palatial home purchased by ill-begotten wealth. With Apocalypse Now, it is Kurtz’s compound, where he (Marlon Brando) has made himself a god. It could be very strongly argued that, from a conservative and traditionalist standpoint, all three of these “sacrifices” represent the slaying of liberal “monsters.”

On the face of it, Scarface is a cynical critique of the excesses of lassie-faire capitalism (not merely criminality), produced by some old-school socialists. But what does it also say, whether deliberately or not, about non-European, Hispanic immigration (even if relatively “good” Cubans appear in the film to mitigate anti-immigrant feelings)? The question is, of course, rhetorical.

In Conan, the “liberal monster” is a non-White leading a coalition of enchanted and beguiled Whites, understood in the contemporary context to be White liberals. Martin Luther King Jr.—the leading face of the civil-rights movement and the leader of "righteous" Whites—would be the first modern analog that leaps to mind (with the enchanted king’s Daughter playing a sort of brainwashed Patty Hearst). In Apocalypse Now, it is Kurtz commanding a coalition of non-Whites, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness adapted to a Southeast Asian locale. Here, in what is regarded as the most significant of the three films, Stone and Coppola make their point in a deeply Pagan manner. The assassination of Kurtz is intercut with the slaying of a sacrificial bull.

In Paganism, the slaying of the bull represents the solar overcoming the earthly and chthonic. It is a clear and unambiguous reference to the solar god Mithras slaying the bull (or Theseus slaying the Minotaur), which represents light overcoming dark, order overcoming chaos, man overcoming his lower and bestial tendencies. And it, in turn, is symbolically synonymous to Apollo’s slaying of the Serpent (Marduk’s slaying of Tiamiat, Sigurd’s slaying of the dragon Fafnir and so forth). And both symbols, Bull and Serpent, are totems of and synonymous with Dionysus.

Hence, Conan’s slaying of the serpent (Thulsa Doom and an earlier giant serpent) in Conan is likewise symbolically identical. What is the meaning of the slaying of a liberal-Dionysian monster—Liber, the root word of “liberal,” is a synonym of Dionysus—repeated by Stone and Milius? And why the sneak attack, as opposed to a direct confrontation? Is it possible to imagine that men like Milius and Stone saw Hollywood for the hideous beast that it was and is and desired, in the energy and optimism of youth, to “sneak in” and, through their art, commit a sort of traditionalist coup d’état? Did they hope the film might have the same consequence as the decapitation of Thulsa Doom—the releasing of an enthralled public being lead to its own destruction?

Stones of Steel

Oliver Stone, I know what you’re thinking, is a big lefty and would never have crafted the metaphors I’m suggesting (at least not intentionally). But upon a cursory review of his work, with a more mature view of things, really how “left” is he to us? For instance, he was well ahead of most of us when he explicitly attacked Randian-ism in Wall Street, all but lifting passages whole cloth from Ayn’s propagandistic prose, only to send them through his villain’s mouth. It’s our fault that a fair percentage of us had a “resistive reading” of Gordon Gekko and came to view him as, of all things, a sort of beleaguered and misunderstood hero, despite (or perhaps because of) the clear intention of the filmmaker. And it is our fault that many of us saw Platoon (1986) andBorn on the Fourth of July (1989) as “unpatriotic” films, unable to accept at the time that it was primarily Mammon America defended in these foreign entanglements, while we were told we were advancing Freedom, the American way, and, implicitly, Christianity.

And what about Natural Born Killers (1994), a film about violent and senseless commercial images turning Americans into sociopaths? Granted it wasn’t much of a film—stylistically, it was a failed experiment, and it featured Stone’s preachy pedagogy at its worst—but how far does the film’s perspective stray from the view of that three-headed Satan frozen in a block of ice, David Duke? And there also was that time Stone, virtually alone among Hollywood powers, criticized Israel and Zionist influence in the U.S. media. Yes, one night Mel Gibson became incoherently drunk and said something about “Jews starting all wars,” which him look insane, not truthful, to the public, but, unfortunately, that’s about the sum he’s contributed to the debate. Arguably much less than Stone’s sober remarks.

Now, is Stone, a co-writer of the “fascistic” Conan The Barbarian, a racialist and identitarian? Of course not. One telling scene in this regard comes in Any Given Sunday (1999); it features Coach D'Amato (Al Pacino) with his prostitute girlfriend (Elizabeth Berkley) watching a TV interview of his new Black starting quarterback, Willie Beamen (Jamie Foxx). She’s smitten with him. The aging coach notices her attraction and indicates he will be happy to be dead soon. One senses Stone’s exhaustion and surrender as much as D’Amato’s.

And yet, in the climatic scene of Any Given Sunday, the capitulation is sanctified and embraced. Beamen is leading his team to victory on the field, as well as symbolically supplanting the outmoded, pocket-passing White quarterback (Denis Quaid). Over the same image, Stone overlays vintage images of all the old White football greats.

This filmic version of the fantasy to which every good Republican and Democrat clings: the Black is learning from us and being inspired by our history. White tradition will lead and improve the Black man. We can teach them to be us after all. What is conveyed implicitly is that our civilization and institutions, to mention nothing of the position of quarterback, is inheritable. The only redeemable aspect of the scene is that it so poorly done—Americanist propaganda in its death throes.

In the end, the political image that emerges of Stone is akin, in some dimension, to the late John Traficant, a sort of old-school, pro-labor unionist with trade protectionist tendencies. Stone, it could be said, is one of those on the left end of Jean-Pierre Faye’s horseshoe, who ends up having something in common with the Right.

Stone is guardedly pro-Putin; he thinks we have treated Russia disastrously; and he is currently producing a biopic of Edward Snowden. The polemicist claims the film will be objective, but, lets be serious, by merely telling the evidently brave and righteous man’s story, Stone is taking his side. Stone’s an idealist. Perhaps he’s a sort of silent ally, but he’s certainly not one of us.

A Dude’s Best Friend

John Milius is, ostensibly, more “right wing” than Stone. Nevertheless, Milius comes off as glib (if not completely idiotic) when he discusses politics, so much so that one is left to wonder whether Conan was intended entirely as camp, as perhaps films like Fight Club and 300 also were. Ultimately, we are left leaning toward “maybe.” In a 1999 interview, Milius toldFilm Threat, “I’m really an extreme right-wing reactionary.”
I’m not a reactionary — I’m just a right-wing extremist, so far beyond the Christian Identity people like that and stuff that they can’t even imagine. I’m so far beyond that I’m a Maoist. I’m an anarchist. I’ve always been an anarchist. Any true, real right-winger, if he goes far enough, hates all form of government, because government should be done to cattle and not human beings.
Very unserious stuff. But what do you expect from a man who, the Coen brothers indicated, served as inspiration for Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski.

Interestingly, the character of Sobckak is understood in the film to have converted to Judaism, and not to have been born a Jew. Regardless, he remains not only devoted to that religion but also to his Jewish ex-wife, whose dog he tends to while she vacations with her Jewish boyfriend (“Marty Ackerman,” he is named). The Coens thus hilariously send up an all-too-common type: a Gentile neocon moron, who slavishly attends to the interests of others, while ignoring his own, to the point of literally functioning as a Shabbos Goyim. The Cohen brothers also indicate that Sobckak is not really a Jew. Might they be suggesting that same for Milius—that spiritually, he is not truly Jewish? They don’t seem to regard him as such.

In one of The Big Lewboski’s classic lines, Sobchak declares:
Say what you want about National Socialism, Dude, but at least it is an ethos.
What Jew says this? Or indeed, what Jew writes and directs Conan The Barbarian? In the Coen brothers world, he is depicted as being banished to a realm of stoned, degenerate, and dim-witted Gentile burners, who are, at best, likable and unwittingly hilarious dimwits.

Mirroring his character in the film, and like the fool who loves the stick he is flogged with, Milius remains a friend of the Coen brothers. It’s attention after all. And maybe Sobchak is a kind of photograph negative of the Coens’ view of Milius: he is a victim of Stockholm syndrome, having served as a propagandist for a culture not his own, and suffered the price for it.

Back to Milius right-wing “philosophy” above. Positing anarchy or Maoism as the extreme right wing, beyond the cartoonish red herring of Christian Identity, is, at best, random and confused (that is, if we are assuming sincerity, which, in the context of a public interview, we simply cannot).

Nevertheless, something relevant can be teased from Milius’s otherwise incoherent declaration on meta-politics. Anarchy—that is, individualism, libertarianism, atomization, something akin to the mentality of the great American Westerns—lies at the heart of Robert E. Howard’s work. And this, perhaps, is what made the evidently alienated Milius the perfect man to depict it. In some important way, Howard’s Conan saga is the tale of an opportunist, an entrepreneur, a capitalist, a freebooter and mercenary—an uprooted, rootless wanderer and wayfarer, who stumbles into kinghood through a sheer unconscious Will to Power and not by any noble desire to rule, which would have been regarded by Howard as pretentious and out of character. And isn’t this also the fatal problem of we benighted Americans?

Indeed, Conan would as soon have a “Kushite,” “Shemite,” or “Khitan” (or any other member of Howard’s fictional races) by his side, if he or she knew how to swing a blade. And much like other “lone wolves,” Conan is part of an organic, evolving world he does not understand. The Black, Lemurian races of Stygia (a fair percentage of which are reptilian shape-shifters) can never be trusted, and it is clear also that the other non-White races are understood as degenerate and dying. In Howard’s universe (and Blavatsky’s), collapsing races and societies, worlds like Atlantis, are only redeemed by genocidal cataclysms, which weed out the higher from the lower; they survivors conquer almost unconsciously, as barbaric peoples do, devoid of any “civilized” and paralyzing sense of empathy, and often simply out of a sense of necessity. In Howard’s world, the heroes are “collapse-tarians”. Nowhere do we hear Tolkien’s noble clarion call: “Stand Men of The West!

Stone and Milius and Conan fail in their lack of seriousness. Camp traditionalism will not suffice, even when the source is a pulp or comic book. Most great myths of heroes and gods had, no doubt, humble, popular, plebeian origins. But it was their purposeful cultivation by higher minds that made them great, useful, and civilization sustaining. And if Batman can be elevated to something approaching a serious film, certainly Conan can as well.

The Riddle Answered

Thulsa Doom ultimately solves the “Riddle of Steel,” at least for the far more powerful artist and propagandist, if not for the warrior.
Doom declares to the captured Conan:
Steel isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger.
By “Steel,” Doom means technology generally (techné), which includes, of course, weaponry. And by “Flesh,” he really means “the wielding of Flesh,” that is the controlling of people, through writing, theater, stories, propaganda, and religion. After all, what is an inert metal compared to the mind that gives it direction, purpose, and meaning.

Indeed, our race’s problems—whether our people are dying in the quicksand of the Middle East or being raped, murdered, or willingly impregnated by non-Whites—or, most commonly, simply living out infertile, terminal existences in cities—do not derive simply from “technology.” Certainly technology accelerated some of these problems, but it is not the source of them. One is reminded of Martin Heidegger, who concluded that the problem of technology was not a problem of technology per se; it is a problem of thinking.

The Collapse-tarian believes it impossible to regain the mind (or “Flesh”) of the great many, and impatiently awaits the time when “Steel” will once more determine things. But, alas, that time, should it come, will be far worse for him than his adversary if he does not first control “Flesh.” To believe otherwise, is to believe in a sword and sorcery fantasy.

Honesty like we have here and elsewhere is fundamental and requisite, of course. But so is art and metaphor conveyed through story. Because the subconscious is key. People, especially the great many, want to be told without recognizing that they are being told. Every advertiser and salesmen worth his salt knows this wisdom about common vanity, and we need to accept it as well. People’s decisions need to be, ostensibly, their own. In fact, this is what culture is—the reflexive, the unconscious. But to excel in art, one must become artful, gifted in lying.

Picasso said it best: “Art is a lie that tells the Truth.” It’s time to tell our truth through the lie of art. And before you think this unmanly, consider that Nietzsche ranked Princes the best of actors, even above women and the lower class. If survival of one’s people is the reward of acting, than the higher types will act. It’s time we barbarians learned to become “charming” (in all senses of that word). Its time we barbarians became civilized, because Thulsa Doom was right—“Flesh” is stronger than “Steel,” every bit as much as the pen is mightier than the sword.

We incredibly blessed, forgetful inheritors of European culture and teachers of the world should have known this and not suffered the shame of having it taught to us by others.

Another Non-White University Professor Rants against Whites

via Campus Reform

Boston University Professor Saida Grundy has been the focus of recent controversy over public remarks towards white students, but one professor has made remarks that are even more extreme.

Memphis University professor Dr. Zandria Robinson has consistently directed Facebook and Twitter posts at white students and professors. In one November 2014 Facebook post, Dr. Robinson even threatened any white students who dared to say—or even think—that black students were given preferential treatment when applying to graduate schools.

“It is graduate school application season again and it has come to my attention—again—that some white students believe that students of color will simply get into graduate programs because they are racial or ethnic minorities,” Robinson’s post begins.

Robinson proceeds to denounce this as a “gotdamn [sic] lie,” before declaring that “[s]tudents of color applying to graduate schools are always already exceptional because of the various structural hurdles they leapt to get out of college, take the GRE and apply, etc.”

Robinson says applying to graduate school isn’t exceptional for white students “because they have white privilege.”

Most graduate schools, Robinson continued, will only give three spots to students of color, “if they [sic] radical.” According to Dr. Robinson, it is actually “mediocre and undeserving” white students who “are most likely taking a better equipped student of color’s spot.”

“SO DON’T YOU EVER LET ME HEAR TELL OF YOU PERPETUATING THESE RACIST LIES AGAIN. NOT EVEN IN YOUR HEAD. NOT EVEN IN JEST,” Robinson warned. “Because if you do I will come for you. And I will do so in public.”

Forty percent of the graduate students are either black or Hispanic in the Sociology Department at the University of Memphis.

In an April tweet Robinson declared shaming students as inappropriate and a characteristic of white educators.

“Some people, usually white people, think shaming students is an appropriate way to inspire classroom compliance,” Robinson wrote. “Resist the urge to shame.”
In a March, 2015 post on the blog Conditionally Accepted, Robinson dismissed most graduate programs as being located in “White Mayo Bumfuckery Township” or “Whiteheterolandia.”

Similarly, in a tweet that same month, she declared that she doesn’t want her daughter “ in school with snotty privileged whites.”

White academics appear to be a recurring target for Robinson’s criticism.
Robinson has also tweeted that “so much racist ass social science gets perpetuated, because reviewers themselves are racist as fuck. Because white.”

Similarly, in another tweet, Robinson accused white and older faculty members of having to “ lash out” because they lack the same skills “their POC [Person Of Color] and younger colleagues have gained.” In another tweet on the same day, Robinson declared “cool” to be a “ characteristic that old white men naturally can’t have.”
In a recent Facebook post, Robinson unequivocally sided with Grundy, declaring “white college aged males” a “problem population.”

“I stand with Saida because she is right,” Robinson wrote. “White students threaten us and their racist and sexist evaluations of us factor into our job security.”
Robinson also bragged in the Facebook post about how her “ TL [Timeline] makes [Saida’s] look like Billy Graham.”

Robinson also complained about the “microaggressive behavior” of her “white colleagues,” in the same Facebook post in which she defended Dr. Grundy’s comments.

According to the University of Memphis’ academic freedom policy “[faculty members] should remember that the public may judge the profession and the University by their utterances. Hence, faculty members should at all times strive to be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they do not speak for the University.”

Jewish Historian Argues 'Holocaust' Narrative Central to Jewish Power in Post-WWII America

via The Realist Report

Dr. Jeffrey S. Gurock, a Jewish history professor at Yeshiva University, argues in a new book that Jews would never have gained the immense power and influence they possess in America today had the fake "Holocaust" narrative of WWII not been so successfully promoted and institutionalized. Without the "Holocaust", Dr. Gurock contends that Jews in America would have never achieved "the level of empowerment and agency that we associate with American Jews today," The Times of Israel recently reported.
"Things could have been much worse had the cataclysm of the Holocaust not happened," said Dr. Jeffrey S. Gurock recently over lunch at a Jerusalem café.

A statement like this is hard to swallow if you don’t realize that his new book, “The Holocaust Averted: An Alternate History of American Jewry, 1938-1967,” deals with counterfactual history, a speculative exploration of what-ifs, and the author is in no way dismissive of the murder of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis.

What Gurock demonstrates in his book is that World War II was a major turning point in American Jewish history, and that many positive things came out of it for American Jews as well as for US-Israel relations. Had key moments in the run-up to and during the course of the war played out differently, the Holocaust may not have happened. Gurock posits that instead, Jews in America would have had to “run for cover.” They would have had to assume—and maintain—a low profile, never achieving the level of empowerment and agency that we associate with American Jews today. [...]

While historians look back in history to understand what happened (or in the case of counterfactual history, what did not, or could have, happened) Gurock said the ultimate purpose of “The Holocaust Averted” is to get y Jews to think about their present and future.

“The book teaches important lessons about the post-war and contemporary Jewish condition. It emphasizes what WWII meant for Jewish empowerment and Jewish activism,” he said.
Mark Weber and Greg Johnson, two important scholars that I have learned a great deal from, correctly argue that Jewish power and influence in America and the wider Western world was already substantial prior to WWII. Thus, they aver, the political and cultural power stemming from the "Holocaust" is "not so much a source of Jewish-Zionist power as it is an expression of it," as Weber wrote in a 2009 article entitled How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?

Both Weber and Johnson recognize that although the "Holocaust" narrative is an important element of Jewish power and influence in the West today, and a weaponized narrative of history that demonizes and pathologizes European identity and ethnocentrism while strengthening Jewish identity and ethnocentrism, it is not the foundational source of this power and influence.

In Johnson's controversial and thought provoking essay entitled Dealing with the Holocaust, he argues:
Before the Second World War, Jews already had an enormous amount of power in the United States: enough power to deliver the United States into two World Wars, for instance. Jewish power was based on over-representation in banking, business, law, politics, academia, and the news and entertainment media.

If the holocaust suddenly lost its potency as a tool of moral intimidation, Jews surely have the talent, money, power, and ill-will to foist a new one on us. Whites will never be free until we identify and defeat the real sources of Jewish power. [...]
Weber and Johnson's arguments are entirely valid in my opinion: the "Holocaust" narrative is not the foundational source of Jewish power, so simply debunking this narrative (which is rather easy to do) will not end the Jewish tyranny suffocating America and the West. Exposing and refuting the fake "Holocaust" narrative in and of itself will not end the immense power and influence Jews have in America and the West. It will certainly be a step in the right direction though, and I believe it is an important endeavor to undertake because the truth matters to me.

However, as the article highlighted above notes, the false "Holocaust" narrative has facilitated the Jewish takeover of America and the wider Western world. The fake "Holocaust" story is indeed central to maintaining, perpetuating, and reinforcing Jewish power, and is the backbone of the entire "New World Order" agenda. The "lessons of the Holocaust" that Western governments and societies have adopted and institutionalized - "anti-racism", "diversity", "multiculturalism", "tolerance", and fighting "anti-Semitism" (i.e., stating facts about Jews and questioning their version of events, both in a historical and contemporary context) - are the blueprint for White genocide in America and the Western world.

Regardless as to whether or not the fake "Holocaust" narrative is the ultimate source of Jewish power and influence - it clearly isn't - the fact remains that this weaponized narrative of history is central to maintaining and perpetuating their current power and influence in the West, as well as justifying the anti-White, genocidal policies we see being promoted and implemented all around us.

The Not-so-Dark Ages

via traditionalRight

The causal modern perception of the Middle Ages is that of an age of superstition, loss of classical learning, and general backwardness. To quote Hegel it was “smells and bells”. This view has been most popularized by Carl Sagan in his smash hit miniseries Cosmos and his book by the same name. The influence of Cosmos can also be seen in the 2009 Agora, about the life of Hypatia. He makes two rather ridiculous claims that undergird this entire anti-Christian fanaticism as it pertains to modern perceptions of the Middle Ages, that (1) the ancient pagans were proto-scientists on the verge of a scientific revolution and (2) that the knowledge-hating and bigoted Christians both burned down the Great Library and murdered Hypatia for their hatred of science, rendering her a martyr. This is absurd and the truth lies beyond the ability of the mentally challenged atheists who followed Carl Sagan. The Library was destroyed and rebuilt many times by Caesar in 48BC, Aurelian in the 270s AD, the Serapium (A temple to the god Seriphus which contained some remnant of the Library, mostly magical texts) in 391 AD by Theodosius, and in 640 by Caliph Omar. Hypatia was the sad victim of late Roman political intrigues and mob violence.

The root of this narrative of Christian war against science, in which the Medieval Era is center, is John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. As lying atheists these men had no compunction in distorting and down right falsifying history. No longer taken seriously by the modern scholarship on the subject we still have legions of braindead atheists and liberals who believe this account to be gospel truth. For a sound scholarly rebuttal of this myth see Jeffrey Burton Russell’s Inventing the Flat Earth.

Having cleared the underbrush of atheist calumnies what exactly was the intellectual life of the Medieval era like? In short it was decline, preservation, and discovery. The intellectual life of Europe from about 475 to 1453 can be divided into three broad categories: 475-636, rapid decline; 636-1200, preservation; and 1200-1453, discovery. The intermediate period of preservation would have been impossible without the erudition and scholarship of Irish and Anglo-Saxons in the West and Greek scholars in the East.

I chose the first set of dates going from the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the death of Isidore of Seville; the second set of dates stretches from Isidore’s death to the birth of Peter Lombard and the birth of Scholasticism; the final period stretches from the Scholastic era to the mass exodus of Greek scholars to the west beginning the Renaissance.

Central to the narrative of the “Dark Ages” is the loss of classical learning that occurred during that period. Yet to blame Christianity for that loss is the height of absurdity, as I will show later; in fact the real source of the loss was the upheavals brought about by Germanic migrations and invasions beginning in 375 AD, with the entrance of the Huns on to the European scene. This narrative is often used as a bludgeon by atheists and liberals to discredit Christianity and as a smokescreen to their questionable treatment of scientists in, for example, the French First Republic and the Soviet Union. Central to the falsity of the narrative is that there never was a 
“Dark Age” in the Eastern Roman Empire. That empire centered in Constantinople lasted for another thousand years and the mass exodus of its scholars after the 1453 sack by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II helped to facilitate the Renaissance. In short there is not even a correlation that Christianity leads to the demise of learning.

The rest of this essay will be devoted to giving a brief overview of the intellectual life and contributions of medieval Christendom. It will be divided into two parts: (1) Western Christendom and (2) Eastern Christendom. The importance of Eastern Christendom is seldom acknowledged in the Western Christian context, let alone the secular context, and I believe the Eastern influence was great as well, if not as well known. The second part will be released in another segment.

Western Christendom

The Western Christendom can be traced back to the permanent division of the Roman Empire into East and West by the Emperor Theodosius in 395. Organized around the Roman Imperial diocese, the Western Church developed in a trajectory quite distinct from the East. While both the Eastern and Western Christians were heavily inspired by Plato, the former were more influenced by his mystical philosophy and especially the works of Plotinus, while the West was more influenced by his rational philosophy. This of course is an over-generalization as there were certainly Greek rationalists and Latin mystics, but I believe that the theological and intellectual emphases of East and West conform to the broad counters of rationalism vs mysticism. With the triumph of barbarism in 476 the west dealt with a period of historical trauma of invasion and pillage that did not subside until the middle of the 11th century. In this political power vacuum the Latin Church based in Rome and the Celtic church based in Iona filled the void. These twin Western sources of light were the main reason why not all of classical learning was lost in the West. During the early part of this decline the Irish and Anglo-Saxon church played a dominant role; but as time wore on and the endless repetition of barbarian invasion and destruction was repeated the Latin Church began to supplant the Irish in intellectual endeavors. A proto-renaissance occurred in the late 8th and early 9th century under the Frankish Emperor Charlemange and his resident master scholar Alcuin of York. Viking invasion and legal succession crises terminated this hopeful turn of events. Italy in the 13th century witnessed the birth of Scholasticism, the culmination of the Latin Medieval mind. From Italy this philosophy spread to France, England, Scotland, Flanders, and Germany. Scholasticism in like manner would give birth to modern science in the persons of Roger Bacon and Copernicus to name a few.

Period of Decline 476-636

This period witnessed the birth of Latin Medieval thought’s four great Doctors of the Latin Church; Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and Pope Gregory. No less influential men include St. Patrick, Columba, Columbanus, St. Aiden, Boethius, and the man for which I end this period, Isidore of Seville.

Ambrose of Milan is the first in our list of Western thinkers. He is most well-known for his role in converting his more famous pupil St. Augustine to the Christian faith. Yet in his own right he was a man of great erudition and laid the foundation of Medieval music by giving the Western World its first antiphonal psalmody. Ambrose is probably most famous for his courageous stand against Emperor Theodosius I. After Emp. Theodosius sacked Thessalonica and slaughtered 7,000 people as punishment for their uprising, Ambrose was incensed by this outrage and denied the Emperor communion until he performed penance for the act; even to the point of rebuffing Theodosius at the door of his own church as he was about to celebrate mass. The Emperor eventually repented and performed penance for his deeds. Seldom has such courage been shown in the face of absolute power; Ambrose must surely stand as one of the most shining examples of speaking truth to power.

Jerome, a contemporary of Ambrose and Augustine was a man of letters, philosopher, theologian, and historian. He is most well-known for his translation of the entire Bible into Latin, the Vulgate. In addition to his efforts at translation he also wrote numerous commentaries on the books of the Bible. Inspired by classical authors like Plutarch and Seutonius, Jerome wrote his De Viris Illustribus which was biographical work covering the great Christians from Peter to his own day.

St. Augustine was arguably the greatest mind of his millennium. His work in all aspects of Christian theology, philosophy, rhetoric, and invention of new genres of literature are unrivaled until the Scholastic era. One of the most widely read works of Augustine is his Confessions which was the first autobiography in history. His notion of free will and grace would lead to a rich development of Protestant and Catholic thought and as secularism rendered man in the image of God, influenced atheism as well. His forays into semiotics would later influence the 20th century deconstructionists. His pioneering work on just war, the most extensive revision since Cicero, rings down the ages. The very arguments for and against the 2003 invasion of Iraq would have been inconceivable without Augustine’s contribution to this world of thought. His De Civitate Dei is a tour de force against the contradictions of ancient paganism and one of the most influential history books of all time. His notions of two kingdoms, one heavenly and the other earthy, influenced both Protestants and Catholics and his vision of the heavenly city was eventually secularized in modern socialism and Marxism. His philosophy of mind and the trinity casts a shadow that can still be seen today. For example, Augustine’s elevation of the willing aspect of God’s personality can be seen in the philosophy of Existentialism. For if God is perfected through his gratuitous will, and secular man deifies himself, then man’s greatest form of expression is when his will is also perfected. From Camus to Derrida and everywhere in between we can see the shadow of the Augustine-haunted West.

During the Ostrogothic successor to the Western Roman Empire we find a man who bridged ancient and medieval world in the West: Boethius. Boethius’ erudition extends to mathematics, logic, commentary and philosophy. Boethiu’s work in philosophy led to his formulation of the Quadrivium and the Trivium. The former pertains to arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music with the later pertaining to grammar, rhetoric and logic. His efforts at organizing and categorizing already existing disciplines influenced Western education for well over a millennium. Boethius was one of the few men of his time, in the West, who could read Greek. His efforts at translating the classical texts into Latin would be an invaluable foundation for future work.

Out of the many Briton, Irish, and Anglo Saxon monks of this period I will mention three: St. Patrick, St. Columba, and St. Aidan. The importance of these men is they transformed the British Isle from a fringe on the Roman Empire/Christendom to the cockpit of learning and science in the West, though that will occur in the second period which I will discuss later.

Patrick is famous for his conversion of Ireland, his youthful shenanigans and monkeyshines, and his courage. Patrick was kidnapped as a youth and enslaved by the Irish in the 5th century. His experiences as a slave led him in later years to free slaves and seek to abolish the trade itself. While not a great intellectual, Patrick’s courage and actions laid the foundation for the great flowering of Celtic learning in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries.

Columba, the son of a nobleman, from an early age was enrolled in the monastic education system, a rich and vibrant network of autonomous schools that studied Greek and Latin and preserved the classical texts. Columba founded the influential monastery at Iona. Iona is famous for its scriptorium which both preserved and produced manuscripts. Some of the most famous manuscripts were the illuminated texts, a famous example being the Book of Kells. Columba spent much of his life converting the Scots and Picts to Christianity from Scotland.

St. Aidan, a generation after the death of Columba, reconverted Northumbria to Christianity. He settled in Lindisfarne, a special dispensation from the king. From there Aidan paid for the freedom of slaves, fed the hungry, and built monasteries throughout the region.

A short place must be saved for the monastic system and its importance to the Medieval Era. The Monasticism originated in the East with hermits such as St. Anthony. The collections of wandering individuals were later organized into vibrant communities by men such as Pachomius and St. Basil. The first major Western monastic tradition was the Benedictine order. The monastic tradition was dominated by prayer, contemplation, work, service, and study. Men and women had to swear oaths of obedience, poverty, and chastity. The monastic communities themselves were self-governing and a combination of a church, a school, a hospital, agricultural center, and manufacturing center. This is not to say that all monasteries or monastic communities were composed of all these aspects, but these aspects were covered throughout the gamut of the system. The preservation of classical texts and creation of new centers of learning in the darkness brought on by repeated barbarian invasions from the 5th century to the 11th would have been almost impossible, given the absence of any unifying civil authority, to keep the light of learning alive.

With this trio of Celtic saints we see the triumph of compassion, love, and the Gospel over barbarism, violence, and hate, the triumph of learning, order, and reason over ignorance, chaos, and superstition. These were truly pivotal years in the development of post-Roman Europe and it is no exaggeration to say with Thomas Cahill that the “Irish Saved Civilization” through their steady and often unrewarded diligence to keep the flame of knowledge lit.

The last individual we will cover in this period is the polymath Isidore of Seville. I chose Isidore to end this period with, in part, because he is often termed “last of the ancient scholars.” This is true in the sense that he was one of the last Western Scholars to be proficient in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Isidore was a man whose accomplishments are so vast and varied that one is at a loss to understand how a man of his caliber could be totally unkown even to most educated people. As a cleric he aided in the conversion of the Visigoths from Arianism to Catholic Christianity, he headed the fourth Council of Seville in 633. As a scholar he wrote the first encyclopedia, the Etymologiae (a compilation of all classical and sacred learning covering knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, mineralogy, zoology, physiology, geography, agriculture, and medicine to name a few). He wrote works on linguistics, Differentiarum libri, on the sciences, De natura rerum, and history, works on theology, De officiis ecclesiasticis and Synonima. The scope and breadth of his learning is astounding and an example of the magnificent culmination of classical and Christian learning in the “not-so-Dark Ages.”

Preservation 636-1200

This period is primarily of interest as covering the Carolingian renaissance a period in the 8th and 9th centuries where the far sighted Charlemagne sought to keep the light of learning alive and rekindle the flame of which more will be said later. The primary center of learning during this time was in the British Isles; first Irish, then Anglo-Saxon converts led the West in intellectual thought, some of whom could still read Greek and their efforts culminated in the aforementioned renaissance. During this period of preservation I will cover four individuals: the Venerable Bede, Alcuin of York, Peter of Pisa, and Johannes Scotus Eriugena.

The venerable Bede, a monk from the Monastery of Jarrow, was the first native English historian. His work, the Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum has earned him the title “Father of English History.” He covers the period of Julius Caesar’s invasion of the Isle to his own time. He also wrote textbooks on grammar, De arte metrica, and orthography, De orthographia. He helped popularize in the West, via histories, the principle of dating time anno domini (in the year of our Lord). Bede also contributed to our knowledge of astronomy and time with his De temporum ratione. He was a biographer and poet as well. He was a light shining in the dark after the fall of Rome.
Peter of Pisa was an 8th century grammarian who would become Charlemagne’s latin tutor. As well as teaching grammar, Peter also wrote poetry.

Alcuin of York was, if you will, the mastermind behind the Carolingian renaissance. He was invited by Charlemagne to join his entourage of scholars such as Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Abbot Fulrad. Alcuin personally educated Charlemagne’s sons and sought to curb the rude barbarism of Charlemagne’s faith and his cruel policy toward the Saxons. Through the witness of Alcuin, the “Butcher of the Saxons” responsible for slaying 4,500 of them at Verden in 783, by 797 had rescinded the death penalty for paganism. Alcuin was made head of the palace school from 782-796 with a hiatus in England from 790-93. Under his guidance the Carolingian renaissance flourished. Major advancements in grammar and learning that we take for granted were developed for the first time. Of many firsts was Carolingian miniscule. Carolingian miniscule was a form of script written in small letters, which is the direct forbearer of our modern script. Not only were the letters standardized in size and shape, but spaces between words, punctuation, and capital letters were added. The quadrivium and trivium were standardized and made the basis of education. More books were written and published in this period than in the previous centuries after Rome fell. A migration of Roman art forms to the northern regions of Europe occurred during this period laying the foundation for the later Gothic art to flourish. Musical notation in the West originates in the year 800 as a result of Charlemagne’s attempts to aid French musicians in attaining the Roman standards of music.

The 8th century scholar Johannes Scotus Eriugena was known for his questionable theology, his mastery of Greek, translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius and his revival of the dialectic method of inquiry. He was the greatest Western neo-platonic thinker since Augustine.

A brief discussion of the renaissance itself I believe is needed. Unlike the secular 16th century renaissance, the Carolingian renaissance was deeply religious and led by clerics. A vast project of collecting texts and organizing them, creating superior translations and correcting errors was an empire-wide task. The classical Latin texts were used primarily for improving one’s Latin to read the Christian texts. Education was a major focus of Charlemagne, though the primary beneficiaries were the clergy. The twin catastrophes of Viking invasions of the British Isles, which destroyed and denuded the intellectual cockpit of Western Europe and the ceaseless fighting between Charlemagne’s heirs led to the gradual failure of the Carolingian renaissance in truly transforming the Western world.

The 10th and 11th century French Pope Sylvester II (originally Gerbert d’Aurillac) was a great student of the classics and his scientific and philosophical work helped recovered some of the lost classical knowledge. When Gerbert discovered the Arabic-Hindu numeral system he paired it with the lost technology of Abacus, thereby reintroducing it to Europe. Via his knowledge of Islamic scholars, Gerbert reintroduced the amillary sphere into Western usage. We see that Pope Sylvester’s efforts in the late 10th century helped translate Islamic rediscovery of ancient Greek learning into Western civilization.

St. Victor of Hugo, a 12th century Catholic German theologian was an influential individual in laying down the intellectual framework under which modern science would develop. Hugo divided science into three fields: theoretical (mathematics, theology, and mathematics), practical (ethics, economics and politics), and mechanical (carpentry, agriculture and medicine). Hugo’s work of organizing Christian thought in such a way that included the scientific process was of great importance to the development of such thought in the West.

Discovery 1200-1453

By the middle of the eleventh century the conversion of the Norse, Poles, and Magyars coupled with Spanish Reconquista had pushed Europe’s enemies far enough away from the France, Germany, and Italy triangle that the true rebuilding of learning and civilization could be begun. By this time the Moors in Spain had abandoned their crude ways for a more sophisticated way of thinking informed by the discovery of Greek philosophy. Many 11th century geniuses such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Al Gazhali laid a foundation of Aristotelian thought that later passed into Western Europe which in turn help sparked the rise of the Scholastic movement. The Latin Scholastic era is one of the richest in Western intellectual history, but the theological works of these men will not be the subject of this paper, but their philosophical, scientific, and mathematical accomplishments. We shall look at Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Theodoric of Freiberg and Nicholas of Cusa.

Robert Grosseteste, the Bishop of Lincoln, is one of the possible contenders for the father of scientific thought, the other being Roger Bacon. Grosseteste invented the notion of a controlled experiment, and though the original method was crude, it was vital and instrumental in the development of future scientific thought. Via Aristotle, Grosseteste developed the notion that through observing nature, one can deduce the laws that govern it. Through his work in optics and study of Boethius, Grosseteste concluded that the highest science was mathematics to which all other sciences were subordinate, a view that would dominate for centuries to come. Grosseteste wrote treatises on optics (De Iride) and light (De Luce) where he outlines a very correct view of the nature of color. It was the rediscovery of Grosseteste’s work that led to the University of Durham Ordered Universe team of scientists and historians to critically evaluate pre-renaissance science admitting it to be more advanced than previously thought.

The other contender to being the father of scientific thought is Roger Bacon. The English friar Bacon, much as Grosseteste, wrote extensively on optics. Bacon, indebted to both Grosseteste and Islamic scientists, wrote on eyesight, color, and magnifying glasses. He was an early advocate of calendar reform. He noticed that the Julian calendar had calculated the wrong number of dates in a year, this error over centuries had led to many days being added to the true date. It was not until three centuries later that Bacon’s ideas on the calendar were instituted. Bacon is also the first known Westerner to give the formula for gunpowder. He hypothesized about lighter-than-air dirigibles and actual powered flight. He observed the sun via a pinhole projector. His efforts were invaluable in advancing the frontier of learning.

Albert Magnus, famous for his theological and philosophical works, is thought to have been the first individual to isolate the compound arsenic. He reportedly heated arsenic trisulfide with soap and the result was nearly pure arsenic.

Theodoric of Freiberg, a 14th century German physicist in his study of optics, correctly described the rainbow. His work De iride et radialibus impressionibus, with use of geometry and the theories of observation, was able to describe both primary and secondary rainbows, the reversal of color in the secondary rainbow, and light paths necessary to form a rainbow. In his study of optics he correctly described the path light takes as it enters a raindrop. To simulate the droplets he made spherical glass globes and filled with water in a flask.

The fifteenth century polymath Nicholas of Cusa was renowned in his legal, philosophical, theological, and scientific writings. The subject of this paper will be his scientific work. Cusa argued that the Earth was not the center of the universe and that Earth’s magnetic poles were not fixed. He challenged the Ptolemaic view of the planets and their orbits by claiming that neither were perfect spheres. In manys was his work is a precursor to Copernicus’ work, even though Copernicus was ignorant of Cusa. In medicine Cusa argued that pulses should be counted. Cusa also observed that plants derive nutrients from the air, performed the first biological experiment, and proved that air had weight.


I have attempted in a very general way to describe the one thousand year contributions of Western Christendom. We have covered the last ancients, Augustine, Gregory, and Isidore and their accomplishments including, but not limited to semiotics, history, and the first encyclopedia, and the Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks who preserved the classical texts and led the valiant attempt at a renaissance in the early 9th century. We saw the recovery of Western knowledge and the first steps at laying the foundation for the renaissance with the Scholastics with major advancements in optics and astronomy, with respectable gains in chemistry and medicine as well. Contrary to the Carl Sagan view of history and the Draper-White view also, medieval Western Christendom was a vital and vibrant component of the Western intellectual tradition. They saved the classical texts, and improved upon them laying the foundation for the scientific revolution. We see the same process at work in Copernicus and Galileo. Their efforts would be inconceivable without the thankless work of the previous millennium. Given that this entire essay is a rebuttal of the misconceptions about medieval scholarship spread by atheists, I felt like ending with a brief note on Galileo. The standard story is that Galileo was a plucky scientist who proved the Bible wrong that the Earth was the center of the universe (even though the Bible makes no such claim), and that the Catholic church in its ignorance and superstition persecuted him and forced him to recant. The real story is a little more complicated. Galileo was not the first to propose heliocentrism; earlier Copernicus did the same with far less controversy. The controversy arose in Galileo’s confrontational attitude; he implicitly mocked the Pope in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo also did not help his case by demanding the Catholic Church accept his position as fact when very little experimental evidence existed at that time. The problem of parallax was thought to be an argument against heliocentrism. Parallax is the fact that when you observe an object from two or more different locations it appears to change position. In Galileo’s day the optical instruments were too crude to observe the parallax between the stars, but as optics became more refined later people were able to observe the differences in location of celestial objects. So again the atheist spin doctors got history wrong. Christianity, far from being anti-scientific, is the womb that birthed science in the first place. I will end where Thomas Woods began in his book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by quoting Wisdom 12:21: “but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.”