Oct 2, 2015

French Official Punished for Pointing Out “France Is a White Country”

via The Occidental Observer

Nadine Morano
The Overton window appears to be shifting. The current migratory crisis has led to unusually explicit discussion of race in Europe even among our traditionally lackluster “conservative” parties (most spectacularly in Hungary). French conservative politician Nadine Morano recently argued during a talk show that France is a White country and should not become Muslim:
For there to be national cohesion, we need to maintain a balance in the country, that is to say its cultural majority. We are a Judeo-Christian country – as General [Charles] de Gaulle used to say – of white race, which is welcoming foreign persons. I want France to say French. I do not want France to become Muslim.[1]
Morano did not explicitly say she wanted France to remain a White country, hiding behind quotes of De Gaulle, but that was pretty heavy dog-whistling. She later doubled down on her statement, citing De Gaulle’s Mémoires d’Espoir on Europe:
For my part, I have, since always, but today more than ever, felt that which is common to the nations which inhabit [Europe]. All being of the same white race, of the same Christian origin, of the same way of life, bound between each other since always by countless relations of thought, art, science, politics, commerce, it is in line with their nature that they come to form a whole, having in the world its character and its organization.[2]
Morano has naturally been subjected to massive media attacks and been condemned by her own political party. She defended herself in an interview:
To subject me to a media lynching, to crucify me in the media, because I dared to quote the statements of General de Gaulle, even as in our country radical Islam is establishing itself, where we see more and more veiled women at the end of the school day, which we did not see ten years ago, and nobody is questioning themselves![3]
It is important to note that Morano’s party, now called “Les Républicains,” claims to be the “Gaullist” ideological successor to the General. Les Républicains are led by quarter-Jewish former president Nicolas Sarkozy, who in the past has said France requires coercive miscegenation [métissage], that “Israel’s right to security [. . .] is the struggle of my life,” and that the Shoah means humanity has “contracted with the Jewish people a debt which cannot be extinguished.”[4]

Les Républicains were outraged at Morano’s statements, the party making the ludicrous claim — really a genocidal lie — that France has “always” been multiethnic, citing the existence of Black African colonies centuries ago. The party has decided to punish Morano by eliminating her candidacy in upcoming regional elections but, interestingly, she will not be purged from the party. Given that the regions have fairly insignificant powers, this can be considered a mere slap on the wrist.

It is unclear why Morano made her statement. No doubt the rise of the Front National, the migrant crisis, and the trickle-down influence of online nationalist media are putting pressure on mainstream conservatives. Importantly, several members of Les Républicains have discussed reform or elimination of birthright citizenship, which would tackle one of the root causes of the multiculturalist nightmare. Given that Morano has faced relatively minor political punishment — despite serious media punishment — more conservative politicians may well begin to explicitly condemn Afro-Islamic demographic change and voice the interests of indigenous Europeans.


[1]“Nadine Morano évoque la ‘race blanche’ de la France,” Le Monde, September 29, 2015. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2015/09/27/nadine-morano-evoque-la-race-blanche-de-la-france_4773927_823448.html
[2]Charles de Gaulle, Mémoires d’espoir, volume I, 181. http://www.fdesouche.com/652791-race-blanche-les-pretendus-gaullistes-ont-il-lu-de-gaulle
[3]On BFM TV. http://www.fdesouche.com/652879-race-blanche-nadine-morano-persiste-et-signe
[4]Discussed in Guillaume Durocher, “Paul-Éric Blanrue and the Jews: From Celebration to Censorship,” The Occidental Observer, September 24, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/09/paul-eric-blanrue-and-the-jews-from-celebration-to-censorship/


via traditionalRIGHT

A naive article in the August 26th New York Times raised the question of whether U.S. military headquarters were overstating the results of our campaign against ISIS. Of course they were, and are. How do I know? Because such puffery is standard operating procedure all the way up the chain of command.

The Times reported breathlessly that
The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress…
The investigation began after at least one civilian Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told the authorities that he had evidence that officials at United States Central Command…were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama.
Yawn. The only surprise here is that the Times is, or acts, surprised. It may actually be surprised, because the quality of reporting on military affairs has gone to hell in the last three or four decades. One hopes President Obama and those close to him know most if not all intelligence estimates they are given are puffed to favor whatever the military bureaucracy wants to be true. That means whatever makes it look good and supports the case for more money.

Americans who know the system may think it has to be this way; it is simply how military and intelligence bureaucracies work. It’s no different in other countries. But here’s the surprise: there was an exception.

In a brilliant article published several decades ago, I don’t remember where, Professor Williamson Murray told the story of a military that did the opposite. Titled “The German Response to Victory in Poland,” it detailed how the Wehrmacht reacted to a stunning victory, in the first test of what is popularly known as Blitzkrieg, not by crowing on its dunghill as we do (Grenada, Panama, the First Gulf War, the initial stages of the Second Gulf War [“Mission Accomplished”]), but with intense self-criticism. The higher the headquarters, the more insistent were the demands for the bad news: what had not worked, which units and commanders performed poorly, where pre-war training had proved deficient. More, the German chain of command was able to meet those demands with honest reports and assessments. The result was a far-reaching program of reforms, implemented under forced draft, without which the 1940 campaign in France might have had a different outcome.

Why was the German chain of command able to do what ours cannot? The answer lies in the characteristics the German Army looked for in its officers. First, it demanded complete honesty at all times. Not only was active dishonesty not tolerated, neither was passive dishonesty: keeping your mouth shut and letting something you knew was wrong go through. The sin of omission was considered worse than the sin of commission.

Second, it despised careerism. The surest way to guarantee you would not get promoted was to show you cared about it. Of course, like any army that does not want to institutionalize moral cowardice and the Peter Principle, it did not have a rule of “up or out.”

Third, the characteristic the Wehrmacht valued most highly in an officer was strength of character, which it defined as an eagerness to make decisions, take responsibility, and get the result the situation required, regardless of orders, procedures, or obstacles.

That yielded a chain of command that could both require and provide honest reporting.

What about us? The picture is a diametric opposite. Trapped in our up-or-out personnel system, officers quickly learn to tell those above them what they want to hear. Doing otherwise could endanger their promotion. Lying is not only tolerated, it is expected. The Army recently did a study confirming this, which I referenced in an earlier column. It is no different in the other services.

Second, obviously, with up-or-out everyone is compelled to be a careerist, and most general officers have become general officers by being careerists from day one.
Third, consistent with its inward-focused, Second Generation culture, the U.S. military is frightened by officers who take initiative, violate procedures, and get results. Strong character upsets apple carts. Officers who show it are weeded out at every level of promotion, so few make it to or near the top. The percentage of military competent captains is a lot higher than the percentage of militarily competent generals.

So we have a system that lies to the public, lies to the president, and lies to itself. The last may be the most dangerous.

Outline for Evola’s Revolt

via Gornahoor

Gornahoor Editor's Note: Logres is the pen name of M. Smallwood, and I appreciate the fellowship and camaraderie of all those here, and at Gnosis group; I thank you all, and also our host. What follows is an outline of the foreword to Revolt, an executive summary, Evola’s own review, and a few footnotes. There will be a discussion Thursday, starting with a few high points and remarks from the Foreword. Evola claims to establish a metaphysics of history, a possibility denied or inverted by all modern thought. His purpose is to aid those who either can, or will be able, to awake from modern history. We will look closely at the text in the foreword, focus on his insights, and discuss. Food for thought: Contrast Evola’s work with the Durant’s History of the World, O. Spengler’s The Decline of the West, or A. Toynbee’s History of Civilizations, or even Marxist anti-metaphysic purporting to give the meaning of history.


A. Justification and Need for the volume

Amateurish “intellectuals” have wrung their hands over the “West” while lacking true principles, retain (due to passions) false principles they ostensibly reject, and get caught up generally in “contingent and terminal” forms which are the spasms of false principles to begin with. None of these “reactions” have positive value, only possessing value as a symptom merely, like the sleepwalker whose deep sleep prevents him from noticing he is ambling about on a dreadful height or precipice, subject to the ever-increasing likeliness of tumbling lifelessly down into ruin. This is a protective mechanism which creates an illusory “limit”, allowing the disease to run a terminal course before detection, thereby creating a better climate for the inevitable death of the patient. This process has only lately been detected, and ineffectually, although ancient man was well aware of its possibility and outcome. This demonstrates that the process robbed man of even an awareness of “true normalcy and health”. On the contrary, we must dig ever deeper to uncover the true root of the disease (as opposed to symptoms, since treating symptoms will not lead to a good outcome). A foundation, a center, a principle gives rise to true action, rather than reaction, and men today are incapable of anything but reflexive protest. Even experience teaches that nothing salutary happens in this way: we cannot toss and turn on a bed of agony – the point is awaken and arise. The real starting point is not to protest “technocracy” or “consumerism”, but to find the root. The real still exists, invisible and mute – we have to acquire eyes and ears to see it. This would be an absolute reference point. This would be a point of understanding modern deviation and simultaneously, mounting an effective defense1. “The only thing that matters is the silent endurance of a few”. This will induce liberating crisis in those around them.

B. Purpose

This is my task, within my limitations, to contribute to this work of establishing the total decadence of the modern world. It is upon the ruins of real civilization that the “Modern” has been constructed, and this realization will provide the true foundation for revolt, clarifying what is reacted against and in what name (legitimacy). The cadaverous wisdom of “Progress” glorifies defeated, decrepit man as the ultimate standard, outside of which is supposedly darkness and nothing. This intransigence and Lie proves the blindness of the Modern.2 It is not merely that we gain a certain perspective from realizing the relativity of “the Modern” in studying what is past, but we also see that from the perspective of what is Past, the Modern simply “is not”: the disappearance of the Modern will itself mean nothing, from the vantage point of Tradition. I call this the “dualism of civilizations” (as opposed to merely the “relativity of civilizations”). There is a moral dimension, not merely a historical one, at work here. One possesses Being, the other is built upon illusions. They are different types.3

C. Thesis

In the 8th-6th centuries BC, the process of involution and degradation began, when “History” actually began. There have been several phases following, including the fall of Rome/advent of Christianity, the decay of the feudal order and Empire, and the advent of humanism and Reformation. All of these are Iron Age phenomenon, the “Wolf Age”. Underground forces have become more and more manifest, and the process of decay swifter and swifter, more decisive, more universal. It will seal the collective fate of millions. This is the historical and relative side. The fact that we cannot trace it further shows how deep the process had already gone, & how a reaction must step outside of history.4 Any civilization that bases itself in the “temporal” will eventually fall prey to these same forces. It is “accidental” that true Tradition lies outside of Time, however, that accident demonstrates where we should begin.5

“These things did not just happen once, but they have always been” – a fog cannot obliterate the heavens. The best of “modern” scholarship is a display of ignorance at best. Although a relative value can be placed on the results of their research if they are used from another perspective, there is always a tendency of other influences to creep in, the presence of which are subtle. Myth, legend, and epic have a high validity in this line of inquiry6. Our perspective is super-individual and non-human.7 These truths either Are or Are Not: they cannot be debated or even discussed (in the modern way). It is only possible to remember. They are constant and central and equivalent, regardless of how difficult to discern or how fragmentary in application. “Certainty and transcendence and universal objectivity is innerly established” by them. Nothing can destroy them, nor can they be reached by alternate means.

D. Method

For the first part of the volume, I intend to identify by correspondences the traces of what is spiritual, true, certain, and objective (which must be made to speak and to appear) which are homologous across all times and places – this will result in one Truth which is invariant, transcendent, and the origin. Having achieved this, in part two, we will proceed (with this knowledge) using induction, “a discursive approximation of a spiritual intuition”, which will clarify the pathways and etiology of decline, as well as inform us as to the greater and lesser degrees the truth was manifested. (So part one is “seeing” what is of value in the wreck, part two is understanding the trajectory of the wreck through its relation to what is real). This induction of part two is neither eclectic (as in the sense of picking a certain language best suited to subject or person) nor comparative (just as using parallaxes to find the location of star8 is not mere comparison). The result will be “the same one meaning and same one principle”. This will lay the foundations for an eventual positive and effective revolt, against what is passively and semi-consciously accepted today. Those who defend the “concrete” of the modern world ought to be told, not “Stop!” but “Go Ahead!”: “the pit must be filled: there is a need for fertilizer for the new tree that will grow out of your collapse”9.

E. Result

This work will provide guiding principles and essential elements – certainly entire volumes more could be written. These forms and ideas are not “realities”, but that which makes “realities” possible: their value is independent of that which they establish, which will never be “perfect”. Of course there are imperfections – but this argument would eventually invalidate any reality10. Indeed, from this point of view, establishing what is normal and healthy may be no less possible today than yesterday, as even in the past Tradition was not lived up to. We are providing here a “metaphysics of history”, allowing us to trace the genesis of the modern world, and at the same time, embrace what is symbolical, super-historical, and normative. The result will be sufficiently enough (but not exhaustive) for those who are either already awake, or possess the possibility of awakening.

II. Executive Summary of Evola’s Volume

Evola delineates his purpose in the Foreword to Revolt Against the Modern World, in a manner to obviate, absolutely, any potential misunderstanding. He clearly explains that the work is a beginning, and a foundational contribution to the preservation of Tradition (rather than a complete edifice, which would require “volumes”). He is laying a foundation in the sense that he uncovers and defends in an absolute and definitive way that which is, strictly speaking, absolutely necessary to the recovery and manifestation of those principles. Astoundingly, it will be a “metaphysics” of history, a possibility denied or inverted by all modern thought forms (eg., Spengler, Marx, liberalism, degenerate Christian schools of thought, etc.) Because most Western thought involves and invokes a modicum of history & theory, it is helpful to explain Tradition both as a counterpoint to modern historicism (Part One: the unreducible remainder of the “Myths”), and also as a non-historical object that has maintained a decisive presence even in a period which has abandoned it in favor of the temporal continuum, as well as denying it clear and full expression (Part 2).

Therefore, Tradition manifests, in a positive sense in the myths and legends and even some historical periods of the Past (Part 1), & also as deprivation and endurance (a negative sense) during the period of its so-called eclipse (Part 2), the period in which modernity and anti-Tradition enjoy a titulary and technical dominance that saturates Being today and heavily hampers even the possibility of conceiving Life differently from its current distortions. Because of this, his book includes the “death” of tradition (in the 6th-8th centuries), & traces the presence in the periods following this immersion in the heightened historical sense (an immersion which springs to life, for instance, in the histories of Thucydides). However, he also seeks knowledge “beyond” the historical period (Part One). In this way, he not only traces the rise of Tradition’s opposite (Revolution in a pure sense), but forcefully proves the reality of Tradition in a period which did not perfectly or even greatly manifest it (in Evola’s mind, there is a distinction between the essence of Tradition which manifests, and the vehicles it uses, as well as the degree or particular form to which it perfects itself: this is why he divides his work into two parts, Part 1 being concerned with the Essence, Part 2 with the particular “story” of how Tradition manifested).

That this is not a virtuoso parlor trick of the intellect is further shown by the perfect interchangeability and equivalent nature of Tradition throughout the historical continuum in various highly contrasting periods (eg., Greek and Aztec), as also by the fact that this very Tradition radiates an energy which something else has twisted and distorted, making possible the very decay which presumes to deny the primordial source of its remaining power and twisted legitimacy. Evola demonstrates all of this with crystal accuracy, sourcing primary texts, and restates the unwritten thesis in language and arguments suitable particularly for the Western seeker, even the one who is interested in comparing the Western tradition with other traditions. Not only does Evola’s thesis possess far more explanatory power than its logical competition (it should be remembered that explanatory power alone is practically the sole criteria of certain higher forms of scientific argument)11, it is internally coherent in a way which demonstrates its freedom from truncated and merely ideological solutions to the “problems” of Life. Another way to put this would be that it is not merely analogically compatible with what we find in history and pre-history, but homologous.

You may find it useful to compare the above with what follows below, which is the

III. Editorial Presentation to the First Edition (Evola’s Own Anonymous Review)

“The seemingly polemical title of this work conceals a powerful historical and metaphysical reconstruction, as the basis for the in-depth understanding the greatest problems of the current age.

The author’s fundamental idea is the opposition between two types of civilizations, called “traditional” and “modern” respectively: the former, based on the values of pure spirituality, aristocracy, and hierarchy; the latter, rooted in the purely human, secular, and contingent element. With a series of summaries, the fundamental meanings are given that used to dominate in the living, believing, knowing, acting, ruling, and self-transcending of “traditional man”: meanings that an in-depth examination of the most varied texts and evidence are shown to be remarkably identical in all the greatest civilizations of the past. In a second part, the processes are made precise that, in a type of fall, led from the traditional world to the modern world. From the exploration of prehistory, in order to which it throws unsuspected light, the investigation proceeds in an historic outline that extends to the birth of the new Russian-American barbarism. The Aryan civilizations, then the Roman and Ghibelline, in the author’s presentation appears as great luminous culminations in this sequence of events over millennia and as symbols of perennial current events.

In a conclusion, the author poses the problem of future times. That last world of the book is not so much a “decline of the West”, but instead a profession of heroic faith, precisely a call for the spiritual revolt after having had the courage of looking into the depths and its most remote roots that world of decadence, against which today those who believe in the highest possibilities of our Revolution, fight.

The book, of which a German translation is in preparation, has a totally particular character, in order to join a series of truly revolutionary historical views to a very serious, scientific documentation presented in an incisive, suggestive, and fully accessible style.

Revolt against the modern world is not a book of sterile polemics, but of serious culture, particularly illuminating for those who want to understand, through a series of quick summaries, the meaning of history and the spirit of the greatest civilizations and institutions of the past as the positive basis to achieve to a truly reconstructive action.

It therefore interests anyone who is not indifferent in the face of the great problems that in the present hour assail the people and from which solutions will depend the destinies of the future world and of Western man in particular.”

1{ The energies that have been liberated, or are in the course of liberation, are not such as can be reconfined within the structure’s of yesterday’s world. The very fact that attempts at reaction have referred to those structures alone, which are void of any superior legitimacy, has made the subversive forces all the more vigorous and aggressive. } Evola.
2“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”. Livy
3 They are “unequals”. Any argument about which is “better” is pointless, or incomplete. One is an actual civilization, the other is the opposite of that.
4Thucydides, for instance, had a modern conception of history, and is the father of “history”. Ancient man had no concept of “Time” as we do.
5. I take his meaning here to be that, from a modern point of view, the descent into history represents a happy evolutionary accident, or at best, a kind of historical twist, which lead to the randomly meaningless but ultimately beneficial situation we find ourselves in today.
6. Wagner’s Parzifal is interesting from this point of view: a look at ancient myths and “new” ones (the Grail).
7. He doesn’t speak of a “superman” like Nietzsche, but of what is “non-human”
8. Using parallaxes allows someone in a seemingly relative position without hope of measurement to actually triangulate a relative position vis a vis other distant and also relative points. Erastothenes used the variant positions of shadows on obelisks at Alexandria and in Nubia to calculate the exact circumference of the earth.
9. Guido de Giorgio quoted here.
10. It is certainly true that even traditional civilizations did not utterly do away with sin, injustice, or imperfection (view it how you will).
11. It is certainly true that even traditional civilizations did not utterly do away with sin, injustice, or imperfection (view it how you will).

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 12

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Carolyn reads chapter 21, "Katyn" and chapter 22, "Vinnitsa."

The mass graves discovered in the Katyn Forest in 1943 are the most widely publicized of the political murders and war crimes committed by the Soviet Union from 1937 to 1945, but are just one of innumerable examples from the bloodthirsty regime of Josef Stalin. In the town of Vinnitsa, 10,000 bodies were exhumed from three major burial sites, but more remained in the ground. Some highlights:
  • At Nuremberg, the Soviet prosecutors tried to indict the Germans for the killing of thousands of Polish officerrs at Katyn, but had to abandon the effort due to the obvious falsity of their case:
  • Details of the U.S. Congressional investigation, which also found the Soviets responsible;
  • Other research, investigations and books exculpated the Germans for the killing of 22,000 Polish military and police officers;
  • In Vinnitsa, the murders of political prisoners held in the NKVD prisons began in 1937-38; rumours of what some had seen taking place were mentioned only in whispers;
  • In 1943, Germans dug up mass graves in three separate locations in Vinnitsa, but had to end the digging when the Soviets reoccupied the area in 1944;
  • International medical committees were formed for both Katyn and Vinnitsa, and found unanimously that the vast murdering took place when the Germans were NOT there, but the Soviets were in control.

War of the Words

via Radix

We all know too well the words that stab like daggers into the identity of Europeans, on the continent and around the world: “Diversity” . . . “gentrification” . . . “patriarchy . . . “privilege” . . . and the big daddy of them all—“racist.” 

Over the past few months, a challenger has appeared, sporting a suit and tie, combover, and an all-welcoming smile in his family photo featuring trans-racial adoptions. We call him “cuckservative.”

This truly radical insult cuts to the bone of the Stupid Party, which has, for decades, abandoned its core constituency of White Americans. Perhaps the original “cuckservative” was Dwight Eisenhower, who, despite disagreeing with forced integration in the South, did just that, and by force of bayonets wielded by the 101st Airborne Division. Today, Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul looks to Eisenhower for “guidance and inspiration,” at least in the realm of foreign policy. Of course, how could he agree with the Little Rock strategy at home when, in the wake of the creation of the Myth of Michael Brown, he calls not for bayonets but for the demilitarization of police?

Over time, Republicans have created an image that we are now giving language to—that of, among other things, prioritizing the preservation of the Constitution above the preservation of the nation. In the long run, neither the Constitution nor the people who created and sustained it will survive unless the historical forces Eisenhower helped unleash are permanently defeated.

It was around the time of the 1950s when the term “racist” gained common parlance. A New York Times article objectively reported in its opening lines,
An impressive show of Federal force cowed racist agitators at Central High School this morning, permitting the integration of nine Negro students without serious disorder.
Impressive, indeed, but not as impressive as this piece of propaganda.

The “racist” slur is close to the opposite of the term “cuckservative,” and yet both have important similarities. Both are words of offense. Calling someone a “racist” means, essentially, that your target is a monster for standing up for his own people. A “cuckservative” is not a monster but a coward and weakling for failing to defend his race and civilization. Often fighting for other groups with gusto, he has taken the easy path, while betraying his extended family. Make no mistake, both conjure up images of death—the racist is murder and the "cuckservative" is suicide.

Both “racist” and “cuckservative” tug at our sense of morality, which has made the two so highly effective. Jonathan Bowden observed in the opening minutes of “The Essence of the Left” podcast with Richard Spencer that the Left has, in its various forms, always portrayed itself as deeply moral. Meanwhile, many on our side have styled themselves as amoral and even immoral. When conservatives acquiesced to the Left’s version of morality and began celebrating its heroes and values, rather than their own, and when some of us in the dissident Right decided to play the part the Left created for us, both groups committed themselves to their own defeat. Embracing “cuckservative” commits ourselves to victory and regaining control of the discourse within our own lands.

That is the power of language. Orwell was a writer who understood the power language has over our thoughts; another was Jewish writer Victor Klemperer. In his LTI—Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen (“Language of the Third Reich: Notebook of a Philologist”), Klemperer wrote after the Second World War how language was utilized to further National Socialist values and objectives. The strategy has never ceased being practiced; the players merely changed. Today,Arisierung (Aryanization) is replaced by “diversification.”

And we must be players. An important aspect of the public controversy over the popularization of "cuckservative" is that it shows which side is creative and which is stagnant. The Left could not have been more predictable when it responded to the “cuckservative” phenomenon with calls of “racist.” As many have noted, the dreaded R-word is losing its power; Greg Johnson and Hugh MacDonald had a spirited debate over whether we should shame those who call Whites racist or simply react with indifference at the slur. Both reactions will inevitably play out and one may be more appropriate than the others at certain times.

Going forward with the offensive, it is now time for us to think past the word “cuckservative” and create a new word of offense against the liberals who hold power, not just the “cuckservatives” who occasionally hold office. The word that we embrace and that liberals flee from will be one that attacks them at their core, which is its sense that they are the standard-bearers of morality in this world. We must unmask the meek exterior and remove the halo of the devils-in-saints-clothing to reveal the viciousness, ruthlessness, and perversion in the black heart of the Anti-Civilization. We must do all of this, though, through a word or phrase that is both a description and a slur.

To start, we must paint the most accurate type of the anti-White Leftist that we can. His style is crass and ugly. He feels entitled to have his opinions go unquestioned and unchallenged from Man or Nature. He persists in futilely correcting Nature that scoffs at his attempts. Two twin terms stand out in their potential use, though others will certainly be coined in the months and years to come.

James C. Russell, in The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, innovates on sociologist Robert Bellah’s terms of “world-rejection” and “world-acceptance” in comparing the folk-centered religiosity of Germanic tribes to the salvation-seeking faith of Christianity:
“World-rejection,” as used herein, is broadened to include not only an “extremely negative evaluation of man and society and the exaltation of another realm of reality as alone true and infinitely valuable,” but also attitudes of general indifference or opposition toward the socio-biological principle of group survival through in-group altruism. World-rejection implies a desire to transcend or substantially transform one’s current earthly existence. . . .
Those who are world-rejecting cannot hide behind their incomplete and shallow understanding of evolution or their love-from-a-distance of the natural world, where its violence and vitality is utterly alien to the urban Bearded Betas who pay it lip service. We who are world-accepting know the importance of the truth of the tribe. We will not reject who we are or the principles Nature has laid down, and we will not reject the duty we have to our ancestors and descendants. We accept the beauty of difference. Most of all, we accept ourselves. We accept Europa.

Two Rolls of Toilet Paper or, How I Threatened Belarusian National Security

via Counter-Currents

Recently I spent a weekend visiting my colleagues from the Ukrainian Youth Nationalist Congress. Also I participated at the Economic Forum of Young Leaders, which took place in Nowy Sącz, a small Polish town, and later together with other participants of the forum we went to the last-day events of the Economic Forum in the Polish resort of Krynica. That event is referred to as the Davos forum of the Eastern and Central Europe. And although I’d love to share my impressions from Poland, my adventures crossing the border of Belarus deserve a separate and urgent article.

But let’s start at the beginning. My colleague and I decided to return to Vilnius through Belarus. On September 14, about 11 p.m. we stopped at Novaya Guta border crossing. The procedure began as usual: their puppy sniffed the luggage lying in the trunk of the bus; we lined up to have our passports checked; and then one-by-one the passengers approached the border control officer and showed the contents of their bags. The fun begun with the luggage of my colleague Konstantinas.

He had a souvenir flag of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists party, a souvenir cup of the LNYU partners, the Youth Nationalist Congress, also their magazine, as well as several examples of the Polish Law and Justice party campaign material (newspapers, brochures, etc. — and no, this is not the infamous Lithuanian party lead by Rolandas Paksas), which we had for analytical purposes.

After seeing such literature and symbols, Belarusian border control started asking why he was carrying them. Suspiciously they kept asking him if he was planning to distribute them. The fuss about several pieces of campaign material and a couple of Ukrainian magazines looked stupid, but the Belarusian border control feared any literature or digital media as if they came from hell. While one of the border control officers was busy with Konstantinas, another one came to the next table and asked me to come forward, since looking through Konstantinas’ stuff halted the line.

Ukrainian souvenirs among my things did not make the border control happy either. After a long inspection, having found an even greater amount of possibly “extremist” literature and souvenirs (what is legal in the Western world is regarded as threat by the advocates of Belarusian totalitarianism — all in all, a mental disease of some kind), the border control announced that I would have to stay with them, while Konstantinas and the rest of the bus continued their journey back to Vilnius. Since some of the things in my bag were the same as in Konstantinas’, he was let go, because two of us meant double work. They interrogated me, looking through my confiscated things and filling in papers up until half past four. During that time the senior officer kept scolding me for bringing these things, putting myself in trouble, and giving them a hell of a lot of work.

Although they looked more like little robots doing their job than people with reason, my tone remained polite. I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that someone can work for an idiotic repressive regime and not question it. The senior officer even tried to make an excuse, saying that if I brought something mocking Angela Merkel, I would have gotten in trouble even in the European Union. These people don’t understand that in our world politicians can be justly or unjustly mocked almost every day. They can’t imagine being not punished for your opinion (except, of course, for cases when you lose your job or get a fine for your public opinion about pederasts).

The younger officer’s question simply floored me: “Why do you hate Putin so much?” Since they had to fill in a bunch of documents, and there wasn’t much time for long and deep discussions, I simply answered that looking at the common history of Lithuania and Russia should be sufficient. Another excuse from the younger officer was even better. While having a smoke, he told me that he was born and raised here and thus got used to the system, so for him everything seems to be alright.

However, soon he contradicted himself, asking me why don’t I move to Germany. I can, after all. The sadness in his voice suggested that this was something he might be dreaming of, and that dream will probably never come true. Although fully aware of what type of person I am, he still couldn’t understand why I stay in Lithuania, when everywhere else any blue-collar job is paid better. This pretty much sums up their mentality.

In essence, the behavior of all the border control officers was correct, and I even liked talking to the younger one. Although he was a little older than me, I sometimes managed to put him on the psychological level where age or rank don’t matter.

So, you’re probably wondering, exactly which souvenirs made the Customs Union feel threatened? The things which threatened the security of both Belarus and Russia were two English books about holodomor and Ukraine during the World War II; the book (Ne)akivaizdus karas [(In)visible War)] by Mantas Martišius; a jumper with our colleagues’ organisation logo and slogan “Ukraine above all” (one of the slogans of Ukrainian nationalism), which I brought for my best friend; two t-shirts (for me and my girlfriend) with “Death to our enemies” (another slogan of the Ukrainian nationalism — why don’t we have something like that?) and “Better die as a wolf than live as a dog”; a vest in banderovec flag colors with the logo of the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists; a small red-and-black souvenir flag with the logo of the same party; Lithuanian stickers against vatniks; and, finally, two rolls of toilet paper with Putin’s face.

It was a lot of fun. The laughter started as soon as they started inspecting my bag and found the rolls of toilet paper. Everyone laughed to the point of tears, from bus passengers to border control officers, including myself. This whole situation looked like an absurd comedy. I never thought that I could become a political prisoner (even if for a short time) for two rolls of toilet paper. When we sat in the office, the younger officer kept sniggering, imagining the faces of experts examining the confiscated things and reading his report.

Amusingly, I was allowed to keep my pepper spray, although the senior officer who found it said “vot eto pizdec” (I think you can guess the meaning). However, when they looked through my things and were thinking of what to do, the pepper spray was put aside, for pepper spray is nothing compared to my Ukrainian souvenirs, so I could keep it.

Before letting me go, the officers whispered among themselves, try to decide what to do with me. Although I couldn’t hear a word, everything was pretty much clear. Finally the senior officer told me that I should be shot, but his tone was completely calm, and even I found it funny. As I already mentioned, the behavior of all officers that talked to me was either sufficiently or very correct.

During the procedure of photographing and writing descriptions of my confiscated things, the party was joined by a couple more border control officers, who not only didn’t complain about additional work but were sincerely interested. Although they wrote nothing down, they kept asking for all kinds of details, like who I was, where I studied, if I was paid for what I do, who my colleagues in Ukraine were, etc. etc. All in all, I was fully interrogated. Of course I answered all of their questions, because what I do is public information, and there was no point of hiding anything.

It was very strange that when these officers inspected a book or any other souvenir, they would take it to another office and then bring it back to where I was. They did that with almost everything I had. Even stranger, after the border control officers took pictures and wrote down the descriptions of all of my things, the newly-arrived officers (the curious ones) did exactly the same thing. Is this how Lukashenko’s regime works? Doing the same operations twice in order to create jobs?

They were most interested in the maps of Ukraine in the book about holodomor and kept asking me why the maps in that book were so “strange,” I sat there thinking, “How the hell should I know? You took the book from me before I could read it.”

I was told that I should call them in 20 days, after the examination of my things is done, and, if they decide that these things do not pose threat to the Customs Union, I will be able to get them back. In case the things are acknowledged as extremist, I will be fined. That’s funny. What if I don’t pay the fine? Will they ban me from Belarus forever? They think so highly of themselves, yet no normal person with a choice would ever go to that God-forsaken country. I went there thinking that it would be more convenient, and boy I was wrong.

When the younger officer finished writing everything down and gave me a copy of the report, and the curious border control officers satisfied their curiosity, the senior officer explained to me where I should go. Then I was taken outside to freeze at the gate (because staying inside I would disrupt their work), where I spent more than an hour and a half until I was finally taken by some not very talkative vatnik from Belarus.

On the border between Belarus and Lithuania the customs officer, who checked passports and entered my details into the computer, immediately called for the senior officer and asked me if I was carrying any drugs. What, weren’t they told that we are fascists — banderovec –and not the sort of trash that get involved with drugs?

Later I was approached by someone who took my camera in order to transfer all of my photos. He told me not to worry, that we were only going to have a little chat, because he had several questions. I was asked the same questions asked by the curious border control officers from Novaya Guta, only this guy was much more consistent, his questions were more detailed, and he wrote everything down. He also sat with me and looked through all of my photos, asking about the people in them (he was interested only in the photos taken in Ukraine). In order to get me confused, he told me that we have common history, that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was actually Belarus, and we only took the name of Lithuania from them during the restoration of our state. But, when I told him that he must be mistaken, he said that he was simply joking. He also questioned me about my political views and my opinion on what should be done in order to finish the war between Russia and Ukraine. Yet, no matter how interesting the discussion was, his colleague came and told that I must be released. Then I got on the same bus, which took me to the border, and on the Lithuanian side, of course, there were no problems.

The money I spent on souvenirs mattered less than the fact that I bought them for people I respect. Moreover, some of the confiscated things were presents from dear friends. Thus their value is much higher than the monetary value indicated in the report. I will do everything in my power to get the things stolen from me back. And if I don’t get them back, I will never ever cross the border of that miserable state in my life, at least until they have a better dictator or switch to democracy. Living in the EU has had a significant impact on my mentality, because I would never have thought that you can be arrested for such nonsense, even in “backa’s” Belarus.

Scotland to Provide Housing for Thousands of "Migrant" Invaders While Native-Born Scots Continue to Wait Never-Ending Lists?

via BNP News

Pity us in Scotland where we have a First Minister requesting asylum seekers be sent to Scotland.

Already Glasgow has taken around 2,500 Iraqi and Afghan asylum seekers. Yes, Glasgow with its long and lengthy waiting list for young families, disabled and single folk needing a home.

The same party that found Humza Yousaf welcoming more asylum seekers and suggesting that Scotland take Ugandan homosexual and lesbians as such people face persecution in their homeland. 

No suggestion that they should go to another African country that has no issues with homosexuality from him.

Let's deal with each issue.
Firstly, sending asylum seekers to Scotland. Only ten months ago the charity Shelter stated that there were more than 4,000 children in Scotland that would be classed as homeless over Christmas.

It called on the Scottish government to build at least 10,000 new social homes each year and begin to reduce long council house waiting lists.

The Scottish government answered that it was making "substantial progress" to tackle homelessness.

In November 2014, the charity released analysis of official figures which, it claimed, showed the number of children living in temporary accommodation across Britain was at a three-year high.

If 4,000 children are basically classed as homeless with their parents, should they not take priority to any available housing - or will Islamic asylum seekers with families queue jump thanks to the SNP?

Now to the crazy idea of accepting unlimited amounts of Ugandans who say they are homosexual or lesbians.

Just how would the SNP government tell if the person was homosexual etc? Such a mad cap idea would be wide open for abuse just as Merkel's gob smacking throwing open the doors of Germany and Europe to Islamic economic migrants.

If the door was open to Ugandans who are not as some call straight, then would that system not act as a vacuum cleaner, sucking in thousands upon thousands of Africans who would flood into Uganda then head to Scotland for asylum.

The SNP it seems to have failed to think through their left wing Socialist utopia ideas on asylum. What will they say to Scots and fellow Brits in Scotland desperate for a home waiting for long periods on council or social housing lists. 

What next, people being forced to downsize to allow their home to be given to an Islamic family with Sturgeon cutting the green ribbon by the house front door and saying welcome to your new home.

The BNP believe that needy British families the disabled and homeless veterans should take first priority when it comes to housing that might be used or come available. 

If we cannot find enough accommodation for our own people, how the hell can the likes of the SNP find such places for Islamic asylum seekers?

Open Letter to Frank Gaffney

via American Renaissance

Cuckservative Frank Gaffney
Dear Mr. Gaffney,

On September 29, I was a guest on your radio program to talk about an article I had written called “Is This the Death of Europe?” It was a cordial conversation, in which you and I agreed that the sudden arrival of hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men was a serious threat to Europe. You posted the recording of the interview on your website.

The next day, I was surprised to learn that you had taken down the interview and that your website had posted a notice retracting the cordiality of the day before:
The host was unfamiliar with Mr. Taylor’s views on other matters and did not discuss or endorse them.
Subsequently, Mr. Gaffney had a chance to examine those views and the American Renaissance website on which they appear. There is much there with which he strongly disagrees. Had due diligence been done beforehand, such disagreements would have resulted in Mr. Taylor not being invited on the show, routine compliments to such guests not made and an offer to appear again not extended.
I do not claim to know why you changed your opinions about me, but I suspect the Southern Poverty Law Center had something to do with it. It had posted an article claiming that my appearance on your program was “a new low” for you. Another lefty organization, Media Matters, attacked you. It denounced your “noxious theories” and “long history of extremism,” and smirked that “the former Reagan official can now add praising a notorious leader of the white nationalist movement to his resume.” Yet another lefty website, Right Wing Watch, added that you have a “long track record of pushing outrageous conspiracy theories,” and that your interview with me adds to your “already lengthy record of extremism.”

I note that there has been no criticism of you from any conservative source.

The SPLC has a permanent profile page on you as part of its collection of “extremists.” It is in a section of its website called “Fighting Hate.” It says you are “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes,” are “gripped by paranoid fantasies,” and level “wild-eyed accusations.”

Mr. Gaffney, these people are not your friends. They hate you. They want to silence you and drive you out of respectable society. Why do you let them decide whom you may invite on your program? Why do you let them set the bounds of legitimate discussion? This is the great and perhaps fatal weakness of “conservatives”–to have conceded some strange moral power to people who hate them.

The statement on your website says you weren’t aware of all of my views when you invited me on your program, and that you now find you disagree with some of them. I believe you. But you were aware of some of my views, and found them insightful. I’m sure you don’t insist on complete agreement with all your guests. Why does disagreeing with me on some matters make me a pariah? Because the SPLC says so?

Removing our interview from your website does not mean it never happened. We will be posting a transcript shortly. What is much more dismaying is what removing the interview says about you. If you wanted to make a record of our disagreements, the manly thing would be to invite me back on your program and explain to me why I am wrong.

To your credit, you did call me personally to tell me that you were taking down the interview. I salute you for that. But your reasons made no sense. You said you were opposed to all forms for supremacy: white, black, or Hispanic. I tried to explain that wanting to live in a majority-white society is no more “supremacist” than Japanese wanting to live in a majority-Japanese society or Israelis wanting to live in a majority-Jewish society. In fact, my basic views on race should have been clear in the article “Is This the Death of Europe?” that you admired.

It is a great pity that your name and mine have been linked in yet another success by people who despise you–and me–to stamp out the public exchange of views they don’t like. You care deeply about the preservation of certain values; so do I. But we must never trim our sails for fear of what our detractors might say. We will never succeed if we let our enemies set the boundaries of how we should act.

Sincerely yours,

Jared Taylor

Antarian Organization, the New America Foundation Tries to Convince People that Whites "Are the Biggest Terror Threat" in US

via GlobalPost

Mugshots of the "Beltway Snipers"
White Americans are the biggest terror threat in the United States, according to a study by the New America Foundation. The Washington-based research organization did a review of “terror” attacks on US soil since Sept. 11, 2001 and found that most of them were carried out by radical anti-government groups or white supremacists.

. . . Read more

#ChristianLivesMatter: Against Dehumanization and Diversity

via TradYouth

One random day the month before last, I woke up with a long list of work and chores to accomplish and ended up achieving none of it. That was the morning that the gay black male prostitute Affirmative Action hire livestreamed himself gunning down a former co-worker reporter on live television. Was he White? Was he Black? Was he sexist? Was he racist? Was he anti-racist? Was he an Islamic terrorist? Was he a right-wing conspiracy theorist?

All of the different factions, including my own, were itching to figure out what was going on and how to frame it for their agenda. And I don’t even blame them for doing so. Today’s political environment has become a war of all against all. About a month before that, we tried to take the high road with Dylann Roof, driving thousands of miles to lay a wreath at the church to send a clear statement that we detest senseless slaughter, especially when it comes from our own ideological cohorts.

I don’t regret our decision. It was the right thing to do. But tactically speaking, it was a waste of time. The anti-White jackals took one line of Heimbach’s speaking to the media for hours about the event, ripped it out of context, and pretended that we believed Roof’s act was justified. The articles we published, dozens of media contacts we engaged in, and even Heimbach’s original statement all contradict their narrative. But nobody gives a damn about the truth, they just wanted to milk the incident for political mileage.

A few days later, the Leftists were running around tipping over Confederate monuments and ripping down Confederate flags in a genocidal campaign against White Southern culture, all because the shooter fancied the flag. The political mileage only goes one way, of course, because American politics only go one way; to the Left, into the abyss of diversity and degeneracy. Nobody proposed that we should repeal gay marriage or reconsider petty workplace discrimination lawsuits because of Vester Lee Flanagan’s killing. There will be no legislation or meaningful pro-Christian change in response to Chris Harper Mercer’s anti-Christian attack at Umpqua Community College yesterday.

This shooter was non-White, but it doesn’t appear at this time that race had much to do with his motives. I’m relieved that he’s non-White because if he did happen to be White, then the anti-Whites would be pouncing on this. Statistically speaking, the official media narrative that these killings are primarily a White thing is absurd, but science and facts only matter to the Leftist when he’s arguing with a Christian Creationist.

I don’t wish to milk this horrific attack on my faith for mileage. I want the attacks to stop. Christian lives matter, and there’s only one way to truly guarantee that professing Christians, White folks, and everybody else can be protected from these sorts of increasingly frequent attacks–and it ain’t about banning the weapons of choice.

Death to America. Pull the plug on the project. America has become a massive social experiment in attempting to get every race, religion, ideology, culture, subculture, and community in the entire world to live together in harmony. This cannot and will not work. If it could work, it would have worked somewhere before in human history for a meaningful period of time. As Heartiste frequently notes, Diversity + Proximity = War.

Many of you think “Death to America” is an extreme position, but it’s less extreme than keeping the ride going.

You can cry, hug, pray, and child-proof the country of all its guns and sharp objects all you want, but humans are congenitally tribal and territorial creatures. We have a limited capacity to humanize the other, and even when we can manage to do so, there’s no guarantee (or likelihood) that the other will return the favor. Christian charity must be balanced against a Christian’s stewardship obligation to the family, tribe, neighbors, and land a Christian man has been entrusted to honor and defend.

Mercer was apparently hopped up on some pretty eclectic left-hand path occult bullshit which compelled him to hate Christians enough to slaughter them one-by-one, like animals. But what Christians and non-Christians had separate communities? And what if the people he was attempting to shoot shared his identity? He logged onto /r9k/ to warn both its Christian and anti-Christian members alike to avoid going to class the next day, and that indicates some limited capacity to humanize people which had atrophied and dwindled down to nothing more than his immediate family, friends, and imageboard anon buddies.

The human capacity for humanization and compassion isn’t something which can be taken for granted, forced, or legislated. It can only be cultivated and encouraged organically. It’s a finite resource, one which can be squandered by excessive alienation, consumerism, and exposure to decadence. Racial and religious diversity in a society corrode our capacity to care, to empathize, and to truly believe that other lives matter, Black, White, Christian, Islamic, or whatever. A generation is coming of age of young men who’ve been robbed of their capacity to humanize others by the American experiment, and a startling share of them have lost their own humanity and have become a threat to other humans as a result.

The only truly common thread throughout all these massacres isn’t the weapon of choice. It isn’t even politics at all. It’s dehumanization, and these incidents are merely the scandalizing flash points in a pervasive crisis that impacts all of our daily lives in America. We’re all bowling alone, sharing our workaday lives with hostile and surly strangers who don’t share our religions, don’t share our values, don’t share our heritage, don’t share our beliefs, and could care less if we choked.

Of course, you shouldn’t go around killing people you don’t care about for the attention and thrill of it. But the only systemic solution to America’s rapidly disintegrating social order is to start moving toward a new social order which encourages people who are naturally inclined to care about one another to cluster together into their own distinct and unique communities of people who naturally and mutually care. And what inclines people to care about one another? Shared racial and ethnic identity, shared religion, shared culture, shared customs, shared values, and shared jokes.

It’s much easier to kill somebody who’s so alien to you that he couldn’t even get your jokes.

For my entire activism career, I’ve been scolded by liberal Christians to supposedly be more “Christian” about diversity. The implication is that Christianity’s call for love and self-sacrifice is synonymous with being cuckolded and exploited by hostile outsiders. There’s no basis for this suicidal behavioral pattern in either Christian scripture or Christian history. It’s mercantile globalism’s agenda masquerading as a manic and maudlin sort of unsustainable pathological altruism. It’s presented as Secular Humanism for the skeptics and Humanist Christianity for the faithful, but it’s the same anti-human program repackaged for various customer demographics with industrial efficiency.

Yesterday, the racial and religious outsider Chris Harper Mercer rounded up several Christian college students and killed them because they were different, because he had dehumanized and vilified them as the hated “other,” exactly as Dylan Roof had done a few months prior. While Mercer’s anti-Christian bigotry and Roof’s racial hatred were both despicable, these despicable acts were made possible by a society which actively forces all of these wildly different and incompatible groups together.

And if it’s going this poorly while our economy’s among the strongest in the world, and in world history, imagine how horrific America will become if or when the economy falters! It’s going to make Yugoslavia look like a pillow fight. We’ve got to kill America before America kills us; Christians, folk religionists, skeptics, Whites, Blacks, and mixed race folks alike must come together behind a bold vision of coming apart. Christians are actively being martyred by diversity, but America’s Christian religious institutions won’t step up or even speak up because they’ve become tentacles of the vampire squid, subverted institutions which prove through their actions and inactions that they love “diversity” more than their own congregations, more than their faith, more than their God.

Whether it’s with the hostile and rapacious Islamic migrants flooding Europe or the anti-Christians rounding up and killing Christians right here in America, one thing remains certain about our current predicament. The clergy will continue to be more opposed to ourselves and the rest of us traditionalist Christians who speak out against diversity than they are to the diverse hordes in America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere who are actively attacking Christianity and killing Christians. That’s because they’re traitors to their faith and traitors to the Christians the world over who are being harassed, attacked, and killed by non-Christians in diverse communities.

Stop the hate and separate. Christian lives matter, so stop sacrificing them to the idol of diversity. For all I know, the next mass killing may well be a Christian guy who’s dehumanized and turned against Muslim immigrants. It could be a Mexican immigrant raging against Trump’s immigration policies. It could be a transgendered Asian SJW fighting back against the racist patriarchy. There’s no real pattern to it. America’s becoming a war of all against all. All that I know is that I’m a White Christian Traditionalist and I want my family, my folk, and my faith community off this ride.

Diversity + Proximity = War

Scientist Bars Countries That Let in Refugees from Using His Software

via The Chronicle of Higher Education

Gangolf Jobb
A German scientist has prohibited access to a widely used research tool he owns in European countries that he says are welcoming too many refugees, the magazine Science reports. Gangolf Jobb has pulled access to his Treefinder software, which lets researchers map species’ evolutionary ties, from scientists in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

“Immigration to my country harms me, it harms my family, it harms my people,” Mr. Jobb wrote on his website. “Whoever invites or welcomes immigrants to Europe and Germany is my enemy.”

. . .

Mr. Jobb barred researchers in the United States from using the software in February, citing the “small rich elite there that misuses the country’s power to rule the world.”

In an email to Science, the informatician said that he was “no more ‘racist’ than most people in Europe” and that he did not oppose saving the refugees at the center of the crisis in Europe, which has been fueled in part by the long-running conflict in Syria.

UCC Shooting: What Hath Feminism Wrought?

via Alternative Right

Mixed-race shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer
According to early internet rumors, it seemed as if the alleged Umpqua Community College spree killer was another Elliot Rodger knockoff, fuming over being rejected by women in a gynocentric culture in which "genetically inferior" men like himself are sure to get the shaft.

Posting under the name "First Last" in an August 15 video, posted at Youtube, and looking thoroughly baked, he sits in his car, Elliot Rodger-style, and discourses, between puffs on a cigarette, about how hopeless he feels about his romantic prospects... much like Elliot Rodger did last year.

Although latest reports suggest that this was not the same man who took "the Black Pill" of nihilistic rage and entered the Oregon campus to fatally shoot at least 10 people, the point of view presented in his video is equally chilling, revealing the increasing degree of "beta male" alienation that now exists in our gynocentric (and alpha-male-centric) society, where many men denied alpha status feel exploited, discarded, suicidal, and enraged.

It remains to be seen if similar factors played a role in motivating the latest "lost, violent soul" in Umpqua. Only time – and reading between the lines of the mainstream media narrative – will tell.