Oct 9, 2015

Free Speech on Campus, Student Organizations and Our Future

via The Occidental Observer

TOO Editor’s Note: This article on establishing student organizations that are explicitly for White students is reposted with permission from the National Youth Front website. They also have an article on a story from Canada where someone claiming to represent the Students for Western Civilization distributed the above poster around the campus at Ryerson University, the University of Toronto, and York University. The simple action of putting out these posters caused a moral panic in Canada, where the story received national coverage, including  an article on the CBC website.
The piece [by Students for Western Civilization] says that York University students are indoctrinated by “neo-Marxism” and that “neo-Marxists identify white people as oppressors and everyone else as ‘the oppressed.”‘ It says a white students’ union would promote and celebrate the culture of western civilization.
Since they couldn’t reach any of the students involved, the CBC contacted Prof. Ricardo Duchesne of the University of New Brunswick who is featured in a video on the SfWC website. Prof. Duchesne “maintained in the video there was “a real bias in university against white students, against white history.” … Duchesne said that universities taking the posters down proves his point of anti-western civilization bias. He said if it had been a minority ethnic group’s student union “nobody would have thought anything about it, they would have said, ‘that’s great, that’s what diversity is about.”‘

Investigative Reporter Peter Fricke recently uncovered some interesting details on a university’s control  of free speech and student organizations. His article, which exposes a student’s “realistic” freedoms as they pertained to the University of South Carolina (Columbia), appeared on the Leadership Institute’s website Campus Reform, a popular college news outlet (see “South Carolina Student Group Stymied by Free Speech Zones, Sept. 8, 2015). The story line centered around a Libertarian leaning political activist group, Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), and the challenges they faced in arranging on-campus meetings, recruiting new followers, and expressing their political view points in public.

Now at face value, a young person could read this article and come away thinking how unfair or unconstitutional it is for a publicly funded university to create such a labyrinth of obstacles in its effort to bureaucratize the rights of speech and association on campus. But if one digs deeper, there’s a side story that’s even more important to our readers here: These YAL members may have been shocked into the realities of restrictive speech and association, but their challenges are by no means insurmountable. On checking their national website they boast of over 500 existing chapters in colleges across our nation. Clearly, these Libertarians and conservatives have a voice that can be heard by all young adults as they spread their message. And since they have gained official status as a “registered student group”, there must be hundreds of college professors or staff that are sponsoring these local YAL chapters. So even though it may not be easy, YAL has been sanctioned by the collegiate system to exist and spread. In fact, a prominent politician whose organization inspired YAL, Dr. Ron Paul, was able to have a mainstream presence in his running for the Presidency in 2012.   In effect, it is politically correct (PC) and okay to form a YAL chapter.


So let’s continue the side story: It is not politically correct in the U.S., especially if on a college campus, to organize as a group representing European-Americans. One may privately engage in conversation about White interests with other like-minded individuals, but organizing for your interests is out of the question. Finding a university staff member to sponsor your group will be incredibly difficult, for their tenure or employment will ride on the persona they present. Few will take that risk.   If one starts making progress as with Matt Heimbach’s White Student Union at Towson University, MD the group will come under attack and be demonized by gatekeeper organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Yet, there are recognized student organizations and unions representing almost all ethnicities, cultures, religions, hobbies, academia, special interests, politics, and yes, race. To cite a few representing the racial, ethnic and cultural, one can find clubs such as the Black Students Organization, Chicano Caucus, Chinese Student Club, Latina Center, Asian American Alliance, Hillel and Chabad (Jewish Student Associations), Turkish Students Association, Vietnamese Student Association, and countless more. So why is there such stark discrimination against the majority of Americans, the descendants of Europeans?

This is the puzzle that has woken up National Youth Front’s very own Angelo John Gage, Nathan Damigo, as well as the author of this article – all veterans of our nation’s wars in the Middle East who passionately understand the meaning of sacrifice as it pertains to upholding their oath to this nation (see the NYF website). If the Civil Rights Movement of the fifties and sixties intended to swing the pendulum of “opportunity” and “rights” towards a more balanced center, then the ironic result is that it has now swung through neutral and clear to the other side.   It is blatantly obvious that every group of students has been encouraged to embrace their ethnicity, their heritage, their culture, their values, i.e. their identity on campuses nationwide — save one: Whites. And this makes it more and more apparent that perhaps fairness, equal rights and true meritocracy were never the real objective in these last sixty years, but rather a more duplicitous form of vengeance. In essence, the “System” has convinced most minorities and even White people themselves that European-Americans are to be blamed for everything wrong in this world. And their anger is readily visible every day in the press and on social media.

Hence it should be noted that the formation of National Youth Front took a courageous step in countering the daily bashing and defamation of White people, especially as it pertains to our college youths. Hopefully NYF will inspire the next cadre of emboldened young people to take the important step in joining together in large numbers to form the recognized White student associations that they deserve … for European-Americans are indeed unique, and truly a part of our diverse human world. As individuals and as a group, their voice deserves to be heard and they should have the right to reclaim their identity. Their right to association on campus currently does not exist in the mainstream, and thus they are being denied benefits given to all other parties. So as it stands today I see the score being tallied: Young Americans for Liberty — 500, Americans with White parents — 0. Maybe our future will hold a more inclusive Neo-Political Correctness where Whites, as the minority they are soon to become, will no longer be a target to be marginalized out of existence.

About Traditions

via Thulean Perspective

A video about our traditions and their value and meaning for us.

Please share this video and spread it. We need to preserve our traditions, especially in this day and age, when strong forces work to destroy them -- in order to destroy us.

The Nature of Conflict Analysis: A Very Brief Review

via EGI Notes

I received a copy of the complete paper on this subject from a trusted correspondent [once again: thank you], and I want to make some comments about it.  I’ll be brief and provide a rather “shallow” analysis of this work, and wait for more detailed analyses from those whose expertise are more relevant for understanding this type of work.  

I will make one major criticism of this paper, despite my approval of the intellectual honesty of the authors. The writing is turgid, difficult, and overly complex.  This contrasts to the clear, crisp, and comprehensible style of Salter’s On Genetic Interests or MacDonald’s trilogy on the Jews.  Powerful writing on important topics, where the authors attempt to illuminate truth rather than obfuscate, must be clear and readily understandable. If one must read sentences and paragraphs over and over again in order to try and grasp what the authors’ points are, those authors failed in one of their essential fundamentals and have done a disservice to the material and to the readers.

The authors show a linear correlation between increasing genetic diversity and increased conflict, a correlation that holds with outliers removed. Various factors are controlled for, including categories designated by the authors as geography, institutional factors, and ethnolinguistic fragmentation. The observed correlation remains; further, the authors spend considerable time evaluating their data, by subjecting it to “robustness checks.”  In summary, it seems that their data are sound.

The authors note various mechanisms whereby genetic diversity can enhance conflict, and none of this should come to any surprise to the informed.  First, consistent with the work of Putnam and Salter, genetic diversity can decease trust and cooperation in a society.  It is known that investment in social welfare and other collective social goods decreases with increased diversity, and Putnam’s “bowling alone” thesis is familiar to honest students of the diversity problem.  Thus, diversity decreases “social capital” beneath a threshold necessary to deal with the varied problems and individual and group “grievances” inevitable in any complex society.
 I have previously written on other forums about my thesis that at least part of the reason of the “amoral familism” in Southern Italy, and lessened investment in social goods and cooperation in Southern Europe as a whole, is due to the greater genetic diversity in that part of Europe compared to the north.  It’s not that the people are directly measuring that diversity, but are (consciously or subconsciously) using imperfect but practical proxies for it, such as phenotype.  To put it crudely, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if one of your co-ethnics looks like Rudy Giuliani and another looks like Osama bin Laden, then it should be obvious that there is a significant degree of genetic heterogeneity there, and that the degree of relatedness is depressed compared to other regions where phenotypes are less divergent. There is decreased motivation to invest in social goods when uncertainty exists as to how related you are to those around you, and this can become ingrained in a (dysfunctional) culture over time.  Thus, even though intra-ethnic genetic diversity will typically be a small fraction of inter-ethnic/racial diversity, a relatively large degree of intra-ethnic genetic heterogeneity likely had corrosive effects on in-group altruism and cooperation throughout history. When the degree of group heterogeneity is relatively high, then it would be more prudent to invest more in self (selfishness) and family (amoral familism) at the expense of societal well-being. Note the use of "relatively" here, as everything needs to be taken into context. Given we live today in an age of globalism, mass migration, and clash of civilizations, even intra-racial heterogeneity - never mind the much smaller intra-ethnic heterogeneity - pales in significance in light of the massive differences in genetic profiles existing between continental population groups. Hence, in a age of inter-racial competition and conflict, the salience of intra-group differences is expected to be greatly diminished.

Another reason for the genefic diversity-conflict correlation is that genetic diversity reflects “interpersonal divergence in preferences for public goods and restributive policies,” thus leading to conflict.  One can reflect on the differences between genetically divergent groups in America toward such policies (although this touches upon point one as well, since part of the reluctance of American Whites to embrace social spending is the justifiable fear that the benefits of such would accrue to the Colored population). A third reason is that genetic diversity affects the inter-group prevalence of traits (e.g., IQ and behavior) that influence success, and this leads to increased economic inequality and hence inter-group conflict and societal instability.

In addition, and obviously, over time, genetic diversity stimulates the formation of defined ethnic groups, each with distinctive histories, cultures, and overall phenotypes, and once defined ethnic identities are established, social group theory will predict conflict among these groups.  After all, “social science” experiments have demonstrated that even artificially created groups, thrown together for no logical reason, can develop among their members strong in-group preferences and solidarity, with distaste and suspicion to the out-group. How much stronger these preferences if such groups are actually based upon real genetic gradients?

The authors also make the obvious point that the ability of genetic diversity itself to be predictive of group conflict diminishes if one instead focuses on the above-mentioned more proximate causes of conflict.  That essentially confirms that the above-mentioned proximate mechanisms are the major mediators of the genetic diversity-conflict effect, and that these proximate issues (number of ethnic groups, trust, preferences, distribution in ability) taken together can substitute for genetic diversity. However, this does nothing except confirm that genetic diversity is the ultimate cause of all these more proximate explanatory mechanisms.

In summary, genetic diversity is correlated to increased conflict, with plausible mechanisms discussed. With all the other studies demonstrating the dangers of diversity, it is clear that diversity is a devastating weakness and multiculturalism is a failure. Who promotes this weakness and failure, particularly in Western societies?

The Left Globalists want to use mass immigration to “elect a new people” so as to promote a political agenda rejected by the native electorate.  In addition, these leftists hate Western civilization, hate Whites (in many cases, self-hatred), and/or have some sort of bizarre utopian vision of a raceless and classless future society.  The Right Globalists want cheap labor, a completely unhindered flow of labor and capital and profits, a global marketplace, and no “particularist” restrictions on the “free market” - which to them is akin to a religion. These rightists, through deception and/or self-deception, preach that any “acceptable” nationalism must be “civic” and not ethnic; they view all peoples as inter-changeable commodities in an economic-oriented worldview. Then we have the Colored Activists (and here I include the Jews), who hate Whites and the West, who want to increase the numbers and power of their own peoples and cultures, and who have very ethnically-interested reasons to promote “diversity and multiculturalism.”
 The rest of us are under no obligation to accept this. All the data show that not only does “diversity” harm ultimate interests, but there is no proximate benefit; in fact, “diversity” as practiced in multiculturalism is destructive at the proximate level as well.

The Problem Isn’t Guns or White Men


The media act as if they’re performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.

Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.

The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I’m here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)

There’s a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won’t work, blame it on guns.

The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don’t want to reward the fiend with publicity!

But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It’s a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?

When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.

Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can’t be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?

Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.

True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.

Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness—both imminent and physical—as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards—you might almost call them “common sense”—allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.

The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.

According to a 2002 report [PDF] by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:
  • Austria, 175
  • Finland, 218
  • Germany, 175
  • Sweden, 114
  • England, 93
The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S.—voluntarily or involuntarily—is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here’s an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?

Liberals will howl about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, but they sure don’t mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.

But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population—I think we’ve found the crucial ingredient!

Democrats won’t be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:
  • Most mentally ill are not violent!
Undoubtedly true. BUT WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.
  • The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!
I’ll wager that the percentage of the nation’s 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.

As with the “most Muslims are peaceful” canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.

How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons—and, every now and then, commit mass murder?

Dilemmas False and True

via Age of Treason

Elaborating on a brief exchange on Twitter concerning terminology, logic, and identity.

A_Linder on Twitter: “Whites won’t even divide up verbally, but persist in using language of the conqueror. “Antisemtism” & “racism” = #antiwhite clown concepts.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 likewise xeno/homo/islamo-”phobia” – the jew psych-warfare packed right into the word”

Sigmund Freud and pseudo-scientific Freudianism is the best known example of this characteristically jewish psychological warfare – the identification of fear as not just irrational but wrong, psychopathological, baseless.

The seminal work of the Frankfurt school, the source of what is referred to as cultural marxism, is The Authoritarian Personality:
Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social critic Christopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book’s goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” Similarly, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote, “It is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity, however, that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in Gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views differed from theirs was insane.
Richard Hofstader pushed a similar agenda in 1964 with The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT the jew’s verbal strategy is forced false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. works only if you control mass media.”

A dilemma is any problem with two potential solutions. It’s more than just a fork in the road. A dilemma has negative connotations, captured in common expressions such as “caught between a rock and a hard place” and “stuck on the horns of a dilemma”. “Choosing between the lesser of two evils” captures the essence of the US selection/election process over the past several decades.

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that leverages a strong tendency toward binary thinking. “My way or the highway” and “noose or loose” are examples of this tactic. Binary thinking is baked into Aristotlian logic, the premise being that any statement must either be true or false, with nothing in between – the law of the excluded middle.

I’ve often encountered a false dilemma when arguing against the suicide meme. Apologists who describe what’s happening as White “suicide” are implicitly assigning jews 0% responsibility, and when challenged they pretend the exact opposite, that jews are 100% responsible, is the only other possibility. Neither extreme fits the asymmetric, parasitic nature of the relationship and the genocidal effect the jewish agenda is having on Whites.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT all their terms amount to: you’re either with us or agin us. and if you’re against us, you’re evil and should be suppressed”

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT One problem is PhDs on our side use clown terms like ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism,’ thereby validating them.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 they fear being seen as stupid/crazy/evil by their enemies, fear to even acknowledge that the enemy is an enemy”

The failing of our most intelligent, our would-be/could-be elite, is to clearly distinguish between peers and enemies, between Us and Them. To make a clear distinction is to expose oneself to ridicule and attack.

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 thoughts shape language, and vice-versa, when us/them-recognition works the proper language follows, reinforces it”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 which is why jews psychopathologize/demonize White us/them-recognition most of all – “put down the gun Whitey, do it now””

Terms like “racist” and “anti-semite” are terms of abuse, used to identify and intimidate enemies. They are “buzz terms”, packed with a pejorative payload, weaponized by repetition by supposed authorities, experts in academia and media. The mere recognition that such terms are used by enemies and represent an attack deprives them of their psychological punch and inspires a healthy response instead.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT it’s sickly funny that the only verbal recognition of jew-commies’ mass murder of 100m last century is: political correctness”

See Master List of Politically Correct Terms (and Arguments, Frames, Concepts) at Vanguard News Network Forum.

Political correctness is the only term (or one of a few) which represents some form of pushback against the jewish agenda and jew rule. Joe Sobran suggested that it would be more appropriate to call it semitic correctness. “PC” is just a “PC” euphemism for SC.

Sobran also noted that “anti-semite” used to be someone who hates the jews, now it’s someone the jews hate. It hasn’t actually changed, both meanings co-exist. Whites almost always mistake it for the former, whereas jews have almost always used it to mean the latter. Before “anti-semite” was popularized in the 1870s the word jews used to identify their enemies was “Amalek”. Since the 1930s “Nazi” has been used for the same purpose.

A_Linder on Twitter: “It’s not hatred when jews attack whites. It’s humor. Edgy. Daring. Boundary breaking. It’s hatred, rather, when whites criticize jews.”

Excellent point. Charlie Hebdo is a recent illustration. Jews define “hate”, which is criminalized, but also “humor”/”satire”, which is given a pass. Semitically correct “humor”/”satire” can be magically transformed into “hate” by simply swapping the target.

There is a true dilemma facing Whites which jews take great pains to misrepresent as a false dilemma. Are jews White, or not? Jews clearly want Whites to see them as “white”, as allies, as Us, and to see anyone who argues otherwise as a stupid/crazy/evil “racist”, “anti-semite”, “hater”, as the enemy, as Them. For the most part they succeed. Yet jews also clearly see and speak about themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites. Jew regard Whites not only as an Other, but as their bugbear, their eternal mortal enemy. The tragedy is that Whites generally do not recognize this enemy and their hostility, much less reciprocate.

Past, Present, Future

via Gornahoor

As we close in on the 1001 posts at which point Gornahoor will come to its natural end, it is time to focus more clearly on its goals. At the current pace, that end will come in about 10 to 12 months. There are other projects envisioned beyond that, which have been languishing. For example,
  • There is much more work to do with the Medtarot discussion list.
  • The project to create graphical images for the various figures described in Guenon’s Symbolism of the Cross is on hold. A few years ago, a mathematician from Notre Dame offered to help, but he has since moved on. Perhaps there is someone else who is familiar with ray tracing of mathematical modeling software.
  • There are various translations projects pending, mostly of obscure writers.
  • The Gnosis group, which is more important than any of the above, needs to expand.
  • Finally, of course, there are my own personal meditations which cannot risk being lost in a sea of busyness.

Ultimate Goal

The main point of Gornahoor is to explore Tradition including its social structures, metaphysical principles, and esoteric teachings, with the ultimate aim being its possible restoration. We are not promoting any specific religious teachings, although we will use them to illustrate the manifestations of Tradition. We have been focusing on the Medieval tradition for the practical matter that it is closer to us in time, customs, language, etc., so presumably it will be easier to grasp for the modern mind seeking to understand.

Now the authors that primarily interest us — Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Guido de Giorgio, Ananda Coomaraswamy — all agree that the European Middle Ages, along with its spiritual teachings, constituted a valid tradition. We have endeavored to explore those. Our aim is not to demonstrate their truth, since that is simply assumed. We have demonstrated that the Medieval tradition was in continuity with the preceding European traditions, although with a deepening understanding.

Properly understood, it provides a complete teaching, so there is no necessity to follow alternative, and alien, traditions. Nevertheless, the variety of religions, with their apparently incompatible claims to truth, has been a scandal to modern man. Science and rationalistic philosophies have not provided the basis for understanding the meaning of life. Various revolutionary movements have caused commotions without increasing human happiness.

At the right moment, then, Rene Guenon arrived with an intellectually and spiritually satisfying teaching. Commonality in symbols, rites, social organization, and metaphysical principles explain spiritual systems better than the alternatives from psychology and anthropology.

Nevertheless, we cannot stop there. It is one thing to announce the “transcendent unity of religions”; specifity is a different matter. Hence, that principle dictated the following subgoals
  • To distinguish between exoteric and esoteric. One way is to show how theological concepts can be recast as metaphysical concepts.
  • To show that the Medieval Church (or the Nordic-Roman tradition, in Evola’s terms) formed a legitimate tradition
  • To highlight the differences between the Medieval and contemporary churches
  • To show the continuity of the Medieval church with the historically prior pagan traditions
  • To point out the homologies between the Medieval tradition and other traditions
  • To show that the Hermetic tradition preserved the essential elements of the medieval tradition

The Fall

We can use the “fall of man” as an example of a homology between various traditions. Sacred texts have higher interpretations beyond the literal, historical, or scientific interpretation. The esoteric understanding stands at a different level. This does not mean it is the “correct” interpretation in opposition to the “literal” interpretation; viz., it does not assume the literal meaning is false. However, for our purposes, it is primarily the esoteric meaning that is of interest.

So, in this case, the esoteric interpretation of the Fall involves the knowledge of one’s states of consciousness rather than the exoteric knowledge of the activities of the primal couple in the past. According to the Council of Trent, these are the lasting effects of the original fall, which persist to our own times:
  • The intellect is darkened. It becomes difficult to grasp the true nature of the Man, God, and the World.
  • The will is weakened. It is beset by concupiscence and negative emotions which guide it instead of the higher intellect
This is a simpler way to put it. The fall of man involves man in:
  • Ignorance
  • Desire
Put this way, this is the summation of Buddhism. The way of liberation begins with “right view” (the elimination of ignorance by seeing reality as it is) and ends with the end of excessive or disordered desire. Similarly, the Vedanta teaches that man is in a state of avidya (ignorance) and limited to the desire for pleasure, worldly success, or sense of duty. The “antidote” is vidya and desire refocused on liberation.

That is not the whole story, of course, but it is the basis for a common understanding.

Regeneration and the Mirror of God

The twin peaks of scholastic metaphysics were Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventura.

In his mediations on the Soul’s Journey to God, Bonaventura uses the six wings of the seraph from Ezekiel as a springboard to a series of meditations on God, similar to the technique used by Valentin Tomberg on the imagery of the Tarot. He begins with the knowledge of God gleaned from the created world. As such, it is a nature mysticism, which many poets, etc., have experienced. Unfortunately, it is usually considered the endpoint rather than the first leg of a longer journey.

It ends with meditations of God as Being and as the Good, before finally resting in God. These meditations are probably far from the typical believer’s understanding of God.

As far as I know, in the 8 centuries since Bonaventura’s meditations were written, the Franciscan orders have never developed a retreat format based on them. He is not describing a psychological process, as some commentators believe. They may advocate some techniques from cognitive psychology or other schools. Stay away.
The soul’s journey is also very unlike the “faith journey” that so many today want to dwell on. Bonaventure is objective, esoteric, and God-centered, whereas the faith journey is often maudlin, emotional, and self-centered.

Bonaventura’s journey is to lead back to the primordial state prior to the fall. Called “regeneration”, this is likewise the goal of Hermetism, not to mention Guenon’s frequent discussions on the primordial state. Another topic mentioned by Bonaventura is the necessity to “polish the mirror” of the soul in order for the soul to better reflect God’s image. Again, this is the absolute starting point for Tomberg’s meditations. So we see the Hermetic tradition has preserved the Medieval esoteric tradition. However, they diverged at some point, even reaching enmity. That rift must be healed.

That is because, in our time, Bonaventura’s ideas are often forgotten. For example, what pope or bishop mentions the desirability of restoring the primordial state? Furthermore, it is simply assumed today that every human is the image of God without making the effort of “polishing the mirror”.


Simon Magus tried to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit. Simony is a perpetual temptation and is considered a serious moral failing. Nevertheless, the sale of “spiritual wisdom” is a big business today. People prefer to pay for some teachings that they can repeat back like parrots. True teachings are priceless, since they require a change in being.

"Christian" Hollywood

via Radix

Conservative Christians are effectively remaking the movies liberal Jews made 15 years ago, though this time with more references to Jesus.

For decades, well-intentioned Christians have been striving to create an “alternative” to the Hollywood system. This “Christian Hollywood” has produced its share of embarrassing spectacles (such as the Kirk Cameron and Nicholas Cage versions of the apocalyptic, rapture drama Left Behind), as well as its share of innocuous heart-warmers (which, it should be pointed out, godless Hollywood produces in abundance). But films like Woodlawn reveal the degree to which Christian Hollywood, despite its “independence,” resides in the same ideological prison as godless Hollywood. Christian Hollywood might even reside in a prison within a prison. When godless Hollywood makes an “overcoming racism” sports drama, like Remember the Titans (2000), it relies on emotions like sentimentality and the thrill of victory to drive its point home. Christian Hollywood makes racial mixing a commandment of the Almighty himself. 

From a traditionalist (and Schmittian) perspective, religion is serving its eternal purpose—the legitimization and sanctification of the current dispensation. Despite Americans’ professed dedication to the “separation of church and state,” the American government, even that of Barack Obama, has never failed to seek legitimacy through Christianity. Moreover, the reason Christian Hollywood makes movies like Woodlawn is precisely because its mostly White audience has a creeping feelings of racial dispossession. Woodlawn’s message is “Stay calm. Trust in God. It’s all going to be alright.”

On a more mundane level, Christian Hollywood reveals its own inferiority complex. Lacking the confidence to strike off on its own, in radically new aesthetic, philosophical, and emotional directions, it simply remakes godless Hollywood’s movies, as if no other “legit” form of filmmaking were possible. It was old Hollywood that “gave the world new ways to dream.” Christian Hollywood is still enraptured.

The Ko Rule

via Aryanism

Over the last few months, there have been plenty of new, promising projects started by Aryanists, only to be later abandoned (and sometimes restarted and abandoned again). The general state of productivity reminds me of a dying body, with the exception of rare gleams of vitality which, unfortunately, are quickly lost too. The far-right, in the meanwhile, continues to gain ground like wildfire, and in our current state I doubt very much we would even be able to stand in their way, never mind be a threat capable of smothering them. (And let’s not forget about Israel, Jews, and their Zionist supporters.) How will we be able to create a new world if we can hardly even keep ourselves alive online?

This general drop in productivity has been accompanied by wasting time and energy into idle and useless conversation (the history of the blog over the last few months is perhaps the best example). I know most of us are busy with mundane affairs and I do not expect of anybody to overlook them. On the other hand, it is unlikely that anybody here does not have at least one hour per day (or every two days, or even three days, which would be far better than what we have right now) that they could focus to advancing the Aryanist movement by carrying out their respective projects, or at least planning or learning something new which could be of benefit. If you have time to waste on meaningless posts, you have time to contribute positively.

Aryanism is not an academic discussion club. We’ll have plenty of time and resources for that once we gain power. Aryanism is not a club to make friends. I am glad if you do, by the way, but we have more important goals which should be taken care of first. Aryanism is not a place to have fun. I would be quite appalled if any so-called “Aryanist” is enjoying our situation. And Aryanism is certainly not a place to show off how great you are. If you’re interested in satisfying your vanity, please contact your local identitarian horde and begone!

What Aryanism is – what we are – is a political movement. Any movement which wishes to sustain itself and thrive requires the participation and dedication of its members. More specifically, Aryanism is a political movement for revolutionaries. Please think and act as such.

If Aryanism is to gain any ground, I have two demands which anybody who considers oneself an Aryanist must follow. The first demand concerns each of your Aryanism-related projects: devote your time, energy, and hearts to them in a serious fashion.

If you are currently involved in a project, do your best to give at least one full hour of your day to advancing your project and to communicating with your team members.

If you are not currently involved in a project, please send me a contact form or discuss here on the blog how you can get involved. Even strategic suggestions alone are welcome. On the other hand, if you don’t have any intention of sticking through with a project after telling me you will contribute to it, don’t bother sending a contact form. I really do have better things to do than to devote my limited time to you when you don’t intend to devote your own time to the project.

If you want to get involved in a project but cannot at the moment for whatever reason, that’s understandable, but don’t think that you can be idle in the meanwhile. Rather you should focus your free time in becoming an expert in whatever project it is you want to contribute to later, as well as trying to create novel ways to make it work.

If you are not working and have no intention of working at all, you are not an Aryanist, and you shouldn’t be here.

My second demand concerns your blog comments: if you have nothing meaningful to say, don’t say it. This should extend into our conversations with each other outside of the blog (and with non-Aryanists too). A lot of the time and energy we could use in productive endeavors are wasted in making noise in useless debates. Don’t be afraid of being wrong; we are here to correct each other’s mistakes. Don’t be afraid to speak your heart; the world needs more noble hearts to express themselves unashamed and uninhibited. But be afraid that your comments are letting down your comrades. Be afraid that your comments are letting our enemies win, even if just small victories. Therefore think twice before you post a comment. Before you submit a comment, read it through one more time, and if you feel it doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion or doesn’t add anything new to it, either edit your comment or restart it. Or discard it altogether. If a comment is inappropriate, I will notify you first – with an explanation, if necessary – but I hope this will no longer be an issue.

traditionalRIGHT Podcast: The Complete Man

via traditionalRIGHT

Listen Now

Todd contacted me about some thoughts he had on the Alt-Right’s narrative regarding masculinity. I thought it was an interesting critique and worth considering, especially since it is so different from the standard evo-psych theories. We reference Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men and this article at The Art of Manliness. Download here.

Whitey Can't Win

via Alternative Right

If whitey moves out of a black neighborhood—“white-flight”—he is racist. If whitey moves into a black neighborhood—“gentrification”—he is racist.

If whitey doesn’t give welfare to blacks, he is racist. If whitey does give welfare to blacks, he is “keeping them on the plantation” and is racist.

If whitey doesn’t let in non-white immigrants, he is racist. If whitey does let in non-white immigrants, he is subjecting them to “white privilege” and is racist.

If whitey builds up the Third World through colonization, he is racist. If whitey doesn’t build up the Third World through foreign aid he is racist.

If whitey doesn’t promote Affirmative Action, he isn’t giving non-whites a chance and is racist. If whitey does promote Affirmative Action, he is peddling “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and is racist.

If whitey doesn’t celebrate non-white cultures, he is “narrow minded” and is racist. If whitey does celebrate non-white cultures, he is committing “cultural appropriation” and is racist.

If whitey doesn’t vote for a non-white candidate, he is only doing so because of the candidate’s race and is racist. If whitey does vote for a non-white candidate, he is only doing so because of the candidate’s race and is racist.

If whitey doesn’t create a history month for a non-white group, he is racist. If whitey does create a history month for a non-white group, he is “confining that group’s history to only a month” and is racist.

If whitey isn’t colorblind, he is racist. If whitey is colorblind, he is racist.

No matter what whitey does, he is racist.

Whitey can’t win. Can he?

American Freedom Party Continues its #WhiteGenocide Robocall Campaign

via BUGS

On Saturday October 3rd, the American Freedom Party continued its presidential robocall campaign in the state of Alabama.

The robocalls reached a total of 140,542 people on Saturday (210,174 calls were made). We had 60,469 live answers and 80,703 answering machines were reached, where the entire robocall was recorded. Of the live answers, people listened to the message for an average of 40.42secs.

To date the American Freedom Party has called the states of Idaho, Mississippi and Alabama.

In Mississippi the party reached 186,460 on August 15th. 85,239 Live answers and 101,221 answering machines. Of the live answers, people listened to the message for an average of 38.07 secs.

In Idaho the party reached a total of 81,649 people on August 1st. 36,776 live answers and 44,873 answering machines. Of the live answers, people listened to an average of 36.52 seconds.

The purpose of these robocalls is not only to reach the people with our presidential candidates message of white genocide, but to have the media report on our campaigning efforts.

On September 20th, Lena Mitchell wrote an Op-Ed article for Djournal.com about our robocall campaign in Mississippi.

Lena received one of our robocalls on August 15th and was not impressed.

Lena Mitchell’s article – http://djournal.com/opinion/lena-mitchell-the-fight-to-end-racism-needs-more-than-lip-service/

“Lena’s diatribe against our robocalls in Mississippi is very simple: All good white people should worry about black people day and night, but anyone who worries about white people is a Nazi” says Bob Whitaker the American Freedom Party’s presidential candidate.

“Our robocalls predicted that reaction, stating at the start of the call that the media ignores our message.

“Which is exactly what Lena Mitchell did.”

Following Lena’s article on DJournal.com, two major online publications featured articles on our national robocall campaign; Raw Story and The Daily Beast.

The Daily Beast has an Alexa Rating of 883 globally, which is up 71 positions in the last 3 months. They are ranked 259 within the USA.


This article couldn’t get any better for us publicity wise…. It quotes the entire Mississippi robocall, links to the mantra page at BUGS and also links to our article on the Idaho robocalls at BUGS. That is some priceless exposure for our presidential campaign, BUGS and the AFP.

And Raw Story with an Alexa Rating of 2,157 globally which is up 245 positions in the last 3 months, (this site is rapidly gaining in popularity). They are ranked 516 in the USA.


Shortly after publishing this article Raw Story was contacted by the AFP’s legal team who objected to being labeled as a “neo-nazi” party. Since being contacted Raw Story changed their wording to “extremist”.

The American Freedom Party will be continuing its robocall campaign across the United States, generating awareness for their presidential candidates and message of white genocide, leading up to the election next year.

Will the American Freedom Party be calling your state next?

Why the BNP Supports Putin in Syria

via BNP News

Vladimir Putin
The BNP welcomes Russian intervention in Syria.

In 2013, as David Cameron was gearing up to repeat Blair's Iraq crimes, this time in Syria, the British Government severed all communications with the Syrian Government.

The Syrian Government contacted the British National Party.

Immediately a BNP diplomatic team travelled to Damascus.

There, working with high-level Syrian Government officials, the BNP team wrote the letter which was sent British MPs and swayed the Westminster vote against British military interference in Syria.

Without Britain providing legitimacy to a US bombing campaign, Obama was forced to cancel his vote in Congress, throwing a huge spanner in the nefarious ambitions of Western warmongers.

However, the incredible achievement of the BNP would still not be enough to prevent the warmongers in the US and in Britain using their influence to force ‘regime change’ in Syria.

We knew then, like we know now, that the only way the BNP mission to prevent further destabilisation of the Middle East was with the help of responsible Russian intervention.

President Putin has not let the BNP or Syria down.

Strengthening Syria is the key to a safer Britain

There was no refugee crisis when Bashar Assad’s government was securely in power in Syria. This conflict in Syria began with Western meddling, and the United States’ policy (supported by David Cameron) of forced ‘regime change’ in countries they decide unfavourable toward them.

Had a US and British coalition launched an unprovoked attack on the legitimate Syrian Government in 2013, even more of heroic troops would have lost their lives in someone else's war, we would have to kid ourselves into justifying yet another Iraq-scale crime, and we would have to live with the blood on our hands of hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women and children hit by bombs sent by Cameron paid for by the British taxpayer.

The BNP is opposed to Britain interfering with any nation or state which does not directly threaten Britain.

The policy led by the United States of ‘regime change’ in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has vastly destabilised the Middle East and created many more terrorists and many more refugees – many of whom end up in Britain.

Even top-level military commanders are admitting that Iraq was safer under Saddam Hussein and Libya was safer under Colonel Gaddafi.

Tyrants and petty dictators they may have been, but they understood their people and knew how to keep hostile ethnic and religious groups apart. Now both countries are a howling wilderness of sectarian violence and atrocity.

If Bashar Assad is forcibly removed, the last secular, tolerant and moderate Muslim state in the Middle East will go the same way.

As the buffer between Turkey and Europe, and the Middle East, it’s important that we have a moderate and strong Syria with the strength to keep savage Islamist hordes from reaching Turkey and threatening Europe.

Without Putin acting as the highly responsible world leader – refusing to be bullied by warmongering NeoCons and Zionists – for whom Mr Cameron is a whipping boy – we’d have an even more unstable world and far greater numbers of Muslim immigrants pouring into Britain and Europe.