Oct 15, 2015

"Free Ticket" to the National Policy Institute’s Fall Conference

via Counter-Currents

I wish I could be at “Become Who We Are,” the National Policy Institute’s upcoming conference on Halloween, which features such speakers as Kevin MacDonald, Guillaume Faye, Keith Preston, and Jack Donovan, and the music of Robert Taylor/Changes.

Really, the only thing that could keep me away is Wagner, and as luck would have it, I have been given a free ticket to see Tannhäuser in New York that very day. But if you don’t have that excuse, then you need to be there.

For more information on the conference, visit the NPI website here.

To encourage attendance, Richard Spencer has offered Counter-Currents a free ticket to give away. I will give it to whoever is willing to write a report on the conference for Counter-Currents. Write to me at editor@counter-currents.com. Of course, I can’t just give it away to the first person who writes in. You’ll have to give me some reason to think that you are willing and able to complete the assignment, such as evidence of past publications.


Yes, I am in favor of rethinking the whole White Nationalist conference model. But NPI’s lineup is excellent, and especially if, while attending, you can put more money into the movement than into the system, then the intangible intellectual and social benefits of such gatherings should be the decisive factor.

Greg Johnson

When Civilization Ends, It Ends Fast!

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

September 1, 2005: 

FEMA officially suspends its search and rescue efforts, claiming it's too dangerous and that some of the victims have become violent in their attempts to get into the boats. It's a Catch-22; the longer they wait, the more the craziness escalates. a national guardsman is wounded inside the [Super] Dome.
Opportunistic crime intensifies, with looters breaking into stores, even private home. gunfire erupts. the city streets are getting too dangerous to even set foot on. [CNN REPORTS -- Katrina: State of Emergency, p. 62]
CNN dubbed it "urban warfare."

Reports of 30-40 bodies being discovered by an (obviously enlisted) national guardsman from Arkansas would be dismissed as "rumors" when a formal review of the matter was conducted... the truth of what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina - and its aftermath - is seemingly lost. 

But if you look closely enough, you'll find pieces of information proving those initial stories of utter depravity and horror were far more veracious than a formal review of the matters could cover-up. 

America's future played out in span of roughly nine days, as the civilization whites built in New Orleans drowned once their descendants fled for safe grounds and left behind the flotsam and jetsam of the Great Society for the world to see in all there Sunday best...

And in the reality of what occurred in New Orleans in late August/early September 2005, we see a horror story of far greater implications than Robert Kirkman's fictional The Walking Dead.[THE WALKING DEAD And Katrina: The “Zombie Apocalypse” Already Happened—And Can Happen Again, VDare, 10-13-15]:
The sixth season of the insanely popular The Walking Dead debuted Sunday night, and it shows no signs of stopping its momentum. TWD,as it’s known, has actually grown in audience size each year since its debut in 2010 [‘The Walking Dead’ Ratings Hit Season Finale High With 15.8M Viewers, by Dominic Patton, Deadline, March 30, 2015]. This graphic tale of zombie survival even spawned a spin-off show (Fear the Walking Dead or FTWD) which garnered the largest audience for its first season in cable history [AMC’s ‘Fear the Walking Dead’ Has the Highest-Rated First Season in Cable Historyby Rick Kissell,Variety, October 9, 2015]

What attracts people to TWD? There can be no doubt two of the strongest white male characters in all of television—Rick Grimes and Daryl Dixon, played respectively by Andrew Lincoln and Norman Reedus—are part of the appeal. But there’s something far deeper at work. TWD allows the viewer to live vicariously in a world where civilization is replaced with barbarism. The shocking violence implicitly asks the viewer if he could survive in the absence of the state.
It’s a question that may not always be theoretical. TWD creator Robert Kirkman recently opened up about the newer show, which chronicles the opening stages of civilization’s collapse, saying:
Well I don’t want to be overly pessimistic about how the government would handle a crisis, but I feel like if something as all-encompassing as a zombie apocalypse were to ever happen…what we tried to show with Fear the Walking Dead was this is something that would happen really rapidly and it was happening all over the country, all over the world at the exact same time. It’s an uncontained phenomenon that would very quickly overwhelm any system, any government. I think it’s only natural to see a government not handle a situation of that magnitude very well. I saw [the National Guardsmen] as one faction of the military that definitely had some chain of command and some communication but probably not full communication and full chain of command. I think some people saw our military portrayal as somewhat negative. Like, “Oh, they’re bad guys.” But our intention was [to show] that they’re very overwhelmed, very outside of their element. It is, to a certain extent, them scrambling to make sense of the world around them.
[‘The Walking Dead’ Creator Spills the Brains: ‘This World Makes Us Soft’, by Melissa Leon, The Daily Beast, October 9, 2015]
To some extent, it’s already happened. Ten years ago, in the city of New Orleans, we saw civilization consumed overnight and the failure of the government to maintain order. And the perpetrators weren’t zombies—but our supposed fellow countrymen.
The descent of a once-great American city is now a part of American legend. “American Sniper” Chris Kyle famously claimed to have been dispatched to the city to shoot rioters. There are also reports thatBlackwater and other private security firms were called in to restore order [Blackwater Downby Jeremy Scahill, Nation, September 21, 2005]

Yet reports from those on the scene suggest that, if anything, the descent of New Orleans into TWD-style anarchy was actually understated at the time.
For instance, Sally Forman, communications director for the city of New Orleans when Katrina hit, reported in her book Eye of the Storm: Inside City Hall During Katrina that police were
…screaming over the radio that they’re running out of ammunition. [Deputy Chief Warren Riley] said, “That’s the first time in my 25 years on the force that I’ve even heard of a police officer saying he’s getting ready to run out of ammo in a gunfight.” I began to feel as if we were living in the Wild West.
Forman also wrote how Mayor Ray Nagin urgently requested “400 M-4’s with 25,000 5.56 caliber rounds” from the federal government. [p.127]
Who on earth were the police fighting in New Orleans?
It wasn’t zombies:
[Reporter Jeremy] Scahill spoke to Michael Montgomery, the chief of security for one wealthy businessman who said his men came under fire from “black gangbangers” near the Ninth Ward. Armed with AR-15s and Glocks, Montgomery and his men “unleashed a barrage of bullets in the general direction of the alleged shooters on the overpass. ‘After that, all I heard was moaning and screaming, and the shooting stopped. That was it. Enough said.'”
[The Secret History of Hurricane Katrina, by James Ridgeway, Mother Jones August 28, 2009]
According to Ridgeway’s report, military officials referred to events in the city as an “insurgency” and compared it to “Little Somalia.”
Read the rest at VDare.com, but comment here. 
Part Two is coming very, very soon.

Anatomy of a Contemporary "Christian" Film

via Alternative Right

Theme: Diverse racial friends (including one gay Asian male) of female surgeon married to unemployed, fat, drunk white beta loser cuck want her to "liberate herself" with the handsome, brilliant, muscular, black head of surgery, but she holds on to her marriage despite physical and emotional abuse because she thinks that's what God wants.

Character arc: after an episode of racism/homophobia displayed by the priest, the doctor leaves her boring, oppressive, white-majority traditional Church in the suburbs for a hip, progressive inner-city one where – GASP! – the hot black doctor is also the minister, doing outreach toward strangely angelic inner-city diverse children.

Asking him for advice as to what she should do about her marriage, the hot doctor minister tells her, like the strong alpha male she secretly yearns for, to help him in his missionary work.

Over the coming weeks, she laughs with old dying whites in a nursing home as he reads the bible to them; dances in the street with a young, white homosexual, who the minister advised to "come out" to his gay-hating (but secretly gay himself) racist ex-Marine father; cooks side-by-side at the BBQ with hotty McBlackness as the inner-city urchins frolic around them in the park – and places her head on his large, broad shoulder as they watch the sunset together.

That night, after a full day getting loaded, fat beta white cuck husband (complete with rosary worn over his beer-stained singlet top and Pope Benedict framed picture in the background) beats his wife savagely after demanding why she's "smiling so fucken much these days... is it that NIGGER???"

At the same time, gay kid comes out to ex-Marine father, who then kills him with a baseball bat emblazoned with the American flag. Crying with shame, the father burns the body and uses his own gay porn mags and dildos as kindling.

Dark chocolate Minister Hotness rushes to operate on the battered doctor and narrowly saves her life. Her spastically-drunk husband confronts her diverse friends in the waiting room and punches the gay Asian out. Superblackman surges in, still wearing his surgeon's gown – because SURGEON – and levels him with one effortless punch. The police show up (both black) and cart whitey (who is now blubbering) off to jail.

As her eyes flutter open, the doctor sees her savior with a halo of light streaming in from the windows behind him. On the wall behind him is a portrait of Martin Luther King hugging JFK. As he tells her about the murder of gay dancing kid, she weeps and he smothers her tears with his big delicious doctor-minister lips. Fade to black.

Mid way through credits, show them years later, with three gorgeous mixed-race kids frolicking in the back yard of their mansion. Fat drunk white cuck (now sober and a member of Minister Black Doctor's church) is their gardener, happy in his rightful place.

Croatia Street Activism: Mass Migration = Genocide of White Nations

via Fight White Genocide

Hello FWG!
I live in Croatia, and recently our government had be given order by EU leaders that we have to handle  3200 (probably much more unofficially) immigrants that have come in Italy and Greece. Of course, our media is mostly pro-immigrant, with their pathetic portrayal of “poor refugees.” But, ironically, most people are against this nonsense (some leftist too), even they are not racially aware, but mostly religious. So they are afraid of destroying Christian heritage and so on.

Since Croatia is neighbor country of Serbia and Hungary, we are also expecting big wave of immigrants from there too. Croatia is still around 98% white, so most of westerners can’t imagine how this looks.

croatia3 Nevertheless, few of us are very well known of what is happening in white countries around the world, and we started to fight against this on the web and on our streets. We started to put stickers against White Genocide in our capital city. It’s only a small thing, I know, but we hope to awake people by putting them on every step of our land.

Also, there’s a pro-white news site called Pandora, which gained much popularity recently. Most of the news are from other media like Daliy Stormer, Daily Slave, and other mainstream media. Also, we are always watching White Genocide Project for other news too. 

There’s also online magazine “Revolt” which is dealing with various pro-white and anti-white subjects, and of course, mass non-white immigration too. Revolt is always in PDF format which we send to many people in our country (it’s in Croatian language).

Both, Pandora and Revolt, are product of few members of The Creativity Movement sec. Croatia.

Pandora: http://pandora.kreativisti.org/
Revolt: http://kreativisti.org/Revolt.html

I’m sending you few photos of sticker activity. Inscription says: “Mass immigration – Genocide of White nations”. In our language it is a rhyme, so we hope psychological effect would be much better. We also have plans to make some stickers and leaflets about “anti-racism” and ongoing white genocide in other EU countries that has already been destroyed.

Croatia5 Thank you for your time and keep up good work!” 

“Oh, I almost forgot, we have translated and little bit modified one of other activists work that was found on FWG site: http://www.fightwhitegenocide.com/2015/04/05/2003/

Marxism: The Religion of Immoralism

via The End of Zion

Since Stalin’s death it has become necessary to find a new focus for our hostility to the unscrupulous and inhuman behavior of the Communists. I wish it might be focused on the real cause of the trouble: Marxism. Much force of argument is wasted among Western intellectuals through a wish to exempt Marx from responsibility for this re-tum to barbarism. Realpolitik in the evil sense was certainly not born with Marx. But the peculiar thing we are up against, the casting aside of moral standards by people specializing in the quest of ideal human relations, was born with Marx. He is the fountain source of the mores as well as the economics of the Russian Bolsheviks, and is the godfather of the delinquent liberals in all lands.

The notion of Marx as a benign and noble brooder over man’s hopes and sorrows, who would be “horrified” at the’ tricks and duplicities of present-day Communists, is as false as it is widespread. Marx had a bad character. His best eulogists can hardly think up a virtue to ascribe to him-except, indeed, tenacity and moral courage. If he ever performed a generous act, it is not to be found in the record. He was a totally undisciplined, vain, slovenly, and egotistical spoiled child. He was ready at the drop of a hat with spiteful hate. He could be devious, disloyal, snobbish, antidemocratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Negro. He was by habit a sponge, an intriguer, a tyrannical bigot who would rather wreck his party than see it succeed under another leader. All these traits are clear in the records of his life, and above all in his private correspondence with his alter ego and inexhaustible sugar-daddy, Friedrich Engels. There are bits in this correspondence so revolting to a person of democratic sensibility that they had to be suppressed to keep the myth of the great-hearted Karl Marx, champion of the downtrodden and of human brotherhood, alive at all. To give one example: Ferdinand Lassalle, who was eclipsing Marx as leader of a genuine working class movement in Germany, they discovered to be not only a Jew whom they called “Baron Izzy,” “oi-oi, the great Lassalle,” “the little Jew,” ”’the little kike,” “Jew Braun,” “Izzy the bounder,” etc., but also “a Jewish nigger.” “It is perfectly obvious,” Marx wrote, “from the shape of his head and the way his hair grows that he is descended from the Negroes who joined Moses on the journey out of Egypt, unless perhaps his mother or his grandmother had relations with a nigger.” Only the Russian Bolsheviks, who went in for the religion of immoralism with a barbaric candor impossible to an urbane European, had the hardihood to publish these letters unexpurgated.

I use the word religion in a precise sense. Although he dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a decoy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the “Kingdom of Freedom,” the “Society of the Free and Equal,’~ the “Classless Society” etc. Everything would be blissful and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all “causes for contest” disappear, all caste and class divisions, but all divisions between city and country, between brain and manual worker. Men would not even be divided into different professions as they are at this low stage of the climb toward paradise.

“Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-pushing as professions,” Engels assured the believers, “and the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing.”

It would seem that only a benign deity could guarantee such a future to mankind, and only by teaching a higher morality could He lead us to it. But Marx hated deity, and regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a “material,” and yet mysteriously “upward-going,” world. And he convinced himself that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Although buried under a mountain of economic rationalizations pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to man’s heritage of ideas.

It is common among those who condemn the lowering of moral standards by Marxists to blame their materialism” for it, but that is a crass mistake. Throughout history, from Democritus to Santayana, men who believed genuinely that the substance of the world is matter have been among the noblest teachers of morality. Marx’s materialism was not genuine. It was the disguise of a mystical faith. The world he called “material” was mental enough to be forever ascending “from the lower to the higher” with a determinism that is hardly distinguishable from determination. Engels, who did the work and took the risk of actually expounding this naive philosophy-for Marx played it safe as well as lazy by only jotting down a few notes-even tells us that “the celestial bodies like the formation of the organisms . . . arise and perish and the courses that they run . . . take on eternally more magnificent dimensions.” Remembering that on this particular planet human society is also rising through successive stages to the “more magnificent” goal of the socialist society, you see what a godlike kind of “matter” it was that Marx believed in. It differed from Hegel’s Divine Spirit only in agreeing with Marx about what is sublime, and in mapping out a course of procedure toward it that gave free exercise to Marx’s rebellious and contumaceous disposition. The universe of dialectic materialism-to put it briefly-is a pantheistic God masquerading as matter, and permitting Himself under that disguise forms of conduct that no God honestly named and identified could get away with in a civilized world.

9781621572961_p0_v3_s192x300Whittaker Chambers is very profoundly wrong when he says in his book, Witness, that the issue between Soviet Communism and the free world is between religion and irreligion, or between belief in man and belief in God. The Communists believe in man not as an independent power, but as a constituent part of the superhumanly ordained movement of the universe. That dialectic movement is their God, and it is that God who exempts them from the laws of morality. The difference between Christianity and Communism-the difference, I mean, that is vital in this connection is between a religion which teaches personal salvation through sympathy and loving-kindness and a religion which teaches social salvation through bringing the morals of war into the peacetime relations of men.

Marx was so sure that the world was going to be redeemed by its own dialectic evolution that he would not permit his disciples to invoke the guidance of moral ideals. He really meant it when he said the workers have “no ideal to realize,” they have only to participate in the contemporary struggle. He expelled people from his ‘Communist party for mentioning programmatically such things as “love,” “justice,” “humanity,” even “morality” itself. “Soulful ravings,” “sloppy sentimentality,” he called such expressions, and purged the astonished authors as though they had committed the most dastardly crimes.

Later in life, when Marx founded the First International, he felt compelled for the sake of a big membership to softpedal his highbrow insight into the purposes of the universe. He wrote privately to Engels: “I was obliged to insert in the preamble two phrases about ‘duty and right,’ ditto ‘truth, morality, and justice.'” But these lamentable phrases-he assured his friend-”are placed in such a way that they can do no harm.”

This mystic faith in evolution set Marx’s mind free, and, alas, his natural disposition, to replace the honest campaign of public persuasion by which other gospels have been propagated, with schemes for deceiving the public and tricking his way into positions of power. It was Marx, not Lenin, who invented the technique of the “front organization,” the device of pretending to be a democrat in order to destroy democracy, the ruthless purging of dissident party members, the employment of false personal slander in this task.

It was Marx and Engels who adopted “scorn and contempt” as the major key in which to attack the opponents of socialism, introducing a literature of vituperation that has few parallels in history. Even the political masterstroke of giving the land to the peasants “initially” in order to take it away from them when the power is secure came from the same source. The introduction of such unprincipled behavior into a movement toward the highest ends of man was entirely the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin added nothing to it but skill, and Stalin nothing but total instinctive indifference to the ends.

So strong a force was set going after his death to sanctify Marx, and benevolize him, so to speak, that these practices were largely forgotten among Western Socialists. His religion of immoralism was smoothed over. But in Lenin’s mind this religion found a perfect home, for Lenin had grown up under the influence of the terrorist wing of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lenin was an ardent admirer of Nechayev, a rabid zealot of the 1870’s who drew up a famous document called “Catechism of a Revolutionist“:
The revolutionist is a doomed man. . . . He has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world. . . . He hates and despises the social morality of his time…. Everything which promotes the success of the revolution is moral, everything which hinders it is immoral.

Nechayev was denounced even by his sufficiently violent colleague, the anarchist Bakunin, as a dangerous fanatic who “when it is necessary to render some service to what he calls ‘the cause’ . . . stops at nothing-deceit, robbery, even murder.” But Lenin. startled his early friends by defending this madman and honoring his memory. Thus before he became a Marxist, Lenin had arrived by an emotional road at that rejection of moral standards which Marx deduced from a pretended science of history. The confluence of these two streams of thought is one of the greatest disasters that ever befell mankind.

Lenin was even more credulous and more specific than Marx and Engels in describing the beauties of life in the paradise toward which this dialectic world was traveling. In his socialism every “barrow-pusher” and every kitchen maid was to take part in the function of government. He was also more specific in describing the kinds of vile conduct which must be employed to help it along. “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth,” he exclaimed. “We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us.”

Acting upon such principles, Lenin made use of slanderous lies and character-assassinations; he encouraged bank robberies and armed holdups as a means of replenishing the funds for the millennium. His disciples have carried the faith forward, not stopping at any crime, from bodily assassination to state-planned famine and wholesale military massacre. A chief organizer of those bank robberies and holdups was the Georgian Djugashvili, who took the party name of Stalin. The Marx-Leninist belief that such crimes are methods of progress toward a millennium was instilled in this youth from the day of his revolt against Christian theology. He had no other education, touched no other conception of the world. He was once described by Archbishop Curley as “the greatest murderer of men in history,” and the record when it is calmly written may bear this out. But he took no step beyond the logical implications of a devout belief in brutal and dishonorable conduct. He merely followed through on the doctrine invented by Karl Marx, that in order to enter the “Kingdom of Freedom,” we must set aside moral standards. We must place “duty and right … truth, morality, and justice,” where “they can do no harm.” Or, in Lenin’s words (spoken to an all-Russian Congress of Youth): “For us morality is subordinated completely to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

We have not entered, alas, the Kingdom of Freedom, and the Classless Society has failed to appear. Everything under the Communists moves in the opposite direction. But this religion of immoralism flourishes. The notion of an earthly paradise in which men shall dwell together in millennial brotherhood is used to justify crimes and depravities surpassing anything the modem world has seen. And this is true not only in Russia, but wherever the power of the Communist conspiracy extends. In countries beyond the reach of Moscow the taint is carried by Communist parties to their fringe of accomplices, dupes, and fellow travelers; even the once-honest liberals are not immune to it. More and more throughout the world those dedicated to an extreme social ideal, instead of being trained in virtue, are trained to condone crimes against the elementary principles of social conduct. Such a disaster never happened to humanity before. No such religion ever existed. That is why our statesmen have been bewildered and outwitted by it. Even after thirty years of being assiduously swindled by the Kremlin, they find it hard to believe that any human animal can be, on principle and with devout and selfless fervor, a liar, a murderer, and a cheat.

They are now looking for some. recrudescence of the old simple decencies in Malenkov and his associates. But they will look in vain. These men have been brought up in the same school. They are fanatics of the same antimoral and antiscientific religion. Only the disproof and dislodgment of Marxism will ever cure the world of its present desperate sickness.

Portsmouth Says "No" to Invaders

via Western Spring

“Today on my lunch break, while walking through Portsmouth Guildhall Square, I saw a banner hanging from the balcony overlooking the council offices and the busy square. Upon moving closer I could read the message and see those hanging it. Having seen their masks, I at first thought National Action was in town. But as I went up to speak with the lads I found this was not the case.

As I approached the lads attempting a disarming smile, with my hands in the air, and with the re-assuring statement, “I’m on your side”, they moved to meet me half way. At first they simply said they were “concerned citizens” (perhaps thinking I was suspicious), but as I engaged them further in conversation it became clear to me they were definitely dissident nationalists of some sort.

When I mentioned their resemblance to National Action, they acknowledged that they knew of National Action, but continued to maintain that they were not aligned to any specific group.

I introduced myself as a member of Western Spring and name-dropped a few organisations and Nationalist perspectives, and the demonstrators began to relax and were more open with me. I asked of the ‘5W’ on their banner they told me it represented “We go where we want”. There were 5 or 6 of them on the balcony and there were a few more of their group positioned around the square, incognito and providing security, with whom they were communicating.

I left them with my contact details and a link to the Western Spring website and returned to the square, where in the space of 15 minutes around 15 holier-than-thou bleeding hearts had gathered, many with placards, which had undoubtedly been knocked up at the university using materials that where intended for educational rather than political purposes.

The counter-protestors were mainly students: the usual woolly minded utopian dreamers, together with a few politicos spouting the usual platitudes to a salivating media. However, the general public passing by were more interested in the nationalist anti-refugee demonstration and the banner.

According to the Portsmouth News, Carys Morgan, a student from the University of Portsmouth, attended the counterdemonstration, lecturing local people and telling them they should welcome the influx of invaders to their area.  A fittingly she is described in the comments section of the newspaper as a “silly little girl”.

Please follow this link to the Portsmouth News and show your support for the many good comments left by readers of the Portsmouth News, by clicking the “like” button.

In conclusion, the demonstration by this nationalist group, which I found call themselves the ‘Pie and Mash Squad’, was a great success with media coverage online, in print, on camera, and perhaps on BBS South East tonight. Demonstrations do not suit everybody, but this event has brought likeminded people together and my message to the Pie and Mash Squad is ‘Thanks for brightening my day, you have my contact details fellas, so please get in touch!”

The Moral Disarmament of the White Race

via Radix

As the rising tide of color threatens to sweep away the foundations of Europe, the question arises how did things come to this? Why have the political, religious, and cultural elites of Western Europe and the United States decided in favor of policies which will reduce their native populations to a minority in their own homelands? 

Commonly attributed causes include desire for cheap labor, moral posturing, status whoring, and self loathing; while these factors certainly play a role, they are effects rather than causes. If we are to change the direction of the culture to a non-suicidal one, we must have a firm grasp as to the root cause, we must combat the disease rather than merely treat the symptoms. The White race has been psychologically and morally disarmed, our dominant religious, ideological, and political systems actively seek to prevent us from conceiving of ourselves as being distinct and having our own interests apart from other racial groups. Europe willingly embraces a suicidal course because the religious and philosophical systems that shape its moral compass are egalitarian and universalist in nature. Taking actions to preserve one's race, culture, or civilization are morally suspect in a culture that believes that all men, races, and cultures are “created equal” and have the same nature.

In order to combat the systems of thought that morally disarm us, and construct new systems of thought and values that are life affirming for our people, we must understand the foundation upon which every worldview rests. Religion, philosophy, and ideology rest upon a foundation of myth. Myth is the lifeblood of a system of thought, it is the soil in which in grows; without the foundation of myth, a system of thought is sterile.

Before going further, it would be useful to define what a “myth” really is. In common parlance, “myth” is used to connote something false, or brings to mind quaint fables that are of value only for entertainment. This is a superficial view, myth, to quote Jonathan Bowden is
the commingling of emotional reality with what is understood to be fact. It is noumenal truth, as Aristotle said 2000 years ago, the idea that certain things are artistically and emotionally true irrespective of what you think of them factually.
Myth is more than the attempts of pre-scientific man to understand his world, and certainly more than entertaining bedtime stories. Myth communicates at a subconscious, emotional level through the use of allegory, symbolism, poetic imagery, and metaphor. Myth is the portrayal of human nature in allegorical form. It resonates because the gods, goddesses, heroes, and creatures depicted are representations of various drives and facets of human nature; they are archetypes that embody all facets of the human condition. These archetypes are the noble and base parts of human nature made flesh, condensed into the figure of the mythic hero, the god, or the monster.

Rather than communicating his values through an abstract system of ethics, which could reach only the proverbial “one percent” of humanity capable of understanding philosophic thought, the mythic artist embodies his values through his creation, through his gods, heroes, and villains. Because of this, myth is able to instruct both the foolish and the wise. The foolish comprehend only the surface-level meaning of the myth, and are enriched, brought to a higher level of consciousness than they would have achieved without the art of the myth-maker. The wise are able to read the myth as allegory, rather than as literal truth, and create systems of theology and philosophy based on the foundation the the artist created. Myth is the medium that communicates both to the masses and the elites; it shapes the moral landscape of society as a whole. The mythic artist creates a worldview in which man can conceive of himself as something other than a naked animal on a rock hurtling through the void. He adds significance to life; his work allows man to sublimate the baser parts of his nature in service of something transcendent.

The mythological framework of a culture in large part determines its values, its moral landscape. It demonstrates what that society values, what it finds noble, and what it finds contemptible. A societies myths re-enforces the bonds of community through a shared system of values; it re-enforces man's biologically influenced social nature. Thus if one is to understand a culture, a people—why they hold certain values and why they act a certain way—one must understand its mythic framework.

The mythic framework of the West is a product of Christianity. Christianity became the dominant religion in the West when it became the state religion of Rome during 380 A.D, a position which it held until mid 18th century, when it was superseded by liberalism, the current dominant ideology. This did not entail a rejection of Christianity, rather, liberalism evolved from Christianity; fundamentally, it is Christian morality secularized.

Christianity provided the mythic framework from which liberalism evolved. The moral essence of Christianity is expressed by its central figure, Jesus Christ, who declared,
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32).
The last shall be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16).
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
These root ideas, conveyed by the authors of the Gospels, were refined into a system of theology by the Apostle Paul, who wrote,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for all are one in Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:28)
It is only natural that a system of belief that stresses the brotherhood of man, humility, the centrality of the individual, and holds that possession of truth is key to the salvation of the soul would produce a successor ideology that advocates a morality of universalism, egalitarianism, and individualism founded upon a claimed devotion to scientific truth.

The caveat claimed is used because liberalism, like any other system of thought or belief, has a foundation of myth. The founding myth of liberalism, its "creation story," is that man is solitary by nature. In the words of Thomas Hobbes, the founder of liberalism, man in a state of nature leads an existence which is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” and forms communities for the sake of security rather than because he is a social being by nature, as classical philosophy and modern science hold. This conception of man allows the liberal philosopher to create a system of thought in which the individual rather than the community is the key political actor, in which “natural law” is the foundation for the individual's right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Through this founding myth, the liberal is able to conceive of society as a contractual arrangement, as an artificial entity that derives its authority from the “consent of the governed,” who form governments to secure their "rights." The individual and his "rights" thus become the core the value of Western society; any action that neither picks the pocket or breaks the leg of one's neighbor is thus considered legitimate, the toleration of which is sacrosanct. This is further re-enforced by the contention that man is born as tabula rasa, a blank slate, the content of which is provided by his culture and his sensory experiences. This is the moral foundation for classical liberalism, the school of liberalism predominant until the 1930s, and still holds sway in the "Center Right" parties of America and Western Europe.

Modern liberalism, with its emphasis on egalitarianism, was founded by Rousseau, who in his Discourse on Inequality conceives of man as being a "noble savage," who was naturally good in a state of nature, and only acquired vice from civilization. Rousseau contends that convention, tradition, and bad institutions are responsible for the negative aspects of human nature. Thus, they can be changed by social reform movements and legislation. This is the foundation for the therapeutic state, which claims the ability to re-engineer man in its own image, which has been predominant in the Western world since the Great Depression. This strand of liberalism is the moral foundation for "Center Left" parties throughout the Western world, and provides the ideological underpinnings for the secular humanism of the "social justice warrior."
Both of these strands of liberalism are in fundamental agreement that man is born a blank slate, is primarily an economic being, and that the individual is the primary social and philosophical unit. Liberalism, like the Christian theology from which it evolved, holds that history is progressive rather than cyclical, that equality is morally good, and that a universal brotherhood of humanity is both desirable and possible. The difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism is a difference of tactics, not of fundamental principles.

It is for this reason that the cultural, political, and religious elites in the West support policies that lead to the destruction of their nations, communities, and race. The conservative, who ostensibly fights to protect “eternal principles,” always gives in on the question of identity. The modern conservative is merely an adherent to an older school of liberalism, or is an adherent to the faith from which liberalism sprang, Christianity. He cannot, in good conscience, resist calls for more equality, and cannot articulate a case for identity as his root philosophy holds that “all men are created equal” and his religion holds as sacred truth that “all are one in Jesus Christ.” To defend his racial group would undermine his commitment to the primacy of the individual. His instincts, which compel him to preserve tradition and hierarchy, are in conflict with his ideology; thus he always loses. This is the root of the "\#cuckservative" phenomenon. The leftist embraces radical egalitarianism both intellectually and instinctively and unreservedly, and follows his ideology to its logical conclusion—the creation of “The Last Man,” who believes that “Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same” (Nietzsche, 130).

If the White race is to survive the 21st century, a radical change in consciousness is necessary, a re-evaluation of values must occur. We cannot survive as a people if the slightest measures to ensure our survival, such as a rational immigration policy, are regarded as immoral. We need to create a moral landscape in which those who advocate policies which would lead to the extinction of our people are regarded with visceral disgust. To do this, the radical traditionalist artist needs to create a mythic framework that celebrates elitism rather than equality, which is particular to Europeans rather than universalist, which provides a place and meaning for the individual within the community, rather than conceiving of man as a social atom, and is self affirmative rather masochistic.

This is the task of the artist because the artist can communicate with all levels of the population through the use of narratives, which make use of poetry, imagery, allegory, symbolism, and metaphor, all of which act a subconscious level, in which the ethical principles of the artist are made flesh. This is not to downplay the importance of the scientist or the philosopher. However, the scientist and the philosopher can only reach that "one percent" of the population that relies upon reason to fashion its worldview. The artist does not share this constraint, as the medium of the artist is “emotional truth.” The artist—or the philosopher who uses the techniques of the artist, such Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, and Nietzsche, lays—the foundation upon which the philosopher builds, and he creates the moral atmosphere that is willing to accept on the hard truths of the scientist.


Recommended reading for radical traditionalist artists

  • Plato's Phaedo and Republic, both of which deal with the subject of myth in depth, of special interest is how Socrates uses myth to re-enforce his arguments, when the arguments themselves fail to convince the other participants in the dialogue.
  • Sir Philip Sydney's Defense of Poesy 

Portland State Course Aims to Abolish "Whiteness"

via American Freedom Party

  • The ‘White Privilege’ course description says ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved.
  • Students in the class will consider how non-white Americans ‘experience and negotiate skin privilege and white normativity.’
Rachel Sanders teaches ‘whiteness’According to Portland State University Professor’s Rachel Sanders’ “White Privilege” course, ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved.

The course description states that “whiteness is the lynchpin of structures of racial meaning and racial inequality in the United States” and claims that “to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.”

‘Whiteness’ is Strange...

Students taking the course will “endeavor to make whiteness strange.” In order to make whiteness strange, the description says students must “interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.”

The course readings and concepts are drawn, in part, from the field of “critical race theory.” According to Harvard University, critical race theory “combine[s] progressive political struggles for racial justice with critiques of the conventional legal and scholarly norms which are themselves viewed as part of the illegitimate hierarchies that need to be changed.”
“To preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.”
The Portland State University course description claims the construction of “whiteness” attaches material and psychological benefits to “individuals who identify, or are identified, as white.”

Students taking the course will also study the literary work of writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, who referred to the 9/11 first responders as “menaces of nature” in his latest book. In addition to reading the work of Mr. Coates, students will consider questions such as “[w]hat is white normativity, and how does it interact with other normative orders, including male normativity and heteronormativity?”

Students will also consider how non-white Americans “experience and negotiate skin privilege and white normativity.”

Portland State University isn’t the only university offering classes in whiteness. The University of Alabama-Birmingham, for example, is offering a course titled “Whiteness Studies” this fall, which “seeks to uncover and de-center the fiction of whiteness.”

Similarly, students at Binghamton University could enroll in “The Social Construction of Whiteness” this fall, which explores “intersections of whiteness and white privilege” and the “scholarly methods used to understand whiteness.”

The University of Southern California also gave students the chance to study whiteness this semester. “Critical Studies in Whiteness,” offered by USC’s graduate school, focuses “on how whiteness operates within specific racial regimes to perpetuate inequality.”

While many schools are offering such courses, there does not appear to be a consensus as to which department is best suited to study “whiteness.” Portland State offers its “White Privilege” course in the university’s Hatfield School of Government, UAB’s “Whiteness Studies” is considered an English class, Binghamton’s “Social Construction of Whiteness” falls under the purview of Women Gender and Sexuality Studies, and USC’s Critical Studies in Whiteness was offered by the American Studies department.

The Portland State University website lists Professor Sanders as an Assistant Professor of Political Science but does not provide any further information.

Portland State University did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment.

Joyful Determination

via Soul of the East

Even if Russia is a mystery to practically everyone, including Russians themselves, my recent time in Moscow left me with greater optimism regarding this nation’s future. The ongoing sanctions against the country; attempts by the West to cripple the economy; a campaign of demonisation of Russians and of President Putin by the Western corporate media (which goes at great length to distort and obscure facts while presenting Russians in a very negative light, relying on subconscious but now legitimate Russophobia); the decline of the ruble against the dollar and Western support for the pro-fascist regime in Kiev – all have failed to foster a spirit of melancholy, depression or fear.

That is not to say that life in Russia is perfect or that Moscow is necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. Indeed, in rural areas of the country, people have been affected to a much larger degree by the economic decline than in Moscow, and yet, over 80% of the population supports the course taken by President Putin. Indeed, those who take issue with Putin, and advocate that Russia bend backwards to please the US, are generally part of a small, affluent, but politically irrelevant liberal minority, one which resides in the large cities of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

In a trip to Moscow prior to this one, taken at the end of April 2015, I was left with a different impression. The mass suffering and destruction I witnessed in Donetsk seemed to escape the notice or attention of many Muscovites, who seemed more interested in living a luxurious life style than in the pain and suffering taking place next door. It was almost as if residents of this great metropole were hoping to escape, ignore or evade the news from Ukraine, more concerned about remaining unaffected in their artificial bubble. Indeed, the assumption driving the Western approach to Russia has been that following the collapse of the USSR – and the fact that Russia is forbidden by following a particular ideology in its new constitution – most Russians under Putin wish to live a comfortable and affluent life, and if faced by sanctions they’ll withdraw their support from “bad guy” Putin.

Perhaps it was the lovely late summer weather that caused the many Muscovites who were out in the parks and streets to be in high spirits, but my impression was that a deeper phenomenon was in play. Museums and churches were packed with people. Residents enjoyed each other’s company in parks, even while spending less. And people did not seem subdued or concerned, but rather, more determined and proud of their identity and country.

Despite the sanctions, most people did not have worried looks on their faces, but seemed to embody a strong character and determination.

What may explain this resilience and inner strength, seemingly oblivious to the demands of the so-called “international community” and to the massive campaign of disinformation and hate launched by the Western corporate media, replete with horror stories on “Putin’s Russia” that leave one with the impression that Muscovites are depressed, living under tyranny, and devoid of life and joy?

It appears that the Western approach to Russia failed to take into account several basic facts, of which those familiar with Russian history and culture would be aware.

First, Russians no longer need the approval of the West to be happy or confident. Russians remember well that during the Yeltsin years, when they were supposedly enjoying the fruits of Western democracy and a time of prosperity following seventy years of the Soviet Union’s existence. In reality the country was privatized by the order of economists sent by Western-dominated financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, and massive hunger ensued as the country was subject to new dictates imposed the Washington Consensus. Russia was “loved” by the world then, but that did not help Muscovites who needed bread to survive the night. Now that Putin is being demonized by the major Western countries, who also supported a violent coup led by neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and aid Islamist groups bringing total destruction to Syria, many Russians must realize that the alternative the West envisions for Russia is not a prosperous state, but a subdued and subjugated colony. With the difficult 1990s serving as a precious lesson, most Russians now realize that they no longer need to seek the West’s affirmation to exist happily, and that as long as they live by the moral standards they set themselves, they can appreciate the gift of inner peace, knowing that they are forging the right path regardless of international criticism.

Secondly, many Russians have come to understand that as Washington does not accept basic decency among countries as a value. The Euro-Atlantic powers have supported the rehabilitation of Nazism in Ukraine while voting in the UN along with Canada against a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism, betraying the common legacy shared with the Soviet Union in the common struggle against Hitler. We witness the “indispensable nation”  violating the basic norms of human decency, but now its information campaigns, threats and hostile actions are not greeted with fear, but with even greater resilience.

Thirdly, Russians have proven to themselves, perhaps with some degree of surprise following several decades of a loss of ideology, that they actually do have an internal reservoir of untapped strength and that there are certain values they hold dear, values for which they are willing to sacrifice. Russians, who are not strangers to sufferings endued by hardships when being confronted by Nazi Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, for example, rediscovered a pleasure in realizing that there are still values worthy of struggle. In other words, Russians have essentially seen that there are certain essential Russian values – such as basic decency, opposition to blind chauvinism and senseless killings, love for one’s neighbor and justice – to which they still adhere. Hardships that expose these values within them are to be welcomed rather than feared. Russians know that the post-USSR Russian Federation has not been an aggressive country on the international stage and has not bombed countries into submission for the sake of controlling their markets as the US, UK and France, have done. Therefore, since they realized that they behaved rather decently, they are prepared to bear the burden of indecent behavior or retribution by the West.

Fourthly, Russians have turned back to communal values, a spiritual and religious outlook of life, and a reliance on one’s intuition and mystical knowledge rather than the split between the heart and mind common to the West, as evidenced by the revival of Orthodox Christianity. Many Russian citizens have turned to their native faith – whether Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, or Islam – and returned to traditional values such as the importance of family and community rather than adopting European post-modern values guided by atheism. These spiritual traditions, suppressed for decades and now reemerging, emphasize to present-day Russians that they are part of a long and glorious history spanning centuries, and that their own traditions contain spiritual and emotional riches which can provide their lives with meaning and spiritual knowledge. Russians now better realize that they are not empty slots but have roots. Now revived in a  religious and cultural rebirth which seems to be taking place, they are more powerful than the pain endured by financial losses, as they remind Russians that life has meaning, that the wisdom of the heart is stronger than the heartless rationality of productivity and “progress,” and that they can rightly be confident and proud of their own heritage and history. Russians have discovered, in other words, that they are not just a country, but a civilization, and that they can be confident in their own identity.

This joy of rediscovery of one’s strength outweighs most other difficulties, not that these difficulties should be underestimated.

Doubtless not all Russians share the view outlined above. Some, a majority of whom belong to a pro-Western middle class working in sectors related to the global circulation of capital, have an idealistic view of the West and seek to be part of it. They do not wish to stand apart from the West and do not wish to undergo economic difficulties. Some of their criticism may be justified, while other aspects may be downright childish and naive. To praise the West as perfect while turning a blind eye to Wall Street’s imperial wars, or to condemn the inauguration of a major mosque in the capital while viewing themselves as part of liberal, multicultural Europe, reveals a certain lack of sound reasoning, wishful thinking, and a needless inferiority complex. The debate between Westernizers who saw Russia as part of the West and Slavophiles who viewed Russia as a civilization in its own right harks back at least a century ago to the points raised by Herzen, Kireevsky, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Today a majority of Russians would appear to hold the Slavophile position, proud of their identity and culture and determined to continue on their own civilizational path.

For these reasons, I left Russia more optimistic than several months ago. Russians have, in my opinion, demonstrated not only that they are determined to stray strong despite attempts at isolation and “containment,” thereby paving the way for a future multipolar world, but have also done so with a new-found joy and surprise at the discovery of values demanding righteous sacrifice. They have a rich and glorious civilization of which they must be proud, rather than ashamed, and which is strong enough to deflect efforts to subjugate it or destroy it. While it has been said long ago that Russians tend to adapt quickly to times of crisis, it also appears that this time they are also invigorated by the realization of inner strength. There are unique virtues and traditions which are not simply abstractions, and through struggle they reveal a spirit that exists within us.

The Real Holocaust Victims Were the Victims of Dresden Firebombing in World War II

via Justice for Germans

Excerpts from a presentation by Lady Michele Renouf, speaking in Vancouver, reporting on a recent “Identitarian” conference in Mexico during which the true events of World War II were discussed in relation to understanding current affairs in modern day Europe.  She spoke of “swindle-speak” and  the historical misappropriation of terms by the media and enemies of truth, providing the term “holocaust” (a burnt whole offering) as a major example. She cited historical facts concerning the British military policy of targeting civilians in the WWII air war against Germany, and she concludes that it was the Germans who, by definition,  were the true victims of an actual “holocaust”.  She referred to Churchill’s policy, to “baste” the Germans and burn them alive. Thus, she said, “the German people should rightfully reclaim this term for themselves”. She then quoted Dennis Richards, Official Historian of the R.A.F. who admitted that the British initiated the air war, targeting civilians, in order to goad Hitler into bombing England in retaliation.

Regarding effective activism in terms of “Identitarianism”, from her own expertise in the advertising industry, she says that in order to reach the general public with the message, it is important to not use the adversary’s terminology, to not act and dress as they wish, and of not adopt archaic or nostalgic symbolism which the enemies of truth have already demonized. She urges civility and creativity in order to appeal to the wider audience with one’s message and opposes the “Neo-Nazi” look and methods.

I attended this presentation and was involved in the Q&A segment, included in this video. One should not assume, however, that I necessarily subscribe to the “Identitarian” viewpoint. My issue is and remains “Justice for Germans” with the caveat, that humanity as whole will also benefit from understanding the truth about Hitler, National Socialism and World War II.  I was, however, much impressed with her presentation. My main reason for attending was my great respect for her, in light of all of her activism on behalf of the German people and for Our Fallen over many years, and indeed, for all of humanity against our common enemy or “our predator” as she calls them.Her contention that the “Holocaust” happened to the German people echoes my own sentiments. This is also evidenced in the documentary film “Hellstorm“.

It was delightful to re-acquaint myself with her since our last meeting nearly 4 years ago. We spent several hours chatting privately after the event had concluded, and I shared with her some of what I have done in that time, including the founding of The Truth and Justice for Germans Society. She read the mandate and constitution, and she endorses it, saying “it is long overdue” and she wondered “why has it not been done before?” Other TJGS members were also in attendance and greatly appreciated her presentation.

Illegal Invaders Know Our Laws Are Weak and They Can Do Whatever They Want

via The Traitor Within

Chief of German Police
Union, Rainier Wendt
On 7 October 2015, Rainer Wendt, Chief of the German Police Union, said this in an interview with the German news station, N24:

“I’d like to see… politicians react in time. Things always have to go up in flames before they manage to get anything done . . .

In our asylum camps all hell broke loose; at the border in southern Germany, and in Bavaria especially, it’s hell… That’s not just since last week or since last month, it’s all year. Our federal police and the Bavarian county police especially, and also from other countries, have for months now been heavily overwhelmed, and now politicians are acting like they’re totally surprised, but that can’t be; nobody is surprised, and they should’ve reacted a lot sooner…
There’s criminality among the refugees, meaning, RAPES OF WOMEN AND OF CHILDREN, MASSIVE USE OF VIOLENCE, CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS EXPLOITATION, SLAVERY, we see it all there."

"These are territorial conflicts, dominance struggles, I mean fanatical religious groups that can’t be separated easily. Our private security personnel are completely overwhelmed… 
The judiciary and the political part of the state should make it very clear to these people from the get-go that in this country the Shariah does not apply, or any other religion, but that here the German rule of law applies and that we are ready to enforce that. 
We are talking heavy crime, extreme criminal offences… Our rule of law has to react… We need to open up the deportation facilities again… They don’t have the right to await their asylum proceedings in freedom… 
Separating them? Even for religious reasons alone it’s difficult. Who do you want to separate from whom? The Sunnis from the Shiites, the moderate Salafists from the radical Salafists? When they’re in the end all followers of the Muslim belief system, it’s just not possible. As far as separating by ethnicity it’s the same thing. When we do that we basically already create parallel societies among the refugees… 
I believe we have to concentrate on protecting those in need of protection, such as women, families and children, and especially Christians among these refugees, they need special protection… 
And beyond that it has to be made very clear to everybody that lives in these camps, here the German rule of law is in effect, and the law has to be enforced, and whoever breaks the law, only has the right to imprisonment and deportation left.”

Pretty straightforward, don't you think? 

And, really, rather unusual. Until recently you just didn't hear this kind of thing in the most politically correct of Europe's benighted nation states. But now you do. The arrival of 800,000, upped to 1,500,000 invaders, most of them fit, strong and dangerous-seeming young men, has changed all of that.

The western media has, for the most part, taken the part of the 'refugee,' and, wherever possible, it has focused upon the women and children. The case of the poor little boy on the beach comes straight to mind.

But this time the European people haven't just seen through the crass, let-'em-all-in New World Order spin, they have, despite the predictable censorious reaction of the PC Crowd, found their voice and dared to enunciate their objections. In cyberspace and in the comment sections of the newspapers everyone is speaking out. On the streets hundreds of thousands are protesting. And in the studios of the odd mainstream media outlet, one or two big shots are also telling it as it is.

Good for you, Rainer. It may be that your forthright honesty here will see you lose your job. Never mind, my son, a year or two down the line, when the Angela Merkels are all behind bars praying for clemency but expecting none, you'll be a much bigger deal than you are now.

'Rapes of women and of children, massive use of violence, criminal activities such as exploitation, slavery'... Whose for 1.5 million of these, eh?

No thanks, Angela.

This time you and those you serve can go to hell.

Sucks to Your IQ

via Henry Dampier

IQ was initially developed as a bureaucratic tool to help institutions at scale to screen and sort out potential employees at scale. One of the reasons why it became popular was because the scores remained relatively constant independent on what age that you provide the tests. In the United States, they were especially important in the great projects of World War I and World War II, but the advance also spilled over to corporations.

Now, managers wouldn’t discriminate based on cultural factors, their personal familiarity with the candidates, and social class. They would use science to select only the ‘best’ candidate for the job, as judged by their objectively determinable intelligence quotient. In the new scientific order, everyone would have equality of opportunity — which even today is something that the slow-progressive movement (AKA conservatives) get warm fuzzies about whenever they hear the term.

Until recently, Silicon Valley was the last corporate outpost of the use of IQ-like tests (fittingly, because the test was developed at Stanford). The SAT is fading in importance as a selection mechanism for universities.

Today, because of the widespread opposition to the idea of innate and heritable intelligence, it seems like a rebellion to say that IQ and similar concepts like ‘g’ are important. It’s a profound mistake, however, to act like it’s the only thing that matters, to say that grouping people into a country or institution based on their innate intelligence alone is the way to make the Tower of Babel political construct work properly.

In a similar way that the reductionist view of race is stupid, the reductionist view of intelligence and its importance is also misguided. If we follow this reductionist view, we would have to ignore the fact that there are far many more smart liberals who deny that intelligence is innate than there are smart people of any political persuasion who say that it isn’t.

One reason why not to treat intelligence as the be-all-and-end-all is that intelligence of a person says nothing about their character, values, religion, or aesthetic sensibility. When you stuff the smartest people from all around the world into a classroom, you get a graduate student lecturing in an unintelligible accent to an alienated student body which has no sense of working towards a single common purpose.

The same people who will complain about not being able to understand their foreign TA are the same people who will attend a diversity rally the weekend after are the same people who will make maudlin Facebook posts about how much they hate all those ‘racists’ preventing the final realization of Babel, in which we’re all one people, carefully graded by how well we perform on test problems.

It’s the institutions that need to proclaim the value of multiculturalism the loudest that tend to suffer the most from this sort of blind faith in meritocratic values. It also makes these institutions vulnerable to simple hacks around testing systems — such as cheating and the use of dummy testers.

Further, a society that selects its leaders based on how good they are at filling in bubbles will eventually become a society fascinated by bureaucratic bubble and spreadsheet filling incapable of dealing with the other important aspects of reality and rich details of the human experience. If it can’t be bubbled in on a sheet, the bubble-people want to make it stop existing.

In the end, the same system created by people selected for excellence in bubble-filling wound up being dominated by people who felt intolerably guilty about the results of that system — so guilty that they no longer wanted to keep it alive.

One reason that they felt guilty about it was because the results of that system showed that ‘equality of opportunity’ was nonsense. There is no equality of opportunity, and there can be no equality of opportunity. Most people are born with limited opportunities owing to their station in life. In order to keep the lie of equality of opportunity alive, the people had to make anything that revealed innate inequality illegal — as part of the general program of censorship against dangerous ideas.

So now, it’s in transition to a system in which the capable compete with one another in public flagellation sessions, and the incapable receive honors and prizes based on how loud and pathetic their sob stories are.

Part of the worldview implicit in the IQ test is that virtue is irrelevant compared to an abstract quantification of a person’s ability to solve puzzles — as if even business can be reduced to a series of difficult puzzles to be solved by someone of sufficient cleverness. What someone does with their capacity is much more important than what that capacity is.

Attempting to replace civilization as it existed with a rationalized, scientific society wound up creating something so enervating that few were motivated to preserve it. So now, we sense the chasm opening up beneath us.