Oct 27, 2015

“Diversity” Is Simply Code for “Non-White”

via Occident Invicta

When the left touts the benefits of diversity, they’re really telling white people to get lost. The latest example is this wimpy white woman’s screed about her white neighbors’ reluctance to send their kids to a black school, which tells us all we need to know about the left’s conception of “diversity.” I just find it amusing that while leftists frequently accuse the right of using racist “dog whistles” and other coded language, they do the same thing when they employ the word “diversity.” This passage says it all:
When I am able to move past the anger, the frustration that people are talking about a school they know nothing about, I listen to what they say. Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black. The people who are moving into my neighborhood want their children to have a diverse upbringing, but not too diverse. They still want a white school, just with other non-white children also participating.
What does she mean by “not too diverse?” Is she trying to claim that in order to enjoy a truly diverse education, her white neighbors must subject their kids to an overwhelmingly black classroom? How is a predominantly black environment in a nation where blacks are around 13% of the population “diverse?”

She also asserts that there’s something wrong with whites wanting to experience diversity on their own terms, and that they must become uncomfortable as a minority in order to enjoy diversity’s enriching qualities. Whites in today’s loony multicultural climate are never permitted to be the majority in any circumstance. I’m sure in her book, a school that’s 65% white, 13% black, 15% Latino, and 6% Asian – truly representative of the nation’s demographics – is less diverse than a school that’s 90% black.

However, even when whites have been relegated to minority status, their presence is still considered insufferable. Just check out this old editorial from my alma mater, UC Irvine, where the castrated cracker decries racism and even singles out UCI for its lack of diversity. This one sentence is most telling:
“We ought to note in the first place that, despite our large Asian-American population, we are not a “diverse” campus in the least.”
That’s right, even though Asians are over 50% of UCI’s student body – which makes them grossly overrepresented – and whites are a minority, the campus is still insufficiently diverse. One might logically conclude that, in order to increase diversity, one should increase the number of non-Asians relative to Asians. But no, in the author’s mind, UCI’s population is insufficiently diverse in spite of its enormous Asian population; it’s the presence of white people that’s hindering a multicultural utopia. His solution is for the already embattled white students to bear the costs of diversity and make room for Latinos and blacks.

So there you have it: diversity simply means fewer white people and more colored people. What amazes me is that so many credulous white people continue to be cozened by that word, unable to recognize that “diversity” is a celebration of their displacement. That’s why our task is to educate whites about the true nature of “diversity,” and thus enable them to instantly rebuke this leftist dog whistle.

Reflections on Jewish Intermarriage into Native Elites

via The Occidental Observer

Carolyn Kennedy and her Jewish
husband, Edwin Schlossberg,
on their wedding day
“I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter. This wasn’t in the plan but I’m very glad it happened.” --Donald Trump, February 2015.

As discussion continues among White advocates over the Trump candidacy, I haven’t failed to notice that perhaps the most persistent criticism of Trump from our ranks has been his strong links to Jews, in particular his familial ties to Jewish blood. There’s certainly some substance to this. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, has adopted the Jewish religion as her own and has been married to Jewish real estate speculator Jared Kushner since 2009. Both of Donald Trump’s grandchildren are Jewish. Looking into the situation in more detail, I was intrigued to discover that Ivanka’s previous two significant relationships were also with Jews, Greg Hirsch and James Gubelmann. Of further note is Ivanka’s very close friendship with Chelsea Clinton, another progeny of the American power elite, who married the Jewish financier Marc Mezvinsky in 2010. The Trump and Clinton situations are excellent examples of the centuries-old practice of strategic Jewish intermarriage with native elites, and this phenomenon deserves some focussed attention.

Jewish intermarriage into non-Jewish power elites is a significant but under-researched aspect of Jewish strategies to maintain and expand influence. At first sight, of course, it appears paradoxical. A major part of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy is concerned with segregation of the gene pool and preventing high levels of genetic admixture from surrounding groups. Judaism has historically been replete with social and cultural controls designed to minimize contact with non-Jews, and therefore greatly inhibit admixture. Additionally, converts are dissuaded and scorned in Judaism in a manner quite without parallel in any other religious culture. However, as Kevin MacDonald has noted in A People That Shall Dwell Alone (2002, hereafter PTSDA), conversion and admixture were permissible, if not eagerly sought, when such an admixture was very small and offered significant net benefits to the group. Similarly, at the opposite end of the Jewish strategic ghetto, controls were also far from airtight — the most sincere Jewish apostates to Christianity tended to be overwhelmingly poor and obscure, and were little mourned by the group at large. The eugenic benefits of pursuing such a strategy are obvious.

Even in ancient times there is evidence that “some gentile-derived genes were being selected for their effects on resource-obtaining abilities within the Jewish community (PTSDA, 41).” By targeting the rich and powerful for intermarriage, Jews could obtain significant and immediate material resources, an improvement in social status, and also useful genetic material. Though very few in number, ancient converts, and their more celebrated modern counterparts, have been disproportionately intelligent and successful. MacDonald writes that
It is possible that even this relatively small genetic admixture from surrounding populations could be adaptive for a strategizing group because the group would benefit from new genetic combinations, e.g. intelligence, greater phenotypic similarity etc…Evidence in favor of this hypothesis would be that Jewish proselytism, while highly limited and restricted, has been more successful among wealthy, intelligent, and talented individuals and that this pattern was actively encouraged by the Jewish community (PTSDA, Chapter 2, 41).[1]
Earlier this year Princeton University Press published Todd Endelman’s Leaving the Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History. Endelman’s work purports to examine phenomena like intermarriage and conversion but, typically for mainstream Jewish scholarship, it neglects to engage in any real sense with aspects of these phenomena that reflect less favorably on Jewish culture, particularly the nature of elite-level intermarriage. However, there are a few useful snippets of information that offer substantiation for MacDonald’s observations. Those Jews who drifted into the non-Jewish gene pool were indeed, according to Endelman, “swindlers, drunkards, whores, schlemiels, schlemazels, nudniks, and no-goodniks” whose “social, cultural, and even moral level was low.”[2] By contrast, those non-Jews welcomed into the Jewish fold were from the very highest social levels, and the efforts taken to entice young princes, landowners, or heirs of industry to take Jewish wives were remarkable for their long-term, premeditated nature. Endelman remarks on census data from Berlin, covering the period 1770–1826, which indicates that elite Berlin Jews were utilizing baptism as “a long-term strategy to make their daughters eligible for eventual intermarriage.”[3]

Of course, the most significant barrier to Jewish attempts to intermarry with the non-Jewish elite were the religious aspects of marriage, and the requirement that Jews convert to Christianity before being permitted to take a Christian spouse. This barrier only began to weaken in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, beginning in the German-speaking lands where some of the aforementioned leading Jewish families began baptizing their daughters in long-term strategies for intermarriage with the Prussian elite, the Junkers. By the late 1700s many of the Junkers had fallen on hard times financially, due in large part to Jewish predation. The same period witnessed a boom in the wealth of Jewish bankers. Deborah Hertz writes in Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin that “discrete private loans to those who could afford the high interest rates was one way that the Jewish bankers increased the wealth they acquired in the Seven Year’s War.”[4] Indebted nobles began frequenting the homes of their Jewish creditors, either to make payments or plead for extensions. It was in these circumstances that the first fraternization began between the Prussian nobility and the daughters of the Jewish elite. There is even some suggestion that nobles were heavily pressured, via their debts, to take Jewish wives for easier terms. For example, Hannah Arendt argued that intermarriages between the Prussian nobility and Jewish women were simply “a continuation of the creditor-debtor exchanges of the earlier years.”[5] Eventually this mode of contact evolved into the “salon” culture, in which soirées were staged and hosted by Jewish financial magnates with the specific purpose of encouraging the mixing of the Prussia nobility and selected Jewesses.[6]

Civil marriage wasn’t introduced in Prussia until 1874. Until then there were a considerable number of insincere conversions that facilitated intermarriage but failed to disguise the fact that the Jewish wives of the Prussian nobility continued to carry on Jewish lives. Hertz describes the Jewish families as “socially opportunistic” strategizers who were motivated by “status-hungry desires” and “craved the higher positions possessed by Christians.”[7] The vast majority of Jewish women who married into the Junker class derived many of the social benefits now attached to their status in non-Jewish society, while retaining “strong ties to friends and relatives who remained Jewish.”[8] The flurry of Jewish intermarriages into the Prussian elite only began to ebb away around 1813, when Prussian society witnessed a backlash against the encroachment, and a number of “anti-Semitic” salons were established.[9] Many of the salon women were treated with scathing disdain by those members of the elite who resented the Jewish incursion. For example, Wilhelm von Humboldt, the Prussia philosopher and diplomat, once described salon star Rahel Levin as a “monster.” And when Levin married Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, the cream of the Prussian elite, von Humboldt asked a friend whether “there was anything a Jew could not achieve.’”[10]

Jewish intermarriage to British aristocracy

Although the salons of Prussia and Paris facilitated the extension and deepening of Jewish influence, no nineteenth-century native elite was subjected to Jewish penetration as strongly as the British aristocracy. In 1936 England’s Arnold Leese, a former military veterinarian and leader of a small Fascist group, published a pamphlet titled Our Jewish Aristocracy: A Revelation. At the outset of the publication, Leese wrote that he wished to impress upon his fellow Britons that “their race is being displaced and replaced, and without notice to any individual.” Compared with our contemporary situation, Leese couldn’t even imagine what genuine displacement and replacement would actually look like. However, what Leese did manage to produce was a valuable, though imperfect, piece of research that made a convincing case for the argument that the British elite was being slowly displaced and replaced with Jewish genes. My careful re-examination of his lengthy list of British nobles with Jewish ancestry indicates that Leese made a handful of errors, but the majority of those listed were indeed related to Jews by blood or marriage.

In his classic work, The Jews (1922), Hilaire Belloc wrote that Jewish intermarriage into the British elite was more “subtle and penetrating” than even the Jewish acquisition of key positions in the institutions of the State. Belloc stated that:
Marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the traditions those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this admixture (223).
The two main reasons for the more extensive Jewish penetration of the British aristocracy were the earlier introduction of civil marriage, and the admission of Jews to the hereditary peerage on a par with the native elite (beginning with Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1884). Endelman writes that in Britain, “marriage without a religious ceremony became legal in 1837, and in 1839 Hannah de Rothschild (1815–1864), daughter of the founder of the English branch of the banking clan, married Henry FitzRoy, younger son of the second Lord Southampton, at St. George’s, Hanover Square, without first becoming a Christian.”[11] Although romantic historical renditions of the marriage portray it as a love affair between two people whose families objected to the pairing, the ensuing scale and extent of Jewish intermarriage into the peerage following the union suggest that the Rothschilds and the wider Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood were very keen on the development. In fact, within a century the scale of Jewish intermarriage with the British aristocracy was such that it led L.G. Pine, editor of Burke’s Peerage from 1949–1959, to write in 1956 that “the Jews have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual.”

Pine’s astute comment bears some reflection because it cuts to the heart of Jewish intermarriage with native elites. Jews historically have tirelessly engaged in efforts to position themselves either in elite positions or in positions that place them between the elite and the great mass of people. Jews have sought these positions of power and influence in order to pursue their goals and interests — goals and interests which are very often at odds with the interests of native populations. This conflict of interests is the root cause of what has been termed “anti-Semitism,” and one of the main strategies Jews have employed against “anti-Semitism” is that of crypsis. Cryptic strategies have involved insincere conversions to Christianity and the abandonment of phenotypic characteristics that provoke hostility. The argument here is that Jewish intermarriage with native elites should be seen, partly, as a more extreme example of Jewish crypsis.  What better way for a foreign elite to occupy powerful positions in a society than to do so in a manner which gives the impression that the foreign elite is nothing more than the traditional, native elite? By inter-breeding so acutely with the native elites, and blending their interests so tightly, the strategy also places further distance between the native elite and the people it leads. As Pine suggests, the native elite can no longer act on behalf of the people and against foreign influence because intermarriage has ensured that any Jewish loss would in fact be “mutual.”

The Trump and Clinton intermarriages should be seen as part of this greater strategy of expanding power and influence cryptically, and “normalizing” or blurring the image of Jews at the top of our society. Also, in the same way that one injects small amounts of microbes in order to immunize oneself against a disease, by taking in small amount of the “best” genes or personalities Jewry “immunizes” itself against the threat of a reaction from the financially and politically powerful. To be clear, although it is clearly helpful, the argument here is not that intermarriage is any longer essential to the expansion of Jewish power and influence. It’s continuance in the present is in part merely a symptom of the geriatric, decayed, and increasingly alien nature of our existing elites. Our sick society has an elite composed of media types, corporate vultures, and opportunistic politicians. And when a society hands over the top positions of power and influence to the financially rich but morally and ideologically bankrupt, it will not be cream that rises to the top, but scum.

Jews no longer have to reach across a cultural Rubicon in order to penetrate an exalted native elite. They already occupy the same dubious space as it. In Diversity in the Power Elite: How It Happened, Why It Matters (2006) G. William Domhoff and Richard Zweigenhaft state that “Jews are overrepresented overall in the corporate elite. Jews are also now overrepresented in both the Senate and the House.”[12] The need for the salons has long since dissipated. The rotten elites, both foreign and domestic, can intermingle in their board rooms and political venues, their fates and interests, as Pine stated, now entwined. Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky, the son of an Iowa Congressman and a Philadelphia Congresswoman, met at a 1993 Democratic political retreat in Hilton Head, South Carolina. Ivanka Trump met Jared Kushner in a heavily-Jewish social milieu built around the upper echelon of corporate real estate. The social circles are mutual.

A couple of weeks ago, during a conversation with a White advocate of many years’ service, I was asked my opinion on the monarchies of Europe and their future. I replied that although I have a lingering respect for centuries of tradition, the time has come for the decrepit old elites to be swept away. In the course of the ongoing invasion of foreign peoples into Europe, the remaining aristocracies will not survive long anyway. The invaders will not respect the history, tradition or authority of people who are no more than relics of past European glories. The inbred, quasi-Jewish denizens of Europe’s crumbling manorial estates may lock the doors of their palatial residences, but if push came to shove, they would be no more spared the ravages of a racial conflict than the humblest member of society. Nor should we mourn the passing of these people and their toppling from power and influence. These older elites have had centuries to prove that they deserved their positions through service to the folk and concern for the collective material well-being. Time and again they failed. Their corporate and political successors are failing even more rapidly, and much more profoundly.

If it can be said that many White advocates are elitists in the sense that they reject the proposition that “all men are equal,” it must be made clear that this in no way suggests support or endorsement for the existing elite, or the qualifications by which this group claims elite status. Quite the opposite. We are thus both elitist and “anti-elite.” In the same way, we acknowledge the influence of genes and heredity on one’s personality, behavior, and abilities but reject the idea that heredity alone is a qualification for individual or familial power. One does not find hereditary elites in nature. A lion may rule a pride but none of his cubs, talented though they may be, are necessarily destined to take his place. In the long history of monarchy in Europe, Fate placed a crown upon a genius only once in centuries. The remainder of these ages witnessed Europe laboring under despots, the mediocre, the inept, the feeble, the cowardly and the venal.

One of the great lies fed to the masses is that we now live in an era of meritocracy, with access to elite status open to anyone who is “talented” enough. But the lie doesn’t bear up under closer scrutiny. Even if one adopts the position that successfully competing to get into a “meritocratic” institution like an elite university is an avenue towards eventual, wider, elite status, one is confronted with phenomena like Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities. The fact remains that we live in what a January 2015 article in The Economist described as a flawed “hereditary meritocracy.” The hereditary meritocrats who compose our modern elites benefit from social and ethnic networking in much the same way as the hereditary aristocrats did in earlier periods. There are gatekeepers controlling access to elite universities, elite media positions, and elite social functions. As has been stated, Jews are massively overrepresented across all indicators of elite power and influence. Meritocracy, like modern democracy, is an illusion.

This discussion is aimed primarily at moving us away from references to “our” elite, as opposed to the Jewish elite. If anything resembling the old WASP elite still exists in America, it is either moribund, corrupted, or beyond saving. The salvation of our people will not come from throwing our support behind an imagined non-Jewish group already possessing some wealth and power. As discussed above, interests and bloodlines have been intertwined enough for any such group to view a decline in Jewish power as a decline in its own. “Our” elite isn’t really “ours” at all. There is simply one, heavily-Jewish, elite, and we are in ideological, material, and spiritual opposition to it. How excited, then, should we really be about Donald Trump? For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.” In his family tree I see distilled Jewish blood. Time will tell how useful his “drawing attention to the immigration issue” will be. Time will also tell whether, if he is successful in reaching the White House, he would do anything to reverse the decline of White America.

I’d love to be proven wrong.

[1] A recent paper notes that this process is quite common in nature and may well have occurred in humans. The technical term for the spread of favorable genes from one population to another is “adaptive introgression.” It has been proposed that human populations settling in Eurasia acquired beneficial genes “‘for free’ at a frequency of a few percent” from Neanderthals and other groups which then spread rapidly. The same thing may have happened with Jewish populations in Europe, thus accounting for the superior IQ of Ashkenazi groups compared to other Jewish groups, especially Middle Eastern Jews.
Adaptation through the acquisition of new mutations is generally a slow process: it is rare for favourable alleles to appear, and these are often lost by chance when they first occur in a single individual or in very few individuals. By contrast, if favourable alleles have emerged in one group, they can spread to other groups relatively rapidly by gene flow. This process, called ‘adaptive introgression’, is well documented in bacteria and plants, and described in some cases in animals, but it has not previously been considered an important factor in human adaptation. However, because Neanderthals and Denisovans lived in Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years, they presumably carried alleles that were favourable given the conditions where they lived. Through gene flow, modern humans spreading across Eurasia from Africa could then acquire these alleles ‘for free’ at a frequency of a few percent, thus ensuring that they were not lost and could be acted upon by positive selection. (Svante Pääbo, “The diverse origins of the human gene pool,” Nature Reviews—Genetics 16 (June, 2015), 313–314.
[2] T. Endelman, Leaving the Fold: Conversion and Radical Assimilation in Modern Jewish History (Princeton University Press, 2015), 77.
[3] Ibid, 79.
[4] D. Hertz, Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin (Syracuse University Press, 2005), 214.
[5] Ibid, 215.
[6] Ibid, 207.
[7] Ibid, 210.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid, 258.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Endelman, Leaving the Fold, 79.
[12] G. W. Domhoff & R. Zweigenhaft, Diversity in the Power Elite: How It Happened, Why It Matters (Rowman and Littlefield, 2006), 38.

Life at the Berghof by One of Hitler's Maids

via Britannia

Adolf Hitler at the Berghof, inset
Elisabeth Kalhammer a former maid
As far as his closest aides were aware, he kept to a strict healthy diet and drank only lukewarm water.

But Adolf Hitler would regularly stave off attacks of midnight munchies by tucking into specially made ‘Fuhrer Cake’ and other gooey treats.

He would raid the kitchen after staying up late talking to guests and rarely get up before 2pm, according to a maid who worked at his mountain retreat in Bavaria.

Hitler dining with a friend at the Berghof 

Elisabeth Kalhammer has broken her silence after 71 years to reveal what life was like at the Berghof when the Nazi dictator was in residence.

Mrs Kalhammer, 89, says that Hitler’s mistress Eva Braun – whom staff greeted with a ‘Heil M’lady’ – ran the house.

All the maids knew Hitler had trouble with his spleen and kept to a strict diet devised by a personal cook.

But the famously sweet-toothed dictator secretly feasted on chocolate biscuits and cream scones, Mrs Kalhammer says.

A ‘Fuhrer Cake’ – an apple cake strewn with nuts and raisins – had to be baked each day and left out every night for him to raid like a naughty schoolboy as the rest of the household slept.

‘He loved sweet things,’ she said, ‘and Eva Braun was our best friend.’

Austrian Mrs Kalhammer – then Elisabeth Marchtrenkerin – went to work at the Fuhrer’s retreat near  Berchtesgaden in 1943 after answering an advert in her local paper: ‘Maid wanted. Location: The Berghof on the Obersalzberg.’

She did not know that her employer would be Hitler.

Her mother had asked her not to take the job but the teenage Elisabeth felt she could not turn it down and the Reich’s employment office told her she should be grateful for the work.

‘I felt queasy when I arrived,’ Mrs Kalhammer told the Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper.

On her first day she passed through three SS guard posts.

‘The house was full of guests and the Fuhrer was just suddenly there,’ she said.

She soon realised that ‘I was allowed to think but not to speak’ while in his presence, nor was she or the others to gossip about him – although naturally they did.

From the beginning, Elisabeth was warned that anyone revealing details about the Berghof would face strict punishment.

She was one of 22 girls in service and was often in Hitler’s  presence although she never talked to him – he allowed only long-serving staff to approach him and to enter his private rooms.

She worked in the laundry and sewing rooms, did the cleaning and made the tea which Hitler liked to drink from a Nymphenburg porcelain cup.

Mrs Kalhammer worked at the retreat from 1943 until they were evacuated in 1945. Hitler liked to drink tea from a Nymphenburg porcelain cup

Once she broke a cup and was punished by losing several of her days off. Conditions at the Berghof were in stark contrast to those faced by ordinary Germans and Austrians.

While Elisabeth’s family  had little to eat, the maids  enjoyed freshly pressed apple juice and had plenty of food.

She said Eva Braun ‘was always good to me. She behaved like the lady of the house, even though she was not married. She designed our uniforms. For Christmas she presented me with wool, to knit socks for the men on the front.’

Hitler was obsessed with movies and had a private cinema at the Berghof. The maids were allowed to use the cinema when a propaganda film starring actress Marika Roekk was shown. Braun was ‘spellbound’ by Roekk, she said.

But the mood changed in July 1944, following a failed assassination attempt against Hitler by army officers.

Elisabeth worked on at the Berghof until almost to the end of the war, when it was evacuated and bombed in an Allied air raid.

Hot Enough for You?

via West Hunter

There’s a new study out in Nature, claiming that economic productivity peaks at 13 degrees Centigrade and that global warming will therefore drastically decrease world GDP.

Singapore.  Phoenix. Queensland.  Air-conditioners!

Now that I’ve made my point, just how stupid are these people? Do they actually believe this shit?  I keep seeing papers by economists – in prominent places – that rely heavily on not knowing jack shit about anything on Earth, papers that could only have been written by someone that didn’t know a damn thing about the subject they were addressing, from the influence of genetic diversity on civilization achievement (zilch)  to the massive race-switching that happened after the Civil War (not).  Let me tell you, there’s a difference between ‘economic imperialism’ and old-fashioned real imperialism: people like Clive of India or Raffles bothered to learn something about the territory they were conquering.  They knew enough to run divide et impera  in their sleep: while economists never say peccavi, no matter how badly they screw up.

Freedom Comes from the Sword

via The West's Darkest Hour

Ex Gladio Libertas
Freedom comes from the sword
My experiences have given me a far higher opinion of trade union militants and working class Bolsheviks than I’ll probably ever have of American conservative or racialist intellectuals. I also know if any fighting is ever to be done, I can count on one rather than the other. —Michael O’Meara

The chasm that separates us from white nationalism (WN) is our meta-ethical POV, more formally known as “axiology” or set of primordial values. For example, every time that one of our street fighters makes a scene (the latest, Anton Lundin Pettersson) the reaction of American conservatives and most racialist intellectuals verges on hysteria.

I tried to describe the chasm in some pages of the books linked at the sidebar, below the Spartan banner. But after Anton’s fifteen minutes of fame I reread all the comments gathered in this site that Jack Frost originally posted on The Occidental Observer webzine. To those who have no time to study carefully the sidebar’s books I’d recommend reading at least some of these comments: https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/jack-frost/

They’ll give you a taste of the flavor of what we mean by transvaluating the bourgeois values in American WNsm, mostly the by-product of their parents’ Christianity of Calvinist extraction, back to the values of the wild blond beast. This includes revaluating the WN notion of thinking like civilians (“good Christians”) instead of freedom fighters, especially now that the enemy is planning to close our only outlet, the internet, in places like Britain.

Bulgarian Orthodox Church Petitions Government to “stop admitting foreign refugees”

via TradYouth

In a recent 700-word statement by the governing body of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod has petitioned the country’s government to “stop admitting foreign refugees.” It noted that “it has compassion for those already in the country but that accepting more refugees from the North Africa and Middle East could put at risk the existence of Bulgaria as a state and as a people.” It also went on to call the influx of refugees “a wave which has acquired all the signs of an invasion.” The statement signed by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church Patriarch Neofit, said that in recent months the question had been repeatedly asked of what its position was on the refugee problem; the Church said, “it was obliged to think in terms of scripture, God’s commandments and the context of history, meaning having regard to the implications of events and how they would affect the long-time Orthodox people, the flock that our Lord Jesus Christ has entrusted to our care.” This in turn raised the issue of whether the flow of refugees, if it continued in the current extent, “would change the existing ethnic balance in our fatherland Bulgaria.”

Many Orthodox Christians raised in the American melting pot wish to impose upon Orthodoxy an internationalist anthropology that claims Humanity is so completely one that distinctions such as ethnicity and race do not exist, or if they do exist are absolutely insignificant, and are just social constructs with no theological significance.  God intended for organic Nations to exist as part of His creation, as well as to continue into eternity and are not just the by products of chance.  It is also a sin for one to wish, let alone endeavor, to see Organic Nations come to an end or be snuffed out in any way whether through Hot Genocide (Physical violence) or the more popular Cool Genocide (Encouraged mass emigration and interbreeding).

Many today claim Ethno-Nationalism equals the heretical opinion of Ethno-Phyletism. I’m arguing that Ethno-Nationalism is not the same as Phyletism, that Phyletism is being misrepresented by those who want to see nationalism in all its forms destroyed, and identify those whom I firmly believe to be in error regarding this important issue. The great Romanian theologian Father Dumitru Staniloae was unknown to many and also a fervent nationalist. He wrote on this topic more than once throughout his life and never retracted anything he said on the subject. One article that I will be referring to is Orthodoxy and Nationalism.

Not all nationalisms are good. In fact we have seen throughout human history that unhealthy nationalisms have brought much suffering to the world. And when Father Dumitru posed the question, “Can nationalism be bad” his answer was, “It could be, if it presents itself as something vicious, petty, without heights and purity of feeling and thought.” I believe that in this statement we find the true essence of what Ethno-Phyletism really is about. However, one cannot say that Ethno-Phyletism is the same thing as a healthy Nationalism (Ethno-Patriatism) and preferential love for ones own people or the desire to preserve and defend them against enemies who would destroy them.

There is more than one way to destroy a nation. There is the outright wholesale slaughter of a people through hot genocide and then there is that which takes place through mass immigration and miscegenation (Cool genocide). Both have as their end result the annihilation of a race or nation of people. The Orthodox Church has never promoted this.

As Father Stanly Harakas wrote in his book 455 questions and answers about the Orthodox Church,
“I feel I made it very clear that the Church does not feel such marriages (inter-racial) are desirable, for many different reasons, many of which are practical and have to do with the chance of success for such marriages. In addition, we should also add that the Church holds that races and nations were created by God. Consequently, the total intermarriage would destroy the races which God created. The Church has never advocated or encouraged racially mixed marriages.”
The article “Orthodoxy and Ethnicity” from the booklet Orthodox Tradition put out by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies states: “As for the Church’s condemnation of phyletism, it is not directed at nationalism ….. Rather it addresses the notion that only one single nationality or race, over and above all others, will be saved.” But that said there is a healthy nationalism, one that cannot be but from God himself, a nationalism that is so closely related to the command to honor thy Father and Mother that the Moscow Patriarchate in it’s Basis of the Social Concept of The Russian Orthodox Church stated that,
“Christian patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regard to a nation as an ethnic community and as a community of its citizens. The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world. This love is one of the ways of fulfilling God’s commandment of love to one’s neighbor which includes love to one’s family, fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens.”
We must go back to the primordial Creation story, of how God made the plants, animals and man in his pre-lapsarian condition. Father Staniloae says, “God first created at the beginning, Adam and Eve. But within themselves all the nations were potentially contained.” In this statement Father Staniloae demonstrates the universality of human nature as well as the idea of organic nations. It is worth noting that Genesis 1:24 states an important principle in God’s creative plan, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

The opinion that different races come from separate ancestors, unrelated (Polygenism) has to be explicitly condemned. All men that have ever lived, no matter what country or race, have a shared common human nature, and are both harmed by the sin of Adam, as well as redeemed through Christ’s redemptive economy. But we cannot stop at this point and say, that Human nature is an abstract generic thing without particulars.

You cannot removed the individual or national characteristics from an individual or a nation in order to let the human aspect be pure. That would destroy very humanity itself. The national or the individual is the human itself which necessarily has a certain quality. A human without quality, cannot exist. In other words God intended for nations to exist before the fall as much as after the fall and even wills them into eternity. Some would assert that races and nations came about as a result of the Fall. This Father Dumitru denies when he asks, “Is a specific nationality a distortion of that which is human, a decay of the human being?” He answers by saying “Sin or evil is of another form than unity or diversity. It is a distortion, a disfigurement of the thing given, of the existence produced by another Power.” As I mentioned earlier Father Staniloae makes the point that nations will exist into eternity, he says, “I believe that God does not want to cancel out any of the national variety created by Him, or historical geography, but wants to transfigure, to exalt, to change the face.  As God wants to unite people in one, He also did not want a single nation. Therefore I enjoy reading these wonderful words of Revelation, chapter 21, verse 25-26: “And the gates will not be shut by day, for night shall not be there. And the kings of the earth will bring into it the glory and honor of the nations “; So every nation in the next life will bring honor and glory and beauty. The beauty of Orthodoxy is that it promotes nations.

Now, where may you ask does Father Staniloaoe find the theological justification to say what he says about God intending the existence of specific races and ethnicities of men? He draws heavily from the theology of St. Maximos the Confessor. Maximus developed more than any writer before him the idea that the Word, the Logos, made all things by means of certain logoi (“words,” “reasons,” or “principles”) that come from Him. These logoi are the ideas and wills of God by which He creates everything and imparts unto everything its unique characteristics. The act of creation itself is the differentiation of the logoi which become multiple in creation while remaining one and simple in the divine Logos (Christ).

When God wills someone or something into existence, such as the logos of Paul, it is “spoken,” by God, and Paul comes to be.  The logos of Paul has three aspects. (1) It is the cause of his existence, for prior to God saying, “fiat Paul,” there is literally, ontologically, no Paul to speak of. (2) It is the principle of Paul’s being, or the definition of who he is according to nature–not merely a generic human being, but this particular boy we call Paul. And (3) it also includes the divine intention or purpose for which God created Paul, his role in the divine plan and his ultimate salvation and union with God. So, Fr. Staniloaoe’s assertion is that nations, as can plainly be seen from his above statements and in the case of individuals, are made by means of God’s logoi, ie. part of predetermined will of Almighty God. As was also echoed by the late Metropolitan Vitaly of the Russian Church Abroad when he stated, “There is no man without a nation or tribe, nor is there a religion without a nation, just as there is no nation without a religion. These two phenomena are mutually dependent and cannot be separated either in time or in composition.”

In echoing the thought of Father Staniloae, Romanian theologian Father Dumitru Popescu goes on to say in an interview, “God created the world as a unity in diversity. Therefore, from the Orthodox point of view, the universal is not given a place over and above the particular, but it is side by side with it, because this universe is given the power of the Holy Spirit which is designed in Christ and the Church to transfigure all peoples and places. Patristic theology says that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and entire in each part so as to intergrate the universal and particular.

Therefore, from the Orthodox viewpoint, world unity, like the unity of the Church, can only be a catholic community that affirms the identity of every people and every culture. It is not a closed identity, but open to all for mutual enrichment. Every people can make a specific contribution, which is for the benefit of others. And we think this is one concept of a community that can demonstrate the specific value of each nation, and a beneficial cooperation between them.” In his work Church and State, Father Popescu postulates that Orthodox social thought could be drawn from a model offered by Trinitarian theology. The dynamic vision of the unity and transcendence of the Trinity would represent the medium for dialogue between Orthodoxy and contemporary society.

In reflecting on the thought of Popescu, Romanian theological student A. Ionescu says: “In the patristic theology the particular is part of the universal without losing its identity.  This aspect is emphasized in the cosmological theology of St. Athanasius and St. Maximus the Confessor:
“The One Reason (Logos)” is many “, and the many reasons (logoi) are one “(St Maximus) The cosmos retains the character of an icon made in the image of the Trinity, who possesses It’s rationality (in a sense).The Trinity is one in being but at the same time three in persons. After this model the Church possesses universality and at the same time particular specifics. Thus there is one universal Orthodox Church comprised of several national Orthodox Churches. The national churches are not some different entities within the universal, but are precisely the many manifestations of the universal, the universal couldn’t exist in concrete, as universal in itself, but only in the particular.”
Father Dumitru Staniloae was, by no means, a fringe theologian, but was a true representative of the “Canonical” Orthodox Church. I must mention that the Romanian Patriarchal Holy Synod itself condemned anti-nationalism as it is expressed by Masonry when it wrote, “Freemasonry fights against the natural law, willed by God, that mankind is composed of nations “-Point seven of the Romanian Church anti-freemasonry anathema (1937) ”

In conclusion, we must revere organic nations because of what they are: part of God’s unfolding of creation that will not terminate in the eschaton, but rather will continue unto the ages of ages as all nations stand before the throne of God praising him forever. St. John the Theologian prophesied in the book of the Apocalypse,
“And He showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.”

The Evolutionary Psychologist’s Guide to Picking Up Girls

via Counter-Currents

Tucker Max and Geoffrey Miller
Mate: Become the Man Women Want
New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2015

Time was when a young man did not need to master evolutionary psychology in order to find himself a girl. The adult world provided the young with ready-made social rituals for meeting, assessing one another’s prospects as a mate, and (eventually) entering into a lifelong covenant to bear and raise a new generation. For most people, it wasn’t all that exciting; but since they never expected it to be, they were not overly disappointed. Social pressures and low expectations were such that even the homely usually married one another rather than remain alone.

Prosperity raises expectations. World War II was followed in the West by the greatest and most broadly spread prosperity in the history of the world. Not only the idle rich, as in former ages, but even the man (and woman) on the street began to see marriage and childrearing as an obstacle to personal sexual fulfillment. Unprepared and atomized young people bought into the fantasies of Playboy and Cosmo; what they ended up getting was a cruel Darwinian competition that usually culminated in sterility, abandonment, and dying alone.

It is surprising, in retrospect, how much time passed before anyone stepped up to provide guidance to young men trying to cope with the new situation. Commentators of the older generation, innocent of biology, still think the abolition of monogamy puts a harem at the disposal of every young man; their rescue fantasies adorn paleoconservative journals to this day.

But a social need will eventually produce entrepreneurs claiming to satisfy it. First to market was a schmuck named Eric Weber, who walked around Manhattan with a portable tape recorder (c. 1970) asking pretty girls what they looked for in a man. He published the results in a worthless booklet called How to Pick Up Girls, took out teensy ads for it in Playboy, and watched the money roll in. Many imitators followed, but it was a long wait for books that benefited their readers as much as their authors.
Today, the field is highly competitive. Too much advice is focused on short-term “scoring,” but such is the nature of the target audience, and many of the points taught are equally valuable to men with a longer-range perspective.

The book under review is a valuable addition to the genre, the product of an unusual partnership between evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller and bestselling author Tucker Max. Miller is Professor of Psychology at the University of New Mexico and author of The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature (reviewed here). That book is an attempt to revive Darwin’s theory of sexual selection from The Descent of Man, as opposed to his better-known theory of natural selection familiar from The Origin of Species. The textbook example of sexual selection is the peacock’s tail: it is cumbersome, consumes a great deal of energy, and leaves the peacock more vulnerable to predators—but it endures because peahens like it. After Darwin, unfortunately, many biologists were reluctant to go very far beyond peacock’s tails in applying the theory of sexual selection. Miller’s thesis in The Mating Mind is that sexual selection can be used to explain all kinds of surprising phenomena formerly left unexplained or imperfectly explained in terms of natural selection alone. Miller is also the author of Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, a book applying the insights of evolutionary psychology to the field of marketing (reviewed here).

Self-described “asshole” Tucker Max spent the flower of his youth getting drunk, getting in trouble, and having one-night stands. What makes him unusual is that he wrote a book about it: I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell (2006). It became a bestseller and Bible of the college party set, inspiring a whole new literary genre known as fratire. Four sequels have appeared. He was unsuccessfully sued by a former Miss Vermont after their one-night stand became the subject of a humorous story in one of his books. One of Mr. Max’s stated ambitions is to have an abortion clinic named in his honor.

The central message of Mate can be summarized as “back to the stone age.” That roughly 95% of human history—between the appearance of the first hominids two or three million years ago and the development of metallurgy a few thousand years ago—is man’s environment of evolutionary adaptation. Women are programmed to mate not with men who possess traits that can rationally be seen as advantageous under modern conditions, but with men who possess traits beneficial to their Paleolithic female ancestors.

The authors explain, for instance, how to interpret women’s stated desire for a “strong but sensitive” man from this evolutionary perspective. In the civilized West, sensible men who avoid taking their dates into “vibrant” ethnic neighborhoods will not usually be forced to defend them physically. But civilization is still too new and fragile for women’s limbic systems to have gotten the message: they go right on wanting men who know how to land a spear in a saber-toothed tiger.

They also, of course, prefer that a man be kind and considerate. But they do not care equally about these two qualities:

In any relationship with a woman, you’ll probably be in tender mode 95 percent of the time and defender mode only 5 percent of the time. [But] how you act in those 5 percent of defender cases will determine a larger percentage of her attraction to you than the quieter 95 percent of tender moments.

The reason “assholes finish first” (to quote the title of one of Tucker Max’s books) is that the Paleolithic human female needed to worry more about saber-toothed tigers and marauding enemy tribesmen than about romance. Her female descendents today will still choose a capable man who treats her condescendingly or neglectfully over a nice guy who does not know how to be assertive.

Among the most valuable chapters in Mate is entitled “Understand What It’s Like to Be a Woman.” Ordinary human self-centeredness means that men tend to assume women’s experiences of men mirror their experiences with women, and feminist ideology has served to reinforce this lazy assumption. As the authors point out, so many men are oblivious to the woman’s point of view that anyone who learns to understand it is at an enormous advantage. For example, a woman’s attractedness to defender traits is also at the root of the peculiar dialectic between fear and arousal at the heart of female sexuality: the man who can best defend her could also kill her with his bare hands. Or again, women’s cynicism about men approaching her is fueled by the unrepresentative sample of guys who have hit on her:

Think about women’s experience with guys like a city cop’s experience with people in general. Cops spend 90 percent of their time dealing with the scummiest 5 percent of humanity. The ones who’ve been around awhile often develop a cynical view of humans. It’s not that humans are all bad. It’s that cops see only the worst. Likewise, women spend a big proportion of their time avoiding the small percentage of guys who are the most intrusive, obnoxious, or insane. Psychopaths are sexually predatory, uninhibited and confident, so although they’re only 4 percent of the American male population, they might account for 40 percent of the men who have hit on any given woman.

Another message of Mate concerns signaling: even if you’ve got it, you must know how to flaunt it. Intelligence is among the traits most highly valued by human females, yet everyone knows about socially inept computer nerds who bomb with women. This is because they do not signal their intelligence in a way women can pick up on. Directly telling women about your intelligence or other desirable traits is another common mistake; instead of signaling intelligence, the braggart signals insecurity.

Women have also evolved to become masters at seeing through male fakery. In most cases, the only way a man can signal a positive trait effectively is to acquire that trait. Mate ends up being a kind of general self-improvement book that uses mating success as the bait. There are chapters on nutrition, physical fitness, improving social skills, building self-confidence, and finding the right places to meet the sort of women you are looking for. Most of the advice offered can improve a man’s life in ways unrelated to mating.

I heartily recommend this book.

Crippled Princess Elsa Doubleplusgood

via Compulsory Diversity News

Elsa's skiing accident was worse than first reported. Prepare to be manipulated:
If any princess knows what it's like to be a little different, it's Elsa from "Frozen."So it seems fitting that the beloved Disney princess was modeled by a little girl with braces and arm crutches in Target's latest Halloween ad, prompting many on social media to praise the retailer for celebrating diversity.
Oh please, you think it is that easy to win diversity goodthink points these days you worthless goyim? It's 2015 - you need to goodthink bigger, slaves! Try bellyfeeling this story with Ariel the Little Mermaid as a Fish-Person, dragging herself around on land with crutches, while her scales are ripped off by the concrete pavement, leaving a trail of blood back to beach. That would progressively praise worthy.

And don't think we didn't spot the black girl as banana. Were not the sheeple, who were too dazzled by a gimpy Elsa to notice. Doubleplusungood, Target.

Nationalist Party Wins Poland’s Election: Poland Is a Last Bastion of White Ethnic Homogeneity

via Transudationism

Poland’s nationalist opposition Law and Justice party has won parliamentary elections on Sunday and looks likely to have enough votes to govern on its own, after promising to spend more on welfare, focus on traditional Catholic values and take a more assertive view within the European Union.

The party looks likely to win 232 seats in the 460-seat Sejm, the lower house of Parliament, according to polling data from 90% of voting precincts compiles by Ipsos pollsters. Its lead over the outgoing ruling coalition had narrowed by Monday morning compared with initial estimates giving its rival, the center-right Civic Platform party, 137 seats, the poll showed.

The election ended the eight-year rule of the Civic Platform party and its junior agrarian ally, a period of uninterrupted economic growth and good relations with Germany but marred by internal struggles and recent scandals within the ruling camp.

Law and Justice rode a wave of popular discontent over low wages and benefits in Poland, promising to raise the minimum wage and increase welfare spending. It also said it would be a more assertive voice within the EU and oppose Germany’s plan for a resettlement of migrants.

The incoming government will be able to rely on support from President Andrzej Duda, the Law and Justice candidate for president who won office in May.

Even if the Law and Justice party gets fewer than 231 seats in the Sejm, it should be able to build a government and rule with support from its antiestablishment ally, Kukiz 15, created by a former rock star, which received 8.7% of the vote and will get 42 seats, according to the newest poll.

Two additional parties have won seats in parliament and are expected to oppose the incoming government.

If the final official results, which are expected on Tuesday, confirm the exit poll data, it will be the first time in decades Poland’s parliament doesn’t have any left-leaning parties in it. The United Left alliance, which included heirs to Poland’s communist party, got too little support to be given seats in the Sejm.

Eichmann’s Daughter-in-Law Argues Jews Have Falsified History

via The Realist Report

Carmen Bretin Lindemann,
the daughter-in-law of Adolf Eichmann
Carmen Bretin Lindemann, the daughter-in-law of Adolf Eichmann, a former top National Socialist official who has been hysterically demonized and slandered by the Jewish owned and controlled mass media since WWII, defended her relative in a recent interview on Argentinian television.

Ms. Lindemann, a former mayoral candidate in the Argentine village of Garupa, argued in the interview that the Jews have falsified history, particularly as it relates to WWII and National Socialist Germany. Because of her bold, courageous statements, which are easily verifiable, Ms. Lindemann has been vilified by the Argentinian political establishment and organized Jewish community. She was immediately expelled from her political party and has officially bowed out of the mayoral race. She also released a statement recently indicating that she does not support “the Nazis,” and never has.

The Times of Israel reports:
A daughter-in-law of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi war criminal hung by Israel as one of the architects of the Final Solution, withdrew her mayoral candidacy in Argentina after defending his actions on television.
Carmen Bretin Lindemann announced Thursday that she was bowing out of the mayoral race of the northeastern village of Garupa after receiving intense criticism for what she said about Eichmann during a television interview that was aired on Wednesday.
“The history that you know is not the real one, the version that you know from movies and books is written by the Jews, and all the world accepts that history,” she said in the interview for the TN news channel.
“He wasn’t a bad person, he obeyed orders and did not personally kill anyone,” she added, calling Eichmann “grandpa.”
Bretin Lindemann ran as a representative of A New Alternative, a party led by presidential candidate Sergio Massa. But after the interview was aired, she was expelled from the party. In a statement she published on Thursday, she wrote: “In order to not hurt my fellow party members in the alliance my immediate resignation is necessary. I want to assure the public that I don’t and never did support the Nazis.”
The Jewish political umbrella DAIA condemned Bretin Lindemann for “denying the extermination during the Shoah and vindication of Nazism” in a statement. […]
The simple fact of the matter is that Ms. Lindemann’s statements are entirely accurate: the Jews have literally falsified history, especially as it relates to WWII, the alleged Jewish “Holocaust,” and the nature of National Socialism, in both theory and practice. The cartoonish, weaponized version of WWII history the vast majority of people on this planet receive via mass media, Hollywood, and the educational establishment is virtually 100% inverted. Meaning, the official narrative of WWII, in all its aspects, is completely backwards – it is the opposite of reality, particularly as it relates to the fake “Holocaust” narrative.

The Jews were not genocided during WWII; the German people and their supporters were. The Jews have quite literally flipped the script.

It saddens me to see Ms. Lindemann back down, apologize, and denounce “the Nazis,” as if her original position laid out in the interview is somehow morally wrong or factually inaccurate. Objective assessments of National Socialist Germany and the policies they implemented prior to and during WWII demonstrate that the supposed “evil Nazis” were in reality some of the most capable, honest, and honorable men and women Western civilization has ever produced. And we shouldn’t be afraid or intimidated to openly say that.

René Guénon Does Not Exist

via Alternative Right

René Guénon (1886-1951) is mainly acknowledged on the Right for having had a deep influence on Julius Evola. Though both thinkers could disagree on small issues, the latter held the former in a sufficiently high esteem to praise him as “a teacher for modern times”, something he would never have said about any philosopher or post-Enlightenment intellectual.

Beyond Evola, Guénon also had an important legacy in religious and comparative studies. His detailed works on Hinduism played a crucial role in shaping research of the so-called Oriental world. Despite the fact that some of Guénon’s reflections are far from politically correct, his books are still sold by the prestigious and over-the-counter Parisian publisher Gallimard. The religious historian Mircea Eliade, whom one may hear about if he opts for comparative studies today, also held a deep interest in Guénon’s views – at a time when he was also close to Corneliu Codreanu.

Even though he achieved success through his works, Guénon always rejected the labels of “philosopher” or “intellectual.” Such labels, he wrote in The Crisis of the Modern World, correspond to men who pursue innovation or originality at all cost, by “put[ting] their name to a ‘system’, that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation.” Rather than that, Guénon merely aimed to be a messenger, someone who gives to others a renewed access to a long-forgotten transcendence.

In the traditional sense, Guénon was a pontifex, (literally “bridge builder”) yet remained modest and low-key while maintaining a voluminous correspondence with various figures. He refused to have “students” or disciples. Indeed, he sometimes went so far as to say that “René Guénon does not exist” or that “René Guénon is a symbol.”

Given his actual existence and legacy, those expressions may sound ironic. However, they are also consistent with traditional teachings. Truth in general, and transcendent principles in particular, are impersonal. They are either true or false, no matter who communicates them. We still find this in modern epistemology, where the truth value of a sentence does not depend on who says it, while postmodernists, of course, tend to focus on the purported identity of the speaker.

René Guénon 
One of the rare bones of contention between Evola and the younger Guénon – the older finally joined Evola and others on this point – concerned Buddhism. While the young Guénon considered it as an expression of a “low” principle trying to destroy a transcendent tradition above itself, Evola saw it as expressing a genuine yearning for “the unconditioned” at a time when the Brahmin, the priestly caste of India, had lost touch with a transcendence they merely pretended to embody.

According to the Baron and the older Guénon, Prince Siddharta, the future Buddha, sensed that the Brahmin clung to dry, complex rituals, while being tempted by wealth and women rather than by a higher calling. Born a Kshatriya, i.e. a member of the warrior caste, Siddharta discarded the royal title and comfort he lived in and joined self-made monks, who searched for the truth independently from the Brahmin. Then, after a period of asceticism, long-held meditations, and prolonged reflections, Siddharta is said to have reached “the Awakening.”

Evola’s reading is completely at odds with later “theology of liberation” and other leftist interpretations of Siddharta’s teachings. As he yearned for Golden Age principles but did not live in this Age, Siddharta could see that the castes of his day did not always overlap with the vocations or “spiritual races” of the individuals sorted into them. He railed against the cast system only to the extent that it failed to connect the people with transcendent principles and sort them into their right places.

Rejecting the excuses of the Brahmins and their empty rituals, Siddharta sought to follow the “Awakened Ones” of the past, and to reestablish the connection they used to have. Thus, says Evola, the heart of Siddharta’s doctrine – and the true historical basis of Buddhism – lay in the “Awakening,” that is, the ability to connect with the transcendent, something only the “noble” natures – in Sanskrit, the āriya – could really yearn for and manage to reach.

One of the most famous Buddhist teachings, and one of the first discussed in Evola’s book on Buddhism, The Doctrine of Awakening: The Attainment of Self-Mastery According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts, is commonly called the doctrine of no-self (anattā in Pali or anātman in Sanskrit).

It distinguishes an immortal, immutable, perennial nature from the individual self. On the path of awakening, the boddhisatva must realize that his individual self, as any other’s, is perishable, ephemeral, and should not be identified with. By clinging too much to his self, the boddhisatva loses track of the aim he actually wants to follow.A condition of awakening is the de-identification of the boddhisatva from the ego or individual self.
From one "I" to the other.
Confronted with perceptions, emotions, or even the matter of which his own body is composed, the boddhisatva must ask himself, is that what I am? then always answer by the negative. Hence, free from clinging to his individual self, he may become aware of another I: an impersonal, transcendent, supra-sensible and supra-rational one.

In order to go from the “samsaric” (conditioned and suffering) individual I to the (unconditioned and free) transcendent I, the boddhisatva needs to tame and master the former. He practices asceticism in order to master his thoughts, emotions, desires, and to cease identifying with the streaming and the ephemeral in order to focus his attention on what lasts.
At first glance, the no-self doctrine may seem quite esoteric. To a reader accustomed to the materialist reductionism that has pervaded at least the three last centuries, it may appear to be a nebulous myth. Worse than this: as New Age movements have carelessly woven in Buddhistic ideas, they have cast a shadow that discredits them. As he often did, the French essayist Alain Soral hit the nail on the head when he remarked, in his Abécédaire de la bêtise ambiante (Alphabet Primer of the Prevailing Stupidity), that Buddhism or rather “neobuddhism” was primarily a therapy, not unlike psychoanalysis, for rich bourgeois-bohemians trying to get rid of their leftist white guilt.

Yet, the astute reader of Evola might easily guess that “neobuddhism,” just like the New Age babble that flourished during the 60s and 70s, has not much to do with the genuine teachings of Prince Siddharta. The ascetic prince in search of awakening did not write for complacent bourgeoisie or hypocritical champagne socialists. He would probably have despised them even more than he despised the Pharisaic Brahmin who maintained their power though they could no longer summon the transcendent.

The sheer radicalism of the attitude of Siddharta, a high-ranking warrior who freely relinquished an unworthy heritage in order to grasp something much worthier, should be inspiring to any alt-rightist. Siddharta’s royal inheritance had been reduced to entertainment, ceremony, and a very weak kingdom that ended up crushed under the boot of a mightier neighbor.

As a prince, Siddharta could have sacrificed himself for the honor of his realm. But would it have been the best thing to do? Obviously not. Born an āriya, someone with both the potential and drive to be spiritually “reborn” as an “Awakened One,” he followed the path that he sensed would be right and managed to fulfill his destiny.
Aryan blood in our veins.
We are not princes, but we all have some Aryan blood in our veins. Besides, our historical situation bears analogy with Siddhartha’s. When we strive to be integrated into what should be our society, we find ourselves struggling not to puke on the blue pills that are fed to us daily. The Cultural Marxists in power work to subvert our national identities by pretending to redefine our countries, for example, saying that France had been defined through racial mixing since antiquity, or that European peoples are merely the result of various mixings of Black “out of Africa” origin.

Should we hold to the laws of our modern multicultural states, defend whiteness only as an implicit value, and “mainstreamize”? Should we try to identify with some of the elements shunned by the corrupt culture of our age? Once again, the answer is obviously a no. Our yearning for a lasting identity, a genuine home, may indicate something more significant than a conditioned reactionary disgust for a crumbling Western world.

Without reverting to a full-on belief in the reality of absolute, transcendent principles, we can see Siddharta’s doctrine of no-self – or, perhaps more adequately, of a higher and wider self – as a masterful example to follow. The main reason for this is that too many on the Right tend to put their own ego, their own opinions about a variety of topics, to the forefront.

Some lock themselves inside a “far-Right” ghetto and dwell there, disputing about trifling topics and personal stories with other ghetto members, while doing nothing to actually contribute to the cause. Others carry out petty coups d’état over a place for collective expression and insider communication, then turn it into a small shop where they sell themselves before “selling” the cause. Those attitudes hamper the development of the alt right. They are weaknesses that jeopardize the whole trend and divert our attention from what we should focus on.

Without a doubt, Prince Siddharta could have joined Napoleon when the latter railed about the “shopkeeper spirit” too many Englishmen were already showing at the dawn of the nineteenth century. Of course, the problem is much wider than just the Anglos. The majority of those born and raised as modern Westerners might be too prone to this kind of materialist individualism.

In another piece I made a point against some features of Stoic philosophy: namely, that an orthodox Stoic tends to consider himself as an atom, a rootless being thrown into a world of randomness. His “liberty” supposedly resides in mastery of his own mental states but has no place outside his mind. Such a philosophy drastically cuts off our sense of collective being and identity. It condemns the Stoic to retreat from the world, and thus “save himself” at the cost of abandoning any hope of worldly victory. Though there is some sense of mastery and constructive asceticism in Stoicism, it hardly allows us to engage in collective action and take risks. Indeed, the Stoic’s search for stable pleasure and peace of mind through self-mastery can also lead to a cowardly, feel-good kind of thinking.

Nation states increasingly appear as cold, alien monsters, just as the mainstream culture and social environment around us has ceased to reflect us. This does not imply that we should abandon outside action in favour of an inward-looking attitude or ghetto that too often fosters egocentrism and complacency. Just like the boddhisatva who strives to get behind the narrow “I” in order to access the higher self, we should identify more with the movement, the cause of the alt right – maybe even but more subtly with the whole global dissidence that is increasingly taking shape.
There are many options: identify with the preservation of the White race, with the rediscovery of Aryan identity, with the great project of establishing a harmonious multipolar world where Whites can have their homelands, from which the demonic forces of subversion shall be forever banished. It does not matter, as long as the sense of identity you perpetuate resonates well with the expansion of our just cause and contributes to the final victory.

A friend of mine once said that “everyone in the nationalist milieu wants to be a star.” He added, “Everyone wants to be the next Enoch Powell or Mussolini.”
But everyone cannot be a political or an intellectual leader, and those who happen to assume such roles should think of them as honorable charges rather than sources of gratification for their – too often wounded – egos. The inflation of wannabe leaders, as well as leaders who do not behave as such, hampers cooperation and collective action. Again and again, squabbling tribes got crushed by mighty empires. The three hundred of Sparta had such a catalyzing effect because they were not squabbling and knew how to fight together. If you enjoyed the movie 300, just as I did, remember the stirring scene where Leonidas tells the hunchback Ephialtes that every hoplite must be able to protect his neighbor with his shield, and thus each can trust his neighbors to protect him too.
This is how we roll.
Templar knights and the painters of the early Renaissance made their contributions, whether in war or art, without seeking individual recognition, without "tagging" their every action with their signature. They were able to identify with something greater than their own names – an inclination we clearly lack today.

Something I have observed over the years is that ex-leftists make better converts on average than youngsters from the traditional bourgeoisie. One factor behind this may be their ability to throw themselves into a project and undertake an enormous amount of activism without feeling the need to put themselves at the forefront.

Many on the side of subversion have worked tirelessly for the victory of their supposedly “wicked” cause, but they have also served with discretion, contenting themselves with real influence rather than a shiny social position. People like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, by contrast, crave the limelight, just like any other SJW-shab.
I don't exist - just kidding!
They are undoubtedly famous, even pedestalized by the mainstream media. But do they have the power of someone like George Soros or Lloyd Blankfein? The chances are you only hear about the latter while surfing alt-right websites, because here we tend to focus on the essentials. Sarkeesian, by contrast, is a disposable idol who spins a narrative through dishonesty and exploitation in order to maintain her prized social status.

Cemeteries are full of people who once believed themselves to be indispensable. As we are all going to end up there, it is only the collective victory (or defeat) that ultimately matters. That which may connect us to a much better age is obviously more important than the quest to disseminate one’s name, chafe about petty disputes, or express narrow dogmatism on issues we do not all agree about.

Perhaps, some of the names currently “famous” on the alt right may be able to survive the test of time and reach posterity; others probably not. This should motivate us to focus less on our egos and more on how to have a genuine impact on the outer and future worlds. This is meaning of Guénon’s paradoxical statement that he does not exist. He does, and even if we did not know his name, he would exist because there are other ways to exist than individual fame.