Nov 5, 2015

Pittsburgh's Police Annual Report Proves One Thing: Blacks Commit Almost all the Violent Crime in This "too white" City

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

The nightmare will end. 

It will. 

Pittsburgh has a motto: A Most Livable City

And though the city has been lamented as having "one the nation's least diverse" metro areas and  "lagging" behind the rest of nation when it comes to having a non-white population, Pittsburgh is thriving. 

The Steel City is 64.8 percent white and 26 percent black, but even these numbers were enough to make one Pittsburgh government bureaucrat (a white female) uncomfortable. ['Too many white people' in Pittsburgh?,, 7-25-15]:
Did you know that there are too many white people in Pittsburgh? 
That's what the deputy director of the Allegheny County Department of Health's Bureau of Public Policy and Community Relations told
“My two main gripes (about Pittsburgh) are: too many white people and not enough public transportation,” Abby Wilson is quoted as saying in a July 20 profile written by Gina Mazza. Ms. Wilson also cited Pittsburgh's “homogeneity and provincialism that accompany working here.” 
Wilson's comments were part of Ms. Mazza's profile of “four movers and shakers who have recently returned to Pittsburgh” on a site that touts itself as “the must-read online magazine about the people driving change in our city and the cool and innovative things happening here.”

"Too many white people..." was the criticism by a white female of the city of Pittsburgh, who was profiled as being one of the 'movers and shakers who have recently returned to Pittsburgh'. 

Strangely, Abby Wilson must not be aware it's because of the individual contributions of white people collectively making Pittsburgh as The Best City in America to live in, according to The Economist.

But the city is just too white, right? 

Quick question: what might be the color of crime in this too white city of Pittsburgh (of 305,412 residents, 65 percent are white and 26 percent are black)? 

Well, the city of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police produces an annual report helping to delineate just who is responsible for the violence in the city. 

Let's just stick with the 2013 report, which Abby Wilson must not be familiar with, for it shows some disturbing news about just who is responsible for the violent crime in the city...
  • 78.5 percent of those arrested for rape were black
  • 75 percent of those arrested for robbery were black
  • 69 percent of those arrested for aggravated assault were black
  • 55 percent of those arrested for burglary were black
  • 81 percent of those arrested for weapons offenses were black
  • of known homicide offenders (16 of the 46 homicides had no suspect... a reminder of the black communities propensity to participate in the practice of no snitching), 76 percent of those arrested were black
And that's just for 2013. 
Pittsburgh has a motto: A Most Livable City
And Abby Wilson, who serves as deputy director of the Allegheny County Department of Health's Bureau of Public Policy and Community Relations, believes this 65 percent white is just "too white."

Yet looking at those who engage in violent crime, one is struck by those criminals being just "too black."

At 26 percent of the population of Pittsburgh, black people sure are working to come stereotypical close to committing all the violent crime in this "too white" city. 

The nightmare will end. 

It will. 

It will end though, when we remember we don't have to wake up everyone.

The Mission of Vermin

via The End of Zion

“The Jews spread corruption and moral decadence, because they are tools to place the Jews in a position of unprecedented power. The Jew wants a dull, mixed and subservient human race so he can enslave it undisturbed. They seek to violate the roots of everything that makes up the self-sovereignty and dignity of man and which can lift it to purer heights: in other words to eliminate the divine spark in man. Under Jewish tyranny mankind would degenerate into a mindless herd of slaves whom pay; in their compulsory labour, for the decadent feasts of the Jewish tyrants. The mighty Soviet Jews have already provided the evidence about just how deadly serious they are about the destruction and enslavement of the goyim.

“The Jew has a mission in the world: the mission of vermin in nature. It increases where there is dirt and laziness and drives us; by his animal tortures, into activity and cleanliness.

“We must clean the world around us and there his place no more for the Jews among us!

“With the elimination of Judaism many of the evils from which the civilised nations of the world suffers from would simply disappear.

“The cleansing has to begin with the raising of our spirits. The Jews spread evil, confusion, greed and stupidity around us. The stupefied are all caught in their net and they; brutalized by the Jews, become a helpers. Let the people see; especially the poor workers and day labourers who the Jews have blinded, that a bridge can be built by which these evils can be remedied.

“We have an inexhaustible arsenal of powerful spiritual weapons against the insidious enemy of mankind.

“The great minds from across the ages are on our side. That this is withheld from the people is one of the most villainous tricks of Jewish propagandists.

“Hurry to spread the truth, while the power of the great deceiver is still growing and before; as previously planned, all anti-jewish literature is suppressed and anti-jewish criticism is held to be a crime against humanity!”
Theodor Fritsch (1924)

Retrotopia: Inflows and Outputs

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the eighth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator visits a city power plant that runs on an unexpected fuel source and a stock market subject to even less familiar rules.

By the time Michael Finch and I left the streetcar plant it was pushing eleven. “Where next?” I asked.
“We’re about four blocks from one of the municipal power plants,” the intern said. “I called ahead and arranged for a tour—that’ll take about an hour, and should still give us plenty of time for lunch. Ms. Berger said you’d  want a look at our electrical infrastructure.”
I nodded. “ Please. Electricity’s an ongoing problem back home.”
“It hasn’t always been that easy here, either,” Finch admitted. “Would you like to take a cab, or—”
“Four blocks? No, that’s walking distance.” From his expression, I gathered that wasn’t always the case with visitors from outside, but he brightened and led the way east toward the Maumee River. North of us I could see bridges arching across the river, and the unfinished dome of the Capitol rising up white above the brown and gray rooftops.
The power plant was another big brick building like the streetcar factory, and I looked in vain for smokestacks. Finch led me in through the office entrance, a double door in an ornate archway, and introduced us to the receptionist inside. A few moments later we were shown into the office of the plant manager, a stocky brown-skinned man with gray hair who came over to shake my hand.
“Jim Singletary,” he said. “Pleased to meet you. I don’t imagine you have anything like our facility over in the Atlantic Republic, so if there’s anything you want to know, just ask, okay?”
I assured him I would, and he led us out of the office. The corridor outside went straight back into the heart of the plant; at its far end, we went through a door onto a glassed-in balcony overlooking a big open room where six massive and complex machines rose up from a concrete floor.
“Down on the floor, you couldn’t hear a thing but the turbines,” he said. “That’s the business end of the plant—six combined cycle gas turbines driving our generators. We get almost sixty per cent efficiency in terms of electrical generation, more than that when you factor in the heat recycling to the facility. You know how a combined cycle turbine works?”
“More or less—you put the gases from the turbine through a heat exchanger, and use that to run a steam turbine off the leftover heat, don’t you?”
“Exactly. What comes out of the heat exchangers runs around 300 degrees Fahrenheit, which is more than enough to do something with. Here, a lot of it goes to heat the fermentation tanks.”
I wondered what he meant by that, but it didn’t take long to find out. Singletary led us along the balcony to another set of doors, and through them into another glassed-in balcony overlooking a double row of what looked a little like the top ends of a row of gargantuan pressure cookers.
“The fermentation tanks,” he said. “Feedstock goes in, methane and slurry come out. At any given time, eighteen tanks are in operation and the other six are being loaded or unloaded. This way, please.”
The balcony ended at another door, and a corridor led to the left. At its end was a balcony, this time open to the outside air. Below was the Maumee River, and a line of big blocky riverboats tied up along a quay. The one closest to us was having something unloaded from it through a big pipe.
“And there’s the feedstock that makes the whole thing work,” said Singletary. “I don’t recommend going down to the quayside—it’s pretty ripe.”
“What’s the feedstock?” I asked, even though I’d begun to guess the answer.
“Manure,” he said. “Cow, horse, sheep, human—you name it. We buy manure from an eight county region to supplement what gets produced here in Toledo.” I gave him a startled look, and he grinned. “Yep. If you’ve used the toilet since you got here, you’ve contributed to Toledo’s electricity supply.”
I laughed, and he went on. “We use a three-stage fermentation process to extract nearly seventy per cent of the carbon from the feedstock while the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium stay in the sludge. By the time it’s finished in the tanks it’s sterile enough you could rub it on an open wound. We use heat output from the turbines to dry it, and ship it back to farmers as fertilizer. So everyone’s happy.”
We went back to his office and I got a rundown on the economics of the plant. “How close do you get to breaking even, between feedstock costs and fertilizer sales?” I asked.
“Not as close as I’d like,” Singletary admitted. “Ever since the Maumee and Ohio canal got reopened, the farmers south of us can sell their feedstock to Dayton or Springfield—Lima’s tier three so it’s not in the market. North of us we’ve got Detroit and Ann Arbor to bid against; east there’s Cleveland, and the canal system west of the Maumee is still being rebuilt, so that’s out of the picture at the moment.”
“You depend on canals that much?”
“We can’t afford not to. Back in the early days, we used to ship in some feedstock by rail, but the costs are just too high these days. For any kind of bulk cargo, if you don’t have to worry about speed, canal shipping’s really the way to go.”
I asked a few more questions, and then we all shook hands and Finch and I headed out into the crisp fall air. “Interested in lunch?” he asked me; we discussed restaurants while waiting for the streetcar, and then rode it north into downtown. A bar and grill around the corner from the streetcar stop where we got off served up a very passable BLT sandwich, and then we wove our way through crowded sidewalks to the big stone building that housed the Toledo Stock Market.
“Vinny Patzek,” said the young man with black slicked-back hair who greeted us in a crowded office not far from the trading floor. “Pleased to meet you.” He had his jacket off and his sleeves rolled up, and looked like he spent a lot of his time running flat out from one corner of the building to another. “Any chance you know something about stock markets, Mr. Carr?”
“Actually, yes—I did two years on the NYSE floor before they moved it to Albany,” I said.
His face lit up. “Sweet. Okay, this is gonna be a lot less confusing to you than it is to most of the people we see here from outside. It’s not quite the same as what you’re used to, but the differences are mostly the technology, not the underlying setup. Come on.”
“I’ll leave you with Mr. Patzek for now,” Finch told me. “I promised Ms. Berger I’d check in after lunch and see how things are going at the Capitol.”
“Fair enough,” I said, and he left through one door while Patzek herded me out through another, down a corridor, and onto the trading floor of the stock exchange.
All things considered, it wasn’t much quieter than the turbine room of the power plant, but since I’d worked on a trading floor the noise and bustle actually meant something to me. There was a reader board, a big one, covering most of the far wall; it was mechanical, not digital, and flipped black or eye-burning yellow in little rectangular patches to spell out the latest prices. There were trading posts scattered across the floor, where specialists handled the buying and selling of shares. There were floor traders and floor brokers, enough of them to make the floor look crowded, and the featureless roar  made up of hundreds of voices shouting bids and offers.
“You probably still use computers in New York, right?” Patzek said in something that wasn’t quite a yell. “Here it’s all old-fashioned open outcry, with the same kind of hand signals you’d see in the Chi-town commodity pits. Lemme show you. All we need is an order.”
“I’ll take one share of Mikkelson Manufacturing,” I said.
He grinned. “You’re on.”
“You get a lot of small orders like that?”
“All the time. You get little old ladies, working guys, you name it, who save up the cash to buy a share or two once a month, that sort of thing, and come on down here to buy it in person.” He looked up at the reader board. “Mikkelson’s MIK—see it? Seventy-two even a share. Let’s go.”
We plunged into the crowd, and I managed to follow Patzek through the middle of it to one of the trading posts, where the traders and brokers looked even busier than they were elsewhere on the floor. Right in the middle of it, the yelling was loud enough I couldn’t make out a single word, just Patzek gesturing with a closed hand and then a raised index finger and shouting something that didn’t sound much like Mikkelson Industries. It only took about a minute, though, for the market to do what markets are supposed to do, and Patzek came out of the scrum with a big grin and an order written up on a pad of paper he’d extracted from one of his vest pockets.
“We’re good,” he said. “Seventy-two and a quarter—it’s pretty lively. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t hit seventy-five by closing. Let’s settle up back at the office; they’ll be sending the certificate there.”
We went back the way we’d came. The office, busy as it was, seemed almost unnervingly quiet after the roar of the trading floor. “So that’s how it’s done,” said Patzek. “A little different, I bet.”
“Not as much as it used to be,” I said. “When I first got on the NYSE floor, there were only a couple of dozen floor traders left, and it was as quiet as a library most days. With the satellite situation and some of the other problems lately, a lot of brokerages are putting trades back on the floor again. But of course it’s still done with handheld computers, not the sort of thing you’ve got in there.”
Patzek nodded. “The way I heard it, there were handhelds on the floor in the early days after Partition, but the first time the outside tried regime change here they hacked the system and crashed it, and the exchange just let it drop. Computers are just too easy to hack. Floor traders? Not so much.”
“I bet,” I said, laughing.
I wrote a check for the price of the share, then, and filled out a couple of forms covering my side of the transaction. When I got to the form for dividend payouts, though, I looked up at Patzek. “I’ll have to make some arrangements back home before I can finish this.” He nodded, and I went on. “What kind of dividends does Mikkelson pay these days?”
“Five, maybe six percent a year. Not bad, especially since it’s tax free.”
That startled me. “Mikkelson, or dividends in general?”
“Dividends in general. They count as earned income, like wages, salaries, royalties, that sort of thing. Most other investments, you’re gonna pay tax, and if you sell that share and make a profit on it, that’s speculative income and you’re gonna get whacked.”
“So earned income is tax free, but investment income isn’t.”
“Yeah—again, except for dividends.”
I remembered what Elaine Chu had said about taxes back at the Mikkelson plant. “So you tax what you want to discourage, not what you want to encourage.”
“Heck if I know,” said Patzek. “You’ll have to ask the politicians about that.”
A moment later a messenger came in through the door we’d used, plopped a manila folder on one of the desks, and ducked back out. Half a dozen people converged on the folder; Patzek waited his turn, and came back with a sheet of stiff paper printed in ornate script.
“Here you go,” he said. “One share of Mikkelson Manufacturing. Congratulations—you’re now a limited partner with Janice Mikkelson.”
I gave him a startled look, then glanced at the certificate. I’d read about printed stock certificates, but never actually handled one, so it took me a moment to sort through the fancy printing and read the line that mattered. Sure enough, it read MIKKELSON MANUFACTURING LLP.
“Limited liability partnership,” I guessed. “So it’s not a corporation?”
“Nah, it’s a little different here. Back in the day—and we’re talking before the First Civil War, forget about the Second—corporations had to be chartered by the legislature, for some fixed number of years, and only for some kind of public benefit, not just because somebody wanted to make a few bucks. After all the problems the old Union had with corporations claiming to be people and all that, we up and drew a line under that, and went back to the original laws. Here, if a business wants to sell stock, it becomes a limited liability partnership. The limited partners are only on the hook to the value of their stock holdings, but the managing partner or partners—their butts are on the line. If Mikkelson Manufacturing ever goes bust, Mikkelson can kiss her mansion goodbye, and if the company breaks the law, she’s the one who goes to jail.”
I took that in. “Does that actually happen?”
“Not so much any more. Back when I was a kid, there were some really juicy cases, and yeah, some really rich people lost their shirts and landed behind bars. These days, you’re in business, you watch the laws as closely as you watch the bottom line—there’s too many people in politics who’d be happy to buy their constituents a new streetcar line with the proceeds from a court case.”
That didn’t sound much like the politics I was used to back home. I was still processing it when the other door came open and Michael Finch came in. “Mr. Carr,” he said, “I just talked to Ms. Berger. They got everything settled around lunchtime. If you’re ready, the President will be happy to see you this afternoon.”
I glanced at Patzek who grinned and made a scooting motion with one hand. We shook hands and said the usual, and I followed Finch out the door.

What’s Angela’s Angle?

via The Occidental Observer

What's Angie up to?
With her recent “counterintuitive” decision to flood her country with Third World hordes, it’s tempting to see Angela Merkel as yet another old woman slowly going batty, or as a semi-tragic figure giving into her unrealized maternal instinct by fixating it on hordes of young male Muslim migrants that even a hyper efficient country like Germany can’t handle. I have given into these temptations myself in one or two articles, simply because such narratives are often the most enjoyable to explore.

But, in addition to being seductive, such interpretations are overgenerous to Merkel, suggesting she is merely foolish, soft-headed, or unwitting, rather than black-hearted, malevolent, or purposely evil, a perception that leads into yet another tempting narrative: Angela as a Rosa Klebb-style Stasi-esque monstrosity wreaking havoc on the Federal republic because, well, that’s what arch-villains do.

But without these alluringly simple narratives of the post-menopausal mothering instinct or secret Stassi monster how can we actually explain Merkel’s actions in allowing what is the single most dangerous demographic change to occur in Europe since World War II?

In thinking about human motivation, the default position should always be to find some version of self-interest. VDARE’s Patrick Cleburne suggests that either Merkel has gone mad or that she has been bribed, and sides with the latter possibility. Another version of self-interest is to see Merkel as a “consummate politician” — in the worst possible sense of that word. In other words as someone essentially devoid of principle but astute at manoeuvring to improve her position. This was more or less the view of Merkel presented by the German political analyst Manuel Ochsenreiter in his recent interview with Richard Spencer, although that insight still begged the question of why Merkel would make a decision that would create a lot of trouble for any politician.

The only feasible explanation is that it was a decision conditioned by Merkel’s realization that nobody can remain Chancellor for ever combined with her post-chancellorship ambitions, which, it is widely thought, centre around becoming the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

Just a few months ago, Merkel was still toeing the official line of conventional — if somewhat lax — prudence on refugees. In July she famously reduced a “partly assimilated” Palestinian girl to tears on national TV by telling her, Nein! she couldn’t expect to automatically remain in Germany. As she said at that time, addressing the girl:
You are right in front of me and are a really nice person, but you also know that in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon there are thousands and thousands and if we now say, ‘you can now all come here, and you from Africa can all come here, you can all come,’ we cannot manage that either. And so we’re in this discrepancy, and the only answer we can give is: make sure the decision [to grant asylum] does not take too long. But some will have to go back.
But here Merkel was simply playing the role of fusty old German Chancellor, a role she has subsequently neglected. It is therefore interesting to consider how her ambitions to become UN Secretary General might have clashed with her responsibilities as Chancellor and skewed her behaviour in ways detrimental to Germany.

Last year several stories emerged that Merkel was thinking of resigning before the end of her term in 2017, as in this article from The Telegraph:
She is said to be keen to avoid following in the footsteps of former chancellors Helmut Kohl, who was once as unassailable as she is now but suffered a humiliating defeat when he tried to fight an election too many in 1998, and Konrad Adenauer, who was forced out in 1963 by a coup within his own party. An arch-pragmatist, Mrs Merkel has no major policy or pet project to see through that would keep her in office. Mr Kohl was keen to see through the introduction of the euro.
At that time it was said that she was lining up either the role of UN Secretary-General or President of the European Council, as both would become due in 2017. After four non-Europeans occupying the Secretary-General office, it also seems it is the turn of a European once again.

New Secretary-Generals are usually chosen through a nebulous process of compromise, with the UN General Assembly appointing a candidate recommended by the Security Council. But while the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any candidate, a degree of general popularity  —  or at least benign acquiescence  — is required from the numerous Third World countries that make up the bulk of the General Assembly.

Reducing a young Palestinian girl to tears on live German TV would not be looked on as ideal canvassing for the position. We can only assume that this thought must have passed through Merkel’s wily political mind.

We can also assume that, when the migrant crisis blew up, the tough action needed by Germany to nip the problem in the bud, the deployment of riot police prepared to use whatever force necessary, forcible deportations, possible economic sanctions on those countries facilitating the migrant flow, etc., would also have sent out the wrong campaign slogan for an aspiring Secretary General of the UN.

This, rather than Merkel’s supposed motherly compassion or Stasi-esque evil, may well have been what really swung the scales when she made her fateful decision to effectively remove Germany’s borders. As Christian Schnee put it in The Guardian:
Merkel may be looking for an exit strategy that earns her recognition among the international community of political leaders whose discourse she seems increasingly to prefer over the narrow-minded bickering among her local party officials and parliamentary members.
In effect what we are seeing here is an international form of the revolving door syndrome. This describes a situation in which people move between different roles that should be opposed, such as regulators and the industries affected by regulation, with the result that the decisions taken in one role are corrupted by the considerations of the second role. This is what seems to have happened with Merkel.

Her “Wir schaffen es!” (We can do it!) slogan and its ludicrous attempt to invoke the spirit of German efficiency in their own genocide is just her way of saying what a great Secretary General she would make. After all, there is no cause dearer to the Third World than the dissolution of European borders.

@Operation_KKK’s List of Questions with Answers — #OpKKK #HoodsOff

via TradYouth

The dumpster fire of poorly executed social media vigilantism, #OpKKK, is trying to stake out some intellectual and moral high ground to go along with their most likely underwhelming dox dump due out tomorrow. They’ve assembled an absurdly long string of “deep questions” to provoke a conversation about race. I’m not in the KKK, of course, but it’s quite clear that the KKK is shorthand for just about anybody who’s not outright anti-White.

Not one to shy away from a conversation about race, I took it upon myself to answer every single question.
Here are a few talking points / springboards for the OpKKK Tweetstorm on November 4 2015. We believe in the power of public discourse and we would like to discuss race, racism, racial terror, the internet & how it intersects with freedom of speech/expression in the United States. Please make your voice heard. We know that talking about race and racism will never be comfortable for all people. However, we must deal with the elephant in the room and talk our way through messy, painful experiences. Our goal is to create an OpKKK community of both respect and support in which we can discuss difficult topics openly and honestly. . We will never move beyond our present circumstance if we do not listen to one another and also be heard by one another. Please use hashtags #OpKKK and #HoodsOff when you tweet.
1. How would you define race?
History and social circumstances influence the language we use to describe the marked and meaningful biological differences between humans whose ancestors have adapted over millennia for differing regions and habitats. In zoology, a commonly accepted rule of thumb is that a population can be generally defined as a sub-species when one can distinguish one population from the other at least half of the time. While human racial diversity is clinal rather than cladistic, with a smooth and gradual gradient from the Congo to the Alps, humans whose ancestors are exclusively from the Congo can be distinguished from humans whose ancestors are exclusively from the Alps with complete certainty.

If it weren’t for all of the social and cultural baggage which comes with defining and describing one’s own species, a dispassionate zoologist who didn’t happen to be human could perhaps be expected to delineate humans into around a dozen subspecies (races), each of which originates from a certain region, tends to possess certain distinguishable characteristics, and reliably carries tell-tale genetic markers which confirm common ancestry with others who share those characteristics.

2. How many races do you think there are? What are they?
As previously stated, it’s clinal rather than cladistic, so in theory an arbitrary number of races could be proposed. That truth doesn’t negate the reality of race any more than the various canine hybrids negate the existence of dogs and wolves. Those born with intersex genitalia, effeminate men, and masculine women don’t negate the reality of gender, either.

The appropriate exactitude is dependent upon the situation. For instance, “Black” suffices in most contexts, while an anthropologist may wish to subdivide that into groups within the Black population which are quite genetically distinct, namely the bushmen of the Kalahari desert, the Mbuti pygmies of the Congo, the Bantu, the Nilotic “skinnies” of East Africa, and the often dark-skinned Arab, Berber, and Afro-Asiatic populations of North Africa.

3. Where do you feel your ideas about race come from? What are your sources of information?
I gathered my ideas about race from a variety of sources. Charles Murray’s Bell Curve was perhaps my first introduction to meaningful racial differences, though Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, and Wilmot Robertson were also major early influences. More recent genetic analysis and the population migration inferences derived from data models made possible by the large and growing body of genetic data and information about that genetic data are also invaluable sources of information.

4. What race do you identify with most?
I identify with the White race, though I quite possibly have trace Amerindian admixture.

5. What is ethnicity?
It’s often said in mixed families that “blood makes you related, but loyalty makes you family.” That’s kind of handy for helping understand the difference between race and ethnicity. Some ethnicities, like the Brazilian or Jewish ones are actually transracial, spanning multiple racial types. Others, like my White American ethnicity or the Japanese ethnicity, are defined more heavily by racial ancestry. Race is a biological thing, while ethnicity is a sociological thing. It’s a tribe, an extended family.

Race is something which can be tested with a blood sample, while a person’s ethnicity involves a man’s blood, his loyalty, his self-identification, his upbringing, his language, his myths, his religion, and the kinds of jokes he gets.

6. What various ethnicities do we have in our world?
There are certainly far more ethnicities than there are races. There are hundreds of ethnic groups in the United States alone, and perhaps thousands of them globally, with the same clinal challenge which precludes putting a firm number on it.

7. What is your ethnicity?
My ethnic identity is “White American.” It could conceivably scale up as far as belonging to an “Anglo” identity shared by Australians, Englishmen, Canadians, and Americans, or scale down as far as my being a Hoosier, with customs and characteristics unique to my Southern Indiana heritage and upbringing.

8. How long do you think the idea of race has been floating around? Where did it come from?
Hominids have been stumbling onto other species and subspecies of hominids and noticing and naming those differences since well before that arbitrary point in time when Homo Sapiens sapiens emerged. Scientific taxonomies of races were among the earliest applications of scientific taxonomies themselves. Racial diversity is an integral (and wonderful!) aspect of the human condition which has always been with us. The earliest written records contain references to racial differences and labels for the racial “other.”

9. What are some of the ways that race has been used to rationalize inequality among people?
Social inequality has also been around as long as humans have been around. Throughout history, humans have relied on just about every excuse imaginable to justify unequal relationships, . . . when they were bothered to justify them. Naturally, humans who do not belong to the same tribe and who are color-coded for easy identification make natural objects of exploitation and oppression. In the modern South Africa, humans who have white skin are the objects of explicit and systematic employment, housing, and social discrimination regardless of their income or social status.

10. How has race been used to shift attention (and responsibility) away from oppressors and towards the targets of oppression?
Racially diversifying a society is a tried and true way for privileged elites to ensure their grip on power. Opening the border with Mexico and allowing tens of millions of economic migrants into America pits White and Black American workers against the new arrival for limited job opportunities with sinking wages. It weakens the power of trade unions against corporations, forces White and Black American workers to accept more stressful and unsafe working conditions, and results in ethnic tensions between the incompatible communities. This all detracts and distracts from the pursuit of social justice which demonstrably flourishes most commonly in racially homogeneous nation-states.

You want social harmony and equality? Check out the homogeneous Nordic countries. Just ask Bernie about it.

11. What is racism?
Racism is a loaded and politicized term generally deployed as an attack against White people and only White people. It’s generally inclusive of both healthy racialism (acknowledging and respecting racial diversity) and degenerate racial supremacism. Both the virtuous and vicious types of “racism” are bundled into the epithet, precluding a constructive dialogue on the subject of race.

12. What are the causes of racism?
Within the contemporary American context, “racism” is caused by being White. If you’re White, then you’re guilty of some form of racism, even if it can’t be demonstrated, proven, or even identified. “Racism” is essentially a form of blood libel deployed against those who are racially White by those who are anti-White (many of whom are themselves racially White). Racial hostility is caused by forcible integration of alien and incompatible racial populations. It’s caused by the inequalities which emerge between integrated groups, whether due to organic differences in performance or due to oppression.

Humans are competitive by nature, and the human condition is to some degree a zero-sum competitive game between the world’s populations. Steps can and should be taken to reduce and constructively resolve racial resentments and unfair inequalities, though racial hostility will never be completely eliminated from the human condition.

13. What racial stereotypes do we hold in our heads? What are the things we think but do not say? Do you act on these beliefs? How do you know?
I have a plethora of racial stereotypes in my head, most of which I come right out and say because I believe that integrity is a necessary step in constructively grappling with the contemporary American racial predicament. I do act on many of my beliefs, though a basic respect for my fellow man regardless of race precludes being inappropriately and unnecessarily insensitive or provocative in daily life. When I’m corresponding with a Jewish person, for instance, I’m more mindful of the potential that I may be the target of manipulation, as I believe they tend to be more manipulative.

14. What is terrorism?
Terrorism is a military and political strategy of terrorizing civilians to achieve military and political goals.

15. What is racial terrorism?
Robert Mugabe’s strategy of subjecting White farmers in Zimbabwe to gruesome and tortuous murder in order to ethnically cleanse former Rhodesians is one example.

16. What is dehumanization?
It’s more fruitful to ask the inverse question, since humans are only truly capable of caring about and for a few dozen other humans before they must necessarily rely on dehumanizing categorizations. While I theoretically understand that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were horrific, I didn’t break down and cry at the thought that thousands of innocent people had died. Had there been a single close friend or family member killed in the attack, I would have cried, since I humanize that single person more than the 3,000 strangers in the towers combined.

The more racial, geographical, cultural, social, and ideological difference between two individuals, the more difficult it generally is to humanize them. For instance, #OpKKK dehumanizes me as a reviled “other” because of my pro-White political beliefs. This even extends to dehumanizing my mother, posting the information of my alleged mother, “Sandra Parrott,” with the purpose of terrorizing her.

It’s not like we’re born loving all of humanity perfectly equally, only to start dehumanizing people as we grow up. An infant starts out only humanizing her mother and immediate family, then expands her circle of humanization as she grows and learns about the world around her. Attempting to achieve the goal of “humanizing” all of humanity for people is futile.

The best we can hope for is to discourage folks from vilifying other people inappropriately and unnecessarily. And y’all can start with yourselves, by taking the time to consider that perhaps some of the evil “racists” you’re targeting are living and breathing human beings just like yourself who have done nothing to deserve hysterically angry phone calls threatening to rape their wives and children and burn their houses down.

17. What is hate?
This is hate…

18. What is Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of speech is an abstract notion embedded in the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights which limits the government’s ability to censor political speech.

19. When is free speech not free?
From early on, there have been acknowledged edge cases where speech cannot be considered free. One must not yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or issue a public declaration that the liberal mayor of Knoxville is affiliated with the Klan.

20. What is needed to have open and honest public conversations about race, racism and racial terror?
We can’t have one, because you won’t allow one. It’s a cardinal plank of the radical Leftist agenda that their political opponents be granted “No Platform” for the ideas they disagree with. The repeated claims to desire “a conversation about race” are reminiscent of Chairman Mao’s promise to “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” which was followed by a vicious crackdown on all the flowers that bloomed.

If an open and honest public conversation about race were desired, a libelous harassment and intimidation campaign against the other side of the conversation would be a backassward way to get the ball rolling.

21. What should the public norms be for discussing race and racism in a community setting?
In factory floors, office break rooms, and living rooms across America, normal folks of diverse racial heritage frequently have honest and respectful conversations about race. Radical Leftists like yourself stifle people and guarantee that the conversations cannot occur in public or community settings with an array of intimidation and harassment tactics. The first step toward establishing public norms for constructive dialogue on racial issues is preclusion of people who viciously harass and dox those with whom they disagree on matters of race and racism.

22. What is the difference between the intent of our words and the impact of our words?
You, for instance, are intending to strike a pose of academic detachment and intellectual curiosity with this list of questions about racial issues. The actual impact is unintentionally demonstrating your profoundly biased and narrow perspective on racial issues.

23. What is the harm of hate speech?
My family members have lost sleep and a degree of security in their daily lives as the product of repeated hate speech against myself and my extended family brought about by people like yourself who facilitate and provoke that hateful speech.

24. How do you balance a community’s best interest and an individual’s civil liberties? Is it possible to protect both without infringing upon either?
First, one must define a “community” and then one must figure out how to discern that community’s best interest. The question takes for granted that the best interest of the community is multicultural forced integration, juxtaposing that against my right to hold and share my political beliefs. If it weren’t illegal in America to peacefully self-segregate into our own communities, this question wouldn’t even need to be asked, since my political beliefs and my community’s interests wouldn’t be in conflict.

25. Can hate speech be dealt with socially versus legally?
My preferred method of dealing with hate speech is to hang up the phone or close the relevant browser tab. One of the consequences of a free society is that adults in such societies must tolerate ideas and speech they strongly dislike. Perhaps we can install giant “Trigger Warning” signs at America’s ports of entry. Social solutions work better than legal solutions in curbing hateful speech, which is why there’s very little of it in today’s society.

People don’t refrain from barking the N-word because they fear arrest. They refrain for fear of acute social disapproval.

26. Unpack some of the stereotypes you have been taught. What have you been taught or told to believe about other racial/ethnic groups?
I’ve been taught that Asians are good at math and that Blacks are good at basketball. Both of those stereotypes have been consistently corroborated over time. Stereotypes aren’t concocted at random in a laboratory. Blacks tend to like watermelon and fried chicken more than others. White girls tend to like pumpkin spice lattes more than others. Latinos tend to wear their masculinity on their sleeves.

There’s nothing immoral or problematic about being honest about our differences. For the most part, that’s all stereotyping is; it’s noticing our diversity. Sometimes the stereotypes are hurtful, like the stereotype that Black men commit more violent crimes. Nobody’s claiming that all Black men are criminals when they inculcate that stereotype that nearly every American, including Black men, have inculcated. And the first step toward eradicating that hurtful stereotype would be for Black men to stop committing violent crime at dramatically higher rates than other groups.

27. Most people today say they consciously reject racist attitudes and behavior. However, subtle forms of racism now flourish where over[t] racism once were. Is this an improvement?
Fundamentalist variants of Christianity tried to fundamentally change the nature of humans, and it failed to do so. While we should all strive to be virtuous, and we Christians should strive to abide by God’s laws, deviance and sin is an incontrovertible and universal quality of the human condition. You just end up with creepy stuff going on when you try to pretend humans are perfect. Marxists tried to do a similar thing with economics, and it resulted in an elaborate boondoggle.

You’re doing the same thing and it will fail just as hard. Racialism and racial realism cannot be driven out of humans.

28. What are the complexities of an interracial identity?
One complexity of having an interracial identity is that it makes it more difficult to find a bone marrow or tissue transplant donor. Another complexity is lacking that natural feeling of community and tribal inclusion which mono-racial folks can take for granted. President Obama’s biographical work, Dreams From My Father, is an excellent introduction to the often confusing, conflicting, and tortuous process of attempting to define one’s identity and place in the world when one doesn’t belong to any defined identity group.

29. Has someone from outside of your race ever called you a racial slur? What was this experience like?
Yes, earlier today. Thanks to you folks. It provoked amusement, as I’m quite secure in my racial identity.

30. What is the difference between biological and social views of race?
I suppose that “Black” might carry different social implications in Nigeria, Jamaica, and Detroit, despite biological racial consanguinity.

31. Who has benefited from the belief that there are biologically based differences between racial groups?
Children awaiting organ transplants benefit from the belief that there are biologically based differences between racial groups. Aging Black men benefit from the extra attention to potential heart issues that doctors who believe in biologically based differences between racial groups offer. Everybody ACTUALLY believes that there are biologically based differences and everybody benefits from knowing and sensibly acting on the truth.

32. Has someone from inside of your race ever called you a racial slur? What was this experience like?
I get called a cracker, honkey, peckerwood, and more by my identitarian friends on a daily basis. Generally speaking, words which often function as epithets from the outgroup are quite commonly terms of affection within the ingroup. I would never call a Black man the N-word without strong provocation, and I understand and respect their usage of the word among themselves.

If my fellow hillbilly calls me a hillbilly, it’s an affectionate term of endearment. If you call me it, you’re picking a fight.

33. Has a teacher/supervisor etc ever called you a racial slur? What was this experience like?
I’ve had a non-White supervisor refer to me as a redneck when I requested we have our business lunch at McDonald’s instead of an expensive ethnic restaurant. I was neither offended, scarred, nor affected in any negative way whatsoever by the incident. I accept that I embody and validate a good share of the negative stereotypes about folks of my racial, ethnic, and regional identity.

34. What are your thoughts about how victims of racism and bigotry feel when victimized?
I strive to avoid insulting or offending people, especially when it’s about stuff they can’t reasonably be expected to change. I think people should generally strive to be friendly and tolerant about our differences. That being said, I believe that anti-Whites try to pretend that there’s far more hurtful racism going on in America than there actually is, and that non-Whites are more fragile and vulnerable than they actually are.

35. What is your level of comfort in participating in public discussions about race?
Ready when you are, boss.

36. What are your personal views about the N word?
I think they’ve made substantial artistic and cultural contributions to America. I admire their athletic excellence. I think they’re often great humorists and excellent conversationalists.

37. What are the boundaries of free speech?
The girl in the embedded audio clip was dancing on that boundary.

38. What are hate groups trying to accomplish when they use the internet to publicize their ideas?
I’m glad you asked. We’re trying to reawaken a healthy sense of identity and shared purpose necessary to reconstruct ethnic communities around our shared heritage. We’re trying to serve as voices of advocacy and and defense for our extended family of ethnic kinsmen. To be completely honest, we’re also trying to accomplish some lulz from overly serious and stuffy Leftist dorks like yourself.

39. Do you think community discourse about race and racism are important?
Sort of, but not really. After all, if we’re legally allowed to self-segregate and mind our own business, then we no longer need to go back and forth forever until we can arrive at a consensus. People like myself who are clearly never going to be pliant cogs in your diversity machine should be allowed to opt out of the conversation and go do our own thing.

40. How does the internet impact issues of free speech? hate speech? fighting words?
The Internet broke the powerful Jewish and neo-colonial monopoly on political speech which precluded pro-White ideas from being expressed. The Internet let us out of the box y’all tried to lock us in.

41. Do you think it is significant that hate groups like the KKK use the internet to express their ideas?
The KKK is actually a very loose collection of several small and independent groups with very different philosophies. Some are violent and supremacist. Most have moderated and modified their ideas and messages over time and pose no threat of vigilantism or violence whatsoever. Every group which identifies with the Ku Klux Klan tradition has different ideas, all of which carry varying significance. The vast majority of pro-White people in America have nothing to do with the KKK.

42. Why do some people do hateful things to one another on the internet?
Start by asking yourself the question.
43. Why is it important to carefully examine information placed on the internet?
It’s important to carefully examine information placed on the Internet because it might have been placed there by a silly and irresponsible anti-White masquerading as “Anonymous” without any analysis, filtering, or consideration of unintended consequences.

44. How do stereotypes impact the way in which we see the world (bias)? How does this bias impact interactions with others?
Stereotypes help us see the world and its people more accurately, improving our interactions with others.

45. Share a story of witnessing racism. How did it make you feel?
I received an email just a few hours ago from a sender with some funny-sounding Nigerian-looking name. I disregarded it, since I’m racist against email from Africans. I felt nothing while doing this.

46. Share a story of experiencing racism. How did it make you feel?
I experienced racism when #OpKKK labeled me a “racist” and attacked me for having a sense of racial fellowship and pride that people of other races are permitted and encouraged to possess.

47. When did you first encounter the KKK (online, media, or IRL)? How did it make you feel?
I attended what was billed as a general pro-White unity gathering which also happened to be a klan gathering with a cross burning ceremony. Throughout the event, the speakers spoke exclusively about fellowship, pride, and the usual talking points. There was no lynching. There was no talk of lynching anybody. While there are racial supremacist groups out there which are dangerous and degenerate, those ones generally don’t have websites and don’t leave a digital trail for hackers and government agencies to follow.

48. What sort of hate speech on the internet is not protected by the 1st Amendment?
“Hate speech” is a loaded term inclusive of all speech that you hate. The only speech which isn’t protected by the first amendment is the sort of speech which common law tradition already deems illegal: slander, intimidation, harassment.
You know, the stuff you are doing.

49. Why do hate crimes occur?
Evil happens because Satan tempted Eve in the Garden, I reckon.

50. When groups like the KKK commit crimes against the public, should they be hate crimes or terrorism?
Crime is crime, and throwing all of these silly “hate” and “terror” enhancements on them opens a can of worms. Just last month, a non-White girl in England was arrested and charged for hate speech against White males. The laws are written in a neutral manner, and your side is the one which stands to lose if the government starts going after masked vigilantes. Ultimately, if I punch your teeth in, it doesn’t matter whether I did it because I’m drunk, because you cut me in line, or because you’re a Pacific Islander. It’s a crime to punch peoples’ teeth in, and I should be punished for it regardless of my motive.

51. What can we do to prevent the spread of hate-motivated behavior?
Allow people who don’t cotton to the social experiment of forced integration to self-segregate. Let my people go.

52. How do hate crimes impact your local community?
They don’t.

53. Can a hate crime be committed with words alone?
You’re really reaching here.

54. Can hate crime laws be used against hate on the internet?
With modern onion-routing network topologies, increasingly strong and accessible encryption technologies, and the intrinsically global nature of the Internet, your thoughtcrime faggotry is technologically obsolete.

55. What value do you place on free speech?
A government which doesn’t allow its citizens to speak the truth is tyrannical. Why do I need to explain this to Anonymous?

56. What speech on the internet is protected?
All of it’s protected if you know how to download and install the Tor Browser.

57. Some people believe people belong to distinct racial categories. Other people think we belong one race – the human race. What are your thoughts about this?
I think it’s a false dichotomy. I respect our common humanity, but I also value and cherish my family, my community, my ethnicity, and my race.

58. Should members of hate groups be allowed to serve the public?
You do realize that “hate group” is a made up word for a group which you hate, right? You’re trying to push the notion that you and your pals can declare that certain political ideas should be excluded from the political process.

59. What is hate speech? What is bullying? When does hate speech become bullying?
Hate speech is speech that you hate. Bullying is what White kids in majority-Black neighborhoods live with every day.

60. Do you feel your government does a sufficient job protecting its people from victimization by hate groups?
I feel my government does an insufficient job of protecting its hate groups from victimization!
61. How do you handle hate speech when you encounter it?
I edit it for grammar and style, then publish it and share it on our social media channels.

62. In what ways can we combat racism and discrimination?
Stop the hate and separate!

63. What do you think of interracial marriages?
I think it’s usually an unequal yoking and would advise against it. A coherent identity and community to belong to is one of the most precious gifts parents can offer their children. That being said, I have an ambivalent attitude about it. Y’all do your interracial thing, and afford us the social and political space we need to do our White thing.

64. What are your thoughts on the state of race relations in the United States?
I believe that our immigration and forced integration policies are increasing racial tension, that idealistic extremists like yourself are basically going to end up inciting a race war by incessantly shoving diversity down everybody’s throat.

I believe that racial issues will eclipse economic, social justice,  and other issues as the United States devolves into a circus of competing and conflicting tribes vying for power and privilege.

65. If you are originally from another country, is there a lot of racism in your home country? How does America differ?

66. Name one way you can combat racism.
I can avoid interacting with non-White people.

67. Have you ever been hurt by racism? How?
I suspect, with no way to ever know for sure, that I was deprived of educational opportunities on account of my working-class rural White background and identity. I don’t lose sleep over it.

68. Tweets about your thoughts, beliefs and/or questions about race/racism

69. Which country has the most racism?

70. Racism and homophobia – is one worse than the other?
I’m pretty cool with both of them.

71. How would you explain racism to children?
I would start with classic child-friendly minstrel tunes, perhaps.

72. What does a world without racism look like?
A world without racism would be a world without races, which would be like food without flavor.

73. Is it racist to use the term “white” to describe European Americans?
I can’t keep up with all of your silly word policing.

74. Is it racist to use the term “non-white” to describe African Americans?
That’s a stretch.

75. Can anyone be racist, regardless of ethnicity?
Everyone is racist, regardless of ethnicity.

76. Why is talking about race and racism uncomfortable?
It’s not for me. Perhaps it’s uncomfortable for you because you keep losing the argument?

77. Is it racist for sports teams to use terms like “Redskins” “Indians” and “Braves”?
No. Those sports teams were named in honor of the memory of the indigenous peoples and their legendary courage in battle. Limp-wristed faggots have a hard time understanding this sort of thing, but it’s common for a martial people who’ve defeated another martial people to commemorate their vanquished foes in song, story, art, and fame. I don’t follow sports and I’ll respect the wishes of the relevant surviving tribes, but the original intent of those names was the very opposite of racist, celebrating the fearlessness of the non-White war bands who fought to the last man against staggering odds.

78. Does the existence of Black, Latino, and Asian student groups combat racism, reinforce separatism, both, or neither?
They’re great. But the administrative and legal discrimination against White student groups is a classic example of institutional racism which stokes racial strife.

79. What is racial profiling and how does it impact your life?
I try to get in line behind White males when I’m at the grocery store. White males tend to use fewer coupons, waste less time with small talk, use credit and debit cards instead of checks, and just generally try to buy their groceries as rapidly as possible. That sort of racial profiling empowers me to get home sooner and spend more time with my friends and family.

80. If profiling on the basis of race is wrong, is it also wrong to profile on the basis of gender?
Both are super handy.

81. In cases of adoption, should agencies try to match the race of children with the race of the potential adoptive parents?
Yes. It’s one thing for an adult to go out of his or her way to participate in a sketchy Utopian experiment. It’s quite another to drag other peoples’ random children into the experiment before they’re old enough to decide for themselves.

82. Is it wrong to have an all-Black student dormitory? What about an all-White dormitory? Does the answer depend upon minority/majority status?
No. No. No.

83. How does free speech on the internet play out where you live and where you spend your time online?
It works out great!

84. What are the responsibilities of social media platforms to draw the line between fostering free speech and harboring hate?
Social media platforms are caught in a precarious balancing act. They’re under tremendous pressure from Leftist busybodies to waste millions of dollars monitoring and censoring their billions of posts. But they’re under even greater pressure to avoid reaching that tipping point where so many people are frustrated by censorship that they migrate to an alternative platform. Multiple social media platforms and Internet commons have already made the mistake of listening to the fanatical censors too much, and have become ghost towns as a result.

I’m ambivalent about social media censorship, as I win either way. If they censor our ideas enough, people will start migrating to more open platforms. You don’t have the control that you think you do. It’s very ironic that you claim to speak for and stand for Anonymous, yet your obvious goal here is censoring and silencing communication on the Internet. You’re poisoning the branding of “Anonymous,” and threatening its ability to serve as a useful apolitical and ecumenical vehicle for organized defense of free expression on the Internet.

Stop trying to cuckold “Anonymous.” You’re Antifa. #HoodiesOff
Free speech is a beautiful thing, although it is sometimes infuriating. We hope to hear your voice.
With love, @Operation_KKK
You’re welcome.

Another Rainbow Coalition?: The SPLC Take on NPI's Latest Conference

via Radix

The Southern Poverty Law Center has delivered a write-up on Become Who We Are. It isn’t all that bad, at least in comparison with some the SPLC’s smears of the past. But some corrections need to be made. 

First, in commenting on the youthfulness of the audience, the SPLC estimates that we had 120 attendees. The actual tally was 172. Some 55 people purchased discounted Millennial tickets (for those who are 30 years old and younger). At the beginning of the conference, when I asked for those who are 30 and under to stand and be recognized, it seemed like a third to a half of the crowd jumped to their feet. I feel old.

Another theme the SPLC stressed was that the conference was “LGBT friendly.”
[I]n a move not normal in these circles, anti-gay voices were kept away. White nationalist Matthew Heimbach of the Traditionalist Youth Network (TYN) was disinvited. According to his close friend Scott Terry, Heimbach was “booted” from the NPI conference for his anti-gay views.
In hosting an event of this size, we have to make many decisions regarding personnel and attendees. These are private matters and will remain so.

I will comment, however, about a general principle we try to adhere to in making such decisions.

Our conferences will include people who hold many different views on religious, social, sexual, historical, and political matters. We do not exclude anyone for, say, being a Buddhist, Pagan, Catholic, or atheist, or for being passionate about gay issues or thinking that they are not important. We hope that such questions can be discussed respectfully at our conferences.

NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who've made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform.  It’s as simple as that.

The Need for a New Religion

via Western Spring

We live in a world in which many people have a dark sense of foreboding. Particularly in Western European countries where we have experienced better times within living memory, there is a feeling that many facets of our lives are deteriorating and have been relentlessly deteriorating for several decades at least.

In material terms we appear to be better off than ever before and yet the material benefits themselves do not seem to adequately compensate for less welcome changes and the sense that somehow our civilisation is in decay. Also the greater awareness of environmental and demographic factors means that we are conscious of the fact that we in the West are ‘living beyond our means’ and beyond the means of our planet to sustain indefinitely. We are told that mankind is already consuming natural resources at a rate faster than our planet can renew them and therefore there exists a sense of guilt in one’s enjoyment of our apparently greater material wealth.

The rise of rationalism and science as the fonts of human wisdom and knowledge and the marginalisation of traditional Western religious beliefs, witnessed by the decline of particularly Christian religious adherence, is a sign of a decline in the spiritual health and well-being of our people. Our place in the world, our place in time and any sense of purpose in life have become blurred as religious belief has declined, to be replaced by a soulless philosophy based upon individuality, liberalism, materialism and personal self-gratification.

Despite our release from previous religious constraints and despite all of our attempts to submerge ourselves in lives of hedonistic pleasures, maximising our personal self-gratification through the new freedoms of individuality and liberalism, in conjunction with our apparently growing material wealth, we still see all around us growing signs of social decay and dysfunction. In the West higher rates of social dysfunction manifest now than at almost any other time in living memory; high rates of violent crime, muggings, rapes and murders; high rates of drug and alcohol abuse; high rates of prostitution; high rates child physical and sexual abuse; high rates of suicide; yes, high and steadily increasing rates of all forms of delinquency and social dysfunction.

We sense, as I have already alluded to, a feeling that even our apparent growing material wealth cannot possibly continue. We are constantly reminded nowadays that we live in a world of finite resources and one of uncontrollable population growth. Already we are informed that for the whole of humanity to enjoy a standard of living equivalent to that enjoyed in advanced Western countries, we will need several planet earths to provide the natural resources required. Obviously therefore, such a state of worldwide parity with the Western nations is impossible unless someone devises a new almost magic method of conjuring wealth and energy out of nothing or discovers some, as yet undiscovered, unknown and limitless source of raw materials and the fossil fuels such parity would require.

Increasingly, we stumble from one crisis to another, only to find that corrupt and inept governments fail us, both in terms of managing the present and in terms of providing inspiration and solutions for what will come and the problems that we see looming. All too often our political leaders are shown to be men and women without vision, lacking any coherent mission and completely devoid of moral scruples. All too often, even when they are not corrupt at the outset, they become corrupted by the spiritual wasteland that our world has become, choosing eventually to enjoy the power and wealth that political office and influence provides with no real care for the direction we are taking.

Traditionally the role of the religions of the world has been to provide a ‘glue’ holding communities together, to provide a means by which rulers can control their subjects, to set moral boundaries to regulate the lives of people and to give them a sense of belonging to something or some cause that is greater than them and which gives their lives direction and meaning. Increasingly however, the scriptures have come to be seen as mere folk tales, of at best symbolic value, and with scant historic validity. Creation stories have been shown to be at variance with modern scientific opinion regarding the origins of the Universe. Furthermore, religious strictures have been revealed as arbitrary constraints, of little but symbolic significance in the modern age and belief in Christianity in particular, is at an all time low among the Western nations.

We live lives of apparently growing material wealth but in a spiritual, moral and ethical wasteland, life for us has no apparent purpose, values are all apparently subjective, transient and illusory. Friedrich Nietzsche in his ‘The Gay Science’ declared that “God is dead”, but what is to become of us if the vacuum left by the demise of the Christian God is not filled by something else?

EvolutionToday, most intelligent people reject traditional religions as aberrant pre-modern belief systems. Simply put, traditional religions appear to be assemblages of mythic stories propounding belief in anthropomorphic Gods, whose existence, either now or in the past is at best improbable and is in any event seen as irrelevant now in our modern age. Some religions, such a Buddhism assert as the ultimate goal in life the achievement of a state of inner peace that can only be achieved through a renunciation of self and one’s natural urges.

In short these religions fail to provide a credible explanation of; who we are; how we got where we are today; how we relate to the rest of creation; and what purpose there is in life; in a way that connects with the restless, Faustian spirit of Western man and our instinctive ethnocentricity.

Evolutionary psychologists such as Professor Bruce G. Charlton would argue that traditional religions fail because they lack a complete cosmology. Charlton has written that “[a] cosmology is a mythical account of the universe as it presents itself to the human mind; it needs to be poetic, symbolic, inspiring a sense of awe and mystery. Furthermore, a complete cosmology should include three levels of macro-, meso- and microcosm, in order to understand the nature of the universe, human society, and the individual’s relation to them”.

Traditional cosmologies according to Charlton, describe a “static ideal state towards which the world ought to gravitate”. He obviously has in mind here as examples, the state of ‘Nirvana’ or the attainment of the ‘Kingdom of God on Earth’. “However, modern life is characterised by rapid fluidity of all kinds of structures, including innovation and destruction, and growth in complexity of communications without a pre-established end-point. We do not know where we are going, yet we are accelerating towards it.”

“Because people do not have a basic symbolic understanding of the modern world and modern humanity’s place in it, they experience conflict between their cosmology and what they observe and experience. This mismatch between traditional cosmology and contemporary actuality is alienating. Consequently the modern world is frequently perceived as chaotic, meaningless, declining or collapsing”.

Reflecting the essentially European character of his own psyche, Charlton concludes, “A modern cosmology therefore needs to be focused on underlying process instead of structure, on dynamism rather than stasis. If modern individuals become able to develop mythic understanding of the evolutionary nature of things-in-general then their experience of change will match their deepest expectations. Consequently, people may be more likely to feel ‘at home’ in the world and broadly optimistic about the future.”

Through Cosmotheism, which I regard as scientific paganism, I belief that it is possible to establish a complete cosmology that meets all of the prerequisites set out above, which presents a compelling new world view that is wholly consistent with the spirit of Western man, which is consistent with current science and which has the capacity to evolve and adapt and remain credible as our scientific knowledge advances. I will expand upon this in future posts.

Why Traditional Architecture Matters, and What it Means to Our Culture

via Traditional Britain Group

Summary: In an address to the Traditional Britain Group Day Conference on October 24th 2015, Britain's greatest living architect, Quinlan Terry, CBE, discusses classical architecture and its importance as a reflection for the nation's high culture.

I fear that after the weighty matters of our other speakers, which I entirely endorse - the subject of Architecture must seem rather lightweight and on the fringe. In a dangerous and confusing world, architecture is a secondary issue; and it is only in a peaceful world with a reasonable outlook of equanimity, that architecture becomes much more important and relevant to us all.

My subject is "Why traditional architecture matters, and what it means to our culture". I guess that most of you have a pretty clear idea about what we mean by "traditional architecture", but in case some of you are a little vague, I would define it, "as the way of building that has been handed down to us by our forefathers for countless generations". And it must be clear to all of you that this is not the sort of architecture that is being put up all around us today.

I won't waste your time in describing all the differences between traditional and modern architecture, except to emphasise one major difference which is longevity. Traditional materials - loadbearing masonry in stone, brick and lime mortar is the structure of all the great historical buildings which last for centuries - even millennia; whereas the modern materials - steel, reinforced concrete, large sheets of glass and plastics will produce a building which has all sorts of advantages - (particularly cost), but they will last for only a few decades. This is because modern materials all have such a high coefficient of thermal expansion - (they expand when the sun comes out and shrink when it freezes) that they have to insert expansion joints at regular intervals - every 15 feet or so - and the joint has to be covered with a flexible plastic seal which breaks down under sunlight and thus allows water penetration at the joints, and so the life of the building can be counted in decades. A recent American report on the life of steel and glass high rise buildings put their useful life at 25 years. They may last a little longer, but after 40 years or so they are often demolished, the materials cannot be recycled so they are dumped in a landfill site and the laborious process of reconstruction begins again at phenomenal financial and environmental cost. So Modern construction as a means of providing a permanent home or place of work has been a failure from conception to the grave, and more seriously, it expresses a culture that has no history and no future.

I have many friends from Poland. They remember Warsaw flattened at the end of the war. They also remember, that before they rebuilt their hospitals or schools or blocks of flats, they painstakingly rebuilt their historic centre - stone by stone and brick by brick to be just as it was. They had to do it, because that was their identity!

In my view the man who wrote most wisely about what good architecture means to culture was Sir Christopher Wren. Few people know that Wren wrote anything about architecture; but this is what he said, in his Parentalia: "Architecture has its political use. Public buildings being the ornament of a country, establishes a nation, draws people and commerce; makes people love their native country, which passion is the original of all great actions in a Commonwealth".

"The emulation of the cities of Greece was the true cause of their greatness. The obstinate_valour of the Jews, occasioned by the love of their Temple, was a cement that held together that people for many ages and through infinite changes".

"Architecture aims at eternity; and therefore the only thing incapable of modes and fashions in its principles is the Orders". (By that he means the classical Orders as we now know them; what we call, Doric, Ionic and Corinthian.)

He goes on "The Orders are not only Roman and Greek, but Phoenician, Hebrew and Assyrian being founded on the experience of all ages, promoted by the vast treasures of all great monarchs, and the skill of the greatest Artists and Geometricians, every one emulating each other; and the experiments being of great expense, and many errors, is the reason that the principles of Architecture are now (by which he meant the 1660s) the study of antiquity, rather than fancy."

Clearly, Wren had contempt for fancy, and a reverence for antiquity. Whereas in our Modern world it seems that the principles of architecture today are the study of fancy (or novelty) rather than antiquity.

Let us now briefly trace this same theme that Wren describes and see how it has benefited - and later deserted - Britain. Those classical Orders as Wren says are more ancient than Rome or Greece (in my view they go back to Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and before); - (but that's another lecture!) - that melodic line after the fall of Rome and after the dark ages, was revived at the Renaissance by architects like Brunelleschi, Alberti, Bramante and later Palladio who reworked these same Orders all over the Veneto.

This soon inspired British architects like Inigo Jones and Wren and Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh and Gibbs and Kent. It spread to America (Jefferson at Monticello) and back to Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries; - Adam, Wyatt, Soane, Barry - even Pugin and Street (for Gothic is one variation of the classical tradition) and even into the beginning of the 20th century there were competent architects like Belcher and Lutyens.

And then slowly and sadly through the 20th century traditional architecture declined as Britain declined through two world wars and as Modernism became the image of their "brave new world" - an international style where the raison d'etre was to reverse tradition in the choice of materials and construction and style, and erect structures in steel and glass and cement and plastics, wholly dependant on the consumption of fossil fuels in the fabrication of these new materials and the servicing of these buildings.

The result today is that no major public buildings are erected in the classical tradition, and that all the schools of architecture; all the Royal institutions (like the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Academy, the Royal Fine Art Commission) and all Government appointments are totally opposed to the return of Britain's classical tradition. Over the last 100 years we have not built any public spaces comparable with say, Parliament Square - even Bedford Square or the centres of cities like Bath, Oxford, Cambridge or Edinburgh. It also has to be said, in passing, that with the decline of traditional architecture we also observe a parallel decline in art and music and morality and the nations loyalty to their Christian convictions.

I realise that I am being gloomy pointing out our present crisis which leads to the death of our culture. BUT, there may be just a glimmer of hope, for a crisis is "a crucial turning point in the course of something - especially a disease, when things develop either for the worse - or for the better".

Clearly traditional architects are at present hugely outnumbered by Modernist architects, but sound convictions based on common sense matters more than numbers. All my life I have swum against the tide, and in the process I have made many like-minded friends who share my defiance of the values of modernism in architecture, art, music and theology. But I now begin to wonder whether the worm will begin to turn.

When Raymond Erith died in 1973, he and I were virtually the only serious classical architects in practice. Now, there are over 40 younger practising classical architects in Britain and there are many more in the US. At Poundbury, the Prince of Wales (who is constantly ridiculed by the RIBA) has employed about 25 traditionally minded architects, including ourselves, to build what amounts to a traditional small town adjacent to Dorchester. It is not perfect, but it is a king in comparison to all the new developments.

I used to make my living building large private houses, (for those who could afford it), down some leafy lane far from the madding crowd; but now we are beginning to move into town centres. It may have taken 25 years for my Richmond Riverside Scheme to be regarded as a serious alternative to Modernism, but we have now been appointed to do Twickenham Riverside and a number of similar developments.

I am now well-stricken in years and will never see the extent of this possible revival, but there is hope - more hopeful than when I started 55 years ago.

And on that note I should end. But I have a short epilogue regarding a much more important subject than architecture whose revival today also seems even more unlikely, but runs parallel to British Architecture and that is British Christianity. And I realise that I may be poaching on the subject of one of our next speakers.

But like British traditional architecture British Christianity is the Renaissance or Revival or Reformation of 1st Century Christianity which is more ancient than Greece or Rome. And again, after the dark ages was rediscovered by divines like John Wycliffe in the 14th Century who inspired Luther and Calvin, who inspired the Scotsman John Knox and the English martyrs, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley in the 16th Century. It was then taken up by poets like Milton and Bunyan and later by open air evangelists like Whitefield and Wesley. It spread to America (Jonathan Edwards and many others) and back to Britain in the 18th and 19th Centuries with men like Simeon and Spurgeon, Cowper and Wilberforce, and the massive British Missionary movement to India, China and Africa, and even in the 20th Century there have been many outstanding, courageous (and almost unknown) ministers who upheld that same tradition.

The decline of British Christianity has not been so visible as the decline of Traditional Architecture, but the effect in the 19th Century of the German Higher Critical Movement, and the writings of Kant and Voltaire and Matthew Arnold are some of the causes that led to apostasy and the growth of Liberalism, which now dominates all the Churches today.

At present those with Liberal convictions within both Catholic and Protestant circles, hugely outnumbers those with Biblically conservative convictions. But again convictions matter more than numbers. And there are now signs that the worm could turn.

It may surprise you that I have recently put galleries into 3 Anglican churches and am now working on two more to provide space for growing congregations. These churches have one thing in common: they all swim against the tide of the Modernist Liberal Agenda and they will not compromise on female ordination or same-sex marriage; because they are Biblically Conservative. They may well have a hard time as Synod deprives them of their buildings, but like the Chinese church which has grown to over 100 million after 50 years of more intense persecution, they have a glorious future which the Liberal establishment never had nor ever will.

So, surrounded by gloom and doom in our modern culture; there is still a certain hope of a far better future; and I begin to see some signs of it, this side of the grave.

I fear that after the weighty matters of our other speakers, which I entirely endorse - the subject of Architecture must seem rather lightweight and on the fringe. In a dangerous and confusing world, architecture is a secondary issue; and it is only in a peaceful world with a reasonable outlook of equanimity, that architecture becomes much more important and relevant to us all.