Nov 20, 2015

Neutralizing the Power of Anti-White Historical Narratives

via Counter-Currents

Aim for the man, not the cape
Author’s Note: I borrowed a lot from Greg Johnson’s essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust,” which I think is important for a deeper understanding of the issue in general and for the position I advocate.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but a common mistake pro-White advocates make in combating White genocide is disputing the alleged facts of anti-White historical narratives.

By challenging the details of anti-White historical narratives, whether it be the Holocaust, the Black slave trade, genocide of American Indians or the various other alleged crimes committed by Whites against non-White populations, pro-White advocates are missing and implicitly accepting the premise: “If white racism, nationalism, self-assertion, etc. led to the holocaust, the slave trade, Jim Crow, etc., then they are evil”—the underlying argument used to justify White genocide.

A far more effective point of argument is that regardless of the (alleged) crimes committed by White people in the past, they do not justify White genocide or any of its anti-White components.

Besides actually being a morally true statement, it registers as such to the vast majority of White people who were taught since childhood that, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” This is a far more effective approach than trying to convince someone to question the historical “facts” that influenced the formation of their worldview and/or understanding of the world.

Greg Johnson points out that

As a general rule, moral and political arguments are more convincing than historical or scientific arguments, because the latter require specialized knowledge and lengthy explanations, whereas the former can be pithily formulated and draw upon common moral and political intuitions—and generally people’s moral intuitions are healthier than the toxic moral swill ladled out by the churches, schools, and mass media.

Not only is it more effective and efficient, but it also works for every anti-White historical narrative anti-Whites use, and any more that may be invented in the future. So not only does the average White person we are trying to reach not need to spend hours researching a specific historical instance to justify what he feels is right, it also inoculates him against all other and future attempts at manipulation via anti-White historical narratives.

Additionally—and this is important—it brings the focus back to the present genocidal conditions faced by our people. It interrupts the autistic proclivity to get lost in the past and technicalities that understandably bore and annoy most people. We cannot afford to get distracted and bogged down in the past and lengthy explanations. We need that lightning focus that clearly and succinctly defeats anti-White arguments, exposing them for what they are. If we can do that and simultaneously help inoculate White people against this powerful demoralizing weapon, why wouldn’t we?

It is our own people’s grandiose propensity toward collective guilt and self-abasement that is the ultimate source of the power anti-White narratives have over us. To borrow further from Greg Johnson’s excellent essay, attacking the moral dimension of the problem is like hacking at the trunk of a tree, whereas revising historical narratives is akin to merely trimming the branches.

Once we have stopped the genocide of our people, our historians can determine what was true in the past. Until then, I encourage all of my fellow pro-White advocates to stop trimming the branches and join me in hacking away at the trunk.

Why Is It That White Crime Is Hate but Non-White Crime Is Pride?

via EGI Notes

Did you ever notice that when Whites (rarely) commit acts of racial violence against non-Whites, it is roundly denounced as "hate," is presented as evidence of the endless and boundless perfidy of Whites, we are NEVER asked to consider if the Whites had a legitimate complaint or justification for their action, the act is used as justification to increase anti-White oppression and to pass new laws to "fight White supremacism" and "outlaw hate" - BUT - when Negroes or Muslims or other non-Whites commit racial crimes, terrorism, rioting against Whites, then this is presented as evidence of how bad Whites are for provoking the act (by White racism), this is justification for more laws and projects to favor non-Whites and oppress Whites, we are told that we need to understand the reasons for the action, we are told we need to sympathize and empathize with the perpetrators and not the victims, we are told that the major concern is "backlash" against the perpetrators, we are told that we need to reflect on how we need to change White behavior (the root cause!) as to prevent this from happening again.

That Whites are considered morally guilty for alleged crimes committed by Whites centuries ago, crimes that the Whites of today openly denounce; but when non-Whites commit horrific crimes today, and are supported by their co-ethnics today, we are told that we cannot blame the "millions of innocents for the crimes of a few."

That Whites are associated with Whites as a race when Whites are blamed for historical crimes, but never for White historical achievements (which are just from atomized individuals).

That the only race officially discriminated against by law, and which is the only race being subjected to government-sponsored genocidal race-replacement immigration, is also the only race called "privileged."
 That Yahoo is full of anti-White stories from all sorts of far-left sites, many founded and/or edited by Jews.
 That women are so navel-gazing and self-absorbed that Yahoo is full of stories written by women, such as "Why I love my 800 lb. body," or "My message to the woman who looked funny at my distorted retard baby," or "The day I stopped shaving my armpits" or any other of a myriad of inane and insipid stories that get international distribution as part "our" feminized and degenerate "Western" "culture."
 That the democratic globalist multiculturalists always want to "declare war on" and bomb racially different peoples from different civilizations, and yet "White racist haters" instead wish to negotiate with those peoples.

Terror in Paris: What Did the Elites Know?

via The Occidental Observer

Flying blind usually ends in disaster. The disaster in Paris (which was but a prelude) was foreseeable. The political leaders did nothing to stop it. And they will nothing to stop it in the future.

“How can anyone be shocked?” asked the US-based Gatestone Institute, expressing its skepticism at the way the press covered the public mourning among politicians and the official media. The EU politicians “exhibited an irresponsibility and lack of leadership that is almost infantile.” In reality, politicians and the media were, and are, very well informed about the catastrophic security situation in Europe. They just do not report it, because it seems that their real job is to reassure the masses.

Experts warned of Terror

On Friday, Info-Direkt published a video-interview of retired Austrian army Major Rudolf Moser at Spielfeld on the Slovakian border. Moser covered the situation in the border town from a military point-of-view. According to him, the Austrian government would fail in every respect and would implement no sort of inspections or security checks—the whole situation would inevitably lead to civil war. Then that evening, fewer than 10 terrorists managed to put France under a state of Emergency.

It is also well documented that the decision-makers—like the Austrian interior ministry—have downplayed or ignored warnings. As Info-Direkt reported in September, the alarm was sounded by Gert R. Polli, the former leader of the Austrian state security agency.[1] He specifically predicted of attacks in Europe. “We are dealing with a ‘flying blind’ security policy on an unprecedented scale. It is of great concern, that terrorist agents can operate on European soil in independent cells, and remain hidden from the security agencies until the attack. This is exactly the strategy that ISIS is pursuing. So it is very disturbing that reliable evidence of ISIS activity has eluded German and Austrian security agencies.”

Another ignored warning: migrants’ cell phones have been found with videos unambiguously depicting ISIS atrocities. The only conclusion to be drawn from these videos is that some terrorists would turn up among the refugees. There were also reports of 4,000 ISIS-terrorists, who were sent into Europe disguised as refugees.

Now, after the attacks in Paris, voices such as Moser’s and Polli’s are making themselves heard in the mainstream. The current director of the Austrian state security agency, Peter Gridling, expects there are about 250 people committed to waging Jihad in Austria. “We cannot watch all suspects around the clock,” priority goes to the most dangerous.[2]

The attacks were not a surprise for political scientist Thomas Schmidinger of the University of Vienna. An expert on Islamic extremism, his research focuses on the Middle East and political Islam. All the same, he assumes that, “this will not have been the last terrorist act of ISIS in Europe.” Europe stands “at the beginning of what is likely to be a long war.” Schmidinger considers ISIS attacks on Austria “definitely possible.”

And for security expert Wilmont Franta, this attack was not the last: “The events in Paris, which will probably bring about enormous social changes, are nevertheless only the ‘overture to the operetta.’ A few terrorists were enough to bring disaster to a city of millions, an entire country, even all Europe. But already thousands of ISIS fighters have seeped in.”

Terrorists entered the country as “Refugees”

Several of the Paris attackers may have entered Europe posing as refugees. In one case, we can be certain. A passport found on one of the attackers belonged to a man who came to the EU through the Greek island of Leros at the beginning of October, as the government in Athens disclosed Saturday evening.

This passport belonged to Paris attacker Ahmad Al-Mohammad. He was registered at the Croatian camp at Opatovac, from where he crossed through Hungary and into Austria, Croatian interior ministry spokeswoman, Helena Biočić, confirmed to several Media outlets. But for Austrian politicians, naturally this is no reason to rethink border-policy: “These are conjectures, which belong to the field of speculation,” said Austrian Interior Ministry Spokesman Karl-Heinz Grundböck.

In intelligence circles, however, it is considered unlikely that a suicide-bomber would go to his death with his passport in his pocket. This brings to mind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo: Then too, the killers had “accidentally” forgotten their passports in their get-away car. It is still unclear who gave the hitmen their orders. Russia’s President Putin asked the obvious question: Who were the masterminds behind the attack? Cui bono?

Despite the dangers caused by unsecured borders, the Austrian government is confident: There will still be no border closings. So again this weekend, thousands were received at the border town of Spielfeld. Enhanced security measures and increased funding are probably only the first step for the political dignitaries. The actual concerns of the elites have shifted, as evidenced by the statements of the German government, whose first reaction to the Paris attacks was to make it known that it would guard refugee centers better “for fear of attacks by right-wing extremists.” The government “fears, that right-wing radicals might, after the attacks in Paris, hunt down the refugees.”

What can be considered certain about the Terror attacks three days later?

  • The media and politicians know of the latent danger. Yet they have lied to Europeans on a large scale.
  • The measures demanded by the majority of citizens (such as closing the borders or the necessary registrations) are still not being implemented.
  • The surveillance of the citizens will be further expanded (legislation on communications via mobile phones, Internet censorship, etc.), terrorism supplies the necessary pretext
  • The assertion, that Europe is deliberately being hurled into chaos, is no longer a “conspiracy theory.” The politicians would rebut, that no one wants chaos. But the politicians’ actions and failings do not allow for any other conclusion.
  • If the citizen wants security, he must provide it for himself.
Notes:[1] The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism. Polli’s prediction can be found in German here.
[2] I have replaced part of Info-Direkt’s paraphrase with the quote from the original article.

Towards a New American Identity

via traditionalRIGHT

Listen Now

What do you think of pan-Europeanism? The fact is that Europe is being invaded and there is a very real possibility that our ancestral homeland will no longer remain in our hands. Do we give up then? Of course not! We need to be rooted in our homeland and secure the existence of our unique European nation in North America. Download and listen here.

Space to Live

via Radix

The recent terror attacks in Paris have brought the cultural differences between Western Europe and the Muslim world into stark relief. Many Europeans who seek to defend their nations against terrorism—as well as the flood of migrants fleeing Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa—often assert (or at least tacitly assume) that “Western Civilization” is a superior social and cultural order, especially vis-à-vis the Islamic world. 

They are not being honest with themselves.

While the modern “West” might be superior in areas that Europeans value (like technological and economic development, religious tolerance, and artistic expression), it is severely lacking where it counts. In turn, Islam possesses characteristics that will likely make it a more lasting civilizational order.

At some point, whether before the West collapses, or after it has collapsed, some may finally recognize this fact—that Islam is superior to “the West” in the area that determines the future—demographics.

In the contemporary West, children and families are not valued. A stable, two-parent family is mocked as boring or staid. Homogeneous communities, which were once recognized as being essential for a harmonious population, are attacked as insular, narrow, and backward.

This culture of death is now being played out throughout the United States and Western Europe. For example, there are numerous recent examples of German women killing their own children, either because they had no money, they had no room to house them, or they simply didn't want them.

This situation did not arise in a vacuum. For the last 60 years, Western elites have shaped both government and culture to attack native population growth and to attack the cornerstone of European civilization—the family.

Much of this push to transform both the population and culture can be seen as a response to the death and destruction of the Second World War. Western elites viewed one of the chief causes of the war as Lebensraum (“living space”). Friedrich Ratzel coined this term of human geography, to emphasize the degree to which habitat is a factor that influences human activities and the development of a society.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Western elites sought to attack any form of Lebensraum on the European continent to avoid future wars. In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III created the Population Council, which was dedicated to studying demographics and population growth throughout the world. With heavy cheerleading from the environmental movement, as well as other elites, over the last 50 years, Western nations dramatically reduced their birthrate, under the assumption that this would help save the planet and ensure sustainable societies for their children and grandchildren. The road to hell was always paved with good intentions.

We are currently witnessing a new Lebensraum, which could now be characterized as an “Islamoraum”—the expansion of a foreign culture and people into a defenseless West. And this expansion is seen as necessary for the survival of the invading horde. In the popular press and throughout social networks, discussion of this displacement is being censored and controlled.

And there is no end in sight. Currently, demographers have indicated that world population growth will not stabilize even during this century.

The questions for the Western elites are as follows:
  • At what point do you start to defend your own people and your own borders?
  • At what point do you start to insist on carving out a living space for your children and grandchildren?
  • Where will the French, Germans, Dutch, and Swedes run to when their nations collapse?
  • How many rapes must occur? How many native children must be aborted because there is not enough room for two competing civilizations?
  • Shall Europeans status on the continent be that of servants to a new dominant population?

Wrong Response, Wrong Enemy, Wrong Reason

via TradYouth

Remember the time you got tricked into fighting a neighbor because of a malicious third party who hated both you and the person you fought?  That petty and unnecessary squabble isn’t any different than what’s happening in Paris right now.

The scores of dead and wounded from Paris’s Jihadist attacks are going to be put up by the Zionists as the French equivalent of our 9/11.  The French are going to be tricked into starting another war in the Middle East, and it won’t do a thing to solve the real problem of how and why a Paris night club was shot-up by Middle Eastern terrorists.

Billionaire Jew George Soros is on the record saying that international borders are a nuisance and a problem, and I’m going out on a limb here to guess that he’s also one of the major players who is directly financing the human trafficking from the Middle East to Europe.

Every single news story about this bleeding-heart “humanitarian crisis” has only talked about the immivaders’ struggle and what they have to deal with when they arrive in Europe.  Shame on us for refusing to roll out the red carpet to some thousands and thousands of people who inexplicably showed up on our doorstep, right?  Wrong.  The real story here is that the news outlets aren’t telling is how these immivaders showed up on our doorstep.

The major talking points about these people are that they’re educated professionals who are quietly wealthy and are trying to escape persecution in Syria.  Tell me another one.  The last person who tried to hock me that line said that these people were paying something in the neighborhood of $5,000 USD for travel to Europe.  Really?  Where the hell are they getting the money from?  I don’t know any average Joe or Jane in America who could raise $5,000 for anything.  A startling number of Americans don’t even have that much money in savings and I’m supposed to believe that THOUSANDS of Syrian refugees do?

But, we’re getting off topic now.  The point here is that there are many helping hands (conspiring merchant hands? I think so…) between Europe and Syria and there is zero coverage about who these people are and why they’re helping.  We wouldn’t have this immivasion crisis right now if there weren’t many helping hands and that’s our terminal objective.

If France or the USA eagerly jumps into another war in the Middle East it will be the wrong response for the wrong reason against the wrong opponent.  If we fight because our people are being slaughtered by terrorists but not because our leaders purposefully imported them at the Jew’s behest then we cannot adequately solve this problem.  Our struggle at home is to keep the immivaders out, but our war must be against the International Jew and wherever we find him plotting our destruction.

The final outcome of this immivasion and our response to imported terrorists is not for us to start up another ten-year war in the Middle East.  That makes a lot of damn sense, right?  The people who are flooding Europe (and the USA, too) are ostensibly fleeing from war, so what kind of loony-tunes sense does it make to start another war by which we not only create more refugees whom we will undoubtedly have to deal with but also to send our young men to fight against?

Don’t let yourself get caught up too much in the anti-Islam mania.  Yes, we need to strongly reject having these totally alien and foreign people forcefully introduced to our communities, but we must also strongly reject what it is that has brought them here in the first place.  Let’s play a game:  Europa vs Middle East, who wins?  THE JEW WINS.  That’s the point here.  The Jew has brewed up some more violence against Europa and is sitting back laughing when we lash out against everyone except the people who put us in this very predicament.  No, what we need is not more anti-Islam mania, but some more good old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

Starting another war in the Middle East only benefits the Jew.  The International Jew whipped up two of us neighborhood kids into a fighting frenzy because he wants to be the only kid on the street.

When the Middle Eastern terrorist causes violence and war in our communities and whets his appetite for blood it must be dealt with by a harsher measure.  Interfaith vigils, singing Imagine and preaching about tolerance and acceptance does not stop terrorism, it only placates the people from doing what is necessary: rebellion and independent use of martial force for community protection.

The Paris attacks are not our responsibility and neither should we beget another “war for freedumb” because of something that happened after the French imported terrorists.  What were they thinking?  Every person with a modicum of awareness said, “Hey, that’s a snake.  If you try to pick up the snake it will bite you.”  And then French leaders said, “Nonsense!  I have my Multiculti snake oil to protect me!”  And then the whole world witnessed the all too predicable failure of Multiculti snake oil: it doesn’t work and will sooner kill than save you from the one-hundred-and-one obscure ailments it claims to prevent.

We are not allies with the Middle East by faith, blood or other fellowship, and neither should we be.  Europa does have a problem in the Middle East, but it’s not Islam.  The Eternal Jew continues to be the international actor who creates one after another conflict for us to waste our lifeblood.  Christians and Muslims in the Middle East do not need to be our enemy, and while “ally” might be too strong of a word for a mutual understanding, we are fighting the same enemy: Deadly Jewish schemes designed for our mutual destruction.  Let America, Europe and the Middle East fight the deadly Jewish schemes from our own barricades and on our own respective fronts; we do not want or need disruptions from foreigners on our side of the barricade.

How Do We Replace Our Failed Universities?

via Amerika

Having watched twin travesties unfold at both Missouri University and Yale, is there any remaining doubt that the current institution of higher education in the United States is utterly dysfunctional? Perhaps there is. For one thing, I haven’t defined the function set I’m claiming to have gone unfulfilled. Another, more damning critique of my critique would be the fair and logical question of with what do you replace this institution?

So let’s take a whack at what function a university serves. Curtis Yarvin makes a cynical suggestion that Universities are a social control institution that determines what everyone will think. He describes this epistemological osmosis below.
…in post-1945 America, the source of all new ideas is the university. Ideas check out of the university, but they hardly ever check in. Thence, they flow outward to the other arms of the educational system as a whole: the mainstream media and the public schools. Eventually they become our old friend, “public opinion.”
But there is more to it than just that. 99% of the people who set foot on the average campus will not get anywhere close to developing an original intellectual idea. You could be forgiven if you were to believe that sort of thing was subtly controlled against. No, not just forgiven. You should be patted on the back.

This is because the Modern University is a high-pass filter selecting for conformity. You can’t legally test job applicants for IQ or even easily define what social habits they should carry around in their personal and professional knapsacks. However we officially condemn all sorts of segregation; we all want markers so that we can effectively ostracize defectives and outcastes. So what do?

You turn perspective respectable members of society loose and you measure their survivability, maintainability and suitability in a realistic facsimile environment. Based on how they do their over four years, we can then make a fairly educated guess as to whether an aspiring caste member is acceptable. College is a four to six year corporate and government cattle call. Towards the end of year four, the soon-to-be-graduates then send out their resumes and display themselves the way livestock is put on parade at the Fort Worth Stock Show.

And finally, we have the unspoken and deliberately ignored mission we would hope our university system would undertake. We should hope our educational system would promote and champion a serviceable pattern of folkways for a nation similar to what David Hackworth Fisher describes in Albion’s Seed.

So does the Modern University inculcate new and brilliant ideas, select acceptable and mature individuals to govern and work important jobs while also inculcating a future generation of leaders with the timeless folkways that have lead a nation to greatness?
Ok, ok…I’ll pass the spliff left before I boot and disgrace myself. Clown question bro. I wouldn’t put that idiotic student yelling at the Yale professor in charge of in charge of organizing a circle-jerk if you proved to me she could comprehend Euclidean Geometry. The journalism and communications professor at Missouri who demanded some muscle to help her censor the press is not what I’d describe as a high-pass filter. Folkways? That’s a bit like asking Coach Jim Mora whether or not his team should go to the playoffs.
The Modern American University has truly established its very own benchmark of intense, ineluctable hyper-suck. It needs to be replaced, but how?

Corporations and government can most easily acquire their talent without the university system. Many of the tech leaders in Silicon Valley are already hiring without demanding college degrees. They often screen potential employees with “vocational aptitude tests” that I could of sworn were ruled illegal in the landmark Grigg v. Duke Power court decision. The US Department of Defense operates several teaching facilities for both military and civilian employees. They were legally required under the DAWIA to incorporate the Defense Acquisition University. Those that the largest corporations and government cannot train could seek out apprenticeships and a meaningful existence working in the skilled trades. A revived guild system of sorts would do wonders for our nation’s currently stagnant economy.

Folkways can be inculcated now by any number of organizations that cater to individuals whose families choose to enroll them. Boy Scout Troops, Bible Study Classes and Little League sports teams can all provide fill for the vacuum that exists in our educational system. If parents are proactive, they can send their offspring out into the world at age 18 with a strong grounding and appreciation for an organic culture. The challenge then becomes having that positive acculturation survive the idiocy spew they encounter on the modern campus.

As for the ideation: There the University may well be irreplaceable and irrevocably lost. Legitimate scholarship has been replaced by scientific fads, and ideological sell-outs like the Missouri Journalism Teacher that recently demanded censorship. War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength and at many of our best universities, PC-Sanctioned Idiocy is now Intelligence. SETI would not register a positive if it accidentally aimed its telescopic ear at Yale University.

Maybe the ultimate substitute for all that the university is now failing to even attempt to provide is something we each have to do at the individual level. Just figure out who we are by examining our own lives and working towards doing what has always traditionally worked. Or perhaps Lynyrd Skynyrd put it better than a room full of stuffed-shirt Nobel Laureates.

Changing Governments While Nothing Changes

via BUGS

Two points:

1) when I need correction, I come here.  As I have said many times it is much better to make mistakes here than out in the field.

2) The last thing I want to do is appear to use obscure information to make me look good, as so many AMPWs love to do.

When I talked about the importance of the coalition that got Hitler into power in the 1932 election, I went right into it as if you were familar with coalition-building.

As I remember from my political science days, The United States is the only country on earth in which the legislative and executive branches are elected separately.

In every other country, the “government” is elected by a majority of the legislative branch.

France was famous in the 50s, until DeGaulle took over, for short-lived governments. I remember one, Henri Queuille, that lasted two days though he held office another eight days as a caretaker while a new coalition was cobbled together.

They could elect a Premier and other officials, then they would fall out with each other or one or more parties would drop out of the coalition and the government would resign, and/or lose a vote of confidence.

This year Britain went back to “one party government” when the Conservative Party won a tiny majority.

If you paid any attention to British politics, which is as boring and pointless as ours, a coalition of two or more parties formed one of their recent governments.

I can almost hear BUGSERS saying, “Well whoopteedo!   We are supposed to be bored to death here by breathless announcements of which cuckservative gets ten more votes, and you expect us to keep up with British Liberal Democrats who make even less difference?”

True, nearly all other countries do use the Parliamentary system.
For nothing.

You already have an electoral system that means nothing.

Why should you keep up with another one?

Side Note:
A quote from the beginning of Stephen King’s  “Kingdom Hospiral:”
“A hundred and fifty years ago in Maine, women and children worked sixteen hour shifts every day to make blue uniforms.
The blue uniforms were for men who were fighting to abolish “The Peculiar Institution.”
“The Peculiar Institution was slavery”
Only Stephen King could get away with that!

Which Way, Western Civilization

via Gornahoor

Representative of the the wrong direction?
We believe France has not benefited fully from the energy, drive, and ideas of its minorities.
We will track intangible measures of success — a growing sense of belonging, for example, among young French minorities, and a burgeoning hope that they, too, can represent their country at home, and abroad, even one day at the pinnacle of French public life, as president of the Republic.
19 January 2010 Cable from Ambassador Charles H. Rivkin to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton

The Basis of Western Civilization

Armin Mohler takes as the basis of the vision of the world the opposition existing between two general conceptions, which he calls linear and cyclic. According to the former, history is development, novelty, evolution and tends to a final end that justifies it; this is the conception characteristic of the various progressive currents, but Christianity as well insofar as it gravitates toward an “end of times”. The latter conception is based instead of the idea of the “eternal return”, of the repetition of the same forms; that would be the basal view of the “conservative revolution”. In our opinion, the contraposition in these terms is not well formulated. If anything, we should speak of historicism and antihistoricism, of “civilizations of being” and of “civilizations of becoming”. It is not a question of expecting the return of the same forms, but rather of believing that fundamental values never change, of recognizing a normative order containing a priori and ab initio all the principles, without with a civilization and a normal society are inconceivable. ~ Julius Evola, Rassegna Italiana, Rome, June 1952
There has been a lot of loose talk among the paid intelligentsia this week about the need to “save” Western civilization. The claim is that it is under threat from a group known as ISIL. Now the hundreds of casualties in Paris last Friday is a horrific crime, but hardly an “existential” threat to France as some have claimed. There is no danger of regime change in France or the breakdown of her political and economic structures. ISIL has no navy, no air force, and perhaps 30 thousand soldiers. Chicago, USA, has more gang members that than, and more murders this year than Paris will have.

Even the New York times predicts that the impact on Parisian life and economy will be temporary and of short duration. So, if there is in fact an existential threat, the danger is within. Perhaps there is a sense of unease because that menace still lies below conscious awareness.

In any case, this is the time for reflection on exactly what is this Western civilization that is worth preserving? What exactly are those enduring values, the normative order, and the a priori principles? This is more than a way of life, the smell of fresh bread from the bakeries, a croissant in the morning, a glass of wine for dinner, and so on. It is more than museums, art, and all the other artifacts of modern life. None of this has been addressed. Most importantly, does Western civilization depend on the Westerners who created it, or is it more like an empty shell that can be inhabited by anyone without changing its essential nature?

Phases of Western Civilization

We can look at the phases of Western civilization and perhaps find some answers there.

Primordial State

According to Roman tradition, the Golden Age of Saturn was a primeval era of purity and simplicity—virtues that made Rome great. Saturn, originally an Italian god of agriculture, was deposed by his son Jupiter, king of the gods. Thereupon, Saturn fled to Latium, where he became its king, establishing a society that lacked weapons, money, walled cities, and all similar corrupting influences. During this era the fruits of the soil were gained without toil. ~ Alfred J. Andrea, The Human Record
The Romans had their own Garden of Eden story. The dream of this primordial state enthralls many today, especially those who fancy themselves the best and the brightest. Who do you recognize proclaiming the following values?
  • No weapons: No guns, no war
  • No money: everyone will share in the goods of the community
  • No walled cities: Open borders and free migrations
  • Fruits without toil: free medical care, free college tuition, free food, free cell phones

Roman Ecumene and Ancient Athens

Unfortunately, Jupiter prevailed over Saturn. Rome was founded by Trojan descendants who maintained Greek civilization. The Roman Ecumene was based around the Mediterranean, including North Africa and parts of the Near East, so it wasn’t quite European. It excelled at administration, military affairs, and engineering. When it decayed from within, the Northern barbarians occupied the shell. However, they could not administer the far flung empire, nor could they maintain the carefully engineered roads and aqueducts.


Christendom replaced the Roman Ecumene. As learning and order were slowly restored, the Holy Roman Empire became the model for Western civilization proper. The African and Asian parts were lost, and it began to extend throughout Europe. In many ways, it was the interiorization of its pagan predecessor. It made public the idea of the one God, which previously had been known only to Sages or those in various mystery religions.


What people mean today by “Western civilization” is actually the Enlightenment civilization with more or fewer features from the pagan and Christian past. However, this is not “Western” at all, since it claims to be universal. Rather, it is a global culture that took root first in the West. It has ideas of universal human rights, supported on empirical science rather than revelation, as in Christendom, or thinking, as in the pagan times. Conflicts arise due to the archaic remnants of the past still remaining. However, once you accept enlightenment principles, the a priori and ab initio principles give way.

The Future of Intelligence

Each era has its ideal of the intelligent man. The Philosopher was the model of the educated man for the ancient pagans, and the Theologian, for the Medievals. Of course, it is the Scientist who is supreme in the Enlightenment culture. The Philosopher, the Theologian, and the Scientist are always in battles for the intellectual high ground.

The fight is hardly fair. As this diagram shows, the hard sciences and mathematics are attracting the most intelligent students. Theologians, or “religious studies”, studies are not even close. Philosophy is hardly relevant anymore. As such, it is mostly verbal jousting with little relevance to life. It has been supplanted with Sophistry, i.e., those paid to promote certain opinions, and Ideology, or various “studies” that have little relation to actuality, but rather to dreams of a return to the rule of Saturn or, more often, Matriarchal and Lunar cultures.

Since the promoters of sophistry and ideology are typically major poli sci, journalism, and the like, this is seldom noticed. They are not at the highest ends of the intelligence grid. It is not necessary to mention the education majors.

To get back to the point, in debates between science and religion, the latter is at a severe disadvantage since it lacks the most intelligent spokesmen. Often, the religious adherents are simply embarrassing, intellectually.

So the Enlightenment culture is actually an anti-culture, since it involves the overturning of the values, principles, and order of Western civilization, properly called. This deserves to be overthrown, but not by violence. Rather, a new generation will create it, a special type who can master Philosophy, Theology, and Science. These will be the Artists of a new civilization.

Embassy Paris: Minority Engagement Strategy

The basis of Enlightenment civ is shown clearly in this rather interesting cable from Wikileaks: Minority Engagement Strategy, which I encourage you to read.
Keep in mind that prior cultures in Europe recognized different kinds of people, and accepted cultural diversity as the norm. Joseph de Maistre wrote this about the French Constitution:
The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man.  Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man.  In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian.  But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life.  If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.
….This constitution is capable of being applied to all human communities from China to Geneva.  But a constitution which is made for all nations is made for none: it is a pure abstraction, a school exercise whose purpose is to exercise the mind in accordance with a hypothetical ideal, and which ought to be addressed to Man, in the imaginary places which he inhabits….
Nevertheless, both the USA and France believe they know what is best for “man” from China to Geneva, although they have opposed views on how to implement it. The French believe in equality and secularization. Hence, they make it a point not to consider a citizen’s race, ethnicity, or religion. Hence, they don’t keep any statistical breakdowns based on those criteria. Any disparity in outcomes is due to the man, not his ethnicity or religiosity.

The USA, on the other hand, counts everything. From income levels, educational attainment, crime and prison population, etc., it keeps the numbers. If the outcomes don’t match the population percentages, that becomes a problem to be solved.

Apparently, judging from the ambassador’s cable, France’s disparate outcomes are likewise problems that the USA feels compelled to solve. Hence, it interferes in France’s internal affairs, seeking to further the advancement of the Muslim and other minority populations. The State Department does that through NGOs that it funds. There are four: two for the main USA political parties, one for business interests, and another for labor. These are allegedly independent; they are staffed by many children and friends of political figures.

The cable shows that the USA is counting France’s minority participation in public life. The cable explains many of statements made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton, which otherwise may seem inscrutable. For example, the following statement may explain Obama’s “I told you so” attitude about recent events:
We believe that if France, over the long run, does not successfully increase opportunity and provide genuine political representation for its minority populations, France could become a weaker, more divided country, perhaps more crisis-prone and inward-looking, and consequently a less capable ally.
Surprisingly, or not, the USA considers a Muslim president of France to be a desirable outcome. This is why Obama and Clinton are so careful about how they phrase their statements about Islam. For them, Islam is not the enemy, but actually the end game for France.

ISIL should have had more patience since they have a potential ally in an unexpected place. Instead, they risk being annihilated by Russia.

Half of Britons Now Oppose Accepting Syrian "Refugees" after Paris Atrocities

via BNP News

A new poll indicates support for the arrival of Syrian refugees in the UK has collapsed after the Paris atrocites, with 49 percent of respondents saying the UK should take fewer or no refugees at all.

The YouGov poll also found the ratio of respondents who believe the UK should accept more refugees had decreased from 36 to just 20 percent since the last poll taken only two months ago.

It also revealed that 79 percent of respondents are concerned that ISIS launch a terror attack in Britain.

The conclusion from the poll show support for refugees that materialised during the summer as images and reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean hit the press has dwindled following the recent attacks.

David Cameron pledged to accept some 20,000 Syrian refugees within the next five years, with the first 100 arriving in Glasgow on Tuesday.

With an estimated 30,000 deaths for the over 65s this coming Winter and 1.6 million children in Britain living in severe poverty we wonder how many of these so-called refugees will have to choose whether to heat or eat in the coming months.

The Heretics' Hour: Dr. Kevin MacDonald's Problem with Holocaust Revisionism

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

[Carolyn takes Dr. MacDonald to task regarding his] statements about “Holocaust” revisionism made on Nordfront Radio this month under the spotlight, and contrasts his arguments with those of “convicted holocaust denier” and German heroine Ursula Haverbeck. Carolyn calls for more open discussion of why so many White nationalists are afraid not to believe in the “Holocaust” and why that is not an honest position. 1h23m

  • Need donations for Himmler speech translation - $2 minimum to receive a copy;
  • The terror in France will bring down Merkel's government;
  • Dissection of 5 min. clip of KMac on the holocaust on Nordfront radio;
  • Ursula Haverbeck: How German judges do the work of the Jewish accusers and the state of Israel;
  • Why being neutral about the “holocaust” is not an option.

The Magical Bottomless Labor Pool

via Counter-Currents

A few months back, publisher Chip Smith asked me to write a new intro for the upcoming second edition of my 2011 novel NVSQVAM. To write the essay I had to rethink my protagonist, Lester Reichartsen, whose youth and dreams came to a screeching halt when his girlfriend slyly quit taking her birth control pills.

Reviewers’ response to Lester’s depressive and unenthusiastic assumption of the role of family man surprised me. Many a columnist—both liberal and conservative, those who loved the book and those who hated it—declared him a disgusting human being.

Pushing aside the fact that the phrase “disgusting human being” may be redundant, I was forced to confront the contrast between reader responses and my own underlying assumption: that Lester is no more horrible than anyone else.

I’ll give you the tl;dr version of my soul-searching: I came to reflect that most of the choices that we, as civilizations, settle on together and begin to call “good” are really only the least horrible thing we could have done—at best, anyway; often we choose the worst—and that we should avoid gloating over adopting them accordingly. To forget that we have chosen the lesser of two evils is to give the devil’s tether too much slack.

Let me explain.

Lester resents his wife and child, which is clearly not a great thing to do, for anyone involved. This is true. But the underlying trouble is the result of a compromise the West has made with that Nazi bitch, biology: we’ve come to the conclusion that decisions about childbirth should ultimately fall to the female.

Pregnancy and abortion are both, after all, about the most intrusive things short of death and plastic surgery that can happen to a human body (even rape only lasts so long, if you have any luck). There is something so viscerally awful about creation that the only civilized solution to the puzzle seems to be to let the adult whose viscera are involved decide. And then let’s quit thinking about our innards, shall we?

And we slap the dust off our hands. Justice achieved! Like most decisions, once we’ve made it, we like to think of it as good and right, unequivocally and through and through . . . and thus we begin to overdo it.

It’s too easy to forget that childbirth and rearing are, although more invasive to a female life and body, are still invasive to a male one.

If the child is aborted, the father’s DNA is still being tossed in a dumpster, though the forceps never had to pass between his legs. If the child is born against his will, then either sentiment—as in Lester’s case—or the law—in the case of child support—will cause intrusion upon his resources, his life, his years. 

Most readers of NVSQUAM side with Lester’s wife Evelyn, apparently forgetting (as it’s so often forgotten in real life) how she abused, even gloated over, the fact that the least bad solution to the problem put nearly all the cards in her hand. To my mind, in the past few decades, we’ve put far more cards than are necessary or just in the mother’s hands. We have forgotten, in other words, that the least bad solution is not actually good. And planting a flag of “good” upon the lesser evil, conceptually convenient though it may be, opens the door to abuse.

Parenthood has now been rigged: instead of consciously deferring to the extra burden biology has placed upon women, we reflexively kick men in the teeth out of habit. We’ve forgotten why we’re doing it; this is simply justice as we’ve come to accept it.

We make such moral shifts quite often; it’s not just parenthood that we’ve rigged in favor of a forgotten compromise.

Sometimes we rig both sides of the same compromise.

Take capitalism and socialism. They seem to be the binary system we’ve worked out for modern economies, the yang and the yin as it were. We can’t seem to get a third choice properly conceived, much less put it in motion.

So we make our choice. Some people, despite the rivers of red blood shed by Stalin and Mao, have decided that socialism is the way to go. Others, like Churchill, have decided that a free market—despite the way sheer chance, one’s geographical, genetic, and economic starting lines, limits most people’s options like an e-collar—is the lesser of two demons. Most people on both sides choose based on their relative dismay in the face of the opposing system’s glaring flaws; worship of their own candidate’s virtues is at first an afterthought, then an obsession.

As they confirm and then cackle over the cleverness of their choice with their teammates, they forget that both options are flawed, and finally learn to gloat over the pure virtue of their favorite bitch-goddess, demanding that society indulge her every extreme.

The political class contains members of both teams who find it professionally advantageous to foam at the mouth—and, unfortunately, they’re all getting their way at once. Contentious issues become clubs for them to swing at each other, but mysteriously they always miss and hit everyone else instead.

Take immigration, the eternal elephant in the room. Beginning with Paris, it’s an elephant that’s begun stampeding around the room; still, polite people don’t discuss it. You want to talk to me about intersectionality? Here’s another “lesser of two evils” problem for you: which do we care more about, the suffering of third world peoples or the fate of the poor who are already among us? I tend toward the impecunious myself (which is by and large the result of my own choices, but as people usually must do, I was choosing the lesser of two evils). So I don’t have as much trouble with this one as my friends the progressives. Pain, as Daffy Duck used to say, hurts me. (And bullets even hurt champagne socialists.)

Libertarians complain that the Left is using immigration to rig democracy. As anarcho-capitalists like Stefan Molyneux are wont to repeat to no avail, the Democrats don’t want to bring half of Mexico here out of the goodness of their hearts—they like having them here because they vote Democrat. (Apparently an impressive percentage of illegal immigrants successfully manage to vote in elections; gee, I wonder why the Republicans are so mysteriously avid to check IDs at the polls? They might make themselves sound less crazy if they came out and said it.) Instead of winning the argument, they stack the deck so that what’s left of democracy can be used to aid socialism.

Excellent argument. But on the other hand, immigration is also being used to rig what’s left of capitalism.

This seems to be a bipartisan project, if not a Republican one: “Cuckservatives” might not so much be wusses as hypocrites who are acting in their own self-interest. Do you think for a minute that third-world immigration into the West, should it happen not to further the interests of those who’ve already got theirs, would not be stoppered?

Why has the purchasing power of low- and middle-income workers sagged over the past few decades?  The Left blame greedy rich kids—those other rich kids, mind you, not us; keep your eye on the Bush!—while the GOP blames laziness, and both sides blame high school teachers. Never mind the fact that the labor market is never allowed to stabilize.

If you’ve come to the conclusion that capitalism is not as bad as socialism, then—unless you are, say, a dick with rich parents whose ideology exists to justify his trust fund—you likely believe that the best-case scenario under capitalism is for the market to closely resemble a meritocracy.

For capitalism to approach a meritocracy, it needs to be a fairly closed system, in which the price of wages can find a livable equilibrium, and labor is scarce enough that workers have some sort of bargaining leverage. Otherwise, the idea of anyone ever working his way up becomes a parody. The old libertarian talking points about the “liberty” to trade one’s labor for wages only makes sense if both parties have eaten breakfast; a desperate worker cannot make deals that will be advantageous. I find it difficult to take the idea of “freely agreed-upon” labor arrangements seriously in a market that leaves even skilled, educated, conscientious workers continually living from hand to mouth.

If kids can’t even get a starter job to prove their employability, their entire working lives will be compromised—not to mention the attitude problem they’ll develop. Capitalism is not an ideal system, it is practical, and has yet to prove to be quite as violently conformist as the other major name on the ballot.

And it is only practical when artificially created labor surpluses are not constantly tilting the field in existing employers’ advantage. Now that abuse of H1-B visas has given foreign tech workers a leg up over their U.S. counterparts, even the most practical-looking diplomas—the life choices that looked the most sensible five or ten years ago—are an unsure bet.

It is no longer defensible for Leftists to look down their noses at native workers who are losing their jobs to immigration; it’s not because they’re bad workers and yahoos, it’s because of supply and demand—not to mention the fact that since a ridiculous proportion of immigrant households with working members are being given welfare, they can afford to bid lower than native labor. The rent will still get paid if Dad is making under minimum wage, and Jesus H. Christ—we have reduced gainful employment to pin money.

And if this sounds like egghead theory to you, look at the fucking numbers. Progressives will point you to a White House propaganda page telling you that immigrants create jobs with their demand for consumer goods—but household math tells you that at the wages they’re taking, most of their income is going to landlords and childcare providers. Fewer employees working at higher wages would have more disposable income to spread around the economy. In other words, immigrants take restaurant jobs and cook at home, as most restaurant workers must do. Restaurant work used to be the first rung on that dreamy old American ladder, but now the first rung is dangling somewhere up in “I can afford an unpaid internship” land.

Now that I think about it, it’s mostly the eft who seem to be stumping to rig capitalism against the up-and-comers. Right-wing assholes like Donald Trump are arguing for immigration sanity, even if he might make slightly less money off his kitchens next year. (I guess the presidency is more prestigious than an extra few billion.) Actually, so is Bernie Sanders, much to his credit, but he’s being eaten alive for it by the parlor pinks.

It’s the mainstream (they think they’re rebels, but let’s call a spade a fucking spade) Leftists who keep calling us yahoos for complaining about immigrant competition in the labor market. Now, isn’t that strange? The Left has left the care and feeding of the white working class entirely to capitalist assholes. It’s almost like they’re racist or something.

Possibly this is because the wealthy Leftist only likes capitalism when it’s firmly rigged in his favor (I’m using a male pronoun to annoy heshit). Charity is always more delicious when someone else feels the loss. Look at the way the American Left hounded the French for their racism. Now French attempts to assuage their ancestral guilt have literally blown up in their face. And we keep hounding Europe to take in more immigrants. Surely they can’t make it across the ocean?