Dec 16, 2015

Counter-Cultural Ruminations, Part 1

via Majority Rights

All revolutionary movements seek ownership of the future.  They are, therefore, interested in the young, who are the demographic which is easiest to enlist and the natural constituency to rebel against and, just possibly, overturn the world of their parents.  Serious revolutionary movements have invariably established youth wings, even movements.  But there is something killing in the prescriptive nature of the exercise.  Not even the völkische movement of 19th century Germany reached the lofty estate of an organically rooted, freely arising, creative culture.  In its contest with modernity it, too, stooped to prescription, forcing a romantic nationalist mask on the face of the German national character because, of course, romantic nationalism was all it knew.

Spontaneous (ie, authentic) counter-cultures are great rarities.  But in my late teens and early twenties I saw and experienced one of those ... a genuine attempt by a great number of genuinely intelligent young people all across the West and, to a degree, in the satellite states of the Soviet Bloc, to live true to themselves and free of the “system”.

Why genuine?  Because it wasn’t artificially generated.  Why a culture?  Because it wasn’t just a pre-adulthood right of passage, like every earlier or later youth rebellion and fashion.  Why “counter”?  Because its concern ... its sorge ... was for existence, for the life that is lived in an age when that life ceased to have human meaning and value for the rulers of America (and those of the white world beyond).  It was an attempt to make a revolution in that life in such a way that its human worth was reclaimed and re-stated in every living, breathing moment.  It had, if not a formal philosophical critique, then certainly a question and, in answer to that, a generalised opinion and a settled will.  It had a definite, positive vision, morally and sexually, aesthetically, spiritually.  It had, if not a plan of how to go about things, at least a confident expectation that it would, by its actions, change the world and do it in one generation.

That was the task my strange, wilfull, achingly sincere generation set itself.  And why not?  My father’s father had bound up men’s wounds in the slaughterhouse which was Gallipoli.  My father had piloted six boys and 13,000 lbs of explosive to the Ruhr, and to occupied France.  Although I was never a hippie in the strict meaning of the word – I only turned 17 at the end of the Summer of Love and, anyway, I could not conform to the lock-step unconformity and was much more interested in speed the road hazard than speed the amphetamine - still I wanted my life and the lives of my friends to be long and free and filled with the normal, beautiful things.  For all of us, I think, the terrible, wall-eyed mechanicity of a process which could lay claim to whole generations of young men not once or even twice, but quite possibly a third time in succession was simply too great an affront to the youthful, and wholly righteous, will to live.

“Fuck off! Fuck off my fucking stage!”

This is not to say that we were all dedicated anti-war activists or even political at all.  Marxist revolutionary politics would have been seen by the great majority as something quite separate from and superfluous to our lives and interests.  Why would we need the shallow, noisy, boorish, violent left?  Certainly in my case, any old school pal home from uni in the Woodstock summer of 1969, and unwise enough to solicit on behalf of the inevitable, newly acquired progressive worldview, would be met with a firm “Don’t bring that crap to me.”

Of course, at this time the New Left was already in full command of the humanities on both sides of the Atlantic.  In the States its campus proxy Students for a Democratic Society was leading the anti-war struggle.  That plus anti-Establishment politics (including anti-Americanism in France and, to some extent, in Britain) plus the losing war on capitalism were the big political plays.  But the Jewish virus of Critical Theory and its weapons of race politics, feminism, and “gay” rights were also making an awful lot of noise, and post-structuralism might just have begun influencing events also.  In Birmingham (West Midlands, not Alabama) the university’s Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies had been taken over by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams, and was morphing into the infamous Birmingham School, churning out graduates for employment in ideologically key posts.  But, as yet, few outside the radical left had any understanding that literary studies was nothing to do with literature.  Few had even heard of Antonio Gramsci, let alone read a (still rare) English translation of his Prison Notebooks; and so had little comprehension that this, too, was a revolution.

None of this, though, was sufficiently anti-political or systemically revolutionary to engage fully with, and give impetus to, the counter-culture.  There were, of course, no politics of being alive and free and having a good time, and not much philosophy either, unless you count screwing à la Ginsberg and tripping à la Leary as philosophy (and it was much more a case of these gentlemen attaching themselves to the culture than the culture attaching itself to them).

“I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace”

In any event, this thing was the only popular, bottom-up revolution I have ever seen (though not the only one I hope to see) ... and it failed abjectly.  Why?  Well, not because it lacked energy or numbers or even method – or some terrific background music.  It had those things in spades, and it had as much desire for freedom as could be bundled up and carried in a denim bag.  That intoxicating sense that the life we live was being invented afresh, right there in the moment, lent the air of a naïve experiment to it all and, overall, a wistful, pure fragile beauty (to go along with the self-indulgence and head lice).  But such a bold immersion in the new was just too singular and simplistic, while the needs of human beings are manifold and demand a compromise which youthful idealism abhors.

As we had pretty much discovered by 1973 or 1974, the revolutionary zeitgeist was no less a product of one particular age of youth than earlier examples of the breed, and that age was swiftly, inexorably passing into another (which would pass even more swiftly into another).  We were no longer “the young”, and we were not free.  We went into our futures not as the wise young gods we had once imagined, but simply as parents ... mortgagees ... voters ... consumers … economic units of production.  We had turned by degree after inevitable degree into what we had so firmly rejected.  The whole blessed movement ... its attitudes, its ideals, its hopes, its language, its music, its dress, its good times ... withdrew into the shadows of memory, to be occasionally looked back upon with a tender affection, even yearning, and not much regret save, perhaps, that the things of youth are so ephemeral.

A real star-map by which the young and free might navigate their way to a new world was simply not there.  We never actually escaped the gravity-field of “the system”.

“I’m hip about time, but I just gotta go.”

That’s how it goes with inchoate counter-cultures – even one as novel, widespread, and electric as that.  Its notion of freedom was at least workable in part, going as it did beyond the positive and negative social formulations of the liberal canon and into the freedom which resides in being.  But it had no model of the human subject that was consistent with that – or, indeed, different to the endemic model of the unfettered will striving to author itself.  It was just a case of “do your own thing, maaan”.  How could it be otherwise with Ginsberg and Leary and a sheet of acid for company?

Had the freedom dichotomy ever been crystal-clear and decided for “existenz”, then the liberal model would have been exposed for its absolute centrality to another, incurably socio-political way of being, which the counter-culture fundamentally opposed.  The liberal model might then have been seen for the fiction it is; and a clear understanding that fiction can never bear witness to the real might have been taken into the philosophy of the movement.

But there were other basic philosophical errors.  From the outset the counter-culture’s fashionable, indiscriminate universalism and its herbivorous, fetishistic veneration of peace as an elective condition of the New Transcendental Man (rather than of the satisfaction of the natural interests of peoples) also condemned it to historical irrelevance and redundancy.  Again, that which is not authentic … that which does not issue from and express our human truth … that which is not in our natural way of being will prove perishable and transient, and whatever comes from or after it will be unintended and, probably, a betrayal.

And, of course, it was.  Max Ehrmann’s advice to “Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth” may not have been entirely heeded.  The head-bands and tie-dies, beaded denim jackets, dashiki skirts, and so forth, were dropped like a hot brick (really no loss).  The faux-brotherhood, too, disappeared like dew in the desert sun.  The music, which was the best of it, took longer to shuffle off-stage.  But progressive rock, which British musicians created out of their own genius, and which was certainly intended to develop into something substantial and lasting, had begun to die of self-indulgence at least a year before the Viet Cong’s tanks crashed through the steel gates of the US Embassy compound in Saigon on 30th April 1975.

The movement produced little literature of its own.  It adopted elements of the Beat Generation.  Kerouac, pardon the pun, was beatified for dying at 47 in 1969.  Otherwise, Tolkien was a counter-culture favourite – perhaps unlikely, given his Eurocentrism.  He just about saw out the movement, dying in 1973.  Heinlein and Mitchener, who were also adopted, lived and wrote on.  Film-wise, in due course Woodstock, Easy Rider, and Two Lane Black-Top were registered by the United States National Film Preservation Board as “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.  But all three were written or directed by people born between 1924 and 1942.  Nobody was younger than 27 at the time of Woodstock.

And that was it, basically.  The underground never got overground.  Haight Ashbury was run-down, dangerous, and drug-infested by 1970.  Drop City dropped out of history a year or two later.  Psychedelic art was rapidly deserted for the strictures of minimalism.  The other alternative arts, the street theatre, the pretty girls singing folksy songs for a few dollars in pretty, folksy restaurants … it all wilted away to nothing like cut flowers on the earth.  What could endure when the lifestyle, its language and its sentimentalities, the squats and communes, the hitch-hiker rootlessness, were all passing things?  The culture had been countered by Time and its own inauthenticities.

By 1979 in Britain and 1980 in America, still looking in the wrong place for a freedom revolution, we were voting with Malcolm Bradbury’s Howard Kirk for Hayekian economics and the power of the corporation.  Joni Mitchell’s bare, dead parking lot had become our socio-economic future of choice.

“Make it three yards, motherfucker, and we’ll have an automobile race.”

So it is with some experience and some justice (and notwithstanding the rather small sample base of, erm, one) that I have to conclude that youth counter-cultures are overwhelmingly likely to prove ephemeral and incapable of effecting any historically stable and permanent change.

However, that sorry outcome is not inevitable.  It is not, for example, because of the “youth” element.  It is because they do not arise in a philosophically discriminating and ordered fashion – as one would expect, of course, for a spontaneous, non-prescribed event.  As creatures of such happenstance they have at their core a philosophical confusion that beckons to every passing, parasitic ideologue.  They do not know what good philosophical company is, so they do not keep it.  They are, then, highly unlikely to be built on truth and on ideas that can work.

The opposite of happenstance is design, and design begins with a design philosophy.  In part 2 of this essay I will explore the question of philosophical ideas which might actually work in our sorry age.

An Argument against Feminism

via Thulean Perspective

Varg Vikernes knows, now you can too!

The Birth of the Modern Tragedy

via Soul of the East

In an age of nihilism, the more reflective among us will pose a fundamental question: where did Western civilization veer off course? It’s easy to blame hippies from the 1960’s or, more correctly, the Enlightenment era of revolutions, but Europe’s fate was sealed far earlier than the Proclamation of the Rights of Man.

The West’s destiny was determined a long thousand years ago, in the run-up to and aftermath of the Great Schism of 1054. Without the guidance of the saints and without the true teachings, post-Schism Europe would experience a distortion of many of the Church’s understandings; translating them in ways which would serve as future fuel for counter-reactions[1] and/ or future deviations. A post-Schism Europe would eventually give way to the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and other ideologies and movements, including today’s European Union.

These very movements (and the Zeitgeist they carried) would give undeniable testimony that Europeans had found themselves deprived not only of living saints, but of the very understanding of what is Christianity, the Church, man and the reason for man’s existence. Indeed, such ideologies and movements were to warp the understanding of such things as they were to erase from memory Christian orthodoxy, the Church based on the Nicene Symbol of Faith, and of the Church’s hesychastic ethos.[2]

Not only the reality, but even the concept of ‘Christianity’ in this post-Schism Europe was eventually to be lost. Christianity was instead to be defined as Roman, Protestant, sectarian or Western. Yet Christianity was not about the Bishop of Rome, indulgences, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, etc. Europeans, unlike their pre-Schism forefathers, were now oblivious to the fact that ‘Christianity’ was only to be synonymous with the Holy Church (the Body of Christ).

In post-Schism Europe the use of the word ‘Christian,’ in reference to another body outside His Church, was eventually to become not only possibility, but a reality. In other words, Europeans were to find themselves no longer able to distinguish between a pre and post-Schism Christianity. No longer was the Church to be synonymous with Christianity or Christianity with the Church. Instead, though a series of events, Christianity in Europe would only come to signify a plurality of churches and of christianities. The orthodoxy of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was to lose its reality as Christianity was becoming relativized.

Hence, it must be emphasized here in this thesis that the word ‘Christian’ or ‘Christianity’ when in capitalized form denotes the holy pre-Schism Church and Faith; when it is not capitalized it marks heretical forms of Christianity and bodies which do not represent the Body of Christ, yet nevertheless, kept and/or misappropriated for themselves some or many of the Church’s tenets. This distinction is important in order to note that pre-Schism Europe, which had living saints, was something vastly different from the saintless Europe of today, as Christianity – the Church – had and has saints, but a post-Schism Christianity without the Church produced no saints.

The Saints of Britain and Ireland.
The Saints of Britain and Ireland

Pre-Schism Europe was pious in the true Faith. However, post-Schism Europe was to be ever-more oblivious to such piety and a life in Christ. Furthermore, the piety that was to be found would be something vastly different from that of pre-Schism Europe.

Yet, in time, modern Europe was to lay aside even this ‘Medieval’ form of piety, substituting in its place new forms of knowledge, reason and science – in short, new faiths.  This is understandable as post-Schism Europe (i.e. Medieval Europe) provided plenty of fuel by which the modern world would rebel against, such as “its exaggerated asceticism, its concealed rationalism, haughtily dreamy mysticism and the overall mundane character of Western theology.”[3] Modern Europe, or more precisely, post-Christian Europe[4] was to view such things as ‘irrational and anachronistic.’”[5] Again, this modern Europe was to not see that prior to her Middle-Ages, Europe had a different form of piety and understanding of the Faith; that in fact, Europe of this time had true piety and the true Faith. As a result, Europe had lands which saints walked among and which a distinct Spirit was welcomed in. This was to change however.

The Roman Catholic and the post-Reformation civilization were to determine (thereafter) the entire history of Western European civilization.[6] Indeed, such civilizations would be an impetus for the development of many other non-Church and anti-Christian ideas and philosophical teachings, which “greatly influenced all subsequent history of [Western] thought” (Osipov, 2010)[7] and which ultimately coalesced to form the post-modern, post-christian era which the European Union is now part of.  Without saints, without the Spirit of Truth, without the Church, without a life in Christ the latter was bound to happen.

For example, without a reason based on the Orthodox faith (of the saints), the post-Schism Reformation was to provide Europeans a faith based on reason. In other words, the Reformation was to deify ‘reason,’[8]  (exalting, absolutizing and autonomizing reason beyond prudency). Furthermore, other significant post-schism errors would include relativism,[9] humanism, “deism, pantheism, [and] materialism.”[10]  Prof. Alexei Osipov notes that: “the notion of a Personal, Living God had begun “to be replaced more and more by either an eternal Substance (the pantheism of Spinoza), or by a ‘Divine Clock-Master’ that is detached from the world (deism) or altogether by lifeless matter (Hobbs, Golbach, Moleshott).”[11] And with relativism, Christianity – as a the Template by which life is measured and as the Lens by which life is seen – was to be nullified as other templates and lenses were to co-equally place themselves in the minds and hearts of European man. And with humanism, man, and not God, was to be the center of the universe.

Accepted and legitimized by the western church(es), “rationalism, atheism, pantheism, and various [unorthodox] ideas and movements continued to spread”[12] reaching the point where in the 20th century Europe was to find itself riddled with atheistic, humanistic, pagan, secular and materialistic world-views; things testifying to a further alienation from the pre-Schism ethos mentioned earlier.

Hence, the European Union was to eventually have only shadows of ‘Christian’ values and norms as these former ‘Christian’ values and norms, had over the course of centuries been appropriated and supplanted by secular ‘mimics.’[13] No longer was Christ to be guiding European’s lives, but something else…some secular thing that included a post-Schism secular ‘Christianity.’

This brief portrayal of pre and post-Schism Europe is meant as a backdrop to the Europe that was to give rise to the phenomena of totalitarianism.  We hope to illustrate that in comparison to the pre-Schism Christian Europe, the post-Schism Europe was to eventually make its way to a modern and post-Christian era with a social/cultural matrix fostering the very roots of totalitarianism. Consequently, Europe would be prone to the most comprehensive, soul-crushing tyranny at the height of human ‘progress.’ What are these roots?  They are ignorance and arrogance:
Ignorance… toward the fact that Europe was once a Christian land that living saints helped establish and secure, that Europe was once orthodox in her Christian faith; that with the onset of the Great Schism, a new form of Christianity was to develop, which most Europeans were to mistake as orthodox, that as a result, strange new developments were to lead Europe unto dangerous paths; paths which the European Union inherited and perpetuates.

Arrogance… in the sense that Europeans would no longer care about seeking Christian orthodoxy, but instead develop ever-more sophisticated sophistries and   sciences believing that such developments are wise. The French Revolution comes to mind as does Napoleon, European imperialism, atomic weapons, etc.

This aforementioned ignorance and arrogance can be simply be reinterpreted in the question, “What is ‘man,’?” that is to say, how are we to value the human being, how are we to define him, what is the purpose of his existence, what social arrangements are suitable for humanity, what entails human freedom, etc.[14] This anthropological dimension is the key in determining whether man is, was or will be captive to a totalitarian context.

Previously, even in a post-Schism Europe, human freedom was connected with a Christian cosmology.  In our post-Christian times, however, this notion seems to have been lost.  It is this thesis’s contention that without the Church, without the saints, without the Holy One, without the hesychastic understanding of the Faith, Europe perhaps  is or will be ripe for another (and this time more sophisticated and more subtle) form of totalitarianism as the anthropological answer to the question of what is man would be connected less with God, and more with governance.[15]  No longer was man to be first and foremost among God’s creatures, but a wholly political creature; a creature of the state. Less and less was God to be relied upon, as mankind was creating for itself a dependence upon as well as submitting to systems of governance.

This anthropological dimension, of Europeans losing the knowledge of who they are and of creating for themselves their own identity, manifests itself in culture. If saints are not to be found, if the prime representatives and ideals of mankind – if images of Christ – no longer exist in Europe, then mankind will create a culture according to their own image.

Another way of looking at this is by looking at the ideas that man have about themselves. This concerns both the individual as well as the the society he/she inhabits. As ideas have consequences, as how we think determines how we act, then collectively, we will come to share ideas of right and wrong. However, without the saints to show us what are the true ideas of who we are and what are the true values we should aspire to, then European man and society is left with their own constantly evolving notions of right and wrong.

Tragically, in post-Schism Europe, Europeans by in large have inherited a moral redefinition of man that has obscured who he is and what values he should seek. This is a consequence of a post-Schism trajectory which came to produce saint-less lands and strange movements, isms, teachings and doctrines.[16] No longer was Europe to produce “uncanny people” – faithful of the pre-Schism fold, who were to see themselves truly as sojourners in foreign lands; awaiting for and aspiring to be in His Promise. Modern or better said, post-Christian Europe was to instead produce a people who had forgone the holy hesychastic tradition of the saints in lieu of  what Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, had warned against: of a ‘Secular Humanism’ that retained “Christian values without the Christian faith.”

The Saxons' valiant last stand: Hastings, 1066.
The Saxons’ valiant last stand: Hastings, 1066

In Politics and the English Language, Orwell further illustrated how the meanings of words are subverted to stand for ideas and concepts that are not true to their meaning. So not only were Christian terms and values to be misappropriated and misapplied by secular authorities, but the very terms and values would also come to represent something completely different (eg. ‘Salvation,’ the new fragrance by Calvin Kline).  Father Johannes L. Jacobse writes:
This co-opting of the Christian moral lexicon is one reason for the deep moral confusion in the culture. It creates a kind of moral schizophrenia in which people are unsure if right and wrong even exist. Repeat certain words over and over again, and people will tend to believe them. If these words have moral power, which is to say if they derive their authority from the moral tradition, people will tend to believe their new applications are the tradition. All it takes is wrestling common     terms from their traditional moral contexts and employing them in ones that justify     the dehumanization as progress. Good becomes evil, and evil becomes good. Society has reconstructed itself in a new moral order.[17]
The latter implies that if mankind no longer seeks freedom in Christ, than they will seek freedom in some surrogate; possibly even in a political system (consciously or unconsciously). And so the trap is laid – proclaiming his liberty, man enslaves himself, and building his earthly paradise, he finds the abyss.

[1] For example, the church in Rome at that time accepted an earthless sky, that is to say, that she viewed the physical nature of humanity as vile and to be combated against (as shown by its strange and extreme forms of ascetism).  Furthermore, the prevailing ethos at this time tolerated the earth as an inevitable evil.  However, our contemporary times, due to a long series of reactions (against these distorted interpretations), “mainly knows the earth;” that is to say, there is no Heaven as Heaven is on earth; and one’s paradise is only found therein.  In other words, in the West, God’s kingdom began to be viewed more as an earthly kingdom.
[2] Hesychia, hesychast, hesychastic: Silence, stillness. Stilling of the thoughts, but not emptiness, whereby the nous may descend into the heart through the Jesus prayer. It is the inner attentiveness in prayer which brings the remembrance of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit. According to St. Nikodimos the Athonite, the entire gospel and apostolic teachings, aim towards the purification of the interior man from the passions, and for preparation, so that the perfect Grace of the holy Baptism can again enlighten the whole man . With His divine Transfiguration, the Lord showed the way to true knowledge of God and the manner of contemplation of the uncreated Light of His Person. The way starts with the rejection of the low and earthly by the actual practice, continues with the elevation through the divine virtues to the purification of the spiritual senses, and concludes by means of deifying illumination. Finding himself in this divine state, man is enabled to contemplate the ineffable beauty of God.  The Holy Apostles worked exclusively in the world and in the midst of distractions, noise and danger, but deep inside they remained hesychasts and workers of nepsis and prayer . Their apostolic work was not a social reform program, but the rebirth of souls through Christ. The Apostolic Fathers, and afterward the entire subsequent Church lived in the same neptic environment.
[3]  Ibid. p. 33
[4]‘Post-Christian’ here signifies the triumph of secularism. – author’s interpretation.
[5]  Ibid. p. 33
[6]   (Which were to know no contemporary saints (of the ancient Orthodox fold) – author’s note
[7] Prof. Alexei Osipov of Moscow.
[8] Which one could already foresee he existence of in the Latin Church’s  scholasticism. In reacting against the Church’s teaching which testified that Christ was the Messiah of the Torah, sophistic scholarship was to make him not only a teacher, but a plagiarizer who cited a multitude of various sources, including Babylonian myths, from which He supposedly borrowed. Christ is likened, in other words, to a poor scholar who compiles his work by borrowing, not always successfully, from the works of various other people.- author’s note
[9] In reacting against the Church’s teaching which testified of Christ as the Way, the Light, the Life, and the Truth, relativism brewed over time eventually produced the toxic belief that Christ as only a teacher-philosopher in the category of Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Lao-Tse and others.  – Professor Oesepov
[10] Ibid. – emphasis mine
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, had warned that ‘Secular Humanism’ ´´hoped to retain Christian values without the Christian faith.“
[14] The Anthropological Dimension of the Culture War….What is Man?
[15] Solzhenitsyn, again stressing the anthropological dimension, himself acknowledged this point in the Harvard address:  Yet in the early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.
[16] Examples: Renaissance, Enlightenment, Positivism, Romanticism, Scientism, Atheism, etc.
[17] Orthodox Leadership in a Brave New World
Thus, “marriage” can be dissolved at will and can be undertaken by homosexuals; “God” becomes an emanation from the self, and “Scripture” is understood as recording man’s religious aspirations; and “true patriots” condemn their own country as a force for evil in the world. Traditional beliefs and institutions do not have to be annihilated; it is sufficient to drain them of their ancient meanings and fill them with others—particularly if they are reduced to the realm of the subjective and therefore private, of “values” that cannot be “imposed” on others.

The War on Christmas


How the Jewish extremists are waging war on the Western cultural and religious tradition of Christmas. It shows how Christian Christian symbols are banned on public ground, while Jewish religious symbols are placed even in front of the White House. It compares the love and peace of the Christmas celebration to Hanukkah, which is symbolized by the Menorah. Hanukkah is a celebration of a military victory and massacre against the Greek Syrians whose only crime was to be tolerant to the Jews of Jerusalem and accept them freely. Jewish leaders could not accept this because it posed a danger of assimilation! So in the United States, a nation where are told that assimilation is the American ideal we have thousands of symbols put up on public land promoting Jewish supremacist ideology! It's wacky that this goes on but one thing is for sure, it sure does show who run things in the United States. Sadly, it must be said that the same thing is also going on in almost every European nation as well!

Russell Moore: Cuck Assaulting the Sufficiency of Scripture

via Faith & Heritage

One of the top tenets of Protestant churches is the sufficiency of Scripture.  That is, only the Bible is binding, properly interpreted, not authorities in the church.  Protestants used to fear Catholic immigration because it was thought that the authority structure of that church would undermine American democracy.

Cuck-Christian Russell Moore, however, is lately going way beyond any Pope in seeking to bind the consciences of Christians with his constant attacks on Donald Trump, including this latest denouncing the Donald’s very reasonable, and completely legal, proposal to cut off Muslim immigration.  Writing for the likes of the anti-Christ New York Times and Washington Post, Moore is shilling for the globalists while being underwritten by the tithes of Southern Baptists, and when that paycheck’s not enough, the likes of George Soros.  Moore is also leading the charge for the eventual acceptance of sodomy by the Southern Baptist Convention.  Trump, whom Moore loves to hate, is the only public person I’ve heard use the word “sodomize” over and over again in public speeches – in describing an attack by an illegal alien on an American woman.  Trump, whose true religious convictions are at best unknown, has more biblical courage than all of Mohler and Moore’s cuck-cult combined.

Moore is a sick puppy, to use a Trumpism.  Any Southern Baptist ought to be demanding that his church cease any donations to SBC programs until Moore is fired.  Someone should start a petition demanding Moore’s ouster.

The SBC, and other evangelical churches, are dying because they alienate men, who are the natural spiritual leaders of families.  We Calvinists sometimes speculate on the “natives in deepest Africa” and what sort of extraordinary means of salvation God may offer, in His mercy, to those in such a situation who have never heard the gospel.  The church today, with its cucking on race, feminism, and immigration, demands that the saving grace of Christ comes attached at the hip with a sick suicide cult of namby-pamby feminized “leaders” like Moore and Mohler.  Does this even qualify as a gospel, when any sane person must reject the suicidal package offered by the modern church?  Dabney said as much when examining the sick displays of Finneyism – his point being that any reasonable person would reject such a ridiculous practice of religion out of hand, meaning the very best people would be alienated from Christianity.

We can only hope that there is some measure of extraordinary grace at work today, for the reasonable unbeliever, the disproportionately non-religious conservative white who supports Trump, cannot but look at the church and gag.  I have come to the conclusion that just as the political establishment must be destroyed by an outsider like Trump, so must the Christian religious establishment.  We await the charismatic and forceful advocate of traditional Christianity who will drive the cucks out of the pulpits.

Got Metapolitics?

via Radix

So there was no Grand Soir finale. By joining their forces in the two regions that the Front National was about to win, the phony Left and Right ensured that FN got none. The "Fascist Menace" was defeated; Democracy was saved! Everybody can now tune out and get ready for Christmas foie gras, undisturbed by the recent terrorist attacks in Paris.

Ahead in six of the twelve mainland regions after the first round, FN lost everywhere after the second.

Pink: Socialist Party and its allies; blue: "Les Républicains," Nicolas Sarkozy's party, and its allies.

The same scenario happened last March for the departmental elections (on the difference between the départements and the régions, read this). FN was leading the first round with 43 départements out of 96 in its favor, and finally got none, even in Marion Maréchal Le Pen's Vaucluse where she lost by a whisker.

The One-Party State

Last week, I warned about a possible "Houellebecquian Moment," in reference to Michel Houellebecq's last novel, Submission, in which all parties vote the Muslim Brotherhood into power to avoid Marine Le Pen's victory at the 2022 presidential election.

But why take a fictional scenario in the future when you just have to look at what's actually happening in Europe right now?

To prevent the "Swedish Democrats" party from threatening the government's stability, the mainstream Left and Right formed an alliance by which they ensured that Swedish Democrats will not be allowed to disrupt the majority, whatever the election result might be.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel has been in office for more than 10 years now. At first leading a Left-Right coalition, she's now freewheeling, with few complaining about the absence of alternative.

The situation we're in now is that of the One-Party State. Even when there is a party outside the mainstream, it is, despite itself, the unifying force of the regime, with the "menace" it represents forcing the other parties to gather and form a permanent, immutable ruling class.

What this means for Donald Trump

It's important to look at different countries at the same time, because there's a discernible pattern in all these situations.

In February, the Republican primaries will begin, with a growing gap between the popular support for Donald Trump and the rejection of his candidacy by the Republican establishment.

Trump's adversaries seem to think that they can tame The Donald and, one way or another, finally defeat him before July, if necessary by having only one last candidate running against the 69-year-old, golden-haired Bruce Wayne.

But what if he gets the nomination anyway? Well, it's hard to imagine that Jeb, Rubio, Rand et al. will kindly step aside, swallow their pride and all make common cause with Trump to avoid a third Democratic victory in a row. Actually, it's much easier to think that they will do all they can to sabotage Trump's campaign, even if it means supporting Hillary.

If he doesn't get the nomination and decides to go full independent, it is unlikely that he will manage to defeat two adversaries at the same time, despite his Roman centurion allure.

As entertaining as Trump's campaign has been so far from my side of the pond, I find it unlikely that the establishment will let something as unexpected as that to happen, especially in light of Trump's recent statements, which Marine Le Pen herself found excessive.

Do elections matter that much anyway?

Yesterday, in a Facebook statement, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen declared that there was no plafond de verre (glass ceiling) and that next time, FN will get the 50 percent + 1 that is necessary.
It's not as if FN was exactly a new party. It was founded in 1972 by Marion's grandfather, only one year after the modern Socialist Party, and exactly 30 years before Jacques Chirac's UMP, which was renamed this year by the man who hijacked it, Sarkozy.

In modern democracy's history, there is, to my knowledge, no case of a party that finally managed to take over after half a century of repeated failure. It's like with a girl: if it doesn't happen reasonably fast, it never will.

Sorry Marion, but there actually is a Glass Ceiling, and it is descending everyday as a result of demographic and cultural change. The more time flies away, the less likely it is that FN will finally step into office, even with a better turnout rate (it was almost 60 percent for this second round, a little less than ten points up from the first round... and still, it was not even close).

The question is: does it really matter?

Last September, I sent Counter Currents' editor Greg Johnson a 1888 Le Figaro column by French writer Octave Mirbeau. Ann Sterzinger translated it, and it is now available for English-speaking readers (for some reason, Greg didn't credit me; I have an idea why, but it's fine, as long as good ideas spread).

The key passage, in my opinion, is this one:
Above all, remember that the fellow who seeks your vote is, by that fact alone, a dishonest man. Because in exchange for the job and the fortune you push him up toward, he promises you a heap of marvelous things that he will never give you, and which aren’t in his power to give you anyway.
The visionary importance of this 127-year-old statement shouldn't be underestimated.
There is, in most right-wing movements, a naive belief — to be charitable — in representative democracy. As I noted two years ago when criticizing Marine Le Pen's mainstreaming, I asked:
One can wonder what the next step in this normalization process is before Front National can not only have a candidate in the second round, like Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, but in the presidential palace, and whether the party will still be remotely national when it happens (if it does).
That, of course, is if one believes that actual power lies in public office. Ironically, right-wingers seem to be the last democrats. Only on the Right can one still find this naive belief that the President, or Prime Minister, has a kind of control panel in his office where from everything bad in the country can be solved with a simple tap of the finger.

Where are the Gramscians?

Since the beginnings of representative democracy, the parties and politicians that stood on the Right won many times, and in some cases managed to retain power for decades.

But in retrospect, this was largely an illusion. In 1789, the Right, in the French Revolutionary Constituent Assembly, consisted of men who wanted to uphold absolute monarchy. In 2015, right-wing politicians and parties simply argue that they would do a better job than the Left at maintaining what yesterday's Left established.

On the other hand, radical left-wing movements like the Trotskyites and the Maoists never won a single election. But their influence on culture, and as a consequence on politics, has been absolutely tremendous.

Most ideas that are considered self-evident now, including by people who see themselves as die-hard right-wingers, were fringe positions at first, but those who pushed them forward managed to capture the minds and hearts of philosophers, novelists, filmmakers, singers, journalists, advertisement creative directors, until everybody, including right-wing politicians, thought they were as natural as breathing air and drinking fresh water to live.

In the New Right in continental Europe and the Alternative Right in the Anglosphere, there has been much talk on "right-wing Gramscism," i.e. the need to first wage the metapolitical battle before winning the political war. But these praiseworthy intentions have been muted everytime there was an election around. (And with the perpetual campaign that is modern democracy, that meant most of the time.)

I often compare this cognitive dissonance to the situation of a desperate guy who claims that "he doesn't care about this girl" but rushes to his phone whenever she sends him a lame SMS (did I hit too close to home?). Laudable statements such as "We're not going to vote ourselves out of our current predicament" don't hold long before a call to "get down in the arena" is made.

Meanwhile, the radical Left keeps pushing its pawns on the checkboard, regardless of the elections' results. The radical Left cares about elections of course, as we should (firstly because it gives more audience to alternative ideas, as Trump's campaign indicates), but it doesn't let elections define its agenda.

So it seems that with FN's latest defeat, and Trump's likely coming one, it is time to be serious about metapolitics and "Gramscism." That is, really serious.

Getting the "Culture War" right

Does it mean that we should stop being interested in politics at once and pick up a guitar and a mic to start "nationalist" rock bands? Should we write "traditionalist" novels? Should we sing along the "right-wing" equivalent of "We are the world?"
Well, not quite. Everyone has to do what he's good at, and stick to it. I'm a journalist and a political analyst, and if I tried to write a novel, there would be embarrassing passages like "While sipping his mocha latte, he was contemplating postmodern decadence."

When I think of how Alex Kurtagic's work inspired me, what comes to mind is more his "Masters of the Universe" speech at the NPI 2011 conference than his novel, Mister.

There is actually a misconception in right-wing circles about how culture influences politics. Art and culture are efficient in changing politics when they are pursued for their own sake, and not when they're political propaganda reframed in an artistic, or more often pseudo-artistic form.

That was the problem pointed in some comments to a Radix piece praising a French all-female band of questionable artistic quality, Les Brigandes.

In a long comment, one of our readers noted:
Some of this is fun, but it's not art. It's counter-propaganda. It's Alt-Right acting like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore.
Les Brigandes are okay, but their songs are formulaic.
Btw, we need to remind ourselves that the Libs won the 'culture war' not because they were BLATANTLY political. Most people tune out obviously political stuff.
Notice that nearly everyone in communist nations got tired of commie propaganda and were really listening to Western pop and watching Hollywood movies. It's like even Christians prefer entertainment to church stuff. And in Nazi Germany, most Germans could take only so much of propaganda. Propaganda can be effective but once in a while, not 24/7. Too much makes one bored and even allergic to that stuff. Propaganda gets dull fast.
The reason why Libs were effective in culture was not because they were blatantly PC and propagandist but because they won over the hearts and minds of the most talented writers, film-makers, musicians, etc. Therefore, the fans of such artists came to associate talent with 'leftism'.
It was by INDIRECT MEANS that so many young people came to lean toward the 'Left'.
For an intellectual and political movement, the task is neither to get obssessed about elections, nor to create so-called "culture" that anyone outside the movement will instantly reject as propaganda.

It is, rather, to develop an inspiring, positive and forward-looking worldview that will, with time, attract thinkers, artists, scientists, journalists and eventually politicians on our side.

It is this worldview, not electoral cheerleading or half-baked songs, that will bring talent and creativity aboard.

Vote if you feel the need to, write poetry if you're so inclined, but by all means, have a vision that addresses the six basic questions I asked at NPI's last conference:
  • Who are we?
  • What do we want?
  • Why?
  • Where are we headed?
  • How are we going to attain our goals?
  • And when will we be able to attain them?
If you do that, intelligent and creative people will eventually notice, and take interest. They'll sing your songs and write your novels for you.

Nazi Barbie Is Sooo Fierce!: Camille Paglia vs. Taylor Swift

via Counter-Currents

Every time you turn around, someone’s hanging another Hakenkreuz on our Tay Tay. Latest and most famous culprit is Camille Paglia, that shooting star of the 1990s critical firmament. On Thursday this acerbic counter-feminist had a piece in the Hollywood Reporter in which she denounced Taylor Swift as a “Nazi Barbie” for swanning around with equally gorgeous female celebs. Almost immediately the story was picked up by The New Republic and New York magazine, as well as the NY Post, the Daily Mail, US magazine, and lord knows where else.

Right now the story has started its second lap, with The Daily Beast critiquing the public response to Paglia.

Now, wherefore this belief-beggaring ferocity, right before Taylor’s big birthday weekend? Paglia sort of explains it in a sidenote:

“Writing about Taylor Swift is a horrific ordeal for me because her twinkly persona is such a scary flashback to the fascist blondes who ruled the social scene during my youth,” she says.

Horrific ordeal! To which the only suitable response is, “Aww! Po’ widdle Camille!”

The essay itself is a short, throwaway deal. New York magazine describes it as “a Camille Paglia essay that reads like a parody of a Camille Paglia essay.”

Girl Squad, Taylor 5th from left.
Girl Squad, Taylor 5th from left

It’s not really much of an attack on Taylor; its real target is the “girl squad,” that media-contrived phenomenon whereby we are served up endless images and stories about gorgeous models and actresses and singers who like to hang out together. Paglia singles out the Swift name apparently because that’s the moniker that will bring in the most eyeballs:

In our wide-open modern era of independent careers, girl squads can help women advance if they avoid presenting a silly, regressive public image — as in the tittering, tongues-out mugging of Swift’s bear-hugging posse. Swift herself should retire that obnoxious Nazi Barbie routine of wheeling out friends and celebrities as performance props . . .

(The Daily Mail notes, helpfully: “Taylor Swift has no affiliation with the Nazi party . . .”)

Paglia’s priggish hatchet job is basically nothing more than trolling par excellence. It’s done to get headlines, provoke feedback and controversy, and maybe refurbish the Paglia brand. That marque was once stratospherically successful, like some $3500 Italian handbag everyone wanted 25 years ago . . . but which now is—let us say—a bit too loud and out-of-style.

“A humorless, lapel-grabbing fanatic”

Sexual_Personae_(Camille_Paglia_book)_coverIf you haven’t thought much about Camille Paglia lately, here’s a refresher. Once upon a time she wrote this big book (Sexual Personae, 1990) that read like, and began as, a PhD dissertion formulated under the tutelage of Harold Bloom. Somehow the big book got a little attention, and in early 1991 got Camille a New York magazine cover story (written by onetime Yale fashion-plate and Bloom student, Francesca Stanfill). For the next few years, Paglia was lit-crit’s most visible talking head.

She had a good run and gave good value. Whatever subject you threw at her, Camille Paglia would field it with a tart, quotable sound-bite. Her critical insights weren’t so much original as outrageous; but she did have a very good line in contrarian poses and Chestertonian paradoxes.

The fact that her slim, chiseled figura was that of a 40ish lipstick-lesbian dreamboat didn’t hurt any, either—not back in those days (pre-Ellen, pre-Jane Lynch) when most public sapphists appeared to be ugly Jewesses or failed men.

A quick study and smart cookie, Paglia figured out the neat trick of buttering her bread on all sides. She won the hearts of men by saying things males couldn’t say, such as that women didn’t appreciate them enough and that most feminists were off their rockers. She particularly loved Oscar Wilde and the whole gay-male sensibility; anything, in fact, that was outré and transgressive.

She endeared herself to women by declaring herself a failed lesbian—she’d tried to be lez but didn’t really make the cut. Lesbians didn’t like her, she’d say, because of her contrary views. Conveniently enough this is what many lesbians like to think about themselves. And Paglia made purring sounds in favor of classical education, Christianity, family values.

In the words of Groucho Marx—”I think that covers everyone!”

Her first book got a cool reception when it came out in mid-1990. Reviewing it in the New York Times, Terry Teachout wrote, “[T]here is nothing intentionally funny about ‘Sexual Personae,’ which is all too clearly the work of a humorless, lapel-grabbing fanatic with a universal theory to hawk.” But the author’s eccentric bombast brought her attention, and she knew how to deploy it.

Her most famous, least credible pose was her gushing endorsement of the entertainer Madonna Ciccione as a great artist and thinker. This was the critical equivalent of George H. W. Bush’s vaunted addiction to fried pork rinds, and just as unforgettable. It defined Paglia’s public persona for years to come.

One of her first mainstream essays, just before she hit the Big Time, was a New York Times Op-Ed piece called “Madonna—Finally a Real Feminist” (December 14, 1990), wherein she praised Madonna’s risqué music video, “Justify My Love”:

The video is pornographic. It’s decadent. And it’s fabulous . . . “Justify My Love” is truly avant-garde, at a time when that word has lost its meaning in the flabby art world. It represents a sophisticated European sexuality of a kind we have not seen since the great foreign films of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

That over-the-top bonbon has all the earmarks of her style: it’s got porno (S/M actually—a Paglia fave), it’s got Low Art compared to High Art, it’s got elitism (“avant-garde”), it’s got that cultural cringe toward Europe (where they do sex better, because they’re grown-up about it).

tay3Speaking of High vs. Low, you don’t have to think too hard to figure out why Paglia liked Madonna then and now doesn’t like Taylor Swift. There’s that ethnic thing, and the fact that Madonna used the same kind of provocative style as Paglia (yawp-jawed sexual talk, sacrilegious treatment of Christian icons and paraphernalia) to build her celebrity.

And then of course they are near-contemporaries—well, just a decade apart. Madonna arose in the ’80s and peaked in the ’90s. Camille was hot in the ’90s and faded in the oughts. They both imagine themselves to be still at cruising altitude, although their careers began their descent a long time ago, and the bulk of their audiences are the same old Boomers they had a quarter-century ago.

Madonna’s current Rebel Heart Tour has reportedly had trouble selling tickets. (The gross audience for her two 2015 shows at New York’s Madison Square Garden was 28,371[1]; Taylor Swift’s single show at Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands had 110,105.[2])

Meanwhile, Camille Paglia keeps thrusting and feinting at being outrageous, but people aren’t that interested. At one point, a year or two ago, she was claiming to be a “transgender being,” which seems a rather odd play for fresh ink—I mean considering you’re already Camille Paglia! If you look hard, you will see that she was using that “umbrella” T-term correctly—strictly speaking, it could include anybody—but this looked like grandstanding, because in popular understanding transgender has come to mean transsexual. Anyhow, when this didn’t excite the mobs, Paglia tacked the other way and told people how she hated “transgenderism” and how it was a symptom of Western “cultural collapse.” Alas, a hundred other people were already saying the same thing on this tiresome subject, so chalk up another colossal fail for our Camille.

If Paglia wants to get back in the spotlight, I suggest a far more honorable path. Why not bring out the second volume of Sexual Personae, which she assured us had already written when she published volume one 25 years ago?

Which brings us back to our Taylor . . . 

Young Taylor Swift turns 26 today. (Go tweet her Happy Birthday @taylorswift13). Clean, wholesome, the Strength of America. Born in rural Pennsylvania and raised on a Christmas tree farm—seriously!

No cone-shaped bras or other Mediterranean slut-gear for our Tay; she does like to bare her midriff (good abs from those classes at the ModelFIT studio) but never-ever does she show her navel. A very odd entry indeed in the female pop-star tourney.
Her family moves to Nashville when she’s 14 to help enable her singing/songwriting career. (I don’t know about you, but my family wouldn’t cross the street to help my career, and I doubt Paglia’s was much nicer.) The Pennsylvania girl was quickly embraced as a teenage country star, and treated as the embodiment of healthy Southern values. Nice old Presbyterian ladies in Buckhead, sorority girls at SMU, UDC chapters in Richmond and Spartanburg—they all found out who Taylor was in jig time, and bought her records, followed her love life, learned the names of her cats. People of all ages who would never be fans of Lady Gaga or Madonna—let alone Amy Winehouse or Miley Cyrus—knew they could be Swifties and still be clean and decent folks.

tay1 (1)That whole storyline must be so alien and off-putting to Camille Paglia—second-generation Italian from Upstate New York, fan of the Marquis de Sade, lesbian-in-recovery (or denial)—I imagine her in a state of steam-from-ears seething every time she sees a picture of Taylor Swift.

And there’s yet another aspect to Paglia’s animosity most people don’t want to get near, but of course I will. I’m talking about the whole issue of lesbianism, and how it has long been used as a default setting for women who doubt they can fully compete in the social arena.

Let’s say you’re 13, you’re a little tubby or odd-looking or bookish, and/or you’re not interested in clothes and makeup, and you can’t or won’t join up with the Popular Girls your age because all they want to talk about is makeup and booys . . . Well, you have several alternatives to choose from while keeping your self-respect (e.g., be a girl-jock; be a gymnast; be a ballerina if it’s not too late).

But the easiest, most obvious path is to become a tomboyish proto-lesbian. That’s the opt-out choice in the social and mating games.

I don’t know how many women will honestly identify with this story, but in my observation it’s a fairly common pattern. (And forget the coverall excuse of inborn sexual orientation; female sex drive is very plastic in adolescence, and girls have girl-crushes all the time without turning out gay.) From what Camille Paglia tells us, this is pretty much the road she took. And being self-aware, she tells us again and again it was possibly not the right road for her.

tay2But the essential point here is that it still galls Paglia that there were pretty, Popular Girls in her pubescence, and somehow she was not one of them. “Fascist blondes” she now calls them, still rationalizing the choices she made in her youth by claiming the Popular Girls who hung out together were shallow, unambitious conformists. (Those grapes were sour anyway.) That’s what she sees when she looks at the Girl Squads, and the Squaddiest of the girls is Taylor.

1. Wikipedia: Rebel Heart Tour.
2. Wikipedia: The 1989 World Tour.

Establishment Media Ignore Genocide of Whites

via American Free Press

During an October 20 interview with AMERICAN FREE PRESS, activist Karin Smith described a harsh reality for whites who still call South Africa home. Smith, a South African expat currently residing in Texas, offered a warning: “If changes don’t occur in South Africa, at some point there will no longer be whites in that country. They have no future. If whites don’t die of mass disease in squatter camps, they’ll be annihilated by blacks.”

Smith added: “Of South Africa’s 3.5 million whites, 1 million of them are reduced to living in squatter camps, some of which were built atop garbage dumps. These homes, if they can be called that, are without floors, roofs, or ventilation. Often, three families are forced to use a single porta-potty.”

Smith provided an example of the atrocities being committed by South Africa’s black African National Congress (ANC) government, horrors that mirror what the Israeli government has long since done to Palestinians.

“When whites at a camp called Coronation Park tried to improve their lot by growing crops and planting gardens,” Ms. Smith began, “the ANC sent in bulldozers to destroy their residences. These people were completely dispossessed, with no jobs, homes, vehicles, or schooling for their children. Right now, over 300,000 white children in South Africa receive no education. These same people have also had their guns confiscated by the police, who then in turn sell them to black criminals.”

Smith finds this lawlessness infuriating and unnecessary.

“Over the past 21 years since apartheid ended and the ANC government took over, 70,000 whites have been murdered or raped by blacks, in addition to 4,000 white farmers being slaughtered,” she said. “Typically, blacks will break into a white home and wait for them to return. When the married couple arrives, blacks will forcibly tie up the husband. When he’s no longer able to protect his family, blacks will rape and torture his wife and children. They’ll then murder either the husband or wife while making the other spouse watch. Later, black police officers file reports stating that the white man or woman ‘died of natural causes.’ ”

Smith provided more details on police complicity: “In Johannesburg, 20 blacks recently attacked a white couple and raped the woman. Police referred to this brutality as a ‘normal crime.’ On another occasion, blacks raped two wives in front of their husbands before drowning the men in a lake. It happens every single day. Tens of thousands of rapes happen every month in South Africa, and less than 50% of them are reported.”

And if this is not disturbing enough, blacks are now intentionally infecting people with deadly diseases.

“AIDS is hugely prevalent in South Africa,” she said. “Blacks mistakenly believe that a ‘cure’ for this disease can be obtained by having sex with a virgin. So, that means they have intercourse with white babies in order to allegedly get rid of their AIDS. If white victims survive being raped, they’re still condemned to a life with AIDS. What’s even worse is that all the millions of dollars from AIDS charities coming into South Africa never make it to hospitals. Instead, it’s embezzled by the government. Media outlets censor all the stories related to this subject, whereas annual South African police reports are a total lie.”

London’s Telegraph newspaper has reported on these horrible cases, noting that as many as 400,000 children are raped by blacks in South Africa annually.

When asked why whites don’t relocate out of South Africa, Smith replied: “Last November, Refugee Watch reported that 320 black Africans were given refugee status in the U.S. However, the ANC government won’t issue exit visas to whites that want to flee this overt discrimination. They’re prohibited from leaving.”

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama, whose administration seems to take great pride in its open-door police for every non-white illegal alien across the planet, denies any help to South African whites.

Smith offered this rationale: “Obama attended Nelson Mandela’s funeral and celebrated this communist criminal who was responsible for hundreds of deaths. At his 1963 trial, Mandela pleaded guilty to 156 counts of murder, yet Obama praised Mandela to the sky. Do you think Obama cares one bit about the terrible crimes being committed against whites by racist blacks?”

Neither has Russian President Vladimir Putin lifted a single finger to help South African whites. According to Ms. Smith: “Putin just signed a deal with the South Africans to build four nuclear power plants in that country. Putin was photographed shaking hands with ANC President Jacob Zuma after this nuclear deal. Zuma is the same man who sings in Parliament, ‘Bring me my machine gun to kill the Boers [whites]. It’s an incitement to murder white people.”

As for the Russian leader’s refusal to assist white South Africans, Smith reasoned: “Putin obviously doesn’t have his head in the sand about atrocities being committed against whites. Russia and China have formed an alliance to capitalize on South Africa’s minerals and wealth. They want U.S. companies like IBM, Ford, and GM, plus Germany’s VW, to pull out so that they can move in. There’s a financial element behind Putin’s silence, especially since South Africa has been accepted into their BRICS coalition.””

The decision to construct four Russian-owned nuclear power plants in South Africa is also particularly frightening, according to Ms. Smith.

“The black-controlled ANC government can’t even keep electricity and water running in their country,” she said. “Areas will go for two entire days without power. That means businesses, supermarkets, and even household refrigerators fail, while many dams are running dry.”

“Over 120 race-based laws exist in South Africa which state that all businesses must be at least 70% black, Smith continued. “How can the Russians expect to effectively run four nuclear power plants when blacks can’t even maintain their coal-powered plants? To sidestep these laws, the ANC now categorizes all Chinese as ‘blacks.’ Are they also going to label Russians as ‘black’ to let them run their power plants?””

As a final illustration of how far this nation has deteriorated, Smith concluded: “If you took a snapshot of South Africa today, you’d see student riots all over the place, blacks burning tires, overturning cars, and throwing rocks through windows. Because of all the riots, strikes, and their electricity crisis, Standard & Poor’s will soon downgrade South Africa’s bonds to junk status. When households don’t have running water for two days, blacks still blame white apartheid, which ended 21 years ago. What they fail to understand is that during apartheid, whites never outnumbered blacks. These same whites gave each black tribe their own parcel of land as a way of remaining segregated from them. It was an act of self-defense against hordes of blacks that wanted to steal the white’s wealth. What we see now is reverse racism. Whenever whites are victimized, blacks stand around and chant, ‘You’re the minority. Now it’s payback time.’”

Maxwell's Immigration Demon

via Alternative Right

Do you know about Maxwell's Demon? It's described this way in Wikipedia:
In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in which he suggested how the Second Law of Thermodynamics could hypothetically be violated. In the thought experiment, a demon controls a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, the demon quickly opens and shuts the door so that slow molecules pass into one chamber and fast molecules pass into the other chamber. Because faster molecules are hotter, the demon's behavior causes one chamber to warm up as the other cools, thus decreasing entropy and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [link]
And that is of course a fantasy concocted to show how entropy works. But the immigration version of Maxwell's Demon is also a fantasy, but it's accepted as a fact across the political spectrum, from the most (heh!) 'ethical' libertarian to the ditziest liberal to the most narcissistic neocon. Maxwell's Immigration Demon is, however, as much a fantasy as its thermodynamic original.

The idea is that some combination of diligence on the part of the Feds and Ellis Island emotionalism ensures that while many foreigners are a grubby lot who must be bombed constantly to keep them in line, foreigners who cross the magic border are, due to that demon, a wonderful bunch of people, much better, in fact, than Americans, and who should be encouraged to come here and replace said inferior Americans.

Well, the Feds aren't diligent and the border isn't magic, so we have 9/11 and San Bernardino and who knows what else next. And all the Presidential candidates, with the notable exception of Trump and some relatively sensible-sounding vagueness on the subject on the part of Rand Paul, are completely on board with the "bad Muslim there, good Muslim here" principle.

This is of course not what the American people think, just what the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) tells them they should think. And the people respond to the lecturing by putting Trump at the top of the polls.

To set up what comes next, go to Boyd D. Cathey's elaboration on the subject, "A Bull in a China Shop" at The Unz Review. Following that are several comments, the most striking of which is by The Priss Factory, whose website is here.

I reproduce his comment in full here:
Jews playing on American fears to destroy the Middle East and North Africa via the War on Terror, resulting in millions of dead or traumatized lives, is okay.

Jews/homos playing on new cold war paranoia to mess up Ukraine and destroy the Russian economy is also okay. But Trump playing on American fears to tighten immigration on Muslims is eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. Trump’s fear-mongering kills no one.

It just says Muslims should stay in their own lands.

Jews/homos’ fear-mongering led to foreign policies that destroyed millions of lives in the Middle East and Ukraine. But that is okay.

According to Jews and progs, it’s permissible to stoke American ‘patriotism’ and nationalist hysteria against foreign enemies, esp Russia, Iran, Syria, and China.

“Thou shalt fear-monger against peoples/nations hated by Jews.”

Jews and progs also encourage fear-mongering against white Americans, esp conservatives.

Fear-mongering against domestic enemies(white males) is OK if the fear-mongers are Jews, blacks, homos, feminists, browns, etc. and if the targets are white.


“Thou shalt not fear-monger against domestic groups such as Jews, homos, blacks, and immigrants.” If Muslims are OVER THERE, you can hate them all you want, fear-monger against them, and cheer their destruction, as when Israelis were slaughtering Gazans.

“We stand with Israel.”

But the minute those bad Muslims set foot on US soil, they are good Muslims, and it is ‘Islamophobic’ to suspect them. OVER HERE, they are holy minorities and ‘victims’.

Hey, there’s a ragger ‘over there’. Have white patriots kill him, and stand with Israel.

Hey, there’s a ragger ‘over here’. Give him a hug and protect him from white ‘Islamophobes’.

The wacky thing about American politics is the ‘left’ is allowed to hate the domestic ‘right’, whereas the ‘right’ isn’t allowed to hate the domestic ‘left’ and instead must only hate foreign enemies.

Jews, blacks, and minorities can hate whites, but whites can’t hate Jews, blacks, and minorities. But whites can hate foreigners, at least if Jews hate them too.

Since white rage against domestic enemies is stifled, whites channel their hatred at foreigners. And Jews even encourage this cuz Jews hate Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East too.

But when the hated foreigner suddenly sets foot on US soil, he suddenly becomes a holy immigrant(in a ‘nation of immigrants’), and whites who’d been encouraged to hate foreign Muslims must suddenly love the Muslim who has instantly changed status from foreigner to immigrant.


I'd add here only that there are plenty of politicians who are not any kind of minority completely in synch with this program, and that includes, again, practically all politicians, most especially those currently running for President.

Leftist Indifference to the Bombing of German Civilians

via National-Socialist Worldview

A famous image from the vastly
overrated "London Blitz"
Recently I heard Jewish radio talker Michael Savage ( Weiner) claim during one of his usual rants that nobody ever hears about the bombing of British cities by Germans during the Second World War.

Really? Nobody ever mentions the so-called Battle of Britain? In my experience, this is rubbish.

Perhaps they are not quite as loudly publicized nowadays, but the "London Blitz" and the supposedly unprovoked bombing of Coventry, as subjects of Anglo-American war-propaganda, for a long time received attention that was quite disproportial, given the compared tolls in civilian deaths and wrecked cities wrought by Anglo-American vs. German bombs.

On just one night in one city, Darmstadt on 11 September 1944, about ten times as many civilians were intentionally killed by the RAF as were inadvertently killed by the Luftwaffe's bombs in Coventry -- "targeted due to its high concentration of armaments, munitions and engine plants which contributed greatly to the British war effort," says Statemaster Encyclopedia -- during the entire war. Yet the bombing of Darmstadt is nowhere near as well known as "the bombing of Coventry." An RAF-officer named F.W. Winterbotham stated in his book The Ultra Secret that Churchill had advance notice of one of the raids, but rather than take steps to avoid civilian casualties in Coventry, Churchill kept the information to himself. There are denials, but if the story is true it means only that Churchill did not have much more regard for British civilian lives than for German civilian lives.

Dresden, February 1945. If you want to see corpses, those are online too

I just happened to run across an essay from 1972 by syndicated newspaper-columnist John Chamberlain that touches on the disparity:

A careful researcher, Benjamin Coleman of Washington, D.C., has estimated that during World War II 537,000 German civilians were killed by bombing. The Colby account has it that 61 German cities, with a total population of 25 million, either were destroyed or devastated beyond recognition. Britain, by contrast, got off lightly, with a loss of 60,000 civilians.

Cologne, save for its cathedral, and Hamburg were gutted; Dresden was gratuitously ruined after the Allies had the war all wrapped up.
At this point, Chamberlain unintentionally indicates why, in 1945, false accusations about gas-chambers, etc., may have seemed necessary:

Because Hitler was what he was, a monster, I don't weep much for what happened to his country, which had become a totalitarian war-machine.
Take away the gas-chamber story, rebranded 35 years later as "the Holocaust," and what was done to Germany no longer seems justified, Chamberlain implies.

The point of the essay, however, was to show the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party's leftist 1972 presidential candidate, George McGovern, who moralized about inadvertent civilian casualties in the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam, but seemed to have no second thoughts about the bombing of civilians in which he had participated during the Second World War:

Senator George McGovern, who goes about the land weeping for the North Vietnamese Prussians, is fully cognizant of the nature of air warfare. After all, he flew 35 World War II missions. By his own admission, he bombed through overcast, which means that he could have hit civilians and even, if they had been present, a dike or two.[1]

His admiring biographer, Sam Anson, quotes him as saying to a friend after the war, "You just dropped those damn bombs where you could and got the hell out of there." On one occasion, his plane, Dakota Queen, jettisoned its bombs over Yugoslavia, vaporizing a farmhouse. It wasn't bomber-pilot McGovern's fault that the bombs hit where they did, and he subsequently kicked the careless bombardier off his crew. But he made no issue of the episode, nor did he report a conversation he heard about a possible war crime involving fighter pilots who shot Italian civilians off a bridge for sport. If he had, we might have had a My Lai[2] then.

McGovern never has made excuses for being part of something in World War II that he condemns in Vietnam now. We must assume, then, that he makes a distinction between the spread of fascism and the spread of communism. It was alright to hit civilians inadvertently in the course of doing away with the Nazis. But when a General Giap, pursuing his Communist objectives, stages an invasion of another country through a demilitarized zone and through bordering neutrals, it is not the same thing as Hitler swinging through the neutralized North European lowlands[3] or descending on neutral Norway[4].

Not, at least, in the mind of George McGovern.


So let it be understood: McGovern isn't against bombing per se. It was all right to knock the Rhineland to pieces. But it is wrong to bomb Communists in Asia. Stated baldly, that is McGovern's position. He is entitled to it, but let us be spared his tears. [The Evening Independent, 4 October 1972]
George McGovern, in 1972, seems to have been ahead of his time with an axiom that could be stated: white lives don't matter.
1. Bombing dikes to create floods that interrupt supply-lines was a strategy used successfully against the Communists in Korea, forcing them to make peace, but during the Vietnam War a propaganda-offensive by the Communists, echoed by American leftists like McGovern, prevented the same method from being used.

2. The My Lai Massacre was a war-crime by soldiers of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War that was heavily reported by news-media in the early 1970s.

3. The Anglo-British strategy in 1940 was based on the expectation that Germany would cross Belgium to invade France, since going through the Maginot Line or the Ardennes Forest was considered too difficult. The Anglo-French strategy of waiting to be attacked was understood to mean that Belgium must become a battleground, although Germany would get the blame.

4. In early 1940 Britain and France were waging war against Germany by means of a blockade. To tighten theblockade by cutting off a route whereby raw materials were still reaching Germany, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill proposed to invade and occupy Norway. Without the prospect of a British occupation of Norway, there would have been no pressing need for Hitler to occupy Norway, but as it happened the British intention was discovered and German forces barely beat the British forces to it.