Mar 18, 2016

How the "Nazi Salute" Became an Offensive Gesture

via Solar General

Hitler invented German roots for the greeting—but its history was already established.

Recently, a certain politician’s practice of asking his supporters to recite a “pledge to vote” at his campaign rallies has led to rampant, politicized speculation that the “pledge” has some sort of ulterior significance.

Specifically, some are taking the Trump campaign’s combination of inflammatory, racism-tinged statements and nefarious supporters as reason to compare the pledge salute to the infamous Nazi salute mandated throughout Germany during Hitler’s time in power. Its association with one of the most horrific regimes in world history has overwhelmed any other context for the gesture in our collective memory.

But historically, similar salutes have been used for entirely different reasons, and even Hitler acknowledged he was not the first to institute it.

In the 20th century, the Nazi salute was used widely by fascist governments and groups, including the Italian Fascists and the Spanish Falangists. These extremist groups, and particularly the Italians, collectively advanced the idea that the salute originated in ancient Rome, according to Martin M. Winkler’s The Roman Salute: Cinema, History, and Ideology. However, Winkler’s exhaustive research into ancient Roman accounts and depictions of military salutes unearths no evidence that the so-called “Roman salute” ever existed.

In fact, Winkler traces the salute to more recent artistic depictions of ancient Romans, beginning with Jacques-Louis David’s 1784 painting, The Oath of the Horatii. According to Winkler, the painting, which depicts three brothers saluting their father and pledging to protect Rome, “provided the starting point for an arresting gesture that progressed from oath-taking to what will become known as the Roman salute.” Other neoclassical artists began to depict similar poses, and the myth was perpetuated through the early 20th century as it spread throughout depictions of ancient Roman society, including an early 20th century stage production of Ben-Hur. The myth was so widespread that it is believed to be behind the adoption of the official Olympic salute, which stopped being used after the rise of Nazism.

The Italian Fascists promised that their government would restore Italy to the glories of ancient Rome, so advancing the myth of the Roman salute was certainly in their interest. It’s odd, then, that Hitler would choose to adopt a salute that had such distinctly non-German associations. But Hitler contrived a distinctly German “take” on the salute, recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk (January 3, 1942):
I made it the salute of the Party long after the Duce had adopted it. I’d read the description of the sitting of the Diet of Worms, in the course of which Luther was greeted with the German salute. It was to show him that he was not being confronted with arms, but with peaceful intentions. In the days of Frederick the Great, people still saluted with their hats, with pompous gestures. In the Middle Ages the serfs humbly doffed their bonnets, whilst the noblemen gave the German salute. It was in the Ratskeller at Bremen, about the year 1921, that I first saw this style of salute. It must be regarded as a survival of an ancient custom, which originally signified: “See, I have no weapon in my hand!”
Essentially, Hitler fabricated a Germanic history to the salute to circumvent accusations that his regime had adopted a non-German custom. There is no historical evidence regarding the use of a “German salute” to greet Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms—but Luther’s supporters did hope that his appearance at the diet would help loosen Rome’s political power over Germany at the time. It’s possible Hitler chose his fabrication to subtly undermine the idea that the salute was Roman in heritage.

Regardless of the origin story used, fascists groups consistently manipulated a false history to imply that they would return their nations to mythologized “golden years.”

Bellamy Salute

While the “Roman salute” was entirely invented, one salute existed prior to the rise of fascism that was very similar to the Nazi salute. Its origins? Entirely American. As CNN explained in 2013, the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, as part of a campaign to bring American flags—and an increased sense of patriotism to a country still recovering from civil war—to classrooms around the country. The effort was spearheaded by Daniel Sharp Ford, owner of Youth’s Companion magazine, who asked Francis J. Bellamy to compose a Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge was a widespread hit, but Ford still felt something was missing. So, Youth’s Companion instructed pledge reciters to perform a salute, which CNN describes:

The Bellamy Salute consisted of each person—man, woman or child—extending his or her right arm straight forward, angling slightly upward, fingers pointing directly ahead.

With their right arms aiming stiffly toward the flag, they recited: “I pledge allegiance…”

For decades, the Bellamy salute was entirely uncontroversial. But by the mid-1930s, comments on the salute’s similarity to Nazi and other fascist salutes began emerging. According to CNN, a particular concern was that fascist propagandists could crop the American flag out of pictures of U.S. citizens reciting the pledge, thus manipulating the images to imply American support for the Nazis or other fascists.

Therefore, Congress passed an amended Flag Code on December 22, 1942, decreeing that the Pledge of Allegiance “be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart.” The unfortunate association was severed, and the Bellamy salute quickly faded from memory. The salute’s fraudulent history has been largely forgotten but its symbolic potency remains.

Is Kevin Williamson the New Bromstad?

via EGI Notes

Kevin Williamson
Kevin, not Chilton.

First, I apologize for previously confusing Kevin Williamson with Chilton Williamson, rushing to get posts up, not remembering which was which.  My error.

That aside, we can ask, what do we know about Kevin Williamson?

Well, this.  And this.  A far cry from him admitting he has a "black father" or some such thing.

Before I believe "movement" retards, as well as scum like Silver, that Kevin Williamson is a mulatto, quadroon. octoroon, whatever, I'd like to see some, you know, actual evidence to back it up.

Until then, this seems like another case of the "movement" not liking the phenotype of someone from a "movement"-approved ethnic background, and then inventing a fictitious ancestry to reconcile their cognitive dissonance.

Of course, there may be evidence in which case the interpretation will differ. So, please, Kevin, can you tell us all about your Negro paternal ancestry?

A Brief Case for Universal Nationalism

via Counter-Currents

I would like to briefly make the case for universal nationalism, a political ideology defined here as the belief that every nation should have a society and a state of its own. Put more simply still: Every people should have its own country; every people should rule itself, rather than be dictated by outsiders. I believe universal nationalism encapsulates many of the principles which would allow all human beings to live in a more peaceful, prosperous, and progressive world. 

I base this upon two premises:
  • The desirability of the nation-state, that is to say of homogeneity and a common ethnic identity within
  • The desirability of human (bio)diversity, that is to say of ethnic, cultural, political, economic, and other differences between 
Perhaps the most fundamental fact supporting the idea of universal nationalism is the reality of ethnocentrism. Human beings are inherently tribal and, with good reason, have evolved over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to be so. In the modern era, with its mass communications and mass politics, this tribalism becomes fixated on the ethnic group. Whereas individuals in a cohesive society should all identify with each other as much as possible, as this is a prerequisite for the solidarity on which the public good always rests, we tend to find that identification fractures along ethnic lines. 

This leads to a negative reason for universal nationalism: The multiculturalists’ persistent failure to make a truly cohesive and harmonious multiethnic society. It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .).[1] In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful, and often they lead to otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars, but in each case there are intractable problems. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity. 

This lack of solidarity tends to be worsened by the fact that ethnic groups tend to have different levels of educational and socio-economic performance. Ethnic pride is one of the most powerful emotions in the world, and the sight of another ethnic group doing better than one’s own inevitably leads to enormous amounts of ill-feeling. The less well-performing group will be underrepresented in the countries’ influential institutions and circles (e.g. politics, media, academia, law, corporations, the oligarchy . . .) and will tend to accuse of the better-performing group of ethnic nepotism or of biasing its use of power in its own interests, i.e. “racism.” Conversely, a better-performing ethnic group tends to resent the less well-performing ones for being a relative drag on society, committing more crimes and requiring more policing, dragging down school performance, providing less in taxes, and generally requiring more resources from the public purse in the form of welfare. These dynamics largely account for the endless conflicts and tensions between Jews, East Asians (e.g. Overseas Chinese), white gentiles, browns, and blacks in all countries where the groups are present. 

Different ethnic groups also tend to have different preferences. Living in the same society and under the same government, each is not free to pursue them, but must accommodate ill-fitting common decisions. 

The result of all this is that multiethnic societies are, invariably, unions of resentment and mutual recriminations. Multiethnic societies are sometimes inevitable and must be peacefully be managed, but one should not pretend that these are either optimal or desirable. 

Mirroring the intractable problems of the multiethnic society, there are positive reasons for universal nationalism. In short, in the nation-state man’s tribal instinct no longer tears the society apart, but brings it together. Instead of ethnic fragmentation and conflict, ethnocentrism in the nation-state turns the entire society into one extended family. This tends to both be emotionally compelling – hence the power of political nationalism throughout the modern era[2] – and to enable societies in which individuals are more willing to sacrifice for the public good, whether in the form of respecting public authority and the law, paying taxes, or defending again foreign aggression. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the powerful “cuddle hormone” oxytocin tends to promote both altruism (self-sacrifice) and ethnocentrism (in-group identity and preference), which makes perfect evolutionary sense.[3] 

The nation-state, like a family, is both a preexisting biological and cultural reality, and a project to be carefully cultivated over the generations. In the ideal nation-state, common national identification is developed through the elimination of sub-national particularisms, either by assimilation to a common ethnic group or by minorities’ being separated into their own nation-states. 

In the modern era, the European nation-state was found to be such a powerful form of socio-political organization that it was emulated throughout the world. Belief in the desirability of the nation-state was sharply weakened by the excesses of the world wars. But the nation-state is only a tool, a powerful but double-edged sword, and cannot be blamed for being misused. In any event, a nation-state bien compris would recognize kinship with closely-related nations and logically organize to defend common interests. Even after the Second World War, the liberal-conservative Jewish intellectual Raymond Aron, for one continued to consider the nation-state to be “the political masterpiece.” Few would argue that Europeans’ relative abandonment of the nation-state – such as the creation of African and Islamic ghettos in the cities or the building of a flawed currency union – have improved their well-being or influence in the world. 

Finally, the domestic homogeneity of the nation-state is desirable because it is the only way of guaranteeing humanity’s international diversity. Human beings, contra an evil Judeo-Christian doctrine, are not separate from the animal kingdom and the rest of Nature, but an integral part of it. Humanity, like any species, is subject to the same Darwinian rules of natural selection and struggle. It may survive and prosper and achieve higher forms, or it may go extinct. Perhaps the best guarantee to ensure humanity’s maximal survivability is diversity, true diversity. True human diversity would be biological, cultural, political, economic, and otherwise. 

The globalists argue that all political regimes, across the world, that are different from their own “liberal-democratic” ideals should be destroyed and that all countries should be integrated into a single hyper-consumerist global capitalist economic system. Thus, the Earth is being consumed to fill our bellies, but she cannot sustain all Third World countries achieving Western standards of living, the rainforests being destroyed and hundreds of millions of years of accumulated fossil-fuels being consumed for our vulgar pleasures. 

The globalists also argue that – at least concerning Western countries – ethnic homogeneity should be destroyed, that America should be “globalized” into a raza cósmica and that Europe should be Afro-Islamized. They call this “diversity.” But the equation of ethnic heterogeneity with “diversity” is very misleading insofar as, actually, notwithstanding their genetic or linguistic differences, they anyway must submit to a common political and cultural model to live together. And is the elimination of European ethnicities and identity, and the subjugation of the entire world to a single “liberal-democratic” ideology and capitalist economic system, really “diverse”? 

I posit the contrary: Subjugating all of humanity to a single economic and ideological model means putting all our eggs in one basket. If it is seriously flawed, as it surely is or will occasionally be, that means we would all suffer from its failures. 

Instead, humanity really should be biologically, culturally, politically, and economically diverse. Thus, with every new era, each society will evolve and react somewhat differently. While one may stagnate or even collapse, others may survive and prosper. The innovations of one part of humanity – the Japanese, say – can be adopted and adapted to other parts. Would the elimination of Japan’s uniqueness through Africanization or Islamization really benefit the rest of humanity, or even Africa and the Islamic World? Most would think not. And the same is true of Europe and Europeans. We can ask simply: Would, as is currently proposed, the decline and steady disappearance ethnic Europeans really benefit the Third World? Given the lack of innovation of Latin America, Africa, and the Islamic World, this seems hard to believe. And certainly, few would argue that Haiti or Zimbabwe have benefited much from white extinction in those countries. 

I believe Europeans, like any group, should take their own side. But many of our people, partly due to their in-born generosity and partly due to a misleading education, are insensitive to arguments of self-interest. For them the good must be couched exclusively in universal terms. These people are disturbed by the growing inequality and social fragmentation evident throughout the Western world yet are powerless to understand why this happening or articulate a valid response. For them, I answer: Nationhood is a supreme moral good and therefore all nations, particularly our dear European nations, should be preserved and cultivated.

1. The nearest thing I have found to an exception to this rule is Swizterland, a very successful country in which the diversity between Protestants and Catholics, and between German-, French-, Italian-, and Romansh-speakers appears to pose few problems. Scholars have proposed that one reason Switzerland is so peaceful is because these groups, while united in a fairly weak federal state (with central government spending of just 10% of GDP), are separated in their own largely self-ruling cantons. One should also not neglect that Switzerland’s ethnic diversity has in fact led to tensions and conflict throughout its history and required very peculiar, in some respects undesirable and fragile, political structures.  Véronique Greenwood, “Scientists Who Model Ethnic Violence Find that in Switzerland, Separate is Key to Peace,” Discover blog, October 12, 2011.
2. Indeed, nationalism is probably the single-most-powerful and most-exploited political sentiment in modern history, including by political movements who might be theoretically opposed to it. For instance, the twentieth-century revolutionary Chinese and Vietnamese communist movements and the various “anti-racist” anti-colonial movements, were quite obviously motivated and empowered by ethnic sentiment against overbearing foreign powers.
3. Carsten De Dreu et al, “The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans,” Science, June 2010. “Oxytocin increases social altruism,” Science Daily, November 26, 2015.

Greece Saves Europe (Again)

via traditionalRIGHT

Lt. Col. “Willy” Theodoracopulos of the Hellenic Air Force knew the hardest part was over. He had successfully nursed the one flyable Greek F-16 over the Alps. Most of the aircrat’s fancy systems were down from lack of maintenance, but the engine and controls still worked. It sounded as if they would continue to do so until he reached the Netherlands. That was all he needed; his was a one-way mission.

Greece had put up as long as it could with being used as Europe’s chamber pot. Germany’s second-worst Chancellor ever, Hausfrau Merkel, had said to all the wretched of the Earth, “Come to Europe! Come and enjoy! Come one and all, the more the merrier,” and come they did, by the millions. Europe found itself awash in human sewage, people from radically defective societies and cultures who brought all the defects with them.

Orderly northern European societies found their order disappearing. Germans, Danes, and Swedes had to worry about the safety of their persons and property. Women now thought twice about going out after dark. In Malmo, young Islamic immigrants called it “hunting Swedes”. It was easy, because Swedes had little sense of personal insecurity. Up until now, they had not needed it.

Europe’s elites, cultural Marxists all, demanded the gates stay open for millions more. To them, Islamic immigrants were just one more weapon in the fight to destroy Western civilization. The fact that the jihadis would cut the secularists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Europe’s remaining Christians did not bother them. Their hate for the West, inherited from Lukacs, Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School, was so vast it submerged everything else, even their own survival instinct.

But northern Europeans who were not members of the elite saw it otherwise. Strangely, they wanted to survive. They resisted the elite’s calls to commit social and cultural suicide. They demanded the doors be closed, and with new political parties that promised to close them rising fast, the politicians had to put on the brakes. They did not like doing it, but they liked even less the prospect of being out of office.

The Hapsburg Empire, long the guardian of Europe’s Balkan flank against the savage hordes of the Prophet, led the way. Technically Austria was now just a grubby little republic, but most Austrians knew that in the divine economy, an Austrian republic was an impossibility. Austria was the House of Hapsburg and the House of Hapsburg was Austria. Recalling who it really was, Vienna organized the Balkan states to close the door at the Greek-Macedonian border. Rumor has it there may soon be a referendum in Austria to resotre the monarchy, and that all the Danubian states are quitely talking about the need for some sort of federation.

That left the immigrants piling up in Greece. Greece quickly realized it was being used as Europe’s toilet, without a flushing mechanism. The rest of Europe shook its head and said, “Ja, sorry about that. We’ll schedule some meetings to talk about it.”

So Greece did what it had to do. First, it set up machine guns on the beaches of the Greek islands off the Turkish coast, and when boats full of immigrants came in range, they hosed them. It only required shooting a few hundred people before the boats stopped coming. At least as many had been dying every month anyway in vessels that didn’t make it.

Second, Greece teamed up with Italy to round up the migrants on both countries’ soil. They were put on ships, and the Greek and Italian navies escorted those ships to the coast of Libya where the immigrants were dropped off. Libya, having no state, could do nothing about it. It seemed it wasn’t just Islam that could take advantage of stateless disorder.

All the world’s cultural Marxists screamed in unison, “Mass murder! Inhumanity! Fascism! Violation of international law!” Greece’s leaders were indicted before the International Court of Justice at the Hague for “crimes against humanity”. Who did these Greeks think they were, not willing their country should be crapped on?

The Court promptly opened proceedings against the Greek leadership, in absentia. There was no question about the verdict.

But Greeks remembered the last time the Persians had come. They got ready to fight. In the halls of the Greek Defense Ministry a plan was born. The Greek government, all facing spending the rest of their lives in a Dutch prison, gave the plan their blessing.

And Lt. Col. Theodoracopulos’s F-16 had crossed the Dutch border. The International Court’s Chief Justice was once again solemnly condemning the “inhumane, vile, unallowable” actions of Greece in defending itself from invasion when Willy’s F-16, carrying a full load of ordnance, did a kamikaze dive into the Court.

All over Europe, the public cheered. The politicans ran for cover, literally as well as figuratively. Prominent cultural Marxists were hanged from lampposts. Greece had again saved Europe. If doing so required a Greek Air Force pilot’s life, well, all Greeks knew the man who brought the news of Marathon also died. Sometimes, that’s what it takes.

The Forbidden Word Is “Rebellion”

via BUGS

Absolutely everybody is militantly against Trump on the left and on the right.

So where are all his VOTES coming from?

There is a rebellion going on, ladies and gentlemen, but according to the media, the only real Rebellion had to be “Young Marxists.”

In fact, the word “Rebellion” is covered by the Media Silence.

Please notice that not one media report is going to discuss where this Trump vote,  which everybody denounces, is coming FROM.

It is grass roots rebellion, and the Silence prevents anyone from using that word.

Mexico Is Not Hell, and Illegal Immigrants Are not Refugees

via TradYouth

In their rush to identify the racist running for the Republican nomination, the media have got the wrong guy. It’s John Kasich. His numerous public statements and written declarations on the subject of illegal immigration confirm that he harbors a grotesquely White Supremacist attitude toward the Mexican nation. While Trump and Cruz hold to a civic nationalist position that America should only make exceptions to immigration policy for desperate refugees, Kasich finds Mexico’s current state so deplorable that the whole nation is essentially a failed state. Mexico’s such a disaster in Kasich’s mind that all of its citizens qualify as refugees to him.

For Kasich, condemning a Mexican to return to Mexico is a deplorable human rights travesty, …a dereliction of basic Christian values. John Kasich is an ardent supporter of the death penalty, believing that killing our prisoners is Christian. John Kasich believes pre-emptive strikes on foreigners is Christian. John Kasich believes escalating a WWIII confrontation with Russia is Christian.

But relocating Mexicans to Mexico? That’s incompatible with our nation’s Christian values!

The liberal consensus on immigration is implicitly White Supremacist, imbued with the premise that disallowing entry into a White country is akin to torture (…which Kasich also happens to support, ironically). Mexico’s illegal immigrants aren’t refugees by any stretch, though the national conversation around Latin American immigration would lead one to believe they are. There’s no war going on in Mexico. Few are starving, and certainly not the ones who can afford the handsome expenses required to end up in America. They have skyscrapers, Internet service, shopping malls, highways, you name it.

Marco, Jeb, and Kasich show FAR more sympathy for foreigners than for their actual constituents.
Marco, Jeb, and Kasich show FAR more sympathy for foreigners than for their actual constituents.

On average, Mexicans make about a third of what Americans make. That’s a bummer for them, but it hardly excuses the human rights campaign to welcome them over here by the tens of millions “in search of a better life.” And when one considers that cost of living, real estate, and such are more affordable there, the humanitarian case for illegal immigration is laughable. Based on the facts rather than the myths, we should open our doors to Russian refugees. Russia’s GDP per capita is roughly equal to theirs.

And why don’t we gnash our teeth with pity for Russians? Because they’re White. They’re not inferior, pitiable, and in need of White Saviors to rescue them.

White Supremacists, both the neo-colonial “White Savior” ones and the paleocon types who yearn for a return to segregation and White domination of the third world are in agreement that Mexico is hell. Just about everybody except Mexican immigrants themselves are in agreement that Mexico’s a squalid cesspit of beheadings, drug lord anarchy, and infrastructural collapse. To have both liberals and conservatives alike tell it, it’s like Somalia with better cuisine and architecture.

Deporting the tens of millions of Mexicans who happen to be illegally on American soil is no more evil than kicking partygoers out of one’s home after the party’s over. The party’s over, and they’ve got a home to return to. The partygoers might fuss on the way out, but Sally Struthers won’t be necessary. No families need to be separated, as the American citizens are welcome to return with them to the relatively prosperous and wealthy industrialized first world nation.

We don’t absolve bank robbers, though every one of them did it for a chance at a better life. We don’t let bank robbers out of prison because imprisoning them would separate them from their families. We don’t shrug our shoulders at bank robbers and insist that they should have the charges dropped if they refrain from committing any more crimes. All of that is patently asinine, and the same arguments used in favor of illegal immigration are equally asinine.

Why don’t they feel asinine to most people, though? Easy. Most Americans are led to believe that Mexico is hell, and that escaping from it is some grave act of desperation by refugees from unspeakable deprivation. Mexicans are not refugees. They’re the farthest thing from it. They’re economic migrants eager to take advantage of our economy which happens to be even more prosperous and wealthy than theirs.

The entire conversation on both sides is insulting to Latin Americans. Their economies aren’t as strong as ours, and their key socioeconomic performance metrics lag our own somewhat. But Latin America’s been rapidly developing over the past few decades and it’s been doing quite well for itself, especially since America’s free trade policies have saved tens of millions of Latin Americans the trouble of jumping the border to take our jobs.

Americans have their own squalid poverty in the Appalachian hills and hollers. Americans have their own drug lords and virtual war zones in Chicago and Detroit. Honestly, save for a handful of places, the starving, crying, and dying brown people who figure so heavily in the White American imagination are starving, crying, and dying because our Republican and Democrat joint neocon foreign policy is directly starving, terrorizing, and killing them. The only Mexicans trapped in a third world nightmare scenario are the ones who achieved American citizenship, signed up for our military, and are currently deployed overseas.

Artists and Intentional Sociopaths

via Gornahoor

The emergency provoked by the irruption of Islam in the Mediterranean acted like a stimulant, but not as a determining cause: as it happens, an exterior contingency served only to compel something superior, which was latent, to become manifest and take over. … the healthiest and purest forces of Germanic-Roman Europe separated themselves and developed their possibilities in a normal direction proper to a heroic, differentiated, and spiritual civilization. ~ from Julius Evola’s book review of Mohammed and Charlemagne, by Henri Pirenne

According to Boris Mouravieff, there are four fields of study to understand man’s interior and exterior worlds: Philosophy, Religion, Science and Art. The history of Western civilization has been the dominance of one or another of those forms in succession. We are currently in the age of science, in which the scientist has displaced the philosopher of the ancient world and the theologian of the medieval. Art, however, is the synthesis of the preceding three forms. That synthesis is the opposite of a revolution, which is based on division. So reaction is not a looking back, but a going forward. Hermetic philosophy can elucidate these stages. But only a crisis provides the opportunities for the manifestation of latent forces, assuming they still exist.

The Triad of Providence, Will, and Destiny are the powers that govern the manifested universe (see Rene Guenon, The Great Triad). The different ages focused on one of these powers. The synthesis will be knowledge of the whole, i.e., the tetrad. Fabre d’Olivet explains:
These three powers-Providence; Man, or more precisely the human kingdom; and Destiny-together make up the universal ternary. Nothing escapes their action. Everything in the universe is subordinate to them-everything, that is, except for God Himself, who embraces all three in his  unfathomable unity so as to form the tetrad of the ancients, that immense quaternary which is all in all and apart from which there is nothing.

The Age of Philosophy

Providential law is the law of the divine man. He lives a life primarily of the intellect, which is governed by that law. ~ Fabre d’Olivet
It is the philosopher who lives a life of the intellect, that is, a life of contemplation of Being. In Being, there are the essences or, as Guenon calls them, “possibilities”. From that perspective, there is no difference between possibilities of manifestation and possibilities of non-manifestation. The philosopher seeks the Wisdom to live the good life. For him, it is simply a question of knowledge. If ignorance of what is good is the problem, then knowledge is the solution. Since Being has no beginning, he regards the world as Eternal.

Nevertheless, this wisdom is available to the few, since the bulk of men neither seek it, nor understand it when it is explained to them. That is why Aristotle can claim that most men are born slaves. That does not mean they live as chattel slaves, but rather that they need to be directed.

That is the natural order of things, so the best state is the aristocratic, or rule of the best. That requires, however, that men could recognize the best. That is not the case, since the best are recognized today only in athletic competitions and beauty. That is why they are so popular today. Hence, the degeneration of the castes is described by Plato as the fall from aristocracy to democracy in several stages.

The Age of Religion

The next age is that of religion. Here the focus moves to the Will. Ignorance, or defect of the intelligence, is not the problem, but rather sin, or defect of the Will.

Thus, Augustine finds a deeper meaning than what the philosophers see. For him, slavery is the fruit of sin. As the Fathers often pointed out, the sinner has as many masters as he has vices. The doctrine of “original sin” just means that all men are born as slaves in this sense.

The philosopher believed a man could become just by overcoming ignorance. However, the theologian sees that justification can only come from something transcendent. Hence, man becomes free only through a second birth into this higher state.

Therefore, the just, or well-ordered, state is governed by the cross and the eagle.

The Age of Science

As the awareness of Being and Will faded, attention fell on Destiny, which is nature under necessity. The claims of the philosopher and the theologian could not be verified in nature. The ordering principle of Religion, which had maintained civilization for centuries, lost its force as the Will weakened.

Religious restrictions came to be seen as forms of slavery rather than as the path to liberation from slavery. There is no need to repeat what’s been said many times before, but Science did have great success in forming, or deforming, a civilization. However, the limitations of empiricism as an explanatory principle, are becoming quite apparent, even if only to a few.

There are two conflicting directions. On the one hand, science represents the final stage of the degeneration of the castes, not even anticipated by Guenon and Evola. Whereas the philosopher and theologian were aware of transcendent states, for the scientist, man is just another mammal. The consequences of this are seldom made explicit even by the educated and intelligent classes. Of course, it may very well be that current day rulers are nothing but mammals. Esoteric tradition teaches that there are degrees of men, dependent on their dominant chakra.  Moreover, it also teaches that there are anthropoids with a human exterior, but without a soul. This is actually becoming accepted by mainstream thinking.

The other direction is the advancement of technology, which has made living easier in many ways. That opens the possibility for general prosperity, but the verdict is still out on that. However, it also makes possible mass manipulation and control. The will lead to a form of slavery unknown to previous eras.

The Age of the Artist

As far back as the beginnings of recorded history we find evidence that the Tradition taught the way to cross this moat by knowledge of oneself and by working on oneself. ~ Boris Mouravieff, Gnosis Book Two
The wise man will rule the stars ~ Rosicrucian maxim
The Artist will be a philosopher, knight, saint, and scientist. He will integrate the intellectual, psychic and instinctive spheres into a whole, as Guenon wrote. That integration is the True Will, so the Artist must needs be the conscious creator of his life. This is liberation from necessity, as Guenon explains:
In uniting itself to Providence and consciously collaborating with it, the human Will can become a counter-balance to destiny and finally neutralise it
the Will hard won by faith [this shows that it is related to Providence] is capable of enslaving Necessity itself, controlling Nature and producing miracles . (Pythagorean)
On the principle that Atman is Brahman, the knowledge of the whole, then, begins with self-knowledge. This knowledge leads to the Real I and True Will. Then,
Esoteric Tradition teaches that any civilization is none other than a projection of the consciousness of the ‘I’s of elite man onto the exterior world.
Hence, the Artist will need to have a creative imagination that can visualize a new civilization and bring it into manifestation.

The Intentional Sociopath

Although this section has been outlined for a while, Harun, in a recent well-expressed comment, anticipated its content.

The popular mind believes that the rejection of societal imperatives will lead only to the unbridling of animal passions. Yet, that is just another form of slavery, or sociopathy as a disease.

Rather, the liberated man will be an intentional sociopath. Once freed, for example, from the lower sexual impulses dedicated to procreation (or its deformations), he will move from the stage of procreation to the stage of creation. This will open him up to the “enlarged and refined vision of the more subtle qualities of Love.” (Mouravieff) Like Dostoevsky’s Idiot, he is no longer obsessed with fitting into the bourgeois lifestyle. This is not the same as vulgar rebellion for its own sake, but the opposite of rebellion.

He may become heroic, differentiated, and spiritual.

Seeking a New Beginning: Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

via Alternative Right

Rudy Youngblood as Jaguar Paw in
Gibson's Apocalypto
Alternative Right Editor's Note: The following is a film review and analysis I composed for The Last Ditch in 2007. I am reposting it here to set the stage for my upcoming reconsideration of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, to be published during Holy Week. 

Mel Gibson's latest movie, Apocalypto, is at the end of its run in theaters. Opening in early December, the film achieved a modest success, raking in nothing close to what The Passion of the Christ made, but still earning somewhere close to Braveheart's overall gross.

What makes that modest success extraordinary is the fact that Gibson has essentially become a persona non grata in the film industry since his run-in with a Jewish policeman who arrested him for drunken driving in August 2006. If Passion didn't alienate Gibson from Hollywood's largely Jewish movers and shakers, including the distributors — the men who made Gibson rich and famous, and are now eager to unmake him — then his drunken anti-Semitic tirade on the occasion of his arrest, widely broadcast across the nation afterwards, surely did.

Yet for all that, and much to the consternation of his detractors, Gibson is still clearly hot stuff at the box office. That is proven by the fact that he can write, direct, and produce a film such as Apocalypto, and can turn it into a moneymaker, even though it features no known movie stars and is an odd, eccentric, exceedingly grim meditation on the demise of the Mayan Empire just before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the sixteenth century, done entirely in an ancient Indian dialect with subtitles.


Film critics, nearly all of whom are cultural liberals, have turned sharply against Gibson since 2004's The Passion of the Christ; in fact, they have been leery of him since 2000, when he came out with The Patriot, a Revolutionary War epic with an unmistakable pro-gun ownership message. Yet the majority somewhat grudgingly gave high marks to Apocalypto, noting its aesthetic boldness and visual flair.

Of course they added the caveat that the film is a luridly, gratuitously, fetishistically gory and violent affair. (Sound familiar, Passion fans?) And a few have opined that Gibson's portrayal of the Mayans as bloodthirsty savages is "culturally insensitive" and all that. (After all, showing a non-white society in a manner that's not unambiguously positive is a very chancy thing, especially when you're already under suspicion for harboring hatecriminalist thoughts.) But most have elected not to take the underlying ideas of the film seriously at all, instead deciding to see it as a brainless action-adventure thrill-ride with interesting cinematography — a sort of Lethal Weapon 5 set in pre-Columbian Central America.

In fact, "Apocalypto" is clearly meant to be an allegory of our own society in its current state and under contemporary circumstances, as I shall attempt to demonstrate here.


The film, after all, begins by flashing, somewhat portentously, the well-known quote by Will Durant: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." We are then introduced to Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a young Indian brave living happily in the jungle with a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers. For better or for worse, Gibson idealizes this way of life, in much the same way Dances with Wolves glamorized (and whitewashed the faults of) the Plains Indians of North America. As in Dances with Wolves (1990), the so-called civilized people are the true savages, drunk with greed and imperialist dreams.

However, while "Dances" ran with the more typical theme of the white man as the source of wickedness and cruelty in the world, Apocalypto goes in a more unusual direction; here, red men are both the good guys and the bad guys.

Jaguar Paw and his people are invaded by other Indians, specifically sophisticated and militaristic Mayans from an urban setting, who rape, pillage, and engage in widespread slaughter before taking several men and women hostage, forcing them to trek the long distance back to the hub of Mayan civilization. The captives walk in chains, shouldering a long, heavy piece of wood, thus mirroring the scene in "The Passion" of Christ bearing his cross, whilst being harassed and whipped.

Cruel to be cruel, in the wrong measure: the perverse and bloodthirsty Mayans
This isn't exactly lighthearted fare, but through it all Gibson hasn't totally lost his goofy wit. When a tree almost falls on the taskmaster in charge of herding the natives along, the man screams, "I am walking here!" — a droll reference to Dustin Hoffman's famous angry declaration to the cabbie in Midnight Cowboy. I'm not sure what the idea was behind this homage, if there was an idea, but it's funny just the same.

As they march along on their trail of tears, the group passes a little girl with leprosy, who begs for food and is rebuffed by the soldiers who have engaged in the looting, pillaging, and enslaving up to this point. Then in an extraordinary cinematic moment, the girl's body is seemingly invaded by a spirit who pronounces the end of the wicked Mayan society in a deep, guttural voice. Another people will come, she says to the soldiers, and that will mean the end of the empire they serve. The proud military men are unnerved by this impromptu prophecy, and hurry their prisoners onward.

The little leper prophet
When they finally arrive at their destination after the arduous journey, the group is marched to the top of a huge pyramid-shaped temple, where it is clear what is to be the fate of the prisoners: human sacrifice. The high priest delivers a speech, defiantly refuting the notion that the Mayan empire is in decline. The gods will be appeased by the orgy of bloodletting that will take place, and that in turn will set things straight, he says. The people in attendance cheer, and they are enthralled, as the priest plunges his dagger into each prisoner, one by one, before cutting out his heart, then tossing the heart and the lifeless corpse to the bottom of the pyramid. Children under the pyramid battle for body-part souvenirs like modern-day baseball fans chasing foul balls. It is clear that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have already been slaughtered in this manner.

Just as it appears that Jaguar Paw is about to meet this awful fate, a miracle of sorts intervenes. I won't reveal much beyond that, except to say that the final hour of the movie is basically one long chase scene, and that Jaguar Paw manages, against impossible odds, to return to find his pregnant wife and young son, who have been hidden away in a precarious spot since Jaguar Paw was taken captive.

Near the end of the movie, we witness the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. It is clear that — in
accordance with the earlier-delivered prophecy — they are the force that will finish off the corrupt Mayan empire, stained as it has become with the blood of the innocent. At this point, however, Gibson hedges his bets. When Jaguar Paw's wife asks him whether he thinks they should greet the conquerors, he replies that they should instead return to the jungle, "to seek a new beginning."

Thus, where he could go to the extreme of political incorrectness, by unambiguously positioning the white men as the good guys, Gibson chooses instead to present things in a manner more equivocal but perhaps ponderable, too. The viewer gets the impression that while the old culture, that of the demon-worshipping Mayan pagans, was evil through and through, the coming ascendant one (i.e., the culture of the Spanish Catholics) might not be much better. And that the best thing to do is to escape from all would-be empires, with their arrogant claims upon us, and to dwell separately, live simply, and cultivate our own garden.


Since the movie is making a clear attempt at allegory (recall the Durant quote), it isn't hard to draw parallels to our own age and tease out Gibson's judgment upon the current clash of civilizations. The Mayans are the equivalent of the post-Christian, post-modern West, where we engage in our own form of ritual mass human sacrifice, namely abortion, out of deference to our own superstitions, namely hedonism and sexual license.

Our civilization is now under attack from the ascendant culture of militant Islam, and it is likely soon to fall. But we would be foolish to greet our conquerors on bended knee. Instead, we few who still cleave to the moral, spiritual, and aesthetic notions that made the West great, before the onslaught of modern decadence, ought to escape into our own proverbial jungle, in order to seek our own new beginning.

These parallels are at least somewhat problematical. Bad as we are in the West, we aren't exactly as cruel or as barbarous as the Mayans. In fact, one could argue that our problem isn't so much that we've grown too hard (the obvious hard-heartedness of abortion aside) but that we've grown too soft, flabby, effete, and degenerate. And the Muslims are still a ways away from dominating us and imposing sharia across the Western world.

Still, confronted with today's relentless "us vs. them" paradigm — "You are with us or you are with the terrorists!" as our own fearless leader proclaims; "We must slaughter the infidel wherever we find him!" as the Muslim fanatics retort — we may find it worthwhile to give some thought to a third way, of neither embracing our own debased culture nor surrendering to opportunistic invaders, but instead doing our best to restore what was lost... and start over.

Second Foundation

via West Hunter

I’ve been reading a lot about the ‘replication crisis’ (low TFR?) in social psychology. Probably much, if not most, of the crap they push is.. crap. For example, there are strong indications that stereotype threat is just a dream. Who could have guessed that?

Some of the players are seriously bothered. Michael Inzslicht, a dealer in stereotype threat and ego depletion: ” As I said, I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not.” It’s the end of the world as he knows it – but I feel fine.

Cyril Kornbluth had a similar crisis of psychology occur in one of his novels, The Syndic. One psychologist showed that a rival school’s constructs simply didn’t correspond to the emotions and reactions of randomly-sampled populations. He tried the same acid test on his own school’s constructs and found out that they didn’t correspond either. That didn’t frighten him: he was a scientist. (!) Everyone from full professors to undergraduate students joined the feeding frenzy and wrecked everything so comprehensively that the field ended up as dead as palmistry. Of course, in the novel, the revisionists weren’t quite right: psychology collapsed because of a massive outbreak of sanity – the neuroses had gone away. I don’t think that’s our problem today.

Maybe we need to show some patience. Western medicine was worse than useless for two thousand years after Hippocrates, but it all turned out OK, not counting people like George Washington who would probably be dead by now anyhow. Someone impatient might have shot all the doctors in 1600 and asked people like Pascal and Fermat to start over from scratch: that would have been a dreadful mistake, surely? Alchemy had a lot of practical results, unlike medicine, but it too generated false theories for thousands of years. Maybe some of our current pseudosciences (fengshui? molybdomancy?) will someday become real and powerful. I’m not holding my breath, but who knows? There are more things in heaven and earth.

Maybe we’ll see the end of science in some other area – say a complete theory of physics, which would be particularly likely if we’re living in a simulation. Then, with a little luck, we’d see a conquest of the hallowed halls of psychology by red-handed physikers in search of full-bodied wantons and grant support, just as displaced Huns kicked Gothic ass.

The real question is what purpose should social psychology serve? If the point is to learn new truths, trying to straighten out the existing players is unlikely to be the most effective path. They don’t seem to be terribly smart or insightful – if they were, they wouldn’t be in this mess. They’re obviously not mathletes. They really, really want some fairly silly things to be true – that’s a huge handicap, one that shows no sign of abating. Judging from the state of the field, curiosity is not their strongest passion.

If I were King, I would fire them all and start over with new personnel. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. There’s no point in being inhumane about it: we could retrain them for jobs more suited to their capabilities (by teaching them THE WORDS).

Searching for the Meaning and Purpose of Life?

via Western Spring

If you are White and if you have been searching for the meaning and purpose of life, you are probably frustrated that you haven’t been able to find it.
Maybe you’re checked out the various religions  and maybe you’ve dabbled in some, but perhaps you’re not satisfied with what you’ve found.  Wonder why?  It may be because most of them aren’t  right for you.   They don’t take into account your DNA Code.  Most religions, and especially the major ones, aren’t the products of people like you, if you are White.  They’re a bad fit for the way you are, and the way you are is largely determined by the DNA Code you were born with.

You must find the meaning and purpose of life in your DNA Code. Everything in your life must be in tune with your DNA Code.  There is no other way.

Your DNA Code has levels to it. At the lowest, the most general, the broadest, and most basic level it just reads “life.” Then it has ever finer and more discrete levels that follow a taxonomic structure until it is refined and narrowed down to you as an individual.  However, in thinking of  the meaning of life as a human being, the best place to  start is at the race level.  This is where we start to see meaningful and important differences which, if correctly understood, lead us to answers to the meaning of life for us as White people–and that’s who we are talking about here.  Unfortunately, our present day anti-White society wants you to ignore very important genetic differences in humans that are found at the race level and it wants you to pretend race doesn’t exist and to focus on the broader species level only.

The problem with  focusing on the species level for White humans is that this level is too broad  and misses many distinctions that are important to a knowledge of the meaning and purpose of life for us as Whites.  Focusing on the species level for humans is a little like focusing on the species level for dogs and pretending there are no breeds. As you probably know, breed is to dog as race is to human.

If you as a White ignore race you will never find the true meaning and purpose of life for yourself, and if you go in the other direction and only consider the meaning  and purpose of life based on you as an individual, you’ve gone too far the other way and you will miss seeing patterns that lead to an understanding of the  true meaning and purpose  of life for you as a White human.  Now, a quick aside is in order here. There are, of course, many things on the species level and the genus level and the family level and the order level and so forth that apply to us as White humans, because we do have many things in common with all life; but it is at the race level  where there are important divergences that are important to us for an understanding of the meaning and purpose  of life for us as White people.

With the above in mind, we must fully understand that there is not a one size fits all human being and there is not a  one size fits all religion. And, it is with religion (and philosophy) that we find most attempts to explain the meaning and purpose of life as such  meanings relate to us as sentient beings.  And it is here where we run into problems, because many  religions (certainly the major ones) teach a universalist view of reality, i.e., that all humans can partake of these religions because–in their false views–all humans are  the same (it’s that ham handed species level of taxonomy again in different words) and while there are some things that are universal–many other things are particular, and specific and in this regard when you deal with life and especially, because we are humans, human life, you must take into account particular DNA Codes and the genes that are part of those codes.

Of course, the way many religions handle the questions about meaning and purpose is to fill in the gaps with fairy tales, but we needn’t detail them here as you’re probably well aware of them.

Meaning of Life 2Before we go on, we need to understand something very basic to avoid the mind traps set by those who want all humans to blend together and disappear as distinct types. What they try to convince you of is that racial differences are no more than different paint jobs applied almost as an afterthought by nature over identical model humans.  This is nonsense.  They’ll also often point out, in an attempt to wow you with science, that while we humans have about 6 billion of the letters A,T,C, G in our DNA code which are combined into 3 billion pairs, that we ONLY have about 3.5 million differences between human races.  Only 3.5 million differences?  Only?  Good grief.  Just one or two differences can make a world of difference in the world of genes.

It is well known that seemingly minor differences at the gene end of things can have major differences in the complete organism.  A little tweak here and a little tweak there and you have a White person or a Black person a mouse or a moose.  It’s like shooting a rifle at a target way down range.  The slightest movement, even just taking a breath, at the trigger end may cause the bullet to miss the target by yards.
You will never find the meaning and purpose  of life if you follow the false religions and false philosophies that deny the reality of DNA and genes.  These are your blueprint and your recipe.  They make you, you.  You must be you and you must find the meaning of life in concert with these real and actual physical things. You are a physical being–you must begin with your physical self–not with prayers and incantations and meditation.  To repeat: there is no universal human type. And, as such, there can be no universal religion.  Our DNA Codes do more than give us skin color differences. They give us differences in our brains and thus our minds and then the things of our minds including our true spirituality.  But it all begins with the physical DNA Code. Simply put, you must take into account your DNA Code in order to find true meaning and purpose of your life. There is no other rational way.

To go a little deeper, and as I’ve written before, we can think of life as being the product of a Life Force. Bear with me on this.  On Earth, so called non-living minerals have been taken up and assembled by the molecule of life, DNA, so that the assemblages of minerals that we call living organisms have something added–life–that so called non-living minerals don’t have.  We are living dirt. We have what we call life. As humans, we think, we move about, we are active, we have intelligence, we have consciousness.  We can make more like ourselves. We don’t just sit someplace like a rock.  As a quick off the cuff answer we might say that it is the DNA molecule itself that is the Life Force, but that just scratches the surface and we must really dig further down for a fuller understanding of what it’s all about.  The DNA molecule is made up of atoms and the atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles and the sub-atomic particles are made up of ever smaller things and they are made up of non-material “things” that are in the realm of vibrations, forces, energies, frequencies.  Our DNA, like everything else at our level of existence goes ever smaller to the quantum level of existence where matter comes into existence–but, remember, we are made of matter and it is matter at our level of existence that we must deal with.

Of course, we still haven’t  answered the question as to the meaning and purpose of life. Is life itself meaningless and without purpose?  My answer is that it is not. I say the meaning of life, per se, is life itself.  Life “wants” to exist and to expand always and fill all of existence with itself and to become more. Life’s meaning and  purpose for itself is to fill all of existence with itself.   It is programmed by nature (or the Divine, if you prefer) to do so.  It is axiomatic that life is better than non-life, existence is better than non-existence, higher consciousness and intelligence are better than lower consciousness and lower intelligence.  Being is better than non-being.

EvolutionBut, what we’re really concerned about here is whether or not there is an additional meaning and purpose to our lives as White humans and if there is, is it because we are different from other humans? The answer is pretty much the same as the axioms listed immediately above. We want to exist and expand always and fill all of existence and to become more–as Whites.  That is both the meaning and the purpose of our lives. We may not be conscious of this, but it is part of our DNA program. If you understand a little about existence you’ll see this written in nature. Of course, it is the same meaning and purpose as all other life including all other humans, and there is an eternal struggle to be the one to come out on top.  That is the very nature of nature. I call this eternal struggle the Gene Wars. And, the Gene Wars are most pronounced among organisms that are similar enough so that there can be gene flow such that one similar organism can wipe out similar organisms simply by having its genes flow into the other organism.  For us White humans, this means that so long as we can breed with other types of humans and bear children with them, we are in danger of extinction.

To win the struggle–the Gene Wars–Whites need to stay separate from other kinds of humans and not blend in with them.  If we blend in, we automatically lose the struggle to be on top as the life form that moves higher and higher and higher to ever more intelligence and consciousness and as the human kind that replaces other human kinds as homo sapiens sapiens has replaced other kinds.  Again, this is nature’s way.  We must avoid all gene flow from non-Whites to us Whites.  Gene flow to us from them I call bedroom genocide.

Now, to put a point on our question as to whether our White kind has a meaning and purpose to our lives. The answer is that our lives do have a meaning and a purpose. It is to evolve ever higher. And, we must take charge of our evolution and we must struggle to  be the human organism that will evolve ever closer to that which can be called the Divine.  To do this, we must purify ourselves both spiritually (meaning here to purify our thinking and think correctly about existence, and physically (to purify and improve our DNA and keep it on the right path ever upward).  How do we do we purify ourselves?  By living good and right lives, by not miscegenating, by having as many of our kind of children as possible, by having the right thoughts and by being what we are born to be–a holy and a selected kind–who do the will of the Divine (or nature) and who save humanity by and through us as we take our place as the replacements for a decaying and evil humanity, just as present humanity has replaced earlier kinds.  It is not just us, as the individuals we are, that will lead us higher, it is also our children.  We may not make it as high as they do, but we should try, and in trying we will help our DNA Code move higher.  We must understand the fundamental principles of evolution and natural selection and we must make our own selections that are best for us alone.

To move higher, we must evolve such that we can no longer have viable children with non-Whites. This will prevent all gene flow that will blend us back into the masses of humanity–when this occurs, our evolution will speed up.

If we breed true, and if we do not miscegenate and if we live right, we will evolve.  If we miscegenate  we will devolve and we will be assimilated and we will be blended back into the darker masses of humanity from which we evolved not that may thousands of years ago (we may have become the typical White person as few as 5,000 years ago according to some sources).  The actual time is not that important here, the fact is that we did evolve at some point in the past to be as we are today and we are still evolving.  And, we may actually be evolving faster.  It has been reported that White skulls are getting longer top to bottom over the past decades (yes, I wrote decades, not millions of years).  Why is this happening?  It may be because our brains are getting larger and that in order to be born without killing our mothers in the process  we couldn’t have our skulls expand side to side to accommodate the larger brains  or we might not pass through the birth canal without harming our mother.  In other words, while our White skulls are expanding to house our expanding brains, White women’s pelvises  and birth canals are not expanding as fast to accommodate wider heads, but longer heads will pass easily.  It is known that in evolution various characteristics don’t all evolve at the same time.  As just one more example, it is believed that we got our White skin before many of us got our light colored  eyes.

So, Evolve! That is your meaning and purpose.

Trump, David Duke, KKK, and the ADL

via RamZPaul

Trump won't jump through compliance hoops for the ADL - a Jewish Supremacist group.

Vid of ADL engaging in genocide denial.

You Say You Want a Revolution

via Counter-Currents

Argument: A while back Greg Johnson made an interesting comment — that he wants to make maintenance of Israel as difficult and costly for Jews as possible, since the more effort and resources they expend on that, the less they will have to attack White interests. 
One can say the same for the System as a whole, the more effort and resources the System requires to prop up a decaying and disrupted multicultural regime, the less they will have to target those who pursue pro-White policies. Therefore, what we need is to stretch and exhaust the System as much as possible, ensure that they have no peace, promote constant chaos and turmoil, so the System is always on the defensive, always trying to stem the tide and prevent collapse into anarchy. A weakened System, desperate for survival, opens up many possibilities and opens up niches for nationalist expansion.

Counter-argument: The System will respond by repressing Whites even more, to our detriment (“worse is better” being mostly fiction; worse is most often just worse).

Response: That depends on what form the System’s problems take. If the problem is mass mobilization of angry White masses, catalyzed by Trump and subsequently amplified by “movement” activism, the System may perceive that the best course of action is less repression coupled to attempts at reform, similar to what Gorbachev tried in the USSR. It depends on us — if we get the White anger growing, then that will be the problem the System needs to calm down; if we sit back and do nothing, and let the Coloreds and SJWs rant and rave and have the stage to themselves, then the System will feel it has to placate them and not us.


Counter-argument: Reform by the System will be a safety valve, dissolving White anger, making our desired change more difficult (again, the “worse is better” argument).

Response: This I think misunderstands the fundamental nature of most revolutions in history. I remember something I read in a book by Soviet defector “Viktor Suvorov” — typically, successful revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed. Examples in history abound, the French and Bolshevik revolutions being prime examples. The fall of communism being of more recent vintage, and for “movement” onanists, the case of Saint Adolf is instructive, the Nazis coming to power after an attempt to co-opt them by hopeful conservatives.

One may debate and discuss the mechanisms for this rule of history, including that when repression is relaxed, all of the pent-up anger and fury and revolutionary energy now has sufficient strength to burst through, and the ruling System has exposed its weakness which makes the revolutionaries “smell blood.” In contrast, during the greatest repression, the victims of the repression are stupefied by the terror inflicted on them, the System exerts an aura of invincible brutal strength, and the apparatus of state control is too powerful to overcome.

Counter-argument: The System knows this rule of history and will guard against it.

Response: I’m sure the Soviets knew this rule as well, as “Suvorov” demonstrates. But, a given System may have no choice. They may be in a situation in which continued repression is not possible, reforms are absolutely required to survive, and they may hope that the reforms will be sufficient to extend their rule and hold off revolution. In all of the historical cases outlined above, the ruling elites were in danger, and had to take the chance on reform. It follows then that it is imperative that the current System be given no choice — either attempts are made at reform to ease the rage and anxiety of the White masses or the whole multicultural regime will fall to pieces. But that is not going to happen on its own. Trump has been the catalyst to start the reaction, but unless someone steps in to extend and amplify this reaction it will fizzle out, wasting more time, and making us wait even longer for another opportunity, which would occur under even less favorable demographic circumstances. The fire has been lit; we need to pour gasoline on it.

Thus, it is imperative that the “movement” gets to work, sowing the seeds of distrust, rage, discord, alienation, bitterness, cynicism, and righteous anger among the White masses who have been at least partially aroused from their slumber by Trump and, to an even greater extent, by the unhinged System response to Trump’s rather mild and centrist challenge (the System’s reaction to Trump is more damaging to them than Trump is himself, it is like an immune system run amok — this should give us encouragement that the System will become desperate enough at some point to try reform if we keep the pressure up on them).

What could a real, effective, far-seeing movement, reasonably proofed against infiltrators and traitors, do in the current situation (beside the usual tactic of online posts and promoting overt racialist memes)? Three possibilities:

1. Send representatives to be at attendance at Trump rallies and other events throughout the country. The key point here is that these activists would, for the most part, notbe there as overt racialists, representing groups, and proselytizing with usual nonsense. No, instead, these people should be there blending into the crowd, undercover so to speak,spreading poisonous memes to undermine the System, sowing distrust and bitterness, exploiting the anger and resentment of Trump’s supporters, attacking the legitimacy of the System with clever maliciousness, utilizing rhetoric that is restrained yet at the same time craftily designed to enrage, inflame, and infuriate.

For example, Hood’s various “waking up from the American Dream” essays are excellent sources of material for “whispering in the ears” of Trump supporters, who are, no doubt, properly receptive to such messages. Now, yes, there can be a few overt racialists recruiting and making their presence known, but the majority should be there covertly planting the seeds so to speak, preparing the ground, “softening the crowd up” so that if and when they later hear more hardcore overt messages they’ll be accepting of them. Even more generally, the point is to spread cynicism, division, discord, rage, anger, resentment, bitterness, to emphasize how they are against Trump and how they want to thwart the will of the people, and how they are ruining America. And if anti-Trump protesters start their song-and-dance, that’s just more grist for the mill, more examples to point to about how they hate us. Discord and division, chaos and balkanization, undermining all confidence that the American System represents the interests of Trump’s supporters.

Two points here.

First, the aim is to instill an attitude of defiant anger, not one of despairing surrender. The people need to be made aware of their humiliated subaltern status, but in a manner that triggers righteous rage, not cowering cowardice.

Second, so there is no confusion or misinterpretation, the aim is not to provoke violence (although everyone has the right to self-defense if attacked), but to promote the attitude of “we are all too different, America is a joke, the System is corrupt, it’s time to look after our people alone,” and utterly oppose the idea of “despite our differences, we are all Americans.” Divide, divide, divide! When “Americans” of different races, creeds, and colors view each other with suspicion and hostility, with seething hatred, then we are on the road to recovery. That is your aim, that is your objective.

2. Activists with no overt connection to racialist politics can join the Trump campaign, even if just locally, and do everything possible to nudge it further in the direction of confrontational right-wing populism. Inflame the opposition, whose histrionic excesses will play right into the hands of those activists pursuing possibility #1.

3. Younger activists with no plausible connections to any previous political activity on the Right can indulge in some “black ops” infiltration of the opposition. Join in the local Clinton or Sanders campaign groups and nudge them in the direction of more overt and confrontational anti-Whiteness. Promote outrageous displays of hostility toward Whites and the traditional America, to better demonstrate to Trump’s supporters how much the System hates them. One could in theory have infiltrated the campaigns of Trump’s GOP opponents, to encourage outrageous cuckservatism anti-Whiteness among them as well. Use your imagination!

Again, similar to #1, the aim of #2 and #3 is memetic confrontation, not to provoke violence. Indeed, the groups in question, particularly the anti-Trump crowd, are alreadyviolent. There’s nothing to provoke there.

It is of course possible that activists are already doing these things and are just properly keeping quiet about it. If this is so, and I hope it is, that’s great and would show there is some hope for the “movement” yet.

To quote Yeats, what we should promote for the System is for them to cry in despair: “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.”

To the ramparts, activists, memetically speaking, at least. You say you want a revolution? Work for it.