Aug 14, 2014

Expanding the MLK Myth

via Radix

When Martin Luther King Day became an official holiday, there was no way you could remove him from the pantheon of American heroes.

That's why conservatives have been so dedicated in adopting King as one of their own and finding hidden clues that he was actually a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.

We all know that he is really the God of White Dispossession, but with conservatives’ desperate attachment to America and its hall of heroes, they can’t bear the thought that their country would honor a man that seeks their downfall.

So they have become the biggest proponents of mythologizing MLK to the the point of ridiculousness. Case in point, a recent interview WorldNetDaily (better known for biblical prophecy theories and birther conspiracies) had with MLK's niece, Alveda King.

King is one of the many Black conservatives who exist solely to tell White conservatives what they want to hear. Similar to Dinesh D'Souza's "quintessential American" Star Parker, Mrs. King had two abortions early in life (and would've had a third if her family hadn’t refused to pay for it). She then had a supposed "come to Jesus" moment and now works full-time promoting the notion that her uncle was actually a Republican (with little evidence to bolster her claim).

That's no concern though when hard conservatives need to enlist MLK to validate their ideas. So instead of hearing about an open social democrat who philandered and plagiarized his doctoral thesis, we hear a tale of a divine saint that transcended the human condition. Not only that, but contrary to all credible evidence, he was a social conservative who knew abortion equaled Black genocide:
In a November 1957 advice column for Ebony magazine, King wrote, “The problems created by premarital sex relationships are far greater than the problems created by premarital virginity. The suspicion, fears, and guilt feelings generated by premarital sex relations are contributing factors to the present breakdown of the family. Real men still respect purity and virginity with women. If a man breaks a relationship with you because you would not allow him to participate in the sexual act, you can be assured that he did not love you from the beginning.”
Alveda told WND, “People think that’s old-fashioned, but that’s still true today. It was true then, and it’s true now. He was pretty much contemporary, very modern, but those standards that are timeless he supported." . . .
As part of his faith and profound respect for strong families and the marital bond, Martin Luther King Jr. never wavered in his belief in biblical marriage, Alveda said.
She explained in her book, King “lost a high-ranking member of his organizational team, Bayard Rustin, because Rustin was openly gay. Rustin was convinced that the homosexual agenda should be included in the civil rights struggle for desegregation. But Uncle M.L. clung to the Scripture and refused to acknowledge homosexuality as an issue that needed to be addressed on the public platform where the battle for skin color equity was being engaged.”
Alveda continued, “He had strong reasons for this because he was a man of God, and the Bible is clear on this topic. … By the Bible’s definition, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Other forms of human sexuality, including adultery(Editor's Note: That must've not applied to the good doctor), fornication, and homosexuality, don’t fit God’s design.”
And if a person claims to have been “born gay”?
“God has the same answer for any sin, including heterosexual lust,” she wrote. “Turn to Jesus.”...
Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a Christian man who believed in traditional marriage and advocated strong family values, said Alveda. He was steadfastly pro-life as well.
In 1966, Planned Parenthood presented King with its Margaret Sanger Award, named in honor of “the woman who founded America’s family planning movement.
Margaret Sanger was “a racist and a significant figure in the eugenics movement, one of the ugliest social movements in our history,” Alveda wrote. “Neither of these things was widely known in the mid-sixties. Regardless, my uncle was wary about receiving the award from the moment he heard about it.”
She explained that King never actually accepted the award. His wife accepted it for him.
The amount of falsehoods, distortions, and just plain wrong information is astounding. King openly backed his gay adviser Bayard Rustin and refused calls to disassociate him due his sexual orientation. King was a supporter of Planned Parenthood and understood what its real mission was. King was a serial adulterer and in no way lived up to the Christian ideal for marriage. King was also a strong advocate of wealth redistribution to the Black community and believed in a guaranteed income for all citizens--hardly ideas that conservatives would embrace.

Thus, conservatives have to construct a version of MLK that has no basis in fact to buttress their ideas. While the left embraces King for who he really was (they don't have to mythologize him because his life and beliefs perfectly fit their ideals anyway), it's the American Right that is dishonest and hyperbolic when it comes to discussing the civil rights leader. They have to mythologize him and distort his record in order to ease their minds to the thought that a socialist, ethnic advocate is now a part of America's pantheon of great figures.

In the same vein as D'Souza's latest film America, the pathetic attempt to adopt King as a conservative only serves to further drive intelligent people away from the American Right.

And that it is why it is important for our side to demystify and explain the truth about Martin Luther King. Undermining one of the establishment's heroes is bound to lead to more questioning of other tenets of our current social order. More Whites need to see King as the God of White Dispossession and his holiday as an affront to our Identity. That is why we have to combat the misinformation spread by conservatives about King's legacy and spread the message that King’s egalitarianism is harmful for our civilization.

'The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls'

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Remember when the French government issued travel warnings for several American cities? 

Immediately denounced by the American press as 'bigoted' and 'racial' (because the warnings for French citizens traveling to America warned of the dangerous conditions of primarily black cities), one of those area the French were warned about visiting was North St. Louis. [French Government Issued Travel Warning For North St. Louis, CBS St. Louis, 11-24-13]:

 It was 250 years ago that Frenchmen Pierre Laclede and Auguste Chouteau founded the fur trading post that would become St. Louis. Now the French government has some warnings for travelers coming here. 
On a French government website, readers can find a list of American cities the government of France has issued travel warnings about, organized by region. 
Listed in the “Sud” – or South – region is St. Louis. The warning reads “éviter le quartier nord entre l’aéroport et le centre-ville, mais la navette reliant l’aéroport est sûre.” 
Translation: Avoid the northern area between the airport and the city center, but the airport shuttle is safe. 
“The French government can do what it wants but in the end, you know, we’re still going to have people come in and enjoy our city,” Mayor Francis Slay said.
The French government care far more for the people they are tasked with protecting than does the American government, where the Attorney General, Eric "My People" Holder, actively works to promote the interests of blacks and create a legal buffer protecting them from any form of criticism, justice, or standards (be that academic, creditworthiness, behaving in K-12 public schools, or being forced to sit in jail for a criminal offense).

Remember the French government traveling warnings? One was for North St. Louis, near the airport... where most of the black riots/looting has occurred. 

Though scores of buildings have been looted by blacks in the St. Louis area, Mr. "My People" has his sights set on being 'color brave' in Ferguson, Missouri. [Holder opens federal probe of slain teen, The Hill, 8-12-14]

Yet, going back to the warnings of the French government for their citizens to avoid North St. Louis, it's important to consider what Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller just reported. [FAA Issues Flight Restriction After Rioters Fired ‘Multiple Times’ At Police Helicopter, 8-12-14]:
The Federal Aviation Administration issued a temporary flight restriction on Tuesday for an area surrounding Ferguson, M0., the town where a police officer fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old black man, after a St. Louis County police helicopter was fired upon Sunday night. 
The flight restriction was issued Tuesday at 1:15 p.m. local time. The reason for the notice is “TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.”
Read the CBS St. Louis story one more time: 
On a French government website, readers can find a list of American cities the government of France has issued travel warnings about, organized by region.  
Listed in the “Sud” – or South – region is St. Louis. The warning reads “éviter le quartier nord entre l’aéroport et le centre-ville, mais la navette reliant l’aéroport est sûre.” 
Translation: Avoid the northern area between the airport and the city center, but the airport shuttle is safe. 
Where is Ferguson located again? Where is the FAA No-Fly Zone?


And for those still convinced white people commit just as more much crime as black people, may we present the reality of why the French government advised French citizens to "Avoid the northern area between the airport and the city center, but the airport shuttle is safe."

Remember, the city of St. Louis is 49 percent black and 43 percent white.
The abandoned buildings and blighted ruins of St. Louis represent a silent vigil to the civilization whites built, and a reminder of the consequences what happens to a city that goes majority black

Each year, the City of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, releases an Annual Report to the Community. This report breaks down violent crime and the overall percentage of the racial group arrested for each offense (note because of lack of trust with police, many violent crimes/homicides lack suspects. The black community would rather have criminals among them than in jail).

Here's the breakdown 1999:
  • 84.94% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 1999 were black.
  • 91.74% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 1999 were black.
  • 90.2% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 1999 were black.  
  •  88.89% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 1999 were black.
Here's the breakdown for 2000:
  • 85.18% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2000 were black.
  • 90.33% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2000 were black.
  • 91.67% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2000 were black.  
  •  85.19% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2000 were black.
Here's the breakdown for 2002:
  • 86.26% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2002 were black.
  • 91.02% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2002 were black.
  • 94.78% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2002 were black.  
  •  91.06% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2002 were black.
Here's the breakdown for 2003:
  • 85.51% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2003 were black.
  • 89.21% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2003 were black.
  • 96.77% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2003 were black.  
  •  94.19% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2003were black.
Here's the breakdown for 2004:
  • 86.26% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2004 were black.
  • 91.02% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2004were black.
  • 94.78% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2004were black.  
  •  91.06% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2004were black.
 Heres' the breakdown for 2005:
  • 86.97% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2005 were black.
  • 90.59% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2005 were black.
  • 91.55% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2005were black.  
  •  87.37% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2005 were black.
 Here's the breakdown for 2006:
  • 85.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2006 were black.
  • 89.9% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2006 were black.
  • 91.8% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2006 were black.  
  •  90.02% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2006 were black.
Here's the breakdown for 2007:
  • 85.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2007 were black.
  • 80.1% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2007 were black.
  • 92% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2007 were black.  
  •  91.2% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2007 were black.
Anything different in 2008? No:
  • 87.2% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2008 were black.
  • 85.6% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2008 were black.
  • 97.7% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2008 were black.  
  •  88.8% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2008 were black.
2009? Is it still almost all-black? Yes:
  • 87.3% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2009 were black.
  • 92.7% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2009 were black.
  • 97.1% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2009 were black.  
  •  88.2% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2009 were black.
Please, tell me 2010 is different...:
  • 86.9% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2010 were black.
  • 92.7% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2010 were black.
  • 92.4% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2010 were black.  
  •  78.1% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2010 were black.
 2011? Same old song:
  • 86.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2011 were black.
  • 90.3% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2011 were black.
  • 92% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2011 were black.  
  •  86.2% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2011 were black.
According to 2012 Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis: Annual Report to the Community:
  • 84.7% of those arrested for aggravated assault in St. Louis in 2012 were black.
  • 91.8% of those arrested for robbery in St. Louis in 2012 were black.
  • 97.6% of those arrested for murder in St. Louis in 2012 were black.  
  •  78.6% of those arrested for forcible rape in St. Louis in 2012 were black.
Remember when the French government issued travel warnings for several American cites?

It's because black people make St. Louis a dangerous place.

It's because black people, shooting guns in the air, force the FAA to impose a flight restriction over the 67 percent black city of Ferguson. [FAA Issues Flight Restriction After Rioters Fired ‘Multiple Times’ At Police Helicopter, 8-12-14]

The lies of our world are so transparent we become conditioned to believe some form of evidence exists to prove them correct.

Ball's in your court, Gateway PunditWhy not publish this data, showing exactly why white people are correct to fear blacks in St. Louis and police are correct to engage in racial profiling. 

Either you stand for civilization or you support barbarism. 

The latter will always produce Detroit; the former is something along the lines of what we saw take off from Cape Canaveral on July 16, 1969.

Fratricidal Tendency


Subtitle: Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility in that regard.

Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

To intervene and ameliorate fraternal relations, perhaps, or to argue more thoroughly as to why race is not the proper group membership concern.

Needless to say, betrayal by those close to us is among the hardest challenges to cope with in life, and the most de-motivating of defending E.G.I.

It is prima facie an acute issue to deal with and one that would require some of our top guns to handle properly - the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. Their help and more, of course, is needed in addressing this matter which we have all felt too closely to handle rationally by ourselves. What I mean by “fratricidal tendencies” is something quite general - antagonism of those closely related, ranging from irresponsible negligence to literal fratricide and war between our closely kindred people.

As we are so invested and investing in these people, the pursuit of remedy to these conflicts has created our most painful and destructive moments, where we did and gave our best to people who betrayed us - we became enemies to ourselves.

Fratricidal tendency, boding against race as a practical organizational concept, issues one of the most significant challenges to advocates of people of native European descent.

As one always concerned thus, always aware somehow that I was among a group of people in disregard, if not under attack, I naturally sought argumentation and cooperation for group defense against those attacks.

Unlike those sold on the WN narrative of late, that we were on the wrong side of WWII, it was all too apparent that Hitler was no reconciler of fratricide in full European terms. On the contrary, it was his over-compensations which stigmatized even normal ethnic genetic defense for Europeans.

Despite him, and especially because I felt no responsibility for his worldview, it made no sense that we should simply die and let racial others have their way. Though such antagonism was apparent as long as I can remember – the mystifying lack of sound explanation as to why we should be looking at urban porches of African American welfare queens and their broods, leering, looming. I hear some saying that Whites were blissfully unaware of what was coming. That was not the case with me, the welling-up of the tidal wave of non-Whites and its mean disposition to Whites, its void of compensatory value, its only offering of destruction was horrifyingly obvious.
Again, I sought cooperation and argumentation in defense.

A stone turned-over in that pursuit was the sociobiology of E.O. Wilson. One thing that jumped-out from him was a significant obstruction to the defense of what would come to be called “ethnic genetic interests.” Specifically, Wilson observed that close genetic relations of peoples were no guarantee of their not fighting the most deadly of battles against each other, let alone a guarantee of their getting along cooperatively. He cited the example of the Jews and their neighbors. His genetic data showed that they were in fairly close relation genetically. Yet what was happening did not bespeak a camaraderie of ethnic genetic interests between those closely related.

But rather than going down the rabbit hole of that example, as the text I am referring to is dated, there are a myriad of supporting examples of people more closely related genetically, being more antagonistic, not less.

One does not have to venture abstract and highly scientific arguments to find examples of people closely related hating each other more than distant relations. While on the whole pattern, there apparently is more cooperation among close relations than not, that does not remove the fact that what I am calling here “fratricidal tendencies” (antagonism to closer genetic relations) is a critical problem, not only as it leaves us susceptible to the most horrific betrayal by those with intimate knowledge and participation of our vital resources, where they can do irreparable harm, but also as it leaves us vulnerable to antagonistic out-groups, who may cooperate better and may take advantage of our lack of cooperation.

Nevertheless, it is complicated, as it is not clear that close relations are going to fight either, nor of course, that they should. It is some combination of genetic and cultural (conditional/circumstantial) factors that make the difference and it is a complexity which makes it so interesting to ponder as a novel puzzle even if so important to solve – as important as anything to solve as social problems go, and as a problem for those concerned for E.G.I.

Dr. Lister has chided we racists, saying our basis is not the most important factor in creating social capital and allegiance, not by a long shot. Though I have not yet been able to find the specific reference as it occurred in a comment of his more than a year ago, he did note this fratricidal tendency as an argument against what he might term “vulgar racism.” But even while fratricidal tendency might argue against vulgar, simplistic organization on the basis of race, in noting this fratricidal tendency under certain circumstances, Graham also alluded to the necessity, perhaps the ought, of “paternal intervention” of its occurrence (again, I am speaking generally, using “fraternal and paternal” to bespeak people who are closely related and their elders).

So we have a geneticist describing the way it is under certain circumstances, and that as a result of the way it is, we ought not perhaps make EGI our platform over communitarianism, while making a cultural argument that fratricidal may be corrected – probably should be.

For me there is no necessary contradiction between the scientific and cultural, rules based inquiry, nor for that matter do Salter or MacDonald see a necessary contradiction.

The problem is that this is such an important issue to leave dangling without further hypotheses for practical understanding and solutions.

Thus, I chide Graham in the title, trusting that he will take it as good natured provocation, made in good will, in hopes that he will participate in solutions to the admittedly challenging argument that he himself has presented to we vulgar racists - White nationalists who may, by contrast, not look upon Graham as White at all, but a pinko! I am having a laugh at Graham, as I have with the subtitle, hoping to provoke him into what could be quite helpful participation.
He is, after all, the one who brought this highly relevant contention to the fore.

Graham cites one of E.O. Wilson’s most important interlocutors – Hamilton:
“Recall that from Hamilton’s work we have three zones of evolutionary conflict: between sexes/parents over parental investment in offspring; between parents and offspring over investment of parental resources now and in the future (inter-brood conflict); and lastly between siblings over division of parental investment within a brood (intra-brood conflict) that is also a form of parent-offspring conflict.
All three are really forms of intra-genomic conflict over life-history trade-offs. One cannot have a 1000 offspring and they all receive the same parental investment as a single offspring. Resources are always constrained in biology – not all optimisation criteria can be met – hence trade-offs exist. So an adult’s reproductive fitness maybe maximised by X number of offspring, but as a juvenile an organism’s direct (individual) fitness may be maximised by out-competing and/or the elimination of rivals for parental investment - hence the evolution of sibling rivalry (including fatal sibling rivalry) in both animals and plants (mostly, but not exclusively, in animals - birds and insects mainly). The ‘scale of competition’ in such systems can be both intense and heavily localised resulting in, for juveniles, on a cost/benefit analysis (including relatedness), that it evolutionarily pays to monopolise parental investment over and above the benefits of ‘inclusive fitness’, (particularly if the details of the precise ecologies/developmental biology involved prevents parental interference/control over such behaviours).
OK what does this have do to with multi-culturalism and free-market neo-liberalism etc.?
Well if we take the ‘dog-eat-dog’ world of rampant, cut-throat, individually conceived economic competition as a mechanism that decreases the scale of competition, thus making it more local and more intense then it could create a broader societal environment that selects against altruists/co-operators and selects for selfish ‘siblicidal’ traits, attitudes and/or behaviour. In fact such behaviours might be entirely rational for those that directly benefit from them.Why be an altruist/co-operator (of any sort) if a hyper-competitive ‘free-rider’ is going to benefit at your expense with no gains for the altruist/co-operator? Free-riding (without mechanisms to punish the ‘selfish’) hollows out social-capital (at what rate is an open question), eventually resulting in a picture of the world in which people can only conceive of themselves as isolated units (the lonely robots in Adam Curtis’ pithy phrase). Atomistic individuals in, more or less, a socio-economic Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’. And with this hyper-individualism inexorably come ideas of fungibility – well we are all equal players in this dismal ‘war of all against all’ why does it really matter as to the identity of my rival? After all if everyone (regardless of identity) are all equally dangerous and potentially cut-throat rivals in this game we ‘must’ play, why would any of your competitors secondary qualities actually matter (ethnic, linguistic, cultural etc.)? If someone, for their own advantage or profit, will metaphorically ‘stab you in the back’ at the first opportune moment does the ethnic background, religion etc., of the competitor really make any substantive difference in this situation? Thus the imaginative scope and empathetic idea of an ‘in-group’ and the collective differentiation with an ‘out-group’ is attenuated, as indeed are ideas of collective social solidarity/political-cultural subjectivities with regard to loyalty, mutuality, recognition and reciprocity towards (and within) your own in-group etc.
A regime of market Hobbesianism is the ‘universal acid’ that dissolves such ties that bind. After all only mugs don’t maximally look out for number one and only number one. Much of this view of the world starts in liberal theory and its implicit social ontology - as seen in Locke and all the other usual suspects etc., with the ‘unencumbered’ economic self which magically exists outside of sociality but enjoys all the possibilities, powers and goods (both personal and public) that the collective life of a particular community brings to it members. Lockeans and those of a liberal sensibility are free-riders in extremis.
So how could we measure the degree to which a society is a ‘dog-eat-dog’ one? Let’s assume the more ‘free-market’ forces are unrestricted the wider the distribution of wealth will be – that if there is more economic inequality (a proxy for the intensity/scale of intra-societal competition). Economic inequalities are measured by Gini co-efficients. Now if we could get the data it might be possible to explore the interaction between Gini co-efficients and levels of immigration both comparing different societies and the dynamics of such within recent history – say post-war or the start of 20th century until now. Of course there are subtleties involved. One might argue that immigration initially creates people ‘at the bottom’ so inherently ups the level of inequality in a society – but it might be possible to get Gini co-efficients corrected for such factors (that is a Gini co-efficient for the majority population) – if that was not possible too bad, but a statistical cross-societal and historical within-societal investigation might prove to be useful anyway. How does individualism, particularly of an economic sort, inequality and resistance (or not) to mass-immigration/multi-culturalism play out in the real world?
Both time and high quality data are required and a basic knowledge of how to use SPSS. Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree. But maybe not. Maybe such analyses are already out there in some form?
Perhaps the Gini co-efficient of nations that have had (or do have) high levels of migrants leaving them might also be part of the story?
Ok, so far so good to the serious minded and there seems to be plenty of room for practical elaboration. However, at this point in the essay of Graham’s, he goes on to make an argument that if a minimum wage could be established for third world people their quality of life improvement would drastically reduce their need and wish to come to European habitats. If that is true and it would work, fine; nobody here is placing the burden of blame on the immigrants for their coming into the habitats of European peoples anyway. Nevertheless, it is a curiously singular liberal concern and solution coming from a platform that sees liberalism, neo-liberalism anyway, as THE problem.

Cyberneticist Norbert Wiener observed that scientists were susceptible to be dupes, as they think in terms of Augustinian devils - natural problems that do not change the rules in the face of proposed solutions, while they may, in fact, be up against Manichean devils – man made problems subject to rule change in defiance to foil proposed solution. In the case even of competition over EGI, a scientist may think in Augustinian terms.

Indeed, Graham’s solution might have legitimate scientific merit in the Augustinian realm. But in the Manichean it may leave us obsequious dupes for the umpteenth time – having us once again contributing to the well being of outsiders, third worlders in this case, while doing nothing for ourselves; nor dealing sufficiently with those creating third world population explosion and the infliction of it against our EGI.

What is suggested is that we need still more rigorous attention with translation into practical terms in participatory solutions to what is creating our own fratricidal betrayal and what ought to be done to intervene. We need practical solutions as well as more frank acknowledgement that, again, we are in the realm of praxis, not of pure theoria, and in praxis in particular, manichean devils lurk – from powerful and deliberate interests, the YKW and international banksters/corporations, to the defacto, default organization of the fairer sex to maintain the power of their position in the topsy turvey of modernity through incitement to genetic competition, to those who would pander to that base natural tendency to convenient betrayal in narrow self interest, to the mere lowly disaffected, disenfranchised for lack of incentive to cooperate.

Now again, before I am criticized for proposing myself as a know-it-all beyond my station, I see this as a concern for the likes of Dr. Lister and Frank Salter. That is why I half jokingly subtitled the essay, “Graham’s shirked paternal responsibility.”

This is an important concern. We have gone through two world wars now which may be characterized as fratricidal. There are still devotee’s of Friedrich the Great out there presenting themselves as White Nationalist vanguard, who seem to think we need version 3.0, or rather defiantly claiming that 2.0 was never finished and we need to continue, now being done with the ceasefire. David Duke is still saying things like, Nazi “Germany made Britain a very generous offer prior to WWII.” It takes a used car salesman to pitch that angle (yesterday, August 7th) straight faced.

Even so, it is not the most dramatic issue of potential inter-European war that concerns me, but the general and even day-to-day matter of fratricidal/siblicidal antagonisms as they make problems and interfere with effective organization in our defense. What is natural of these tendencies, when, at what level (in the manner Graham discusses); and what are proper cultural, paternal interventions/corrections?

The concern goes beyond outright antagonism and extends to negligence – those who might not care about an adjacent European nation/peoples. Who cares about the French, let them go to hell!

Despite the shortsightedness and blinders of narrow nationalism, Frank Salter confirms the validity of nationalism as a means of defending ethnic genetic interests; culture as an extension of our genetics - particularly for Europeans, albeit a genetic propensity that leaves us susceptible as we are more non-determinist to our genetic interests than other peoples; and, interestingly, Salter confirms one of my favorite arguments, viz. for the non-necessity of supremacism in EGI (supremacism being a habit of racialists, he says, stemming from influences such as Nazism):

However, I don’t like his abuse of the term “White Left” as a designation of those forces advocating liberal relations with out groups. It would be good to have a talk with Frank about that. I believe the mistake that he makes (mistake in the sense of being a bit misleading with his naming among the enemy, “the white left”) is believing that what the Marxist said and wanted people to believe, viz. that it is all about economic class, was the same as their actual concern - which ultimately came down to racial advocacies, Jewish first, of course, and where they could not have Whites readily agree to otherwise identify with non-Whites in universal humanity, then racial advocacy of other non Whites.

Again, this could be a result of scientific blindness to manichean elements in this realm of praxis that he takes-on from a scientific perspective; or it could be that he is protecting himself from going into areas still taboo at present (criticism of Jewish power and influence); or from criticizing those too powerful but partly necessary either for support or to not antagonize; or it may just be seen as good tact – that by being made to see things aright, the powers that be may see their interests are not being served either by internationalism and integration of sundry peoples.

In any case, if he would appear at Red Ice, it stands to reason that he might, should, speak with us at Majority Rights.

While GW has conceived of MR as discussion site, and wanted to encourage the bringing along of people to a better organon in defense of EGI, the advocates of Jesus, Hitler, Jews and Descartes typically cannot allow for a view that critically rejects their world view. Threads were derailed by them and became unproductive. If we might need, we can invite such proponents for a formal discussion, but the comments need to be reserved for those pursuing means to serve European EGI, and for obvious reasons that requires freedom to be critical of the albatrosses of those world views – views which are served on other sites anyway, whereas European EGI served without those albatrosses would have little recourse and platform save for MR.

Majority Rights has moved beyond informal debates with those determined to promote Christianity, Hitler or the inclusion of Jews in our interest group. Moreover, we are advocating separatism, not supremacism; nor are we, through blind or disingenuous Cartesianism, let alone a tactlessly stated program, implicating to do violence and kill non-Whites who would be willing to leave us alone.

Given that platform, there is no special reason from this time forward for anybody who can agree to those constraints to not talk with us as they might wish. On the other hand, if one is not talking with Majority Rights because they would insist upon the inclusion of Jesus, Hitler and Jews (lets add Descartes to the outlist), then that is correct. This isn’t the place for them except by formal invitation.

Almost all of the acerbic language and atmosphere of MR in previous years had to do with those intransigently promoting those views needing to be fought-off in the free bazaar of the comments.

If, however, one does not participate because they think that I am otherwise doing something wrong, that would be incorrect. They ought to comment in correction, amendment, elaboration. Their ideas may be placed as a main post, further accredited to them in their own right, where they merit; or they might become an interlocutor for a podcast. I have not come into WN advocacy because I see myself as the greatest genius, a leader to shed light upon all fools, but because I saw some things that were not being done correctly, particularly in theoretical matters. Nor do I see it as a highly legitimate criticism to charge that the ideas I propose are not especially “ new”, as that is all the more reason to ask why they are not being implemented correctly, seeing as these ideas are so established. While I have contributed some novel thoughts, it is mostly my concern to coordinate people and information in our ethnic genetic interests, not dazzle people with the originality of my person.

Once again, I am in defiance of the Cartesian model, which would have me as the container informed of pure transcendence, and mere transmitter of information to a passively receiving audience. If someone participates with information better than I have that is far from a problem to me - solving our problems is the goal, not to create a cult of personality or a philosopher king. Though we do appreciate individual personalities and the esteem they are due.

The pressing matter here is fratricidal tendency as it obstructs organization and defense of our E.G.I. from out-groups, both for Augustinian and Manichean reasons.

Though apparently thinking mostly in Augustinian terms, the opinions of Drs. Lister and Salter would be highly relevant. We are looking for scientific description of the what, when, how, where, who and why of “fratricide” (generally speaking, antagonism and betrayal of close EGI, up to and including lethal); and practical solutions. Where these matters may have been discussed, it would not hurt to elaborate and further clarify them, particularly for practical terms of implementation.

Yockey on Culture and Race, Part 3

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Schlockey – This is mental masturbation. No solutions from this tanjewful. Such thoughts have occurred to me and to a degree I concur. Philosophy is not my cup of tea. At times it seems to amount to name-checking and pretentious navel gazing. Analysis is reactionary, descriptive rather than proscriptive, more like a post-mortem or obituary than a manifesto. If nothing else however, Yockey provides a springboard for those who are curious to learn more about European history and the thoughts of prominent European thinkers.

In order to propose sensible solutions to a problem you must first identify and understand the problem. As I described when I started this discussion, the claim has been made that Yockey’s Imperium has done just that. I want to believe, but I am skeptical. I would like to understand Yockey’s understanding.

Unlike many other analysts, Yockey relatively clearly identifies the jews. He also quite correctly describes the jews and the nature of the jewish problem as parasitic. Unfortunately, as I begin to come to grips with in this installment, Yockey had an iconoclastic attitude about race. He regarded soul/spirit/culture above and before people/biology/genes/materialism.

I began this second series to focus on Yockey’s view of what he described as “vertical race”, which he associated with the 19th century and looked down upon, and “horizontal race”, which he associated with the 20th century and advocated in favor of. It occurs to me now however that he provides a worthwhile introduction and synopsis of his views in the very first pages of Imperium. At page 10 he describes the thesis of his book – problem and solution:
The great crisis of the West set in forcefully with the French Revolution and its consequent phenomena. Napoleon was the symbol of the transition of Culture into Civilization — Civilization, the life of the material, the external, of power, giant economies, armies, and fleets, of great numbers and colossal technics, over Culture, the inner life of religion, philosophy, arts, domination of the external life of politics and economics by strict form and symbolism, strict restraint of the beast-of-prey in man, feeling of cultural unity. It is the victory of Rationalism, Money and the great city over the traditions of religion and authority, of Intellect over Instinct.
We had seen all this in the previous high cultures as they approached their final life-phase. In each case the crisis had been resolved by the resurgence of the old forces of Religion and Authority, their victory over Rationalism and Money, and the final union of the nations into an Imperium.
Yockey’s vision tends toward dichotomies. Behind everything he anthropomorphizes opposing forces, names capitalized, distinct and at odds. With Culture, however, he waves his hands and describes the literally inorganic as organic:
The High Cultures belong at the peak of the organic hierarchy: plant, animal, man. They differ from the other organisms in that they are invisible, or in other words, they have no light-quality. In this they resemble the human soul. The body of a High Culture is made up of the population streams in its landscape. They furnish it with the material through which it actualizes its possibilities.
Since a Culture is organic, it has an individuality, and a soul. Thus it cannot be influenced in its depths from any outside force whatever. It has a destiny, like all organisms. It has a period of gestation, and a birth-time. It has a growth, a maturity, fulfillment, a down-going, a death.
So, what crisis? Organisms live and die. If this is natural, where is the crisis? Skipping ahead to page 62 we get the impression that what disturbed Yockey was the sort of realization that disturbs many of us, even those who are less intelligent and knowledgable:
The proud Civilization which in 1900 was master of 18/2Oths of the earth’s surface, arrived at the point in 1945, after the suicidal Second World War, where it controlled no part whatever of the earth.
In 1900, the State-system of Europe reacted as a unit when the negative will of Asia thought, by the Boxer rebellion, to drive out the Imperialism of the West from China. Western armies from the leading States moved in, and smashed the revolt. Less than half a century later, extra-European armies are moving freely about Europe, armies containing Negroes, Mongols, Turkestani, Kirghizians, Americans, Armenians, colonials and Asiatics of all areas. How did this happen?
Quite obviously, through the inner division of the West. This division was not material — material cannot divide men if their minds agree. No, it was spiritual division that brought Europe into the dust. Half of Europe had a completely different attitude toward Life, a different valuation of Life, from the other half. The two attitudes were respectively the 19th century outlook, and the 20th century outlook.
Yockey here describes the What, not the How. The How, in a word, is jews. Jews were the masters of “the proud Civilization” even before what Yockey describes as a sudden change in control. Control did not actually change – it simply became clear that Whites were not in control.

Yockey refers to his solution as “The Idea”:
The first step in action is thus the liquidation of the spiritual division of Europe. There is only one basis on which this can be done; there is only one Future, the organic Future. The only changes that can be brought about in a Culture are those which its life-stage necessitates. The 20th century outlook is synonymous with the Future of the West, the perpetuation of the 19th century outlook means the continuation of the domination of the West by Culture-distorters and barbarians. The task of the present work is the presentation of all the fundamentals of the 20th century outlook necessary as the framework for comprehending and thorough action. First is the Idea — not an ideal which can be summed up in a catchword, or one which can be explained to an alien, but a living, breathing, wordless feeling, which already exists in all Westerners, articulate in a very few, inchoate in most. This Idea, in its wordless grandeur, its irresistible imperative, must be felt, and thus only men of the West can assimilate it.
The alien will understand it as little as he has always understood Western creations and Western codes. In his victory parade in Moscow in 1945, the barbarian exhibited his Western captive slaves to the jeering crowds of his cities, and made them drag their national flags behind them in the dust. If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinctions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Culture toward that Culture. Tomorrow the captive slaves offered up to the annihilation-instincts of the Moscow mobs may be drawn from Paris, London, Madrid, as well as from Berlin.
A continuation of the spiritual division of the West makes this not only possible but absolutely inevitable. Both the outer forces are working for the continued division of the West; within they are helped by the least worthy elements in Europe. This is addressed however to the only people that matter — the Westerners who can feel the Imperative of the Future working within them.
Our action-task is dictated for us by the fact that the soil of our Civilization is occupied by the outsider.
Yockey’s warning was prophetic. Today every major city of the West has a majority non-White population. Never mind jeers, the remaining Whites are robbed, raped and murdered.
The Idea, or at least a comparable ideal, has since been summed up in the catchword we know as The 14 Words:
We Must Secure The Existence Of Our PEOPLE And A Future For White Children
Unlike Yockey, David Lane and contemporary White nationalists have emphasized the importance of the PEOPLE over ideology.

Adrean Arlott of Compulsory Diversity News to the Rescue on Facebook

via Mindweapons in Ragnarok

My daughter got into the fray. Some adult women, mothers of friends she has, told her they don’t want her at their house any more. One adult woman was arguing with my daughter on Facebook, and Adrean Arlott of Compulsory Diversity News came in and shamed the woman so hard she deleted some of her comments (and his with them). They ultimately deleted all of Adreann’s comments despite the fact that they were not at all offensive, just very good comedy. I have noticed that Adreann’s comments get deleted just about everywhere, despite containing no racial slurs or even white nationalist theories — just comedy and epic trolling. Fortunately, I saved one gem of an exchange.

Adreann operates the humor blog Compulsory Diversity News.

The very last comment below is one of the funniest things I ever read in my life, and it’s a response to the very first comment. I bolded the relevant quote by Dlugosz, and Adreann’s response.
John Dlugosz The people will decide what is relevant. The First Selectman has said, “I feel (Zubkova) deceived us by omission and I feel misled. I’m pulling my support and telling my friends and family to do the same. The signs on my lawn are coming up. There’s a lot of good people who made a decision to support her without having all the information they needed.”
I believe ignoring evil–in one’s country, state, town, and certainly under one’s own roof–is unacceptable. Is hatred and fear-mongering and ignorance a family value? Read the content of the blog and it’s very clear Mr Freeman believes the world would be a better place if his beliefs were imposed on us all.
I choose to speak out against hatred and stand up to it, because I’ve suffered too. But I was brought up a Christian, and my family values are love and forgiveness, and having the courage to stand up to hatred and bigotry. Understanding and compassion will always overcome hatred and aggression. That’s a value this country was founded on. To my way of thinking, those who choose to turn a blind eye to evil are either ignorant or disingenuous. Either way, I pity them. The good people of eastern Connecticut will decide what is relevant, and what they value in their leaders.
Like · 5 · 15 hours ago
Veronika The ignorance is unreal. My mom has nothing to do with this. He is in his own world. This is NOT about him. This election is about my mother, not what goes on at home. Our personal life is none of anyone’s business because it does not affect ANYTHING in the work place.
Like · 14 hours ago
Erica Groh Well said John Dlugosz!
Like · 1 · 9 hours ago
Donna Avila A simple Bing or Google search of will bring you to some interesting reading. One peoples project and Lady Libertys Lamp also has more has some interesting information and welcomes the media if they dare to share.
Like · 1 · 5 hours ago · Edited
Adrean Arlott Donna, I also saw him pet a gerbil too hard one time.
Like · about an hour ago
Adrean Arlott Dlugosz, Anna is running to be a probate judge. I don’t think the ability to sense evil is part of the job description. You say you are a Christian. Tell me, what was it like serving on the Salem Witch Trials? Sensing evil must have been a big part of that job. Was your buckle hat really as itchy as it looked?
Like ·

Cthulhu and the White Worldview

via Occam's Razor

Moldbug famously (at least in some quarters) once wrote that Cthulhu only swims left.  Having myself recently re-read H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Call of Cthulhu,” I’ve been thinking about what Cthulhu means.

One interesting facet of Lovecraft’s story is how HBD-friendly it is; in fact, “The Call of Cthulhu” could be called “HBD literature,” if such a genre exists.  In the story, you find ancient gods (extraterrestrials), which are adamantly worshiped by non-whites, especially blacks, mulattoes, and mestizos.  These gods are primordial.   Whites, however, seem to have more difficult time intuiting these gods and when they do, they often die.  Professor George Gammell Angell, the Norwegian sailor, and the narrator (it’s implied) all die after coming into some form of contact with Cthulhu.  It reminds me of a passage from Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct where someone states that Westerners (European-descended people) now seem psychologically incapable of the collective ecstasy of primitive religion.

Sam Francis writes:
Lovecraft’s stories are dramas of modernity in which the forces of tradition and order in society and in the universe are confronted by modernity itself—in the form of the shapeless beings known (ironically) as the “Old Ones.” In fact, they are the “New Ones.” …The conflicts in the stories are typically between some representative of traditional order (the New England old stock protagonist) on the one hand, and the “hordes” of Mongoloids, Levantines, Negroes, Caribbeans, and Asians that gibber and prance in worship of the Old Ones and invoke their dark, destructive, and invincible powers.
The irony of the Old Ones is that evidence of them is often in plain sight, but whites simply cannot see them, when when whites do, it’s often through reason (such as the professor and narrator) and not through spiritual intuition.  Most whites, however, will probably never see Cthulhu; they are incapable.

Cthulhu in this sense is like HBD.  It’s right there in front of your eyes, but most whites are incapable of seeing it.  Outbred Northwest Europeans project their own psychological worldview onto the world and non-whites – for whites, it’s all blank-slate deracinated universalism.  For whites, everyone is white. (And even some non-whites strive to be be white.)  Whites can’t hear Cthulhu.

One of the wisest things ever said about HBD was actually once said to be my a black man to the effect (paraphrase): “Whites are fighting other whites about HBD.  Deep down, most blacks probably know HBD is true, even though whites tell them it is not.”

So if Cthulhu only swims left, it’s because whites allow him to do so by unknowingly ignoring his very existence instead of harnasing his primordial power.  To acknowledge Cthulhu is the ultimate red pill.  Although Lovecraft had most whites die when coming into contact with Cthulhu, this is not true of HBD.  In this case, it’s probably a sine qua non for survival.  Maybe the rise of multi-racial states will hasten Cthulhu’s return.

Swedish College Promotes Anti-White Summer Curriculum

via White GeNOcide Project

This anti-White flyer is made and distributed by Gustavus Adolphus College, aiming to bring in foreign students.

The link on the flyer links to a page on the college’s website, where it tries to promote non-Swedes to study in Sweden. The main message the college tries to get across is that Sweden is no longer a country full of White Swedes. As you can see, the photo on the flyer shows only two White guys.
Experience living and learning in Sweden, a modern, multicultural and diverse nation that is both a unique northern European nation and a country integrated with the rest of Europe.” the college website says.

A century ago Sweden was still a poor, undemocratic, agricultural nation with a homogeneous population.

Notice the negative tone of this sentence – being majority White is a ‘problem’ like being undemocratic or poor, to them it seems.
Since the 1950s, there has been immigration to Sweden instead, including laborers attracted to booming industries in the 1960′s and then, starting in the 1970s, a great influx of refugees attracted by the positive notions of Swedish egalitarian values and aided by Swedish immigration laws.
A transformation of this order, however positive it may be, does not come without tension and the constant need to make rational choices.
 These anti-Whites are actually using White genocide to advertise their college. What must their students be learning?

I’ll bet they’re not learning that anti-racist is a code for anti-White, and “diversity” is a code for White genocide.

Staying out of Other People's Wars

via British National Party

Why are the ruling political and media elite so keen to drag us into foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with Britain?

Have you ever wondered why:

• Labour and ConDem governments alike spent £Billions of taxpayers’’ money invading Iraq and bombing Libya?

• The political class is so keen to send our young men and women to fight and die in Afghanistan?

• The media bang on about ‘human rights abuses’ in Syria, while falling over themselves to trade with the backwards medieval Islamist?

• British politicians are fixated on the possibility of Iran building illegal nuclear weapons, when Israel has had illegal nuclear weapons them for decades?

It’s a big subject, but the reality boils down to three simple factors. We provide a brief overview of each, and give you the Internet links you need to find out more for yourself and make up your own mind.

Neo-Cons & Globalist War Parties

The power of the Zionist lobby in the United States and its puppet regimes in the West (including the UK) is well documented.

Many decent Jewish people, both in Israel and elsewhere, are strongly opposed to the way an essentially political movement claims to speak for them as it tries to manipulate events and media coverage for its own mainly financial ends.

Many also worry that the scheming of the neo-cons and internationalists like George Soros are pushing the Muslim world towards its own hardliners.

The neo-con tendency that has so much influence within the American and UK political and media elites is dominated by Zionist power brokers such as Bill Kristol, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld.

Some are Jewish, some are Christian fundamentalists; all push for wars to take out foreign governments that try to remain independent.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia – all were, or are, in the way of the ‘New World Order’, a US Empire run on behalf of international finance.

To criticise the Zionist power elite is not to be ‘anti- Semitic’, any more than opposition to the Mafia is ‘anti-Italian’.

Indeed some of the most outspoken critics of Zionism are themselves Jewish. This mortal enemy of all the free peoples of the world is nothing to do with race or religion; it’s a global crime syndicate.

Hardline Muslims calling the shots

Saudi Arabia is the richest oil state on the planet. It is dominated by the fanatically anti-Christian/anti-Jewish/ anti-woman Wahhabi Muslim sect. It aims to spread this Dark Age strain of radical Sunni Islam over the whole world – starting with the Middle East and Europe.

The Saudi royal family have close ties with sections of the Western political and financial elites, especially the Bush dynasty.

They’ve used their petro-dollars ruthlessly to push the USA and Britain to ‘take out’ secular Arab rivals like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. Now they have the Alawite minority regime in Syria and Shia-led Iran in their sights.

Just follow the paper trail

Greed for money and power has always played a key role in international affairs; war, and reconstruction after war, makes banks and big construction companies big profits.

The war on Iraq, and the subsequent privatised reconstruction and security operation, made military- industrial complex company Halliburton alone over $17 Billion in just three years.
Halliburton’s CEO was Dick Cheney, who as US Secretary of Defense oversaw the first Gulf War.

The conflict in Afghanistan is another example. The Taliban’s real crime wasn’t to make women dress in black sacks (their cousins do the same in Bradford and Blair and Cameron have never complained) but to refuse a licence for the building of a gas pipeline from Tajikistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to India.

This would make mainly US and Saudi companies a fortune and reduce Russia’s hold on Western gas supplies, so the Taliban regime had to go, and British soldiers have to die to make the region safe for the TAPI pipeline.

Towards a More Archaic Understanding of Woden

via Aryan Myth and MetaHistory

If it were not for the Icelandic Edda and saga source material we would know very little about our own Saxon pre-xtian religion. This is partly due to the oral nature of Germanic society. By the time that the Elder and Younger Eddas were written Iceland had become a xtianised society, albeit long after the Anglo-Saxons who were one of the first to succumb to xtianity. This is not intended to be a criticism, merely a statement of fact. Their Saxon cousins in Germania held out much longer until after the wars with Karl the Butcher in the 9th century. The interesting thing about Iceland is that they agreed by voting at the All Thing to at least publicly accept xtianity. Germanic heathenism was still permitted privately until the famous witch hunts began several hundreds of years later.

This action by the Icelandic All Thing may be viewed by some as a cowardly act but the Icelanders were and are a pragmatic people and they knew that if they resisted they would be invaded by the Norwegian king and their independence as a sovereign people would be at an end and heathenism would be thoroughly eradicated. The myths of our Gods were still valued enough for them to be commited to writing. If this had not have happened it is questionable that we would have enjoyed such a heathen reawakening in the late 20th century.

The widespread literacy that xtianity brought has proven to be a double-edged sword. It has caused our mythology to survive but in its wake has become a very effective tool by state governments to social engineer society according to their own New World Order agenda. The propaganda which began with newspaper media has now began to flourish with television and its selective reporting of world events and the bias that it places upon its reporting and analysis under pressure from the NWO media moguls that pay their salaries. As an aside I balance my news intake by watching RT (Russia Today) which is a healthy antidote to the venom of western media outlets. However all news media by its very nature is subject to bias and we must bear this in mind.

Returning to the main topic of this discussion: the portrayal of our Gods and myths in the Icelandic sources. The problem with the Eddas is that they were composed fairly late: the 13th century, over 200 hundred years since the Icelandic conversion. We have to ask ourselves how well does a 13th century Scandinavian Odin represent the Woden of the pre-xtian Saxon peoples? This is a difficult question to answer and we may never have the answer. Whilst I am grateful for the Eddas we must look elsewhere to gain a fuller and more accurate understanding of our Gods. Germanic folklore, etymology, place name study, archaeology and historical records and literature can help us to a certain point but we must look to the mythologies of the closely related Celtic, Baltic and Slavic peoples which is the primary concern of my

To get a closer understanding of our primary deity Woden we would profit from a study of the Horned God archetype which in England is represented by Herne the Hunter. An excellent work on this subject is that by Eric L. Fitch,  In Search of Herne the Hunter (1994, Capall Bann Publishing).  He speculates that vestiges of belief in Herne survived right up to the coming of the Saxons and merged with facets of belief surrounding Woden. The Saxons were accustomed both in Germania and in England to a forest environment. Woden is such a deity and His English name tells us this whilst His Scandinavian Odin persona appears to have lost this attribute. We must remember that the cult of Woden originated amongst the Saxons and spread north to Scandianvia with varying success. Thor and Frey still hed sway as the primary deities in different parts of Scandinavia. He is specifically OUR deity. I say this as a part Englishman with Lower Saxon ancestry. He is the God who in particular belongs to the Saxons of England, Germany and the Netherlands. Therefore it is in these lands that we must search for a more archaic understanding of Him.

Woden's name is to be found in more places in the Saxon colonised areas of England than any other Germanic deity. Many of His attributes are similar to those of Thunor's:

"Woden was essentially a storm god manifesting himself in thunderous movement in the heavens." (Fitch)
It is interesting that in Jung's famous dream which was a premonition of his mother's death Wotan appeared as the collector of his mother's soul:
"The night before her death I had a frightening dream. I was in a dense, gloomy forest: fantastic, gigantic boulders lay about among huge jungle-like trees. It was a heroic, primeval landscape. Suddenly I heard a piercing whistle that seemed to resound through the whole universe. My knees shook. Then there were crashings in the underbrush, and a gigantic wolfhound with a fearful, gaping maw burst forth. At the sight of it, the blood froze in my veins. It tore past me, and I suddenly knew: the Wild Huntsman had commanded it to carry away a human soul. I awoke in deadly terror, and the next morning I received news of my mother`s passing.
"Seldom has a dream so shaken me, for upon superficial consideration it seemed to say that the devil had fetched her. But to be accurate the dream said that it was the Wild Huntsman, the `Gruenhuetl`, or Wearer of the Green Hat, who hunted with his wolves that night-it was the season of  Foehn storms in January. It was Wotan, the god of my Alemannic forefathers, who had gathered my mother to her ancestors-negatively to the `wild horde`, but positively to the `saelig Luet`, the blessed folk. It was the Christian missionaries who made Wotan into a devil. In himself he is an important god-a Mercury or Hermes, as the Romans correctly realised, a nature spirit who returned to life again in the Merlin of the Grail legend and became, as the spiritus Mercurialis, the sought after aracanum of the alchemists. Thus the dream says that the soul of my mother was taken into that greater territory of the self which lies beyond the segment of Christian morality, taken into that wholeness of nature and spirit in which conflicts and contradictions are resolved." (Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 1963, pages 344-344)
This was a very personal encounter that Jung had with Wotan and the reader will notice that this Wotan bears a stronger resemblance to the Saxon Woden than to the Scandinavian Odin. He is pictured by Jung as being a forest deity and it is the forest which is the natural habitat of Saxon man.

Nietzsche seems to have had a similar experience of Wotan although he never names this deity but it is obvious who he is referring to:
To the Unknown God

I shall and will know thee, Unknown One,
Who searchest out the depths of my soul,
And blowest through my life like a storm,
Ungraspable, and yet my kinsman!
I shall and will know thee, and serve thee.

 The Mistral Song

Mistral wind, chaser of clouds,
Killer of gloom, sweeper of the skies,
Raging storm-wind, how I love thee!
Are we both not the first-fruits
Of the same womb, forever predestined
To the same fate?

And from Thus Spake Zarathustra we have:-

Ariadne`s Lament

Stretched out, shuddering,
Like a half-dead thing whose feet are warmed,
Shaken by unknown fevers,
Shivering with piercing icy frost arrows,
Hunted by thee, O thought,
Unutterable! Veiled! horrible one!
Thou huntsman behind the clouds.
Struck down by thy lightning bolt,
Thou mocking eye that stares at me from the dark!
Thus I lie,
Writhing, twisting, tormented
With all eternal tortures,
By thee, cruel huntsman,
Thou unknown-God!
"Raging storm-wind", "cruel huntsman": are these not aspects of Woden? One way to experience Woden is to camp out alone in a solitary forest on a stormy night. This will bring you closer to an understanding of Woden than any mere words can portray. The reader will notice again from Ariadne's Lament the reference to the huntsman's lightning bolt, again a attrribute of Thunor. These two Gods seem to merge in so many ways which is not obvious from the Icelandic sources.
"The primitive west Europeans had called the god Wodenaz. This later developed into Wuotan (Old High German) and Wodan (Old Saxon). It is generally believed that he was first thought of as a sky deity-perhaps a wind or storm god-with great wisdom, and with some sort of powers over life and death. This may be evidenced by the derivation of Wodenaz from an Indo-European word, parent also of the Sanskrit vata and the Latin ventus, both meaning 'wind'. He could be compared to the Hindu Lord of the Wind, Vata, and the German storm giant Wode." (Buckland's Book of Saxon Witchcraft, Raymond Buckland, originally published in 1974)
At this point I would direct my readers to my analysis and comparison of Woden with Vata on

It is likely that Buckland obtained his comparison of Woden with Wode and Vatu from Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England (1957) which he lists in his Bibliography as Branston states:
"We may examine the two sides of Woden's character in turn, and first that suggested by those who derive the name Wodenaz from an Indo-European word which is also the parent of Sanskrit vata and Latin ventus meaning 'wind'. Wodenaz would then be a god of wind and storm like the Hindu Vata, Lord of the Wind. In his turn, Woden is taken to be a deified development of the German storm giant Wode leading his 'wild army' (das wuetende Heer), his procession of the homeless dead across the sky. This view is supported by Adam of Bremen's definition 'Wodan, that is to say Fury' (Wodan, id est furor), and by the Anglo-Saxon wodendream which is glossed into Latin as furor animi, and also by the fact that in Sweden das wuetende Heer is known as 'Oden's jagt' or 'Woden's Hunt'.
Gudmund Schuettestates in his Our Forefathers the Gothonic Nations Volume 1 that the storm giant Wode developed into Woden or Odin:
 "The German Wode=O.N. Odr is a storm giant, the Wild Huntsman and Leader of the Host of the Dead who is finally exalted to the chief god under the name of Woden, Odin."
 In German and English folklore and songs Wod was just a shortened version of Woden as in the Lincolnshire spell:
 "Thrice I smites with Holy Crock, With this mell (hammer) I thrice do knock, One for God, and one for Wod, And one for Lok."
Buckland's book is a curious oddity for its' author was the founder of Seax Wica, Saxon witchcraft in the USA. In the early 1970s Odinism as a revived religion was only just getting started so it is remarkable that someone who was originally initiated into Gardnerian witchcraft should have the idea of cleansing Wicca of its non-Germanic elements and referring to its' primary male and female deities as Woden and Freya. One must remember that Wicca is an Old England word meaning 'witchcraft' and should be pronounced witchuh. Wicca is cosmpolitan and universalist in nature but certain brave individuals have attempted in their own ways to restore its Germanic nature.

 Edred Thorsson published Witchdom of the True. A Study of the Vana-Troth and the Practice of Seidr in 1999. Thorsson's book is a remarkable analysis of what should be referred to as the Vana Troth, a separate pathway in Germanic heathenism that honours the Vanir and their magical practices. Whilst Thorsson refers to Frey and Freyja as the Lord and Lady Buckland substitutes Woden for Frey. Seax Wica in my opinion should be viewed as a possible recruiting ground for suitable individuals to cross the bridge into Wodenism as the primary deity, Woden is the same. My review of this book can be found on

Major Betrayal

via Western Spring

Hot on the heels of the high profile resignation from government of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, and at a time when the Prime Minister David Cameron is still trying to fool the British public into believing that the Tories are serious about controlling immigration, we find Conservative ex-Prime Minister John Major asserting the fundamentally ‘conservative’ nature of Britain’s immigrant population, in a similarly disingenuous bid to promote the Conservative Party’s flagging fortunes.

In an interview with the historian Peter Hennessy for the BBC Radio 4 programme, Reflections, which will be broadcast tomorrow, an talking about his time as a young man when he lived in modest circumstances with his family in Brixton, south London, former Tory leader John Major said, “There was a different social value placed on immigration.

“They shared my house. They were my neighbours. I played with them as boys.

“I saw immigrants at very close quarters in the 1950s, and I didn’t see people who’d come here just to benefit from our social system. I saw people with the guts and the drive to travel half-way across the world in many case to better themselves and their families, and I think that’s a very Conservative instinct.”

However, what John Major needs to realise is that all peoples want to better themselves and their families, both the industrious and the indolent, and that such a desire is no great distinguishing feature, and is certainly no significant indicator of ‘conservative’ instincts, whatever they are.

Furthermore, John Major appears not to realise that irrespective of whether or not 1950s immigrants hoped to benefit from our ‘social security system’ when they immigrated to Britain, they have in common with all Third World immigrants that have arrived here since, been handed all the benefits of our ‘social system’ on a plate.

You see, it takes very little “guts and drive” to engage in international travel these days, especially when upon leaving, one is leaving a medieval subsistence lifestyle, in the sure knowledge upon arrival, that one will benefit from one of the most advanced social systems with a 21st Century, high technology economy.

What would demonstrate “guts and drive” would be a determination on the part of Third World populations to stay in their ethnic homelands and to drag their backward nations into the 21st Century through their own efforts and by the sweat of their own brow.

No one handed we Western nations the advanced economies and societies that we have today. They are the product of the foresight, planning, hard work and sacrifice of our ancestors applied over many centuries, and they were intended for the benefit of our posterity, not for the opportunistic migrant populations of the Third World.