Dec 4, 2014

It’s Time to STOP Shopping for Christmas

via Counter-Currents

Even though I am an unbeliever, the Christmas season is my favorite time of the year. Christmas, like dogs, brings out the best in people. It awakens a desire to beautify one’s world and adorn one’s soul with good deeds.

The worst kind of evil is not merely harming people, but harming people by exploiting their goodness. A pickpocket merely steals your money. A con artist who steals your money by saying that he is collecting donations for a good cause also penalizes virtue and undermines the trust that is the foundation of civilized society.

That is why I despise the commercialization of Christmas. There is a whole economy of “fourth quarter” industries that depend on Christmas giving. Advertisers whip us into materialistic frenzies, so we rack up huge credit card debts. Traditionally, Christmas shopping begins after Thanksgiving. But recently, it has been creeping back toward Halloween. If capitalists had their way, of course, we would be listening to Christmas muzak and pushing shopping carts in midsummer.

But there is a limit to when Christmas shopping can begin. If religion had anything to do with it, the absolute limit would be Easter. But economics is the deciding factor here. And in economic terms, Christmas shopping cannot begin until consumers have paid off their credit card debts from the previous Christmas.

The Friday after Thanksgiving is now called “Black Friday.” Traditionally, a Black Friday marks a massacre or disaster, and for consumers, I suppose it is. Merchants may be in the black, but consumers end up in the red.

junkwreath2It is too soon for White Nationalist politics in the United States. But racially conscious people still want to “do something.” The best thing we can do is make ourselves strong as a community. And the best way to do that is to become as independent as possible from the existing political and economic system. The Christmas season is the best time to begin that process, because it is the time when we spend the most money on the dumbest things in the dumbest way in the least amount of time.

So it is time to STOP shopping for Christmas.

Take a holiday from holiday shopping.

Stop running yourself ragged running up debts.

1. Don’t go into debt. Freeze your credit cards. Literally. Go to the kitchen, fill a container with water, put your credit cards in it, and stick it in the freezer. Don’t even think about thawing them out until January. And when January comes, resist the temptation and see just how long you can go without them.
2. Give the gift of freedom. Make a list of the people with whom you exchange gifts. If you have enough ties, enough sweaters, enough useless “novelty” items and your friends do as well, call them up and propose that you let one another off the hook.
3. Regift. Admit it, the thought has crossed your mind. I have done it countless times, usually with sweaters. A lot of people buy gifts just to buy gifts. What are the chances that they know you well enough and have the time and the taste to find you the perfect gift? This means that the first time around, many gifts do not reach the right recipient and end up unappreciated. Regifting is a way of helping them find the right home, at no additional cost and with the added benefit of reducing clutter. I start thinking about regifting well in advance (on the previous Christmas day, truth be told), whereas many people choose gifts at the last minute.
4. Create, Reuse, Refurbish. Can you make your own Christmas cards, wreaths, and ornaments? Do it. Were your garden and fruit trees unusually productive? Consider giving preserves or pies for Christmas. If you have a particular talent for making bread or brewing beer or bottling wine, give those for Christmas. Old furniture is usually better made than new stuff. Learn to refinish and reupholster. Do you bind books? Offer to rebind a friend’s favorite book. Do you sew, knit, crochet? Make something. Between now and Christmas, you have plenty of time to do any of these things. You even have time to pick up new skills.
5. Teach, Encourage, Empower. Do you have talents and skills you can teach your friends? Give them “gift certificates” (hand-made, of course) entitling them to lessons. Do you play the piano? Offer the children of your friends some introductory lessons. Do you know how to maintain and repair your car, your air conditioner, your bicycle, your appliances, your plumbing, your lawn mower? Well most of your friends don’t. They spend hundreds of dollars every year repairing or replacing items that they have not maintained properly. Give them lessons, and you will help them save money and become more independent.  Are you a great cook? Give your friends cooking lessons. People spend enormous amounts of money eating out. When they can make better food cheaper at home, they will not need or want to.
If you still have gifts to give after running through the above list and you are compelled to go shopping, consider the following rules of thumb.
6. Buy from local, small businesses, not big chains.
7. Buy goods made by white people around the world, not non-whites.
8. Patronize artists and craftsmen, not mass producers of plastic junk.
9. Keep your money in the racially conscious community. Buy from racially conscious publishers, booksellers, and other merchandisers. Readers, please post links to racially-conscious or simply nice, white businesses, artisans, etc. in the comments to this article.
10. Affiliate Marketing: If you buy from Amazon.com, enter through Counter-Currents and we will get a commission at no cost to you. (If you have Amazon.com already bookmarked on your computer, replace your old bookmark with the url in this link, and Counter-Currents will still get a commission, even if you do not enter Amazon.com from this site.)

No, I am not Scrooge. I am not the Grinch. I am not trying to steal your Christmas. I am merely suggesting that we celebrate Christmas intelligently and creatively, in ways that enrich us as a community rather than impoverish us, in ways that empower rather than weaken us. Decommercializing Christmas and reconnecting it with family and community will actually make it more meaningful and fun than ever.

Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas from everyone at Counter-Currents/North American New Right!

Dark Age America: The Fragmentation of Technology

via The Archdruid Report

It was probably inevitable that last week’s discussion of the way that contemporary science is offering itself up as a sacrifice on the altar of corporate greed and institutional arrogance would field me a flurry of responses that insisted that I must hate science.  This is all the more ironic in that the shoddy logic involved in that claim also undergirded George W. Bush’s famous and fatuous insistence that the Muslim world is riled at the United States because “they hate our freedom.”
In point of fact, the animosity felt by many Muslims toward the United States is based on specific grievances concerning specific acts of US foreign policy. Whether or not those grievances are justified is a matter I don’t propose to get into here; the point that’s relevant to the current discussion is that the grievances exist, they relate to identifiable actions on the part of the US government, and insisting that the animosity in question is aimed at an abstraction instead is simply one of the ways that Bush, or for that matter his equally feckless successor, have tried to sidestep any discussion of the means, ends, and cascading failures of US policy toward the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world.
In the same way, it’s very convenient to insist that people who ask hard questions about the way that contemporary science has whored itself out to economic and political interests, or who have noticed gaps between the claims about reality made by the voices of the scientific mainstream and their own lived experience of the world, just hate science. That evasive strategy makes it easy to brush aside questions about the more problematic dimensions of science as currently practiced. This isn’t a strategy with a long shelf life; responding to a rising spiral of problems by insisting that the problems don’t exist and denouncing those who demur is one of history’s all-time bad choices, but intellectuals in falling civilizations all too often try to shore up the crumbling foundations of their social prestige and privilege via that foredoomed approach.
Central to the entire strategy is a bit of obfuscation that treats “science” as a monolithic unity, rather than the complex and rather ramshackle grab-bag of fields of study, methods of inquiry, and theories about how different departments of nature appear to work. There’s no particular correlation between, let’s say, the claims made for the latest heavily marketed and dubiously researched pharmaceutical, on the one hand, and the facts of astronomy, evolutionary biology, or agronomy on the other; and someone can quite readily find it impossible to place blind faith in the pharmaceutical and the doctor who’s pushing it on her, while enjoying long nights observing the heavens through a telescope, delighting in the elegant prose and even more elegant logic of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, or running controlled experiments in her backyard on the effectiveness of compost as a soil amendment. To say that such a person “hates science” is to descend from meaningful discourse to thoughtstopping noise.
The habit of insisting that science is a single package, take it or leave it, is paralleled by the equivalent and equally specious insistence that there is this single thing called “technology,” that objecting to any single component of that alleged unity amounts to rejecting all of it, and that you’re not allowed to pick and choose among technologies—you have to take all of it or reject it all. I field this sort of nonsense all the time. It so happens, for example, that I have no interest in owning a cell phone, never got around to playing video games, and have a sufficiently intense fondness for books printed on actual paper that I’ve never given more than a passing thought to the current fad for e-books.
I rarely mention these facts to those who don’t already know them, because it’s a foregone conclusion that if I do so, someone will ask me whether I hate technology.  Au contraire, I’m fond of slide rules, love rail travel, cherish an as yet unfulfilled ambition to get deep into letterpress printing, and have an Extra class amateur radio license; all these things entail enthusiastic involvement with specific technologies, and indeed affection for them; but if I mention these points in response to the claim that I must hate technology, the responses I get range from baffled incomprehension to angry dismissal.
“Technology,” in the mind of those who make such claims, clearly doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it means.  To some extent, of course, it amounts to whatever an assortment of corporate and political marketing firms want you to buy this week, but there’s more to it than that. Like the word “science,” “technology” has become a buzzword freighted with a vast cargo of emotional, cultural, and (whisper this) political meanings.  It’s so densely entangled with passionately felt emotions, vast and vague abstractions, and frankly mythic imagery that many of those who use the word can’t explain what they mean by it, and get angry if you ask them to try.
The flattening out of the vast diversity of technologies, in the plural, into a single monolithic shape guarded by unreasoning emotions would be problematic under any conditions. When a civilization that depends on the breakneck exploitation of nonrenewable resources is running up against the unyielding limits of a finite planet, with resource depletion and pollution in a neck-and-neck race to see which one gets to bring the industrial project to an end first, it’s a recipe for disaster. A sane response to the predicament of our time would have to start by identifying the technological suites that will still be viable in a resource-constrained and pollution-damaged environment, and then shift as much vital infrastructure to those as possible with the sharply limited resources we have left. Our collective thinking about technology is so muddled by unexamined emotions, though, that it doesn’t matter now obviously necessary such a project might be: it remains unthinkable.
Willy-nilly, though, the imaginary monolith of “technology” is going to crumble, because different technologies have wildly varying resource requirements, and they vary just as drastically in terms of their importance to the existing order of society. As resource depletion and economic contraction tighten their grip on the industrial world, the stock of existing and proposed technologies face triage in a continuum defined by two axes—the utility of the technology, on the one hand, and its cost in real (i.e., nonfinancial) terms on the other. A chart may help show how this works.
This is a very simplified representation of the frame in which decisions about technology are made. Every kind of utility from the demands of bare survival to the whims of fashion is lumped in together and measured on the vertical axis, and every kind of nonfinancial cost from energy and materials straight through to such intangibles as opportunity cost is lumped in together and measured on the horizontal axis. In an actual analysis, of course, these variables would be broken out and considered separately; the point of a more schematic view of the frame, like this one, is that it allows the basic concepts to be grasped more easily.
The vertical and horizontal lines that intersect in the middle of the graph are similarly abstractions from a complex reality. The horizontal line represents the boundary between those technologies which have enough utility to be worth building and maintaining, which are above the line, and those which have too little utility to be worth the trouble, which are below it. The vertical line represents the boundary between those technologies which are affordable and those that are not. In the real world, those aren’t sharp boundaries but zones of transition, with complex feedback loops weaving back and forth among them, but again, this is a broad conceptual model.
The intersection of the lines divides the whole range of technology into four categories, which I’ve somewhat unoriginally marked with the first four letters of the alphabet. Category A consists of things that are both affordable and useful, such as indoor plumbing. Category B consists of things that are affordable but useless, such as electrically heated underwear for chickens. Category C consists of things that are useful but unaffordable, such as worldwide 30-minute pizza delivery from low earth orbit. Category D, rounding out the set, consists of things that are neither useful nor affordable, such as—well, I’ll let my readers come up with their own nominees here.
Now of course the horizontal and vertical lines aren’t fixed; they change position from one society to another, from one historical period to another, and indeed from one community, family, or individual to another. (To me, for example, cell phones belong in category B, right next to the electrically heated chicken underwear; other people would doubtless put them in somewhere else on the chart.) Every society, though, has a broad general consensus about what goes in which category, which is heavily influenced by but by no means entirely controlled by the society’s political class.  That consensus is what guides its collective decisions about funding or defunding technologies. 
With the coming of the industrial revolution, both of the lines shifted substantially from their previous position, as shown in the second chart. Obviously, the torrent of cheap abundant energy gave the world’s industrial nations access to an unparalleled wealth of resources, and this pushed the dividing line between what was affordable and what was unaffordable quite a ways over toward the right hand side of the chart. A great many things that had been desirable but unaffordable to previous civilizations swung over from category C into category A as fossil fuels came on line. This has been discussed at great length here and elsewhere in the peak oil blogosphere.
Less obviously, the dividing line between what was useful and what was useless also shifted quite a bit toward the bottom of the chart, moving a great many things from category B into category A. To follow this, it’s necessary to grasp the concept of technological suites. A technological suite is a set of interdependent technologies that work together to achieve a common purpose. Think of the relationship between cars and petroleum drilling, computer chips and the clean-room filtration systems required for their manufacture, or commercial airliners and ground control radar. What connects each pair of technologies is that they belong to the same technological suite. If you want to have the suite, you must either have all the elements of the suite in place, or be ready to replace any absent element with something else that can serve the same purpose.
For the purpose of our present analysis, we can sort out the component technologies of a technological suite into three very rough categories. There are interface technologies, which are the things with which the end user interacts—in the three examples just listed, those would be private cars, personal computers, and commercial flights to wherever you happen to be going. There are support technologies, which are needed to produce, maintain, and operate the output technologies; they make up far and away the majority of technologies in a technological suite—consider the extraordinary range of  technologies it takes to manufacture a car from raw materials, maintain it, fuel it, provide it with roads on which to drive, and so on. Some interface technologies and most support technologies can be replaced with other technologies as needed, but some of both categories can’t; we can put those that can’t be replaced bottleneck technologies, for reasons that will become clear shortly.
What makes this relevant to the charts we’ve been examining is that most support technologies have no value aside from the technological suites to which they belong and the interface technologies they serve. Without commercial air travel, for example, most of the specialized technologies found at airports are unnecessary. Thus a great many things that once belonged in category B—say, automated baggage carousels—shifted into category A with the emergence of the technological suite that gave them utility. Thus category A balloons with the coming of industrialization, and it kept getting bigger as long as energy and resource use per capita in the industrial nations kept on increasing.
Once energy and resource use per capita peak and begin their decline, though, a different reality comes into play, leading over time to the situation shown in the third chart. 
As cheap abundant energy runs short, and it and all its products become expensive, scarce, or both, the vertical line slides inexorably toward the left. That’s obvious enough. Less obviously, the horizontal line also slides upwards. The reason, here again, is the interrelationship of individual technologies into technological suites. If commercial air travel stops being economically viable, the support technologies that belong to that suite are no longer needed. Even if they’re affordable enough to stay on the left hand side of the vertical line, the technologies needed to run automated baggage carousels thus no longer have enough utility to keep them above the horizontal line, and down they drop into category B.
That’s one way that a technology can drop out of use. It’s just as possible, of course, for something that would still have ample utility to cost too much in terms of real wealth to be an option in a contracting society, and slide across the border into category C. Finally, it’s possible for something to do both at once—to become useless and unaffordable at something like the same time, as economic contraction takes away the ability to pay for the technology and the ability to make use of it at the same time.
It’s also possible for a technology that remains affordable, and participates in a technological suite that’s still capable of meeting genuine needs, to tumble out of category A into one of the others. This can happen because the cost of different technologies differ qualitatively, and not just quantitatively. If you need small amounts of niobium for the manufacture of blivets, and the handful of niobium mines around the world stop production—whether this happens because the ore has run out, or for some other reason, environmental, political, economic, cultural, or what have you—you aren’t going to be able to make blivets any more. That’s one kind of difficulty if it’s possible to replace blivets with something else, or substitute some other rare element for the niobium; it’s quite another, and much more challenging, if blivets made with niobium are the only thing that will work for certain purposes, or the only thing that makes those purposes economically viable.
It’s habitual in modern economics to insist that such bottlenecks don’t exist, because there’s always a viable alternative. That sort of thinking made a certain degree of sense back when energy per capita was still rising, because the standard way to get around material shortages for a century now has been to throw more energy, more technology, and more complexity into the mix. That’s how low-grade taconite ores with scarcely a trace of iron in them have become the mainstay of today’s iron and steel industry; all you have to do is add fantastic amounts of cheap energy, soaring technological complexity, and an assortment of supply and resource chains reaching around the world and then some, and diminishing ore quality is no problem at all.
It’s when you don’t have access to as much cheap energy, technological complexity, and baroque supply chains as you want that this sort of logic becomes impossible to sustain. Once this point is reached, bottlenecks become an inescapable feature of life. The bottlenecks, as already suggested, don’t have to be technological in nature—a bottleneck technology essential to a given technological suite can be perfectly feasible, and still out of reach for other reasons—but whatever generates them, they throw a wild card into the process of technological decline that shapes the last years of a civilization on its way out, and the first few centuries of the dark age that follows.
The crucial point to keep in mind here is that one bottleneck technology, if it becomes inaccessible for any reason, can render an entire technological suite useless, and compromise other technological suites that depend on the one directly affected. Consider the twilight of ceramics in the late Roman empire. Rome’s ceramic industry operated on as close to an industrial scale as you can get without torrents of cheap abundant energy; regional factories in various places, where high-quality clay existed, produced ceramic goods in vast amounts and distributed them over Roman roads and sea lanes to the far corners of the empire and beyond it. The technological suite that supported Roman dishes and roof tiles thus included transport technologies, and those turned out to be the bottleneck: as long-distance transport went away, the huge ceramic factories could no longer market their products and shut down, taking with them every element of their technological suite that couldn’t be repurposed in a hurry.
The same process affected many other technologies that played a significant role in the Roman world, and for that matter in the decline and fall of every other civilization in history. The end result can best be described as technological fragmentation: what had been a more or less integrated whole system of technology, composed of many technological suites working together more or less smoothly, becomes a jumble of disconnected technological suites, nearly all of them drastically simplified compared to their pre-decline state, and many of them jerry-rigged to make use of still-viable fragments of technological suites whose other parts didn’t survive their encounter with one bottleneck or another.  In places where circumstances permit, relatively advanced technological suites can remain in working order long after the civilization that created them has perished—consider the medieval cities that got their water from carefully maintained Roman aqueducts a millennium after Rome’s fall—while other systems operate at far simpler levels, and other regions and communities get by with much simpler technological suites.
All this has immediate practical importance for those who happen to live in a civilization that’s skidding down the curve of its decline and fall—ours, for example. In such a time, as noted above, one critical task is to identify the technological suites that will still be viable in the aftermath of the decline, and shift as much vital infrastructure as possible over to depend on those suites rather than on those that won’t survive the decline. In terms of the charts above, that involves identifying those technological suites that will still be in category A when the lines stop shifting up and to the left, figuring out how to work around any bottleneck technologies that might otherwise cripple them, and get the necessary knowledge into circulation among those who might be able to use it, so that access to information doesn’t become a bottleneck of its own.
That sort of analysis, triage, and salvage is among the most necessary tasks of our time, especially for those who want to see viable technologies survive the end of our civilization, and it’s being actively hindered by the insistence that the only possible positive attitude toward technology is sheer blind faith. For connoisseurs of irony, it’s hard to think of a more intriguing spectacle. The impacts of that irony on the future, though, are complex, and will be the subject of several upcoming posts here.

Race and Jews, Part 7

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Concluding this brief series with some odds and ends, reviewing and connecting what has been covered with a few new points.

Eric Goldstein’s book, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity, documents and tries to explain, from a jewish point of view, the complete about face in attitudes about race which occurred during the 20th century, specifically the shift jews made among themselves. Our concern is how they have since manipulated Whites to toe their “anti-racist” line.

During the 19th century and into the 20th Whites were just beginning to appreciate the depth and breadth of their roots, their biological relationship with each other, but also to recognize their common parasite. They were beginning to appreciate just how biologically and psychologically distinct and implacably alien and hostile the jews are and have always been. How the jews have in fact insisted upon being and remaining this way.

This growing understanding of their roots, this racial consciousness, was not fabricated out of nothing, but was based on evidence gathered from study and research – archeology, linguistics, biology. It was spreading not only among the elite, the intelligensia, but was beginning to trickle out to the masses too.

In the first half of the 20th century Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color were popular books. White understanding of race was increasing.

In 1933 the national socialists took power in Germany, and for the first time a White European government officially and definitively answered the question, “who is us”, and pursued policies guided by the principle, “what’s best for us”, racially. Expressing a collective group-consciousness that for the first time approximated (and took into account the competitive and adversarial nature of) the kind of collective awareness of identity and interests that the jews had been practicing for millenia among Europeans.

Even before this, before this racial consciousness had fully coallesced into a national socialist government, those jews most aware of their collective interests recognized this burgeoning understanding among their host as a threat to the jews. They saw that jews embracing race was not going to be good for the jews in the long run.

Their efforts to thwart this rising consciousness pre-date the founding of national socialism. We’ve mentioned Franz Boas and Maurice Fishberg, whom were just two of the more prominent names among the many jews who ultimately co-opted and derailed race science.

By the time national socialism rose to power in Germany the jews had come to the consensus that race was definitely bad for the jews, and they were throwing all their efforts into an idea, a movement that would eventually be called “anti-racism”.

“Anti-racism” is a jewish contruct, though they have tried to generalize it and otherwise obscure this. As many Whites are beginning to realize, “anti-racism” is really just anti-Whitism. It is a movement, a perverse way of thinking about race that doesn’t abolish the idea of race, but simply inverts White consciousness – making White bad and non-White good. It was inspired and continues to be led and driven by jews who think that this is what’s best for the jews.

Let’s return one last time to Golstein’s book, where he describes jewish attitudes in America during the first decade of the 20th century. Unlike their “anti-racism” today, back then jews openly identified themselves as a race, because they thought that was what was best for the jews. As Goldstein put it, race “fit the needs of jews” “in the larger white world”.

This bit, from page 107, is part of the discussion of Simon Wolf’s (the jew lobbyist who knew every president between Lincoln and Wilson) appearance before the Immigration Commission in 1909, where he was questioned by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the issue of whether jews are a race or religion. Wolf infamously denied their racial nature and instead conflated jewishness with religion.
In the wake of the hearing jews sympathetic to a racial view of jewishness denounced Wolf for what they saw as an abandonment of jewish pride before the commission, and took advantage of his poor performance to argue that his case had no defensible foundation. One rabbi wrote to the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia that Senator Lodge was a better jew than Wolf, because he did not try to deny the existence of the jewish race.
Zionists especially attacked Wolf’s efforts, arguing that if anything could stimulate anti-jewish sentiment, it was not the affirmation of racial identity but the “shifting, unmanly and undignified pretense of representatives of a people, who against fact and history, and against their own private convictions, disown the racial and national birthright.”
The Zionist source is reprinted in a book I mentioned briefly in Part 1 of this series, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940. It covers roughly the same period and attitudes as Goldstein’s book, but offers less narrative and more in the way of original sources. Among them is an article from a 1910 issue of Maccabaean, There is No Jewish Race!, which contains the criticism of Wolf quoted above, and more, including this:
We believe we speak in the name of the entire jewish people when we say that the jewish people, native-born and naturalized in this country, are not ashamed to have themselves or their brethren classified as racial jews
As previously mentioned, the authors of Henry Ford’s The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem also discussed Wolf’s testimony. In October 1920 they wrote:
From the extracts given in this article, four matters become very clear:
First, the Jew is opposed to any restrictive legislation against his entrance into a country.
Second, the Jew is opposed to any racial classification of himself after he has entered a country.
Third, the Jewish argument to the Gentile authorities is that the Jew represents religion and not race.
Fourth, that at least one indication has appeared in which the Jew has one view to present to the Gentiles, and another which he cherishes among his own people, on this question of Race.
Another point might be made, as this: when the authorities disregard as untenable the argument of “religion, not race,” the Jewish spokesmen fall back on the fact that their organizations don’t want certain things and won’t have certain things—argument or no argument, commission or no commission.
The Jewish lobbyists had their way. There is no enumeration of Jews in the United States. There are 46 other classifications, but none for the Jew. The Northern Italians are distinguished in the records from the Southern Italians; the Moravians are distinguished from the Bohemians; the Scotch from the English; the Spanish-American from the Spanish-European; the West Indians from the Mexicans—but the Jew is not distinguished at all.
None of the other races made objection.
They were noticing certain consistent traits of the jews.

First, how the jews demand and often get special, unique, exceptional treatment. Contra Goldstein, there is no liability, no price connected to their privilege.

Jews demand that there be no restrictions on jews, effectively imposing restrictions on their host.

What seems to be duality, hypocrisy, or double standards, one story or standard for non-jews, another for themselves, is really just one standard: what’s best for the jews.

The International Jew was a well-known and popular book in 1920s America. It is valuable because it documents the White attitude about race and the jews at that time. But in many respects Ford and his TIJ writers were too optimistic, too conciliatory. They regarded the jews as peers, social and political equals, or at least saw them as having the potential to be so.

They maintained a pretense that they were trying to appeal to and influence the jews, and called for them to step forward and challenge their leaders. This was a weak rhetorical device that was more likely actually aimed at stirring their more “liberal”-minded White readers to resent the fact that jews were not showing any interest in participating in their “liberal” American project as peers, but were instead well aware of and committed to pursuing their own narrow identity and interests.

At that point in time Ford and Americans in general believed the Anglo-Saxon founding stock still ruled America, but were also generally unaware of the threat posed to them by the jews. A half-year after the piece above was published, the TIJ writers seemed to have come to realize that the conflict and its stakes were more dire than they had at first let on. In May of 1921 they wrote:
Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and Anglo-Saxon power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle. It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the public schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is “sectarian” or “clannish” or “obsolete” or something else.
It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as Anglo-Saxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon-Celtic fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon-Celtic sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.
Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promise all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.
That is all that will be necessary. And it is against this that the Jews protest. “You must not identify us,” they say, “you must not use the term ‘Jew’” Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!
Throughout TIJ we find not only various aspects of jewish influence described but also jewish personality traits. They identified the jews as a race with persistent, collective, racial traits.

One of those characteristic traits is how jews alternate between openly announcing themselves and bragging about their influence, and yet also disguise themselves and deny their powerful influence. This is no mystery. They do whichever is good for the jews in a given situation.

Another characteristic trait is how the jews swarm collectively to self-righteously attack those who take notice of their activities and oppose them. Ford too was subjected to this treatment, and it continues to this day. Some examples of jewish attitudes are attached as “Editorial Reviews” to the bookseller Amazon’s page for The International Jew:

A Message from the Anti-Defamation League

The International Jew, authored by Henry Ford, is blatant anti-Semitism. It portrays Jews as monolithic, malicious schemers plotting to control the planet. “If there is one quality that attracts Jews, it is power,” the book states. “Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequious.” It does not portray Jews as individuals but as a single-minded, calculating cabal. Conflict among Jews, no matter how real, is painted as a sly trick, part of the Jewish plot. The book blames nearly all the troubles it saw in American society of the time on Jews. “Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence that flow through society, you come upon a group of Jews,” it claims. Even problems with the “national pastime” are attributed to Jewish influence: “If … fans … wish to know the trouble with American baseball, they have it in three words … too much Jew.”
Never mind baseball. The trouble with America, then and now, is too much jew.

Note how jews seem to relish criticism, how they so eagerly repeat it, without denial. Instead they embellish and distort their critics in a telling way that reflects their own view of the world around them. Theirs is a world populated not with individuals but with jews mindlessly antagonized by “anti-semites”, a single-minded, calculating cabal of malicious schemers plotting to control the planet.

The jews blame all the troubles of jews then, now, and into the future on “anti-semitism”. And yet what they call “anti-semitism” is simply anti-parasitism, the host’s recognition and resentment of jewish infiltration, maniuplation and exploitation. It is a reaction to the harm caused by the jews pursuing their own interests.

Interestingly, jewish anti-”anti-semitism”, combating their host’s anti-parasitism, pre-dates their “anti-racism”. Today these two things are seen as connected, with “anti-semitism” being a special form of “racism”, a specific awareness of the jews as racially distinct and hostile.

A second review at Amazon is more of the same. Because the jews ultimately prevailed over the fair-minded Anglo-Saxons with by fraud, they still can’t be honest about what they did. Instead they malign Ford, faulting him for thinking and behaving as they actually do:
The best lesson one can draw from this book is that being a great industrialist does not necessarily convey expertise in other subjects. The International Jew began as a four-volume set of pamphlets, published by Henry Ford in the 1920s, in which he attempted to justify his anti-Semitic views by couching his beliefs not as racism but as “fact.”
What follows is an unwieldy and meandering set of essays in which Ford uses pseudo-science and third-rate sociology (as well as talk of conspiracy and “ancient prophecy”) in an attempt to scientifically prove that “the Jew” is the biggest problem holding the world back.
If something nice can be said about this book, it’s that Ford is absolutely thorough in his accusations–perhaps an illustration of the kind of attention to detail that made him rise to such heights as a businessman. In his essays, he accuses the Jewish people of just about everything under the sun: fomenting Communism, gambling on baseball, making “Jewish Jazz” our national music, even conspiring with Benedict Arnold. Ford may have done as much as anyone in history to propel American industry into the future, but his anti-Semitic ramblings would have us stepping back into the Dark Ages.
Here at the end I’d like to take the opportunity to point you to two brief but authoritative and well-presented explanations of the jews and race.

The first is a ten-minute video presentation by David Duke. Duke approach comes across as a contemporary version of the early TIJ, at least in his laying out of the facts and can’t-we-all-just-get-along attitude. Duke primariliy cites jews on the religion versus race question, and points out jewish hypocrisy in their attitudes about race and racial purity.

Kevin Strom’s recent podcast, Jewish Weakness, also discusses the jewish race and religion, but lays them out and puts them together in a way that provides a more complete understanding.

Strom asks, “Who are these people? And why do they do the things they do to us? The answer can be found in Jewish genes and Jewish memes.” He notes:
Thus we see that the memes of Jewish peoplehood began with lies — and it is my contention that these memes, these lies, have had a race-formation effect on those who adopted them, and that this race-formation effect has continued to operate even after the incorporation of non-Semitic genes into the Jewish gene pool.
No, the essence of Jewishness is the special “us versus them” mentality which is formalized in their Chosen People myth and which was necessary for their survival as a tiny group among the teeming masses of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and America.
The key is this: In the first place, early Jews were those Semites to whom the ethnocentric and genocidal memes of what we now call the Old Testament were attractive. So even at the very earliest period at which Jews appear, we have a select, distinct, and peculiar group. Then, for thousands of years, the Jews were subjected to a rigorous process of genetic selection.
The Jews perceive any reaction against their presence in the host nations as persecution, and from their point of view perhaps it is persecution, since our reaction is against the only way of life they know, that of a parasite attached to a host. Our interests are irreconcilable.
To protect themselves from any reaction from the host population, the Jews promote the doctrine that there is no difference among the races, although among themselves they cherish the doctrine of not only the superiority but the actual divinity of their race.
The key, I think, is perception, which is to say consciousness. Strom’s conclusion:
The difference is that today the venue for Jewish exploitation and overt and covert rule is not just France or England or Palestine, but half or more of the civilized world. It is a global phenomenon and the burgeoning reaction to it is also global. There will be nowhere to “disappear to” this time. It’s probably true that “the 1%” is 99% Jewish, but that’s a lot less of an advantage when everyone knows it.
Joe Sobran observed in 1996 that:
Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.
“Paralyzing”, and other such words people choose when they describe the jewish problem, indicate the host-parasite nature of the problem, even when it is not consciously acknowledged.

The furtive power of the jews is the apparent paradox to which Sobran refers. The two concepts – furtiveness and power – seem at odds, but are not really. Furtive power is another way of saying illegitimate or unpopular power. A power whose strength lies in remaining unrecognized and thus unopposed. The most pliable host is an unwitting host. The jews control the media because they must in order to survive as a collective, in order to put their ideas, their consciousness of their interests into their hosts’ heads.

Also, to ensure that their host remains otherwise unaware, unconscious of its own interests. Unconscious of the manipulation and exploitation. Unconscious of the grievous harm being done by the jews.

Why Aren't the Oath Keepers Protecting Officer Darren Wilson?

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

So the story should be all over, right?

Officer Darren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson Police Department, the latter, tax-payer supported organization now committed to recruiting exclusively black people to replace white people as officers of the (Eric "My People" Holder approved) law.

Wilson, the six-year law enforcement officer, wrote this letter to define his reasons for resigning:
In a telephone interview Saturday evening, Wilson said he resigned after the police department told him it had received threats that violence would ensue if he remained an employee.
“I’m resigning of my own free will,” he said. “I’m not willing to let someone else get hurt because of me.”
Wilson’s resignation letter reads, in part:

“I have been told that my continued employment may put the residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk, which is a circumstance that I cannot allow.
For obvious reasons, I wanted to wait until the grand jury made their decision before I officially made my decision to resign. It was my hope to continue in police work, but the safety of other police officers and the community are of paramount importance to me. It is my hope that my resignation will allow the community to heal.”
Honor and a duty to protect his fellow officers (almost all white people) from racial reprisals... the more we learn about Officer Wilson the more we understand why his fellow officers wore - to the chagrin of the Department of Justice - "I Am Darren Wilson" bracelets.

Well, now we learn something else. [Off-duty cops protect Darren Wilson, as death threats come in, Fox2Now.com, 12-3-14]:
Darren Wilson has lived in the shadows for nearly four months, changing residence from house to house, spending spare time in dark movie theaters, in hopes he won’t be spotted.

But he has not sneaked around alone. He has had protectors.
Fellow officers have been by his side day and night, as deadly threats have driven the former Ferguson police officer into hiding, after he shot unarmed teen Michael Brown in August.
“Fraternal Order of Police members from the surrounding area volunteered and have provided him with security from that time, right up until the present,” FOP spokesman Jim Pasco told CNN.
They had to, because Ferguson police were either “unwilling or unable” to protect Wilson, Pasco alleged. It was the department’s duty, he said. “That’s what the police department’s supposed to do.”
CNN has reached out for comment on Pasco’s claim to the Ferguson police department but has not heard back.
The volunteer officers are guarding Wilson in their off-duty time — without pay, Pasco said.
Sitting duck
Early talk of cyberstalking drove Wilson underground.
He was pushing a lawn mower days after the shooting, when he was told his home address was circulating online. He realized he was a sitting duck.
“He had to leave the grass, literally, half mowed,” his lawyer, Neil Bruntrager told CNN. Wilson stuffed belongings into bags, and three hours later, he began a life out of sight.
It should be noted the Ferguson Police Department has been targeted for racial cleansing by Eric "I'm also a black man" Holder, and Department of Justice has its 'Eye of Sauron' focused directly on the small suburb of St. Louis for any sign of racial profiling or anti-black sentiments.

In the eyes of the state-aligned media organs (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX), daring to consider the forensic evidence and non-discredited eye-witness testimony of his lethal encounter with Michael Brown conclusively supports Darren Wilson is tantamount to the most shocking display of anti-black thought since George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin for execution.

The Ferguson Police Department has all but decided to abandon the hiring of white males (or white women), instead embarking on a holy racial crusade that St. Martin Luther King would deem almost adequate in addressing historical racial inequities.

Almost, because white people are still employed by the Ferguson Police Department.

Why the Oath Keepers have yet to offer to protect Darren Wilson (and his pregnant wife from death threats) goes without question; for if the threats against Officer Wilson's continued employment with the Ferguson Police Department were credible enough for him to resign (to protect the lives of his former colleagues), then the threats that persist against his life since he has resigned should warrant protection from the Oath Keepers.

Right?

Though the Oath Keepers are back guarding the war zone that is the business district in Ferguson - whose members "laughed" at the St. Louis County ordinance initially causing them to abandon their voluntary defense of the city - they should be protecting Darren Wilson and looking to secure him future employment within their connected ranks.

After all, some individual demanded they be removed from Ferguson (hint: Eric Holder, the same person who was distressed with Gov. Nixon calling up the National Guard and declaring a state of emergency in Ferguson prior to the grand jury's findings); Bearing Arms reports those Oath Keepers trying to stop looting/rioting/arson from the "burn this motherfucker down" inspired rebel army (a racial-influenced rant from Michael Brown's step-dad Louis Head) had guns of the government trained on them:
“We had an alarming incident that happened last night with our team spotting what looked like a fed three-man sniper team moving into a nearby house on higher ground, and then pointing their rifles at our team of American combat veterans, while our team was guarding the buildings against looters.”
Rhodes said the team even observed the state highway patrol snipers deploy onto the roof of a nearby fire hall and point rifles at them.
“Our team leader called Unified Command to find out what was going on and then local police responded,” he explained.
He said that the local police were unaware of what the federal government were doing and that there was no coordination. “The local police are on our side and expressed gratitude for us being there, but the Feds are trying to run us out.”
The federal government is trying to badmouth this organization of ex-police and ex-military, even called them a “domestic terrorist” group.
There has not been independent verification of the presence of federal and state law enforcement officers attempting to intimidate the Oath Keepers, though the obscure fig leaf of a law that the government used to threaten the group shows that someone worked very hard to find a dubious excuse to bring pressure to remove the group of guardians.
Does there need to be an "independent verification" of this claim, when it's known Eric Holder was livid over the deployment of a heavy police presence in Ferguson during the August looting/rioting of the city by blacks, uttering the immortal, "get those damned tanks out of there" regarding the use of wrongly-criticized military vehicles (the lack of these vehicles when Ferguson burned on November 24th testament to the obvious necessity of such armaments to deter black looting/rioting/arson/violence)?

We live in incredibly dangerous times, when the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice have publicly sided with Michael Brown and given tacit approval of the rebel army that just burned much of the business district in Ferguson to the ground.

Darren Wilson's life (as well as the life of his wife and unborn child) is still threatened, though he resigned from the Ferguson Police Department that will soon resemble the police force of Port-au-Prince, Haiti (the city will sprinting to look like the ruined capital of that black republic as well); it's time the Oath Keepers volunteer to defend him and his wife from the credible threats against his life.

The story in Ferguson should be over, but it's only just beginning.

The Origins of Ukrainian Nationalism, Part 2

via Radix Journal

Stepan Bandera and the OUN

Famous Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera (died 1959) argued that the nation is a genetic unity. It is based on shared biological foundations because it is based on intermarriage and hence, genetic similarity. People normally do not marry those who do not speak their language, which in the present climate in America, is a controversial statement. This difference in genetic constitution implies that economics and life choices will differ among peoples in that they are–at their most rooted biological level–different from one another. As genetics interact with the topography and political history of a people, a real, distinct ethnos is formed.

For Bandera, the family is the first community and the primal one. This slowly develops into a sense of mutual interdependence, one founded on a sense of solidarity that becomes the root of nationhood. This is especially pronounced if the group is undergoing external pressure from a marauding foe or a rapacious empire. This solidarity is, importantly, the root of a basic egalitarianism in economic life. Labor, as Hegel argued, is national in the sense that the division of labor is the transformation of individual interest into the collective.

A common goal requires working in a climate of sacrifice and virtue. Like Ivan Franko and many others, nationalism for Bandera is a cultural unity leading to solidarity. In turn, this sense of family belonging alters the nature of work and hence, economic life. In many respects, this is an excellent ethical understanding of the folk-ethnos.

The state is essential here due to the size, power and militancy of the myriad enemies Ukraine faced in the first half of the 20th century. The state protects the ethnos and guarantees independence both economic and political. The state, as the instrument of the ethnos, guides investment and focuses resources on that which Ukraine can produce well. The point at which the state develops interests of its own, which might come close to adding some actual content to the “civic nation.” This, in truth, is just a mystification of state power without an ethnic or moral focus other than its own survival.

Some object to Bandera's insistence on ideological uniformity, seemingly innocent of the extreme levels of genocide the country had suffered. Apart from being a common and universal goal of all those with political power, Bandera sought a unified Ukraine as a means of self-defense and economic development. It was either that sort of militancy or national destruction. As of 2014, it is the latter, showing the fate of all “civic nations.”

Bandera accepted a limited state (since ethnic states are limited by definition), but one strong enough to maintain independence under the worst of conditions. While the concept irritates western minds that generally have no identity at all, the Ukrainian context fully justifies his combativeness. For him, the state was a moral unity that, at its best, protects and facilitates both the material and spiritual life of the people (as opposed to a party).

The reality is that Bandera argued for a simple platform that sought primarily to fight the USSR, and only later to build a strongly integralist state that is capable of maintaining what would be a highly fragile independence. He rejected the idea that political factions, even together, represent “the people.” The nation is a unity while its negation is the party or faction which invariably represents some frustrated faction of an elite seeking power. Imperialism occurs when an ethnos decides to take other territories outside of itself. Mutual respect can only exist when each group remains in its traditional territory.

The nation generates its own ideological and philosophical forms. It does this by synthesizing historical experience and the cultural defense mechanisms that have been erected to deal with war, colonial occupation, genocide, and poverty—all of which Ukraine has had more than its share. These are precious expressions of the human desire for freedom (though not an egotistical self-assertion) and are crucial towards creating a strong foundation upon which an integral foundation can be erected.

In this sense, the nation is organic in that it is a natural outgrowth of the family and genetic principle, as well as the division of labor and the need for human beings to cooperate. Cooperation cannot occur without the nation. The role of the political or philosophical leader is to synthesize all of these into a program that is wide enough to contain many different tendencies, but narrow enough to be a source for policy. Bandera argued that the moral norm is universalism, but such a view can only be expressed through the many nations that each form an aspect of it. There is no universal truth without particular truths.

Vasyl Stus and the Nature of the Motherland

Ukrainian anti-Soviet dissident Vasyl Stus (died 1985) made the claim that only in suffering is the self ever really known. Each man, in Stus' view, creates a “shell,” a sort of protective coating that shields him from the world of the spirit. This is a defensive mechanism to avoid all that which cannot be quantified. The spirit cannot be mechanized, it cannot be reduced to slogans or ideological manifestos. Therefore, it is avoided.

On occasion, this shell is broken when suffering is imposed upon it. The practical life of the external world is exposed as disguised contempt and the self discovers it has no anchor. Suffering forces the person to become fully known, to live entirely according to internal, ideal principles rather than external results.

The world has gone mad, therefore, we are forced to turn inward. The problem is that, for many, if not most, there is nothing to turn to. There is no inner self, but rather a superficial set of masks that are changed as circumstances dictate. Here, avoiding suffering seems to be the only purpose. It comes at the expense of personhood. This is the “mass man,” one incapable of rising above the pleasure-pain nexus. They are already dead.

Looking around, Stus came to realize that “success” was identical with both mediocrity and amorality. In the Soviet Union, the most absurd polices and ideas needed to be defended and justified. The problem was the long lines of volunteers to do just that. When pain becomes that which should be avoided at all costs, amorality is the necessary consequence. He watched professional frauds loudly trumpeted by the Soviet press solely because they supported the KGB's agenda. Talentless hacks were being called “geniuses” while the truly gifted were dying in frozen Gulag cells. Certain things do not change.

Stus is significant because he connected the symbols of home, mother, nation (motherland), nature, and freedom as essentially one thing. If Jean-Paul Sartre was to “solve” the existential issue in Marxism (or his own version of socialism) then Stus, who actually lived under it, created his own “solution”–our home, our motherland. The earth sustains man in that our ancestors are buried in it while we eat what grows out of it. The soil of one's motherland literally becomes part of our body.

Freedom cannot exist without our home. There is no abstract man, nor is there abstract freedom: it is always a service to something. For Stus, fighting the USSR was the only service he knew. In 1965, a movie was shown in Kiev, one by Sergei Paradzhanov, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. This led to a protest against the recent spate of arrests against dissidents and Ukrainian nationalists currently taking place. Stus was one of a handful that spoke out after the screening, knowing full well what will happen to him as a result. Once he publicly denounced the KGB's tyranny, he was removed from the university where he was pursuing its graduate studies for “systematic violations of the norms of behavior of graduate students and staff members of research institutions.” Not only did Stus get arrested due to his support of this film and its director, but the producer himself, Paradzhanov, was sentenced to five years hard labor as a result of his work. Technically, the film was condemned due to its purely realistic and romantic approach to the Hutsul people (a Slavic tribe in the Carpathians), but it shows an ethnic group in the full flower of its customs. This was why it needed to go.

The Ukrainian dissident movement during the Cold War was normally an aspect of the nationalist movement. The Ukrainian ethnos, of course, was defined in many different ways, but there was a radical disjuncture between an artificial ideology such as Marxism on the one hand, and the organic development of custom and language, on the other. The latter is fluid, having stood the test of time. The former is rigid and doctrinaire, leading of course, to the existence of the dissident.

The fact that the Gulag loudspeakers during Stus' time were proudly announcing the signing of the Helsinki Accords on human rights was a vivid reminder of the nature of ideology. That the Soviet Union was so insane as to beam this into a Gulag population shows just how inverted and carnivalesque things had become. The world was mad, so the only thing that a man deprived of his home could do is go inside. To enter one's inner world is the last line of defense against insanity.

Dmytro Pavlychko

One useful but largely ignored approach to nationalism comes from the work of Dmytro Pavlychko (b. 1929). His “The Ukrainian National Idea”, published in 2002, defines nationalism simply as the single highest form of meaningful social integration. Nationalism must be ethnic, since that is the source of culture. In addition, the struggles of a people are fundamental aspects of the folk and its subjective sense of unity. It is, as Bandera also suggests, forms of self-defense that have become ritualized as aspects of social behavior. This is the sign of a healthy society in the same sense that a strong immune system is a sign of a healthy body.

In his lecture of 2002 at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Pavlychko defined nationalism this way:
It is difficult to ascertain what the national idea refers to generally, because it can be understood as a complex unity containing ones mother tongue, customs, rituals, etc. . . It is the language of each people that serves as the foundation for identity, as well as its cultural and spiritual tradition. It also contains historical memory, its general mentality, its economic development, topography and general folkways. The national idea combines the essential identity of a people and the requirements for their autonomous and free development, none of which are independent of the state.
The last sentence is crucial. It is the summary of his thought in general. Nationalism is the synthesis of two distinct sets of ideas, that of the ethnic identity and purpose as well as how these are protected and nurtured. The state, in traditionally German and Slavic sense, is both the nature of this unity and the form of its protection. The “state” is both the constitution of the state, that is, its traditional sense of justice, and the more formal institutions of coercion.

Historical facts have forged a unity in the face of constant pressure, violence and the very real possibility of destruction. Language too is born from the violence of history. No people on the globe have been free of foreign occupation or devastating warfare. It is these periods where one's “otherness” is made quite clear, and thus, is the source of ethnic identity.

Each ethnos will create structures appropriate to itself, since conditions vary so radically. Law and state structures emanate from custom and history. Importantly, as soon as this connection between law and the ethnos is severed, the state loses its legitimacy. In saying that “none [of these things] are independent of the state,” he is speaking from a typically Ukrainian point of view. While national-anarchism was very common in 19th century Ukraine, its precarious geographic position and its tough neighborhood make statelessness impossible. The state must exist for both Pavlychko and Bandera because all the custom and history in the world will not save the people from Stalin, or worse, western capitalism.

Suffering reveals the truth that happiness is not in possessions, urban “sophistication,” or the bureaucratic pecking order. It is to be found in simplicity, something that has long been a part of Ukrainian ethnic thought since at least Kulish. This is what the enemies of nationalism fail to grasp: that ethnicity is born in the fires of pain and suffering. It is a function of what this writer has called elsewhere the “structures of resistance.”

The more evil the ruling system becomes, the more isolated the ethnos. The contradiction between the outer, disordered regime and the internal memory of the folk become extreme. What this can do is re-orient priorities, force people to find happiness in simplicity, and spiritualize daily life. Post-communist Ukraine, he states, works from the foundation only of money and power, the only “universal values” in the present global order.

Pavlychko's idea is that the Ukrainian sense of self had existed as a medieval construct. Just as the Anglo-Norman shaped the subjectivity of the Gaels, the Unia and Polish occupation shaped the Ukrainian idea. The Cossacks and Brotherhoods were the mainstays of the Orthodox Church under the violent thumb of the Polish nobility, and hence, these institutions are manifestations of ideas that became a part of the Ukrainian sense of self. Suffering can cleanse and generate an awareness of reality rather than an image.

The academic hacks who condemn nationalism as “mythical” have no difficulty accepting abstract concepts such as the individual, the “global community,” or “international civilization” as perfectly real and obvious. This absurdity shows that the academic elite are tied to capital, since this is their creation. For Pavlychko, there is no such thing as an “international morality” and certainly no planetary “civilization.”

National belonging is a prerequisite for a solid doctrine of rights. Since rights do not hang in midair, they must have an origin that is not entirely reducible to mere expressions of utility or self-interest. Cosmopolitanism can generate no doctrine of rights, since it has no substantive qualities at all. The abstract “individual” or “universal values” can generate nothing concrete, since those slogans are themselves vapid and vacuous.

The distinction between truth and the world of media-generated images is what suffering can make clear. Foreign occupation and constant war forces the more civic minded of the ethnos to be isolated and impoverished. Only from this vantage point can the system be seen for what it truly is. The bureaucratic mentality is one that will serve anyone with power. Hence, these functionaries, since they benefit from the system, cannot judge it. Those who they exclude in the name of “tolerance” and “openness” see them as the frauds they are, but it is only through such exclusion can the truth be fully understood.

Darius Stoyan and Donstov's School

In the work of Darius Stoyan, a young graduate student at Taras Shevchenko University, the main concern is to justify the primordial origins of the folk. He writes that the nation derives from the Latin word for “tribe.” The tribe, not self-sufficient, slowly develops into a larger confederation of similar peoples until a nation is formed. Stoyan agrees with the conception that this development is hastened by the existence of a violent enemy or foreign occupation. People suffering this way are automatically excluded as a group and hence, their resistance becomes identical with the nation.

Put differently, ethnicity has always existed, as the ancient annals of Scotland, Ireland and Greece testify. However, it was not necessarily politicized, nor part of the subjective mentality of the common folk. The concept of “subjective awareness” is a red herring. Ideology is always the domain of intellectuals and activists. Most of the common folk take their unities for granted, since much else occupies their time. Using this as an argument that nationalism is a recent phenomenon is just poor reasoning. It was merely there, a unity within which social interaction can be mutually comprehensible. The growth of the modern state and the arrogance of bureaucratic empires created the politicized version of ethnicity known as “nationalism.”

Nationalism for Stoyan is comprised of the people, living in a specific territory, forging bonds, and affective ties through the constant struggle with neighbors, powerful empires, and nature herself. A spiritual essence is formed that becomes the center of the ethnic consciousness and marks them off from others close by. Religion, language, and economic forms further differentiate the peoples. Intermarriage becomes inevitable since families must have significant commonalities to function, similar to nations. He writes:
The national concept is manifest in the supreme principle of unity and actualized through the human will determined to create unity from the raw material of the ethnic experience. It has its own values developed by the creative interaction of people living in the same area speaking the same language.
Following the work of D. Dontsov, the stress here is on the common will of the leadership in forging a nation. As mentioned above, however, the severe circumstances of Ukraine throughout the entirety of the 20th century–and even more so today–makes such militancy justifiable. The “raw material” (which is my translation) is the historical folk-ethnicity of the population, often taken for granted or seen as so normal that it does not require comment. A militant leadership comes into existence, as Bandera shows, at times when the very existence of the nation is at stake. Militant organization, the forcible creation of unity in the face of extermination, is the issue here. In 2014, the same conditions apply.

Nations have existed as ethno-linguistic units throughout history, as has the imperial desire to destroy such identities. Empires are defined as those entities that unify nations in the interests of the ruling group. Empires are not nations themselves, but federations answering to a common center. The point is that there is no empire without nations, and they come to define each other. There is no civic life without linguistic and cultural unities.

Since a non-alienated mankind seeks solidarity, justice, protection, and communal belonging (which are all tightly related), nations are a natural and normal social form. Empires, however, are the products of greed and alienation. Solidarity creates the standards for progress, success and organization that abstract theory cannot hope to provide.

Nationalism became the weapon of choice against the economic aggression of the industrial world. Industrialization is inherently international since imperial empires existed before either capitalism or industrialism. Europe after World War II became an economic, rather than a cultural entity. The Bretton Woods system demanded the rejection of nationalism and mercantilism as a condition for access to credit. The post-war order was, in part, based on the implication that only the economy has rights over the population.

In Stoyan's analysis of nationalism, he summarizes the concept in several ways. It is a subjective principle of identity, but its objective elements are equally significant. Culture is really the manifestation of a historical unity. Culture, in other words, is a product of history acting within the variables such as geography or available resources.

Conclusions

Stus placed the ethnic question as a matter of personal suffering. Prosaic gratification takes the place of virtue and calls itself “progress.” Those fighting it are rounded up. Modern man can only think in binary terms: individual and society, while the nation and community are syntheses of these terms. Love ends in tragedy, just as Teterya and Skoropadsky's love for the motherland led to their exile. Most of all, Stus argued that tyranny and collectivization requires a mass, not real persons.

The USSR, as Stus wrote from prison, is a “twilight” world where nothing is as it seems. The senses deceive, since the term “liberty” or “equality” is everywhere affirmed, but denied everywhere in practice. Nationalism is little more than those structures erected to protect the population from irrationality, colonial rule, and exploitation. Nationalism is to see the archetype in both nature and culture and seek its realization in our nominal world. Poets can do this, so long as they suffer enough. To get what one wants is to avoid the archetype, it is not needed when desires are met. Just before his 1985 murder, Stus proclaimed that his very existence was an act of protest. Socialism did not know what to do with such people except put them in prison. One was either a proletarian New Man or he was not. The “nots” ended up as “zeks.”

The nation is a community, the individual can only be collectivized. Collectives and communes are as different as individuals from persons. The individual is an ego, a person is an acculturated being. Suffering forces one to discover the fundamentals of existence. It forces self-knowledge, but it is always dangerously close to despair.

The examples detailed above have shown that both nationalism and sovereignty are the cornerstone of international politics. Even the most predatory empire needs to use these symbols when it is in their interests. Even more, as the economies of the small Slavic states continue to spin out of control, internationalism, neoliberalism, and empire are seen more and more to be illegitimate and in fact, rapacious. Belarus and Russia are exceptions, showing basically healthy economies based entirely on a rejection of IMF demands.

This writer agrees that the most successful economic policies come from a strong state and ethnic unity. Examples include including Japan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and Belarus. All of these states are examples of economic successes based around the rejection of neoliberalism and in favor of state-centered investment policies and long-term employment. The death of neoliberalism—outside of Washington and Harvard—will be missed by few.

Bibliography:

Almond, Mark (2008) “On Ukrainian Nationalism.” Russia Behind the Headlines, 28 November (rbth.ru/articles/2008/11/28/281108_nationalism.html)
Beiner, R. (2003) Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship: Essays on the Problem of Political Community. UBC Press
Hobsbawm, E. (1991) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge University Press. (Hobsbawm was a Jewish communist called an “authority on nationalism” by the entire academic establishment. Most of his work was promoting Marx and Marxism globally. He did not possess the qualifications to grasp nationalism nor the intellectual honesty to pursue it. He sought only to destroy it while downplaying his ethnic identity).
Кук, Василь (Vasyl Kuk, 2008). Життя і діяльність Степана Бандери: документи й матеріали. (Редактор: Микола Посівнич). Астон.
Посівнич, Микола. Степан Бандера — життя, присвячене свободі. Літопис УПА, 2008, III (N. Posivnych, from the Collected Works of the UPA, vol 3).
Pavlychko, D. The Ukrainian National Idea. Inaugural Lecture honorary doctorate of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, 2002 (Інаугураційна лекція почесного доктора Києво-Могилянської Академії, виголошена 1 вересня 2002 року) Originally published in the journal Young Ukraine (Молодь України” 2002 10 and 12 вересня, 113-114). http://newright.primordial.org.ua/pavlychko.htm
Павличко Д. (2012) Українська національна ідея : ст., виступи, інтерв'ю, док. Дмитро Павличко. Вид-во Соломії Павличко «Основи»
Stoyan, D. (2012) Проблема визначення поняття «нація» в контексті філософської спадщини Ю.Вассияна. Publications of the Dmytro Dontsov Research Center.
Stoyan, D. (2012a) Шевченка в історіософській концепції Ю. І. Вассияна. Publications of the Dmytro Dontsov Research Center.
Tismaneanu, V (2009) Fantasies of Salvation: Democracy, Nationalism, and Myth in Post-Communist Europe. Princeton University Press
Франко, Іван. Соціалізм і соціал-демократизм. (“Socialism and Social Democracy”) Originally published in «Житє і слово» in 1897 (Volume 6, number 4, pps 265-292)
Франко, Іван. Формальний і реальний націоналізм. (“Formal and Real Nationalism”) Published in the Lv'iv Newspaper Forward «Назустріч» in 1936. It also appears in his Collected Works, 1980, vol 27, pps 355-363
Kostash, Myrna (1998) “Inside the Copper Mountain.” In: The Doomed Bridegroom: A Memoir. New West Press, 34 -70
Davies, Norman Richard (1972). White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919–20. Random House
Dmytro Doroshenko (1957) “A Survey of Ukrainian Historiography.” Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the US, 5-6(4): 262-74
Serhii Plokhy (2005) Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History. University of Toronto Press

The Immigration Speech

via American Freedom Party

Not covered by any of the TV networks “the speech” was noteworthy in his usual distribution of misinformation. We won’t even address that! What we will speak to is the obvious violation of the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 Section 1 of the constitution clearly articulates that all power to make law is vested in the legislative branch. The Legislative makes laws and the executive enforces them. It is furthermore a violation of well-established constitutional principles that the president may not selectively enforce laws, something he and his AG excel at.

In his speech he clearly stated that congress did not act relating to one of 376 bills on Harry Reid desk, immigration reform that had in the Senate been passed by bi-partisan action. What he omitted to say was that due to his selective enforcement polices on ACA no one trusted him to enforce border security, which is why the bill was stalled in the House. The matter will surely come to the Supreme Court on accelerated schedule. Speculating on the outcome we remain confident his EO will be nullified by the Court.

This was the act of a despotic sociopath acting outside law, and in a veiled attempt to paint the opposition into a corner. The very obvious effort by the president is to 1) split the electorate into two opposing camps, 2) force the Republicans to either impeach or bring legal action, 3) make himself appear as the champion of the Hispanics, 4) curry Hispanic votes to the Democrat party. As any immigrant who had to participate in a laborious citizenship procedure that included obtaining a visa, obtaining a sponsor, proving financial independence, a five-year wait, paying all taxes for five years without representation, and financially taking a verbal and then written English and a American History and Civics exams, they must be deeply offended by this promise of amnesty.

He said it was not amnesty because he was not providing citizenship that is wrong. He was guaranteeing omission of prosecution (a legal pardon for 5 million illegals) for a crime leading to eventual citizenship. Furthermore, while bringing up the matter of border security he did not convince me that he was actually planning it. Perhaps the executive should contract with the IDF in Israel who seem not to have the slightest problem in building a wall that is impregnable.

This prejudiced act was akin to throwing a hand grenade into the legislature. Obama was more than aware before he gave this speech that both the house as well as the senate planned to take up the matter of immigration in the opening session of the 2015 legislative session. By his act he has damaged the process, setting it back many months. Furthermore he has effectively transferred the enactment of immigration reform from the legislative and executive to the judicial branch whose usual speed of response can only be characterized as sluggish.

It seems clear to us that the supporters of this care little for constitutional principles, the rule of law or the separation of power, opting instead for a dictator. He has succeeded in establishing a cult of “Obamaists” whose vacuous understanding of our laws and republican principles rule his day. The assault on constitutional principles in his speech is dangerous and dictatorial; it cannot be allowed to stand.

Having already established precedence in his continuous selective enforcement of law, supported by his toady AG Eric Holder, the nation is in deep trouble. If allowed to stand, future presidents will use this case as a justification for not only selective enforcement, but also the enactment of odious to the people laws, propagated by gender or race issues. It is the rule through diktat that America had a revolutionary war with England some centuries ago.

The president’s avowals that he is entitled to act because congress has not, is akin to a claim that equality before he law is void because he prefers racism. His acclimation that all presidents had before him done the exact same thing is an outright lie. All of them had acted on immigration after congress had finished their debates and voted on the issue.

Surprisingly he plans to give about 5 million illegals three-year work permits, while America has just over 24% unemployment, we may if this stands, get that up to 30% by the end of his administration. He glossed over the illegal felons of which we have over 40,000. He said that the number of deportations was up, not mentioning that they changed the way they are counted and if you use to old system the deportation rate is actually down. If he gives work permits he will also to collect taxes and to do that have to give SS numbers, this will allow all of those with SS number to get all other ID’s and then allow them to vote. At some point in the speech we were convinced that the only problem according to Obama regarding illegals was that they were not paying taxes.

“….All we are saying is we are not going to deport you.” Well, OK, we are also going to give you work permits, social security card, allow you to compete for any job available in America, avail drivers licenses, not make you pay back-taxes only future taxes, we also assume that government jobs will be included in this package.

He did prominently indicate that we must allow PhD’s, mathematicians and college graduates in because we desperately need such people, indicating the complete failure of our federal education system, which is under his management.

Space -- The Final Capitulation

via Alternative Right

Space: consolation for the loser
I frequently see articles from race realists and others expressing faith in some kind of futuristic, pro-technology solution to the problems of the present. Such solutions are usually dependent on assumptions of uninterrupted technical innovation, driven by large and successful industries and markets, over a lengthy period of time. These are the unquestioned assumptions of these futuristic solutions, but extract fossil fuels from the equation and even the beginning of such a scenario is infeasible.

Roman Bernard's recent film review, Interstellar: Finding A New Telos is a fine piece of writing, but provides an excellent example of the sort of blind assumptions that undergird all techno-futurist thinking. Even scientists make these assumptions. They may in fact be among the worst offenders. So Bernard is in good company.

This article will focus on the likelihood that ours is not a technological future, that our destiny – at least in a time scale meaningful to humans – is not in the stars, but that we are essentially stranded on Earth, and it is this, our home and only "destination," for which we must fight without hope of redemption by a form of interstellar White flight.

Our challenge is to resume our proper place as rulers and guardians of our lands and people. We are not destined to run away to some sublimated version of Heaven on some distant planet, for, as Mr. Bernard properly notes, "we are the heirs of conquerors." Our ancestors entrusted us with the care of a great treasure, a treasure which our immediate forbears have allowed to be despoiled by interlopers. It falls to us to recover what is ours, to remember and celebrate our ancestors and become ancestors worthy of honour in our turn.

I certainly do not expect complete agreement from all readers to what follows; but I strongly suggest careful study of the numbers on present and future oil production from unbiased sources.

Mr. Bernard was inspired to write his review by the line from Interstellar that states: “Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to die here.” It is a dramatic line, no doubt. It's the line that made me want to write this piece. But it could not be more wrong.


Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it is true or even makes sense. Man is an animal like any other, in essence a biological machine. No animal can survive for long outside of its element. To exempt man from this rule is to make him a god – and for the Romans to “become a god” was a euphemism of death.
Man was not merely born on Earth, he is born of Earth. Man is Earth.
Little better than a fish out of water is man beyond our atmosphere. A man could more easily survive under the sea than he could in space. Imagine a life entirely under water, never to have contact with land or air or any of the resources of that world again. Once your breathing apparatus is gone, its replacement would have to be manufactured underwater, as would the machines to manufacture that apparatus. All the structures you occupy, any transportation or communications equipment you use, would also have to be built underwater.

Space: the new escapism.
At present, all work of any consequence is done by burning fossil fuels. Imagine doing that underwater. Well it would be even more difficult in space. Then consider farming and the food we need to survive.

And then there are the psychological effects of trying to adapt to an underwater (or outer space) world. Imagine the long term effects of a necessarily tiny, enclosed habitation: the decreased light, the lack of wide open spaces, the suffocating effects of holding a hostile, deadly element or vacuum at bay, and the way that would slowly sap and crush the human spirit.

Man needs Earth because, again, he is Earth. We are made of the same carbon and water, in a finely tuned mix, as the planet. Man is adapted to fulfil his bodily needs with what this planet provides. He is adapted psychologically to the demands of this planet.

You may retort that all we need to do is find another planet like Earth to go to. Outside of Hollywood movies, do you realize the odds of that occurring? Do we – here at the all-time peak of civilization – even have a close approximation of Earth in our sites? Do we not yet realize how delicate is the balance of factors that created and maintain life on this planet? A simple virus can wipe out a continent of people, as it did with the American Indians. Even our own planet is dangerous to human life. Why should an alien environment be any kinder?

Even if we were to find a planet identical to Earth, it would be unreachable, requiring vast resources both in terms of finance and fossil fuels. How many space missions to date have carried more fuel than just enough to complete the mission? Imagine the weight of the payload with enough fossil fuels to build a civilization on another planet, along with the crew of workers required to put that fuel to use. Imagine the danger of such a launch if it were to fail on lift off. The explosion would be immense and the attempt would never be repeated.

It  didn't work out on Earth.
Mars will be better.
Instead of that, perhaps we could build a civilization with the resources we find there. If that’s what you think, then you haven’t really done your homework. Get yourself a shovel and dig a hole sometime. Back breaking labour is instructive. It would be even more instructive light years from the Earth.

And further, consider the numbers of people required to make a successful settlement on another planet. It would take hundreds of individual communities on this other planet before we could be assured of the likelihood of man's survival there. Adam and Eve is a myth. A mere two people would not be able to successfully populate a planet. Some early disaster would befall them and wipe out the entire population, thus the importance of scattered individual communities.

The numbers that could travel to another planet per mission would be substantially smaller than those that came from Europe to America on our own planet. Even in that case with larger numbers and help from the natives, we initially failed.

I found the idea in Bernard's piece of a secret government program to fund such adventures interesting, but not plausible. The government's days are numbered. It should be obvious that it is already failing. And with the inevitability of worldwide poverty rapidly encroaching – a point the movie appears to get right – there will be no tax funds to plunder.

But why will we become poorer? It’s because we are rapidly running out of oil. Yes, I know, we're all currently being told that thanks to fracking we are awash in oil, but that is not going to last. Already the rich are starting to bail on fracking, as they should. Some say that what OPEC is doing currently with low gas prices is an attempt to drive some of the fracking companies out of business.

I cannot stress enough, all the hype you are hearing about American oil is just that. It's about investing concerns creating a cornucopian narrative, based on very little, to keep the profits rolling in. And the media is just as corruptly enmeshed in all of it as Wall St., K St., and the government. Another major economic crash is coming in the not too distant future.

What? Me Worry?
Fracking, no matter how you slice it, is in no way anywhere near as profitable as conventional wells. It costs much more to get oil through fracking, and the wells play out much sooner. The same can be said for Canada's tar sands oil. It too is expensive to extract, as well as being very destructive of the environment. Both of these are textbook examples of the phrase "to scrape the bottom of the barrel." The only reason we are doing this is because the price of oil had gone high enough to make it temporarily profitable and there were no conventional sources that weren’t already being exploited.

Let me repeat again: we are running out of oil. There are fewer and fewer, and ever smaller deposits of oil of poorer and poorer quality being discovered. And yet we burn it as if our very lives depended on it, as if it were a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Whatever happened to conserving for the future?

And while oil is running out, don't think that there is anything that can replace it. Solar power is a bad joke. There's a lot of solar energy, yes, but it is extremely diffuse. Fossil fuels are useful because they are very concentrated. Concentrating sunlight to run a few lights around the house might be a fun hobby, but it won't power a civilization. All the other alternative energies are equivalently useless, including nuclear. Until things like nuclear power plants, solar installations, wind farms, etc., can be built using power from their own respective power sources they are essentially just another form of fossil fuel energy. Without fossil fuels these other forms of energy cannot be usefully exploited in the first place.

Technically speaking, we will never entirely run out of oil. It will simply take more oil to drill and process the crude than the retrieved oil can replace. I expect we will go on for quite a few years expending more energy to drill than the energy retrieved. Thus is the nature of our oil-based civilization. Everything is made of oil, right down to the food on your table! Plowing, planting, fertilizer, packaging, shipping, even cooking – all of it involves fossil fuels.)

Returning to our main theme, the abandonment of our planet, the roots of this view can be found in Christian teachings about Heaven and the afterlife:
Life on this planet is awful. Live a righteous life and you'll get to Heaven. Life here is meaningless. The greater your suffering is here, the greater your reward will be in Heaven. Give no thought to making the Earth a paradise, your paradise awaits you above.
And so on. Why worry about the perishable Earth?

Techno-futurism is either a form of cowardice or escapism. It abandons all that is real and valuable for that which is illusory. It says in effect, “Screw all of you, I'm out of here. I'm going to Heaven.” All this talk of technology overcoming everything is no more valid than Christian fantasies of rapture, and is in fact their modern equivalent.

In space no one can hear you reach the afterlife.
Every innovation comes with a cost, and in the future every step forward will come with an increasingly large downside, as increased complexity inflicts a process of diminishing returns. Increased complexity is one of the major causes of the collapse of societies, empires, and civilizations, replacing simple, brutal efficiency with confusing entropy. It's why it would simply be impossible for the government to run something as big as an Interstellar-type program.

Our government is much closer to collapse than most realize. Oh sure, it keeps the facade in place, but if you look closely, the cracks are visible and the foundations subsiding. One major crisis could bring the whole thing crashing down. So not only is there no "out of here," but worse, we're embracing the cause of the problem – complexity – as the solution to the problem.

No, what's needed is radical simplicity. Instead of pinning our hopes on a technological saviour, we must face some simple and painful truths.

Bernard writes:
"I believe such a dream should be space conquest. I obviously won't live it, nor will my children, and I don't think my grandchildren or even my great-grandchildren will."
Forgive me, Roman, with all possible respect, this is the very definition of procrastination. Earth is our only home. We are not going anywhere. Let's put that thought out of our heads. We simply do not have the resources to make a success of such a project. The stars are nice to look at, and they have much to teach us. But if aspirations of space travel are the lesson we take, we take the wrong lesson.

Space travel is White flight writ large. Space is the wall against which the white man is backed, not some comfortable zone of escape and respite. When your back is against the wall, you have no alternative but to stand and fight. This far and no farther! And not for our children tomorrow, but for ourselves today! Right here, right now!

We know what we want, let's go get it. No vainglorious, procrastinatory speechifying. Futurism is an excuse for sitting on one's backside and doing nothing, for putting off today's work to a tomorrow that will never come. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Our Earthly problems are vastly easier to fix than to build some ridiculous White-topia among the stars. If we can't conquer our enemies here on Earth, we are not going to conquer them in space.

The past half-century has seen White men living as zombies, not quite dead yet not truly alive. But even the spark of manhood is dying. It's a death of a thousand indignities. Our once proud race has been taught hatred and shame for our own people. We must recover our pride and dignity and channel our anger into vengeance upon those who have tried to destroy us, so that they may never be allowed to manipulate us again.

The urban spaceman: spacing out of the rat race.
Nature has provided us with a tool to fix all our problems. It has always worked in the past and will again today.

Behind every law, written or implicit, is the threat of violence. Know this. There is no fixing our problems without violence. This will not be our choice, it will be forced upon us. When we stand up, we will be attacked. Accept that. So we must stand together. Our lives must not be thrown away for naught, as is the case currently.

We will no longer allow our brothers to be beaten and killed, our women to be taken from us, our children to be taken from us, our livelihoods, even our manhood to be taken from us. I have no stratagems, no tactics, no plan, but I know the truth of the words in this paragraph. There is no running away. Turn and fight.