Dec 24, 2015

Living in Truth: A Yuletide Homily

via Counter-Currents

Philippe de Champaigne,
“Saint Augustin,” 1645-1650
The key problem of our age is disconnection from truth. This takes several distinct forms. The first, and most obvious, is the prevalence of lies. As everyone knows, modern, western civilization is founded upon lies about human nature, culture, and history. The most significant of these – underlying, in one form of another, most of the rest – is the equality lie; the myth of human equality, which is the chief myth of our age. (“Myth,” as most of my readers know, can have a positive or a negative connotation, as there are salutary myths; here, obviously, I am using the term in its purely negative sense.)

Now, note something in the preceding paragraph: I stated that “everyone knows” that our modern world is founded on lies. Perhaps your eyes glided over those words without even registering them. And now you might respond, “Well, it’s not true that everyone knows this. If they did, we would be in much better shape.” But what I have said is actually quite true: everyone does know about the lies. At some level of their awareness, this is true of all modern men and women. And this brings me to the next form of disconnection from truth: inauthenticity; the prevalence of “doublethink,” of knowing one thing – deep down – but saying another.

Many of us have had the experience of talking with those who are living with lies, and trying to persuade them of the truth. Our efforts are met with different sorts of reaction. The worst and most dismaying is not, as one might imagine, violent disagreement (for such defensiveness often signals underlying, though suppressed, agreement). No, the worst reaction is apathy: the attitude of a person who may actually recognize the truth of what you are saying, and see that the lie is a lie, but who just doesn’t care. I will wager my readers have met this sort of person once in a while. It is extraordinarily disturbing and dispiriting to encounter an individual for whom the truth simply doesn’t matter, and who is content to go along with the lies endorsed by others, for no other reason than to get along.

But there is a still lower circle of hell reserved for those who deny truth altogether, the so-called “relativists.” Apathetic people may still recognize truth for what it is; they just don’t care. But the relativist is the person who denies the difference between truth and lies, or claims that if there is a difference we cannot know it. Sometimes this person is simply a scoundrel. Cornered in an argument (usually the subject is ethics) they will finally counter with “But it’s all relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth.” And by “absolute truth” what they really mean is “objective truth”: the idea, quite simply, that certain things are or are not, irrespective of anyone’s opinions, wishes, hopes, or fears. Contrary to the old adage, it is this position and not patriotism that is the last refuge of scoundrels. But we usually don’t believe that they are being sincere.

A few times in my life, however, I have met individuals who seemed to be sincerely committed to relativism. And often this was for what they saw as ethical reasons: belief in relativism is thought to be “tolerant,” whereas belief in absolute truth is a feature of the “authoritarian personality.” Refuting relativism is child’s play, of course. One need only ask such questions as “Aren’t you saying that you think relativism is true, and not just ‘true for you’? Otherwise, why are you arguing with me?” And as for the issue of tolerance, one need only ask “Aren’t you assuming that tolerance is somehow objectively better than intolerance?”

But I have encountered some very consistent relativists, who in fact will bite the bullet and say “No, I’m really only expressing what I think is true for me. If you believe in absolutism, that’s true for you.” Such people are human in shape only. For the concern with truth – with separating truth from lies, discovering how things really are, and bringing things into the light – is what makes us human. And this not solely an intellectual concern: it is a matter of the heart; a matter of passion. For passionate commitment only displays itself as a consequence of perceiving what one believes to be the truth. The genuine relativist is the perfect child of modernity: mentally crippled, incapable of passion and commitment, thoroughly flat-souled, thoroughly dehumanized. The walking dead. Relativism, quite obviously, is the ultimate form of disconnection from truth.

However, if we examine the writings of philosophers from centuries past, we will find most of them complaining about how the men of their time are “disconnected from truth.” For example, Parmenides (5th century B.C.E.) wrote of the path “on which mortals, knowing nothing, wander, two-headed. For helplessness in their breasts guides their wandering minds and they are carried, deaf and blind alike. Dazed, unthinking hordes, for whom being and not-being are thought the same and yet not the same, and the path of all runs in opposite directions. For never shall it be proved: that the things that are not are.” Actually, Parmenides does not seem to be speaking here of the men of his time, but of how most men have always been, and must always be. And the social lesson of Plato’s allegory of the cave is that most men are fated to be cave-dwellers, and will kill the man who tries to free them, and lead them to truth (as the men of Athens killed Socrates).

The weighing of the heart against truth, Egyptian Book of the Dead

Yes, it is true that in all societies, throughout all time, most have been fundamentally unconcerned with truth, and content to parrot the lies that guarantee social acceptance and advancement. This fact ought to give us some solace. Anti-modernists and Traditionalists spend too much time bemoaning the people’s inability (or unwillingness) to see the truth. In doing so, they unwittingly buy into modern, egalitarian ideas about human potentialities. Tradition teaches that the many must be led by the few who can see the truth – and that the many become followers not primarily through rational persuasion, but through their response to the moral character and personality of the best of the few.

Of course, there is an argument to be made that the lies and dishonesty are worse today than they were in the past: both more pernicious and more prevalent. Though probably every intellectual, in every time, has thought this, I have to say that I think it is quite true. Never before in history have men and women lived in such disconnection from nature and basic facts of nature – and in such denial of human differences, and of what can and cannot lead to fulfilling life. Never have so many led such inauthentic lives.

But now we turn to a matter that, for many, may hit too close to home. It is not just our enemies who are guilty of inauthenticity. We flatter ourselves in thinking that our lives are devoid of falsehood, vanity, and disingenuousness. But this is not the case. No one’s life is entirely devoid of these things. I have met many “Radical Traditionalists,” “Right Wingers,” “Neo-Pagans,” and “Anti-Modernists,” who are really doing nothing other than engaging in forms of narcissistic display. They are simply modern people who have chosen one of the more outr√© of the “lifestyle choices” available to them in today’s great, pluralistic shopping mall of identity. They dress the part and get the right tattoos, but underneath the surface appearance they are as modern as the Clintons. These people usually reveal themselves as poseurs by the panic they exhibit when someone has the bad manners to point out the logical, and obvious, implications of their professed beliefs.

I know other people who are not outright phonies, but who are nonetheless prone, now and then, to posturing, false bravado, preoccupation with “projecting an image,” and other small sins. I try as best I can to police my life for these and other signs of falseness. “Authenticity” is very important to me. I want to live in truth, and to be a genuine person, without fooling either myself or others. The Germans have a nice saying, besser sein als Schein. Better being, than seeming.

However, left alone one night with too much time to myself and nothing else to do, a horrible thought occurred to me. I wondered if my desire for authenticity, for being genuine, might itself be a pose. A way in which I sought to distinguish myself from others – to claim that I am genuine, while others are false. Even the halfway claim of trying to be genuine, of “policing my life” for signs of falseness might just be a form of narcissistic display. Like the Christian whose virtue consists in loudly declaring himself a “sinner.”

I have to admit that I found this thought troubling – until I realized that the very fact that I found it troubling proved, quite conclusively, that my desire for genuineness was indeed genuine. Now I suppose some devilish critic might suggest that perhaps this reaction itself is disingenuous: suppose that my fear that my preoccupation with being genuine might itself be false. I am my own worst critic, however, so I can tell you that this thought did, in fact, occur to me. And, again, I felt apprehension – a fear that perhaps I might be inauthentic all the way down. But I quickly realized, of course, that this is absurd. This very fear, again, shows that my concern with genuineness is quite genuine.

It was then that I realized I had arrived at an insight not unlike Descartes’s cogito. Famously, Descartes observed that I can doubt everything, except my own existence. For if I do not exist, who is doing the doubting? I think (I doubt), therefore I am. (This is the one good argument in Descartes’s entire corpus, by the way.) Similarly, my own desire for genuineness was, in the final analysis, undeniably genuine. There was no doubting it. To be sure, I may sometimes overestimate the degree to which I have achieved genuineness. I may fool myself. But as soon as I discover that I’ve fooled myself, I repent and renounce my falseness. And if this repentance and denunciation don’t smell right to me, I feel the guilt. My desire for genuineness is undeniably genuine.

One way to look at this is that my “self” is really multiple “selves”: multiple layers of relative falseness, and I am engaged in the enterprise of trying to peel them away. Deep down, underlying all of them, is not the “lower self,” in fact, but the “higher self” that does the peeling – whose commitment to genuineness, to living in truth, can’t be doubted. This is my “true self,” and it is characterized by connection to truth. It is what I really am, as opposed to what I merely appear to be; the truth about me is my directedness toward truth. My truth is my being, in other words.

The truth defines my being (it is my being) and it is my highest value. I feel the pull of this value all the time: I must become what I am, I think to myself. What I really am, my true self, again, is truth – but this true self is enveloped by many false selves with which I am often tempted to identify. My “desire for genuineness,” ultimately, is my desire to identify with the true self alone: the self that is true, that lives in truth. Thus, I desire truth in myself – more than anything else. And I desire the truth in the world. I want to find the truth about how things are and live in the light of that and only that. When I find falsehood in myself I am ashamed. When I find falsehood in the world I am indignant.

For without truth there is nothing. Literally.

Truth and being, though they seem distinct, really are the same thing seen in different ways. Consider what it means to say that someone is “a true friend.” If Bob is a true friend it means that he is a real friend; his being is that of a friend. In German, a true friend is described as treu, which means “loyal.” This word is cognate with English “true,” although the word normally translated as “true” (as opposed to “false”) in German is wahr. So we might ask what the relationship is between the “true” and the “loyal.” The answer, quite simply, is that the true is loyal or faithful to what is. Consider also what it means when we say that we “have the truth” about something. It means that we know what it is. The truth of something is its being.

And now we see that “connection” to truth means a lot more than connection to “correctness,” or “being right.” To be connected to truth means to be in accord with what is. This is the difference between us and those members of our tribe who consider us monsters. We live in relation to being; they have chosen non-being. And this is true in multiple senses. They not only fail to perceive reality and fail to put their lives in accordance with it, they have chosen the path of non-being. The path of what Parmenides call “it is not.” Their way leads to the extinction of our culture and our people; and they willingly choose this.

Truly, as Parmenides would put it, our enemies “wander two-headed.” They engage in double-think. They are carried, deaf and blind alike. Dazed, unthinking hordes. For them, being and not-being are thought the same and yet not the same. To cut ourselves off from truth, to live in denial of it, is to live in non-being, in disconnection from what is. And this means disconnection from the good as well. For only the path to being and truth can lead to goodness. Only knowledge of what is (what truly is) can point us toward the ideal; toward what out to be. The most our enemies can hope for is a beautiful outward form. But inside those who live in denial of truth and being and goodness dwell ugly souls. They are humanoid only, not human.

Yuletide is a time for reflection – for looking back over what has passed away, in this year and in all the years past. And it is a time for looking forward, as this year transitions into the new. This season, let us all re-commit to living in truth. This means finding and affirming the truth in the world, and living genuine, authentic lives. And this twofold commitment has a twofold implication: it means living in relation to what is, and really being something; becoming what we are. The human being is the only animal for whom truth is an issue. The choice to live in truth is the choice to be truly human. And this is our good.

There can be no higher or more important “new year’s resolutions” than what I have set out here: to live in truth, and thus to be what we are; to give birth in ourselves to the good and the beautiful.

Happy New Year!

The Destructive Federal Reserve Economy

via The Thinking Housewife

Why can’t most families live on one income anymore? Because the Federal Reserve System is economic plunder. Inflation is a tax. The median house was worth about $58,000 in 1960 in 2000 dollars. It is close to $200,000 now. Inflation of this type is caused by increases in the money supply, not by increased demand and natural growth. No nation in history has taken on fiat currency, which is the creation of money out of nothing, without having its economy destroyed. Credit cards, the overworked family, skyrocketing national debt, a shrinking birth rate cover up the reality.

This video was made in 2011, but it is as relevant today as ever. Pay particular attention close to the end where the discussion turns to the likelihood of a North American currency and then a single global currency, both of which will be part of the scam and the economic rape of private central banking.

Whitaker 2016 Campaign Update

via Fight White Genocide

On Tuesday December 15th, Bob was a guest on PPRN radio.

PPRN Radio is a comedy/talk/music show that reaches 500,000 listeners over 8 Internet channels including iHeartRadio and Spreaker. The show is a low comedy program, but they attract serious guests – and they respectfully requested that Mr. Whitaker join them to discuss the AFP and its goals.

The in-studio guests that evening were a pair of indie music singers, an MMA heavyweight fighter and a bodybuilding champion.

Link to the full show – Bob’s segment starts at 83:27:

Listen Now

Also recently, Bob was asked to answer a set of interview questions for the American Third Party Report, which is a news blog covering American third parties.  Below is the audio of Bob’s answers to the interview questions:

Listen Now

“Bad Santa” and Eli Plaut’s “A Kosher Christmas”

via The Occidental Observer

TOO Editor's Note: This article was originally posted on Dec. 24, 2013; it is a comment on an article that appeared in Tablet on Dec. 17, 2013. Tablet has seen fit to repost it in 2014, on Christmas eve, so I thought I would repost my comment.

It’s that time of year again. Time for Jewish angst about Christmas. The Tablet has a revealing article by Adam Chandler that gets at the Jewish view of the season (“All-Star Team of Jews Defiles Christmas in Billy Bob Thornton’s ‘Bad Santa’: How the Coen brothers and Terry Zwigoff helped create a holiday classic that angers gentiles“). Described as “the greatest Christmas movie of all time,”
ten years after its release, Terry Zwigoff’s Bad Santa, a rail whiskey blend of Brecht and Bukowski, has become a holiday standard. Brought to life by a Jew from Wisconsin (Zwigoff) and four Jewish brothers (two Coens and two Weinsteins), it is regarded as a classic send-up of Christmas culture gone awry. The crude, brilliant movie is a staple of Comedy Central’s December line-up.  …
With an assault of impiety, the film makes Christmastime in America seem an impossible place to be if you live at the margins. The way that message is conveyed throughout the movie, however, is more fluid than solid. After his introductory monologue, Willie stumbles into the alley behind the bar where, with the Chopin nocturne still lilting, he upchucks loudly into the snow. It’s a beautiful shot, retching Santa and all, that ends with the postcard appearance of the movie title in red lettering.
Uplifting stuff for the holidays. The artistic contribution of the Coen brothers is critical:
In an interview last year, director Terry Zwigoff explained how the Coen Brothers turned Bad Santa from holiday pastiche into scorched earth. “Like the kid would ask Santa, ‘Do you and Mrs. Santa ever think of having kids?’ And in the original script it was just, ‘No, thank God.’ And the Coens made that into, ‘No, thank the fuck Christ.’ That’s their gift. They have a gift for dialogue.”
Such an improvement! The gleeful desecration of all that is held dear by the hated and resented outgroup.

Catholic League President William Donahue expressed the attitude of the rest of America, noting
In a word association game, the mere mention of Santa to kids begets comments like ‘kind,’ ‘cheerful,’ and ‘loving.’ But the Santa in ‘Bad Santa’ is anything but: he is a chain-smoking, drunken, foul-mouthed, suicidal, sexual predator. He is shown soiling himself in Santa’s chair, vomiting in alleys, having sex with a woman bartender in a car, and performing anal sex on a huge woman in a dressing room. And his commentary in front of kids is replete with the ‘F-word.’
Indeed, IMBD reports that “The unrated version of the film furthers the record for the most profanities in a Christmas film, including 170 uses of “fuck”, 74 uses of “shit”, 31 uses of “ass”, 10 uses of “bitch”, and 1 use of “bastard”, in variable forms.”

Now that’s comedy!

And the best part for the Adam Chandlers of the world is that it doesn’t really have a Christmasy ending: “While Bad Santa jerks in the direction of a happy ending, there is little redemption to be had. After all, no one is asking that we get into the spirit of Christmas or channel its goodwill. For a Jew at Christmastime, it’s all we could ever want in a holiday movie.”

The following column on a scholarly book on the Jewish role in subverting Christmas ran last year around this time:

A new book, Joshua Eli Plaut’s A Kosher Christmas: ’Tis the Season to Be Jewish, documents what we have known all along: The Jews did indeed subvert Christmas.  This book deserves a full review, but Ethan Schwartz’s summary and comment (“Twas the night after Christmas“) deserve scrutiny. First the summary:
Jews have been the vanguard of an effort to “transform Christmastime into a holiday season belonging to all Americans,” without religious exclusivity.  The most important Jewish mechanisms of secularization are comedy and parody, for laughter undermines religious awe.  Take, for example, Hanukkah Harry from “Saturday Night Live”, who heroically steps in for a bedridden Santa by delivering presents from a cart pulled by donkeys named Moishe, Hershel, and Shlomo.  Remarkably, Hanukkah Harry has emerged as a real Santa-alternative for many American Jews.  Plaut sees such things not as attempts at assimilation but as an intentional subversion of Christmas traditions.  “Through these parodies,” he writes, “Jews could envision not having to be captivated by the allure of ubiquitous Christmas symbols.”  And it isn’t just Jews: for Americans in general, Jewish parody helps ensure that Christmas “not be taken too seriously” and that the celebrations of other traditions “be accorded equal respect and opportunity.”
There seem to be two messages here. One is the message of subversion utilizing ridicule among other methods. The other is that Jews are seen as high-mindedly making Christmas  “into a holiday season belonging to all Americans.” The end result is that Christmas is not “taken too seriously” and the Christian religious aspect central to the traditional holiday is de-emphasized.

People who take their religion seriously do not allow their religion to be ridiculed. One need only think of the Muslim reactions to cartoons ridiculing Mohammed. The fact that Jews have been able to ridicule Christianity without any serious negative consequences is an important marker of Jewish power and an equally strong indication of the decline of Christian religious belief. I suspect that the organized Jewish community would react in outrage if non-Jews ridiculed religious Judaism. One can only imagine the elite outrage if one ridiculed the Holocaust which has become a religious symbol of the new culture.  Indeed, any criticism of Jews as Jews is off limits in the mainstream media. (A topical short list of verboten topics: the loyalties of neocon Jews and their role in promoting the war in Iraq, the Jewish aspect of the Ivy League admissions scandal, how Jewish control of Hollywood influences media content.)

Schwartz doesn’t quarrel with Plaut’s evidence, but wonders if it’s good for the Jews that such a book be written:
There is something disconcerting about this thesis, summoning up classic anti-Semitic images of conspiracy and sabotage.  Without a trace of irony, Plaut recounts incidents in which fundamentalist Christian groups complained that “certain Americans, particularly Jews, were trying to take the ‘Christ’ out of Christmas.”  He adds that “anti-Semitic comments often ensued.”  Those Christian fundamentalists might well feel vindicated by Plaut’s argument; yet Plaut is unfazed by this connection, and rightly so.  It is not inherently anti-Christian, he recognizes, to oppose Christianity’s domination of a secular democracy.  If Jews have helped to make American society more open, they should be proud of it.
So Jews subverted Christmas but their motives were pure and idealistic. [Somehow Adam Chandler’s pure idealism fails to come through in his comments on Bad Santa.] But such an account ignores the Jewish role in conceptualizing America as a proposition nation—a major topic of The Culture of Critique. The Jewish stress on cultural pluralism (which has now morphed into multiculturalism) was an explicit rejection of the ethnocultural strand of American identity, an important part of which was Christianity. (Indeed, until the recent wave of immigration resulting from the 1965 law, Jews constituting 2–3 percent of the population, were the only identifiable American group that was not Christian.) Jews were central to building a wall between religion and the public square which has resulted in the “war on Christmas” that we still see raging. Jews were also central to changing U.S. immigration policy to be open to all the peoples of the world, again with an ideology that America is merely a set of abstract principles and has no ethnic or cultural core; therefore it should be open to all peoples and these peoples should be able to retain their own culture as part of the American mosaic.

I realize that many good people shy away from saying it, but the reality is that Jews have very aggressively pursued policies that benefit them and are opposed to the interests of the traditional people of America and the West. And because Jews attained status as an intellectual and media elite, they have been able to have a very large effect on public policy and even on the attitudes of non-Jews.

Plaut emphasizes the difference between the very aggressive behavior of Eastern European immigrants with their hatred of Christianity contrasted with the German Jews who arrived in the mid-19th century and “embraced the holiday.” It’s an important distinction, at least in the American context. But in any case, Plaut’s description of the motives of the Eastern European as stemming from their hatred of Christianity hardly paints them as idealistic crusaders on behalf of an open society.  It bears repeating once again that Jews react with hostility to the idea that Israel should not have a Jewish ethnocultural core while they have led the campaign against the idea that America and the West have any ethnocultural core. As with their promoting non-White, non-Christian immigration, their advocacy has nothing to do with ideals of moral universalism but everything to do with pursuing what’s good for the Jews, motivated by Jewish hatreds toward the traditional people and cultures of the West. The war on Christmas is thus a central example of the theme of Jews as a hostile elite.

A Car Ride Gone Wrong: Was Lakeisha Holloway Targeting White People?

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Summary: If it comes out she was targeting white people in her automobile blitzkrieg in Las Vegas, will journalists telling us "she had turned her life around" applaud her actions?

Plain and simple. 

The media won't release a motive in the "car ride down Las Vegas Boulevard gone wrong" incident that saw Lakeisha Holloway - a homeless black mother - mow down 37 people (killing one). [Police “Uncomfortable” About Revealing Motive of Las Vegas Strip Killer, Prison Planet, 12-21-15]

Instead, we get hilarious, over-the-top journalism (sic) from outlets such as the Las Vegas Sun that detail how hard her life and how much adversity she overcame, almost condoning her "car ride down Las Vegas Boulevard gone wrong" as an attack on the white privilege she was denied in Portland, Oregon. [Woman accused of Las Vegas Strip crash had improved her life, Las Vegas Sun, 12-22-15]:
It was not long ago that the woman accused of crashing her car into pedestrians on the Las Vegas Strip seemed to have turned her life around. 
After a rough childhood that included a period of homelessness in high school, Lakeisha Holloway had become an award-winning high school graduate and caring mother. 
Several years ago, Holloway, a graduate of an alternative high school, received an award for overcoming adversity from the nonprofit Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center, which helps at-risk youths with education and job training. 
In 2012, she told The Skanner, a newspaper that covers Portland's African-American community, that she was homeless during her freshman year in high school. 
Court records show she was charged in Oregon in 2011 with operating a vehicle without driving privileges and driving uninsured. She was convicted in March 2012. 
Holloway's cousin, Lashay Hardaway, told The Oregonian newspaper that Holloway worked hard to provide for her daughter. 
"She's just always thinking about her daughter or the next thing she needs to take care of," Hardaway said, adding that her cousin was a working mother who "makes good money."
Oh, but it gets better. [Las Vegas hit-run suspect was lauded for turning life around, CNN, 12-22-15]:
Just three years ago, Holloway spoke of how her life was taking a turn for the better. 
"Boy, have I come a long ways," Holloway said in a 2012 video by the Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center, which helps at-risk youth with education and career training. 
"I was a scared little girl who knew that there was more to life outside of crime, drug addiction, lower income, alcoholism, being undereducated -- all of which I grew up being familiar with." 
Thanks to the nonprofit, she went from homelessness to a job with the federal government and "living the grand life." 
Homeless again 
Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said it's not clear what may have caused Holloway to "snap." 
"We believe that she had some disassociation with the father of her child," the sheriff said, 
He said investigators think Holloway had been in Las Vegas for about a week, homeless and living in her car. 
But a family representative told CNN that Holloway wasn't homeless, had a job and comes from a loving family. The representative declined to comment on what could have prompted the incident. 
The sheriff said police don't know what "caused her to snap and/or whether it was planned previously." 
Holloway told authorities that before the crash, she had been trying to rest or sleep in her car with her daughter, but kept getting run off by security at the places wherever she stopped, according to her arrest report. 
She wound up on the Strip, "a place she did not want to be," the police statement read. Police said she told them she wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Wouldn't it be better if she had turned her car around and not driven off of Las Vegas Boulevard into pedestrians instead of journalists praising her for turning her life around?

So, a careful reading of the Las Vegas Sun and CNN journalism (sic) would lead one to believe the media is working overtime to paint Lakeisha Holloway as the victim, instead of the terrorist she most certainly represents.

Look, if police are "uncomfortable" releasing a motive for this black female's actions in the "car ride down Las Vegas Boulevard gone wrong" incident, it should be simple enough to deduce why Lakeisha decided jump the curb in her automobile and target pedestrians in Sin City: she was targeting white people.

Anti-White Christmas: Migrant Crisis Special

via Europa Awake

The anti-White narrative demands that Europe can no longer be the ancestral homeland of Europeans. It doesn't matter if it's the so called liberal left or the cuckservative right, they both argue a position that leaves future generations of White European children with no place to call home.

The "migrant" crisis is just another part of the scam to cheat Europeans out of their living space.

Star Wars: The Diversity Awakens

via Alternative Right

Girl-Power-Girl: don't question what she can do
Much has been said about the latest Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens. In Alt-Right circles this has tended to focus on a kind of unholy trinity of:

  1. The malevolent Jewishness of J.J. Abrams
  2. The malevolent casting of a Black actor in one of the two lead roles
  3. The malevolent casting of a "kick-ass," "empowered" woman in the other lead
It is not difficult to "prove" any one of these points. Abrams is on record making negative comments about Whiteness and his desire to diversify the cast, and it is not difficult to spin these comments as maliciously anti-White or his casting as “anti-White” and “anti-male.”

Critics have commented on how similar The Force Awakens is to the first Star Wars movie that appeared in 1977, with some saying that it is essentially a remake of the earlier movie. This is especially evident in the dynamic of the two main characters. Finn is basically a version of Han Solo’s character, while Rey is a reprise of Luke Skywalker’s naive potential. For this reason it is possible to see this movie as two White males replaced by a Black and a woman "because diversity."

There is also a feeling in much of the Alt-Right that the Black male character and the White female character will eventually become "romantically involved," although we were spared that in this episode. Whether this ultimately happens or not will probably depend on sales of merchandizing, as this is where the Star Wars franchise makes the bulk of its money. If the plastic products of the two new leads do well, then we can probably expect to see their relationship taking a more intimate turn in later movies.

J.J. Abrams and the "Die-versity Star."
But even without that economic sanction, many in the Alt-Right expect to see this pairing happen anyway because Hollywood is identified as the "Death Star" of anti-White propaganda and brainwashing.

This view of the movie as pure propaganda and the latest manifestation of the global drive towards White genocide has a feeling of plausibility and paranoia, and such a narrative – whether true or false – has its uses in promoting a healthy racial awareness that Whites have a desperate need for under present conditions, so I have no wish to undermine such tropes.

In the present age, racial paranoia has its uses, especially with regard to the less intellectually gifted, and is almost to be commended. However, it is also possible to explain the casting decisions of the latest Star War movie in a less nefarious if just as contemptible way.

May the Schwartz be With You

It is true that Star Wars has been an overwhelmingly White and male experience, both in terms of characters and audiences. Creatures like Jabba the Hut, Yoda, and Jar Jar Binks do not, it seems, count as ethnics.

Those non-White and non-male characters who have appeared have been relatively minor and certainly uninteresting. Even Princess Leia, the main feminine presence in the series, is nothing more than a cliché or a poorly realized cipher for the feminine, something emphasized by her surly and unlikable character Рa nerd's eye-view of a woman, rather than an actual woman.

Diversifying the cast in the way that J.J. Abrams has done has raised murmurs from Star Wars' core audience of male geeks, and even accusations of anti-White racism, a growing phenomenon of our age, both in deed and consciousness. But potentially such diversification has a dual benefit for the franchise:

  • Firstly it enables the franchise to be marketed to previously under-exploited, new demographics, namely women and Blacks. This is no different from beer makers developing and marketing "lady beers."
  • Secondly, by so doing, it creates a feeling of jealously and protectiveness in the previous audience that creates a renewed interest.
Core fans may be irritated by the casting decisions, but they are hardly disinterested. In fact, the threat posed by the diversification process may impel them to take a renewed interest in the franchise. Yes, they may start on-line campaigns to boycott the movie, but there is also the suspicion that they will only end up going to see this movie more than ever. Nothing like a little infidelity to reignite a jaded passion! Good, old-fashioned "sub-racism" and its gender equivalent "sub-sexism" are among the most effective – and cheapest – methods of getting publicity for any project.

On this point, it is interesting that the diversification of Star Wars does not include Asians, at least in terms of main characters. This is all the more telling because much of what we see in Star Wars clearly derives from Asian culture and the Asian audience for Star Wars is immense. But the reason for this is simple. Asians have little problem identifying with White characters – "transcending race" or simply LARPing – something that Blacks as a group clearly have great difficulty doing, at least based on the evidence here and the clear need to give them their own character to reach out to them.

Interestingly, this may also explain why J.J. Abrams chose Boyega, whose "ugliness" has been commented on by many, rather than a more "palatable" Black actor. The most significant thing about Boyega is that he actually looks like how a Black person looks.

Rather than evidence of how "nice" and post-racial the West has become, the new Star Wars casting of a Black actor in a lead-role and Boyega in particular, is therefore yet further proof of how polarized and circumscribed the multicultural West is by race.

Intergalactic Pussy Pass

But there is yet a further reason for J.J. Abram’s diversification of the movie franchise. This one also cuts to the heart of one of the key aspects of science fiction, namely its ability to make an audience forgiving of a poor or shoddy story.

A lens to see the bigger picture.
Ideally sci-fi can be used as a hypothetical cultural space to explore interesting ideas or notions. This is the highest level of science fiction and the one with the greatest utility for our species and culture: "What if...?" etc.

Classic examples would include movies like The Time Machine, Solaris, Planet Of The Apes, Soylent Green, and Blade Runner.

Beneath this level, science fiction can also serve as a vehicle for recasting stories and myths from our past. The 1956 movie Forbidden Planet is essentially Shakespeare’s Tempest in space, with Robby the Robot in the role of Caliban. The 2001 movie A.I., originally a project conceived by Stanley Kubrick and birthed by Steven Spielberg, would have been Pygmalion if Kubrick had seen it to completion. In the event, under the direction of Steven Spielberg, it is more like an electronic version of Pinocchio.

Beneath this level, sci-fi just becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card, a means of explaining away or ignoring shoddy concepts and poor plot lines. Characters that should be dead can reappear because of death-defying technology, awkward events can be ignored because they only happened in a "parallel reality," and plot lines can twist in any way the writers and directors want because of technological quirks that the audience has no wish to have explained – effectively "magical powers."

Star Wars seems to partake of all three of these sci-fi levels, although mainly the second and third layers. Its initial concept – a sword in the stone, dungeons and dragons narrative grafted onto a political parable of power corrupting, with a little Greek tragedy thrown in – had strong retro elements. But the longevity of the franchise threw up lots of awkward story lines and absurdities that needed to be skimmed over, ignored, or detoured around in a way that would be unforgivable in a more realist and Earthbound genre. Sci-fi, by contrast, allows a much more tolerant attitude to any and all abuses of artistic unity and violations of credibility. Over many years, these have accumulated in Star Wars, and with the latest movie they have reached toxic levels.

It figures!
This also suggests why the movie has moved so strongly towards Black and female characters. Just as sci-fi induces a much more tolerant and forgiving attitude towards fictive deformities, so the same can be said for Black and female characters.

Due to gender and racial asymmetry – the essential fact that Blacks and females achieve much less than Whites and males – and our unfortunately egalitarian culture, we have got used to holding Blacks and females to a much lower standard than Whites and males. What we would question or sneer at as outlandish or absurd if acted by a White male character, will be less questioned if the actors are Black or female – another version of the old pussy pass.

This suggests that J.J. Abraham’s decision to racially and sexually recast the leads for this reboot may not have been about promoting miscegenation and White genocide as many fear, but might have been mainly motivated by the need to get people to cut him a bit of slack for the deformities of a franchise that was never that great to begin with, and which is still being used to sell cheap plastic toys well beyond its sell-by date.

Living a Life of Lies in America

via Darkmoon

John Kaminski here sums up his profound disillusionment with America. He doesn’t point the finger of blame at ordinary American citizens, whom he sees as innocent victims, but at one of the most corrupt governments in history—a kind of criminal mafia under the iron heel of organized Jewry.

I often think about the assassination of a man named Anwar al-Awlaki, who was so disgusted with what the United States government was doing to the world that he moved to Yemen, where he could practice his religion, which was Islam, and say what he wanted, freely. While there, he was murdered, death from above courtesy of an American drone. A short while later, al-Awlaki’s son was murdered in the same way, along with a bunch of his friends, a drone bomb from the sky delivered by the push of a button from very far away.

No charges, no trial, just the execution, has become the new American way.

The thing of it is, the thing that sticks in my craw and rubs wrong on my conscience, is that al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was telling the truth, and the people who killed him, that is to say, the U.S. government, were telling a lie, and enforcing that lie with arbitrary death from the sky.

The truth al-Awlaki was telling was that America had no right to be doing what it does to the rest of the world, particularly the Muslim world. And he had the evidence to back up what he was saying. A few very vivid and vomitous examples will suffice to serve to illustrate what I am saying.

Abu Ghraib prison, where Americans practiced torturing Iraqi prisoners, attaching electrical cords to prisoners’ genitals, or forcing mothers to watch their children being raped. Fallujah (which everybody has forgotten), where 350,000 Iraqis were burned, mostly to death, by illegal white phosphorus, all for stringing up a few murderous mercenaries who were (and are still today) paid big money to foment war.









And of course, the rape of Libya and its leader, where everyone has pretty much forgotten was the freest, happiest country in the world, so the Western governments, who specialize in oppressing their own people without them realizing it, didn’t want word getting out that there was a place on this planet where citizens of a country were actually happy about the way their government treated them.
Can you comprehend that the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya wound up causing 600,000 deaths that you, as an American, are responsible for, because your government and its constant and never-ending misrepresentations caused this tragedy? The same process and numbers of dead innocent people apply to the current situation in Syria. And they have always applied in Palestine.

This is your fault, for letting politicians lie to you, and doing nothing about it.

Wonder no longer why there is an Islamic invasion of Europe.

So now, today, Americans have to pretty much live with the fact, as their plastic politicians prattle on, that we murdered Anwar al-Awlaki and his son because they were telling the truth about what America was doing to the world. We have to suppress this knowledge as our politicians get up on the stage and mumble about how we need the strongest military in the world (which we already have, by far) to protect ourselves from these military threats all over the world, from the big bad Russians (who seem to be the only ones telling us the real truth about what’s going on in the Middle East) or those nasty Mooslims, who right now seem to be waging an invasion of Europe that we Americans ourselves have precipitated by obliterating the countries they used to live in.

And it wouldn’t be so bad, in the minds of many Americans, if we were just murdering people overseas (which we have always done!), but now we have all sorts of new categories in which we are murdering our own citizens here at home because their behavior just doesn’t fit in with the plans our controllers have for us.

The broad category in which people are being murdered seems to fit under the general rubric of trying to do things that are good for other people, or actions that are beneficial to humanity. These things are almost always at odds with the plans our foreign controlled (read: Jewish) government has for us.

We saw how that worked in the recent spate of honorable physicians (a rare category in itself) who were all murdered — or suicided — because they had found a cancer treatment that actually worked. You remember Dr. Bradstreet, don’t you? The guy who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest, and then jumping into a river.

Scarier still was the death of Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, the popular cardiologist in perfect shape who died of a sudden heart attack that was undetectable during his autopsy. (If they could do this to him, they could do this to anybody.)

It behooves us to think of these things (and try not to vomit at our silent complicity in these events) when we listen to our presidential candidates boast about the quality of medical care in America, and their willingness to let the pharmaceutical giants inflict untested products on an oblivious populace just to make obscene profits.

Remember, following your doctor’s orders is really the leading cause of death in America.

Of course, the new growth industry in a rapidly getting poorer America is without question the false flag public massacre. There are numerous employment opportunities for anyone willing to lie for money (which unfortunately includes a very large percentage of the population).

Ever since the titanic hoax of 9/11, more and more people are finding work as crisis actors, false witnesses and corrupt federal agents pretending to investigate these so-called crimes that are really elaborately staged government dramas all designed for one purpose alone — to get the people to give up their guns so the totalitarian prison drama being implemented by the worldwide Jewish menace can begin throughout the country, reducing the population as quickly as possible, creating a windfall for both the insurance companies and the government which will cash in the policies they have on everyone.

Heck, crisis actors in Sandy Hook, Connecticut made many millions of dollars and many got free houses simply for participating in that high drama in which a 120-pound dweeb carrying 80 pounds of weapons and ammo murdered 26 people in five minutes after which no bodies were ever seen and no mess of blood and guts ever needed to be cleaned up.

Now that’s what I can an efficiently staged production. I loved it when the medical examiner actually said he hoped the whole thing didn’t come crashing down on the heads of the people of Sandy Hook and the criminal politicians who set up this whole hoax, and virtually no one picked up on the line. <>

The same thing happened a short time later in Boston, and illustrated the maxim that in America today, anyone can be charged with any crime, found guilty and sentenced to death for any reason and under any circumstances by a corrupt, Jewish controlled government that will say anything and do anything to impose its totalitarian Communist rule over American people who appear to be, at this late date, all too willing to accept it. <>
On the other hand, despite all the false flag massacres and all the not-so-mysterious murders of people trying to do good, gun sales in America have never been higher and contempt for corrupt politicians has never been more prevalent so that it would seem, hoping for the best, that it is only a matter of time before the Jewish hammerlock on the American mind can be overthrown, and liberty can be reestablished for those of us still around who are currently living a life of lies in America.

The New Alignment: Nationalist Patriots vs. Globalizing Plutocrats


Marine Le Pen is a patriot--and so BOTH
opposing parties cooperated to stop her
Obviously, France’s ruling class was not relieved by the results of the December 13 French regional elections: it is now trying to find a legal excuse to destroy National Front leader Marine Le Pen [Marine Le Pen could face political ban over financial declaration, by John Lichfield, The Independent, December 22, 2015]. This soft totalitarianism appears to be a European Union pattern, seen with Geert Wilders, Nick Griffin, the Vlaams Blok (compelled to reinvent itself as Vlams Belaang), Golden Dawn and the Sweden Democrats.

Marion_Marechal_Le_Pen_rendezvousAnd the French elections certainly did provide Dissident Right satisfaction of a grim sort: in two key regions where the National Front was running actual Le Pens, Marine Le Pen in Nord, and her very photogenic niece Marion (right) in Provence, the Establishment parties were so panicked that the center-Left candidates withdrew so the anti-Le Pen vote wouldn’t be split. The strategy worked: The center-Right won both regions.

But those withdrawals play directly into what we on the Dissident Right have been saying for years: That on National Question issues—immigration, multiculturalism, Political Correctness, demographic transformation—the big established parties are indistinguishable, their pretence at differences just a sham.

A lot of people still think of “Left” and “Right” as some kind of difference over economics. There are still some traces of that, but when we talk about “Left” and “Right” nowadays, the real divide is between nationalism and demographic stability on one side, globalism and multiculturalism on the other.

In all Western countries, well-nigh everyone wants a welfare state, and well-nigh everyone wants a thriving capitalist economy. Those things aren’t controversial. What’s controversial is the idea of a nation as being the home of some one particular people of mostly common ancestry and common culture. The great divide today is between nationalism and demographic stability on the one hand, globalism and mass immigration on the other.

It used to be, a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, you could get a quick rough gauge of how much you were likely to agree or disagree with someone by finding out how much he hated rich people. Note that the person whose temperature you were taking might himself be rich; the expression “limousine liberal” has been around for a while.

But nowadays, if you want to take someone’s political temperature, you get a much more accurate reading by figuring out how much he hates white people. Again, there is no bar to he himself being white: the word “ethnomasochist” hasn’t been around as long as “limousine liberal,” but I did once trace it as far back as 1981.

A change of that magnitude in our way of thinking about politics happens very slowly, though, at both the top and the bottom. This particular change is being driven by huge deep currents: mainly by the slow but colossal worldwide demographic shift against the white race.

Thus in 1922, when my father was a young man, the British Isles had over twice the population of what was then called British West Africa. In 2015, that same West African territory has over three times the population of the British Isles. That’s a stupendous demographic reversal.

The center-Left withdrawal from those two French regions in order to shut out the Le Pen gals — that was a sign that the party bosses are getting it. At this point they would not yet admit, even under torture, that their parties differ in very little except the personalities on offer. But at some level, they understand that they—center-Right and center-Left—are together on one side of the great issue of our age, while the Le Pen ladies are on the other side.

This is the new political alignment, just emerging from the receding waters of industrial-era class conflict and economic ideology.

At the other end of the political scale, where the actual voters dwell, awakening to the new alignment has been partial and local. Voters don’t care as much about politics as politicians do. It takes longer for them to grasp these tremendous changes, unless the changes are really thrust in their faces.

That’s why in France the National Front nationwide polled only 27 percent. It did much better in Nord and Provence, where the National Question has been thrust in voters’ faces: 42 and 45 percent, respectively.

You see similar differences in the U.S.A. Where anti-white or anti-Western feeling is most clearly on display, class and economic issues go out the window and people vote race and ethnicity: In 2012 Mitt Romney got 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi but only 34 percent in Vermont.

It’s customary to say that it will take a couple more 9/11s, or a couple more Paris-type attacks, or San Bernadinos, to wake up a real majority of the electorate.

Well, events like that are accelerant. But if mass immigration continues and multiculturalism spreads nationwide, Mississippi-ization will happen anyway. Unless Vermonters maintain their current lily-white demographics, they will eventually vote like Mississippians.

It’s the Lee Kuan Yew rule. Famous quote from him: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” [ SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew: “It’s Stupid to be Afraid”, August 08, 2005]

A few months ago I attended a talk given by Nelson Hultberg, a principal of the very worthy organization Americans for a Free Republic, which seeks to get a Third Party going based on, quote from him, “libertarian politics and conservative values.” Mr. Hultberg told us he doesn’t actually much care for the expression “Third Party,” because right now we really only have one party. What he’d like to bring about, he said, is a second party.

That of course is what the big old parties dread: the rise of a genuine opposition.

In the U.S. too, we essentially have a one-party state, with Democrats and Republicans on the same side of major issues in our time.

That got even harder to deny when House Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled his omnibus spending bill on December 17—so bad, it caused Rush Limbaugh to call for the disbanding of the Republican Party. There were, to be sure, a few ickety-tick tax breaks in it for the Chambers of Commerce crowd; but on anything related to the National Question it was a total surrender to the Left. Sanctuary cities fully funded, refugee numbers increased, tax credits for illegal aliens, more visas for nationals of countries that won’t accept back their illegals, visa numbers for foreign workers quadrupled…Senator Jeff Sessions, whom God preserve!, gave a fine angry speech about this horrible bill.

So yes, we have a one-party state, with both major parties firmly committed to continuing, in fact increasing, floods of immigrants, in numbers that make it impossible to do any serious security vetting.

But here I want to exercise commentator’s privilege and shamelessly contradict myself, just a little.

Watching the December 15 candidates’ debate, and then Senator Sessions’ fine speech, I have to allow that there is at least some nominal diversity in the GOP. It never seems to be able to manifest itself in legislative action, but it’s there in some latent form.

I’ve quantified and represented this using NumbersUSA’s congressional grades as of December 20th:


Not that, where congressional Democrats are concerned, we’re not even in the U.S.A. any more: this might as well be the Supreme Soviet. The President doesn’t have to work these guys to get them to support his policy of Electing A New People; he just has to stroll into the House chamber once a year and bask in the applause.

So yes: As scornful as I am of party politics, there is that difference at least. There is among Democrat congresscritters no mirror image of Jeff Sessions or Steve King.

I say again: That pleasing diversity of opinion among Republicans never seems to generate any worthwhile legislation. But at least it’s there in potential.

This monolithic quality the Democrats present also accounts for their candidate debates being much less consequential than the GOP’s.

So yeah, there’s that: signs of life in the GOP, while the Democrats are just an inert slab of gray stone.

But I sure hope that Donald Trump has a good tax accountant.

Chaos Candidates

via Radix

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard Jeb Bush’s lame attempt to attack Donald Trump. “He’s a chaos candidate, and he’d be a chaos president,” Bush bloviated at last Tuesday’s Republican debate. Never mind the fact that almost every other candidate on the stage was ready to start World War III with Russia while keeping our borders wide open. Invade the world, invite the world as the old paleo-con line goes.

There is a kernel of truth to Bush’s words. The Donald is injecting a bit of “chaos” into the system. But what’s happening is about more than Donald Trump. It is showing real cracks inside the narrative of our postmodern liberal landscape.

Cracks we should be eager to exploit. Just have a look at the too-candid comments of that Sam’s Club CEO Rosalind Brewer. Such tactics as #BoycottSamsClub led to a statement from Wal-Mart CEO Doug McMillon:
Roz [Brewer] was simply trying to reiterate that we believe diverse and inclusive teams make for a stronger business. That’s all there is to it and I support that important ideal.
This is how we expose the underlying power narratives in our society. Make them explain, put them on the defensive. Even the above non-answer is telling as nowhere does McMillon disavow Brewer’s comments about not hiring white males. Diverse and inclusive teams is a codeword for anti-White.

In may ways, the above controversy lays out the “diversity” agenda’s will to power in an open way. To paraphrase Richard Spencer, this was a good moment as it pulled the curtains down and should expose the exact nature of our enemies.

Back to Trump. He has done a similar service in regards to the Republican Party. Almost every other candidate on the stage thought it was beyond the pale for Trump to suggest halting immigration (even if his plan is not the ideal you and I would want) and not treating Vladimir Putin as if he were a deranged actor on the world stage hellbent on turning the world to cinder (the lady dost protest). The sooner the GOP is no longer able to act as a safety valve, the better. (Rush Limbaugh is becoming more useful here.)

The more the narrative gets challenged, the more screeching we will hear. You’ve surely already noticed it. “Nazi,” “fascist,” “evil” come at us incessantly. But the fact is, the more our enemies repeat these slogans, the less power they have.

From #cuckservative to #boycottStarWarsVII, and the proliferation of White Students Unions, we’ve been injecting a little “chaos” into the narrative. Don’t think our opponents haven’t noticed, either. They are desperate for us to go away. They want to keep their narrative hegemonic. They want to wield their power unchallenged.

It’s not just Trump that is a “chaos candidate.” So are you and so am I. Let’s give them hell!

Misfit Miley Cyrus and Her Jewish Friends

via Koinen's Corner

This article describing a new video by disgusting soft-porn performer Miley Cyrus, and other glimpses of her career and productions, is nothing short of (take your pick) revolting, sickening, abhorrent, perverse, repugnant, reprehensible, degenerate, and outrageous:

New Miley Cyrus Music Video Promotes the Sexualization of Infants (courtesy Renegade Tribune).

Miley, Miley -- where were you when the brains and the decency and the honor were passed out?  I'm not sure I would be totally justified in calling Miley Cyrus a filthy, money-grubbing, race-traitor slut. But I must admit the thought and the words have passed through my mind.

Miley Cyrus' vile performing style since her early 'Hannah Montana' days has no doubt generated huge amounts of money.  Along with tons of everlasting shame.  And, I have no doubt, a good deal of hatred amongst decent, rational White people for the harm she has done to the little girls and teenagers who have been exposed to her filth, and the anguish and damage she has caused to the parents and families of those children.

Seeing as how we are in the middle of Jew Awareness Month 2015, I wanted to post a link to this article to demonstrate, once again, the substantial if not dominant involvement of the complicit and culpable Jews in our cultural degradation, and their role in the ruination of our White family values and the defilement of our children.

But make no mistake -- there is plenty of blame to go around for this sick situation wherein we allow Miley Cyrus and others like her to produce and sell this kind of garbage.  We should also look at the White people involved in her productions, her parents, her own thinking and decisions, and last but not least the White parents who allow their children to listen to this kind of music and watch these kinds of videos.  And yes, those who support this sad state of affairs by purchasing these ruinous products for their children or by giving the kids the money to purchase them.

We White people are in deep trouble.  A whole lot of fixing needs to be done if we hope to survive, prosper, and further develop our culture and society in wholesome and positive ways.

Journey through an East Anglian County

via Traditional Britain Group

Summary: In the age of modernism and globalisation, Stuart Millson reminds us that there are still vestiges of old English life in Britain, and takes us on a journey through these mysterious, long-lost coasts and idyllic villages.
Suffolk is remote and pastoral, with a long coastline of mystery, shingle and wading birds. Old inns, too, beckon and a hundred villages offer interest and peace – and good real ale.

The A12 points the way to East Anglia, to Chelmsford, Colchester, and on to Suffolk; land of buried Saxon treasure, of Sutton Hoo and St. Edmund the Martyr, arable farming, Adnams and Greene King bitter, Aspalls cider, and sugar beet and sugar refineries. John Constable, one of England’s greatest artists was born here in 1776, and the 20th-century composer, Benjamin Britten – also a son of Suffolk – founded a festival here by the sea. Even the name of the region has an ancient folk-feel to it – Anglia – a name from antiquity, like Wessex or Mercia. The weather is often dry. The land is well-cultivated and agricultural. Tractors are everywhere, so are arable crops, and – intriguingly – vast pig-farms; there are small, fragrant cottage gardens and out-of-the-way spots of character, even eccentricity, in every conceivable part of the coast and country.

The landscape of Suffolk is largely low-lying, with gentle gradients (where there are gradients) and a long coastline that runs north-to-south, or south-to-north along the North Sea, or the German Ocean as it was once known. The coast has many mysteries – avocets and bitterns in the reeds and ponds of Minsmere; wartime and post-war structures on lonely Orford Ness; and all the solitude of the marsh and fenland at Iken and Snape. The sky is high and wide (it always seems this way when you are in marshland or by low-lying coast) – immense and rain-washed when a storm has briefly blown in, yet still and sunny for the dusty, windless summer months.

Despite a sense of being relatively cut off from modern civilisation, there are several large towns, Ipswich, Bury St. Edmunds, and the port of Felixstowe. Three centuries ago, Dunwich was one of the county’s great ports – until the North Sea washed it away forever. The coast seems so vulnerable – the shingle spits, dunes and small cliffs made of sandy soil seem as though they are waiting for the day when the sea will rise up and refashion the shape of the coastline.

But at Iken, a hamlet on a small inland estuarine lake of the River Alde, you feel protected from the storms of the North Sea. Near-silence reigns here: just the sound of the wind in the reed-beds, and the cry of the curlew – which pierces the moonlit night and tells of wildness, wilderness and tides. Iken was founded by St.Botolph – but his church was destroyed by Viking raiders. Yet the spirit of the place could not be extinguished by the flames and killing of the fierce Norsemen, and another church rose in its place – the forerunner of the mediaeval structure where the inhabitants of Iken worship today.

Suffolk, or at least the countryside of Suffolk, seems to exist happily in the world of half-a-century ago, when you really could leave your backdoor open and trust strangers to pay you for the home-made jam, or free-range eggs, which can sometimes be seen on little stalls outside local cottages. There is one such place for home-produce at Iken. Just place your coins, or your cheque in a tin!

Suffolk reveals many styles of building. The inland cottages of the county are known for their thatch, and for the soft pink colour of their walls. Nearer the coast, you will find weatherboarding. At Bungay, the buildings exhibit a Dutch or Flemish influence, but at Aldeburgh the town is straightforward, unfussy, solid and English. The Aldeburgh-born poet and rector, George Crabbe (1754-1832), caught the essence of the town in his work. It is a place built to withstand storms – a long line of shops and houses, like a row of infantry, with a Martello defensive tower at the southern end. Crabbe recorded the peculiarities of Aldeburgh life, and even celebrated its rough, wind-blown, sea-borne flora in a poem, entitled Marsh Flowers:
‘Here the strong mallow strikes her slimy root,
Here the dull nightshade hangs her deadly fruit…
…Here on its wiry stem, in rigid bloom,
Grows the salt lavender that lacks perfume.
These with our seaweeds rolling up and down,
Form the contracted flora of our town.’
The sand-castle-like Martello fort of the town stands in character with some of the county’s remarkable pepper-pot tower churches; but others – such as those of Blythburgh, Lavenham or Orford – are stately and traditional, and everyone’s idea of what an English church should be.

Music is in the air in Suffolk. Benjamin Britten (1913-76) founded his festival of music at Aldeburgh – its great centrepiece of performance being the famous Snape Maltings. It is often said that the genius of Aldeburgh was its “subtle blend of the local and the international” – Schubert and Mahler songs; a symphony by the modernist, Oliver Knussen; Sibelius’s Tempest; and local folk tunes, arranged by the Festival’s creator, all played in the hall by the reeds and the river, with the stormy North Sea only a few miles away.

The influence of Britten’s festival radiated out from Snape. In 1969, the composer conducted Gustav Mahler’s Des knaben Wunderhorn song-cycle, derived from old German folk-poetry; and in 1961, the BBC recorded Britten conducting Mahler’s Fourth Symphony in Orford Church with the London Symphony Orchestra – a venue which also saw the first performance of Britten’s own Curlew River. The latter premiere is commemorated by a stone inscription in the church. Yet never far away from this musical sophistry are the folk-legends of Suffolk, and Orford itself: the legend of the “wild man” – a sort of bearded human sea-creature – who was caught up in a fisherman’s net; and tales of the smuggling gangs who shipped contraband and outwitted the revenue cutters in the 18th century. The wild man of Orford, by the way, can be found on the side of the church font – a fierce fellow, but now tamed and trapped in stone.

But Britten was not the only creative artist to be drawn to Suffolk. William Alwyn, symphonist, composer of film scores throughout the 1940s, and prolific writer for the orchestra generally, lived in the county with his wife, Mary – also a composer, except that she wrote under the name, Doreen Carwithen. The noble and gentle tunes of her Suffolk Suite capture the spirit of the landscape and people, and take us back to a more rural and comfortable world.

At Southwold, a different type of music to the ears may be heard! The pull of the pump at the bar, and the Adnams Brewery ale splashes into the pint glass. The famous Southwold lighthouse appears on the brewery’s labels and artwork, alongside representations of coastal scenes – and the famous 1672 naval encounter against the Dutch, the Battle of Sole Bay, which took place just out there on the waves, toward the near horizon. The sound of naval guns echoed here again in the Great War, when German shells thudded into the town – perhaps, along with the Zeppelin raids on London, the first-ever Blitz. Today, though, gentle peace reigns, apart from the beery voices and jollity in the pubs! Adnams is possibly the best known of the Suffolk brewers, but Greene King comes a close second, and there are also many smaller, micro-brewers to be found in the villages.

Although I cannot claim to have visited even a reasonable fraction of the public houses of Suffolk (a terrible admission for a former member of the Campaign for Real Ale), there is one inn which stands out particularly – not because it exists in a timewarp, or it is self-consciously old-fashioned, but simply for its comfort, its armchairs, coffee tables, oak tables, neat curtains and good food and beer. The landlady believes that her pub should be immaculate – and it is almost like a living room, or a quiet country hotel. Her enthusiasm is for a certain breed of dog, and so the pub is not “The Crown” or the “The King’s Arms”, but the Dobermann Inn. If you find yourself anywhere near the hamlet of Framsden, near Stowmarket, proceed at once to this oasis of civilisation. Aldeburgh and Snape have excellent watering holes, and there is a fine, old-fashioned bargemen’s bar on the River Orwell at Pin Mill – The Butt and Oyster, reputedly an inspiration to the author, Arthur Ransome. But the pleasure of a Suffolk pub crawl is to travel absent-mindedly among the unregarded villages, stumbling across little gems as you go, not really knowing where you are going.

Sometimes even just departing from one of the busy A-roads, such as the A14 can take you – in less than a mile – to village greens where blossom is falling and white geese square up to you, warning you to stay away, if you come too close to their goslings. The village green at Beyton is one of the largest you will see in Suffolk – more of a village field than anything. Trees dominate the scene – a pink snowstorm of blossom in spring; a woodland green canopy, almost, in summer. The rumble of lorries heading to and from Felixstowe along the main road is carried by the wind, but not always. The highway, with its unstoppable goods- traffic and impatient motorists, seems far away from Beyton’s “goose green” which, in early summer, has many delightful ducklings, goslings and fledglings.

But for the real-ale enthusiast who may be unconcerned by ornithology, Greene King bitter is served at The White Hart, and a pub quiz teams meet at The Bear, just at the edge of the village.

A couple of miles away from Beyton and you will find Woolpit, more of a small town than a village. The Victorian spire of the much older church is a tall local landmark, a needle rising in the distance above the sleepy agricultural land. Woolpit has a town centre, with quaint shops, a post office where people talk to one another in the small queue, a town museum and another good pub – The Bull, where darts and pub games leagues are advertised, and where the landlady pours you a sample of beer into a spirits or half-pint glass before make up your mind which brew to choose.

Suffolk is a county where the old rhythms of English life seem to prevail. They love their vintage cars and tractors here, and there is fine music to be enjoyed – as well as the natural music of the summer hedgerows – the blackbirds and yellowhammers which bring sweetness and sonority to the lanes, whose verges are adorned with lace-like cow parsley. This is the artistic and literary landscape of Constable and Crabbe – and on a fine day, with blossom on the bough, and perhaps the sound of Britten’s St. Edmundsbury Fanfare ringing in our ears, an almost Elizabethan “Merrie England”.  A beautiful region of East Anglia, and a county of rich treasures, and treasured memories.