Feb 19, 2015

Creating an Aryan Counter-Culture

via Radix

Is there a conservative counter-culture in bloom? According to The Federalist, there is one indeed—and it desperately needs advice.

Fortunately for this apparently existing movement, there’s only five principles it needs to follow to reach the cultural promise land.
  1. A Free and Open Marketplace of Ideas
  2. Individuality over Identity
  3. Advocacy of American Values
  4. Open Sources
  5. Courage
Now the last two aren’t too bad as they would serve well for any cultural trend outside the prevailing orthodoxy. But the first three reveal a staggering misunderstanding of the way organic culture forms and thrives. But more importantly than its flawed principles is the concept of a right-wing counter-movement, a subculture for those out of line with the liberal orthodoxy.

Analyzing this idea will shed light on what we can do to formulate an Identitarian counter-culture.

But before tackling that, there is the problem with the 800-pound gorilla in the room: what is the conservative counter-culture? The author is short on details and only alludes to small meetings assembled by conservative non-profits and points to the films American Sniper and Juno as examples of right-wing filmmaking.

From what I can gauge, this doesn’t constitute a “counter-culture.” First off, the films that the writer, David Marcus, considers conservative aren’t really conservative.

American Sniper is maybe conservative in the fact it positively portrays a soldier, but that’s not really a feature limited to the right. Rather, it’s more of an American war film for the post-patriotic age. As I pointed out in my review:
Unlike patriotic war films of the past, such as Patton, Sniper does not portray Kyle as a living embodiment of the nation. He is simply a man who snipes fellow men—that’s it... The men he kills will not come across as enemies to the audience, but as threats to the soldiers deployed nearby—no more. The reason Kyle gives for killing is not—except for the brief moment flirting with his future wife—for “our freedom”, but for his immediate comrades. He always justifies the people he shot with the understanding that he saved Marines, not Americans in the abstract or his country.
The “sheepdog without a flock” theme doesn’t mix well with the standard strain of conservativism. It’s an uncomfortable thought to imagine American soldiers not serving their country, but the interests of a narrow few.

The only conservative element of Juno is that the protagonist doesn’t abort her baby. Besides that, the film makes a mockery of traditional families, sexual abstinence, sacred femininity, and other things conservatives love. The film is thoroughly drenched in the values of the liberal orthodoxy, and even the pro-choice crowd wouldn’t find it insulting—unless they’re fully committed to feticide. Which they’re not.

The only other example given is small conferences hosted for artists who produce culture only for a few. Thus, this whole thesis that there is a “rising counter-culture” seems implausible.

Those set aside those facts though and imagine that the advice this writer gives is intended for a rising movement in the future. What then about these principles he speaks of?

For the first one—“A Free and Open Marketplace of Ideas”—Marcus urges conservative artists to have faith in the free market to carry their works into the public sphere. He argues that the reason that right-leaning work has been excluded is due to the domineering role non-profits play in the world of high culture. Marcus explains:
[T]he works themselves should compete without the overbearing influence of these funds—not only because free markets are conservative, but because they produce the best products. As the Progressive arts entrench their narrative and play to smaller and smaller groups of sycophants, conservative artists should be focused on work that pays for itself. This doesn’t mean work that makes the most money is the best, it means the work that attracts the most participation is. Participation can always be monetized. In popular work we will find our strongest messages.
“Because free markets are conservative”? And they “produce the best products”? Has he listened to the radio lately? The free market produces shit for the lowest common denominator in order to make the most profit. Period. If you think free markets produces superior quality products, then I’m assuming you believe Iggy Azalea is superior to Beethoven. That’s why high culture has to depend on non-profits to survive. Even Ludwig van had to depend on the support of wealthy patrons who cared more for his music than earning an profit off it. The free market is one of the primary reasons for the decline of high culture. Profitability plays more of a role in what reaches the public than artistic quality. That’s why the average American foregoes theater in favor of Transformers.

The only people who are going to consume high culture in this country are ostensibly liberal folk. Most American conservatives are philistines—they’re not going to see a play even it’s a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Not only that, but most intellectual conservatives seem to enjoy the leftism that comes with modern-day art. Just check out this glowing review in The American Conservative of a “great American lesbian musical” for proof.

So if the average consumer of “high” art (or what passes it for it) prefers it with a leftist bent, that is the divine figure of free market economics at work. As you can see, this faith in the free market to spur conservative creativity seems like an invalid point.

The second principle—Individuality over Identity—sounds like an anti-Identiarian mantra. But the author’s argument is that art should not focus on the identity politics of minority groups and whether an artwork conforms to those rigid standards, but judge it solely on merit. A fair point and an understandable to call to appreciate art for art’s sake. Unfortunately, this sentiment also undermines the idea that art acts as the expression of a collective people. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum where there’s only “individuals” and all that matters is “content of character.” The creators and purpose of art should play in a role in its judgment. For culture doesn’t transcend identities, it reinforces them.

The third faulty principle is a little bit easier to dismiss. After just saying we should atomize art, Marcus then calls for the emerging counter-culture to advocate for “American Values.” What are these values though? That’s left unanswered. But since the main thrust of American life seems to be the pursuit of individual satisfaction, that doesn’t seem like much of a value to rally around. The great couch potato doesn’t make for a good film script. I also don’t think much culture criticizes basic American “values.” Only a true counter-culture stemming from the authentic right would go that far. So this seems like another misguided principle, even though it does fit within the theme of “Individuality over Identity.” Is that a subtle hint that there’s no longer an American identity?

However, the last two principles are sound. Open sources allows for more content to be created outside of mainstream institutions. All great art requires a degree of courage to realize.

But to create a true counter-culture, there’s a desperate need for a better understanding of its purpose and what it takes to make it a movement.

In Marcus’s opinion, “politics flows downstream from culture.” The point of a conservative counter attack is to influence society and change its politics. But Marcus seems primarily concerned with culture ignored by the larger population and only enjoyed by a small minority of NPR listeners. Not only does it seem unfeasible that these people will embrace conservative art, it also seems highly unlikely that it will influence anyone.

If you want to influence people, you’re going to have to venture into the culture they actually enjoy. Yes, that dreaded popular culture—just like the original counter-culture. Considering the demographic that consumes the most entertainment and is most influenced by it is the youth, you have to create your work with them in the mind. Thus, hoity-toity theater productions should be out of the question.

Fortunately for us, there’s already Identitarian and Traditionalist strains within many elements of popular culture. Take heavy metal music for example. I know many readers may scoff at it and prefer music of the Romantic era, but they should understand how it is a healthy format. The music stresses White masculinity and utilizes the mythology and history of Europe for lyrical inspiration. Certain sub-genres are significantly influenced by classical music and traditional folk, thus introducing thousands of young people to these kinds of music. And unlike most popular music, it’s very un-Black in its rhythm and structure. More importantly it acts as an outlet for many youngsters who feel there’s something wrong with the world to be introduced to the concepts and ideals of the Identitarian Right. I know many who got involved in our politics through metal, myself included.

Sure there’s some degenerate aspects of the music and some of the fans represent the worst elements of society, but dwelling on that comes at the expense of seeing its positive side. As Gregory Hood once wrote:
Whatever the political opinions of the artists involved (if they even have any), metal belongs to the Right. From the most simplistic party sing alongs to the highly complicated creations of serious artists, metal repeatedly stresses themes of conquest, self-overcoming, strength, and conflict… Metal is about seeking glory and excellence--Wagner for the working man. Even a leftist who tries to channel metal will find themselves presenting an image of strength, vitality, and self-glorification.
On a more mainstream scale, there’s also the films of Christopher Nolan and 300 which encapsulate great Identitarian art and (subtly or not-so-subtly) convey our values to a larger audience.

The main point is that there are already parts of the culture that have Identitarian elements, thus there’s less of a need to create a framework out of thin air. It’s already there. What would make it to a counter-culture is for there to be large groups of people united by their shared interest in these mediums. The most memorable facet of the 60s counter-culture was not its music or its films, but the youth movement that was built around it and shared in its experience. That’s what led to its iconic moments, from Woodstock to anti-war protests, and allowed it to become something much more than fandom for psychedelic rock.

This is the fundamental flaw of Marcus’s thinking in that it places conservative works over the people it would bind together. In order for it to constitute a counter-culture, it has to be a culture, not a hodgepodge of little-seen plays and hardly-read novels. It has to be organic, not a superficial construct. It has to be more than mere entertainment, it has to bring people together. For Identitarians, we already have a significant amount of culture amenable to our beliefs. We, of course, could use more songs that make for better group singing and probably more literature with explicit Identitarian leanings. But those are things that will likely come soon.

The currents are already afoot in our society, we only need the movement to put it all together.

God, Make Greece Good, but not yet

via Alternative Right

Beware Greeks bearing debts: Yanis Varoufakis
The Guardian has just published a long, rambling article by the man of the moment, the Greek Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, entitled "How I became an erratic Marxist."

The article, which is adapted from a lecture originally delivered at the 6th Subversive Festival in Zagreb in 2013, shows the confused, ambivalent, blind, and downright dishonest tendencies of the modern Left. It also gives a good insight into how the Left in Greece and other countries will seek to deal with the developing economic crisis.

This crisis is essentially one of financial incontinence, caused by the alliance of big capital and big government, working to bloat credit and parasitical profits on a base of economies over-stimulated by the expansion of the public sector. Greece is just the best specific example of this general trend.

 From the article, it soon becomes apparent that the most important point for the Left is to maintain this toxic alliance at all costs, while also finding some way of feeling morally good about itself – an almost Augustinian moment of “Make me good, God, but not yet.” Varoufakis states this clearly near the start of the article:

“Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs. It is a confession intended to convince radicals that we have a contradictory mission: to arrest the freefall of European capitalism in order to buy the time we need to formulate its alternative.”
Later he is more explicit about the consequences:
“A Greek or a Portuguese or an Italian exit from the eurozone would soon lead to a fragmentation of European capitalism, yielding a seriously recessionary surplus region east of the Rhine and north of the Alps, while the rest of Europe is would be in the grip of vicious stagflation. Who do you think would benefit from this development? A progressive left, that will rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of Europe’s public institutions? Or the Golden Dawn Nazis, the assorted neofascists, the xenophobes and the spivs? I have absolutely no doubt as to which of the two will do best from a disintegration of the eurozone.”
Rather than taking the honest way out, either by advocating Grexit or a full-blown Marxist solution, which of course would fail, he instead advocates sheltering under the umbrella of Euro-Capitalism while assuming an air of moral superiority, based on a semi-mystical understanding of Marxist complexity.
“This dialectical perspective, where everything is pregnant with its opposite, and the eager eye with which Marx discerned the potential for change in what seemed to be the most unchanging of social structures, helped me to grasp the great contradictions of the capitalist era. It dissolved the paradox of an age that generated the most remarkable wealth and, in the same breath, the most conspicuous poverty. Today, turning to the European crisis, the crisis in the United States and the long-term stagnation of Japanese capitalism, most commentators fail to appreciate the dialectical process under their nose. They recognise the mountain of debts and banking losses but neglect the opposite side of the same coin: the mountain of idle savings that are ‘frozen’ by fear and thus fail to convert into productive investments. A Marxist alertness to binary oppositions might have opened their eyes.”
Of course, it’s just possible that savings, along with initiative and enterprise, have been frozen in places like Greece because of over-regulation, taxation, devaluation of honest labour, and the various other distortions that have been introduced into the economy by the rigged game that big capital and big government have been playing now for decades.

"Marxism failing in 3...2...1..."
Varoufakis sounds almost eloquent on the question of labour, referring to it as “living, form-giving fire,” but there is something deeply disingenuous and ambivalent about his views on labour. Like most modern middle-class Marxists, he hates the actual working class with a vengeance, and despises its chief characteristic of productive labour. Under the mask of “critiquing” Neo-liberalism, he argues for an approach that conflates efficient labour with inefficient labour, or, more simply labour with non-labour, using emotive words like “dehumanisation” to describe productive labour and “freedom” to describe its opposite:
“Every non-Marxist economic theory that treats human and non-human productive inputs as interchangeable assumes that the dehumanisation of human labour is complete. But if it could ever be completed, the result would be the end of capitalism as a system capable of creating and distributing value. For a start, a society of dehumanised automata would resemble a mechanical watch full of cogs and springs, each with its own unique function, together producing a ‘good’: timekeeping. Yet if that society contained nothing but other automata, timekeeping would not be a “good”. It would certainly be an output but why a ‘good’? Without real humans to experience the clock’s function, there can be no such thing as 'good’ or ‘bad.”
Essentially, this is the old Marxist slogan of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” repackaged for the post-modern generation – he even throws in a reference to Invasion of the Body Snatchers! Productive individuals and nations “need” the unproductive individuals and nations in order to go on producing. If everybody was productive, we’d all be too busy producing to buy each other’s goods and services, apparently.

Look, free money.
This “insight” of course has particular application to Greece and the wider European situation. Thanks to Germany’s need to avoid an over-appreciating Deutschmark – caused by its “excessive” productivity – and its creation of the eurozone as a solution, the Greeks have been able, for the last decade or so, to assume the role of “professional consumers,” living a lot larger than their collective abilities and efforts would otherwise have warranted. The present unsupportable debt is a relatively accurate measure of this.

What the New Left wishes to do, not just in Greece or Europe but everywhere, is to conflate labour with consumption, efficiency with inefficiency, hard work with parasitism, and superiority with inferiority. It is this warm fuzzy form of economic cancer, so amenable to political packaging and the machinations of big capital that is the real reason for the growing economic entropy of the international system.

For Leftists like Varoufakis, Greek public officials retiring in their 50s on fat pensions or Somali refugees turning some Swedish suburb into a rape camp are just as important cogs in the great machine as the Chinese factory labourer putting in back-breaking twelve-hour days or the hyper-productive German engineer. They are all equal because “everything is pregnant with its opposite” – including Swedish rape victims!

Varoufakis writes about how Marxists and Neo-Liberals divvied up the main buzzwords – freedom, equality, and justice:
“In the 20th century, the two political movements that sought their roots in Marx’s thought were the communist and social democratic parties. Both of them, in addition to their other errors (and, indeed, crimes) failed, to their detriment, to follow Marx’s lead in a crucial regard: instead of embracing liberty and rationality as their rallying cries and organising concepts, they opted for equality and justice, bequeathing the concept of freedom to the neoliberals.”
Varoufakis obviously thinks that Marxists should own all the buzzwords, but the problem of course is that “equality” is an extremely bad fit not only with “freedom” both even more so with “justice.”

The solution to the increasingly moribund global economy is to emphasize justice, as in just deserts. But this runs counter to everything that Leftists hold sacred, because any serious application of justice would result in massive inequality of outcome. If those who work harder, who are smarter, and more disciplined – the “automata” and hollowed-out zombies in Varoufakis's article – were rewarded according to their merits, then the economy would crackle with energy and life.

Instead, the poisonous creed of egalitarianism, manipulated by clever but dishonest financiers, politicians, and academics, has been leeching merit out of the global economic system at every level for years, and this trend looks set to continue, even with the example of a collapsing Greece.

Jihad in Denmark: Copenhagen Attacks Follow Recent Pattern

via Theden

Copenhagen became the most recent ground zero for an Islam-inspired terrorist attack this weekend, when a 22-year-old Danish man reported to be “known” to authorities opened fire on a cafe hosting controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks. According to authorities and witnesses, the shooter then followed up with a fatal attack on a man at a nearby synagogue.

The media reports that the terrorist in question was “inspired by militant Islamist propaganda issued by IS [Islamic State] and other terror organisations.” While the suspect’s name has not yet been released, more information has come to light, including that the suspect had a criminal record familiar to police.

Vilks, who gained notoriety in 2007 for depicting Mohammed as a dog, was hosting a forum called “Art, Blasphemy, and Freedom of Expression” when the unnamed terrorist opened fire from outside the cafe. The outspoken artist believes he was the likely target, especially given the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices last month.

“What other motive could there be? It’s possible it was inspired by Charlie Hebdo,” Vilks is quoted as saying by the UK’s Guardian.

As military scholars will say, the efficacy of terrorist attacks such as this often lie in the unforeseen ripples created by the attacks. For instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netyanhu surprisingly called for what can only be termed a “Fortress Israel” strategy for European Jews:
“This wave of attacks is expected to continue,” Netanyahu said. “Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe.”
It’s reported that Netanyahu’s remarks “disappointed” Denmark’s chief rabbi, Jair Melchior while Danish leader Helle Thorning-Schmidt reassured Danish Jews “are a large and integrated part of Danish society,” and that “together we will shield Denmark from the kind of attack we saw last night.”

One wonders exactly how the Danes will shield themselves from such attacks, given the apparent shift in strategy from radical Islam. Taking stock of the attacks on the U.S. and Canada last fall, the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, and now Copenhagen, the oft-discussed “lone-wolf” terrorist strategy seems to have finally arrived in the West.

It’s an unfortunate new permutation of the asymmetrical warfare that the West faces from Islam. Rather than the spectacular attacks of 9/11, they’ve scaled back and are seemingly pulling the tactics they most often employ in the third world hell holes they originate from. As many have said before, it appears as if Europe, and the West at large, have finally and fatefully imported the Third World.

Interracial Porn Isn’t Profitable -- It’s Political

via TradYouth

In February 2013, the Jew gossip merchant Harvey Levin led a “Crusade For Racial Equality” after his program, TMZ, reported there was a white porn star who refused to do interracial porn. The “Crusade” was composed of the Jew Levin dispatching his minions to go around agitating black porn-addicts and tapping into the tribe’s mass media network to browbeat this woman into submission.

Alexis Texas, the woman at the center of this artificially created controversy, stated that she refused to do pornography with black men because it would alienate her white audience, and thus make her “product” less profitable. Her explanation was that this was not a moral or racial decision, but a shrewd business one (the only value system accepted as legitimate in America). As Levin himself put it: “More black = Less green”.



Interracial Porn Isn’t Profitable

I looked at a list of the 50 best selling pornographic films of all time and not a single one featured interracial (describes black men and white women in the industry) scenes. In fact, the most popular female porn stars, featured in most of these best selling smut films: Jenna Jameson, Tera Patrick, Jill Kelly, Asia Carrera, Stormy Daniels and Jesse Jane, have never done a single interracial scene in their entire careers. I cross-referenced this to control for the age of internet porn, but found the same results. PornMD is a data collection project that has gathered the 10 most popular search terms on pornographic websites from all around the world, and “interracial” was not in the top 10 anywhere on the planet.

In fact, the #1 search term for most was for their own ethnicity.

In an all-encompassing study of pornography that used information collected from 10,000 participants, it was found that only 53% of female porn stars ever do interracial scenes. The researcher also made sure to report that most of those who do participate in porn with black men do it “when the time is right”, or in non-PC English, they do it as a last resort when they start getting desperate for work. To make an analogy, it would be like Nicolas Cage doing an Olive Garden commercial because he’s behind on his credit card debt: the lowest of the low amongst the lowest of the low.

Agents charge premiums to use their clients in interracial porn (since it often sinks their careers due to white male boycott), yet the films do not sell as well as non-interracial porn. This is a terrible business proposition in other words that only large companies able to off-set losses can afford.

Interracial Porn Is Political

So if the shekels are modest, at best, why is interracial porn one of the most widely produced kinds of filth? To understand, let’s start with who is pedaling it.

Looking at the top pornographic booking agencies, I was able to find a very interesting trend. Granted, all people who partake in this trade are some breed of scum, but there is a noteworthy contrast between the behavior of Jewish (motivated by both profit and political agenda) and Gentile (motivated solely by money) porn agents. LA Direct Models, one of the few “talent” managers owned by a Gentile (Derek Hays, a retired English male porn star), only offers 20% of its women for interracial scenes, while Spiegler Girls, owned by Mark Spiegler AKA Shylock (how he signs his business cards) demands that 80% of his clients participate in interracial porn.

Vivid Entertainment, which is by far the dominant force in the world of pornography, has used 80% of its “actresses” in interracial scenes and is known for churning this stuff out. Vivid was founded and is chaired by the Jew Steven Hirsch and his wife Marci Hirsch. There is no real explanation for this substanital inversion other than the fact that Jewish-owned companies go out of their way to promote this kind of pornography. The tactic is to build themselves up with intra-racial pornography, and then once they dominate the market, promote the more perverse and less popular varieties.

According to Shylock in an interview with Business Insider: “Some agents will charge a premium for girls who do interracial. But we don’t do that: it’s the same rate for non-interracial.”

Shylock goes on to cite Sasha Grey as an exception that disproves the rule regarding the career suicide of making porn with negroes, since she started off doing interracial porn and her career took off. But Grey’s fame was not organic, it was created from scratch by moguls at the top. Adult Video News (AVN), a powerful industry trade journal founded by the Jews Paul Fishbein, Irv Slifkin, and Barry Rosenblatt in the 1980’s, helped put Grey on the map by awarding her with the title of “Performer of the Year” in 2008–a year in which she starred in an enormous amount of interracial porn movies.

Grey was the youngest person (20 years old) to ever win the “prestigious” award, and while she had been in the industry for barely two years, her enthusiastic race-mixing paid off and Jews eventually rewarded her with a laughable Hollywood career. Parallel to her in AVN “achievement” is the equally famous black male Lexington Steele, who won AVN’s “Performer of the Year” numerous times (virtually unheard of for a male porn star) and has enjoyed cameos (read: promotion) in non-pornography such as (Jew) Jenji Kohan’s Showtime series Weeds. Lexington Steele’s fame is smoke and mirrors to compel women ambivalent about making interracial porn to piggyback off his fame when their job offers start drying up.

This dynamic can go in reverse as well, or at least they try to will it. By 2013, it became obvious that Miley Cyrus, once a wholesome child star that a whole generation of kids grew up with, was willing to do anything for publicity. Her infamous antics have gotten her lots of promotion from the Jewish media who reward her by artificially lengthening her career (similar to retired supermodel Heidi Klum getting her own TV show after she got with Seal), and like sharks who smell blood, Jews saw an opportunity to exploit her weakness.

A porn company called GameLink, whose founder, CEO, and President is an ardent Zionist and Israeli-“American” dual citizen named Ilan Bunimovitz, sent Miley Cyrus a letter shortly after her “Wrecking Ball” performance. The inquiry offered her $1 million dollars to star in an interracial pornography scene. A GameLink representative expounded on the company motives behind this offer: “I’d love to see her with Mandingo doing an interracial scene. Now that would really break the daddy’s girl image and burn through the tabloids.”

Typical, the Zionist Jew Ilan Bunimovitz, who is married to a hideous kinky haired Jew broad (look him up on Facebook), has a seemingly “normal” bat-faced family and spends half of his year in Israel, is very dedicated to promoting interracial porn to Gentiles and exploiting other people’s women for his sick ambitions. On the GameLink website, where interracial porn is aggressively marketed, it states the following:
“Although the 20th century was a time of turbulent and rapid change in race relations, mostly for the better, interracial sex is still touted as one of the great taboos. “Interracial” in the world of adult entertainment has come to connote, almost exclusively, relationships or sex between whites and blacks.”
This fluffy talk purposely omits that interracial porn is universally considered to be one of the most degrading varieties. In fact, the “genre” has even prompted left-wing blacks to criticize it, erroneously blaming white men instead of the real culprit. This type of porn, they argue, follows 3-4 racially charged templates: the white woman always has blonde hair, a white husband watches his wife have intercourse with blacks, multiple blacks “gangbang” one white woman, and the blacks are instructed by Jewish directors to use vulgar anti-white language while they do it.

It should be noted that one pioneer of interracial pornography is Jewish, Nina Hartley. There are times where they blaze the trail, but its usually just an initial step until they can succeed in normalizing perversion. After that, they create a system of incentives to entice gentiles into the field. Think about it, why is Kim Kardashian always in the spotlight? The only thing she has ever done is make a porno with Ray J.

Jewish Genocidal Message

Jews have been identified time and time again as the force behind the promotion of miscegenation, especially the white and negro variety, for decades. Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique implies this is a widespread Jewish compulsion, both conscious and subconscious, to dominate their enemies in spite of lack of physical numbers. By encouraging black and white sexual relations with the formulaic eroticization of ejaculation inside the vagina (creampie), Jews are expecting life to imitate “art” once again, and for us to be bred out. This is in conjunction with them blaring to normal couples that this same exact sexual intercourse isn’t “cool” and men should ejaculate on a woman’s face/ear/eyes/anywhere except their vagina.

This agenda is made even more overt with the porn term “breeding”, which features the same form of copulation. All of the results, without exception, were black men having sex with white women. The names of the videos had titles like “Black Breeds With White Girl”, “Black Makes Baby With White Bitch”, etc. Jews know what they’re doing is sick and wrong, and they revel in it.

Jews Invented The Myth of the Black Sexual Powerhouse To Psychologically Intimidate Men

Jews have created a Freudian society that encourages men to fixate on their genitalia as the be all end all of their masculinity. For this reason, the cherry picking of black porn stars for their extremely large penises is a political act. Virtually every interracial pornography film has the white female verbally reiterating how much bigger and better the black man’s equipment is, in order to make that segment of white men that watch these films to show they aren’t “racist” feel inadequate and demoralized. Furthermore, the black porn stars are always on steroids and very physically fit, and clever camera tricks make it seem like they can screw these women for hours on end without getting tired.

The reality however, is very different. 75% of blacks are overweight or obese, compared to 67% of whites. When it comes to penis size, African countries often come out on top, but their inflated numbers are the product of self-satirizing muhdik self-reporting. When actually measured, there’s some shrinkage. A 2006 Nigerian study found that the average penis size was 5.1 inches, while Tanzanians were on the lower side of the world’s average at 4.5 inches. The average penis size of Italians, on the other hand, was found to be 6.19 inches and the Dutch at 6.24 inches.

This myth seeks to both attack Aryan manhood and create imaginary incentives for women to defy their instincts, and go “coo coo for cocoa puffs”. Record numbers of women are now watching pornography thanks to the anonymity of the internet, they are the real target of Jewish race-mixing porn producers (after black men). And while it still remains uncommon for white women to find black men attractive, Jews have spent generations creating tropes of limp-wristed whites and powerful, manly blacks, which are featured in caricatured forms together in the same scene of their porno films (“Cuckold” porn always features this). Some women are aroused by films of mating bonobos, so who knows?

Monkey See, Monkey Do

As the real facts show, white men aren’t generally watching interracial porn, as the prevailing baseless Talmudic myth purports. Looking through “Adult movie” web forums, whenever the topic comes up, the white males who watch it do so because they like the woman or because they want to show how they’re not racist. You’ll get one or two who say they get off on the humiliation or racial aspect, but they are often exposed as non-white trolls looking to get a kick in, not to mention the sample bias of people who would actually use their free time posting on a website like “Adult DVD Forum”.

The prime consumers of interracial porn are black men. Anyone who lives in an urban environment will find that the people who disproportionately come out of pornshops tend to be black (many of them women), not embarrassed middle aged whites huddling in their trench coats. Eldridge Cleaver, a former member of the Black Panthers, spoke quite candidly about why black men are into degrading or raping white women in his autobiography Soul On Ice (1968):
“Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spread outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.”
Jews have been correctly identified as the leaders of the major Left-wing black insurrectionary movements during the 1960‘s, the perspective from which Cleaver was speaking from and time period when he committed his serial rapes. TMZ tries to shame Alexis Texas for not being “color-blind”, but interracial porn, as Cleaver states, is where the Black politics of resentment and the Jewish politics of White Genocide intersect. This impulse to rape white women as “vengeance” can be even seen in the diary of slave rebellion leader Nat Turner:
“In my fantasies she began to replace the innocent, imaginary girl with the golden curls as the object of my craving, and on those Saturdays when I stole into my private place in the carpenter’s shop to release my pent-up desires, it was Miss Emmeline whose bare white full round hips and belly responded wildly to all my lust and who, sobbing would scream “MERCY, MERCY, MERCY” against my ear, allowed me to partake of the wicked and godless yet unutterable joys of defilement”(pg. 183, Confessions of Nat Turner)
The power of pornography to covertly influence sexual habits has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt . For example, in 1992, only 16% of women had participated in the practice of sodomy (“anal sex”). By 2010, after a titanic Jewish push for “anal sex” pornography enabled by the production cost-cutting power of internet streaming (thus, less popular forms of porn were not as big of a financial risk), 32% of women had been sodomized at some point in their life. Nothing is more irrational, disgusting, and unpleasurable than entering something clearly marked exit, yet look at how it has become a staple in so many bedrooms thanks ultimately to media social engineering. If the Jews can use their power to successfully market the human sphincter as sexy to a significant minority of people, what other feats can they reach?

Just imagine the impact interracial porn movies meant to simulate black on white gang rapes, or giving blacks the impression that white women are desperate to sleep with them, have on young black men. Don’t forget the Jewish racial agitation of blacks against whites spoon-fed to them through Sumner Redstone’s BET or Jimmy Iovine’s Interscope Records, which rationalizes even the most random and bestial crimes against white people minding their own business that occur every day in countries like America.

The only real conclusion we can deduce from the portrayal of blacks and whites in Jew porn movies is that they want black men to rape white women. I challenge anyone to look at the grotesque content of the typical interracial porn film and come up with an alternative explanation. There just isn’t one.

Racial Defilement: Not For Jews

You would think that what is essentially a Jewish dominated industry would feature more Jewish themed pornography. Jews mock their racial enemies by making porn featuring women in Hijabs, Bavarian costumes, Nuns, and sexual attacks on every ethnicity and religion you can think of. Jewish themed pornography, interestingly enough, is either quite rare or for all intents and purposes, non-existent. If the “taboo” of race-mixing is what gets these perverts off, why not make one with an Arab impregnating a Jewish woman? There have been one or two Jews who have sporadically tried to make Jewish themed porn, but always get vetoed by their bosses or are unable to find funding for their projects from the Jew-run corporations. This certainly is not due to lack of demand , according to an editorial by the World Union of Jewish Students:
“there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that GoTo.com provide”
This urgent situation is the real root of universal and perpetual anger towards Jews. The same demented psychology that supports racial Talmudism for Israel (Zionism) and ultra-liberalism for the West (every major Jewish organization shares this characteristic) likewise loves to defile “shiksas” while refusing to sully Jews (unless they’re pretending to be white Gentiles by changing their extremely Yiddish sounding names) themselves in the same fashion. The malicious behavior of Jews is bad enough, but what gets the torches and pitchforks out is their mind-blowing, egregious hypocrisy (chutzpah).

Are they aware of it? I say yes.

Praying for them won’t stop them, only getting the masses out in the street and calling them by name will.

A Mystery in Copenhagen

via Counter-Currents

One of the advantages of being a White nationalist is that the world becomes fairly easy to understand. Facts are your friends if you don’t have to ignore or contort them, and daily news is often a script illustrating your political beliefs. I have no difficulty, for example, understanding why both Detroit and Haiti are bankrupt and violent, whereas for a non-racialist this fact presents a perplexing mystery requiring refined explications of structural inequities and subterranean “legacies of racism.”

White nationalists also have no difficulty understanding Muslim violence in Europe and elsewhere in the West. If a Western nation imports from the Third World an alien population with a religious tradition of hostility to non-Muslims, it can expect violence. Some us may be surprised at the scale and success of Muslim terror in Europe, but the violence itself is hardly mysterious. It has been regularly documented and its increase regularly predicted by Far Right politicians and writers. Some of them have found themselves in court for the crime of stating their evidence and announcing their predictions.

It is a venerable tradition of anti-racist jurisprudence that facts and evidence are immaterial and even criminal if they are arrayed against the program of non-White immigration, which is regarded by its advocates as a moral imperative, not as a policy that a democratic electorate is free to reject if, upon deliberation, it considers the policy inadvisable. A decade ago a political party in Belgium was forced out of existence for the crime of opposing non-European immigration and reporting Muslim crime statistics. Facts were Vlaams Blok’s friends, because Vlaams Blok opposed Muslim immigration, but facts were the Belgian government’s enemies, and since the government could not wish the facts out of existence, it decided, with the assistance of an anti-racist organization, to eliminate the political party that insisted on publicizing them.

At least half of the rapes in Denmark are perpetrated by Muslim men. The percentage may be higher. The preferred targets of Muslim rapists in Denmark are Danish women. Across Scandinavia the figures are even worse. Sweden now rivals South Africa in its rape statistics. It has achieved that distinction through immigration. “This is a story,” Bruce Bawer concludes, “about failed immigration policies and about Islam, which teaches contempt for infidels — especially unveiled women. As Scandinavia’s Muslim population has risen, so have the rape statistics.” Feminists argue that rape is not about sex, but about power. It would be hard to deny their thesis in this case. Muslim rapists are telling Scandinavians what they think of them.

The recent terror attack in Copenhagen is not a strange aberration, but part of an existing pattern. A hostile group has been imported into Denmark, and it has already expressed its hostility through run-of-the-mill crime. A member of this hostile group decided, after a career in ordinary crime, to express his hostility more memorably. But even though Muslim violence and terror should not be a mystery, they are apparently mysterious to the prime minister of Denmark: “We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.”

Before we mock Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and before we accuse her of plagiarizing the Collected Works of George Bush, we should note the formal and informal constraints that effectively prohibit any sensible statement from her.

We now live, throughout the West, in a cultural and political environment governed by the improbable doctrines of anti-racism. Under a regime of anti-racism stating the obvious is impermissible and sometimes criminal if the obvious undermines the anti-racist consensus on race and nationality. Even if in secret Helle recognizes the obvious explanation of the recent terror attack on her country, she could not state the truth without instantly transforming herself, as though by magic, from a mainstream social-democrat into a Far Right extremist — that is, a Dane endowed with basic common sense and willing to apply his or her basic common sense to matters of political significance, even if those matters involve race and culture. Thorning-Schmidt would also be tacitly acknowledging that a substantial portion of Denmark’s population really shouldn’t be there and that Denmark would be a better place if they had never arrived. Facts, in her world, are dangerous enemies, so she resorts to ascribing a Muslim terror attack to amorphous “forces” opposed to Danish liberty and mysteriously hostile to Jews.

Islam’s hostility to Jews is especially troubling for the political mainstream. Anti-racism privileges minorities. It knows what side to attack and what side to defend in a conflict between White and non-White. Muslim rapes of non-Muslim women may be an embarrassment, owing to our traditional opinions about rape, but they present no serious difficulty for a convinced anti-racist, who knows that the cultural and racial diversity Muslims bring is well worth any suffering individual Muslims may cause. A member of a racial minority is a valuable part of the post-national state simply by virtue of his presence. His difference itself is his principal value, regardless of either his accomplishments or his crimes. The real enemy of anti-racism is not the alien criminal plying his trade and committing his preferred offenses, but anyone who would unethically, with racial malice aforethought, exploit the fact of his crimes for the purpose of defending historic nations and discrediting the globalist plan to end them.

But when the Muslim minority attacks the Jewish minority, the system faces a crisis. The inflexible rule that the minority should be privileged makes it difficult to respond, since there are now two minorities in conflict, one visibly brown and the other visibly white. Hence again the advantage, from the perspective of practical politics, of Thorning-Schmidt’s hastily concocted and implausible account of amorphous forces, inspired by no discernible motives other than a dislike of liberty, mysteriously descending on Copenhagen.

For Jews and their admirers the default narrative’s intentional imprecision is disturbing. Jews and Jewish organizations are overrepresented among the forces working to criminalize peaceful opposition to the Muslim invasion of Europe. Brigitte Bardot, for example, faced Jewish anti-racist organizations in court when, in 2008, she spoke out about Islam; it was the fifth time she had faced legal punishment for “inciting racial hatred” by expressing her opposition to Muslim immigration and her disapproval of Islam, which she believes is destroying France and “[trying] to impose its own laws on us.” That is the normal pattern. A European publicly speaks critically of Islam, committing the thought-crime of “racism,” and anti-racist organizations, many of them financed or staffed by Jews, descend upon him. A hate-speech conviction often

follows, as it did in Bardot’s case. But now Jews find themselves in a Europe where the anti-racist rule of willed or coerced silence about Islam inhibits the open expression of a truth they want to have publicized. Muslims really don’t like them. Some Muslims want to kill them. They also want to kill Europeans, but if a jihadist has a choice between killing a Jew and killing a European, he would prefer to kill a Jew.

Jews in Europe face an unpleasant dilemma. Right-wing Europeans, not even a thought-criminal like Brigitte Bardot, do not shoot up their synagogues and kosher markets, but members of a group they have often defended, as part of their ambition to turn European nation-states into collections of squabbling minorities with no cohesive race-cultural character, do shoot Jews and will likely kill more in the future. Yet the system Jews have done so much to create is reflexively reluctant, for reasons both of anti-racist principle and political expedience, to name their enemies and describe their motives.

The Aryan Eugenic State

via Renegade Tribune

Eugenics was considered quite mainstream in the America of the nineteen twenties and thirties.  Many U.S. states had Eugenic laws on the books that required sterilization for any persons who suffered from heredity based diseases such as epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and extremely low IQ.  It was not until after the defeat of National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy that the practice of Eugenic sterilization fell out of favor with the mainstream American establishment, because it was associated with the “terrible” sins of the inequality of all persons, no matter how botched and degraded.

In the nineteen fifties and sixties, Human Equality was a dogma written in stone, and anyone questioning the dogma was immediately labeled a “FASCIST” or a “NAZI”.  Because of the Jewish control of all public opinion, practically everybody followed the egalitarian line of BS without question.  It was not until 1969, when Arthur Jensen wrote an article in a prominent psychological journal, entitled  “How Much Can We Boost Human Intelligence?” that ANY members of the Psychological profession DARED to challenge the “Party Line”.

Today, with the advent of the Internet Age, it is not so easy for the Jewish Power structure to pull the wool over people’s eyes.  More and more psychologists,  anthropologists, and thinkers of all persuasions are beginning to challenge the egalitarian myth, and recognize the vast variety of human behaviors and mental abilities that stem from genetic factors, rather than the social environment.

Comrades, in  our Future Aryan Republic, Eugenics will be a tool of UTMOST importance in the improvement of our Aryan Racial stock.  We must selectively breed a Race that is on a much higher mental, physical, and spiritual level than what we have today.  Not only must we ensure that the people with the highest IQs have the most children, but we must also make sure that all individuals with heredity diseases and extremely low IQs do not have ANY CHILDREN.  If this plan were followed, the percentage of Whites and Asians would increase rapidly, and the Amerind and Negroid genes would grow much less.  THE FUTURE BELONGS TO US, COMRADES!!!  Through Spiritual Eugenics, Our Great Aryan Race will live again, and march forward into a Brave New World of Health, Progress, and Prosperity.  The choice is ours comrades. EUGENICS or DISGENICS.  Which will it be?

Bend it Like Bennett: Genuflecting to Jewish Power

via The Occidental Observer

Liberal icon Alan Bennett
The gang of four are down to two. I want to look at one of the two survivors: the playwright Alan Bennett (born 1934). In the 1960s, with Peter Cook, Dudley Moore and Jonathan Miller, he enjoyed enormous success with the satirical show Beyond the Fringe on both sides of the Atlantic. One of their targets was the stale pale male Britain of their childhoods. Here’s an entry from Bennett’s diary in 1982:
7 September. Douglas Bader dies. I used to imitate him in Beyond the Fringe as part of the Aftermyth of War sketch, coming downstairs with a pipe and exaggeratedly straight legs (though I never quite dared make them as stiff as they should have been). One night I was hissed and was very pleased with myself. (Writing Home, Faber & Faber, 1994)
Douglas Bader was a fighter-pilot who lost both legs in a flying accident before World War II. Wearing artificial legs, he became a hero during the war and then a fixture of the British establishment. He was a symbol of courage, perseverance against the odds and bluff, stoical manhood. But it did Bennett no harm to mock him. Quite the reverse. The success of Beyond the Fringe was a sure sign of shifting power: a new liberal establishment was taking over. It now rules cultural life in Britain, and Bennett is one of its fixtures.

This is an irony that he has never explored in his writing. Probably he doesn’t even recognize it. Like Woody Allen in America, Bennett carefully cultivates an image of himself as a gauche, neurotic outsider. In both cases, the image is highly misleading. The enormous success of Bennett and Allen demonstrates this paradox: in the modern West, outsiders are insiders. The key to the paradox is Jewish power and its hostility to the majority. By identifying himself as an outsider, Bennett signals to powerful Jews in the media that he will not defend the majority. He practises oligolatry, or the worship of minorities I discussed in “Power and Perversion.”

But piety about minorities is useless to an ambitious playwright if it is not well-publicized. Every year, Bennett publishes extracts from his diaries in the highly liberal London Review of Books (LRB), which is the British equivalent of the New York Review of Books. Bennett’s direct and uncomplicated prose is refreshing amid the usual posturing gasbags who write for the LRB, but that’s part of his shtick: he’s playing the down-to-earth Yorkshireman. He’s also playing the decent and caring liberal. Here’s an entry from his diary in 1980:
6 March, London. I come through Heathrow [airport] and in the queue parallel to mine an Indian family is held up at Immigration, the father thin, dark, with burning eyes, being questioned by a woman so stone-faced she could be at the East German border rather than at Heathrow. There are several sons, looking languid and beautiful, and the mother with a small child in her arms. (Writing Home, 1994)
You see? Bennett is on the side of oppressed minorities. He thinks that immigration control has a nasty whiff of totalitarianism. And his comments on the languid beauty of the sons are another signal to his liberal readership. Bennett is homosexual, but not in the mould of a conservative writer like H.H. Munro (1870–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki. Munro identified with the White British majority, not with the Jewish minority here. He criticized Jewish power in stories like “The Unrest Cure” and “A Touch of Realism,” which joke about antisemitism rather than deplore it. He even described the British Empire as a “suburb of Jerusalem” in “Reginald at the Theatre.” Bennett, by complete contrast, wants Jews to know that he feels their pain. Here’s a diary entry in 1984:
16 April, Yorkshire. A bank clerk counts me out some notes and scarcely pausing in his counting, puts aside the more dog-eared ones as he does so. With about as much thought, and for exactly the same reason (the practical use of this object is almost over), the SS officer on the platform at Auschwitz separated out the sick for immediate extermination. (Op. cit.)
Is Bennett Holocaust-aware? You bet he is. He does not criticize Jewish power or even acknowledge its existence. Instead, he mourns for Jewish victimhood. He was at it again in 1999:
28 January. I switch on the Antiques Roadshow [a programme in which members of the public bring antiques for free valuation] where someone is showing the expert a drawing by E.H. Shepard, the illustrator of Winnie the Pooh. It’s a cartoon or an illustration dated 1942, entitled ‘Gobbling Market’ and meant as a satire on black marketeers. It was for [the humorous magazine] Punch but it could have easily have been for [the Nazi propaganda newspaper] Der Stürmer, as all the black marketeers are strongly Semitic in features, some as demonic as the worst Nazi propaganda. The expert makes no reference to this, except to say: ‘It’s very strong.’ When the owner bought the drawing he’d had the chance of getting a Winnie the Pooh cartoon instead: that would have appreciated in value a great deal but ‘Gobbling Market’ not at all, which is encouraging. (Untold Stories, Faber & Faber, 2005 — “Gobbling Market” is a pun on Christina Rossetti’s poem “Goblin Market”)
“Gobbling Market” (1942): based on reality?
“Gobbling Market” (1942): based on reality?

Again, Bennett is almost parodically pro-Jewish. His comments are a perfect example of “Point-and-splutter,” in which no attempt is made to refute a claim about reality. Instead, the claim is held up as self-evidently wicked, with its truth or falsehood dismissed as irrelevant. But was Shepard right to suggest that black marketeers were predominantly Jewish? Bennett writes as though the question cannot even be considered: under oligolatry, minorities are exemplars of virtue, never of vice.

In his diaries and elsewhere, Bennett’s constant message is that he is not on the majority’s side. He has genuflected to Jewish power throughout his career, advertising his pro-Jewish, pro-minority piety in venues like the London Review of Books. And he’s been well-rewarded for it. He’s now a very rich man by the standards of his working-class boyhood in the Yorkshire city of Leeds. Unlike many Whites of his generation, he can easily afford an encounter with vibrancy like this:
Alan Bennett: how I was conned out of £1,500
Alan Bennett has described for the first time how he was targeted by pickpockets who conned him out of £1,500. The celebrated playwright described how he had just withdrawn the money from the bank when two women approached him, supposedly to help him clean ice cream which had been spilt down the back of his coat. But far from being the thoughtful action of a pair of kindly strangers, the offer of help was an act designed to give the thieves the opportunity to remove the money from Bennett’s coat pocket.
Bennett said he had just withdrawn the money to pay his builders and walked into Marks & Spencer when the two women … tried to help him wipe the ice cream off his coat. … “The ice cream (coffee-flavoured) seems to have got everywhere and they keep finding fresh smears of it so that I take my jacket off too to clean it up. No more being found, I put my jacket on again, thanking the women profusely, though they brush off my gratitude and abruptly disappear. I go back to the car, thinking how good it is that there are still people who, though total strangers, can be so selflessly helpful, and it’s only when I’m about to get into the car that I remember the money, look in my inside pocket to find, of course, that the envelope has gone.”
After reporting the loss to the police Bennett was told the pickpockets were most likely Romanian and that the con is common enough to have been given the name “Mustard Squirter”.
It was thought he was spotted at the bank and followed into the shop.
Bennett recognised they were “very good at their job” but said: “Quite hard to bear is that I have to go back to the bank to draw out another £1,500 or the builders will go unpaid.” He added: “The casualty, though, is trust, so that I am now less ready to believe in the kindness of strangers.” (Alan Bennett: how I was conned out of £1,500, The Daily Telegraph, 13rd December 2010)
By “Romanian” the police almost certainly meant “gypsies.” After a lifetime extolling the virtue of oppressed minorities, Bennett discovered in 2010 that they’re fully capable of vice too. Indeed, of predation. Thanks to mass immigration, millions of British Whites have suffered crimes by people who would never have been here if Britain were a genuine democracy. It isn’t: as Gerald Warner pointed out at Breitbart, “in 1968 the political class abandoned representation of the majority” that opposed mass immigration, and “identified itself exclusively with the elitist 11 per cent minority” that supported it.

Bennett has always been part of the elitist minority. In 2010, like Tony Blair’s daughter Kathryn in 2013, he discovered that elitism does not guarantee immunity. Luckily for him, his encounter with vibrancy wasn’t violent, but some old people don’t long survive non-violent robberies. The shock and upset can prove fatal, particularly if the lost money is irreplaceable. Bennett is rich and can easily afford the loss, so he identifies the “casualty” as “trust,” because he is “now less ready to believe in the kindness of strangers.”

But why should gypsies be “kind” to a non-gypsy like Bennett? He suffers from the typical liberal delusion that his own narcissistic individualism is somehow natural to human beings. After all, there’s only one race: the Human Race. We’re all the same under the skin. Except that we aren’t. Gypsies are an in-bred, collectivist group (see here, p. ixff) who see an elderly White Briton like Bennett as prey, not as a fellow human being who is owed respect and consideration. Similar in-breeding and collectivism are at work in Bennett’s home county of Yorkshire, where large networks of Pakistani Muslims have preyed on White schoolgirls for decades.

As an out-bred, individualist group, the White British have tended to rely on public institutions like the police to protect them from crime. In cities like Rotherham and Oxford, the police have betrayed them, corrupted by the same pro-minority liberalism displayed by Alan Bennett. Homosexuals like Bennett are not automatically indifferent to the majority and its welfare, but narcissism and indifference do seem to come more easily to them. Bennett has no children and no stake in the future. His interests have always centred on himself and on the historical Britain that created him but which he sees through a lens of opportunistic hostility and resentment.

The future survival of Britain plainly doesn’t concern him. He is rich enough to insulate himself from non-White immigration and he divides his time between a big house in London and a big house in Yorkshire, with frequent trips to hotels and big houses elsewhere. He is not interested in the welfare of White schoolgirls in Yorkshire. He didn’t go to school with girls there and he didn’t have any sexual interest in them.

We are all familiar with the idea that many Whites suffer from pathological altruism, but there are other pathologies as well. A great many of our politicians are quite the opposite of pathological altruists. They are sociopaths who care for nothing but their own career — Bill Clinton and Tony Blair come to mind. And closely related, if not identical, is the pathology of narcissistic self-absorption exemplified by Alan Bennett.

While caring not at all for the exploited girls of Rotherham, his boys-only grammar school in Leeds has continued to inspire his work. He wrote a play called The History Boys (2004) based on his experiences there, which was turned into a film in 2006. This is how Bennett’s work came to the attention of the Jewish-American commentator Larry Auster, who described the film thus:
The History Boys and Britain’s path to national suicide
If you don’t believe that the British elites despise their country, their culture, their history, and secretly or openly wish to have done with it all, see The History Boys. Not that I’m recommending it. It is an unpleasant experience, among other things the most explicit attempt by a movie to normalize homosexuality that I’ve seen. And the homosexuality it normalizes is far from the “nice,” “wholesome” homosexuality — presented as a model of moral uprightness and psychological health in comparison with the desperate neuroses of the heterosexual main characters —that has been the standard, pro-gay fare of Hollywood over the last decade or so. It is a homosexuality that is by turns depressing and nasty, even evil. Yet the movie approves of all of it, as do all the characters. Even the ostensible subject of the film — how eight boys in an undistinguished high school in northern England receive special preparation for their entrance exams to Oxford and Cambridge — is imbued with a homosexualist ethos, turning intellectual life and the experience of learning into either a hollow cynical game or a vampy theatrical exercise. As I said, by the time the movie ended, the realization hit me that the British elites that created a movie like this, that praised and recommended a movie like this, seek with cold and deliberate malice the destruction of their country. (The History Boys and Britain’s path to national suicide, View from the Right, 2nd December 2006)
I haven’t seen the film, but I trust what Larry Auster says about it. Bennett may not consciously seek the destruction of Britain, but he is a willing tool of those who do. Mass immigration and minority worship will also destroy the audience for his own work, but why should he care about what happens after he is dead? When he visited Leeds Grammar School in the 1980s, he found that “the only encouraging feature was the number of clever Asian boys, who obviously now rival the Jewish boys as the intellectual elite” (Untold Stories, diary for 14 April 1998). Bennett has no attachment to his own race, whose history and culture he is happy to benefit from and be inspired by, but not to defend and preserve. For all his carefully cultivated image of diffidence and shyness, Bennett is in fact a typical liberal: he’s an intensely self-centred and egotistical man.

His interest in schoolboys is one sign of that, but so is his interest in old women, about whom he has written sympathetic plays like Talking Heads (1987) and The Lady in the Van (1999). Despite his sympathy, Bennett is again writing about his own life: his experiences with his mother and aunts in northern England and with the eccentric bag-lady who camped in the garden of his large house in London. He observes and writes about the loneliness and mental illness old women often suffer. That’s why so many old women are dedicated fans of his. His sympathy may well be genuine, but, like his Holocaust-awareness, it’s also good for his career.

What would not be good for his career would be a play about how old women have suffered from mass immigration. How many thousands have experienced vibrant crime as Bennett himself did? How many have died or had their lives destroyed as a result? That’s not a subject that powerful media Jews would find acceptable, because it’s about majority suffering and minority crime. And while Bennett was happy to write about paederasty in The History Boys, he will never explore the exotic sexual behaviour found in this case:
Delroy Easton Grant is a convicted rapist accused of carrying out a series of offences of burglary, rape and sexual assault dating between October 1992 and May 2009 in the South East London area of England. Grant, also known as the Minstead Rapist and latterly the Night Stalker, is thought to have been active since 1990, and had a distinctive modus operandi, preying on elderly women who lived alone. He is suspected of over 100 offences from 1990 to the present. In 1998, the Metropolitan Police launched the dedicated Operation Minstead team to investigate the crimes, based out of Lewisham police station. … As of 2009, the operation was the largest and most complex rape investigation ever undertaken by the Metropolitan Police. On 24 March 2011, the Jamaican-born Grant, a Jehovah’s Witness and father of eight from Brockley who was a carer for his disabled wife, was found guilty on all counts. The following day he was given four life sentences and ordered to serve a minimum of 27 years in prison. (Delroy Easton Grant, Wikipedia)
Raping elderly Whites: Delroy Grant
Raping elderly Whites: Delroy Grant
The Minstead Rapist would be a fascinating subject for a play, but if Alan Bennett ever noticed the case, he almost certainly forgot about it soon afterwards. The vast majority of White Britons will be in the same position. Like the brutal murders of the White schoolchildren Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes and Mary-Ann Leneghan, the mass rape of elderly White women is a story that appears briefly in the headlines and then vanishes. Unlike the murder of Stephen Lawrence, it isn’t kept in the public consciousness and no respectable mainstream writer seeks to explore the implications of anti-White crime.

Instead, mainstream writers bend it like Bennett: they genuflect to Jewish power, kneeling at the altar of oligolatry, worshipping Britain’s vibrant minorities and disdaining Britain’s White majority. That’s certainly the route to personal success, but the consequences for Britain’s future are disastrous. When Alan Bennett was robbed by Romanian gypsies, he had a chance to see the truth about his own liberal narcissism. As one would expect, he didn’t take it. He’s central to the liberal establishment, and he doesn’t care about the future of Britain as a White nation.

But what rose to power will also fall. In the 1960s, Bennett represented liberalism, the wave of the future. Today that wave is receding. The interesting question is what will replace it.

Philosophical Universe

via Majority Rights

French “village cartoonist” Crumb was invited by Liberation and submitted this, which actually covers his ass as it isn’t a “representation of the Prophet”. That’s class.
If I may speak in religious terms for the nonce: he game of insulting the Prophet is old and in the way. Where in the Koran is there a para on the merits of totalitarian psychos? Both the Islamic and the Catholic worlds (restricting the argument to Rome for the present – maybe including American orthodox sects), have a vested interest in repelling the false prophets of militant unIslamic ideologies, who want a phony Crusader conflict. Actually, the best way to do this is to be pro-Islamic in the sense of recognizing the good prophets speaking through the words of Koran orthodoxy.

This in itself implies that we agree with orthodox Muslims on at least one thing, namely that there is a universe which can be recognized through religion, a philosophical universe. Any philosophical universe aims to explain the self, or at least has the self as its starting point. That is what a prophet is; self and universe correspond in terms of ethical principles.

Morgoth mentions the principle of “connecting the dots” and the most explosive way of doing that is to change the universe in which you live. In order to recognize Koran orthodoxy for what it is, the Right would also need to recognize Jerusalem as a historical landmark and Rome as a type of successor, albeit a fantastically ornate and hierarchical one!

In order, in other words, to repel false prophets, we have to belong to a true religion. A true religion is a hierarchy, because it is a form of natural energy in the same way the self is. Utterly spontaneous and the complete counter to the organized energy of modernism.

Hierarchy enables spontaneity in that each level has complete internal autonomy (as with the microphage example). That is the only way it works. If you were to somehow impose organization it would all fall apart, becoming cancerous and homogeneous.

A church follows the same principles as a family-tree; cardinals, archbishops or lay priests are completely self-sufficient entities. The fact they are caught-up in doctrine and ritual is a measure of the selfhood of the universe they exist in. Without the selfhood it would not be a universe. Being and harmony; the same in principle that Bruce Lee applies to kung fu. Without being we are but cogs in a multiverse of maze-like organization. This organization is not only of the state, obviously, but of the global monetary system.

The point I would make here is that insiders – of whatever creed – only belong to this system. Outsiders of whatever creed are outside the system. At this point in time, and for some time, the Right is railing against organized powers that comprise globalism. Some would say let’s organize – in this or that way, racially, nationally. Conversely, why be organized? Why not creativity?

Let me put it this way. Aristocracy is not organized in that sense at all; it’s simply a colony of family-lineages that values inheritance as a sort of God-given right. Barring revolution, that right is enshrined in law. So, it’s a natural system. Aristos are the landowning class, and are therefore physically and morally joined to the nation of which they form the erstwhile elite.

Natural systems physically exist, which is more than can be said of global finance and statehood. The physical self has a natural energy that is spontaneous.
Art is the expression of self. The techniques, though they play an important role in the early stage, should not be to complex or mechanical. Remember, you are expressing the technique and not “doing” the technique. When someone attacks you it is not technique number one (or is it technique number two, stance two, section four?) that you are doing, but the moment you are aware of his attack you simply move in like sound and echo without deliberation. -- Bruce Lee, My View on Gung Fu, 1967 (Art of Life)
Artists are spontaneous beings, and they express the self. That is, genuine artists or creative outsiders like French village cartonist R Crumb. I might just mention the “lineage” of French comic magazines which is second to none (Japan, US and France – manga, bandes dessinnees, classic newstrips). I was introd to Pilote in the late 70s by which time it headed a social-satire subculture riding high on the 68 uprising, having launched with miniature Gaul, Asterix as more of a kid’s thing. Prefiguring Pilote was Spirou featuring Belgian icon Tintin, while Metal Hurlant was established by Pilote regulars Moebius, Drulliet, Dionnet – a veritable maelstrom of sub-culture talent.

pilote


All the French magazines are no more; their streetwise energy eclipsed by your standard neighbourhood bookstore. I would say that cultural energy was of the outsider-type, the sense of fraternity one gets from editorial direction and sensibility. Much the same applied to 60s Marvel Comics. There is obviously something racial and national in that, as can be plainly seen from the cover to Pilote #1. Some people are written out of modern pop-culture. Where are the bookish college types and intellectual white women you see in this 60s X-Men?

x-men
Copyright 1967 Marvel Comics

... Marine le Pen might qualify, and she was crudely insulted by “fellow” rightist Sarkozy. We get the likes of Paltrow, lighter than blancmange.

So, what I’m saying is natural systems are outsiders in the homogenised global culture. This point is fairly radical. It implies that the Right, in order to make headway against a global elite, should maintain outsider status. Actually, I’ve seen that point made in comments – the advantages of smallness and knowable status.

However, I’m now going to proceed to take it to unheard of levels! A natural system is what is meant by a universe. That is to say, a religion. Europe, viewed as a natural system, is Roman, with Jerusalem as a historical landmark. I don’t want to get too abstract here, so to be specific. The Kneset recently put forward a motion that Israel is a Jewish State, and that others are more or less freeloaders in their fiefdom (mainly Israeli-Arabs). Apart from the fact this is oppressive, historically Judea has been relatively heterogeneous – Aramaic, Assyrian, Greek. Herod was Aramaic and the language spoken was Aramaic.

Obviously, the principle reason is that Judea is a nexus for imperial leviathons, and sundry desert folk, a place of storytelling genius, not a state. The Biblical Ruth was Moabite, and hers also the Christian lineage. Hebes for much of their history were underdogs, hence Hebrew is the colloquial language of the NT, while Greek is the lingua franca and Aramaic the officialese.

Ruth


I know that’s a godawful shock, that we might essentially establish a New Jerusalem. The reason is plain: it’s a physical place that existed as a spiritual nexus for imperial stormtroopers, whose stories therefore have a physical and moral force. The Torah is much more of a historical document than some would care to admit; the physical and the moral are what attract the pilgrim and the warrior.

One of Robert E Howard’s historical tales, The Road of Azrael, tells of the sack of Jerusalem when Crusaders and Saracens fought side by side against infidel invaders from the East. Christianity, Judaism and Islam – three faiths bound by one place. Let me take this a stage further.

Modern Greece is being slowly mangled by the European kleptocratic machine. There is nothing fraternal in that; it’s simply naked barbarism of Frau Merkel and acolytes (maybe by default). The modern world is designed to make us forget our fraternal allegiances in place of the organized power of global finance. While exuberant crowds greeting the victory of Syriza may be free expressions, you can bet it will make no difference to the immovable object of pre-programmed global finance. The Greek tragedy is they still pay obeisance to the ancient gods in their sublime extremities. The natural European to whom all should owe allegiance.

The crucial point is this: there are no external controls on a natural system. All ancient societies have a design which is visible from village to palace, from country house to bower. The design has a spontaneous order, which takes the form of a hierarchy. The same principle is seen in Haeckel; his depictions of what might be called natural traditions (icons).

The concept of pure spontaneity is anathema to our pre-programmed elites, but in fact that is what a natural order consists of. In order to become a European natural system, one should recognize the paradox that we cannot do so without the presence of Jerusalem as a historical landmark in our natural development. It’s essentially a similar argument to that of acknowledging orthodox Islam; to repel the false prophets. In this case, the prophets of global monetary homogeneity.

The three great faiths are rivals; what they have in common is their natural, spontaneous formation from more or less a single tree. This is something that cannot be denied, since to deny it is to be part of the insider-mentality of a global elite.

Know your enemy. Why is Islam so less modernist than the global elites? For the reason their societies are bound by religious tradition to a marked degree. They are not our enemy; on the contrary, a Christianised Europe would literally storm the temples of Mammon and the voice of Rome would once again sway the tides of Men. Francis, as it happens, is something of an outsider, being a Jesuit from the Americas. He is certainly one of the most unpretentious and independent-minded leaders of faith for a century.

Outsiders have to belong to a natural order, partly by virtue of our Crusader past, Jerusalem has a natural place in a European sensibility. If you care to indulge in unnatural organization that’s up to you, but you will be under the sway of a maze-like complexity that knows no bounds.

The Roots of Aryan Identity

via Radix

Samuel T. Francis originally published “The Roots of the White Man” in two parts in American Renaissance in late 1996.[1] He chose to write the article under the pseudonym “Edwin Clark.” Editor Jared Taylor suggests that this was due to the fact that Francis was treading into scholarly matters outside his specialty of English History.

“Roots” was written as a response to an earlier two-part essay by Taylor[2], but with the passage of time, it has come to stand on its own as Francis’s definitive statement on the distinctive, fundamental characteristics of Occidental civilization and the White race. Taylor had argued that much of White people’s racially destructive behavior, such as inviting non-Whites into their societies and giving them advantages over their offspring—as well as other altruistic behavior, such as support for the welfare of animals—derive from a deep, innate preference for “fairness.” Though not entirely disagreeing with Taylor, Francis sought to rediscover the West as a Faustian, imperial culture—one whose distinctive primal drives are towards discovery and domination, not “equal rights.” —Richard Spencer



By looking at the deep racial-cultural history of whites since ancient times, we discover more profoundly who we are, where we come from, and where we may be going. We may also learn how to control those traits that are now contributing to our destruction and to make use of them and other, more fundamental ones that can help place us back on the path toward what should be our racial destiny.

When speaking of “whites,” I mean the branch of the Caucasian race now generally called “Indo-Europeans,” or what used to be known as “Aryans,” whose descendants today constitute the main part of the populations of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. The term “Aryan” has, for obvious reasons, gone out of fashion, but prior to the rise of German National Socialism, it was a widely accepted anthropological label, and the great archaeologist V. Gordon Childe wrote a book entitled The Aryans (1926), which remains a useful survey of what was then known of the origins and early history of the ancestors of European man.

Whether we employ the term “Aryan” or “Indo-European,” however, most anthropologists today use these terms merely as linguistic or at most cultural labels and insist that they do not refer to race. Yet this usage seems artificial. The early Indo-Europeans, no matter where they lived or where their remains have been found, were white, and their physical remains, art, and languages reflect their essential racial unity, regardless of the diversity of the subracial stocks into which they eventually divided in various parts of the world and the mixtures with other stocks and races that eventually absorbed many of them.

The Indo-Europeans are thought to have originated in the steppes of Russia and began to move out of that area into what is now eastern and northern Europe, the Near East, and India in the third or second millennium B.C. The earliest known written Indo-European language is the Linear B script of the Greek city-state of Mycenae around 1500 B.C., and it was around this time also that the Aryans invaded India and displaced the dying Dravidian civilizations of the Indus Valley.

In Europe, the Aryan invaders conquered and displaced the non-Indo-European peoples of the archaic megalithic civilization that built Stonehenge and similar colossal monuments. In the Near East and India, the Indo-Europeans conquered many peoples who had created literate, urban civilizations. In some cases, the Aryans were, to a greater or lesser degree, absorbed into the larger populations they had conquered.

Of particular interest to us are the common features of archaic Indo-European peoples, which continue to shape modern Indo-European-derived beliefs and institutions. As the French folklorist Georges Dumézil has pointed out, one of the principal characteristics of early Indo-European societies is a hierarchical, three-tiered or “tripartite” class structure of priests, warriors, and herder-cultivators. This structure appears to be racially rooted and prefigures many of the societal characteristics we now think of as typically Western or European.

The Indo-Europeanist J.P. Mallory has pointed out one of the central elements of this Indo-European three-class society:
[O]ne of the more obvious symbols of social tripartition is colour, emphasized by the fact that both ancient India and Iran expressed the concept of caste with the word for colour (varna). A survey of the social significance of different colours is fairly clear cut, at least for the first two functions. Indo-Iranian, Hittite, Celtic and Latin ritual all assign white to priests and red to the warrior. The third would appear to have been marked by a darker colour such as black or blue.[3]
The racial symbolism of such caste colors is obvious, with the higher ranks of society being symbolized by the color associated with the lighter-skinned Aryans and the lower ranks symbolized by the darker hues of the conquered non-Aryan races.

Indeed, racial consciousness among the early Aryans was commonplace. Romila Thapar, a modern Indian scholar, writes:
The first step in the direction of caste (as distinct from class) was taken when the Aryans treated the Dasas [non-Aryans] as beyond the social pale, probably owing to a fear of the Dasas and the even greater fear that assimilation with them would lead to a loss of Aryan identity. Ostensibly the distinction was largely that of colour, the Dasas being darker and of an alien culture. . . . The colour-element of caste was emphasized, throughout this period, and was eventually to become deep-rooted in north-Indian Aryan culture. Initially, therefore, the division was between the Aryans and the non-Aryans.[4]
The Laws of Manu, the ancient Sanskrit code of social obligations for Hinduism, is very explicit about the consequences of interracial marriage:
An unknown man, of no (visible) class but born of a defiled womb and no Aryan, may seem to have the form of an Aryan, but he can be discovered by his own innate activities. Un-Aryan behaviour, harshness, cruelty, and habitual failure to perform the rituals are the manifestations in this world indicating that a man is born of a defiled womb. . . . But the kingdom in which these degraded bastards are born, defiling the classes, quickly perishes, together with the people who live there.[5]
Whatever modern scholars may say about the old Aryans being merely a language group and not a race, that does not seem to be the way the old Aryans themselves looked upon the question.

Dumézil’s “tripartition thesis” shows that the archaic Indo-Europeans throughout the world possessed a remarkably similar social structure and common culture extending well beyond language and including the ordering of society and religion. One of Dumézil’s leading students, C. Scott Littleton, points out a crucial way in which Indo- European societies differed from those of non-Indo-Europeans.
The food-producing class, while distinct from that of the warriors, was nevertheless a much more integral part of the total society. . . . The ancient I-E [Indo-European] herdsmen and cultivators—and perhaps the artisans as well—would seem to have played a part in the total ritual and social life of their communities undreamed of by the ancestors of the Egyptian fellahin and their counterparts in Mesopotamia.[6]
The subordinate but distinct social and political role for the “third class” ensured a level of participation in the community unknown to the wholly dominated peasants of the Asiatic non-Aryan peoples. This may help account for the eventual appearance of participatory and representative (republican and democratic) political systems among the Aryan peoples.

Moreover, the separation of the military and religious functions into distinct classes points to an early Indo- European tendency toward a distinction between the sacred and the secular that seems to be entirely unique to the Indo- European peoples and which may be the foundation of the later differentiation of science and philosophy from religion in European society, as well as the source of the conflict between secular and ecclesiastical authority in European history.

Finally, this ordering of society and social function was conceived as having supernatural or cosmic sanction and was held to be in accord with the order of nature. Some scholars believe that the tripartite structure of Indo-European society survived into Medieval Europe with the division of society into “those who work, those who fight, and those who pray,” and it may also be reflected in the division of political functions into executive, judicial, and legislative in the U.S. Constitution, and even in the Christian idea of the Trinity.

It is possible to extract from the mythology of the Aryans and from the remains of their cultures and literature certain more abstract concepts that seem to be common to most or all Aryan societies and continue to characterize those of their descendants. Perhaps in unconscious accord with the quaint Aryan custom of tripartition, I will try to identify three such traits and to elaborate on their significance.

Cosmic Order

It is a widespread feature of early Aryan thought that there exists an objective order that is independent of what we believe or want to believe—in other words, truth. The Rig Veda calls this order rta, a term that may be linked with the word Arya itself, which seems to mean “noble” in The Laws of Manu. The word “Aryan” comes from “Arya” and a number of other Indo-European words seem to be connected—the Greek arete (virtue, the quality of acting like a man, from which we derive “aristocracy”); the Latin ara (altar) and the name “Arthur.” But regardless of the linguistic linkages, the Aryan concept of Cosmic Order contrasts with ideas of the universe found among ancient non-Aryans. For the latter, Cosmic Order is merely the product of will, a creature of magic, and it can change if those who know how to change it wish to do so. If the priests or the divine king did not perform the proper magical rituals, the sun literally would not rise, the Nile would not flood, and food would not grow. In this non-Aryan, magical view of nature, order does not exist as an externally independent and objective arrangement of nature and its functioning.

While early Aryans did believe in and practice magic, theirs was not a world-view in which nature and the universe were dependent on magic. Magic could be used to influence nature (through love potions or ointments to make weapons stronger and the like), but nature itself exists apart from the tricks of the magicians and sorcerers. Indeed, throughout Western history, magicians and sorcerers almost always come from pre-Aryan Mother Goddess figures or from the non-Aryan Orient—from Egypt, Babylonia, or the “Magi” of pre-Aryan Persia, from whom we get the word “magic.”

Moreover, Indo-European gods are considerably less powerful than the deities adored by the non-Aryans. Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Thor, and the rest did not create the universe and are in fact subject to most of its rules. The subordination of Aryan gods to the regularities of the universe itself points toward a deep Indo-European belief in Cosmic Order, a belief that has major philosophical and ethical implications.

It follows from recognition of the Cosmic Order that some things are true and some aren’t, no matter what you prefer to think, that some things will always be and always have been true or false, regardless of your wishes, and that some things will happen or will not happen, whether you like it or not. Hence the Greek and Nordic ideas of “Fate” or “Destiny,” that some things are beyond the control of the human will and are inevitable because of the very fabric of the universe. The concept of Fate is probably the origin of the principle of causality and the ancestor of such Indo-European ideas as logic, mathematics, philosophy, science, and theology.

While Egyptians and Babylonians collected a great deal of information about mathematics and astronomy and practiced impressive engineering on a grand scale, their “sciences” never had a really scientific basis. Their knowledge existed either as the lore collected by the priests or as the products of practical trial and error. Only the Indo-European Greeks actually systematized scientific and mathematical knowledge, and they were able to construct it into a system because the system itself was their concept of a Cosmic Order in which all events and phenomena were related through causality and its inexorable linkages of one event and phenomenon to another.

It is notable that Christian theology itself, as developed under the Scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages and under the influence of rationalistic Greek philosophy, reflects this underlying Indo-European belief, that even God behaves according to certain principles, just as Zeus and Odin did, and it is also interesting that today even Christian fundamentalists who wish to disprove the theory of evolution in behalf of their religious beliefs try to do so through “creation science.” Among Indo-Europeans, even religion and the supernatural are subordinate to the ancient Aryan perception of a Cosmic Order that governs the universe from the remotest galaxies to the life-cycles of insects.

It is no accident,” wrote V. Gordon Childe,
that the first great advances towards abstract natural science were made by the Aryan Greeks and the Hindus, not by the Babylonians or the Egyptians, despite their great material resources and their surprising progress in techniques— in astronomical observation for example. In the moralization of religion too Aryans have played a prominent role. The first great world religions which addressed their appeal to all men irrespective of race or nationality, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, were the works of Aryans, propagated in Aryan speech. . . . It is certain that the great concept of the Divine Law or Cosmic Order is associated with the first Aryan peoples who emerge upon the stage of history some 3,500 years ago.[7]
It is from the Aryan concept of a Cosmic Order that modern white men derive their mental inclinations both to universalism, a tendency to think in terms of generalizations and abstractions that apply universally rather than in terms of the specific, local, and temporary, and to objectivity, the tendency to evaluate events and phenomena with reference to the general and the abstract, rather than to judge them subjectively, as they relate to themselves. While these traits account for many of the achievements of European man, they also, as we shall see, help to explain many of his racial problems in more recent times.

Ethical Implications

The concept of the Cosmic Order also has important ethical implications, and it was as an ethical system that the ancient Aryans mainly seem to have understood it. Recognition of a Cosmic Order implies that human action has consequences—that you cannot do whatever you please and expect nothing to come of it—and also that sometimes no matter what you do, you will not be able to avoid the consequences of your Fate, what the Greeks and Norsemen respectively called your moira or wyrd. Thus, the central concept of Greek tragedy is that the tragic hero suffers as a consequence of a “tragic flaw” that may not be the result of his will or intent but that makes his fate unavoidable. Oedipus was doomed to commit the sacrileges of patricide and incest through his very virtue, and there are many heroes in Greek mythology who encounter similar fates.

The ethical implication that Indo-Europeans drew from this belief is not that man should surrender or fecklessly seek to avoid his fate but rather that he should accept it courageously. Achilles in The Iliad knows that he is fated to die young but, as horrid as death is to Achilles, he readily prefers the glory of his brief heroic life to the obscurity of a long and safe existence. By contrast Gilgamesh, in the Mesopotamian epic, seeks only to avoid death and resorts to all sorts of magic and sorcery to prevent it.

In her survey of Norse myth, H.R. Ellis Davidson notes similar connections between fate, Cosmic Order, and the heroism of both gods and men:
In spite of this awareness of fate, indeed perhaps because of it, the picture of man’s qualities which emerges from the myths is a noble one. The gods are heroic figures, men writ large, who led dangerous, individualistic lives, yet at the same time were part of a closely-knit small group, with a firm sense of values and certain intense loyalties. They would give up their lives rather than surrender these values, but they would fight on as long as they could, since life was well worthwhile. Men knew that the gods whom they served could not give them freedom from danger and calamity, and they did not demand that they should. We find in the myths no sense of bitterness at the harshness and unfairness of life, but rather a spirit of heroic resignation: humanity is born to trouble, but courage, adventure, and the wonders of life are matters of thankfulness, to be enjoyed while life is still granted to us. The great gifts of the gods were readiness to face the world as it was, the luck that sustains men in tight places, and the opportunity to win that glory which alone can outlive death.[8]
The Norse gods know that their race and the world are doomed at the final battle of Ragnarok, but they go out to fight and to meet their fate regardless. The concept of the “Last Stand,” in which an outnumbered army of Aryan warriors faces battle against overwhelming odds, usually without any realistic expectation of victory, recurs throughout Indo-European history and legend—at the battles of Marathon and Thermopylae, Horatius at the Bridge, in the Song of Roland, in the Arthurian legends, at Ragnarok itself, or in the fiery climax of Njal’s Saga, and at the Alamo, Rorke’s Drift, and the Little Big Horn.

Indeed, Indo-European scholars have recognized a distinctive Indo-European myth pattern called the “Final Battle.” As J.P. Mallory writes, “The epic traditions of a number of Indo-European peoples preserve an account of the ‘final battle,’ for example, Kurukshetra in the great Indian epic, the Mahabharata; the ‘Second Battle of Mag Tured’ among the early Irish; Ragnarok among the Norse; and several others.”[9]

Moreover, the Indo-European hero, fighting in single combat, often is killed by treachery or trickery concocted by a non-Aryan or un-Aryan “trickster” figure. Thus, Achilles is killed by an arrow shot by the Trojan Paris, Hercules is killed by the trickery of a centaur, Theseus is pushed over a cliff from behind, Baldur is killed by the jealous trickery of Loki, Siegfried is killed by the treachery of his own brother-in-law, et cetera. It is interesting that in the biblical story of David and Goliath, the latter, a champion of the Aryan Philistines, is killed by the slingshot of David, and in the non-Aryan version recounted in the Old Testament, David’s conduct is portrayed as an act of prowess.

The Aryan concept of Cosmic Order is thus closely linked to the scientific and philosophical achievements of Indo- European man as well as with his ethical ideas, especially with regard to Indo-European military behavior. The concept of Cosmic Order implied an essentially aristocratic obligation to carry out one’s duty regardless of the consequences but also a heroic recognition of what the consequences, including death and destruction, might be. While other races and cultures have certainly displayed and idealized courage, heroism, and struggle against odds, none has incorporated these ideals into its fundamental world-view and ethic as fully as Indo-European man.

To say that belief in an external and objective cosmic order, independent of the human will and human action, is characteristic of the Aryan peoples is not to say that such an order actually exists, but rather that the Indo-European mind seems to be structured in such a way (perhaps due to neurological structures and processes peculiar to it), that it naturally thinks in terms of such an order and finds the world incomprehensible without it. In the absence of such a concept, we would be unable to make sense of the phenomena that we perceive; confronted by the mysteries of nature, life, and death, early Aryans sought to understand them by explaining them in terms of mythologies that reflected an underlying belief in a cosmic order and the duties it imposes on mortal men.

Aryan Dynamism

Faustian dynamism is the quality that Oswald Spengler described as the unique trait of what he called the “Western Culture,” characterized by the “Faustian soul, whose prime-symbol is pure and limitless space, and whose ‘body’ is the Western Culture.”[10] In a general sense, Spengler is referring to the innovative, aggressive, creative, mobile, aspiring, inventive, and daring qualities that have always characterized Indo-Europeans.

Spengler also sharply distinguished the Western Faustian Culture from the “Apollinian” and “Magian” Cultures of the Classical Age and the Near East; but in fact, in the broader sense in which we are using the term here, the Greeks and Romans were also Faustian, and the Greek myth of Prometheus, the Titan who defied Zeus by giving mankind the gift of fire and was condemned to eternal torture because of his disobedience, is as much a Faustian myth as the Germanic legend of Faust himself, who dared to bargain with the Devil to gain knowledge and power and lost his soul because of his bargain.

Many Greek heroes exhibit similar traits of daring and eventually come to grief because of them, and these myths functioned not only as expressions of the Faustian tendencies of the Aryan people to push against limits and transgress established boundaries but also as cautionary tales that tried to warn men of the consequences of carrying their natural proclivities too far. While there is a superficial resemblance between these myths and the Hebraic story of Adam and Eve, there is also a significant difference. While Indo-European heroes often meet their doom because of or despite their heroism, Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden merely because they disobeyed Yahweh. Neither one did anything particularly admirable or heroic, in contrast to Prometheus, Achilles, Hercules, Theseus, and many other Greek and Aryan heroes.

The dynamism of the Aryans is clear enough in their earliest and most obvious habit of invading other peoples’ territories and conquering them. All of these early Aryans were intensely warlike, and their gods, myths, and heroes reflect their devotion to the martial virtues of courage, discipline, honor, the goodness of conquest, and skill in arms and sports. Virtually everywhere they moved, they conquered, though their smaller numbers in comparison with the receiving populations usually meant that sooner or later they would be absorbed into the people they overcame in battle. This was certainly their eventual fate in India and the Near East, but in Europe, despite a certain amount of racial mixture and cultural assimilation of pre-Aryan beliefs and institutions, they survived largely intact, probably because the receiving population was smaller and not as different from the conquerors as in Asia.

The dynamism of the early Aryans is also clear in their interest in travel, maritime exploration, colonization, and discovery. The Semitic Phoenicians also displayed great skill in this regard, but the Greeks equaled or excelled them in establishing colonies throughout the Mediterranean, exploring the Atlantic and African coasts, and penetrating as far as the Indian Ocean and the Far East, perhaps even circumnavigating Africa. The most famous traveler of antiquity was the historian Herodotus, who traveled all over the Near East and Egypt and invented the very concept of history in his account of his travels and the conflict between Greece and Persia.

Alexander of Macedon was a living incarnation of Aryan dynamism, conquering wherever he led his army and penetrating where no Greek had ever gone before. The racial cousins of the Greeks in late Medieval Europe and the Viking adventurers of the early middle ages surpassed the Greeks, discovering the Americas and, in the case of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, and British, conquering new empires in Africa, Asia, and North and South America. The conquistadors of South America and the pioneers and settlers of North America reveal the same dynamic restlessness as the Germanic tribes that descended upon the Roman Empire. Their descendants today in the Aryan nations of the West stand on the edge of transcending them in their expansion into outer space itself.

But Aryan dynamism is not confined to military conquest and geographical exploration. It is also clear in the Faustian demand to understand nature. Just as Aryan warrior nomads overturned whatever cities and peoples stood in their path, so Aryan scholars and scientists, beginning with the Ionian philosophers of early Greece, have conquered nature and its mysteries, discarding myths, religions, and superstitions when they presented obstacles to their knowledge, and systematizing their discoveries and thought according to the Cosmic Order. Alexander the Great’s solution of the Gordian Knot by simply slashing it to pieces with his sword is no less a racial trait of Aryans than the scientific achievements of Plato and Aristotle, Galileo and Newton, and hundreds of other scientists who were heirs of the ancient Aryans and who slashed through obscurantism and mythologies with their minds. Their descendants have cured diseases, shrunk distances, raised cities out of jungles and deserts, constructed technologies that replace and transcend human strength, restored lost languages, recovered forgotten histories, stared into the hearts of distant galaxies, and reached into the recesses of the atom. No other people has ever even dreamed of these achievements, and insofar as other peoples even know such things are possible, it is because they have learned about them from European man.

Afrocentrists, in their resentful and pathetic bitterness against whites, today pretend that it was their ancestors who created European civilization. The irony of their pretense is that their claims inadvertently acknowledge the superiority of the very civilization they hate, even as they try to claim it as their own. As for other civilized peoples, the Faustian dynamism of the Aryan race and civilization stand in stark contrast to the static primitivism and never-changing dullness that characterize the “fellahin” peoples of Asia, immersed in the fatalism and world-denying religions of the East. In travelogues and National Geographic, we are treated to picturesque accounts of the almost animal existences of these peoples, whose lives, work, and minds are often described as being “just what their ancestors were a thousand years ago.” No phrase more accurately describes the differences between the perpetual passivity of the non-Aryan and the world- conquering activism and dynamism of the Aryans.
Critics of the Indo-Europeans often like to deflate Aryan contributions by pointing to the lateness of Aryan achievements in ancient times and by emphasizing that most of the basic inventions that made civilization possible were of non-Aryan origin. It is true that at the time the Aryans invaded Europe, the Near East, and India, literate, urban civilizations had flourished in those regions for some centuries or millennia and that the Aryans often merely destroyed whatever lay in their paths. It is also true that inventions such as the wheel, the alphabet, the compass, the stirrup, gunpowder, and printing were not of Aryan origin.

But the point is that while other, non-Aryan civilizations may have invented these tools, only when they fell into the hands of the dynamic Aryans did they lead to enduring achievements. The Phoenicians invented the alphabet, but neither the Phoenician language nor its literature survives today. Egyptians and Sumerians built cities, empires, and great temples long before history knows of the Aryans, but today their cities, empires, and temples lie in ruins; their languages are known only to scholars, and only Indo-European scholars care about them. The Chinese may have invented the compass, gunpowder, printing, and the stirrup, but only Indo-Europeans have applied these inventions to the economic, political, and cultural conquest of the Earth. These achievements are due to the intrinsic dynamism, the Faustian creativeness, of the Indo-European mind and remain unparalleled by any other human race.

As for the lateness of Indo-European achievements, this is mainly a function of the geography of the “Aryan Homeland” in the Russian steppes, a region that furnishes few materials for building cities and lasting structures. What is striking about the Aryans, however, is that they did not remain in those regions; they conquered other, more desirable territories, took what they liked or needed from those they conquered, and over a period of about a millennium and a half after 1500 B.C. created a distinctively Aryan civilization that endures today. Those who repeat or swallow the cliché that “while white men were still running around in animal skins in northern Europe, non-Europeans were building cities and empires in Egypt and Asia” need to reflect that there were very few people at all in northern Europe at that time and that as soon as those who lived there or on the steppes became conscious of themselves as a people, they moved out of the north, conquered more comfortable climates, founded what we know today as Greece, Rome, Persia, and the Indo-Aryan civilization, and proved to be unstoppable by other, more civilized peoples who are now forgotten or remembered only because Indo-European scholarship has resurrected and preserved them.

Self-Rule

It is also the dynamism of Indo-European man that accounts for the comparative absence of “Oriental despotism” in the political history of the Aryan peoples. Both Greece and Rome were originally ruled by kings, but the kings were never absolute monarchs and were elected or confirmed by the aristocratic warrior classes. Very early in their histories, the kings were dethroned, and republics, also originally aristocratic, were established. The Roman historian Tacitus noted similar institutions among the warrior bands of the ancient Germans, whom he held up in part as models of virtue against whom the decadent Romans of his day fell short. The passive proclivities and static tendencies of non-Aryans render them easy to subjugate in such highly autocratic empires as those of Asia and ancient Egypt, imposed by slave armies often driven by whips and ruled by “god-kings” and colleges of priests armed with secret magical knowledge. It is almost impossible to dominate Aryans in this way for very long.

Greece not only gives us the word “democracy,” but also the term “tyranny,” which describes illegitimate rule. There is little in non-Indo-European thought similar to this concept. While Asiatic history is full of palace coups, harem intrigues, assassinations, and uprisings led by one minor potentate or another against a despot, all that ever happens, from the days of the Pharaoh Akhnaton to the assassination of Anwar Sadat, is the replacement of one autocrat by another. By contrast, the histories of Greece, Rome, and Medieval and modern Europe are filled with acts of tyrannicide, political reforms, establishments of law codes and constitutions, baronial rebellions, peasants’ uprisings, and eventually full-scale revolutions in which a dynamic race seeks to resist being reduced to slavery. Those despots who have gained power over Aryan peoples usually never last very long, and those who overthrow or assassinate them usually become heroic figures. The individuality and dynamism of Indo-European man simply does not tolerate one man or institution monopolizing all the power and dictating to everyone else.

This is clear enough in the histories of Greece and Rome, but it is also true of the ancient Germans. Historian Francis Owen thus describes the ancient Germanic political institutions:
The state, if one may use that term, was composed of all the free men of the community. On certain occasions all the free men were called together, to give assent to certain projects which had already been considered by the council of elders and leaders. The assembly had the power to reject such proposals, and instances are known when such assemblies forced on the leaders a policy of war, because peace had become monotonous, and the hope of booty was a strong lure.
These assemblies also had the power to elect the leaders in time of war, who for the time being had almost dictatorial power.[11]
Already in prehistoric times, then, the Germanic peoples exhibited an archaic form of republicanism that was fundamentally aristocratic in nature. The “free men” of the community did not include all inhabitants but “the great mass of independent landowners and the wealthier or more aristocratic class of recognized families, which might be called the nobility.”[12] The unfree, or “thralls,” had no vote or standing in the assembly. The free men were also those who bore arms, and Tacitus describes their assemblies and how they conducted them:
On matters of minor importance only the chiefs debate; on major affairs, the whole community. But even where the commons have the decision, the subject is considered in advance by the chiefs. . . . It is a drawback of their independent spirit that they do not take a summons as a command; instead of coming to a meeting all together, they waste two or three days by their impunctuality. When the assembled crowd thinks fit, they take their seats fully armed. . . . If a proposal displeases them, the people shout their dissent; if they approve, they clash their spears. To express approbation with their weapons is their most complimentary way of showing agreement.[13]
When the Framers of the American Constitution guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” they were following this ancient Aryan custom of the assembly of armed free men, and much the same custom was observed among the early Greeks and Romans.

Owen points to the dynamic quality of the ancient Germans as the ultimate reason for their disunity as well as their liberty, which characterized the warring kingdoms of Medieval as well as modern Europe:
But there were other more fundamental reasons why it was not possible to create a unified German state. These reasons are intimately connected with the inherent Germanic love of independence, the spirit of individualism and the respect for personality. These are all highly desirable qualities, but in an exaggerated form they do not facilitate the formation of political unity beyond a limited geographical area.[14]
The natural form of government among the Aryan peoples, then, appears to be this kind of aristocratic republic, tending toward democracy but with well-recognized rights and duties for non-aristocrats. A limited democracy thus has deep racial and cultural roots among Europeans, but it properly derives from those roots, not from the rootless ideologies that today have grotesquely expanded it far beyond its natural role. The natural Aryan aristocratic republicanism is a form of government encouraged by the tripartite structure of Indo-European society; by its distinctions and balances between the warrior, priestly, and producer classes; by its tendency to separate the sacred from the secular; and by the apparently innate dynamism of the Aryan race itself, which resists and rebels against any effort to impose autocratic rule or to induce the passivity that allows despotism to flourish.

It is important to note that the despotism that eventually arose in ancient Rome was based on a non-Western, Asiatic, or Egyptian model and that the ancient Greeks always feared and distrusted citizens who became “Medized” (i.e., adopted the customs of the Medes or Persians and other Asians) as people who were alienated from their own institutions and who might harbor ambitions of enslaving their own people. In Rome the great model for despotism was Egypt, after Julius Caesar dallied with Cleopatra, and both Caligula and Nero tried to imitate Egyptian and Asiatic despotism (both were assassinated). Yet the Asiatic-Egyptian model of autocracy eventually triumphed, as Rome’s racial composition altered with the importation and emancipation of large masses of foreign slaves and immigrants, and it was from this model that the Roman Catholic Church developed its own ideas of papal absolutism, which in turn were copied by the monarchs of the Medieval and early modern periods. Despotism, even in its European forms, is not naturally an Indo-European institution but derives ultimately from alien peoples.

Individuality

The third important characteristic of the Indo-Europeans is individuality. From their earliest history they show signs of greater variation, in both physical appearance and individual behavior, than most other races. Some physical anthropologists have noted that there is more variety among Europeans than among Asiatics and Negroes, with whites exhibiting more variation in skin pigmentation, hair and eye color, height, and facial features. This physical differentiation is paralleled and perhaps causally related to their behavioral differentiation as individuals, a trait that is closely related to their dynamism as a race.

Individuality or individuation in the sense I am using it is very different from “individualism,” a modern ideology that may have been encouraged by racial individuation but is not the same thing. Individualism as an ideology is the belief that the individual is sovereign, that the individual man is self-sufficient, exists only for himself and his interests, and has claims against the group (society, the race, the nation, class, religion, et cetera). This ideology is in fact subversive of group loyalty and especially of racial consciousness and allegiances, and while people with a high degree of individuality may find it attractive, they need to remember that they, like every other human being, exist because of and within a group—the family and the community, as well as larger groups such as nation, cult, class, and race.

Early Aryans, despite their tendency to individuate, were highly conscious of themselves as a distinct group. Both the Greeks and the Romans looked upon everyone else as “barbarians,” and we have already seen the high degree of racial consciousness that pertained among the Indo-Aryans. Aryans were also closely attached to family units, not only the nuclear family but also the clans in which their society was organized, and clan warfare in Ireland and Scotland, family- based political factionalism among the Romans, and conflicts among the many independent city-states of ancient Greece were notorious as forces that tended to keep these populations divided. It was groups such as race, nationality, clan, community, class, and family that established the social fabric of early Aryan life, and individualism in the modern sense of a John Stuart Mill or Ayn Rand—as a belief that justifies the individual’s neglecting or betraying his social bonds—did not exist.

Nevertheless, the Aryans exhibited a high degree of individuation, and this is reflected in their mythology as well as in their art. The gods and heroes of the Greeks and the Norsemen have far more distinctive personalities than such Egyptian deities as Isis and Osiris, and the stories the Greeks and Norsemen told about their gods and heroes—the embittered and wrathful Achilles and the wily Odysseus, the imperious Zeus and the dashing Apollo, the angry Ares and the comic lame god Hephaestus, the jealous Hera and the lascivious Aphrodite—are far richer than the thin tales of Egypt and Babylonia. There is also a greater emotional and narrative range—adventure, humor, love, revenge, divine punishment, and even tragic failure—in the Greek myths than in the stories of the Old Testament, which mainly illustrate man’s obedience or disobedience to God and His laws.

With few exceptions, this range is also reflected in the art of the early Aryans in Europe—in the highly individuated and expressive statuary of the Greeks, as compared to the colossal but blank-faced images of the Egyptian pharaohs and Middle Eastern potentates, as well as in the highly developed literary and art forms of the later Europeans. European art and literature, far more than those of other peoples, give us the character, the individually distinctive human being, full of contradictory impulses but driven by some more than by others, characters we see in Greek drama, Homeric epic, Shakespearean plays, and the modern novel. Portraiture as well as statuary, dwelling on the individual external features to reveal the internal individual character, reflect much of the same trait, unlike the art forms of other races. Moreover, only in Western cultures has the lone hero become an ideal figure—not only the adventurer like Hercules or Theseus but also the lone explorer, the lone scientist, the lone scholar, thinker, poet, writer, often battling against daunting odds, persecution, or neglect. When Europeans invent things, they usually remember and honor the individuals who did it— the inventors who made the Industrial Revolution possible and those such as Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, and Henry Ford, who created the basic technologies of modern civilization working alone in their attics and basements.

Even the modern comic-book and film and television heroes of popular culture reveal this inherent Aryan tendency to go it alone, in the Lone Ranger, Superman and Batman, the heroes created by John Wayne and Gary Cooper, as do the myths of the American West, whether fictional, in James Fenimore Cooper’s Natty Bumppo, or real, in Daniel Boone, David Crockett, Wild Bill Hickock, and Wyatt Earp. The lone Aryan hero, like Walt Disney’s Davy Crockett, lives by the motto “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead,” a counsel of individuality, and then proceeds to fight legions of dark-looking badmen (whose black hats may symbolize non-Aryan origins), Indians, accented foreigners, or other suspiciously non-Aryan types. His ancestors Siegfried and Theseus fought and conquered the Nibelungs and the Minotaur of non-Aryan Crete in the same way.

But the Aryan hero also pays a price for his heroic individuality. He stands as the perpetual outsider, whose distinctiveness usually forbids him from enjoying a normal life with wife and children or living to a ripe old age, and eventually, in the authentic myths as opposed to TV drama, he is slain, usually by treachery. The moral of Aryan individuality is that there is no escape from the laws of the Cosmic Order, even for heroes, whose heroic transcendence of the norms that bind more mediocre men does not exempt them from the iron regularities of the universe. Individuality is not for everybody, an important distinction between the Aryan ideal and that of modern universalist individualism, and only exceptional beings can excel despite the demands it imposes on them.

Aryan individuality, then, was supposed to be a supplement to, not an adversary of, the racial and social bond, and even then it was constrained by the price that those who developed it to its highest levels would have to pay. It was never supposed to be the kind of intellectual crutch for economic greed, social inadequacy, and personal alienation and resentment that modern individualism is. But the ineradicable tendency of Aryans to individualize themselves through singular personalities, achievements, thoughts, and expressions in art and literature no doubt lies at the root of modern individualism, despite the socially pathological and destructive forms the ideology has taken, and it is in part because of his innate proclivity to individuation and individual achievement and creativity that European man has given birth to his distinctive and successful civilization.

Describing the contours of ancient history, the great American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted saw the ancient world in terms of an epochal struggle between “our ancestors,” the Indo-Europeans of Europe, Persia, and India, on the one hand, and the Semitic peoples of Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Canaan, Assyria, and Carthage, on the other.
The history of the ancient world, as we are now to follow it, was largely made up of the struggle between this southern Semitic line, which issued from the southern grasslands, and the northern Indo-European line, which came forth from the northern grasslands to confront the older civilizations represented in the southern line. Thus . . . we see the two great races facing each other across the Mediterranean like two vast armies stretching from Western Asia westward to the Atlantic. The later wars between Rome and Carthage represent some of the operations on the Semitic left wing, while the triumph of Persia over Chaldea is a similar outcome on the Semitic right wing.
The result of the long conflict was the complete triumph of our ancestors (the Indo-European line), who conquered along the center and both wings and finally, as represented by the Greeks and Romans, gained unchallenged supremacy throughout the Mediterranean world. This triumph was accompanied by a long struggle for mastery between the members of the northern line themselves. Among them the victory moved from the east end to the west end of the northern line, as first the Persians, then the Greeks, and finally the Romans gained control of the Mediterranean and oriental world.[15]
In this passage, Breasted captured the grand sweep of the saga of European man and his seemingly victorious, millennial conflict with his rivals. But what he does not say, and what perhaps was not apparent to him when he wrote in the early 20th century, was that the conflict is far from over. The Roman political and military victory was not the end of the story, because the very success of Roman imperialism made possible and perhaps inevitable the eventual inundation of their people and culture by those whom they had conquered. The importation of masses of alien slaves into Italy, their eventual emancipation, and the massive immigration of foreigners from the Asiatic parts of the empire meant that the Indo-European racial and cultural base of Rome would eventually die.

The Roman poet Juvenal’s famous line that “the Orontes [the main river of ancient Syria] empties its garbage into the Tiber” expresses what was happening. (It is noteworthy he did not say the Rhine or the Thames empties its garbage into the Tiber.) Not only the peoples but also the religions and the political forms of the non-Aryan East crept over the Aryan imperium. Eventually, then, the non-Aryan rivals and enemies of the Aryans triumphed through a backdoor attack that is comparable to the backhandedness by which non-Aryans overcome Aryan heroes in the old myths.

Today, despite the conquest of virtually the entire planet by Indo-Europeans by the end of the 19th century, the same fate appears to face modern European man. Only the European nations of the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and Europe itself face hordes of non-white immigrants who threaten to engulf us and our civilization. Having conquered them through military combat and technological and economic progress, we nevertheless face racial and cultural extinction as the perversion of our strengths into weaknesses is exploited against us and our rivals seek victory through our back doors. European man can survive today only if he begins to recognize that victory through honorable combat is not enough; he must also be prepared to meet the challenges on the level of cultural combat, and the only way he can do so is through recovery of his racial heritage, the roots of who we are and where we come from as a people.

The Aryan Legacy

Throughout this essay, I have emphasized the ancient, archaic, and prehistoric expressions of the Indo-European peoples for two reasons. In the first place, examining the ancient patterns of behavior and thought among Aryans helps to exclude influences on them from more modern forces that have been acquired through the historical environment or are perhaps less “natural”—forces such as Christianity, philosophical and ethical systems, capitalism, and the modern ideologies of romanticism, individualism, socialism, capitalism, and liberalism. Secondly, by looking at the patterns of thought and behavior that seem to have been common to all or most of the early Aryan peoples, we can find what whites have in common and what distinguishes them from other races. When Aryans in Medieval Ireland exhibit myths and beliefs very similar to those of ancient India, when Greek poets express ideas similar to those of Viking sea rovers, we are transcending the extraneous influences of other cultures and races, those acquired from the social and historical environment, and the physical environment, and are coming close to fundamental racial characteristics.

This survey of the ancient Aryans may seem as though it merely recounts cultural ideas and practices rather than racial characteristics, but as Jared Taylor noted, “There is increasing evidence that personality traits . . . are under genetic control,” and therefore we should expect to find that the deep cultural beliefs and practices that are common to members of a particular population that is descended from the same ancestors derive from genes carried by those ancestors. This claim cannot be proved, mainly because we obviously cannot conduct genetic analyses of ancient Aryans, but given what we now know and are increasingly learning about the role of genetic forces (and therefore race) in shaping personality (and therefore culture), it seems to follow.

In the light of what we know of the early history of the Aryan peoples, then, we should be able to distinguish between those traits that are characteristic of our race and those that are not; between those that contribute or have contributed to our success as a population and as a people and those that have been destructive; and between those that continue to serve our identity and destiny, our consciousness as a people acting in history, and those that have been distorted or exploited to thwart our identity and destiny.

In his essay “The Ways of Our People,” Mr. Taylor identified by my count about 15 distinct traits that he believes constitute or derive from “a common thread to the modern characteristics of European man.” In the light of what we know of early Aryan man, some of the characteristics that Mr. Taylor attributes to whites are valid, some are distortions of valid traits, and some, I believe, are merely acquisitions deriving from other forces (which is not to say that they are necessarily undesirable). But what is important is that any trait that is really a characteristic of whites must have existed long before modern culture and independently of cultural, historical, or local influences on white behavior.

Thus, several of the characteristics that Mr. Taylor attributes to whites appear to have their origin in the archaic, natural impulses of the early Aryan peoples, but it is highly misleading to say that the modern and especially American manifestations of these characteristics are distinctively Aryan, Indo-European, or white. Mr. Taylor is certainly correct that whites exhibit “an abiding sense of reciprocity, a conviction that others have rights that must be respected,” but the modern expression of this trait in such institutions as democracy, free speech, and the rule of law are grotesquely distorted or exaggerated versions of the original and natural impulses.

The “sense of reciprocity” as well as the rule of law are no doubt reflections of the Aryan concept of Cosmic Order, a view of the universe that holds that both nature and man behave according to universal, perpetual laws or regular patterns and in which rights and duties are in balance. But the concept of Cosmic Order did not imply an egalitarian or homogeneous social order in which everyone is equal and there are no distinctions between groups, classes, sexes, races, and nations. Indeed, early Aryan society was hierarchical, organic, and aristocratic; the natural form of Aryan government was an aristocratic republic in which distinct classes and social groups participated and expressed their views and interests freely, and a high level of political participation was necessary for such dynamic and restless populations of independent, armed free men as the early Aryans.

The mass democracies and homogenized, produce-and-consume cultures of modern times may ultimately derive from this Aryan social and political model, but they deviate from it in important ways. Free speech, for example, certainly seems to have pertained in the tribal assemblies, and it is doubtful if the early Aryans were such bluenoses as their Victorian descendants or such totalitarians as late 20th century academics. But free speech did not include the right to commit sacrilege, subversion, or obscenity and was circumscribed by custom and the high courtesy that is universal among warrior peoples.

As noted earlier, the Aryan concept of Cosmic Order accounts for the European mental habits of universalism and objectivity. While these habits help explain European successes in science, mathematics, philosophy, ethics, and the rule of law, they also, in a misapplied and degenerate form, suggest why Europeans have shown a tendency to neglect their own racial interests and why they find developing their own racial consciousness so difficult. As Jared Taylor noted in his essay, every other race tends to think in terms of its own race and group, and, “Only whites pretend that pluralism and displacement are good things and that the measures necessary to ensure group survival may be immoral.” We tend to think that way because we are naturally prone to transcend subjective and particular interests and to idealize what is objective and universal. But this misapplication of a natural and healthy Aryan instinct is not in itself natural but rather the result of ethical and philosophical confusions that have arisen in modern times.

Mr. Taylor is also correct in his remarks about sportsmanship, noblesse oblige, respect for foes in war, and respect for women, all of which derive from Aryan ideas about the Cosmic Order and from the warlike and heroic character of the early Aryans. All these traits reflect the nature of early Aryan warcraft—the single combat of individual champions, the unwritten and commonly understood rules of conflict, and acceptance of the terms of defeat have deep roots in the ways Aryans waged war. The comparative absence of needless brutality in Western warfare, until the advent of 20th- century democracy, may be thought to derive from Christian ethics, but long before Christianity pagan conquerors such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar showed far less brutality in their warfare than such paladins of non-Aryan combat as Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, the Assyrians, the Huns, or even the ancient Hebrews, for whom genocide was a regular practice.

In Aryan society, women have always enjoyed more respect, more freedom, and more individuality than in non-Aryan society, and this probably derives from the structure of their society. The relative independence and freedom that characterized the structured Aryan society would have meant that women could not simply be captured and enslaved but had to be bargained for or won, if not as individuals then as the daughters of other competing warriors. Disrespect for or cruelty to a woman, like discourtesy or injury to a free man, could result in endless blood feuds. Women and goddesses in Greek and Norse myths and legends have far more personality and a far more important social role than in most non-Aryan mythologies. Certainly such practices as foot-binding, clitoridectomy, and suttee, as well as polygamy and the harem, are rare or unknown among the early Aryans. (The word “harem” has entered Western languages because Westerners lack their own word for it.)

But the natural Aryan respect for women does not mean that modern feminism is consistent with ancient Aryan views of womanhood, and despite the honor that Aryans have always paid women, they never confused honor with equality or sameness. The assumption of the Aryan honoring of women is that women are different from men and require or deserve different treatment. It is for that very reason that modern feminists, wedded to the illusion of sexual egalitarianism, despise, ridicule, and try to abolish the expressions of male chivalry, even though, like most egalitarians, they also like to have it both ways—to abolish inequality when it offers an impediment but to insist on it when it serves their interests.

Similarly, respect for animals no doubt derives from the reliance of the Aryans on hunting and war animals, especially dogs and horses. Horses play a central role in Aryan myth, and the Indo-Europeans apparently were the first to domesticate horses and develop their use in war. There are sacred horses, horse sacrifices, horse gods, and horse burials among the Indo-European peoples. Similarly, dogs and wolves play a major role in Aryan myth, from Cerberus the three- headed dog of Hades (one for each social class perhaps) to the wolves of Odin. The individuation of Aryans may lead them to personify their animals and invest them with personalities, names, and special attributes in a way that no other race usually does.

I do not see that such traits as missionary activity, the passion to improve or change the world, the elimination of hereditary class differences, competition according to individual ability, or concern for the natural environment are particularly characteristic of Aryans, however. Some of these may be desirable traits, though they have obviously gone far beyond what was really characteristic of early Aryans and what can be useful for white racial survival. Nevertheless, some of them, such as missionary activities and crusading to change or reform society, may well ultimately derive from Aryan dynamism and expansionism, while competition according to individual merit may be a modern form of single combat and a reflection of Aryan individuality. The modern demand to eliminate hereditary class distinctions may be an exaggerated but not very healthy version of this instinct.

What is important to understand, however, is that Aryans, because of their Faustian dynamism and individuality, seem to be especially prone to misapplications of their most ennobling traits, and when the modern ideologies of egalitarianism, leveling, feminism, and universalism are joined to forces such as modern capitalism and technology, the danger of losing contact with and understanding of the natural propensities of our own racial character and of misunderstanding their limits and proper functions is great.

I do not think there is any great mystery as to how this perversion of the Aryan legacy occurred. Aryans eventually constructed societies far more complex in their economies, technologies, and ideas than any other race, and the very complexity of their societies tended to confuse and derail traditional expressions of Aryan impulses. Ambitious leaders, Aryan or not, have often exploited these complexities, and the confusions that result, for their own advantage, and the disruptions of wars, revolutions, depressions, and new technologies and social organizations that periodically afflict Western society have added to the alienation of modern European man from his natural inclinations and ancient heritage.

It ought to be obvious that we cannot expect to restore the warrior cultures of the early Aryans, their archaic religions and mythologies, and their social and political customs. But we can work to correct the misapplications of our talents and traits, to eradicate the confusions and degenerations of modern mass democracy and culture, and eventually to restore or create anew a social, political, and cultural order that incorporates and reflects the healthy and natural instincts of our race. What we can do is learn from these ancient and noble warriors and their courage, their irrepressible restlessness and dynamism, and their heroically relentless realism; from them we can remember who we are and where we come from, what our most natural inclinations are and how those inclinations can help us or harm us, and, most of all, how we can make the enduring characteristics of our race serve us again in our endless quest to meet the destiny of European man.


  1. Edwin Clark, “The Roots of the White Man, Part I.” American Renaissance vol. 7 (November 1996) p. 1, 3-8. Web Archive: http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/november-1996/#cover (Accessed January 9, 2015). & Edwin Clark, “The Roots of the White Man, Part II.” American Renaissance vol. 7 (December 1996) p. 1, 3-6. Web Archive: http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/december-1996/#cover (Accessed January 9, 2015).
  2. Jared Taylor, “The Ways of Our People, Part I.” American Renaissance vol. 7 (September 1996) p. 1, 3-6. Web Archive: http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/september-1996/#cover (Accessed January 9, 2015). & Jared Taylor, “The Ways of Our People, Part II.” American Renaissance vol. 7 (October 1996) p. 1, 3-6. Web Archive: http://www.amren.com/archives/back-issues/october-1996/#cover (Accessed January 9, 2015).
  3. J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), p. 133.
  4. Romila Thapar, A History of India (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1966), pp. 37-38.
  5. The Laws of Manu, Ed. and Trans. Wendy Doniger (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 10: pp. 57-61.
  6. C. Scott Littleton, The New Comparative Mythology: An Anthropological Assessment of the Theories of Georges Dumézil (rev. ed., Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973), p. 224.
  7. V. Gordon Childe, The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins (1926; reprinted., New York: Dorset Press, 1987), pp. 4-5.
  8. H.R. Ellis Davidson, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 218.
  9. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, pp. 129-30.
  10. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (2 vols.; trans. Charles Francis Atkinson; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), vol. 1, p. 183.
  11. Francis Owen, The Germanic People: Their Origin, Expansion and Culture (New York: Dorset Press, 1990), p. 154.
  12. Ibid., p. 153.
  13. Tacitus, Germany, trans. H. Mattingly and S.A. Handford, Ch. 11.
  14. Owen, The Germanic People, p. 155.
  15. James Henry Breasted, The Conquest of Civilization (New York: Literary Guild of America, 1938), pp. 200-202.