Mar 3, 2015

Foundations: Rise of The West -- And Beyond

via Foundations of the Twenty-First Century

Foundations Editor’s Note: White Nationalism is not, strictly speaking, based on the construct of race, but on everything that is Race.
This includes the most obvious: That of the positive influences that a specific race-culture brings to bear. This includes Art, metaphysics, architecture, Science and, most important to any people – it sense of Culture – its understanding of what, truly, it means to be Noble.

If one does not know how to be noble, how then, can one better understand his friends, and his enemies?

In his book, Rise of The West, Frank L. DeSilva, presents a very compelling over-all case for the Spiritual value of Race, as well as the necessary responsibilities that a race-culture owes itself, as well as others.

What a People, for that is exactly what Race is, owes itself, is to remain true to its legacy, that is nobility in and of itself. It is tradition, and then again, more, for legacy implies obligation and a sense of duty to that people, before it can be shared with others.


The Death of the Noble Savage?

Rousseau’s use of the term ‘noble savage’ was in connection with man’s ostensible relationship between Nature and Civilization. Between [man] himself and his technics. What Rousseau actually meant by this comparison I cannot say; every man, including this author, has a ‘pre-condition’ for both nature and civilization. In some respects however, I agree with the premise that ‘man is better in a state of nature than he is in a civilization’. It is only as to that level in the abstract sense that we agree however. The word ‘better’, it must be understood, is a ‘pre-condition’ that supposes a ‘lesser’ point in man’s spiritual and physical being. Of the latter, I concede that we have changed ‘externally’; that we are modified on a daily basis. However, as to the conscious and unconscious spirit, this point is not clear even to those who have made it their life’s search.

Of the nature of man, of that ‘first man’, what were his embryonic thoughts of good or evil? After that mystical force of fire was discovered,* what did he see there, in the midst of colour change, of form change; what was the sense he gained by the fellowship of his kind that, like he, was transfixed by the glowing, turning marvel of fire and heat – of man, woman and child that drew closer, even as he, as the strength and breadth of his fire receded, leaving only darkness? Was it this essence that led eventually to his modes of consciousness and mental thought? His god, whoever or whatever, or however it manifested itself, listened to his simple prayers, looked upon him in his daily struggle for existence – pitied his spirit. He praised and feared his first god. He dedicated himself, his progeny, his Empires to this God. The subtle tissues of his spirit enveloped the ‘essence’ of what were his spirituality, his evolution of mental constraints, and his outlook on his surroundings. Primitive man was close to nature, as are all primitives, and was closer to a stricter understanding of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as it seemed to him: what nurtured him was good; what denied or hurt him was bad. Simple, yet not ‘simple minded’. Through the passing eons, these ‘feelings’ and ‘experiences’ were molded by his evolving system of technics, his very own creations that passed eventually into the regimen of Religion.  This, then, was the Institutionalization of his very consciousness.

This institution provided him and kind with an atmosphere by which each individual could share, with the many, those innermost feelings, fears, hopes, and aspirations. In this fashion, could the collective memories be driven into a focalized direction. Certain it is, that many unscrupulous men and women acquired the ability to direct, in their own ways, and for personal gain, this collective consciousness for ends that were neither organic nor good. But these have always been found out and eliminated.

The original aim however, that specific undying purpose, the spiritual ennobling of man’s eternal soul, hence, that ennobling ‘quality’ on earth as a ‘higher-man’ is unshaken, albeit far removed from the original intent. By this, in the context of Religion [i.e. as in a ‘fixed’ institution, eschatology, etc.], a term I use hesitantly because of its ‘fixed’ and intractably modern usage, it is implied that man can become better by the continual application and continuing process of learning to seek out the better self. Man, ‘the individual’, must mark the ‘higher man’. The race and culture will follow in a natural interrelation between the body and spirit.

It is a truism that all higher-culture has had the greatest and grandest religions. The ‘religions’ of Sumer, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome all come to mind. Unlike the religions of the modern West, these ancient religions expressed in their ‘form’ the natural inclinations and predispositions of a ‘specific’ racial quality; this, of course, manifested itself in both Tradition and Authority. Religion, however, is not what must be understood here, that is, not in the ‘institutional’ setting; Religion, itself, is only the technic ‘utilized’, the outer shell if you will, of its spirit of morality proper. True religion is the great Conscience of its particular ‘will-to-power’ and intelligence that ever marks the higher-man.

This, of course, is a moral perspective. In the modern world, morality is a fluid thing; a perspective which defies boundaries. Morality, however, has much to do with the ‘outward’ manifestations of individuals, and collective reality. We may ascribe this division of perspectives as between those who understand the ‘cause’ and those who have misunderstood the origin, function, and direction of that cause. Yet, even though a conflict often arises between individuals regarding perspective morality, the claim can be made, and with much credibility, that each feels the call of ‘intuition’* when it comes to the questions of morality. It is often something ‘we know’. This of course comes into direct conflict since each individual ‘sees’ differently.

If one were to consider and contemplate the various ‘actualizations’ of morality it will be agreed that it gives a certain power [i.e. tangible], a certain divinity [i.e. intangible], and will, naturally, spread its consciousness to those which inhabit a close proximity to the person or presence that exudes this potential. This individual, this higher man, finalizes this ‘aspiration’ into the higher kundalini, and displays a morality intellectualized as Nobility. These aspirations are finalized in the higher man, who appreciates and displays Beauty, peace, harmony; these are the concepts desired by the higher man.

 In beauty, he finds the spirit of good, in harmony, he finds the definition of beauty and peace, which, in turn, allow him to enjoy, his labors, his creations [i.e. his arts, crafts, and all those mental and manual actions which make up its thinkers and doers], and his unexplored spirit. He [the higher man] consistently listens to his ‘still small voice’, ever driving him, ever demanding answers to that which each man must, ultimately, answer alone, in the very deep recesses of his own mind, his own morality. Man, Western man, in finding and refining these definitions, is constantly evolving into and now out of his ‘types’ of form [i.e. in a spiritual sense], and his technics which disclosed his ‘inner directions’, and which also defines his concept of beauty: that which is good. In fact, his ‘sense’, ‘experience’, and ‘perceptions’ of beauty, make up his total ‘aesthetic [tangible] experience’ through his life and hence, onward through his racial and national extension for posterity. This is the ‘morality’ of the higher man, what drove him to the greater ‘questions’ of his existence; not the crass ‘sexual’ morality of the modern, for this is his ‘center’, his priori, which makes up his particular Volksgeist.

Through these actualizations, the higher-man always discloses his spirit, his morality, in and through his aesthetic sense. Sense, in its true and simple context, is the native element and substance of experience. In this elemental, an aesthetic bias is native to ‘sense’ being, as it were, nothing but its ‘form and potency’. The influence which aesthetic habits exercise on thought and action should not be regarded as an intrusion to be resented but, rather, as an original interest to be built upon and developed. Sensibility, however, contains the distinctions which reason eternally carries out and applies; such as between ‘good and bad, slow and fast, light and darkness’.

With this sense, then, ‘man’ can, if not dulled by his modern education, or his stifled and tedious hours spent at factory, or assembly line work environments, enjoin his spirit and body to shower upon the world what is in his very essence; that which is entertained by the eyes and hands in combinations with each other to promote that beauty inherent in each person: To the Butchers, Cooks, and Mechanics; to the Artists, Sculptors, Carpenters, Architects and Blacksmiths; Stonemasons and Craftsmen of all kinds, and all the various ‘extensions’ underlying man’s Freedom [‘spiritual’ or otherwise] to establish beauty, peace and harmony. This is the ‘sense’ of aesthetics and its manifestations.

The modern wills not to accept this position, he rejects this esoteric analysis yet, surrounded by such vulgar monstrosities as ‘his’ Concrete Cities, with their ‘straight tiered’ glass and steel edifices how can one ‘spiritually’ be connected with himself? This vulgarity, when compared to the uninterrupted evolution of our European antecedents, which the modern calls the ‘art’ of the Industrialized, has denied man, Western man, that simple ‘individual form’ of aesthetic art; the same art of Da Vinci who, as a single individual, with a set ‘aesthetic ideal’, was to promote that ideal for the coming millennia to emulate and enjoy with posterity. Being denied this vision, his spirit, what is left of it, does not soar; rather it conforms to that which must suffice for his daily bread.

The underlying morality of ‘aesthetics’ lies in both the ‘creation and contemplation’ of its very beauty.

These feelings, or sense in its purest form, with which the higher-man infects others may be quite varied; they may be, as with those characteristics listed above, be considered weak or strong, very important or very insignificant; they may be very bad or very good. All are manifestations of sense – of Beauty – of that portrayal of who or what we are. Such are the feelings inspired of, and for one’s own Country; self-devotion, submission to Fate – of God – expressed in a visual ‘drama’, an ‘allegory’ written, or spoken. It is the ecstasy of Lovers engraved in that smoothness of sensuality by a hand that first, and foremost, must have that ‘sense’ of love and sensuality to create, really create, that image through art. Courage, expressed in a triumphant march or captured on canvas in that one second shot of heroism; a simple quiet meditation of one soul amongst many – this is all part of aesthetics. This is the distinction that makes up the morality of the West.

To this extent, Western man must receive his due kudos, in which the acknowledgment of the world recognizes his ‘unique’ ability to express himself in such ways as spoken of above, such as the Arts or Literature, is not simply the only extant talent inherent in him, but that he also values the rich appreciation of those who contemplate such precious gifts – such are those who share, and have the West within them, in the realm of thought and deed, and therefore each knows that either by sharing of their talents or by simple appreciation and contemplation of such works they, each of them, is a part of all which has gone before. All who are now, and will become are present at either point of creation or contemplation. As individual, he can share that ‘value’ presented by those of his Kind, and can share in their accomplishments, which he can then pass on to his contemporaries and descendants the thoughts, and inspiration he has gained from those many others before.

The Value of Art

Through this expression of values [i.e. the Arts], the specific effectiveness [of Art] must be gauged by its ‘infectiousness’ upon the individual, in a positive sense, as a building bloc of the Race-Culture as a whole.

As with all failing Culture-sense, our outlook becomes cloudy, murky, a dream in which our mysteries are seen from a distance, not as our ancestors original vision would see, but as the modern wishes us to see them: As a ‘relic’ of an Age in which we have now outgrown. No longer is the modern able to look upon the work of his ancestors with respectful ‘contemplation’, that ‘essence’ of the spirit of an age which was ever and anon a part of that drama of Western man. Of Reims, or the Monastery of Mount Saint-Michael we are told of a ‘european’ experience that does not conform to our modes of conduct; indeed, we ‘must’ [as the modern reveals] break this embryonic relationship because of the sectarian problems inherent in them. We are not to recognize the ‘nationalist’ [i.e. ‘tribal’] implications of such magnificence, for it was, precisely, regardless of transient problems, that very racial-national spirit which led to the creation of such genius. Our ability to understand such works has ever been stunted by the modern. We lack, in direct consequence of the modern, the ability to understand, really understand, the beauty and splendor of the craft-work required in the construction of such works of Art. The ‘technic’ he still possesses, but of that simple ability to ‘contemplate’ the very essence of this work – nothing.

In contrast to the modern, the simple man and woman of the West are continuously ‘infected’ by this Art. It must, and of necessity does, stimulate in increasing increments, that ‘greater mass’ of individuals who are subject to it. The ‘abstract’, the ‘obtuse’, these ‘artistic perceptions’ are not infectious – except if only those modern few who are in turn, ‘infected’ with the modern interpretation of what Nature provides us to learn from; one can, almost without exception, consider this art to be worthless in a proper consideration of Art.

It is not to the ‘abstract’, ‘Cubist or Dadaist’ to which such ‘art’ holds such visceral fascination, that fascination which binds the viewer as if it was seen for the first time; the innocence of a spirit who has seen ‘magic’ for the first time. It is the clearness of such visual effects as the grand Cathedrals, or of DaVinci, or Pousin which expresses such ‘human drama’ as is Courage, Honour, and Integrity, vengeance, malice, caprice – all this is human, oh so human – and all those emotions which allow the human spirit to soar ever upwards so that by pure mental insistence, the viewer is brought ever to that realization that he has become infected with Beauty; this individual who is ‘receiving’ is, in actuality, mingling his essence with that of the author of this art, thereby, becoming more attracted and is satisfied by these feelings transmitted which,  intuitively, it seems to him, he has known long and felt deeply. This is that which resides within the higher-man: it is his ultimate value. Some call, or will call this feeling ‘mysticism’ derisively, seemingly, as it were, to detract from its basic value because the modern has no sense of the ‘greatness’ inherent in the ‘race-soul’, that deep well of genius, conflict, drama, and beauty.

The modern claims that we as ‘specie’ are continually evolving. It is ‘evolution’ of the ‘Newman’, evolving upward and away from the old ways; he exhorts us all to cast aside the old garments of the past, which will forever hold us ‘small and spiteful’. Yet, in consequence to the modern’s ‘dreams’ of this ‘Newman’ his art, that reflection of our very soul, he fosters upon the world such ‘concepts’ which entertain nothing but the spirit of revulsion, of compulsion, against the ‘higher-man’. The ‘shapes’ and ‘colours’ of objects which should inspire such deeper emotions as Spiritual or National feelings, such is humanity shaped but, rather, would twist and pervert the concepts of ‘draftsmanship’ or worse, none at all; the blending of ‘natural’ colours so as to arbitrarily view the ‘outline’ of characters which leads the poorly trained mind to wander aimlessly in a turbulent sea of thoughts and décor. To what purpose, then, are the modern’s artistic achievements to be accounted?

Art, as with all human technics, must serve a higher purpose. This presupposes that ‘art for art’s sake’ is not what the higher-man is, or should be, striving for. Classical art, bound up in tradition and experience in both a mental and physical state, would always ‘direct’ the viewer, the receiver, in such ways that would instill such emotions as in the sense of ‘tragedy’, of Love, Hope, Beauty; of Harmony in Nature, of the simple and enduring beauty of ‘Woman and Child’, of manly virtues: Courage, Honour, Integrity, compassion and enterprise which will create such an environment so as to be conducive to the future of our sons and daughters, to aid in their respective travels through life. Art is a ‘friend’ of man, as such, should always extend that relationship. There have always been elements that are not in keeping with ‘traditional’ culture, the modern would claim this title as his own, but do not let him deceive you; to a point, this is healthy and good, suppression must always be judged in the ‘long-term’, not in the ‘here and now’. The ‘health’ of the Culture, our Western culture, must always be the test by which we abide ‘change’. If and when a ‘change’ occurs, and it is obvious that the ‘end’ to which this change is bringing to us is ‘bad’ in a pure sense, then it is the ‘culture-bearing’ strata which is obligated by the right of a thing, to excise any virus and eliminate it as waste. This is Duty in its ultimate resonance. It is a mystery to the modern.

This ‘duty’ of a People to itself is a mystery to the modern, yet he seeks to undo what others have done before him in the name of ‘enlightenment’, of ‘reconstruction’. The modern’s value is to replace the ‘old’ values with those of his new values, for it is the calling of the modern to correct the ‘mistakes’ of the Fathers who, in their own way, make him feel so inadequate, so insignificant, that he, perforce, must destroy their very existence in those memories of them from within us. He fears the calling of Blood in his veins – therefore, as before, he will eliminate all value in the Arts – mysticism must be eliminated and replaced by evocations of the grotesque, the vain aspirations of the idle who know not the beauty of nature and her endless motifs.

In our present state we rarely, if ever, see in ‘modern man’ that ‘quality’ or ‘mysticism’ in either art or religion. Nevertheless, the mystical experience remains one of the most ‘shared’ experiences of humankind. Indeed, mankind has been more thoroughly impregnated with ‘religions’ than he has been with Philosophical Thought. “In the ancient city, religion was the basis of family and social ties.”[1]  To the modern of today, these are symbols of a dead past, and should not be promoted in either art or religion – they but house the ‘fragments’ of a dead and alien age. He cannot abide this – and would cry out in agony if he understood, the very deep-rooted essence of that which is understood by the simple mind of his fellows, which, as in ages past has defied him, even as it does today, any qualitative scientific analysis.

Hence it is, by all accounts, that the ‘search for God’, for morality, for beauty and harmony is, of necessity, a personal one.

The Noble man searches for that invisible [mystical] reality through his normal activity of consciousness. He finds both in his ‘conception’ of the ‘here and now’, as well as his search to transcend it. Such an individual, it may happen, will be looked upon by many as ‘special’; he may be deemed lunatic or hero. Yet this inner strength, this spiritual light which, ultimately, brings to him that divine inspiration through the contemplation of beauty, and to that which leads poets, mystics, and of consequence, the Noble man, to eventually reach that ‘ultimate truth’ which will, unflinchingly, lead Western man to his final purpose, must be nurtured and instructed in this path. Such is the ‘purpose’ of Art.

To ensure this purpose, let those individuals who are gifted by the gods in revealing such a path, be aware of this obliges’ to their fellow-man. It is a true and compelling call, do not fail to adhere to the dogma of art: To seek beauty and harmony is to become Noble.

The development and nurturing of higher human beings must be the aim of all our efforts, regardless of what particular craft or profession we have advanced to. These are not mere platitudes assigned to please the liberal but, rather, a necessary reality. It is with this single concept in mind that any lasting superstructure of the Western race-culture be so confined. The ‘indispensable’ element, that certain class of men, which cannot, and must not, be done away with: this, the element of genius.

To be sure, this is the element of ‘extremes’, yet without them and their unique styles and rhythms, many of our own revolutionary developments would never have taken root; would never have been. These are such men and women with whom nature has endowed with characteristics such as the ‘overgrowth of intellectual or psychological capacities’, the personal pain of acceptance, or lack of, which all sentient beings need to overcome circumstance. This may cause ‘imbalance’ in the fabric of society, but is a part of Culture; this is true evolution. This imbalance in the duality of human nature, which is between persons, or personality, or with one’s surroundings or norms should be always taken into account: look to the genius and his direction for instruction. If a gifted individual is confident in his position, well and good; if he is unhappy, then let all consider him, for if there is substance and wisdom in that in which he finds his obsession, for all genius is obsession, then this wretched soul must be pitied and aided in those ways which can, and will realize a healthful end. Each individual is different according to those personal understandings of his particular elements of genius which ever drive him on. It is the duty of individuals and institutions to aid him in his path; in return shall the genius provide ‘culture’ with hope for a better tomorrow.

Any ‘disharmony’ between those members of the community may be difficult yet; this disharmony results in the continuous evolution of the ‘higher-culture’. It is a passion, driving the race on; it is brought to light by those few individuals who perceive their own ideas of the purpose of Science, Intelligence, the clarity of beauty itself. The only check to be given this ‘type/class’ is that which nature herself would instill in the body of the race-cultural host, which ‘houses’ this type of individual. If the purpose of this genius is the far-reaching mental vision of the race-culture as a higher organism, it is well and good. If it is not for the good, as seen from past history and tradition, as seen as common sense, then it is bad, and must at all costs, be eliminated. This, of course, sets up that continuum of duality between the ‘inner and outer’ man; there will always be two camps of thought on any or numerous issues of the day, so it is that ‘debate’ will always be ‘married’ to the collective thought.

These passions, these mental activities obviously, depend upon ‘physiological’ activities, they must, for they are a part of that ‘duality’ which is human nature, a thousand generations in the making. These passions, of necessity, are those emotions experienced by all of us – common men all – the genius is no exception. Stages of consciousness, that organic part of a man’s essence, are changed through those minute chemical processes, which we observe to correspond to those very differing stages of consciousness, which we call ‘emotions’. Conversely, physiological correlations are determined by the various and fluctuating states of the body’s physical organs.* These mental [spiritual] and physical aspects of the body are both factors in any sentient being thus, the duality of its being, as well as its conscious awareness of itself. One cannot, at any rate, have one without the other and be considered whole.

Let us take for an illustration the Alcoholic: Intake of this widely used substance from stomach, to bloodstream, from bloodstream to the cerebrum, accounts for a ‘change’ in mental activity; so as with all forms of mind altering drugs, even if used in moderation.*

Passions may be, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the sexual drives inherent in Western man, which have driven him ever onward in his search for himself. Sexual drives are born by many influences, and must, of necessity, be considered when analyzing passions or drives proper. This discussion, however, is not the crass symptomatic illusions of the modern, or the unnatural desire to promote its lower forms, such as the repetitive and crass portrayal of our females in caricature or poses demeaning to their natural beauty. There is no value in this, other than sheer animal Eros; as such, without a host to consummate this desire, the effect of sheer eroticism for its own sake, is misplaces at best, and dangerous to both man and woman, at worst.

Religion, as seen in the modern West, has imposed consequences on sexual behavior, which does not conform to ‘social policy’ or the accepted ‘dogma’ of today. This is only right and proper. Yet, those mores and traditions of our fathers and mothers of yesteryear have been dismantled, discarded, and replaced with the exact opposite, guarded by the warders of the ‘law’ who will enforce this new reconstruction of the masses. In consequence, the proverbial pendulum has swung from the right to left (this has been present for at least one-hundred years, in an ever so slowly evolution of change) creating the new rhythm by which we all must dance; from strict conformity to complete license. Freud was only one of many who promoted this new sexuality. In this respect, Freud was a ‘tradition’ maker, and employed various techniques to emphasize ‘his’ (and others) views on the matter. This wide and diverse group of individuals created what is now known as the ‘school’ of psychoanalysis.

Freud, as the erstwhile ‘leader’ of this school, begat a strange assortment of followers. In particular, one famous disciple, Franz Boas, boasted an assortment of ”friends’ and ‘social scientists’ who were anthropologists; this slowly and inextricably became the new school of Social Anthropology which was, immediately, at odds with ‘traditional’, or forensic Physical Anthropology. From its early days, forensic science took a back seat to the new school, and many major universities soon catered to this new science. Not only here in America, but Europe as well, was inundated with this plethora of new scientists. This has become the supremacy of the modern, that he has ‘undone’ aeons of generational tradition; no one can deny the accomplishments of persons such as this. Yes, let us admit that it is this ‘school’ of thought, which belongs to the modern and his followers.

Yet, even in its dim and ambiguous ‘sociology’, there has been some light, albeit dim, shed upon sexual instinct as it relates to various parts of the human psyche. Both Freud and Boas were flawed to say the least. Freud, in the first instance, worked only with the demented, abnormal, and stunted individuals that had little or no bearing upon normal persons, other than to point out the ‘exception’ that proved the rule. It is true, that one must examine extremes to find a focal point, but one must also have a reasonable acceptance of what that ‘medium’ of normalcy is, also. Without the proper bearing, a ship must, of necessity, be set adrift upon an unknown course. Boas, on the other hand, delivered the realm of ‘physical science’ to that of the non-historical. To the dust-bin of antiquities were placed the study of genetics and eugenics, the study of evolutionary social history as it relates to races and race-cultures as products of environmental factors only; all subsequent human progress was, in fact, due to environment which was accident only. But what, in the platonic sense, creates these accidents? The modern wishes to remain supreme, regardless of the reality or sane appraisal of this natural life of ours.

Sexual drives, held in check by individuals of strong self-discipline, are made stronger by these same [sexual] passions. These individuals release these passions, these energies wantonly, but never irresponsibly. Generally, all  “[the] great poets, artists, and saints, as well as conquerors, are strongly sexed.”[2] These drives should not be fixed, unless the behavior of persons or individuals becomes so pronounced as to be detrimental to others less versed in the values necessary to control their public behavior. If, at the outset, these drives (here we speak only of those natural interactions between man and woman) cannot be accepted by traditional institutions then, it must pass into the realm of renewal and change. The man who seeks to become ennobled, must utilize every opportunity to become master of himself ñ this, in itself, requires that he chance new areas of his mental and physical passions. All life, in the final analysis, is change ‘within’ that natural rhythm of life itself.

* “…[describes] based on all existing evidence, that fire, not just the ability to ‘keep’ fire, but for the actual ‘making’ of fire, was not developed in China but in Europe – about 100,000 years ago.” Coon, Carlton S. – The Story of Man, pg. 60-1. [See also Origin of the Races – Knopf, 1962, pg. 90-1.

* See End Notes: Alexis Carrel’s discussion in his chapter on ‘mental activities’ is an important one for the West, and for all cultures. My use of intuition may mislead some readers – it may appear too metaphysical – but one must realize its absolute value in our daily lives, for it effects all decisions, all conscious thought. A personal analysis, in any event, must be first ‘qualitative’ rather than ‘quantitative’. FLS

[1] Spengler, Oswald – Decline of the West – Helmet Werner, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson, pg. 378

* We know, for instance, that the application of certain external stimuli, such as Acupuncture, stimulates those regions of the body with minute electrical stimuli, transversing the lines, or Meridians that are commonplace throughout the body. In direct juxtaposition to these meridians, the human organs are affected; diagnosis, in this medical practice, is remarkably accurate. A practitionaer in this field will, for instance, look into the ‘eyes’ and see a problem located in the Liver, and this in turn, will prompt a question thusly: “Are you experiencing episodes of rage or anger?’

Emotion will evoke ‘stress’ upon certain parts of the body, and will affect the major body organs in turn. Stress, as in wartime, will produce many such manifestations, including deep psychological manifestations which medical science cannot always explain. Balance, as with all things, must be present for a healthy host to function properly. A healthy person, one who exercises regularly and receives plenty of fresh air, will, undoubtedly, have a better chance to survive both disease of the body and of the mind. FLS

* Physicians, in today’s society, are well known to prescribe medication, which affect the ‘symptom’, not the cause. In many cases the miser caused by this disservice is incalculable. This is not an indictment of modern medicine, yet it is offered in the hope that doctors of the West will, when faced with a disease, look to other methods of healing rather than medications alone. FLS

Growling Bear, Hidden Dragon: Russia and China’s 21st Century Fascism

via TradYouth

A brief history of Fascism

Fascism first emerged in the 1920’s, rallying and spreading like wildfire until the combined forces of Liberalism and Communism defeated it in 1945. Italy could probably be described as have the most pure “Fascist state”, as a nation that placed primacy of culture over blood, whereas Nazi Germany’s racialism was a slight deviation from Mussolini’s original fascist vision. Nonetheless, once Fascism was defeated in 1945, the ideology retreated to Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal, where it would experience a slow, decrepit death. Its most successful spin-offs were perhaps Arab Ba’athism, whose last vanguard is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the “Third Position” of Juan Peron in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Once Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist state came to an end and now that Assad has been reduced to protectorate of Russia, orthodox Fascism is all but a memory.

Or, is it? …

Defining Fascism

It’s almost impossible to define “Fascism” because its so politically charged, with its opponents still eager to bury it and its proponents eager to present it with new labels to dodge the Liberal and Communist propaganda against it. Essentially, if a political movement is rooted in a romantic and even spiritual vision of a nation’s identity being revived, then it’s Fascist. If it rejects the economic and ideological reductionism of Communism and Capitalism in favor of a poetic rebirth of a nation by and for its people, then it’s Fascist.

Julius Evola defined the Right (i.e. Fascism) “in terms of forces and traditions that acted formatively on a group of nations” and Mussolini wrote that Fascism is a “categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, Freemasonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789.”
Fascism is the repudiation of corrupted bourgeois consumerism and naïve proletariat egalitarianism once embodied by both China and Russia. Which brings us to the modern world.

Two major events happened in 1991. The Soviet Union collapsed and with it, the longstanding mythical Eurasianist identity of the Russian people and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping stated in September 1991 that “a new cold war” between China and the United States had begun. China and the United States were allies against the Soviet Union in the Cold War for geostrategic reasons, however once this mutual threat was removed, it was inevitable that China would turn against the United States, just as it was expected that the United States would turn against China and begin encouraging the acceleration of its “democratic transition.”

History of Russia

Russia has for centuries prided itself as the imperial conqueror of the “world island” uniting east with west in a gigantic Tzardom that claimed its legitimacy from both God and Byzantium. When the Bolsheviks took over, this legacy did not end, but merely changed. Rather than God and Byzantium granting legitimacy to Russia’s legacy as the Third Rome and guardian of Eastern Christendom, the now Soviet Union came to embody the global basecamp of international Communism against global capitalism. Though under Lenin the USSR was overtly hostile towards the ancient heritage of Russia, once Stalin gained power, he pragmatically relied on the power of nationalism and synthesized Russian Communism with Russian Nationalism. The two became inseparable, and despite Khruschav’s de-Stalinization programs, the intoxicating virus of nationalism had escaped quarantine.

After the Soviet Union’s collapse, the assumption both within and without Russia’s borders is that Russia would be integrated into the liberal Capitalist world order. Over a decade of humiliation and degradation at the hands of a revolving door of kleptocrats and oligarchs, the Russian imagination turned away from the West for answers and inspiration, and turned backwards into its past and inwards to its own unique character for answers and inspiration. America never successfully transitioned from enemy to ally with Russia, antagonizing it on every front until the Russian folk were no longer merely skeptical of Western liberalism but outright opposed to it, hearkening to not only the glory days of the Soviet empire, but the Russian empire and its Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine spiritual tradition to fill the void left by generations of atheism and degeneracy.

History of China

China’s history has paralleled Russia’s in many ways. Mao, like Lenin, was an ardent Marxist fanatic who strove mightily to manifest Marxist theory in political practice. And when he passed, pragmatic nationalists abandoned Marxism in all but name and set about shoring up and developing its steadily rising global position. Unlike Stalin though, Deng Xiaoping could not be so forceful and brutal, he had to be strategic and tactical, as well did his successors which has proven to be perfectly acceptable to the descendants of Sun Tzu.

The Bear and the Dragon united against the Eagle

So the question then is, what in the world does Fascism have to do with the modern China and Russia? The answer is once America defeated the Soviet Union and gave China a taste of global power that could bring it out of the Third World, it was somewhat inevitable that China and Russia would emerge as neo-Fascist states to preserve and expand their global power.

Unlike Western Europe, which gave into Capitalism and Socialism with relative ease, China and Russia have a history and national narrative that in no way resembled American symbols, lexicon, or ideals. Therefore discussion with Russians and Chinese about “freedom” and “liberty” and “democratization” do not carry the same meanings or historical experience that it would with a typical Westerner. This narrative has never been a part of their collective consciousness. Their world is much simpler.

Survival of the tribe at all costs has eclipsed the twentieth century’s abstractions and ideologies.

Whereas Western European civilization has had the blessing of considerable free thinking and intellectual pursuits, amongst their other glories and advancements, the peoples of Eurasia, living on the hostile steppes, dealing with everybody from Genghis Khan to fanatical jihadists, have had little time to evolve though such movements as the Enlightenment. Therefore in continuing today, when observing the United States and the West from an ancient Chinese or Russian nationalist perspective, America is an immature, petty, decadent country which thinks it has a mandate to make us all look like “main street” and be ruled by “wall street.” This is unacceptable at many levels.

As noted Sinologist Steven Mosher wrote in his book “Hegemon” on the imperialist rise of China, he notes how “the Communist leadership is consumed by the atavistic fantasies of Great Han hegemony and sees the U.S. as the chief obstacle to the restoration of China’s lost glories.” Putin’s Russia views the world in a similar light as well, that endless American expansionism–culturally, economically and militarily–demands that Russia not submit, that it regain its entitled position it once held with the Tzars and Stalin.

But inside of this international contention, is an underlying metaphysical struggle between two world views. America, having now abandoned its ancient Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage, represents the main engine of global corporatism to convert the world to American-style capitalism and social democracy. In opposition are Russia and China, who categorically reject these late-civilization, bourgeois values, embracing loyalty to the tribe above all else. Deng Xiaoping’s desire to build an alternative global political and economic order to rival Pax Americana and Putin’s desire to aggressively assert Russian power are evidence of nations that are not willing to bow down to the New York-Washington-Brussels financial-political matrix.

In their competition with this American hegemony, we see Russian and Chinese calls for alternative global reserve currencies, calls for a multi-polar world, limits on American unilateral power, the supporting of European nationalist and dissident movements and the general unwillingness to cooperate with America’s overseas military adventures.

If Russia and China are able to either outlast America or somehow successfully and peacefully create an alternative global system to the American order, it is likely that that the last remaining ideological child of the Enlightenment will fade into history with Hitler and Marx and a new order can replace it. One hopefully based upon smaller tribal identities. A world dominated by China and/or Russia will be a world where the collective identity of consumerism will probably not reign with such great force. It will be a multi-polar world of shared and diverse identities and interests that will not be harmonized by Wall Street.

As dissident Right-Wingers we should not be getting our hopes up too much that we will start seeing donation checks from Beijing in the mail anytime soon, but it should give us both pause and hope that Russian financial interests do not mind openly supporting the Front National and Syriza, or Alexander Dugin supporting Golden Dawn. The Chinese and Russians are very serious about using asymmetrical warfare against the hegemonic power of the United States and their end goal is not to encourage Nike to relocate its headquarters to Moscow or Shanghai, but rather assert the singular dominance of the once great Han and Tzarist empires.

2015 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize Nominees, Cont.

Jez Turner

via Western Spring

Jez Turner
I am pleased to announce the fourth nominee for the 2015 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize, for a two speeches made during the course of 2014. The nominee in question is Jez Turner, the highly popular organiser of the London Forum.

In the first speech made at the John Tyndall Memorial Meeting held on 11th October, Jez recalls an amusing incident that occurred during his army career, and recounts his experiences attending a European nationalist conference in Hungary. Unfortunately, while the speech was videoed, it was recorded as a sound recording only although this does not detract too much from the impact of the speech which combines humour with a serious message.

The second speech was just a short ‘filler’ used by Jez between speakers at the London Forum in November last year, but it is a good example of his oratory, once more using humour to convey and augment a serious message.

Jez is clearly already a talented and experienced speaker with a well developed technique.

John Leech

via Western Spring

It is my great pleasure to announce former BNP Greenwich Branch Organiser, John Leech as the fifth nominee for the 2015 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize. John is a very popular individual and this nomination relates to a speech made by him at a meeting of the London Forum in November 2014.

As we can see, John’s speech was very fluid, with good use of gesture and emotion to underline the emphatic nature of his message.

RIP Alan Cartwright, 15, Another Dead White Kid -- No Big Deal

via BUGS

This British lad was cycling with some mates on Caledonian Street in Islington, London, on Friday evening – yesterday. He was accosted and an attempt was made to steal his bicycle. He was stabbed but escaped. After a few feet he collapsed, dead from a knife wound. The murderers ran off. There are multiple witnesses. “Anyone with information is asked to contact police”.

It would seem that the police do not have any description of the criminals to share with the public in order to jar memories. It would seem none of the multiple witnesses even observed the race of the killers. Because the boy’s family has provided a photograph we know he is White.

When a Black is injured and a suspect is White the press finds out fast. It reports it faster, even if a new category has to be invented, as in the “White Hispanic” slot created for George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin show trial by headline.

Amazingly, the Metropolitan Police do not have a sketch artist on call to assist the public in identifying potential persons of interest. “These days of tight budgets, blah, blah blah….”

One does not have to be a tea leaves reader to know that those the police are searching for are not White. But all must pretend.

But this hurts the investigation. Are they Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Bengladeshis? This is vital information. On the other hand, Alan Cartwright was only a White kid. Why bother with petty matters, such as a useful description? Proper police work must be curtailed to hide the race of those with innocent White blood on their hands.

White lives mean nothing to the authorities. This true in London. This is true in Memphis. This is true in your home town, whether you are English, Canadian, American, Australian, et cetera. All White countries and only White countries.

The hostile elite presiding over all White nations is so secure in its position that it can with impunity toss a bogus plea for help in the face of Whites. No one is being fooled.
In the Daily Mail coverage of this senseless killing there are comments asking: Why no description? Approval of these comments is de facto acknowledgement by the public that the killers are non-Whites. Sample numbers – 1365 to 12 and 858 to 5. No one is buying into the official lie. The anti-Whites do not care.

This horrible slaughter of a White lad is just another of the daily reminders that we are being prepped for Genocide unless we wake up. No one in the Halls of Power gives a damn about us.

We need an alarm clock. The Mantra rings loud and clear. Set it off today.

If you are new here and believe there should be No More Alan Cartwrights check out the Mantra and discover our work. You can join. There are no dues.

Beam Us Out

via Radix

On a morning in April, 1990, practitioners of the journalistic craft received in their mail a communication from one Jack Lichtenstein, at that time the director of public affairs for the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency then embroiled in a desperate onslaught by an army of Philistines, voters, and taxpayers who imagined that they ought to have some voice in determining what their government does. Mr. Lichtenstein's purpose in reaching out to the purveyors of news and opinion was to do whatever he could to keep the hordes at bay and save the NEA and his own job from the appointment with a brick wall that the outraged citizens had in mind for them. In the course of expatiating upon all the good things the federal art munchkins had spawned upon the Republic, Mr. Lichtenstein let slip his insight that "The arts, once found only in metropolitan areas, today are flourishing in Alaska and Alabama, in Maine and Montana, and everywhere in between."

So far as I know, the editors and editorial writers who were the objects of Mr. Lichtenstein's solicitations ignored his entire package, and to this day the awesome banality he emitted in the above passage has remained undiscovered. It apparently occurred to no one to upbraid the director of public affairs for the ignorance of "the arts" that he betrayed, the contempt in which he evidently held the rest of the country, or—most interesting of all perhaps—the facile conceit his insight revealed. That conceit, of course, is the assumption that the only civilized parts of the country are Mr. Lichtenstein's beloved "metropolitan areas" and that the non-metropolitan portions of the land—Alaska, Alabama, Maine, Montana, and all those unnameable and unpronounceable regions "in between"—are naturally immersed in such an impenetrable cultural darkness that only the bureaucratic enlightenment of the federal leviathan could lift them out. The whole burden of Mr. Lichtenstein's impassioned communication to journalists was that if the rubes and yahoos then besieging his beloved endowment should succeed, the nether portions of the land would once again be delivered into the iron grip of Chaos and Old Night.

It does not occur to those of Mr. Lichtenstein's persuasion that art, so far from being dependent upon or the invention of the state and the monopoly of "metropolitan areas," is inherent in man's nature and that it will flourish and does flourish even when the state and the metropolitan areas with which the state naturally allies itself do not exist. If the famous prehistoric paintings in the paleolithic cave dwellings of central France prove nothing else, they confirm that no sooner had human beings separated themselves from their tree-swinging ancestors than they began to create art, and the careful depictions on that dark stone by primeval Raphaels and Michaelangelos of elk and bison, religious ritual and hunting adventures, display a developed technique of art that most of the recipients of NEA grants today are unable to match. Had Cro-Magnon men enjoyed the assistance of Mr. Lichtenstein and the U.S. government in their aesthetic efforts, it is likely that the emergence of human civilization would have been retarded for several millennia and that even today the whole planet would remain engrossed in the same darkness that Mr. Lichtenstein imagines still holds sway in Maine and Montana.

Mr. Lichtenstein, of course, is not alone in harboring this conceit, and the main reason his banality passed unnoticed was that most of the journalists who received it share the conceit with him and never entertained an inkling that he had made a fool of himself by disclosing it. The idea that the arts, and with them the whole of human civilization, are the exclusive inventions of metropolitan areas and the federal government is one of the central assumptions of the body of men and women who in recent years have come to be known as the "cultural elite," and it is through this idea that the elite not only legitimizes its existence and activities but also establishes the rationale for its continuing war against the real culture of the American Outback. It is precisely for the waging of that war that the NEA was created in the first place, and the more bizarre eroto- digestive escapades in which the endowment indulged in the 1980s (and which it continues to this day) when the Stupid Party took it over are only the most extreme examples of its continuing mission.

It is entirely appropriate that the cultural elite the NEA serves should entrench itself in bureaucratic form. Earlier cultural elites—of Periclean Athens, Augustan Rome, Renaissance Florence, Elizabethan England, 17th-century France, etc.—also often allied with the state, but the state in those regimes was not bureaucratic but a personal despotism of one kind or another, and neither the elites nor the despots employed themselves in the destruction of the culture of the peoples they ruled. Today, however, all elites typically assume bureaucratic forms, not only because bureaucracy provides the most efficient means yet invented for organizing power but also because, lacking any deep support or roots in the civil society, today's cultural elites have no other organizational basis for their power. Unable to peddle its garbage on the market, incapable of duping or flattering wealthy patrons into supporting it, and despising the prospect of working for a living like everyone else, the cultural elite has no other recourse but to rely on bureaucratic mechanisms to sustain itself, its privileges, its productions, and its power.

Indeed, what is true of that part of the cultural elite supported by the NEA and similar federal agencies is true of the cultural elite as a whole, even those parts not directly subsidized by the state. The expression "popular culture" originally meant those elements of culture produced by the people.

Today, it means nothing of the sort but rather culture produced for the people by elites, and the elites, whether "publicly" or "privately" endowed, are invariably entwined with bureaucratic organizations. A number of scholars, from Daniel Bell to Jacques Barzun to Russell Jacoby, have remarked on the singularity of a culture that is increasingly lodged in bureaucratized universities in the forms of art departments, literature departments, writers and artists and poets in residence, and so forth. Outside the universities, what passes as popular culture manifests itself in television, films, journalism, publishing, music, museums, galleries, and amusement parks, all of which are bureaucratic and professionalized in form, most of which are almost always directly or indirectly dependent on the state, and all of which claim to provide for the people a culture that is so superior to what the people can produce for themselves that no one needs to worry about producing their own.

Moreover, the incessant message of this culture is a thematic development of the conceit Mr. Lichtenstein revealed. My personal favorite of it is the seriesStar Trek, though any number of other television series also exemplify the pattern. Star Trek, however, has been plastered on the screens of American living rooms for some 30 years, and despite the vapidity of its plots and characters the show seems destined to attain at least as much immortality as paleolithic cave paintings. Week after week during those 30 years, the crew of the starship Enterprise has bustled back and forth about the universe violating its own laws that forbid interference in other planet's business and performing deeds of liberated derring-do. Usually the cosmic conundrums it encounters and speedily resolves are transparent allegorical representations of whatever social crisis preoccupies the real cultural elite at the moment. In the 1960s, racial discrimination was a favorite target of the series, later variegated by the iniquities of war, ecological catastrophe, sexism, and the psychological problems of children. The constant butt of Star Trek jokes are the obsolete customs and sometimes obnoxious beliefs and habits of 20th century man, who is nothing more than a metaphor for Mr. Lichtenstein's Maine and Montana, and the typical and predictable "irony" the series inevitably presents is that the monstrous aliens and androids who populate its cast are more morally responsible beings than the backward humans of either our own time or the progressive and emancipated world of the future.

The public orthodoxy of the world of Star Trek is virtually identical to that sappy and syrupy credo concocted by Francis Fukuyama in his ill-advised "end of history" thesis, though the TV series is better science fiction. The planet Earth and much of the inhabited universe have been unified under a mysterious, omnipotent, but benevolent "Federation," and there seem to be no wars, no political or social conflicts, and no wants in this warp- speed utopia unified by Global Democratic Capitalism gone galactic. Indeed, what else does the human race in the Star Trek cosmos have to do but stick its nose into the affairs of other species? They can zip about the galaxy at velocities faster than light and "beam" themselves from one place to another instantaneously, and there never seems to be any question of food, clothing, money, disease, aging, or even of career advancement in this placid paradise. Having resolved all conceivable material problems of the human race, the only woes that remain to it in the world of Star Trek are those perennially invented by the cultural elite, of which the Enterprise's crew is an equally transparent representation, and, of course, armed with energy weapons and beamer-uppers, the elite always solves these problems as quickly and as happily as it discovers them.

Star Trek represents what the cultural elite thinks America and the world should and would be like if only the Philistines would get out of the way and let the Federation (i.e., the leviathan) spend their money as the elite wants, and the enduring popularity of the series suggests that no small number of viewers at least unconsciously share this vision or have absorbed its premises. That, of course, is what comes of surrendering the production and even the meaning of "popular culture" to the elite.

Long ago, sometime between the sketching of the paleolithic cave paintings and the beginnings of real history in 1965 when the NEA was foisted upon us, there used to be a real popular culture in America, not only in Maine and Montana but even in metropolitan areas like New York and Boston. In that veiled and lost epoch, many Americans played musical instruments they were raised to play instead of buying recordings produced by European musicians and Japanese corporations, wrote poetry for themselves instead of puzzling over thin volumes of crippled and bitter verse cranked out by whatever Lesbian poetess-in-residence New York publishing houses have decided to make a celebrity for a week, and acted in and sometimes even wrote plays that they produced themselves in local theaters instead of packing the house to gibber over Madonna, Michael Jackson, Wayne's World, and Nightmare on Elm Street, Part 79.” Today, in most American cities and towns, locally owned bookstores that sell anything but second-hand books are almost extinct, and the Crown's, Walden's, and B. Dalton's that dominate professional bookselling offer exactly the same stock in every city in the country, almost none of which would have complied with the conventional and moderate obscenity laws of the 1950s.

The transference of cultural power and cultural production from the people who consume it to bureaucratized elites that despise and fear their own audiences is of course an aspect of the continuing destruction of republican self-government, no less than the transference of political and economic power to similar bureaucratized elites in the centralized government and economy. Indeed, it is hardly an accident that the corporate, governmental, and academic bureaucracies that house and support the cultural elite also provide lodgings for the elites in the state and economy. The function of the cultural elite in the managerial system is to provide legitimation, not only for itself but also for its siblings in government and corporation, and the calculated insults to and debunking of the culture of the American Heartland are an integral part of the revolutionary strategy the elite pursues and practices. Only by portraying those parts of the country not totally under managerial control—namely, Alabama and Alaska, Maine and Montana—as dark-age wastelands isolated from the metropolitan and cosmopolitan centers of managed mass culture can the elite purport that what it is and what it does is useful or necessary, and when it so portrays the rest of the country, it also paves the highway by which the rest of the managerial apparatus will one day ride into town. The result, so far from the interstellar utopia of Star Trek, is an emsaculated population unable either to produce an enduring civilization in the shape of a culture of its own or to understand what civilizations of the past have already produced, a passive and continuously entertained and continuously managed mob that has already surrendered its capacity to govern itself and is now busily and merrily in the process of surrendering its capacity to think and create for itself. The final and unpredictable irony of our civilization may be that at the dawn of its history we were more civilized than at the end of it. The paleolithic savages who painted the walls of the caverns they lived in with pictures of the beasts they hunted created a higher and better civilization than Captain Kirk and his preposterous band of progressive monsters and robots promise us, and those savages were far more civilized than the Mapplethorpes and Serranos financed by the NEA or the Lichtensteins who make their livings defending them. If Americans who still know what a culture is would like to have one of their own, the most revolutionary act they could perpetrate would be simply to turn off the television, cancel their subscriptions to most magazines, and start looking for a cave with some bare space on its walls.

Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve

via The Corbett Report

What is the Federal Reserve system? How did it come into existence? Is it part of the federal government? How does it create money? Why is the public kept in the dark about these important matters? In this feature-length documentary film, The Corbett Report explores these important question and pulls back the curtain on America's central bank.

Report from the Beyond Conservatism Conference Sponsored by the NPI

via Counter-Currents

Yesterday my colleague and I drove to Washington DC to attend a set of lectures called Beyond Conservatism, organized by the National Policy Institute (NPI) and held at the National Press Club. NPI is described as a think tank, and its primary activities include managing the Radix Journal web site, the publication of some books, and the organization of a conference about once per year. Does this constitute a think tank? I’m not sure. I would describe NPI as pro-white or identitarian, but of course you will find mainstream media outlets and leftist organizations describing it in nastier ways.

Upon arriving at the National Press Club I thought there might be protesters outside as was the case at the last NPI conference held in DC in 2013, but there were none to be seen. It is interesting to note that everybody employed by the National Press Club was non-white, from the receptionist, to the security guard, to the bartender and the wait staff. I wondered if this was deliberate. In researching the conference, I found several web sites urging activists to contact the venue and demand that NPI not be allowed to meet there. But the show went on as planned.

Still, the conspiratorial side of me wondered if the assignment non-white staff to the event was an attempt to be provocative. Or perhaps it is simply that the staff at the National Press Club is entirely non-white, which is provocative for other reasons. In either case, a reporter biased against NPI could easily spin the situation in an unfavorable light. They might say, This was a meeting of old white men being served by people of color; how ironic that they are dependent upon the people they despise. Or another spin could be, Look at this old white men being served by people of color; it harkens back to the days of segregation. Or lastly, How terrible that these people of color are forced to be subjected to the hostile rhetoric of old white men; how oppressive! This is why some types of speech should not be protected.

Describing the event as a meeting of “old white men” would be typical of the media, but would also be inaccurate. The vast majority of attendees were under the age of 40 and a substantial portion of them were in their 20s. Furthermore, these men were not basement-dwelling loser-types (well, some were). There were many smart-looking, and smart-sounding professionals from a variety of fields. But they were mostly men. Of about a hundred people, my guess was that only 5 to 10 attendees were women. I state this fact without judgment, merely to note the demographics.

I had the opportunity to meet one of the women there, or at least shake her hand. I noticed her when she first walked into the room because she seemed out of place. She had a lip-piercing, a sultry gait, and was wearing a jacket that said “Marlboro” on the back. Later, I saw her standing with a group of men that included my colleague. I walked over and realized immediately that she was not one of us when I heard her say to the men, “So are you guys going to try to convert me?” I introduced myself. I heard her say her name was Martha, but my colleague swears that it was Margaret. He probably knows better as he stayed and talked to her, whereas I had other things to do.

My goal was to explain my community organizing strategy and gather some contacts who might assist me. I spoke with some of the big name people, but they were preoccupied with so many others who wanted to speak with them and the conversations weren’t very fruitful. I did meet with some success in speaking to other attendees. It would have been nice to have more time to mingle, but the event began and we all directed our attention to the front of the room.

There were three speeches, one by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, one by Peter Brimelow of, and one by Richard Spencer, the president of the National Policy Institute. As the title of the event indicates, the theme of all three speeches was Beyond Conservatism. Jared Taylor spoke about how the issue of race and identity should be one that goes beyond the politics of the right or the left. He argued that conservation is a value promoted by both sides, but that there is a double-standard when it comes to the conservation of the white race. We need to emphasize the uniqueness of our culture and traditions in order to make the case that it deserves to survive.

Peter Brimelow’s speech was about the rise of conservatism as a movement that seemed to be succeeding in the 1980s and 90s, and its subsequent decline in recent years. For example, two decades ago a book like The Bell Curve was a major topic of conversation in all intellectual circles, whereas today such a work would be suppressed by all mainstream outlets and relegated to the dark corners of the “far right.” The implication is that conservatism has failed and something new is needed to save our people from genocide.

Richard Spencer spoke about the mishmash of seemingly contradictory issues that now make up what is called the conservative platform. He critiqued these as a negative form of identity in which we define ourselves by the things were are against. Our people must reclaim a positive identity. He made a somewhat controversial statement that facing the future as a minority may be the galvanizing event that brings about this change in white racial consciousness, and in this way, encountering “the other” may be a good thing even though this is what we are trying to prevent. In the discussion that followed Jared Taylor challenged this assertion as being too defeatist, and expressed hope that white racial consciousness could be rekindled without our people being brought to the brink of extinction. This dilemma of when and how whites will finally wake up and claim their identity is at the heart of our movement.

A question and answer session followed Richard Spencer’s speech. People raised their hands and Richard called on them. The second person to be called upon was the woman named Martha or Margaret. She said she had a question for the entire audience and he said that’s fine. Then she walked to the front and stood right next to Richard facing the audience. She said something like, “So it seems like you guys don’t like sex very much.”

“That’s not true,” said Richard, interrupting her. He went on to say that nobody here had spoken about sex and part of the point of his own speech was implying that conservative views about sexuality need to be abandoned by our movement.

She seemed to be flustered and said, “Well, do you like strippers?” Richard appeared to be taken aback by the question. He began to beckon to the security guard in the back of the room. It seemed clear to me that we were about a witness some kind of FEMEN style activism. Martha or Margaret was fingering the the hem of her relatively short dress as if she were about to rip it off at any moment. The audience seemed to pick up on this and several lecherous comments were made. She was saying something about how there weren’t any good strip clubs in DC and all the best ones were in Baltimore. “Then to Baltimore!” Richard cried in jest while still attempting to get the security guard’s attention.

Someone yelled out, “She’s a troll!” She turned to the voice and said, “No, I’m not but . . .” At this point, Richard took control of the situation and said to her, “Okay, I think we are going to move on, but thank you for having your say.” Then he called on the next person with a raised hand. She continued stand in front of the audience for another ten minutes or so, but you could see that she had lost her nerve. She wasn’t going to strip without making her political point, which was obviously off-base anyway, and she was not going to be given the opportunity to speak again. Eventually, she left the front, and lingered in the back of the room for some time, getting chatted up by one of the lechers.

After a while, she made a final attempt to assert herself by interrupting Jared Taylor as he answered someone’s question. “Okay. I’m leaving. You’re all a bunch of racists!” she yelled before walking out the door. “Okay, sweetheart! Have a good night!” responded Jared with genuine sincerity. I was happy that a serious disruption had been avoided, but I felt very sad for her. She had made her point. Nobody was going to convert her.

The question and answer session conducted informally with many people inclined to give speeches rather than ask question. It seemed that the audience was very much beyond conservatism and a revolutionary spirit was in the air. There were calls for right wing socialism and critics of capitalism. There was also the familiar debate about the merits of ethnonationalism versus imperium. It was interesting, but many of the arguments I had heard before.

One woman asked the question of what we can be doing besides giving money to organizations that champion our cause. Richard’s response was that we must live as authentically as we can. Had I been called on, I would have said it’s more complicated than that, but there are strategies we can take and if people wanted to know more they could come talk to me. But I was never called on. Perhaps the next conference should be entitled Beyond Websites and Conferences, because this is a topic that people really want to know more about. I’m joking of course. It’s too dangerous to discuss such topics in a public forum.

Overall, I’d say the NPI mini-conference was a success. I had a truly wonderful time and wished that I could have gone out to the bar with the many of the others, but my colleague had to work early this morning so we drove back to our home city with much to talk about on the way.

Democracy in Recession as its True Face Is Revealed

via Amerika

If you listen to the usual voices for (leftist-slanted) news, you will hear the beginnings of a disturbing refrain: democracy is in decline. Those voices are arguing this so that they may claim to be the underdog, because victimhood is the only justification for power recognized by liberalism, and so can return to the argument that worked for them so well from 1861-1969 which was that they were bringing democracy, freedom and equality to a world under the control of evil blue meanies who opposed such things from fear, hatred and other surrogates for inherent evil.

When we look past the inherent evil argument and deconstruct it, it falls apart rather quickly if we are able to consider how different regions demand different solutions because the people there are different. Not good/bad different, but different in the sense of having non-identical needs and responsibilities. Liberals pushed back against that idea hard and in order to prevent it from taking root, demonized any mention of innate differences as “racism.” That left no obstacles to the global application of liberalism, which would be the biggest power seizure in the history of humanity, dwarfing even Genghis Khan and Alexander, but somehow the narrative has cracked and buckled. As broken clock Thomas Friedman notes, democracy is in decline worldwide:
As the Stanford University democracy expert Larry Diamond argues in an essay entitled “Facing Up to the Democratic Recession” in the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy: “Around 2006, the expansion of freedom and democracy in the world came to a prolonged halt. Since 2006, there has been no net expansion in the number of electoral democracies, which has oscillated between 114 and 119 (about 60 percent of the world’s states). … The number of both electoral and liberal democracies began to decline after 2006 and then flattened out. Since 2006 the average level of freedom in the world has also deteriorated slightly.”
Since 2000, added Diamond, “I count 25 breakdowns of democracy in the world — not only through blatant military or executive coups, but also through subtle and incremental degradations of democratic rights and procedure. … Some of these breakdowns occurred in quite low-quality democracies; yet in each case, a system of reasonably free and fair multiparty electoral competition was either displaced or degraded to a point well below the minimal standards of democracy.”
Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Erdogan’s Turkey are the poster children for this trend, along with Venezuela, Thailand, Botswana, Bangladesh and Kenya.
One should be suspicious of studies for no reason other than that the left adores them, but the basic argument against them is this: they measure a single factor out of many and draw broad conclusions based ont heir results. In this case, 25 nations have either limited or abolished democracy. By itself this is not all that unusual. In context, it looks like a world less dedicated to freedom and all that jazz, and this concerns liberals as it might interrupt their seizure of power.

More likely what is happening is that the democracy brand — once assumed to be the reason for Europe’s success — has fallen prey to a bit of experience. People in third world nations are realizing that if you install democracy there, people vote for third world ideas. As scientists will tell you, every effect has a single cause, and there is some reason why third world nations are at third-world levels. Generally the reason is the same actual reason why people are poor: they have made poor decisions. They demand rule by a theocracy or dictator because the people around them are unhygenic, criminal, corrupt, disorganized and unable to make long-term plans, which is exactly why these nations ended up third-world and why people end up poor. That truth has been made taboo and yet it peeks out from behind the curtain at every chance since it is so consistent in its truthfulness.

Democracy resembles a product sold in the big box stores. At first, we all must have the iPad. The obedient press trots out the wild speculation disguised as fact: it will replace desktops! Everyone will have one! They do stuff ordinary machines cannot! At first, the rich buy. It takes a few years to figure out what you think of a gadget, so that starts their clocks ticking. A year and a half later, the gadget makes it to middle-class price levels, and so all of them buy it. A year and a half after that, it gets cheap enough for everyone. Was this deliberate? New audiences appear just as the old ones are discarding the new toy, having learned that while it is neato, it does not do what the press promised.

The same is true of democracy. The West adopted it in 1789 and promptly embarked upon an orgy of self-murder for two centuries, culminating in the fall of the last extreme leftist regime. This enabled the marketers to norm democracy and sell it to the world. It will renovate those starving people, restore those fallen cities, and make everything new again! Also, fresh breath. But while it did many of those things, the cost became apparent: democracy was the advance troop for globalism, itself a form of colonialism by which third-world labor is sold cheaply and then, as the third-world nation comes up in the world, it becomes an “emerging market” and gets sold the same products that the first world got a decade ago, made by people even poorer than its own citizens. The Ponzi scam unraveled.

Even more, democracy failed to deliver on its promises. It did not make the world into the strength of Europe; it made Europe weak and the rest of the world unstable. Liberals have worn themselves tired making excuses for every time “the voters” have chosen jihadi theocrats or blood-drenched dictators of their own free accord. What democracy does is standardize things by making choice difficult, since only pluralities can rule and they always rule in favor of fewer rules, which is good for business but externalizes its costs through the destruction of social order. As Europe falls into ruins, and the face of the disease becomes visible elsewhere as well, people are rethinking democracy, as well they should. Mob rule with a fancy name is still mob rule.

Austria Implements a 'Chinese Solution' to the Problem of Islam (and Nationalism)

via Alternative Right

An earlier successful Austrian policy
of dealing with Islamic invasion
Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, I wrote about a probable response to Europe’s long-running problem of hosting an alien – and inherently hostile civilization in its own civilizational space. The article, The Chinese “Solution” to the Islamic Problem, published at Counter-Currents, looked at how other political entities, namely the Soviet Union and China, dealt with “troublesome religions.”

Initially adopting a militant atheist stance, communists in Russia later gave up attempts to stamp out religion. They perhaps realized that religions are rooted in basic human psychological needs and have an otherworldly focus, making them extremely difficult to stamp out by conventional state repression (or even logic). Instead, following the destruction of Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in 1931, Stalin decided to co-opt Russian Orthodoxy to the increasingly conservative and nationalistic purposes of the Russian state, something we see continuing in Putin’s Russia.

The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour dynamited by the Communists in 1931.

The Chinese, too, realized that it was easier to modify religions so that they harmonized with state interests than to stamp them out. In Communist China, all Christian worship had too be conducted through state-approved churches. Patriotic values and respect for the “socialist motherland” were instilled side-by-side with the worship of Christ. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff was also denied for Chinese Catholics, as it conflicted with Chinese sovereignty. With the rapid growth of more evangelical forms of Christianity in recent years, China is now trying to double down on its policy of co-opting religion in the interests of the state.

In my article I pointed out the obvious applicability of this approach to Europe’s Muslim problem:
“What then would be more natural than for our elites in Europe to finally attempt something analogous to what has been done in China, but with particular emphasis on Islam, which is, of course, a far greater threat to Europe than Christianity is to China? This could be done by nationalizing Islam in some way and bowdlerizing it, forcing each mosque to teach 'European values' side by side with the more anodyne elements of the Islamic faith. These 'European values' could include those values that the liberal part of our society find particularly attractive, such as gender equality, homosexualism, non-violence, tolerance, animal rights (anti-halal), and a respect for atheistic science. Other key European values that might be promoted could also include traditional monogamy.”
When I wrote this, I was sketching out a long-term dynamic that would evolve over the coming decades as Europe struggled to deal with the contradictions it had created by its naive policy of mass immigration. I hardly expected to see legislation confirming this trend within mere weeks. But this is what seems to have happened with the latest news out of Austria.

There, parliament has just passed a bill that amends the country’s 1912 law on Islam. This law recognized Islam as one of the official religions of the state at a time when Austria was an Empire that included Bosnia. After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, this law had little relevance in the truncated Austrian state until the post-war economic boom saw an influx of migrant workers from Islamic areas.

The new amendments to what has essentially been an outdated law, will ban foreign funding for mosques and imams, many of whom are paid by Turkey, and require a standardized (and presumably bowdlerized) German version of the Koran to be used.

Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache.

The Austrian government is an uneasy “grand coalition” of the centre-left (Social Democratic Party) and centre-right (Austrian People's Party), holding in check the populist nationalist Freedom Party of Austria. At the last parliamentary election the SDP got 29.26% and 57 seats in parliament, the APP 25.98% and 51 seats, and the FPA 17.54% and 34 seats.

Although ostensibly aimed at curbing Islamic radicalism, the changes in the law are no doubt aimed at preventing the build-up of support for an “unacceptable” nationalist alternative, such as the Freedom Party of Austria (in last year's EU elections they increased their vote to around 20%). Whether this strategy works will depend to a large extent on the future demographics and behaviour of Austria’s Muslims.

As Dota's recent article Enter the Muslims pointed out, not all Muslims are culturally the same. With Austria's Muslims coming mainly from Turkish and Bosnian backgrounds, it can be assumed that they are more secularist, moderate, and less prone to terroristic excesses than, say, Britain’s Pakistani Muslims or France’s Algerian Muslims. But, then, it would only take a small terrorist outrage, possibly in response to this “oppressive” law, to remind Austrians of the long-term existential threat posed by any kind of Islam in Europe, and to send the voters swinging towards the still relatively mild nationalism of the Freedom Party of Austria.

The Negative Pose

via Henry Dampier

In political rhetoric, it’s common to coalesce a group based on shared dislike; defining the group by what the group is not. On the pseudonymous internet, it’s particularly easy to create a persona that is more like a missile launcher than a person. The persona spends all day attacking some group of people which is not part of the group, using some mixture of mockery, criticism, and scorn for the general entertainment of all who read it.

This behavior is not particularly limited to the political left or right. It seems to be a human universal which hardens group sentiments, informing members where the lines are drawn, and passing the time besides.

The difficulty for such groups comes when the time comes to actually try to form something positive. A group unified by shared criticism is rarely on good footing to actually construct anything. Critics are like bandits in that they always need to be on the offensive. The second that they create something that needs to be defended, they stop being bandits. Most groups don’t make that transition successfully to stationary banditry, because managing the complexity is too hard, and it requires a different sort of mentality than the purely negative one.

Not everyone can shift away from the mindset of taking constant pot-shots at the hated enemy, especially when you’re in the political opposition, and have no territory to protect, no policies that can be criticized, and no weighty decisions of your own that you have had to make. Uncrowned heads are not burdened by the responsibilities that comes with power.

This tendency becomes more acute under universal suffrage, because everyone is encouraged to have passionate political opinions, whether or not those opinions are informed. Most people in the US don’t bother with this, but some large fraction do. The ideological content of those opinions is often non-existent or vestigial, in that few know much of their origins, or have integrated it into some system of thinking. It is instead more like being a fan of a sports team.

To go back to the title, the negative pose in a critic creates an impression in the observer that there is nothing there. The critic is a disembodied voice (even if you can see him speak) which represents nothing but an attack on the existing order. Whether or not the attack is justified, he keeps the focus of the observer on the target, rather than the person doing the attacking.

All human groups are political, and successful political groups have some mixture of builders and fighters. Critics are like homeless fighters, mobile bandits, generally because they have lost some sort of previous political struggle, or have otherwise inherited defeat, and are either unwilling or unable to join the dominant order. Different groups employ ideology as tools to meet their ends; and those ends may have reasons behind them, but those reasons are not necessarily rational — revenge or chips-on-shoulders is sufficient motive, or greed, or envy, or a sense of justice, or pure spite.

Thinking about ideology in this way helps to expose the men behind the voices, lays out the strategic map, and gives us a better sense of who is opposing whom and for what reasons. Ideology ought to be evaluated on a similar basis to a tool, like a rifle or a shovel. Is the tool an effective implement for achieving the given end? Is it the right tool? Are the people seeking to use it qualified to use it?