Mar 10, 2015

The Psychology of Hate

via What Men Are Saying about Women

Years back, in another life, I used to teach at seminars and conferences that provided continuing education units for professional re-certification.

In one particular module, I used a portable grease board in a room in front of my waiting audience. Without introducing myself or saying anything else, I used a grease pen to write the words “Men are…” at the top of the board, and then silently invited the audience to finish the sentence.

Almost invariably, “pigs” or “dogs” was the first offering, accompanied by a room full of good-natured chuckles. I would nod my head and write it down on the board and return to the audience, still silent, for more.

“Controlling,” says one. “Afraid of commitment,” says another. “Aggressive.” “Macho“ “Afraid of intimacy.” “Violent.” “Sexist,” and “Power hungry.” More of the pejoratives, and almost only pejoratives, would come from the audience till the board was full.

I then flipped the board to the other side.

“Women are…” was the cue, and the answers were even more rapid fire than they were with men.

“Strong.” “Capable” “Empowered” “Sensitive.” “Nurturing,” and the like would fly from the audience to the grease board like a barrage of arrows, till that side too was full.

“What do you imagine,” I would ask, taking a strategic pause for a sip of water, “that these answers tell us about the real nature of sexism in the way we view men and women?”

Asking them a question with actual spoken words must have thrown them for a loop, because the stock response to that question was almost invariably a room full of nonplussed, cognitively dissonant faces. And that confusion usually gave way to irritation, clearly at me, though every answer on both sides of that board had come from them.

And by the way, the participants in the crowd? They weren’t accountants or nurses or teachers or financial advisors.

They were mental health professionals.

Counselors, psychotherapists, social workers and the lot. The very people we love to imagine possess the objectivity to rise above the mindset of bigotry and sexism. And the people, despite our want of faith in their work, least likely to actually do it.

I wanted a little more pressure so I asked more questions. “How could this affect our therapeutic alliance with clients?- Could it make our relationships with females enabling?- Punitive with men?” And always, the final question I asked was “Do we carry sexism, against men, unconscious or conscious, into our work with each and every client?”

With that question the anger usually intensified.

In one talk, a female participant, a social worker, jumped out of her chair and threw her papers everywhere. “You’re the sexist!” she hissed at me, and stormed out of the room. She later wrote letters of complaint both about my topic and the fact I would not sign off on her attendance.

Welcome to the wacky world of mental health.

It is a telling study in the psychology of hate. Indeed, as we peel back the layers of fantasy from the profession, we are forced into a most disturbing conclusion.

Psychology is hate. At least as it is practiced in western culture.

It’s most evident in the junk psychology market. Since the mid-eighties, get-rich-quick psychology gurus have often made their way to bestseller lists. Books like Robin Norwood’s Women Who Love Too Much, Susan Forwards, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them and others have been runaway hits, all predicated on rigid stereotypes of men who hate and women who love; all just more additions to the already crowded grease board.

Recently, MRA Mark Rudov appeared on Fox News in a brief debate with Karen Salmansohn on women executives. She was given a nice plug for her new book, Bounce Back. They could have, and probably should have in the interest of balance, given her credit for her previous publication, How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less Using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers.

I don’t make this stuff up. Unfortunately, I don’t have to.

Currently, male bashing monarch Phil McGraw reigns in the ratings, and it won’t be long before another emerges, fighting to be top dog in dogging men. All you need is a warped worldview and a nod from Oprah.

And these are just the media hucksters. At least we can say that the men and women who embrace their misandry-for-profit schemes are just another dumbed-down group in a dumbed-down media culture.

The more culpable and dangerous are the ones with the air of legitimacy. These folks don’t write, or don’t just write. They teach, do research, and most dreadfully, hang out their shingles and help infect the world, one gullible client at a time.

The world of psychology in academics and practice has become a weapon in the realm of gender politics. Almost all pretense to objectivity and academic integrity has been forced aside by ideologues with an ax to grind against men and who are using the loathsome disguise of helping professionals to further their agenda.

If you think that is extreme, read on. is purportedly an information and referral resource for people seeking mental health services. What it is in reality is a portal, a conduit that induces women into the mentality that it is the vile scourge of manhood at the root of their problems.

And they offer feminism as the solution before the first session is booked.

Some tidbits from their site include some detailed hype about the fundamentals of feminism and some reassurances that not all feminists are lesbians.

I suppose they figure heterosexual women need such basics. And it’s good pre-sell to overcome objections before they are raised. Ask any used car salesman.

They even have a nifty section promoting a new masculinity. These Freudettes have the key to re-engineering men for the better, with the implication, of course, that the way men are now is defective and in need of an overhaul.

Part of that overhaul is a gag. This is just one of the standouts, as it appears word for word on the site.

Openness- To others (especially to women) criticism of our behaviors and attitudes, listen, listen some more, and only speak if the critic wants feedback.

This isn’t even speak when spoken to. It is shut up and take it. Speak with permission only, from whichever woman is attacking you at the moment.

Ah, the finer aspects of mental health.

They have much more there. Enough bogus stats on domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse for a N.O.W. convention, and staunch defenses of feminism tied in directly with the counseling message. Their ultimate point is clearly that sound mental health for women depends on embracing feminism, and with it the hatred for men.

Sound advice for those seeking love and intimacy if I ever saw it.

At this point, the grease board is showing more grease than board.

I wish I could say that this was the bottom of the pit; that the infection stopped there, but we are still dealing more with the symptoms than the actual disease.

Enter the American Psychological Association, and it’s Division 51 group The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. (SPSMM) You can pronounce the acronym spasm if you want to. I do. And it fits.

Here are two of the bullet points from the Mission Statement on their home page, out there for the world to see.
# Endeavors to erode constraining definitions of masculinity which have historically inhibited men’s development, their capacity to form meaningful relationships, and have contributed to the oppression of other people.

# Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship, and commits itself to support groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.

Aye, there‘s the rub, and with it goes the last remaining bit of room on the grease board. Men are defective, pernicious banes to civilized society. And feminism is the answer.

Even our most revered experts in human nature are saying as much.

And this is how it worked in the old Soviet Union. It is wise to consider that in the Solzhenitsyn era of gulags and iron fisted reaction to political dissent, that most of the dissidents were imprisoned in “mental health facilities,” the logic being that if you disagreed with the state, there must be something wrong with your mind.

It was also a strategy of, and yes, I will say it without reservation, the Hitler regime, to poison the minds of the populace with disinformation about Jews, prepping the people to look the other way while they were dispatched in the name of a master race.

The plans for men may be less extreme and of longer duration, but it is happening nonetheless. Men are being marginalized year after year. Their numbers in college graduating classes are waning; 42% at last count. They have lost over 80% of the jobs in the current recession. They are dying by suicide and all other manners of death at rates that make women’s lives look like vacations in Fiji.

It’s hell having all this power. It is a wonder how we find time to oppress the world with it, much less twirl our mustaches and snicker while we do it.

But the anti-male hate machine keeps grinding away. Spasm would no doubt classify the MRM as a mass shared psychosis, and MRA’s individually as antithetical to humanity.

I used to remember that social worker who threw the tantrum in my class with a smile. It was a funny image. But that was some years ago. At the time, I knew the sexism was there, but it was not entrenched as deeply as it is today. And I naively thought it would go away.

I am not smiling about it any more.

CasaPound's Recipe for Success

via Alternative Right

I have never visited CasaPound myself. What I know about that Roman movement was learnt through books, articles, but also through friends’ testimonies who have had the chance to go to Rome and experience first hand this movement. More importantly, what I am writing on today is based on two interviews I carried with authors linked to CasaPound (Gabriele Adinolfi and Adriano Scianca) and the lecture and subsequent meeting with CasaPound’s French spokesman Sébastien.

On February 28th, Sébastien, along with two leaders of the student association Blocco Studentesco gave a lecture in Montreal about CasaPound, its goals, its methods. After the lecture, I had the chance to speak at length with Sébastien to explicit some points his lecture had not answered.

The purpose here is not to discuss CasaPound’s ideas or objectives. This neofascist group defends ideas that are rooted in Italian history and would seem out of place in North America. The focus of this essay is on the methods used by CasaPound to achieve the success it is now achieving and to highlight the ones that could be imported here in order to build a strong alternative movement.

It is on December 26, 2003, that fifteen nationalists evolving around the Italian band Zeta Zero Alfa decided to occupy a building in downtown Rome. These fifteen nationalists had been regular customers of the pub Cutty Sark, the place where they realized they did not fit into traditional political organizations and decided that it was time to be active in order to bring the desired changes to society.

From 15 members in 2003, it grew to a pan-Italian movement with thousands of members. They now occupy several buildings, have more than ten different bands, an art gallery, a student association that is the most popular among Italian youth, a movie theater and many businesses associated with the movement. They organize weekly activities in every town and city where they are present and are extremely involved at the social level. For example, besides being active politically, they are also helping poor Italian families find a shelter, among other things.

How did they grow from a non-organization of a few people to a national group known by everyone?

Dedication and courage

The first thing that needs to be assessed is the level of commitment and risk taking of the members of CasaPound. Being a member involves participating in one meeting every week and at least one of the two mandatory activities planned for the week. This level of commitment is unique to CasaPound and allows the organization to leave the weak, the hobbyists and parasites aside, only the dedicated can be part of that organization.

Promotions within the organization are also given according to a meritocracy concept. Only the best can achieve promotions, which does not mean less responsibility, but more responsibility and obviously more risks.

Risk taking is also a very important thing to take into consideration while studying the rise of CasaPound. The members must show their face and do not hide behind a pseudonym or a mask. They are open about their beliefs, whatever professional, personal or social risk it entails. At the moment, there are about a hundred different cases of members being on trial or awaiting trial for actions committed as part of their activism on behalf of CasaPound. The social climate is not better in Italy than it is in North America and countless activists lost their jobs because of their involvement, either fired because of their political stance or because they were incarcerated because of their actions. They seek victory and no risk is too great in order to achieve it.

The House of Pound
Physical risks are also associated with being a member. Antifascist groups are more active in Europe than in North America. People sporting CasaPound’s shirts have been targeted by groups of antifas and the group has also been victim of bomb attacks in the past. Faced with this physical threat, Italian Third Millennium’s fascists answer smilingly : “Me ne frego!” or in English “I don’t care!”.

Media Squadrismo

The methods used by the Italian neofascists are based on Mussolini’s own methods. Squads of black shirt fascists used to go around the cities yelling fascist slogans in order to get some publicity. That was Squadrismo.

Times have changed, but fascists are still usually ignored by the media who want to prevent giving publicity and encouraging the rise of nationalist groups. In order to break the silence of the media, CasaPound developed a technique fit to modern times: Media Squadrismo.

The purpose is to be so blunt, so original that the media cannot ignore the different actions undertaken by the organization. Although flyers and posters are used, the main propaganda tool is actions that are esthetic, original and daring. Media can ignore a few people handing out flyers, but they will definitely react to a few mannequins hung from a bridge in order to draw a parallel with immigration and the death of our race.

The actions must appeal to the imagination and the more risks, the better.

Culture and sports

Fighting fit.
If CasaPound is first and foremost a political organization with candidates trying to be elected in different elections, it does not see politics as something isolated from the other spheres of one’s life.

It is the reason why CasaPound is also involved in sports and culture. Traditional political events like lectures are usually combined with a cultural event (a play or a concert) or a sport event. It is also a very good way to recruit new members as it is always easier to invite a colleague to a concert or the gym than to a political lecture.

CasaPound, it must be said, is not a movement that can be imported; even its leaders are unanimous, it is not an exportation product. Its revolutionary methods though can be adapted to any ideas and any settings, Génération Identitaire, a branch of French Bloc Identitaire, proved it. Although they ideologically differ greatly from CasaPound, they used the same methods of risk taking and media Squadrismo to spread their message with a success unequaled by other French nationalist organizations. Today it is the largest nationalist group and is well known around Europe.

Although the setting somehow differs, a North American group with enough dedicated members ready to put their career, safety and freedom in jeopardy could use media squadrismo in order to build an organization that would have to be reckoned with.

Thus Is Our Faith Tested

via Cambria Will Not Yield

We must fall back on Christianity, which embraces man’s whole nature, and though not a code of philosophy, is something better; for it proposes to lead us through the trials and intricacies of life, not by the mere cool calculations of the head, but by the unerring instincts of a pure and regenerate heart. The problem of the Moral World is too vast and complex for the human mind to comprehend; yet the pure heart will, safely and quietly, feel its way through the mazes that confound the head…
Sure we are that a fire that would consume all the theological and other philosophical speculations of the last two centuries would be a happy Godsend. –George Fitzhugh Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters

Al Sharpton – we’ll dispense with his title – has been handed a bully pulpit on a major news station and direct access to the President. And every time a white public figure makes what is deemed a racial slur, that public figure must go and genuflect before Al Sharpton. So it would not be an exaggeration to conclude that the moral essence of the anti-nation called the United States of America is Al Sharpton. And what has our nation’s Moral Essence been pontificating about this week? Sharpton wants the Federal government to rescind the right of self-defense when the perpetrator of a crime is black and the victim is white. That a white man has no right of self-defense against colored savages is currently the unwritten law of the United States, but occasionally, as was the case in Ferguson, Missouri, a potential white victim fights back, and a jury, following the antiquated law of self-defense, acquits the white defendant. This won’t do. White people must never defend themselves against black savages. White self-defense is a sin that cries out to the Federal government (the liberals’ equivalent of heaven) for vengeance. The white man must submit to the will of his gods. Even if they slay him, still must he trust in them.

I would prefer that the unwritten rule not become a written law, because a few whites have escaped liberal “justice” under the unwritten “no white must defend himself” law, but whether the Al Sharpton law is adopted or not will not change the ruling ethos of our land: The white man must do nothing to stop black aggression against whites. The codicil to that law is that the white man must not defend himself against any non-white race or any non-Christian religious sect.

All anti-white and anti-Christian laws are adhered to in Europe as well as in the United States. There is no white nation that is not committed to the extermination of all things white and Christian. This liberal commitment to Satanism results in criminal absurdities. For instance, white liberals claim to have discovered the fact that rape is a terrible crime. We are harangued with all sorts of educational programs that are designed to “sensitize” males to the problem of rape. And the definition of rape has become so broad that no male is innocent; we are all rapists now. But wait – that statement must be modified – all white males are guilty of rape. As the Scandinavian countries become rape havens for Third World savages, and the United States follows in their train, the liberals stay focused on white kindergarten boys who pull girls’ hair on the playground, while they ignore the Muslim, Hindu, Oriental and negroid tribesmen who look on the rape of white women as their right. The same principle is applied to street crime. It is bad when whites shoot black thugs, but it is “no big deal” when black Mau Maus torture, rape, and murder white people. One need not have the acumen of Sherlock Holmes to see the pattern that emerges. Every act of violence that serves the savage hordes of color and the anti-Christian faiths is a good act of violence, and any effort of white people to prevent the murder and rape of white people, or to punish those who murder and rape white people, is a reprehensible act.

Should white people submit to their own extermination? Should they go quietly into the Babylonian night or should they rage against the dying of the light? We know the answer to that question. On every front, the answer is yes, the white man should go quietly into the Babylonian night. The liberals tell us we must self-destruct, because the white race is evil and not fit to live in the brave, new Babylonian world. The conservatives in church and state, the great intellects, tell us that the whole notion of white people with white souls distinct from other people of color is nonsense; there is no such thing as race. There are just generic, interchangeable people who are cogs in the mechanistic systems of the philosophical speculators: “My philosophy and existence are one. There are no racial hearth fires in my philosophy, ergo, there is no such thing as white people.” And by extension: “Since there is no such thing as white people, there is no such thing as white genocide.” Isn’t that comforting? And you thought white genocide was a real problem. The next time you feel that way, take two strong doses of philosophical speculation and call your local clergyman in the morning.

Whites have been fed the doctrine of passivity in the face of colored savagery with their mother’s milk. On the one hand, white people are evil; therefore, they must do penance and serve the negro, but when the colored races do evil, it is not really evil, because there is no evil in the colored races; that is a mirage, a white racist mirage. And the ribbon that ties the neat little anti-white box together is the doctrine of white non-existence. Whites can’t fight white genocide, because there is no such thing, in the spiritual realm, as white people. It always comes back to the separation of nature from spirit. Are we quickening spirits or are we the walking dead, mere creatures of nature? Race and faith are interrelated, just as spirit and nature are interrelated. As we lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the Christian faith, how it differs from all of the other nature religions, we also lose our consciousness of the distinctness of the white race. Philosophy demands that we stay on the natural plane, on the surface of existence. But what if truth exists below the surface of existence? “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.” So long as the white man resists that essential truth, he will remain a passive recipient of the evil that blacks do.

Herbert Butterfield, one of the few great historians, tells us that a true historian must really want to discover the truth about the historical period and/or person he is studying. That type of historian uses primary sources, secondary sources, and his reason, and then he binds all those factors together with intuition and comes up with what he feels is an accurate history. The bad historian proceeds on a different path than Butterfield. He starts out with an a priori assumption about a particular historical subject, and then he only looks for evidence that supports his a priori assumption. The modern, anti-white, anti-Christian liberal has taken the bad historian’s approach. He looks at Christian Europe with just the eye of reason, or else he only looks at secondary sources from outside of Europe that do not tell an accurate, integral story of the Europeans’ history. The end result of the acceptance of the liberals’ bad history is the isolation of the modern European from his past and the God that resided there.
The liberal rejects Christianity because he claims European Christianity was evil. The conservative accepts the liberals’ view of antique Europe, but his response is different. He rejects the European people, but he keeps Christianity by maintaining that the Christian faith is not an incarnate faith passed on from one generation to the next by the people who loved Christ. Instead, the faith is a philosophy that great thinkers have passed on from one generation of great thinkers to another. It is easier to defend one or two theologians than an entire people. But if Christ cannot be known through a sympathetic attachment to and love for the people who loved Him, how can He be known? That other way, the way of philosophical speculation, seems simpler, but it leads to the house of desolation, not to His Kingdom come.

The common ground of all the organized churches, conservative and liberal, is their faith in intellectual Christianity. Each sect believes they can win in the open market of speculative theology. They all are emperors without any clothes, and they have left their adherents naked to their enemies, who are the liberals and the savage hordes of color. The Pauline Christianity of the antique Europeans has been thrown into the dustbins of organized Christianity, but that faith is the only restorative for white people. St. Paul did not try to define Christ, he bore witness to Him. St. Paul’s charity that never faileth and Burke’s charity of honor point us to one faith and one people that must be defended. If 300 pagan Spartans could hold the pass until the Athenians stopped debating and speculating, can’t we, the remnant band of Christian Europeans who have rejected intellectual Christianity, hold the pass until our modern white Athenians finally decide to fight?

Al Sharpton’s speech marks a new stage in the war against the white race. What was implicit is now explicit. The white race must be destroyed. The liberals will never oppose any force on earth that is anti-white and anti-Christian. They only hesitate when two anti-European forces collide, as in the case of Islam and Judaism. It’s significant that in such cases white Europeans are merely cast in the role of supporters. The conservative liberals and the moderate liberals support Israel while the more radical liberals and the neo-pagans support the Muslims. But the significant factor is that the white Europeans have no cause of their own, because they do not exist as a people. They have become what the church men wanted them to become: disembodied minds without souls.

Anthony Jacob correctly diagnosed the fatal weakness of the good Europeans in his book White Man, Think Again!:
It was the very trustfulness of the Kenyans which was employed as the means of betraying them: their Anglo-Saxon fair-mindedness which was employed as the means of overthrowing them. Above all, they consented to their own execution because their minds had been focussed on the Blacks instead of on their own White standing. The White tribe in Kenya could not have been dispossessed and expelled if it had not first been persuaded to surrender ‘some’ of its power, and to work for the benefit of the Black tribes instead of for its own benefit. The Blacks had to ‘evolve’, they were told; and they did not realise that all this meant was that the racial tables had to be turned and the Whites had to retrogress. Did they not think it morally imperative, they were asked, that they should do their utmost to help their black charges advance? And of course they agreed it was; for had they not since early childhood donated pennies and knitted garments for the poor naked peoples of benighted Africa? But if the question had been framed differently, and properly; if the question had been: ‘Are you going to make a sacrifice of yourselves and your children for the sake of the myth of Black advancement?’, then their reaction would have been quite different as well.
I saw this process at work in my own family. My grandfather was staunchly white in faith and ethos. He duly gave money to feed starving Africans, because his clergyman told him to do so and because he was a charitable man. But my grandfather never thought darkies should be placed on an equal footing with whites. He told me, approvingly, of his grandfather (I repeat myself with this story, but I claim an old man’s privilege to tell the same story over and over again) who was a veteran of the Civil War on the Union side. The grizzled veteran, who lived into his mid-nineties, told my grandfather that he would never have gone to war had he known it was a war to put blacks on an equal footing with whites. “They told me it was to save the Union.” The French Revolution in Haiti was the beginning, on a large scale, of the white liberal’s betrayal of his own people, and our un-Civil War was the next stage in that process. The deification of the negro in the 20th century was the beginning of the final stage. My father was part of the familiar pattern of white decline. He loved his father, but he denounced his prejudice. Why did my father denounce his father’s prejudice? Because my father trusted church and state. And all the King’s horses, and all the King’s men in church and state put their moral stamp of approval on the new intellectual Christianity that had no place for white souls with a thirst for the living God. I hope that family decline, the decline of white prejudice in favor of one’s own people over the colored barbarian, stops with me. Then my children will have something to pass on to their children besides a second-hand faith in the sacred negro.

When a black god can openly declare that all white resistance to the torture, rape, and murder of white people must come to an end, we know that we are in a new, bloodier, more desperate stage of the extermination process. No white who has crossed the line from a first-hand faith in his people and their God to a second-hand faith in intellectual Christianity will be able to resist the extermination of the white race, for the simple reason that the second-hand white man does not believe there is such a thing as the white race. The defense of the white race will depend on the few — all great defenses depend on just a few – white men who have not crossed over the line from His eternal Europe to Babylonian Europe. Wherever that line is drawn, no matter how few defend it, that battle line is Europe. In the old Welsh battle hymn, I hear our Savior’s command: “Stand and never yield.”

SOTC Training Institute's 2015 Summer Session Will Be July 20-25

via SOTC Training Institute

Site of the SOTC Training Institute
The Final Call!

Never before in the history of our people have we faced a challenge so threatening that the very existence of our children and our children’s children may very well depend on the decisions we make today. It is imperative that we are prepared to make the right one. The world-wide rebellion against our people is subtly and cleverly spued forth in movies, magazines, schools, churches, and on TV. This shroud of blindness begins to cover the eyes of our people while they are still young children. As they become teens and adults they have been conditioned to accept lies as truth and falsehood as reality. Everyday they awaken in a world of false images created by the script writers in Hollywood and New York City.

There is mass distortion of history, science, and Christianity which has been ingested into the soul of our people and has created a generation that no longer gives value to their blood heritage. This deception is not only an American issue but a world-wide phenomena. In short, our people, the people that conquered the continents and then looked to the heavens and mapped the stars, are facing genocide.

We are standing as a witness to the greatest betrayal of the ages. A betrayal of not only our people but a betrayal of civilization itself. Yet there are few who have the courage to stand before the abyss and point the way to our racial redemption. Treason, though deadly and eternal is much like a siren call from the rocky shore, alluring our people to come to her sweet voice only to awaken after everlasting death has pronounced its judgement.

The seventeenth century writer John Harington stated it so plainly, “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” But treason it is, whether your neighbors, friends, or family recognize it or not
It is for this reason that Pastor Robb was given the vision to assist men and women of all ages to gain the knowledge and understanding needed to be a voice of racial redemption.

Even though the hour is late and the night is deep upon us, we are sounding forth this final call to men and women – devout and brave – to rally to the flag and join this New Crusade for race, faith and homeland.

In 732 BC, when it looked like the Moors were going to overrun Europe, God called Charles Martel from his humble origins and through his brilliant leadership stopped the Islamic invasion at the Battle of Tours.

Once again our homeland is invaded and once again God is calling men and woman to stand as a bulwark against the flood. It is for this reason that Pastor Robb has gathered some of the most brilliant minds in our struggle and shared with them his vision for the Soldiers of the Cross Training Institute.

Though the beginnings are small and humble, like the first recruits in a mighty army, the potential is vast and powerful. In preparing a generation to walk in the footsteps of the great heroes of history we recognize that we must first be aware of the conflict, secondly we must be trained to know the history, philosophy, and strategy of our enemies and how to combat them in the arena of ideas and third we must mobilize ourselves into a force for freedom.

It is our trusted desire that you will capture the vision and the potential of this undertaking and enroll as a student.  Our mission statement is simple – “To give young men and women the tools they need to become leaders in their community – to be a spokesperson for our folk – to inspire their neighbors – to build the power of influence!”

What About Jewish Privilege?: Sophistry, Slander, and the Making of Strawmen

via TradYouth

TradYouth Editor's Note: This is in response to Tim Wise’s post, Responding to a Young Reactionary: White Privilege, Judaism, and the Making of Sloppy Analogies, which is in response to my original post in this thread, What About Jewish Privilege?

Dear Timothy Jacob Wise,

First, allow me to thank you for taking the time to respond. Second, thank you for addressing my arguments directly and responding, more or less, to all of the points I made. Last and certainly not least, thank you to pointing out to the readership base of your website that I am not a White Nationalist, yet a Shiite Muslim before anything else, followed by a belief in American nationalism which is transracial and transreligious.

But much of your response is sophistry, especially your claiming that I accused you of being a Zionist. From the tone of your article, it is clear that you assume me to believe each and every Jew, including yourself, is a participant in a vast conspiracy to subjugate gentiles. I am fully aware that this notion of a vast conspiracy involving millions of people is infantile and not worthy of serious consideration. I made this very clear in my letter at several points, pointing out that I fully respect various Jewish groups who are anti-Zionist, rather they be extremely liberal, as in the case of Chomsky, Finkelstein, Atzmon, and the like, and the extremely conservative like the Nutrea Karta and Satmar. They believe that any attempt to establish “Zion” on earth short of supernatural intervention is heresy.

Furthermore, many remnant Ultra-Orthodox communities believe it is heresy to rebel against any nation and to bring harm to gentiles. Especially, as a Shiite Muslim and a Traditionalist, I respect the spirituality of Jewish Orthodoxy, for as a Muslim, I recognize that Jews are followers of the same Prophets (Peace be upon them all) as we are. Jews, together with Christians, are who the Quran and the Prophetic Sunna refers to as “the people of the book,” those who believe in the scriptures which God has revealed a portion of his Light.

On top of this, you ignore the fact that I applauded your anti-Zionist stance, instead, you tout your own credentials as an advocate for Palestine and opposition to Israel and Zionism, as if I charged you with being a supporter of the mass-murder of Palestinians. What you have done here, in your letter, is build up a straw man for you to knock down. Presumably, you didn’t want to address the fact that I specifically denied anti-Semitism, and gave you the respect you deserve for opposing the supremacist state of Israel.

I think I know why you made this clever omission. It sets you up to refute a much easier thesis, which is that the “Jews” maliciously control the world from behind closed doors, rather then what I was actually arguing. What I argue is that using the very same analytical methods that academics use to argue for white privilege, patriarchy, and the like, one cannot ignore that there is in fact a Jewish privilege. How convenient you omit my respect for the noble aspects of the Jewish community from your letter as to let your audience think that I am a proponent of vulgar anti-Semitism.

Just as you do not believe that every white person meets at a convention to decide on how to best continue the subjugation of minorities, and every male doesn’t gather to decide on how to best perpetuate the patriarchy. I believe it is equally as preposterous to believe, even for a second, that there is a secret underground network of Jews running the world. Rather, for reasons explained and that will be explained further, Jews in the United States of America, have, by your own methodology, a distinct form of privilege that puts them higher in America’s social class system than other groups.
Perhaps you will counter by arguing that you did address my arguments point-by-point, and never openly state that I believed in a closed-door conspiracy. Namely, you spent about half of your paper demonstrating on how my arguments for a “quantitative” privilege fails to take into the account the methods in which said privileges are attained. If one cannot describe how these methods of control operate, then perhaps it is just a coincidence that said group enjoys superior status.

You complain that in pointing out the disparity in Jewish income, Jewish representation in Government, and Jewish representation in media, I have jumped from superior status to unfair privilege. Granted, the Jews who came to the United States were largely skilled laborers, who, through industriousness managed to acquire greater material wealth. Furthermore, secular American Jews, especially in comparison to poor whites, have fewer children, enabling them to receive, in your own words, a “head start” in terms of life in America. You also freely admit that Jewish influence is concentrated in Hollywood, and admit that the stereotypes employed against non-Jews, such as Blacks, Muslims, and Roma, are more harmful than the “Woody Allen” stereotypes. However, you qualify all of this by saying that there is nothing which uniquely puts Jews in a more “privileged” position then other groups who have higher then average median incomes, such as Anglicans and Hindus.

Perhaps the greatest sophistry of your paper is your treatment of my argument that the peculiar adoption of “dual-covenant” theology represents a form of Christian self-hate. You do not, in the slightest, respond to any of my arguments, you just simply accuse me assuming that a “Jewish neo-con” speaks for all Jews, and that his paper calling for the reductions in immigration to benefit the Jewish community as a whole was just an expression of his “personal prejudice.” At the end of the section, you simply ask “where the hell is the evidence that Christians have internalized self-hatred?”

What reveals the deceptiveness of your article Mr. Wise, is that you do not call Stephen Steinlight by name, nor do you link to his paper which I quote and link to entitled “The Jewish Stake in America’s changing Demography.” Are you afraid that if you let your audience know his name? If they googled him, they would find out that he was the head very much at the forefront on the American Jewish elites.

According to his biography at the Center for Immigration Studies website, he served for eight years as head of the American Jewish Committee, and for three years, served as the vice president of The National Conference of Christians and Jews. He also had spoken to literally “hundreds” of state legislatures, think tanks, and shared podiums with representatives in congress as well as presidential candidates. Certainly, his article cannot be divorced from Jewish privilege anymore than Robin Thicke’s song “blurred lines” can be divorced from systemic rape culture, or the death of Trayvon Martin can be divorced from “systematic racism.”

I am willing to give you benefit of the doubt that you didn’t bother to read Steinlight’s paper. Steinlight spells it out, in no uncertain terms, that Jews have a distinct advantage and privilege in America for a number of reasons. Number one, he admits that, as I explained before, Christians have been indoctrinated with a sense of shame that leads them to have an inferiority complex to Jews. You don’t believe me? Lets see what he says specifically in the section of his paper “Jews and Identity Politics.”
“I am also familiar with the classic, well-honed answer to this tension anytime this phenomenon is cited: Israel and America are both democracies; they share values; they have common strategic interests; loyalty to one cannot conceivably involve disloyalty to the other, etc., etc. All of which begs huge questions, including an American strategic agenda that extends far beyond Israel, and while it may be true in practice most of the time, is by no means an absolute construct, devoid of all sort of potential exceptions. I say all this merely to remind us that we cannot pretend we are only part of the solution when we are also part of the problem; we have no less difficult a balancing act between group loyalty and a wider sense of belonging to America. That America has largely tolerated this dual loyalty — we get a free pass, I suspect, largely over Christian guilt about the Holocaust — makes it no less a reality.”
Tim Wise, did you catch that little bit about “Christian guilt over the Holocaust?” How is this any different then the “black shame” felt by a great number of African Americans? Specifically, referring back to the parts of the paper quoted in my previous article, Steinlight comes right out and says that the reason why Latino Catholics and Muslims are untrustworthy groups of immigrants are due to the fact they do not hold an inferiority complex to Jews. So here, we already have established a mechanism by which Jews have established themselves in a privileged position, using the methods of “interfaith dialogue” and “ecumenicalism” to instill a sense of self-hate in the minds of Christians.

Furthermore, he states, specifically, that the gratuitous wealth of the Jewish community makes them key players in the American political arena. You don’t believe me? He specifically says that until campaign finance reform is complete, Jews will be in a position to manipulate the political process as they choose. Here, I will quote exactly what he says, so you know I am not paraphrasing it.
“Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly. We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete, an extremely unlikely scenario, the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel, a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.”
So here, Stephen Steinlight has just spelled out in no uncertain terms, how Jews maintain their hegemonic power and their privilege over gentiles. The Jewish wealth, which you claim is not any more significant then the Anglican, Hindu, or Episcopalian communities, give them an edge any other cultural group in America. Again, these are his words, not mine. So here we have your mechanisms of translating advantage into privilege.

In the paragraph right after this one, he also mentions another method by which Jews maintain their power over government and gentile affairs, legendary Jewish voter participation, again I quote,
“Jewish voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty — and it should — then it is only a matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms us.”
But wait, there’s more! We also have to deal with the issue of Jewish control over popular culture and media. He also mentions that Jewish privilege is also concentrated in Hollywood, the news industry, and television. Specifically, while having some reservations, he claims that MTV is a generous boon for the Jewish community. He credits MTV as an effectual weapon to use against Muslim immigrants whom he decrees to be especially problematic, saying, and I quote to the letter.
“Finally, I confess that I suspect that MTV, for better of for worse, will prove more powerful with young Muslim immigrants than the mullahs, and that the remarkable material and cultural attractiveness of American life will cause the new immigrants to follow (mostly) in the footsteps of their predecessors. Free of Old World constraints, most new arrivals will in time choose individual freedom over subservience to outworn forms and will opt for the rights of individual conscience over traditional sources of religious and political authority.”
On top of all these admissions to privilege, and his argument for using Jewish resources in government and media to maintain that privilege, he also admits to having an internalized superiority complex. He freely admits that he, like may other Jewish children of his generation, was raised as a “quasi-separatist” this was specifically in the context for him to have developed a notion of supremacy; being taught that gentiles were lowly and untrustworthy.
“I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp …We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.”
So here, Steinlight admits to undergoing a process in which he was taught the superiority of his people, and now, he is looking for ways to look out for the best interests of his people, to maintain the power and privilege of the Jewish community. So, contrary to your thesis Mr. Wise, that there is no mechanism of privilege, Steinlight has provided in detail an analysis into the methods by which Jews not only have privilege, but how they must utilize that power to hold onto it for as long as possible.

So Tim Wise, my simple question to you is this. What do you make of Stephen Steinlight’s paper? Did you deliberately ignore it because you knew that linking to it would disprove your thesis that there is no “mechanism” for which Jews accumulate power and privilege? If you didn’t bother to read the article and are just simply assuming this was a blogpost by some right-wing Jewish extremist hack, then what do you say now to Stephen Steinlight? What is your response to his thesis, supported by mountains of evidence, that Jews, in his own words, constitute “The most privileged and powerful of white Americans.” Furthermore, what do you make of that he advocates using this privilege that you deny exist to maintain this aforementioned power?

Jan Stachniuk and the Spirit of the World

via Radix

Jan Stachniuk was born in 1905 in Kowel, Wołyń (in what is today Ukraine). In 1927, he began his public activity in Poznań, where he studied economics. There, he became active in the Union of Polish Democratic Youth and published his first books: Kolektywizm a naród (1933) and Heroiczna wspólnota narodu (1935). Beginning in 1937, Stachniuk published the monthly magazine Zadruga, which gave birth to a new idea current of the same name. In 1939, two additional books were published: Państwo a gospodarstwo and Dzieje bez dziejów (“History of unhistory”). During the Second World War, he inspired the ideology of the Faction of the National Rise (Stronnictwo Zrywu Narodowego) and the Cadre of Independent Poland (Kadra Polski Niepodległej). In 1943, Stachniuk published Zagadnienie totalizmu (with the help of the Faction). He fought in the Warsaw Uprising and was wounded. After the war, he failed to resume publishing Zadruga, but before the Stalinists attained power in the country, he managed to publish three more books: Walka o zasady, Człowieczeństwo i kultura, and Wspakultura. In 1949, Stachniuk was arrested and sentenced to death in a political show trial. The sentence was not carried out, and he got out of prison in 1955, but he was no longer able to perform any kind work. He died in 1963 and was buried in the Powązki Cemetery.

Stachniuk is the creator of the philosophical system known as “Culturalism” or “Evolutionary Pantheism,” which in its axiological plane is based on the spirituality of the ancient Slavs. The influence of Frederick Nietzsche, Max Weber, Georges Sorel, and Stanisław Brzozowski are also evident, but nevertheless Culturalism, when compared to other currents of European philosophy and humanities, is one of a kind. If we had to compare it to something, then, in my opinion, the closest analogue would the philosophy of Vedanta.

Cosmology and philosophical anthropology

Man is the vanguard of the creative world evolution, the most perfect expression and tool of the Creative Will, active in the world; he struggles to be something greater than he is. This process of exponentiation of the human power over nature and the elements of his own nature is culture. The cessation of this process, for whatever reason, passively submitting to the laws of bare biology and the charms of pure vegetation—this is the opposition of culture; this is backulture (“wspakultura”).[1]
The world is a will. It strives for more and more complex and higher forms.”[2] “The world is a living organic unity, developing towards perfectness. […] The vanguard of the world-in-creation is man. […] The development ability of man relies on his capability of creatively re-creating the existing natural order into a new form of power, which is the objective world of accomplishments of culture. On a biological level, man is part of the natural world order. We are born; we multiply; we feed like all mammals; but we are distinct from this level by an enigmatic capability of binding nature’s energy into a new form of cultural power.[3]
Every species of animals that exists on this world struggles to survive. In opposition to dead matter, animals try, by different means, to “manage” the environment in which they live—they hunt, defend their turf, create a herd with its own hierarchy, and so on. In a way, animals fill the world with themselves, by managing the environment—they struggle to fulfill their needs; they struggle for an existential optimum (“biovegetation” in Stachniuk’s terminology). This “optimum of biovegetational existence” Stachniuk calls “physiological happiness.” Everything that lives, including humans (as biological entities), struggles for “physiological happiness.” The essence of biovegetation is the “eternal turn”[4]—during millions of years of evolution, the lives of mammals and insects does not change significantly; they all live more or less the same way. They are constantly in the confines of “biovegetation.”
The factor that distinguishes man from other living species is his capability of creation, the enigmatic creative element. Only man is capable of progress, of development, of creating ever more perfect and better forms, to material, social and spiritual life.[5]
As we all know, man is the only specie that managed to lift itself above and beyond pure biology. He created cities, states, law, culture, art, science, technology, civilization. Man forced himself out of the eternal turn of biovegetation. How? According to Stachniuk, man remains an animal and part of the world of biology, “but in his essence there was a breach. This breach is the ability of creation, the creative genius. It is an over-biologic plane. From its nozzles, the humanistic world open up.”[6]
The creative evolution is perpetrated by another bearing, on another level. The cosmic will has forgone its prime intent and instead strives towards recycling the world into a pulsating organism of concentrated cultural power, of which man is the core. […] [E]very one of us is a very tragic being, because we belong simultaneously to two levels of existence: biovegetational and creative-humanist.[7]
The nature of man is then dualist. On the one hand, man is an animal and a part of biovegetation. On the other hand, he is something over-biological, something beyond an animal; he has a spiritual element and the capability to create. He’s the creator of “culture.” Man, as a type of being “flounces” between two levels of existence.
The moment when the emotional element was able to vanquish its internal inertia and induced man do the first cultural action is the birth of the creative will.[8]
According to Stachniuk, the fullness of humanity—panhumanism—is reached when man, with all of himself, submits to the creative will and embraces his mission, i.e., when he creates “culture.” Panhumanism can be defined as man’s will and capability to mold being according to his ever more magnificent visions, as well as the awareness and readiness of man to fulfill his leading role in the creative world evolution. Man has the capability to process the energy of the world into objective works of culture, which, in turn, serve to intensify the process of culture itself. This is his mission—it manifests itself in action and is the process of building the process of culture.

All of this is possible thanks to the “organ of man’s genius.”
It is not a bio-morpholigical organ, but has consisted of our whole physiological apparatus. […] The intangible organ in our bio-physical organism transmutes the normal course of physiological processes into dispositions of creation. This is why we speak of the organ of man’s genius.[9]

The primal biological energy, which in the animal-plant world is directed towards unlimited biological expansion is transmuted, in man, into man’s genius, that is the creative will. It, in turn, leads to an unlimited development of the instrumentarium as a tool of its mission.
The creative will is what enables man to pull himself out of the vicious circle of the “eternal turn,” thereby attaining a higher mode of existence, which enables the fulfillment of man’s mission, by building culture—which manifests itself by creating ever new “culture-creations” or the “instrumentarium of culture.”

The full and proper life of a human depends on overcoming the inertia of the biological level of existence and transforming the elemental life energy of our bodies into the creative will, which, in turn, should most fruitfully manifest itself in the development of an “instrumental will.”[10]

The organ of man’s genius enables him to experience being and life in a specific way, namely in feeling the organic unity of the world, ever evolving into ever higher forms. This way of sensing the world is (evolutionary) pantheism. It is the creative will that is the factor that distinguishes man from the rest of the animals. “Our contingent biological shell is a bearing, by which the creative will flows by divine stream; our psycho-physical personality is a contingent tool; by humbly submitting to this will, we can perform the most profound, the most burdened transmogrifications in the world.”[11]

Humanity, in Stachniuk’s eyes, is a process of creation that consists of three elements: a) human biology, b) creative will and c) instrumental will. These are the three elements of “panhumanist man.”[12] Human biology—that’s our organisms, our physical potential, our muscles, and the work of our hands. Creative will is our “inborn direction of emotion and drives in man”; it’s the subject of the humanist world.[13] The third element is the instrumental will, in other words the ability of binding the energy of the natural world into a form of cultural power.

Man is seen as a being eternally developing himself by his creations, and this work is a process that is constant throughout generations. In the light of the philosophy of Culturalism, man is not an individual, a monad existing in a void or a set of individuals, but a string of generations. Humanity is perceived by Stachniuk as the process of creating and re-creating the world, constantly perfecting it, while dismissing it means—ultimately—the rejection of humanity itself.

The philosophical anthropology of Culturalism is very much interconnected and interwined with its. . .

Theory of Culture as Meta-narration

Stachniuk’s theory of culture makes up the core of his philosophy. It is really the backbone of Culturalism. Every current in Stachniuk’s thought springs from it.
The sensation of the creative pressure, the feeling of the cosmic mission of creation, the desire to contribute to the creative world evolution by man is, in the lens of Culturalism, a sign of health and moral youth. According to Stachniuk, this is normal, the way it should be. Human history is the eternal antagonism of two, contradictory, directions—“the first one is the blind pressure of man towards panhumanism, the second is the escape into a solidified system.”[14]
The axis of human history on the globe is not the struggle between Spirit and Matter, egoism and altruism, God and Satan; it’s also not the class struggle or race struggle, but the struggle of culture and backulture [wspakultura] for the power over humanity […] Each of us is a warzone between the culture current and the backulture current. […] The current of culture is the process of becoming of the force and power, the richness and dynamism of life.[15]
What is “culture”? It is the “process of binding the energy of the field of the elements.”[16] For Stachniuk, culture is not something meant to tackle or inhibit nature, it is a process of reforming it. Culture is something that emerges from nature and is its higher level. A human of “panhumanism” acts as a transformer of energy—the energy of the elements—that produces “culture-creations.” What are culture-creations? Examples are law, the state, poetry, technology, music, philosophy, a factory, and the Internet. Humanity is thus (in its ideal state) an interconnected web of energy transformers, constantly updating and perfecting the world and humanity, producing culture-creations that are, in turn, used as fuel for even more powerful culture-creations. Culture—the process of reorganizing the field of the (natural) elements—is the ultimate mission of humanity.

It is, of course, clear as day that we don’t live in a world full of conscious “panhumanists.” Why is that? As I mentioned earlier, the nature of human is dualistic—there is the bio-vegetational level and the creative-humanist level. A human being is a warzone of the battle between culture and backulture. What is backulture? It is the cessation of the process of culture; the passive yielding to the laws of bare biology and appeal of pure vegetation. It's passiveness, inertia, standstill. It is the "cosmic illness.”

The effects of backulture in the world of man can be seen as the “unhistoric” attitude and the desire to free oneself from the requirement of creation. It is the degrading of oneself to the primitive, primordial, animal level by directing oneself towards passive consumption of culture-creations. The defective human, who is under the influence of backulture, sees culture only as something to be consumed. He does not see culture as a fertile field than can be farmed in order to raise crops of culture-creations. Culture is seen purely as a thing for pleasure, for individual gratification, something that helps the individual attain “physiological happiness,” not as a mine of mighty energy capable of recreating the world as we know it.

Prime examples of backulture are, according to Stachniuk, universalist world religions like Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism, which show “contempt for creativeness.” They reduce human life to a place to score points for the “other life” or the “other world.” They show an anti-humanist and anti-creative attitude. This is why the creator of Zadruga dismisses them and looks to Paganism instead.
The wave of total backultures (…) in the last three thousand years has extinguished the dawn of the creative actions of man. The first sparks of the fire have been covered with darkness. The just barely ignited fire of India has been quickly extinguished under the shroud of Brahmanism, and then different types of Buddhism. The procession of the cross extinguished the march of Hellenic culture. In other places, Buddhism and Islam have acted similarly. On the once fertile fields poisonous weeds have spread. We know them: Brahmanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, and countless other forms of elements of backulture. They captured enormous pieces of humanity. All bigger human congeries were its victims. India, China, almost all of Asia is to this day paralyzed. After a magnificent blooming of the Greco-Roman culture, lasting only a few centuries, it seemed that it has fallen into the eternal darkness of unhistory [bezdzieje]. They’ve lasted one and a half thousand years. After this period, an unbelievably lively mixture of European peoples freed themselves partially, creating modern culture. It would be disingenuous to think that all of Europe took part in its creation. All the Slavic east and almost all Romantic nations have been deeply paralyzed by Christian backulture. The world in its overwhelming mass is immersed in the darkness of this or another total backulture. Generally speaking, it rules over 90% of humanity.[17]
One may ask, of course: “How can you say that medieval Europe was decadent if it was then united and powerful? How can you call Christianity a destructive force considering the whole of European Christian culture?”

Stachniuk provided an answer for that. In a situation where backulture cannot totally break down the fire of culture, it starts acting like a parasite. It uses the lively energy of the process of culture to preserve itself and not let culture free itself completely. This is what happened in the case of Europe.
Kindly, sweet, and humble Christ, who ordered us not to resist evil, made some exceptions, major ones. Where the matters of faith were involved, he used “vane” and “fading” means and used them with feelings that can’t be described as “love.” When he saw tradesmen trading in the house of prayer, he burst with feelings not at all “sweet.” […] We have here a flash of a principle, which can be described like this: Everything is vanity, everything should be forsaken and disdained, except the situation in which this vanity can be used to strengthen the “truth.” Anger is evil, the sword and the whip are tools of evil, but if through anger, the sword, or the whip we clear the path for the Church, then anger, the sword, and the whip and all that is vane becomes worthy. This is the principle that we call the perverse instrumentalism of backulture[18]
This mechanism is actually the creator of the medieval order of Europe. Rome, undermined and its true essence destroyed by Christianity, was gradually overwhelmed by lively Germanic warrior tribes, ready to fight, conquer, and plunder. Of course, the primitive Germanic tribes were impressed by the refined and sophisticated traditions of Rome. What they didn’t recognize was that this was not the true Rome but a fleeting shadow of what it once was. Nonetheless, the Germanic people were presented with an opportunity: “Do you want to take over the Roman legacy? If you so desire, just let us baptize you.”

That said, not all went as planned. The Germanic people were, in fact, conquerors. Christianity couldn’t just do whatever it wanted with them; it had to make a compromise.
The youthful dynamism of fresh peoples was harnessed to realize the grand project of making all European peoples sick, subjecting them to the domination of the backulture of the cross. All Europe was becoming a field to broaden “the vineyards of the Lord.” The Germanic peoples, adapting to their new role, spread the sickness of the cross on the whole continent. They were appointed to that task because, thanks to their position of conquerors, they didn’t submit to the appeal of Christian mysticism, while simultaneously taking the political goals of Christianity—the creation of a universal empire—as their own. […] This is how the concept of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation was born.[19]
This is how the “perverse instrumentalism of backulture” works in practice. It harnesses the youthful energy of culture (which could be much more powerful on its own) to further spread its disease. After this single “compromise,” the next one was not necessary. Christian backulture could now, with the might of the German sword, attempt to fully Christianize the Slavs—no punches pulled, no compromises. The cross, along with the German sword, could now completely destroy the original, Pagan, Slavic culture. Slavdom became a Christian colony in the full sense of the word. Everything that was not subject to the believers of the cross was destroyed. The original tradition was severed.

Although Stachniuk was and still is considered very much anti-clerical and anti-Christian, it would be a misinterpretation to reduce him to such. He knew full well that simple “secularization” is not the answer. The reason for this is that backulture does not come only in the form of religion; there is also “secular backulture”—simplistic rationalism, “free-thought,” pacifism, “human rights” ideology, or crude hedonism. Secular backulture (also called “unhistoric rationalism”), just like Christianity, forsakes the building of culture, the great mission of empowering man, and the creative world evolution. It also fails to recognize the difference between Christian spiritualism and the creative world evolution. Anything that goes beyond pacifism, hedonism, and physiological happiness seems suspect and often outright “fascist.” But in reality, it is yet just another form of backulture.


Jan Stachniuk was a man ahead of his time. His concepts were often either harshly criticized or ignored during his life. He was a man that advocated embracing dynamic progress, science, and technology, whereas mainstream “national radicals” were thrilled by Nikolai Berdyaev’s static “New Middle Ages.” You could even say that his combination of embracing advanced technology and simultaneously appealing to the values of the ancient world anticipated Guillaume Faye’s concept of “Archeofuturism.”

The author of “History of unhistory” was also instrumental in reviving the pre-Christian religion of the Slavs in Poland. He is a cult figure among many contemporary Polish Rodnovers. His memory not only lives on, but proves to be an inspiration nowadays for religious organizations, (meta-)political organizations, and music bands alike.

Jan Stachniuk is an ethical maximalist and a firm believer in human potential. It’s worth to note that, unlike Nietzsche, he didn’t advocate attaining power for its own sake. A man of panhumanism should not see other people as tools for his own advancement. His goal should be becoming a hero to his community. Stachniuk’s ideal is not a single Übermensch, but a great and heroic community. His goal was creating a myth; a myth of the “national creative community.”
I am human; therefore I am fulfilling the goal of the world. […] It is through the human, through his cultural work, that the creative world evolution takes place. […] The human is not a boring creature looking for satisfaction, peace, lyrics of digestion, and caramel sensation of the mind on the basis of physiological happiness, like the secular unhistory or “eternal virtues” and communing with the “truth” revealed by various “redeemers.” The human is a boiling cosmic energy, looking for ever greater ways of expression in culture creations charged with tragic creativeness. […] The desire to live a valuable life today means to push forward the birth of the myth of the creative community, to boldly head into the fire of the coming change.[20]

  1. J. Stachniuk, Droga rewolucji kulturowej w Polsce, Toporzeł, Wrocław 2006, 5
  2. J. Stachniuk, Człowieczeństwo i kultura, Toporzeł, Wrocław 1996, 18
  3. J. Stachniuk, Droga, op. cit., 8
  4. This term should not to be confused with Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence of the same,” which is a different concept altogether.
  5. J. Stachniuk, Człowieczeństwo, op. cit., p. 10
  6. Ibid., p. 21
  7. Ibid., p. 22
  8. Ibid, p. 24
  9. J. Stachniuk, Chrześcijaństwo a ludzkość, Toporzeł, Wrocław 1997, 11
  10. J. Stachniuk, Droga, op. cit., 9
  11. J. Stachniuk, Człowieczeństwo, op. cit., 24
  12. J. Stachniuk, Droga, op. cit., 9
  13. Ibid., 23-24.
  14. J. Stachniuk, Chrześcijaństwo, op. cit., 15
  15. J. Stachniuk, Człowieczeństwo, op. cit., 117
  16. Ibid., 27
  17. Ibid., 119.
  18. J. Stachniuk, Chrześcijaństwo, op. cit., 137.
  19. Ibid., 179.
  20. J. Stachniuk, Człowieczeństwo, op. cit., 254.

N.B.: All translations are by the author.

Mass Immigration, it’s Causes, and the Jewish Question

via Western Spring

Recently in the comments section relating to the previous article one of our readers made the following statement:

“Mass immigration must be the most disruptive thing to have happened to Britain since de-industrialization in the 1980s, yet neither establishment politicians or media can offer an explanation for why it happened. Occasionally clues are provided like the Channel 4 news item about Syrian ‘asylum seekers’ in Scotland. We were told that Scotland needs 24.000 immigrants a year to ‘survive’, and that without tax revenues from the immigrants government funding of welfare would collapse due to the aging population. The reality is that far from the immigrants paying for our pensions the reverse is true – we are paying for their pensions. Migration Watch estimate that immigration since 1995 has imposed a burden of between 105 to 160 billion pounds on public finances.

“Like many others I have been looking for answers in alternative web sites like Western Spring, and I think that with this excellent article by Barry Crockett I have found the definitive explanation for what is really going on. According to Barry and other commentators both mainstream political parties in Australia agree that population increase is needed for economic growth, yet this growth is not contributing to a reduction in the trade deficit, or increasing per capita income. The only beneficiaries appear to be the immigrants, their employers and property developers. Having read Barry’s article I have concluded that there must have been a decision at an international level to promote economic growth by immigration in all the developed countries, yet the decision was taken in secret and the public were not consulted. There may be other motives such as undermining the national sovereignty of white countries to facilitate their integration into the EU, the North American Union, and the Pacific Rim Union.

“It seem that the ruling class are clutching at straws since low levels of investment mean that the only option for economic growth before the system collapses is increasing the population by immigration. One can only marvel at the cynicism of those who are prepared to impose profound and irreversible changes on our societies for short term economic expediency.”

In response to this, I posted the following explanation:

“Most people look for simple answers and while there are some perfectly valid simple answers, some answers are less simple or obvious and this is a more complex issue than some would suggest.

“The simplest reason for mass non-White immigration into European countries (and I include North America and Australasia in this category), is that the world’s population is expanding at a rate that cannot be supported in the Third World and so their surplus populations are forced to find additional living space elsewhere. The pressures upon these surplus populations driving them out of their native lands are greater than the pressures within European countries pushing them back, and so this endless tide of non-White immigrants arrives on our shores seeking somewhere to live and some means of sustenance, be it work or benefits. And this seemingly endless tide of immigrants will only stop when the pressures within European countries holding them back are greater than the pressures created by their bourgeoning numbers in their native lands. Of course if we Whites do nothing to deter them, that point will only be reached when so many immigrants live in Europe and our gross national product is so thinly spread that the standard of living is reduced to Third World levels, and long before this point is reached, we Whites will have been driven to the point of extinction.

“Another simple reason is economic. As Barry Crockett has explained, if one increases the number of people living and working in a country, then in numerical terms, then gross national product will be deemed to have increased and brainless politicians can congratulate themselves on having ‘grown the economy’. The fact that the increase in gross national product is not proportionately as great as the population increase and this means that the gross national product per capita has gone down making everyone slightly poorer on average, seems to elude them, just as long as their ‘Bullingdon Boy’ buddies, various key multinational corporations, the banks and their favourite oligarchs are making more money, that is.

“Anyone wanting to learn more about this should read one of our past articles, entitled ‘The Root Of All Evil':
“Some of the reasons are political. Various organisations established for messianic religious, social or ideological reasons believe that national boundaries and cultural and racial differences are impediments to the spread of their chosen faith. They believe that in order to spread their faith to the entire world requires the elimination of these differences and this can only be done by promoting the ‘World as a melting pot’ idea and encouraging as many people as possible to migrate back and forth so that they become ‘atomised’ individuals with no inconvenient loyalties or affiliations. Marxists, humanists, Muslims and the mainstream Christian churches all fall into this category, to name but a few.

New Agers 2“Some of the reasons are conspiratorial or masonic, and while there are many quite harmless masonic groups, there also exist masonic organisations that have ambitions to rule the world and who also have a desire to break down all social, national or racial barriers for reasons already explained.

“Most masonic organisations have no membership qualifications other than a penchant for ritualised social interaction, a love of dressing up, and a desire to feel ‘special’, but there are others, membership of which is exclusive, dynastic, hereditary, racially or religiously based., and these are the ones primarily involved in conspiracies to accumulate money and acquire political power and influence in the furtherance of their aims. These are the ‘Secret Societies and Subversive Organisations’ that authoress Nesta Webster wrote about in the early 1900s and that people refer to as the ‘Illuminati’, or the ‘Bilderbergers’, or the ‘Learned Elders of Zion’, etc.

“Lastly, one reason is psychiatric. We are all familiar with examples from history of men primarily, who are described as megalomaniac personalities. Such people do exist and while we tend to find out about the ones that hale from lowly beginnings, because they tend to fail as a result of their lowly starting point, some megalomaniacs are born into the richest of families and they suffer no such disadvantages. These are often the kind of people who are found at the helm of organisations of the types described above and they are often famous for their ‘workaholic tendencies’ despite having more wealth than they could realistically hope to spend in a thousand lifetimes.”

The above was of course intended to provide a broad overview of the causes of mass immigration into White countries and while I felt it was sufficiently comprehensive, I was later taken to task by one of our regular commenters, who stated:

“Max, you spent a whole lot of words there giving all sorts of incidental reasons for mass third world immigration, legal or otherwise, into White countries, yet you fail to name the proverbial organized jewish elephants in the room. Why?

“It was and is organized jewry that opened, and continues to open the flood gates of mass third world immigration to White countries, ending what was effectively a Whites only immigration policy.

“Organized jewry runs our governments and immigration policies against the true interests and will of the ordinary people. That is THE reason we have non-Whites flooding our countries.

“And you can call this fact simplistic all you like, but that is the “complicated truth” of the matter that a lot of otherwise smart people have difficulty getting their heads around.

“I’m sure you understand this, yet we have you commenting here, all sort of coy like?”

My reply was as follows:

“You are wrong, I covered the machinations of organised Jewry under the heading of masonic groups promoting immigration. If the threat we face is viewed from that perspective, as coming from a ‘hereditary masonic community’, which is what organised Jewry actually are, in common with certain other hereditary masonic communities, that threat can be assessed far more accurately and the threat can be addressed far more openly and effectively, without contravening ‘hate speech’ legislation.

“Lots of nationalist websites exist today and a large proportion of them boast about their defiant attitude towards the draconian ‘hate speech’ legislation that exists in this country. They can do that because they are currently so insignificant that they are not worth the bother of prosecuting, and they never will be. We at Western Spring however intend that one day we will present a mortal threat to our enemies and when we reach a size such that we are recognised as such, our enemies will if we have not been smart, deluge us with ‘hate speech’ prosecutions and use police state methods to close us down. We don’t intend to make that easy for them and we will not be ‘handing them our heads on a silver platter’ by indulging in crude language or by making statements that in legal terms are undeniably ‘incitements to racial hatred’.

Protocols“This is a thinking person’s website designed for people who can think and we expect our readers to be able to look at what we write and say to themselves, ‘now where do organised Jewry fit into this equation? … Ah yes, I see,… I remember Max referring to them on numerous occasions as ‘an hereditary masonic community’ and I see he has referred here to the Learned Elders of Zion’. Clues don’t come much more obvious than that!

“Sometimes ‘less’ is ‘more’, and we don’t always have to convey our message in fifty-feet high neon signs.

“Smart people often have difficulty getting their heads around the ‘Jewish question’ because of cognitive dissonance, the fact that what they see does not tally with the simplistic messages that nationalists often convey. This is why the ‘message’ has to be technically accurate.

“The fact of the matter is that Jewry are not strictly speaking a religious community. There is a religious aspect to Jewishness, but there are many Jews, many of them famous, who do not observe the Jewish religion. Many of them have converted to Christianity or some other religion or are atheists, but in many cases this does not stop them acting in the interests of what I call organised Jewry. They continue to act in the interests of organised Jewry because it is an implicitly masonic community.

“It is also a fact that Jews are not strictly speaking a race as some maintain. There is a racial element to Jewishness, because Halachically Jewishness is passed on by hereditary means, from mother to child. But many Jews, many of them famous, are not racially Semitic, Turkic or Hamatic. Some Jews come from blood-lines so intermixed with European blood-lines that they look more ‘Nordic’ than most Europeans. They however, often continue to act in the interests of organised Jewry because it is an implicitly masonic community.

“Smart people will oftentimes have encountered a nominally Jewish family or individual living remotely from any Jewish community and they will rightly perceive that these Jewish people are not part of an insidious conspiracy to do down the White race and the same goes for isolated individuals or families from any of the ethnic minorities in this country, and they will be deterred from supporting us because of cognitive dissonance, that the people they see do not correlate with what some nationalists will describe as ‘the Jooooz’ in their rants.

“We should not want ethnic minorities living among us irrespective of whether or not they pose a clear and present danger, for obvious reasons, but our opposition to them must be made rational by an explanation that ethnic minorities, once they are present in such numbers that they can begin to organise as a separate community, will always do so and they will always then adopt an in-group/out-group mentality and begin to act in the same way as a masonic organisation, profiting as a result of their practice of in-group preference at the expense of the host community.

“When organised minority groups become wealthy and powerful we must expect that they will want to so order our society and implement legislation and engineer events (like wars) so that these all play to their advantage, and we must get away from this belief that Jews are a uniquely evil people. Organised Jewry have been acting as a masonic community for a very long time and they are so much more practised at it than other ethnic minorities, but they are doing no more and no less than other ethnic minorities would do, if we give them the chance.

“Our task must therefore be to remove all minority groups from within our midst.”