May 14, 2015

About Cultural Marxist Situational Dominance

via Henry Dampier

Situational dominance is contingent on local factors.

For example, a 5’4 female teacher with a firm demeanor is situationally dominant over a classroom full of 5-year-olds. If she raises her voice, she can even be intimidating. Outside the classroom situation, however, she’s a short woman in a low-prestige profession who will have trouble commanding general respect unless there are other mitigating factors. Certainly, she’d have problems bossing around rowdy teenagers.

In the cultural scene — particularly in publishing of all kinds — progressives enjoy a limited situational dominance.

On a university campus, if someone tells you that you have to check your privilege — and you’re trying to move up from being an associate professor — you must submit utterly or have your life destroyed. Even if the person is a 55 year old lesbian who had to quit molesting kids because she became too ugly to have them fall for the ol’ candy-van trick anymore, if you’re an associate professor and she’s the committee chair, you need to grovel to her.

Leftists tend to enjoy that sort of situational dominance over American institutions which becomes absolutely irrelevant outside their particular legal context. In a fistfight, the 55-year-old lesbian loses every time against all but the shrimpiest of men. In an academic-legal conflict, she will win just about every time.

As progressives lose influence and authority internationally and even within their own countries, they’ll find themselves only really empowered where people are compelled to respect their authority. Facing up with that retraction from the world must result in far greater interference and focus on the internal lives of average citizens. And so where there were unprincipled exceptions — like how Silicon Valley could get away without having HR departments and obeying the letter and spirit of Civil Rights Law — they must be expunged, because keeping the leftward momentum internationally is proving to be untenable, as we see with the rebuffed Middle Eastern democratic revolutions being pushed back by ISIS in some regions and by a return to military rule in Egypt.

Much of the consternation about progressive influence over Western culture comes from grousing about the situational dominance of progressives over institutions that they control (such as the US government or academia).

Yes, progressives can get your video game censored, because they own almost all of the magazines and successful websites, and the rest of the media besides. Yes, they can debauch your currency with a central bank, because progressives dominate economics departments and universities in general.

Much of the criticism comes from a sort of moralizing position — “hey, progressives, you should really think twice about using your power, because it’s mean and morally wrong.” This has never worked, but it’s the only opposition which progressives permit — grousing, and grousing is useful to progressives because it helps to identify people for them to exterminate later.

Seeing Like the State” is especially good at furnishing several examples from many different countries about the utility of temporarily permitting dissent to states. It tells you who your enemies are, so you can have them all killed later, while doing almost nothing to challenge your power.

The point of this is to argue that it’s a bad idea to challenge progressives in areas where they have institutional control. You could counter by using the recent example of right-wingers crashing the Hugo Awards, but ultimately, what that was good for was just demoralizing fringe progressives while heartening some right-wing genre fiction fans. The official science fiction author’s groups are, for the most part, still solidly progressive, and will continue to be so. Creating alternative institutions is more important and effective than trying to take over progressive institutions which are only nominally neutral.

The more profound impact on progressive institutions has come from the re-emergence of self publishing and small publishing enabled by Amazon and its eBook platform — a mostly neutral bookstore which has contributed much to the weakening of the progressive critical establishment, which they complain about endlessly. When the opposition complains about something, it’s wonderful, because they’re telling you where the pain is, and if they’re telling you where the pain is, then that’s where you should apply more pressure to cause more of it.

It’s also important to understand that, when making moral arguments in a progressive country, where most people believe in most of the tenets of progressivism, that you have the low ground when making such arguments. It’s futile to criticize progressives on moral grounds which they don’t accept, and which the majority of Westerners tend not to accept. You have to shore up the alternative moral institutions to provide those opposing sources of authority in order to create a self-sustaining resistance.

Rebels in the Elite

via Radix

Perhaps the greatest power of all is the ability to impose one’s narrative upon the minds of others. Without coercion, without violence, one epistemologically dominates others through the values and “facts” that they takes for granted. The greatest power is to determine what is “normal.” Cultural struggle is thus one of the highest political struggles.

I am always astonished at how unconscious most people are to the character and nature of the cultural power elite. If a figure is demonized by the media, academics, and the official intelligentsia, most people (even self-styled “free-thinkers”) will follow. Paradoxically, though perhaps unsurprisingly, a leftist—who is happy to cite Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “cultural hegemony” or Noam Chomsky’s “manufacturing consent”—will be the most prone to this sort of Pavlovian reaction, being the most intolerant of the “Emmanuel Goldsteins” manufactured by the regime (who are termed “racist,” “fascist,” “homophobic,” etc). The leftist will gladly admit that the media (except, of course, for the liberal sites they read) are dominated by plutocratic and corporate interests. But if he works in public education, as is often the case, he will deny that his employment by the State somehow makes him an agent of regime propaganda. And while he may denounce bias in the media due to corporate ownership and White ethnocentrism, he will become hysterical, frothing at the mouth, if the examination of the ethnic composition of media ownership were pushed further, towards the recognition that the most culturally powerful ethnic group in America, certainly at the elite level, is of Middle Eastern origin.

And while a classical leftist may fulminate against the bourgeoisie—the class whose interests are different than those of “the people”—he will take offense if this were formulated in terms of “rootless cosmopolitans,” who exist in a world above nations. (Are not the interests of Carlos Slim and Rupert Murdoch objectively different and generally antithetical to the peoples they roam among?)

While intellectual accomplishment is, above all, an individual activity—of each generation having at best a handful of those outliers’ outliers whom we call “geniuses”—producing culture for both elites and masses is a work for tiny, networked elite minorities: Hollywood, the music industry, print and audiovisual media, the Ivy Leagues, and so on.

All cultural regimes are biased insofar as they are produced by particular oligarchies that subsidize this culture in order to legitimize and further their power. So it was with the Frankish aristocracy and the medieval Church, so it is with the current increasingly transnational plutocratic elites and the media-academic establishment. The victims of political correctness—that is, victims of censorship, censure, and ostracism, who in the past would have been called heretics—can be forgiven for terming the current regime “totalitarian.” In truth, such taboos exist in all regimes. The West today, while intolerant of nationalists, allows for a fair amount of pluralism on the margins. (We don’t live in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union, and certainly not Stalin’s.)

This relative pluralism is evident in the fact that there is substantive debate on many topics, which reflect legitimate divisions within the elite, and which contribute to reorienting policy in particular areas as the globalist regime marches forward. If a critical voice is allowed to exist in mainstream culture, it is because it is promoted (whether explicitly or implicitly by being tolerated) by elite factions, sometimes in competition with each other. The question I want to pose is: is nationalism a possible option and subject debate for our elites, particularly in Europe? Is electoral politics and mainstream debate a worthwhile enterprise, or should we sit tight and prepare our cadres for “the revolution”?

Three Struggles Within the Elite

Intra-elite debate and struggles on major issues are evident in three recent and important books:
Each of these books represents broader intellectual and cultural movements, and debate among American and Western elites on how to move forward. The conflicts are quite real.

Stephen Walt said that publishing The Lobby meant he could never serve (like Samantha Power) in the U.S. government. Greenwald, no doubt, will never have privacy again and has faced a certain amount of harassment. Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained by the British at Heathrow airport. Julian Assange of Wikileaks has spent over 1,000 days holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Edward Snowden has fled to Russia and fears ever returning to the United States. For his part, Piketty, a prudent academic, has never taken any political risk (his attacks on the semi-nationalist/socialist Jean-Pierre Chevènement on free trade or his refusal to accept Légion d’honneur from President François Hollande’s do not count).

The point is, Walt, Mearsheimer, Greenwald, Assange, and Snowden have enemies because of the political decisions they have taken. Nevertheless, these three books were published and promoted in the Western media and, because they represent the interests of certain powerful factions, they have even been fêted. These come in stark contrast to attacks by individuals, organizations, and even governments on Kevin MacDonald, Robert Faurrisson, Alain Soral, Richard Spencer, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, and others, who know what ostracism really is. In each case, the book forms part of a dialectic, a response to an excessive or inefficient use of American power. Walt and Mearsheimer’s Israel Lobby is a response to the undue influence of Israel-centric neoconservatives and Likudniks, not because this is detrimental to Palestinians and other Arabs but, more pointedly, because it is detrimental to the State Department, the National Security State, and the Military-Industrial Complex. Was war with Iran really in the interests of the American Empire bien compris? These rather “WASPy” institutions—top CIA officials and military brass—tend to think not, as do the liberals, who form the American Jewish mainstream (as opposed to the hysterically ethnocentric Jews, who are part of the neoconservative clique, FOX News “hawks,” and the Israeli Right).

Walt and Mearsheimer were the standard bearers of these relatively reasonable forces within the establishment, who seek to re-center American foreign policy and create a more rational, self-interested Empire. This conflict between two tendencies in the global elite is still quite evident today and came to the forefront recently with Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress. (In contrast, Al-Qaeda terrorism enabled by Islamic immigration to the West and the spread of Islamic State fighters to Iraq, Libya, or Syria do not threaten the National Security State/Military-Industrial Complex; to the contrary, these phenomena justify their power and destroy the enemies of Israel. A twofer!)

IMAGE: Returning with Laurels: Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald at the Oscars.

Greenwald’s No Place to Hide reflects the fear of Western elites in general—political, corporate, media, etc.—in giving organizations, Google, and the National Security Agency complete knowledge of their lives. The risk is enormous. The backlash— Assange’s popularity in certain circles, Snowden’s saint-like status, and Greenwald’s winning an Oscar earlier this year—reflects the general trend of Western and particularly Anglo-Saxon history. The aristocrats band together to limit the possibility of arbitrary abuses by the king. This sort of criticism of one’s leaders and security institutions is generally not tolerated in China or Singapore, for instance.

Nonetheless, one is struck at how Assange and Snowden have had to place themselves under the protection of independent foreign leaders. In turn, Western Europe’s weakness is brought to the fore: The NSA continues to engage in massive surveillance of Europeans and clearly represents a threat to European sovereignty, and yet Snowden could only find refuge in Moscow (and not, say, Paris or Belin). Only President Vladimir Putin had the virility and benevolence to protect him—not that his protection was disinterested—but it is a telling example of the benefits of a multipolar world. The Silicon Valley-Washingon DC power nexus—the Google-NSA symbiosis—naturally invites resistance from other elites both at home and abroad.

Piketty’s Capital reflects the rising inequality within nations across the world; for example, virtually all income growth in the recent economic “recovery” has gone to the infamous “1%”—and there is a growing movement to tax and redistribute such wealth. In a context of demographic and economic borderlessness—the free movement of capital, “too-big-to-fail” banks, low-wage immigration, offshoring, tax havens, etc.— inequality can only explode, as wealth concentrates at the top, and wages stagnate or fall. Wealth is bleeding out. Google and Apple are the symbols of this new, optimized order, paying little in taxes and providing few jobs in most countries, in which they operate. In the banking sector, the leftist slogan of “privatized profits, socialized losses” is quite apt. The Marxist prophecy of capital accumulation—the rich effectively gaming the system (including owning the politico-media system) to acquire ever-more monetary symbols—is valid once again.
However, this order of merchants can only exist if there are swordsmen (i.e., the State) to guarantee it. But the government is cash-strapped—increasingly unable to pay for the welfare that the (increasingly “multicultural”) public demands or guarantee purchasing power to start paying off the national debt, or even pay for the armed forces policing the Empire.

So there is a backlash from governments and the media’s liberal wing (e.g., Paul Krugman) to try to tax the rich and the multinationals. Even the United States itself, the imperial core, is vulnerable, with American corporations moving their headquarters to Ireland or Luxembourg for tax purposes; even Republicans have argued that these companies should do their patriotic duty and file in America.
Thus, the U.S. has passed FACTA to tax citizens abroad, some members of the European Union have pushed for a Financial Transactions Tax (“Tobin Tax”), and the G20 is working to exchange banking information. And, besides, in shoring up public finances, there is the added bonus of getting ever-more information on the citizens’ wealth.

More broadly, it is obvious that the Krugman-Piketty movement more generally empowers the State and an elite associated with it: the tax authorities and the welfare bureaucracy gradually transform citizens into passive dependents waiting for some pocket money from Daddy, rather than independent small businessmen or organized workers. The Keynesians, by radically expanding public debt, make government dependent on transnational finance and reliant on Central Banks for protection. A tiny elite of bankers, unaccountable to the public, is thus able to wield staggering distributive powers. This is an arbitrariness that strangely does not trouble Krugman, Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, or even Noam Chomsky (who has denied the existence of the Israel Lobby and would not support Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton). Given the ethnic composition of the Federal Reserve’s leadership over the past three decades, one might be tempted to suggest community bias could be at play…

Thus, Walt and Mearsheimer, Greenwald, and Piketty all represent one moment in the dialectic of the proper use of imperial power: violence and power, information, and money, respectively.

Nationalism: An elite-populist power struggle

The three struggles highlighted above—on foreign policy, the Surveillance State, and wealth inequality—are purely elite struggles. They do not attract the sustained interests of the masses. The antiwar movement—essentially an opportunity for Blue America to express its identity against Red America during the Bush II years—has fizzled with the Democrats in charge, even though President Obama made few fundamental changes in American foreign policy and has, indeed, expanded the war in Afghanistan, turned half of the Islamic World into a firing range for robot bombers, and spread chaos in Libya and Syria. Civil liberties and equality certainly command some interest, but nothing that can sustain a political movement.

Shockingly for Marxists, even class—surely, the pursuit of wealth is a sufficient basis for organization?—has lost its power in consumerist and atomized societies. The aged Hillary Clinton, legitimate heir to the Democratic throne after the temporary usurpation by an impetuous Barack Hussein Obama, provides only the most extreme example of this, with a sleek and insipid campaign ad that features not a single Core American family and is dominated by minority-pandering and menopausal self-actualization. (There are a few vestigial nods to the Left: The ad includes one blue-collar worker and Clinton’s lament that “the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top”—“the top” presumably does not including Hillary Clinton.) The video at once stokes minority ethnic activism and White liberal smugness—a masterful achievement.

All of these struggles about Israel, surveillance, and inequality are then intra-elite struggles. The people are at best props or auxiliaries.

But there is one political struggle that can still be a genuinely popular struggle—nationalism. Here, the elite frequently has to work to contain the popular urge towards nationalism. Of course, I am convinced nothing politically meaningful can be done without elites. The point is that nationalism’s elite representatives are both massively popular within segments of the population and have been actively suppressed. Enoch Powell was the most popular politician of his generation. Jean-Marie Le Pen, with 10–20 percent of the vote, has been formally off-limits for two decades. Thilo Sarrazin’s Deustchland schafft sich ab, on how immigration would Balkanize and degrade the German nation, sold an incredible two million copies in a country of 82 million, despite a hostile reception by the media and political class. (Piketty’s Capital, despite massive support from the American liberal intelligentsia and translations into English, Chinese and Spanish, has reached 1.5 million, with just 150,000 in France.) With class consciousness dead, identity—ethno-national identity—is all that remains. And nationalists can be optimistic: nationalism will never die so long as ethnos exists. Ethocentrism is a biologically-ingrained evolutionarily-determined, and adaptive preference for one’s kin. Peoplehood and love for one’s people are central aspects of what it means to be human, of having a legacy, and passing it on. We live forever only through our posterity as a people. Nationalism will persist until liberals, in their hatred of life, edit out the life-instinct itself from the human genome.

Almost every European country, then, has a thriving nationalist subculture. And almost every one has a (pseudo-)nationalist party targeting the more ethnocentric share of the population. Nationalism is a popular struggle to save ourselves as peoples. But nationalism is also an elite struggle. Even a widely popular party would have no chance at government if the mainstream politico-media class were opposed to it (either through marginalization, demonization or, ultimately, pure and simple persecution, as occurred with Golden Dawn’s imprisonment). Certainly, there is the Bolshevik option, but frankly that is not my model of politics. Adolf Hitler and Hugo Chávez only achieved power electorally because the divided ruling elite of the day did not oppose them. And, perhaps, the Chavista model is a realistic one for us: Chavez was a man who, prior to being elected, wore ties and gave off airs of Tony Blair, assured interviewers that, of course, Cuba was a dictatorship, but, after achieving power, attempted to use it to better his people and threaten the Washington consensus. Is Marine Le Pen, in symbolically murdering her father, betraying nationalism to collaborate with the regime? Or is she opportunistically sending the necessary signals in order to take power and then emancipate herself?

Personally, if nationalist parties are ever to govern in the short to medium term, I am convinced that they could not do so without the approval, or at least passive consent, of a substantial fraction of mainstream elites. And while the situation in America is hopeless, in Europe many national elites do seem divided on various aspects of the globalist project. In particular, among European elites, there is real anxiety regarding the possible destruction of the nation-state. Could not Great Britain govern itself as a sovereign country by leaving the EU? Would French elites not be worse off locked into an incompetent and unresponsive EU and Eurozone, leaving the French State obese yet impotent? Would not French elites, including Jews, be worse off living under an Afro-Muslim majority? Have Italy’s industry and public finances not been ruined by the overvalued currency of the Eurozone?

These questions are all genuine debates held in European countries, increasingly in the mainstream. Embodied in France by a journalist like Éric Zemmour and FN’s normalization, in Britain by Peter Hitchens and UKIP, in Germany by Thilo Sarrazin and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), in Italy by Oriana Fallaci and populist parties like the Five-Star Movement (M5S) and the Lega Nord. Political nationalism exists in Europe, partly against the will of its elites, as an escape valve for ethnocentrism. (One would need to study why the American elite, in contrast, has been so successful in suppressing any genuine political expression of European-American ethnocentrism since desegregation.) But it also exists because European national elites are divided, knowing, in the recesses of their hindbrains, that the destruction of their nations would not even be good for them. As globalism’s failures become clearer, hopefully sooner rather than later, the junction between elite and people will come with nationalism.

Dear Black America: I Need You to Respect What White America Is Feeling Right Now

via The Audacious Epigone

Dear Black America,

It is somewhat strange to address this to you, given that I’ve been told my whole life that race is just a social construct or that, at most, it is no more than skin deep, and I have had little choice but to imbibe a good deal of your popular culture growing up. Yet today is another day you have forced me to decide who I identify with—and, as always when you force me—I fall decidedly on the side of “Western Civilization”.

Every comment or post I have read today voicing some version of disdain or indignation for anyone critical of the feral behavior on display in Baltimore—“You are perpetuating white supremacy” or “Your ability to ignore the real situation is a mark of your privilege” or “You can’t understand the internalized oppression people of color suffer” or “Racist cops!” or “whites have also rioted before”—tell me that your concerns do not extend beyond rationalizing and deflecting. I am not asking you to condone or agree with public order. You don’t have to say anything. Please just let me tell you what I see:

I see an unrestrained underclass incapable of building or maintaining a functioning society eagerly looting and pillaging that society on the flimsiest of pretexts

I see the consequences of a growing number of unskilled people in an American job market that increasingly has no use for them, consequences accentuated by uncontrolled immigration

I see disorganized, irresponsible mothers desperately trying to fill paternal roles they are incapable of adequately fulfilling on their own

I see the conflagration being kindled by an Establishment that presumes straight white men are explicitly guilty until proven innocent and implicitly guilty irrespective of the evidence

I see those flames of resentment being stoked by an Establishment that treats blacks who suffer at the hands of authority figures as sacred beings beyond reproach no matter how inappropriate, illegal, and dangerous the actions and behaviors leading to said suffering has been

I see the gross double standards for behavior that allow blacks to do and say with impunity things that cause whites who do and say the same things to be purged from their jobs and excommunicated from polite society

If you not looking at crime rates empirically, not engaging in candid conversations about human population differences, not paying attention to how blatantly false the official narratives so often are, then you are perpetuating vicious racial hatreds by blaming everything on white America. That Trayvon Martin was being punched by George Zimmerman, that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot, that excessive force was used to subdue Eric Garner, that Walter Scott was hunted down in cold blood, that a racist white cop is being charged with second-degree murder in the death of Eddie Gray are all perceptions that are both widely believed and demonstrably false. This mendacity affects lives every day. We would be prudent to consider it all the time rather than, say, none of the time.

According to the Cathedral’s doctrine of racism as white Original Sin, even if you have striven to cleanse yourself of your white privilege by partaking in self-flagellating acts of penance, voting for Barack Obama, emphasizing your Jewish heritage, and supporting perpetual wealth transfers from (other) whites to non-whites, you cannot escape the shade of your skin. Being a business managing, heterosexual, college-educated Midwestern white male from a middle class background places me near the bottom of the victimization pyramid. Quotas, PR departments, and PC etiquette dictate that despite being worse than useless when it comes to gaining anyone any points for diversity, I nonetheless be forever prepared to give and never to take. This necessarily gives me little recourse but to turn my back on a society that despises me when it’s not trying to despoil me.

For most of my childhood, I actively tried to keep race from being a defining factor in my social affairs. I find this an increasingly difficult position to maintain, given the reality of biological differences between people and, by extension, groups of people. Because I have to worry about my son’s safety or my wife’s well being if either of them find themselves among large numbers of blacks or in areas that are predominately black. Because people react to my sagacious, industrious, intelligent father differently, depending on whether they are aspiring entrepreneurs or parasitic bums. Race has come to influence the way I see the world because race has so much influence on how the world works.

Modern Art: An Artful Swindle?

via Alternative Right

The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the West by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art.

Starting with Kandinsky’s ‘Expressionism’ and bolstered by Clement Greenburg’s ‘Artspeak’ criticism, this new abstract creativity overwhelmed all tradition in art. Swept away in this nihilist flood were traditional art tutelage, inherited skills dating back to prehistory, high culture, good taste, standards of hierarchy, naturalism, symmetry, decoration, technical merit, self-determination and ‘becoming’ in art. Styles in painting, sculpture, and architecture that had evolved from European antiquity came to a crashing halt on the pages of ‘art theory’ criticism – a ridiculous construct of universalism that tried (successfully!) to embrace pure abstraction as progressivism in art.

Irony became the vogue. Random splatters of paint, intentionally awkward, ugly forms, and childish primitivism became the preferred modes of intellectual culture, via reams of this irrational wordsmithing. True progress was hijacked and perverted by cultural Marxism. This later would be the same brand of relativism they found could be successfully applied to all aspects of western tradition and taste, beyond just the false edifying of abstraction as intellectualism, but as a means of attacking every aspect of European culture. The self-eating snake, wracked with guilt, wallowing in weakness and trembling with pity. Their success in art criticism and art theory not only paved the way for total degradation, but the ongoing artlessness of our western world remains an enormous obstacle in allowing us to rediscover our true self-becoming.

Artistic vomit.
Today we have ‘conceptualism’ and ‘abstract expressionism’ ruling our art academies – one may take a lazy preamble into any ‘modern art’ gallery to see what kind of mindless, indefinable childishness this results in. Literal piles of garbage, arranged sex dolls, people standing in animal suits, you may find pretty much anything other than, ironically, actual art. Many voluminous rants about the imagined merits of this perpetual stream of anti-art are printed and spoken of in modern art academies and critical literature. But not a word of it amounts to anything more than liberal guilt, juvenile self-hate, and profuse obsession with human failings and perversions. Nothing that smacks of beauty of positivity or self-affirmation can fall under this new modernist art definition. All serves to remind us that grandeur is an illusion, human affairs are nihilistically limited, and we are not worth saving.

Indeed, we deserve ugly, lascivious paintings rendered childishly – they are an attack against elitism! But this view is itself a construct, relying upon egalitarian tropes, as evil and false as a lie can be. True art is not the all-encompassing cloud of pure creativity where permissiveness enshrines the freedom to announce anything you desire as art. Modernity exists upon a platform of hating true art, or all art before modernism, which they couch in snide blanket terms like ‘realism.’ There is no foundation for modern art abstraction other than proving that the public will accept whatever you tell them to accept. After all the long years of Pollocks and Picassos and Duchamps, a cursory Googling of contemporary art definitions lays bare this bizarre and poisonous foundation.

Pollock: moron.
A definition of abstract expressionism reveals that its basis is ‘A school of painting that flourished after World War II until the early 1960’s, characterized by the view that art is nonrepresentational and chiefly improvisational.’ If this revelation about art is true, that means that Michelangelo, Raphael, Phidias, Singer Sargent, Turner, Rubens, Titian, DaVinci, and every artist before this movement were completely wasting their time actually learning the craft of painting or sculpture or architecture. They should have been practising random improvisation, freeing themselves of talent and technical prowess. They should have been splashing paint about like the moronic Pollock, or painting three stripes endlessly like the con Rothko. The average person assumes that public art comes to them courtesy of respected, talented academics and institutions devoted to furthering and bettering society. They can not fathom or assume that our art ethos is an enormous lie eroding western civilization with hubris and hatred.

Modern art cannot exist in the same world as traditional art. Modern art can exist only as a hate-filled backlash against the superiority of that which came before it. Even Neolithic cave painters would not have wasted their time refusing to paint anything as a "statement of conceptual anarchy," or creating abstract ‘installations’ of arranged animal hides and straw.

If something appears to have no point, should one dig deeper until a point manifests itself? Does it not remain ultimately pointless?

Greenberg: con man.
Modern art criticism from the likes of Clement Greenberg is the only truly creative aspect of modern art. He pioneered the style of criticism that found praise in the wilfully ‘unrepresentational.’ This opened the floodgates to endless reams of eloquent bloviate about ‘redefining art preconceptions,’ ‘progressiveness,’ ‘the dustbin of history,’ and all the typical modernist buzzwords we have come to associate with generic attacks on western values. Thus, over time, the idea of craftsmanship became denigrated – as the painter became the illustrator, the true architect became a restorer, the traditional fashionista a set designer, and naturalism pastiche.

There is a reason that during the Renaissance you didn’t have celebrated artists making random splatters of paint on a canvas in the Uffizi – that is because it is stupid. It is patently, on it’s face, idiotic. Because a child really could do it.

Turner or Rembrandt did not have to compete in the creative arena with a Tracy Emin type character, traipsing around, confidently arranging mannequins or unmade beds and touting it as art because it is ‘pushing boundaries.’ That is because it takes a society existing, as we do, at a sustained level of luxurious stupidity to even imagine philosophizing such obvious lies.

This confusion, this morass of universalism, was the cultural Bolshevik victory that opened the door to all the others, and, right up to the present, remains their strongest stranglehold upon the mass mind.

Taking the piss.
Very few people care about art any more because it is so nonsensical, generations come and go just flippantly saying they don’t ‘get it.’ And all because the concept of moving art is difficult to define, and therefore easy to hijack. The day Marcel Duchamp succeeded in bringing a urinal into an art gallery was the day up became down. What seems an innocent trifle morphs into a tremendous evil: Modern Art. All of modern art, and thus modernism (including post-modernism), is based upon the flimsy concept of being wilfully bad, to prove ‘anything is art.’ Even now, it persists, when we have grown accustomed and actually expect art galleries to be awful and pointless.

Today not just our galleries but every aspect of western society has been poisoned with this relativist dogma. A willful anti-æstheticism is the furtherance of ugliness for its own sake. From music, to fashion, to furniture and architecture, we have been tricked into making our world unseemly.

Our cityscapes (save for a few untouched historic city centres such as Paris) are a ruinous, mocking tribute to a lack of defining style. They are purposefully disjointed and asymmetric, or woefully boring tower blocks: testimonies of straight lines, undecorated concrete, and plastics. Occasionally where decorative, stylish historic buildings exist they insist upon ruining them with modernist growths (such as the Toronto art gallery).

Architectural vomit.
These monolithic monstrosities serve to remind us of the inescapable horror of modernism, as a entity encompassing those values of ugliness and vapidity. No beauty can prevail in the vacuum. No organic shapes, no natural materials, classical motifs, no traditional sculpture, relief, or Euclidian perfection are permitted to exist. Misshapen and exploitative, we scurry about this landscape of misery feeling deep down that we are part of something that has gone wrong, which does not deserve to survive.

We escape the confines of drab office cubicles to walk in a courtyard of pointless and garish corporate sculpture. Under the shadow of cheaply made buildings of cyclopean drabness. Unnatural, uninspiring. If in our hearts we come close to the realisation that modernism at it’s core is a trick or a joke, we are pushed back into complacency by the all-powerful tyranny of the modern art definition, which hides behind a supposed inclusiveness, where everything is potentially art and every one an artist. Except, again, real art or artists.

And where modern architecture fails to dissuade, we have modern fashion. This incredible bulwark of stupidity and laziness seems to endlessly combine themes of leisure wear and graphic-designed sweat shop fabrics.

Would look good in front of a firing squad.
Gone are the men's suit, leather boots, fine tailored hats and coats, detailed dresses for women, or sartorial standards of any kind. The youth are half naked and in a perpetual cycle of hippy revolution against an unseen, sexually conservative oppressor who does not exist. Prevailing cyclical modern themes are garish colours, sweat pants, t-shirts, oft inspired by an endlessly repeating phenomenon of slutty pop stars based upon the model of the careless, free-wheeling whore perpetually giving the finger to a patriarchal history.

All of modernism is a pit, into which beauty must be eradicated. Tragedy must not exist. Art is a kind of self-mocking joke. Judgementalism is the only true crime and is not permitted. The moderns are incapable of seeing that to like something is to pass judgement, and requires the disliking of something else.

Perfect egalitarianism does not exist in the universe, and is impossible in the art world, in nature, or in human affairs. The galleries will never again discover genius like Leonardo or Breker so long as they contain trouts nailed to walls and television sets playing static. They exist within that vacuum of intellectual nihilism, from which there is no escape. Perpetually pushing invisible boundaries like hamsters on a wheel.

If, as I believe, we are not actually doomed to this abstraction as part of a long-suffering demise, as Spengler would have us believe, then a revision of style is possible. There are still those that might break through this obscenity, rediscover beauty and the perfection of idea that comes from the mind of a single man, acting on instinct.

Cut away the useless fat of a hundred years and start again from where Art Nouveau and to some degree Art Deco left off. But at this late stage it involves a courageous negation of hubris. Those lone warriors must strive for those ideas that can be retrieved from the perpetual wellspring of true creativity, that flowed about the great minds of antiquity like a raging river. Ideas and work that is not abstract or indefinable, but natural, primordial, and the product of intense labour and a devotion to an orderly æsthetic.

New Book by Wulf Ingessunu: "Ar-Kan Rune-Lag: The Aryan Secret Way"

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

The latest book by Wulf Ingessunu, Ar-Kan Rune-Lag: The Aryan Secret Way has now been published by Troy Southgate of Black Front Press and is currently available on Amazon. My readers are advised to snap up a copy straight away as his previous book sold out within a day or two!

Wulf as many of you know is the founder of the Woden's Folk Religion here in England and the national Folk Warder of Woden's Folk. (See relevant links at the side of this blog).  His researches into runology, particularly involving the much ignored Anglo-Saxon or more accurately, the Northumbrian Futhorc are at the cutting edge of runic research.

Learn more here: Black Front Press

White Men Marching: The Way Forward!

via Western Spring

In Newcastle earlier this year, National Action with the support of a number of other nationalist groups staged a demonstration described as the ‘White Man March’ and as I stated in my article that followed that event, “… more than one-hundred nationalists gathered at the city’s Quayside in what was clearly the largest public demonstration by nationalists for some considerable time and this is an early sign of gathering support for nationalist groups and gathering militancy – showing that British nationalism has ‘turned a corner’ since the demise of the BNP and is again on the rise.”

This ‘corner’, the first signs of which were evident at a number of meetings and demonstrations last year is the realization on the part of many nationalists, and their leaders and organizers, that collaboration is necessary if we are as a movement to make any kind of positive impact upon the public consciousness and if we are to have any hope of making political headway in the future.

 Despite this realisation by some, opinion still seems to be divided following ‘White Man March’ in terms of the value of that event in advancing the cause of our people’s survival, and while some hailed the event as I did, as a demonstration of growing collaboration and militant activism among nationalists, others were quick to point to some negative aspects of the event and decry those who took part.

Before going further, I would like to reiterate the position of Western Spring regarding street demonstrations per se:

One of the primary strategies that we adopted at our outset was that we would pursue a policy of stealth wherever possible. This policy was adopted in recognition of the fact that few of the street demonstrations organised by ‘right-wing’ organisations over the recent past have had any direct positive impact on the minds of the public and have on the contrary generally had a negative impact.

With the exception of some English Defence League (EDL) demonstrations and last year’s multiple, simultaneous demonstrations in Rotheram, demonstrations have tended to be very small, generally involving thirty to forty nationalist demonstrators at best, and some have consisted of fewer that ten. These demonstrations therefore have not been displays of strength, they have tended to be displays of numerical weakness and have therefore failed the first test of good street propaganda: that they should convey an impression of power through numerical strength.

WMM15 - 8Furthermore, as a result of their lack of numerical strength, nationalist demonstrators have often been so outnumbered by the police present that the police have been able to ‘kettle’ them in conveniently out-of-the-way places, thereby obscuring the demonstrations from public view and conveying the impression that the demonstrators’ message is so heinous and despicable that they need to be kept separate from the public at large for their own protection. This impression is often further reinforced by the usual presence of leftist and ethnic minority counter-demonstrators who frequently appear to passers-by, to be outraged members of the public.

The consequence of these limiting factors is that few members of the general public ever get to see nationalist demonstrations directly or hear what we have to say, and even when such events are reported, the news media habitually reduce their reports to disparaging statements, of the kind: ‘a small group of neo-Nazis staged a demonstration today, fights broke out, and six people were arrested’. Consequently, any potentially positive propaganda effect both directly upon members of the public witnessing the demonstrations at first hand or indirectly upon the wider public seeing reports on television is therefore largely negated.

Even when demonstrations have been large, such as those by the EDL, they have often been poorly organised and attended by unruly, often drunken groups who use the demonstrations and the inevitable hostility they encounter from the police and from the counter-demonstrators, as an excuse to vent their pent up anger in an ill-disciplined and in a variety of often anti-social and unappealing ways – completely unaware of or indifferent to the negative propaganda impact that their behaviour consequently has.

Lastly, because of their confrontational nature, street demonstrations provide an opportunity for our enemies in the media to gain valuable propaganda material showing nationalists in a negative light, they also provide the state with the opportunity to arrest key individuals and conduct high profile prosecutions damaging the reputations of the individuals concerned and in some cases leading to them acquiring social pariah status and losing their livelihoods.

A negative cycle appears to have been created with regard to demonstrations in which nationalist groups, acting often in isolation: organise a demonstration which is poorly attended; in which there is an unseemly confrontation with violent counterdemonstrators; in which the police outnumber the nationalist demonstrators and kettle them away from public view,  thereby negating the impact of the demonstration. As a consequence of the demonstration being ineffective, the nationalist group in question  fail to attract further support and therefore, because their numbers are small and their resources very limited, any further demonstrations organised by them remain small and largely ineffective. Through collaboration, National Action and other progressive groups like them have begun to break out of this negative cycle, but this process is slow and there is no guarantee of eventual success.

WMM15 - 6The factors described above do not completely negate the reasoning behind the holding of street demonstrations, but they do flag-up serious concerns that the organisers of such events need to be keenly aware of and which the organisers have a duty to mitigate as far as is humanly possible.

There are three purposes that are served by holding street demonstrations:

Firstly, if properly organised, they can bring to the attention of the public the fact that large numbers of their compatriots have legitimate concerns regarding a matter of great importance to the nation.

Secondly, they can have a cathartic and morale boosting effect upon the participants and while some critics have sneered at this, referring to it disparagingly as ‘venting’, this cathartic effect does produce a very real benefit that we would be foolish to ignore.

The lives of many White people in these modern times, particularly amongst the ‘working class’, are often made mundane with social and economic factors so pitted against us that our individual prospects for our future wellbeing and happiness are severely curtailed. Furthermore, much ‘bread and butter’ political work, vital though it is to the future survival of our people, is also mundane and there are times when the morale of even the best of us can flag.

Living within such a hostile ersatz culture in which we White people witness every day the denigration and erosion of the traditions and values that we hold dear, and in which we see going unpunished actions by minority groups that outrage our sensibilities, generates powerful internal frustrations which if not expressed, eat away at our soul and can cause or our people to become depressed and misanthropic. It is no mere coincidence that some demonstrators at the White Man March brandished flags identifying themselves as ‘Misanthropic Division’ – a reflection of the dark urges that can manifest in even the best of men should expression of their legitimate frustrations and concerns be denied and should those concerns remain for too long unaddressed.

Thirdly, because of the often confrontational nature of street demonstrations, they act as a ‘proving ground’ in which nationalists can demonstrate their metal under pressure and through such trials bonds are forged and confidence in each other is built leading to a greater sense of trust and comradeship. It is not just coincidence that at this time, after a several year hiatus since nationalists stopped and/or lost the ability to mount large and truly effective street demonstrations, that trust and comradeship between nationalists and nationalists groups is at an all time low.

An objective analysis of this year’s White Man March will identify that it will have largely failed where the first of the above purposes are concerned and may actually have been counter-productive in that respect, but with regard to the second and third functions, it was a great success. Those who attended had the pleasure of outnumbering the counterdemonstrators and some good speeches were heard which will have greatly enthused everyone concerned and I expect those who attended will have had their morale lifted, will have experienced some degree of catharsis, will have forged new friendships, will feel a sense of heightened comradeship and will have been ‘buzzing’ for some time after the event.

It is evident that despite the downsides that I have detailed above and the very real risks that demonstrations can in propaganda terms negatively rebound upon the organisations taking part, a significant segment of our wider nationalist movement derive such great cathartic, bonding and morale boosting benefits from the holding of demonstrations that they will continue to organise and hold demonstrations come-what-may. Furthermore, in what is and will be for some years to come, a long and morale sapping struggle, feelings of comradeship and the spiritual wellbeing of our activists will be of paramount importance and if street demonstrations are going to take place because nationalist activists, particularly the young and headstrong cannot bear to keep their frustrations bottled up, then those of us with a more measured approach must take steps to ensure that we bring our message to the attention of the wider public in a far more positive way and in such a way that any potentially negative propaganda effect is minimised, if not avoided altogether.

So how do we take responsibility and deliver upon these assurances?

Within Western Spring we believe the way to break out of the above negative cycle is by mounting what can only be described as a ‘movement defining event’ of such a size, with such professionalism and with such engaging passion that we catapult ourselves to a new level in terms of our impact upon the public consciousness. To do this we must mount a demonstration of a size and character and in a style that is truly impressive, not just impressive from our own naturally biases viewpoint, but truly impressive from any objective viewpoint.

This means we must garner support in terms of demonstrator numbers, not in the tens or even the hundreds, but in the thousands. It means that we must have a theme that engages the public and a standard of presentation that is impeccable. At this time however, it is obvious that such a demonstration is beyond the resources and the numbers of any one nationalist organisation and so it must be a collective effort and will require the support of the leadership of a number of groups and parties and collaboration on a vast scale.

One of the organisational failings of many recent demonstrations is that they have been hurried affairs, and this is why this movement defining event should be planned to take place at least six months hence – in the late autumn or possibly early next year.

Another of the shortcomings is that organisers have in the past failed to gain the rock-solid commitment of participants. Too often an organiser has received supposedly ‘firm’ pledges of support from a hundred people or more, only to find that just thirty turn up on the day, and we have over the years become so accustomed to our demonstrations being small that many people either don’t seriously contemplate attending them anymore or simply ‘chicken out’ at the last minute, not wanting the embarrassment of being a part of a demonstration that is derisorily small. We must therefore employ a mechanism through which we gain the rock-solid support required.

One consequence of that lack of rock-solid support has been the inability of organisers to properly control the events they have organised. They have tended to be so grateful for support of any kind that they have been reluctant to exclude disruptive elements or to turn away people whose presence at demonstrations has been counterproductive from a propaganda viewpoint. Thus we have had people attend nationalist events drunk and we have had people turn up dressed inappropriately or with ‘body modifications’ by way of extreme tattooing or piercings, such that their appearance detracts from the image we need to project.

There have also been too many instances of individuals indulging in foul mouthed rants, or in gratuitous displays of ‘neo-Nazi’ adherence,  which have no effect upon the counter-demonstrators they are aimed at, but which do untold damage to our public image.

Thirdly, and this has been the major limitation on what nationalists have been able to organise in recent times, there has been a lack of the funds needed to provide the equipment and/or the logistical support required to mount such an event. Not since the heyday of the National Front during the 1970s have attendances at nationalist marches or demonstrations been measured in the thousands and not since the pre-war meetings of Oswald Mosley have they been measured in the tens of thousands, but with the right organisation, the right backing and the right support, they could again.

So, dependent upon certain strict conditions, Western Spring are prepared to help the wider nationalist movement break out of the negative cycle described earlier and take a giant step forward, and here is our proposition:

We propose a highly ambitious movement defining event to take place towards the end of this year or early next year, which will be in the form of a large march and rally through one of Britain’s major city centres, possibly London, but just as likely one of the major provincial centres, and which will be on a scale not seen in this country for several decades and which will involve the active participation of everyone who is anyone in British nationalism today. It is intended this will be a ‘be there, or you’re nowhere’ kind of event and we intend that this event and the co-operation it will force upon us if we are to deliver, will create the impetuous for the kind of nationalist unity bandwagon that we will need if we are to have a major coming together for the sake of the cause we all hold dear.

In return for the co-operation of other nationalist groups and political parties, Western Spring will undertake to financially underwrite the main costs of the event based upon the following conditions:
  1. We receive within two months of the date of this article, emailed pledges of support from 400 men of military age. These must be verifiable individuals willing to act as either stewards or to be among one of three security sections that our marching column will require; the vanguard, midguard and rearguard. Those wishing to be included among the stewards or in the security sections will be required to attend at least one Legion training camp or similar at their own expense before the event.
  2. We receive within three months of the date of this article, emailed pledges of support from at least 1,000 verifiable individuals willing to participate as ordinary demonstrators and within six months a further 1,000. Such people can be of any age from 16 years upwards and should be fit enough to walk five miles.We expect the entire column to be over half a mile in length, marching four-abreast at two-metre intervals.
  3. Individuals pledging their support should be prepared to attend any practice events organised in preparation for the main event and should include within their emails their full contact details so that their bona fides can be established at the outset.
In return, Western Spring will fund the bulk of the paraphernalia and equipment required: banners, flags, fliers, leaflets and loudspeakers on the day, including a loudspeaker van and subject to availability: pipe and drum bands, a speaker’s platform, loudspeakers and lighting for the rally.

Furthermore, we will also subsidise the hire of coaches to ferry people to the demonstration from various pick-up points in the provinces, and Western Spring will fund the bulk of costs of  high-visibility jackets and identifying insignia, short-wave radios and other paraphernalia required by the stewards and security detachments.

Just to be clear, Western Spring are not proposing that we alone will cover all of the expenses incurred in mounting this demonstration, and we are not proposing that we alone will be responsible for all of the organisation needed, we will expect other participating organisations to play their part, but we are prepared to fund the lion’s share of the costs, such that an event of this magnitude, that would otherwise be impossible, is made possible. Also, we will need to form an organisational steering group together with the leaders of the other nationalist organisations formally taking part. Therefore we need the leaders of any other nationalist organisations who wish to be included in that steering group to email me as soon as possible to register their interest.

Following the success of this event, all participating organisations will be invited to take part in a Winter Conference with the aim of forming and giving flesh to the creation of a Movement of National Salvation to which all of the participating organisations will hopefully become affiliated and under whose auspices further events and campaigns can be conducted.

Obviously, if the response we receive to this article is inadequate, and such that the scale of event we envisage is not possible, the event will not go ahead and an opportunity of immense value to the nationalist movement will have been lost. We are not prepared to outlay thousands of pounds simply to add  a veneer of professional polish to an otherwise ill-attended event. This will either be a movement defining event, an order of magnitude greater than anything we have seen in recent decades, which will catapult us into the big-time, and will provide the impetuous for nationalist unity, or it will be a waste of time and money.

We will of course need to choose a date and a theme that will engage the public imagination and there are a number of good dates coming up towards the end of this year. I believe that Remembrance Day could be a good occasion in this year that marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, although I am sensitive to the fact that some may not feel it appropriate to unduly politicise what is primarily a day for paying tribute to fallen heroes. The National Front might also not welcome what they might see as the ‘high-jacking’ of their traditionally held a Remembrance Day Parade even if they are, as I would hope, one of the main participating organisations.

Towards the end of the year we also have the 79th anniversary of the Battle of Cable Street on 4th October and the 601st anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt in 14th October and early in the new year we have the anniversary of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Any one of these dates could be adopted for our purposes and the theme will not necessarily need to coincide with the historical event prompting anniversary. We could position the demonstration provocatively, as ‘The Battle of Cable Street – the Rematch” and thereby expunge the seventy year claim by our enemies to have defeated ‘fascism’ on that occasion all those years ago; we could position the event as a protest at continued immigration and the consequent slow genocide of our people, or we could position it as a statement of intent and a portent of the coming ‘Scarlet Revolution’, in which we will eventually drive from office the traitors who have betrayed our people for so long. The possibilities are endless, but the realisation of these dreams can only come true if we begin to organise on a mammoth scale.

I doubt that any nationalist below the age of fifty can recall the marches and rallies of the National Front in its heyday, when as many as four thousand nationalists marched through the streets of London, often headed by a colour party carrying what seemed like a forest of union flags, accompanied by Highland pipe and drum bands, with the column extending back along the road for almost a mile. These were impressive displays of numerical strength and no-one witnessing them could have failed to be impressed.

I recall one such occasion after which a Times newspaper reporter marvelled at the organisational feat involved in mounting such a demonstration and described the NF column as reminiscent of “a Roman legion on the move”! And we can achieve this again if enough nationalists will it to happen — put aside our differences — put aside our suspicions, once more place our faith in the innate nobility of our people and simply commit to this idea by responding to this clarion call in the way that I ask.

This will be the kind of event that everyone dreams of, but no-one quite believes is possible nowadays – except it is!

Such a display will make front-page news the following day in all of the newspapers and with the right level of promotion will make the 9 o’clock news on television.

The websites of all of the organisations supporting the event will be ‘on fire’ the following day with more people, young and old, wanting to join and pledging their support for future events. We therefore need to prime all of the organisations involved with ‘Welcome Packs’ ready to send out to these people and with ‘recruiters’ trained in the art of turning interest into commitment and not just commitment in-so-far-as membership is concerned, but the commitment to contribute regularly towards the fulfilment of our objectives – the acquisition of the Six Prerequisites and the successful completion of our nationalist revolution, securing the freedom and self-determination of our people.

If we pull this off, it will be the kind of event that no nationalist would want to miss and which will confer such kudos on the organisations, individuals and leaders taking part, that no-one will want to be left out. This event will mark a major turning point in the history of our movement here in Britain – it will be a day to remember!

He that outlives this day and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours.
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say “These wounds I had that day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages
What feats he did that day.
Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son
And the anniversary shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered -
We band of brothers.
And gentlemen at home this day
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That marches with us this day!
[With apologies to William Shakespeare]

Email me: if you wish to take part and help make this vision a reality.

Please do it! … don’t delay, … do it now!

A Defense of Christianity by a German Nationalist

via Faith & Heritage

An interesting debate between two German nationalists recently took place in the German nationalist youth magazine Blaue Narzisse concerning Christianity and identity. The magazine, under the chief editorship of Felix Menzel, takes the European Identitarian (nationalist)/new right position.1 I’ve translated some excerpts from both relevant pieces which should convey both authors’ arguments sufficiently.

Richard Meissner, lamenting that Christianity has made a comeback in discussions among European nationalists – which he attributes partially to the prominence of Islam in the Identitarian discourse as well as the increasing popularity of the Russian Orthodox philosopher Aleksandr Dugin on the European right – argues for the incompatibility of Christianity and a healthy nationalist love of family, folk, and fatherland.

In his piece that appeared on the 31st of March, he proceeds to explain why he considers the re-emergence of Christianity in European nationalism a very bad development:2
You can twist and turn as you want: Christianity is not a religion of self-assertion. The words of Jesus are clear: we should not resist evil but turn our cheek, and not defend our bodily existence. The same goes for our possessions, which we should surrender completely. And what is the requirement to hate his father and mother other than the command to hate one’s own country, denying one’s own identity?
[Christ] is humiliated, tortured, and murdered. Yet he tells himself, his tormentors know not what they do. He who tortures others always know exactly what he does and why he does it. “They know not what they do” – these are also not unfamiliar words, often coming from the the mouths of politically-correct politicians, journalists, and priests, every time a German is violently murdered by a foreigner. 
The early Christians were aware that self-sacrifice is the core of the Christian faith. They did not defend themselves. It would have been counterproductive, and their death was a way to achieve martyrdom, and extend their stay in the kingdom of heaven.
He then continues with a (rather ridiculous) paragraph in which he tries to make the point that the entire medieval establishment of European Christendom was really at odds with Christ’s teaching. Thereafter continuing the argument:
Modern Christians preach, for the first time since the early Church, what the essence of Jesus’ teaching is – self-abandonment. We are not to resist evil, nor the terrorists, nor the gangster. Give out anything you have here to the incoming refugees of the world. And who does not hate his father and mother, and even more-so their Nazi forefathers [grandparents?], cannot follow us!

Christianity would that the gospel be preached to all nations, but it has never claimed to save all nations. The people fall prey in his eschatology of destruction. Heimat and loyalty are words that sound grotesque in a Christian context. He who really believes Jesus’ teachings, neglects responsibility for family, people, and traditions. . . . [T]his is not identitarian. He who wants to be a man who stands up for his people and defies evil cannot be a Christian without falling into hypocrisy or sophistry. The God of the Christians saves no nations.
On the 4th of April, a response from the hand of a fellow German nationalist, Dennis Spiess, appeared, entitled Christ as Identity:3
I am a Christian. And I must admit that the article by Richard Meissner has some merit. It is true that in particular, the large, popular churches today often proclaim a very strange message. I must also agree with Meissner that it is not consistent and does not even make sense, as right-identitarians to advocate what he holds to be Christianity. . . .
To be a Christian does not necessitate having no identity or wanting to unify all identities. No, it’s simply an identity that ranks higher and deeper than gender, status, race, and nationality.
[Christian unity] concerns a spiritual unity and does not concern group formation – and certainly does not amount to egalitarianism. Yes, we know diversity. [Christianity] is colorful. But it does not necessarily make of us a bunch of “do-gooders” who sacrifice their rights to the [modern] multiculturalist, pluralist ideology, but it is [a diversity celebrated] in terms of the creativity of the Creator – “For God is not the author of disorder but of peace,” it says in 1 Corinthians 14:33. 
And yet even if the Christian is first and foremost a citizen of heaven and has no lasting earthly city, he is committed to his earthly society. It is not for nothing that Jeremiah 29.7 reads: “Seek the welfare of the city whither I have carried you into exile, and pray to the Lord for its welfare, so you will find peace.”
Are we really commanded not to resist evil? Granted, at first glance the Sermon on the Mount appears to advocate that justice be sacrificed for the sake of injustice. But Paul beautifully clarifies the Christian attitude in Romans 12.17-21. The point is not to repay evil with evil. Jesus does not say, “Let them beat you death no matter what.” But he does not advocate a vicious circle of never-ending violence. One is to avoid the sin of self-righteous retaliation when you yourself are full of guilt. And all are in some respects perpetrators. No one is a victim only. He who forgives his enemy, not only creates a real possibility that both parties involved in conflict will live together in peace, but he gives his enemies over to the infallible judgment of God.
What to do now, when our enemy is a very real threat? I trust that God will save us, as He has saved his people throughout the history of the Bible countless times. God has given the government the sword to keep law and order. If she refuses to do this, however, sooner or later she will come to a fall by a divinely-sent force. In this regard we can also reject the pacifist misunderstanding that a mindset of peacefulness implies that one cannot stand up for family or nation. The Christian is also obliged to take up the sword when God commands it. . . .
[W]e are to love our family, as it says in the ten commandments. The Lord is the Giver of all good gifts and without his benevolent grace, true familial happiness cannot exist. . . . [W]hen Jesus prayed on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” he did not mean that the Romans did not notice that they were crucifying someone. The point is rather that they were crucifying the Supreme Authority over the universe – and this unjustly. 
Meissner mocks [divine] authority . . . when he writes that a recognition of that authority means a self-sacrifice. On the contrary, a lack of [divine] authority implies relativism by which our identity . . . loses all of its actual significance and meaning.
Everything is relative without God. Albert Einstein once said that everything is relative. This statement, however, he could only make because it was based on what he considered to be an absolute truth. For if the truth is relative, what would his statement possibly mean? It’s the same with morality. If we do not believe in God anymore and leave Christianity behind us, what is really left as a solid foundation for the distinction between good and evil? How can Meissner write that a man should “defy evil” if he fails to provide any moral standard by which to know what is evil? Why am I the good guy and not the jihadists or the greenies? Claiming the moral high ground without possessing an absolute standard for morality – this is the real hypocrisy!
I think I speak for all Christian ethnonationalists when I say to Dennis Spiess that we salute you for standing up for Christian truth amid the antagonism it receives. This antagonism comes not merely (as expected) from the left, but also from the right through white nationalist neo-pagans, who often might appear to be fighting on our side, but are actually at enmity with our highest desire and end, the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31; Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 1).

If I have one criticism of Spiess’s reply, however, it is that he fails to provide a more solid biblical case against gnosticism, which he also fails to mention as the religion Meissner identifies with biblical Christianity. In this regard, his particular use of Jeremiah 29:7 is also questionable, as this text was actually written to encourage a people in bondage and exile earnestly desiring to return to their fatherland. This does not exactly reflect the attitude of the Christian, as we believe that God’s kingdom is to be manifested within our earthly, material reality, and our desire for the Kingdom of God to come is very far removed from any escapist notions as suggested by Meissner. It would be better to make the case that the entire Bible and biblical law presupposes and appreciates national identity as valuable and positive. In traditional Christian theology, our identity as Christians is not merely spiritual as opposed to material or external; rather, it is Christianity which sanctifies our God-given material identities as members of a particular family, nation, and race – giving it a transcendent purpose by which it can, in Christ, be cultivated to the glory of God. Nonetheless, it is extremely encouraging to see that Christianity is indeed once again being seriously considered within the European nationalist movement, which for many years now has falsely shunned Christianity as partially to blame for the suicidal path on which modernism has set Europe.

For further systematic elaboration on the very valuable points made by Spiess, I most highly recommend our very own Nil Desperandum’s series, “Christianity as a Necessary Foundation for White Nationalism.”

The Mixed-Race Mentality

via Counter-Currents

Ariana Miyamoto
The new Miss Japan, Ariana Miyamoto, has a Japanese mother and a black American father. No surprise that she bears her mother’s surname, not her father’s. Obviously, she does not deserve the prize, and because sensible Japanese have not been too intimidated by political correctness to object to crowning a mixed-race, non-Japanese looking individual as a representation of Japanese female beauty, Miss Miyamoto has responded that she is the vanguard of a racial revolution to erase Japanese distinctness, to the applause of the Jewish-controlled Western media.

Everything is political, even beauty contests, and if the globalists have their way, all higher races will be browned out of existence, except maybe the Jews who are egging the process on. Miss Miyamoto may not be representative of Japan today, but in 200 years, she will be, if the Japanese open their borders to non-white immigration. Wasn’t there a time when the Japanese quietly shipped people like Miss Miyamoto, born of shameful crossings between American blacks and natives, to Brazil?

“I want to start a revolution,” Miyamoto added with a laugh. “I can’t change things overnight but in 100-200 years there will be very few pure Japanese left, so we have to start changing the way we think.” (quoted here, emphasis added)

I’m no mindreader. But I have an opinion. That opinion is that the above quote is better rewritten as:

“I want to start a revolution,” Miyamato exclaimed with a snarl of hatred. “I can’t change things overnight but in 100-200 years I’m happy to say that there will be very few pure Japanese left and that these pure racist Japanese will have been eliminated, so we have to start changing the way we think, so everyone can be like me. Thinking about such a future, and contributing to make it come about, makes me feel better about myself.”

The mixed of race always seem to have a chip on the shoulder. Far from being “discriminated against,” this specimen was made “Miss Japan” in what does seem to be an obvious display of affirmative action racial groveling. But, you know, the truly privileged always want more; they are never satisfied. More to the point, no matter how they are catered to, the mixed race can never escape the frustrations of their own existence, the churning turmoil of jarring heredities, the conflicting blood (can one imagine mixing conformist robot-like Northeast Asian blood with that of Black Africa?), the fervent wish that one had been “pure” themselves. “If I can’t be pure, then no one should be,” is the vengeful cry of the mixed, who wants to drag everyone down to their level, so that there are no more examples of “purity” to make them feel bad about themselves.

Yes, they know it cannot happen overnight. They know that they themselves won’t see the “promised land” of the Universal Brown Man, the Last Man, the end of humanity’s highest hopes, the Death of the Future. No, they won’t see it themselves, but obviously they can imagine it, and they can work for it, and by imagining it and working towards it — with pure malice — they temporarily quell the rage and envy in their hearts. But, alas, one look in the mirror, and the burning anger returns, the realization of a fractured identity, the hate-filled animus.

It’s not the “pure” Japanese who are the haters in this story. They just want to be left alone. They just want their people to continue. They just want Japan to be Japan. Why is this wrong?

Now, I’m no fan of the Asiatic, but still, my sympathies are for the Japanese here. Why do they stand for this? What happened to the samurai spirit, the Bushido? Why must indigenous peoples always have to be lectured to by the likes of this thing? Why can’t the native people stand up and say NO?