Jun 26, 2015

The War on White Heritage

via American Renaissance

After years of bitter controversy, the South Carolina legislature voted in May to take down the Confederate battle flag that has flown over the state capitol in Columbia since 1962 and to move it to “a place of honor” at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial located on the capitol grounds. The legislature’s vote on the flag is regarded as a defeat for the defenders of the flag, mainly a coalition of Southern traditionalist groups and Civil War buffs, and a victory for the opposing coalition that demanded the removal of the flag: the NAACP, Big Business, and an odd partnership of political liberals and conservatives.

Many white Americans, especially those outside the South, have shown little interest in the controversy and wonder why it even exists. They regard the issue as one of exclusively Southern, historical, or black interest and fail to see the larger implications of the controversy for themselves. The fact is, however, that the conflict over Confederate symbols is not only about those symbols or even about honoring the Confederacy, but also about issues of national and racial heritage with which all white Americans should be concerned regardless of what they think of the Civil War or where they live.

Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs honor the Confederate flag and similar symbols for a variety of reasons, but those symbols are as much a part of general American history as the “Don’t Tread On Me” rattlesnake flag of the American Revolution or the Lone Star flag of the Republic of Texas. Until recently, few Americans saw any difference between honoring and displaying those historic banners of American legend and honoring and displaying the Confederate battle flag or the several other flags associated with the Confederacy.

Only with the advent of the “civil rights” era and of mandated racial equality have the Confederate flag and all other symbols associated with the Confederacy been singled out for attack, and of course the reason is that these flags and symbols are the emblems of a government and culture that was based on slavery and racial inequality. In an age in which the egalitarian imperative is absolute and “racism” is virtually a religious taboo, continuing to honor and display these symbols in public–especially by state and local governments–constitutes an outright act of resistance to the dominant egalitarian orthodoxies.

Moreover, the NAACP, which has been crusading against Confederate symbols for decades, is increasingly tipping its true hand, revealing that behind its overblown rhetoric about the flag (a 1991 NAACP resolution characterized the Confederate flag as “an odious blight upon the universe” and “the ugly symbol of idiotic white supremacy racism and denigration” [sic]) and the Confederacy lies another, far broader, and much more radical agenda. The NAACP and similar groups want the removal and erasure not only of Confederate symbolism but also of a wide range of symbols and icons from American history that have no association with the Confederacy or the ante-bellum South. The purpose of this attack is to emphasize that American civilization itself is “racist” and that virtually all the symbols, icons, heroes, songs, and institutions of the American past or at least its most important and defining ones have to be discarded or radically reconstructed to suit the new “anti-racist” dogmas the NAACP upholds.

In launching this broad attack on the historic symbolism of America, the NAACP is embarking on what is almost explicitly a revolutionary course, intended eventually to lead to the destruction of the traditional civilization of the United States and the establishment of a new, purportedly egalitarian, and essentially totalitarian order that replaces the real, historic traditions of the American past with the fabricated propaganda and “Afrocentric” racial mythology of which the NAACP approves.

In this new order, whites–whether Southern or not–would be denied any public affirmation of their cultural and historical identity, and the denial of their identity would more easily allow their cultural and political subjugation to the non-white majority that has been projected to emerge in the United States in the next half century. The end result of the attack on Confederate symbolism, in other words, is not merely the disappearance of the Confederate flag, “Dixie,” and other symbols and customs of interest mainly to Southerners and Civil War buffs but, in time, the eradication of all symbols from pre-1960s America that suggest a white-based or “Eurocentric” public identity. With their disappearance and the cultural and racial dispossession it represents would come the racial domination of white Americans by the non-white majority of the next century.

The crusade against Confederate symbolism is so far the most developed part of the anti-white attack on American civilization, and the NAACP and other black nationalist groups have emphasized such symbols because, given their historical association with slavery, they can more easily build a case against them and attract the support of white allies. Given the power of egalitarian propaganda, few mainstream leaders, either conservative or liberal, are willing to defend Confederate symbolism, and some of the most effective enemies of the flag have been Republicans, “conservatives,” or white Southerners themselves.

In the 1990s, the war on public Confederate symbolism escalated dramatically, with the NAACP demanding the removal of Confederate flags flown over state capitols in Alabama as well as South Carolina. In the former state, the governor removed the flag after a state judge ruled in 1993 that flying it violated state law. Also in 1993, the white liberal Democratic governor of Georgia, Zell Miller, sought to alter the design of his state’s official flag, which contains a Confederate battle flag, on the grounds that it would be an “embarrassment” to the state during the Olympic Games scheduled for 1996. The governor’s efforts were unsuccessful. In Mississippi, there are current demands to remove the Confederate battle flag in the corner of the state flag, and the governor has appointed a commission to consider doing so. There are also controversies about the state flags of Arkansas and Florida, which contain designs either symbolizing the Confederacy or resembling its flag.

In addition to attacks on the flag, songs such as Virginia’s state anthem “Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny” and Maryland’s “Maryland, My Maryland” have also been attacked as “racist.” At the University of Mississippi, the Confederate flag and similar symbols, including the football team mascot, “Colonel Reb,” a caricature of a Confederate officer, have been banned by the university administration.

Virginia, and especially the state (and Confederate) capital of Richmond, has been the scene of some of the most bitter and far-reaching attacks on Confederate symbolism. The construction of a statue of black tennis player Arthur Ashe in 1995-96 on Richmond’s Monument Avenue–famous for statues honoring Confederate leaders–was intended to disrupt the symbolism of the monuments. In 1999, another controversy erupted in Richmond over a mural that displayed a picture of Robert E. Lee. Black city councilman Sa’ad El-Amin demanded that it be removed and threatened violence if it were not. “Either it comes down or we jam,” he said. The Lee portrait was later firebombed and defaced with anti-white invectives and racial epithets (“white devil, black baby killer, kill the white demons”). Earlier this year Mr. El-Amin and other blacks on the city council voted to remove the names of Confederate generals from two bridges in the city and rename them after local “civil rights” leaders. El-Amin also announced that “Monument Avenue is on my list of targets.”

The NAACP also embarked on a campaign to force the Virginia governor to cancel annual proclamations of April as “Confederate History Month” and threatened a boycott of the state if the custom were continued. “Anything less” than promising not to issue the proclamation again “is unacceptable,” Salim Khalfani, state director of the NAACP, proclaimed. On May 10, Republican Governor James Gilmore reached a “compromise” that consisted of a promise to “reconsider” Confederate History Month and to meet regularly with NAACP leaders if they did not proceed with plans for a boycott. It is probable that proclamations of “Confederate History Month” will be discontinued.

It has been in South Carolina, however, that the most protracted controversies over the Confederate flag have taken place. The state legislature in 1961 enacted a public law mandating that the Confederate battle flag be flown over the state capitol dome beneath the American flag and the state flag. Contrary to what the flag’s enemies have asserted, this was not so much defiance of the “civil rights” movement as the desire, encouraged by the U.S. Congress and President Eisen-hower, to mark the centennial of the Civil War. The flag at that time was largely uncontroversial, and it remained so until the early 1990s.

In 1994, the NAACP announced it would boycott the state unless the flag were removed, but a populist campaign under the leadership of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) was able to prevent the flag’s removal, and in the gubernatorial campaign of that year, the Republican candidate David Beasley promised he would not seek to take down the flag. Soon after being elected, however, Gov. Beasley embarked on a campaign to do just that. Flag supporters and the CofCC went on to lead a movement to unseat the governor for his betrayal. Gov. Beasley was defeated in his re-election campaign in 1998; he has since acknowledged that his reversal of position on the flag was the main reason for his defeat.

In 1999 the NAACP returned to the fight, announcing yet another boycott. This time the boycott attracted the support of liberal organs like the New York Times and Washington Post. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Urban League, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the National Progressive Baptist Convention all canceled conventions in South Carolina. The state Chamber of Commerce told Republican lawmakers that “businesses were considering cutting off campaign contributions to lawmakers who support the flag,” and major foreign corporations that have built plants in the state–BMW and Michelin Tire–also demanded that the issue be “resolved quickly” (meaning that the legislators accede to black demands).

Flag defenders were by no means idle during the controversy, and in October, 1999, and January 2000, they staged mass demonstrations in Columbia. Nevertheless, the charges of “racism” lobbed at anyone who defended the flag, threats to the $14.5 billion-a-year tourism industry, and the general desire for acceptance by the cultural mainstream all led to a “compromise” measure that relocated the flag to the Confederate Soldiers Memorial. As Julian Bond, national president of the NAACP, remarked, “Money talks.”

But the removal of the flag in South Carolina can be expected only to unleash an even more frenetic crusade against Confederate symbols. As Dr. Neill Payne, executive director of the Southern Legal Resource Center, remarked just afterwards, the vote simply means that it is now “open season on all things Confederate.” Flag enemy Georgia state Rep. Tyrone Brooks explained, “It’s like the civil rights movement. Once we win in South Carolina, we move to Georgia. Once we win in Georgia, it’s on to Mississippi.” The vote in South Carolina only encourages the NAACP and its allies and creates further problems for the mainstream conservatives and businessmen whose principal concern is to avoid controversy.

Indeed, while the main reason for the retreat in South Carolina was fear of the boycott, the NAACP not only refused to call off the boycott after the vote but threatened to intensify it unless the flag were removed from the capitol grounds entirely. NAACP national executive director Kweisi Mfume complained that “to take it from the top of the dome where you had to strain to see it, and move it to a place where anyone coming down the main street will see it is an insult.” Even as the House voted to adopt the compromise measure, black demonstrators burned Confederate and Nazi flags at the Confederate Soldiers Memorial and then sprayed anti-white invectives on the monument itself.

The premise of the compromise was an acknowledgment that while the Confederacy is an important and legitimate part of the South Carolina heritage, it is not (as flying the Confederate flag over the capitol might be taken to imply) the whole or the dominant part of it. Yet the NAACP’s demand that any honoring of the flag be abolished refuses to concede that the Confederacy has any legitimate place in South Carolina or American history at all. The rejection of the Southern and American past was implicit in signs carried by black anti-flag demonstrators last winter that read, “Your Heritage Is Our Slavery.” In rejecting the heritage of the South as merely one of their own enslavement and exploitation, blacks are in effect affirming that they are not part of the culture and nation that are the present-day product of that heritage. What they presumably want celebrated and honored is not the real heritage of the South, in which blacks played a major if subordinate role and from which blacks have derived much of their own cultural identity, but the total extirpation of those parts of the Southern past they find “offensive” (i.e., anything that does not glorify blacks) and the rewriting of the past to magnify and glorify the achievements of their own race.

The black demand for the total extirpation or rewriting of the past is not confined to the South and the Confederacy, however, but also extends to symbols associated with other ethnic groups. Earlier this year the Boston Housing Authority asked residents of public housing to remove displays of shamrocks–which it likened to swastikas or Confederate flags–because this symbol traditionally associated with the Irish was “unwelcome” now that black residents vastly outnumber those of Irish heritage.

But the non-white demand for the erasure of white ethnic and cultural symbols also includes the major symbols of the entire American nation and its past. Indeed, Randall Robinson, a black activist who played an important role in lobbying for sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid, writes that America “must dramatically reconfigure its symbolized picture of itself, to itself. Its national parks, museums, monuments, statues, artworks must be recast in a way to include … African-Americans.” It does not seem to matter to Mr. Robinson that the historical events many of these cultural monuments commemorate might not have included blacks; the past must be recreated to include them.

Black rejection of not only the Confederate but the American heritage is clear in the removal of the name of George Washington from a public school in New Orleans. On Oct. 27, 1997 the Orleans Parish School Board, with a 5-2 black majority, voted to change the name of George Washington Elementary to Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary (Drew was a black surgeon who made advances in preserving blood plasma); the school itself is 91 percent black. “Why should African-Americans want their kids to pay respect or pay homage to someone who enslaved their ancestors?” asked New Orleans “civil rights” leader Carl Gal-mon. “To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke.”

The same school board also has stripped the names of Confederate Generals P.G.T. Beauregard and Robert E. Lee from schools, under a policy adopted in 1992 that prohibits naming schools after “former slave owners or others who did not respect equal opportunity for all.” Southern slave owners and Confederate generals are, of course, mainly of Southern and local interest, but George Washington is probably the most significant national symbol in the American pantheon. The New Orleans school board decision, the New York Times commented at the time, “underscores the maxim that history is written by those with the power.” In this case, those who have the power are blacks who insist on celebrating their own race and discarding the national heroes of whites.

But Washington is by no means the only American icon to be rejected for his “racism.” In 1996, white former Marxist historian Conor Cruise O’Brien published an article in The Atlantic Monthly arguing that Thomas Jefferson should no longer be included in the national pantheon because of his “racism.” Again, Jefferson, second only to Washington perhaps, is one of the major heroes of the national saga. Rejecting Washington and Jefferson as well as the Confederacy and all slave owners (including many who signed the Declaration and the Constitution and all but two of the first seven presidents of the United States) by itself would effectively alter American history and the American national identity so radically as to be unrecognizable. That is precisely what the Afro-racists plan to do.

The editor of Ebony magazine Lerone Bennett, Jr. is the author of a recent book denouncing Abraham Lincoln for his “racism.” As described in Time magazine (May 15), Mr. Bennett says “Lincoln was a crude bigot who habitually used the N word and had an unquenchable thirst for blackface-minstrel shows and demeaning ‘darky’ jokes,” and he also discusses Lincoln’s remarks about blacks in the debates with Stephen Douglas and on other occasions, as well as his plan to remove blacks from the United States to colonies in Central America. While Bennett’s facts about Lincoln are substantially correct, his book is intended as an attack on and debunking of a major president regarded by many Americans as an iconic figure especially associated with the abolition of slavery and the triumph of egalitarianism.

In February, the New Jersey Senate debated a bill that would have required students in public schools to memorize part of the Declaration, but the bill’s sponsor withdrew it after angry attacks by black lawmakers. As the Associated Press reported, “They objected to the clause that says, ‘All men are created equal’ because when the Declaration was written, that basic democratic principle did not apply to black people.” As black state Sen. Wayne Bryant said, “It is clear that African Americans were not included in that phrase. It’s another way of being exclusionary and insensitive … You have nerve to ask my grandchildren to recite [the Declaration]. How dare you? You are now on notice that this is offensive to my community.” He claimed that the bill would involve “reliving slavery.”

The assault on the historic American identity is not mounted only by blacks. Indians and Hispanics in the western part of the United States engage in much the same erasure of white, European symbols and the construction of symbols that glamorize their own cultures. In 1994, the city of San Jose, California, rejected a proposal to construct a public statue of Col. Thomas Fallon, the American soldier who captured the city for the United States in the Mexican-American War, and voted instead to build a statue of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl.

In San Francisco in 1996, American Indians denounced the relocation to a place outside city hall of a statue honoring the Catholic missionaries who founded the city. The statue shows a reclining Indian with a Franciscan monk standing over him. The American Indian Movement Confederation opposed its relocation, saying that the statue “symbolizes the humiliation, degradation, genocide and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s indigenous people by a foreign invader, through religious persecution and ethnic prejudice.” As in South Carolina, whites compromised–by adding a plaque that read, “With their efforts over in 1834, the missionaries left behind about 56,000 converts–and 150,000 dead. Half the original Native American population had perished during this time from disease, armed attacks and mistreatment.” The statue, designed to commemorate the missionaries’ compassion for the Indians, had been transformed into a confession of genocide. At the demand of the Catholic Church, however, the words “and 150,000 dead” were omitted.

The black and other non-white attacks on historic symbols and icons, therefore, are by no means confined to those associated with the Confederacy but extend to symbols associated with anything non-whites find “offensive.” Given the standards by which the NAACP and similar racial extremists select their targets, there is no reason they should not demand the abolition of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution itself. The Constitution indirectly refers and gives protection to slavery several times, and the American flag flew over a nation in which slavery was a legal and important part of the economy and society far longer than the Confederate flag flew over the four-year Confederacy.

Indeed, the factual premises of the NAACP–that American history is inseparable from recognition of racial inequality and racial differences–are generally correct. As I wrote in American Renaissance in January 1999, throughout American history, “We–Americans in general and our public leaders in particular–repeatedly and continuously recognized the reality and importance of race and the propriety of the white race occupying the ‘superior position,’ and indeed it is difficult to think of any other white-majority nation in history in which recognition of the reality of race has been so deeply imbedded in its thinking and institutions as in the United States.” Given that history, there is virtually no figure, event, or institution of the American past that would not be “offensive” to non-whites today and the obliteration of which they could not as logically demand as they do that of Confederate symbols.

I also wrote, “You cannot have it both ways: either we define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race and the reality of the racial particularism and racial nationalism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and important, as anything more than skin color and gross morphology, and demand that anyone, past or present, who believes or believed that race means anything more than that be demonized and excluded from any positive status in our history or the formation of our identity. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by ‘America’ has to come from something other than its real past.”

It is, of course, the latter course, of rejecting the real past of the United States, that the NAACP and other non-white racial extremists have taken, and that rejection is what makes them extremists. It does not seem to occur to them that there are other “heritages” in the United States besides their own or other communities to which such symbols as Washington and Jefferson, the Declaration and the Confederacy, mean something other than the enslavement and exploitation of blacks.

The indifference and hostility of non-whites to symbols and icons of white heritage and identity expose the central fallacy of the “multiracialism” that our current political and cultural elites promote. Its premise is that different races and ethnic groups can all “get along” with each other, that they can live together in egalitarian harmony, and that, as President Clinton said in 1998, “we can strengthen the bonds of our national community as we grow more racially and ethnically diverse.”

But the reality is that the egalitarianism and universalism of the “civil rights” era have led to the rediscovery of race and the rebirth of racial consciousness among non-whites and hence to the animosity that non-whites feel toward whites and their heritage. It is racial consciousness, not egalitarianism and universalism, that fuels the non-white crusade against the American past, and obviously, if “multiracialism” means that some races with more consciousness, more solidarity, and more power can boycott and bludgeon out of existence the symbols of other races and the cultural legacies the symbols represent, then multiracialism promises nothing but either perpetual racial conflict or merely the same kind of racial supremacy that used to exist in the United States–though with a different supreme race whose rule would be perhaps considerably more draconian than that of whites. Of course, whites can always try to buy temporary peace and harmony by agreeing to every demand of non-white radicalism and abandoning the symbols of their own heritage. That, of course, is exactly what whites today are doing, though every concession merely leads to further demands from non-whites.

It may be that the coalition of Southern traditionalists and Civil War buffs who have been the main defenders of the Confederate flag has committed a tactical error by trying to define the flag as purely a Southern symbol. By doing so, they may have encouraged white Americans outside the South and white Southerners who are indifferent to the Confederacy to believe that the controversy does not have implications for them. Indeed, some of the more zealous attacks on “Yankees” by Southern traditionalists may only have alienated non-Southern whites, and by dwelling on the “Southern-ness” of the flag and its meaning in the Civil War, its defenders may have unnecessarily alienated potential allies.

What the racial assault on the Confederacy and other non-Confederate symbols really shows, however, is not only the dangerous flaws of multiracialism and the inexorable logic of the racial revolution of this century but also that today regional differences among whites–like many other cultural and political differences–are no longer very relevant. It shows that Southerners and “Yankees” today face common enemies and common threats to their rights, interests, identity, and heritage as whites, and that the forces that have declared war on them and their heritage define themselves as well as their foes not in political, regional, or cultural terms but in terms of race. Whites who have been indifferent to the fate of the Confederate flag and similar symbols in the recent controversies should not be surprised, therefore, when historical symbols important to their own identity come under assault from anti-white radicals in the future.

And it is as a race that whites must now learn to resist the war being waged on them. So far from being a symbol of a lost and forgotten cause relevant only to a dwindling band of Confederate loyalists, the Confederate flag and the battles swirling around it today should serve as reminders to all white men and women of a simple lesson: Unless they forsake the many obsolete quarrels and controversies that have long divided them and learn to stand, work, and fight together for their own survival as a people and a civilization, the war against them that their self-proclaimed racial enemies are waging will not permit them or their legacy as a people and civilization to survive at all.

'Lost' Third Reich Art Treasures Come to Light

via Carolyn Yeager

Some top-notch famous sculptures by Adolf Hitler's two favorite artists, for whom he built gigantic studios for their super-large works to be created for public buildings and public spaces, have been confiscated by the Berlin State Office of Criminal Investigation. It is the preliminary determination that the rightful owner of this artwork is the German State, or German government. 

Among the masterpieces discovered and expropriated from their current owners are (click on images to enlarge): 

"Die Wehrmacht," one of two sculptures created by Arno Breker for the main courtyard of Hitler's New Reich Chancellery in 1939 was discovered on a large estate near Kiel in northern Germany. 

"Der Wächter" (The Watchman) relief scuilpture by Arno Breker

The two magnificent Josef Thorak bronze horses resting in their safe place before discovery.

The horses adorned the terrace of Hitler's study in the New Reich Chancellery after it was completed in 1939.

Close up of one of the imperious Thorak "Nazi" horses in captivity, being transferred to a new location.

While the German art investigative office spent years looking for these masterpieces, the politically corrent numbskull who wrote the article for Der Spiegel dated May 26th, Konstantin von Hammerstein, referred to the lost works as from "the Nazis' ghoulish collection of art treasures." Haha, but he can't fool anyone who has eyes to see with that trash-talk.

He also wrote that Arno Breker's huge studio where a great deal of National Socialist sculpture was stored (including Thorak's horses) and was destroyed in 1945, was "full of Nazi kitsch." 

But in spite of the usual asinine attempts to downgrade everything to do with the Third Reich, we do learn from this article what other fabulous Third Reich art has been "discovered" and seized by the German government:
In Bad Dürkheim in southwestern Germany, officers found three gigantic granite reliefs -- which Breker had produced for the triumphal arch in Germania, Hitler's planned world capital -- outside a warehouse. The pieces, titled "Der Rächer" (The Avenger), "Der Wächter" (The Watchman -shown above -cy) and "Kameraden" (The Comrades), are each 10 meters (33 feet) tall, five meters wide, weigh 40 tons and are divided into 49 pieces. They fell into the hands of Soviet troops after World War II.
The reliefs were part of the collection of businessman Rainer Wolf, on whose extensive property the investigators also discovered six large bronze figures: two female nudes by Fritz Klimsch, "Olympia" and "Galathea," Breker's "Der Künder" (The Herald) and "Berufung" (Mission), as well as two giant horses Josef Thorak had had cast in 1939 for the New Reich Chancellery.

The Leaven of the Pharisees: The Judeo as Cuckoo

via The Occidental Observer

Author's Note: This previously unpublished essay will appear in my collection Green Nazis in Space! which Counter-Currents will be publishing in September. Unlike the other essays therein, which look at popular culture from a Traditionalist and White Nationalist perspective, this essay takes a more general look at Judaic culture-distortion, and suggests that its roots may be deeper, and its implications broader, than most conservatives may realize. For more on Judaic culture-distortion, look for my next book, The End of an Era: Mad Men and the Ordeal of Civility, which Counter-Currents will release in July.

“‘How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Matthew 16:11—12).
Having, for a number of years now, used the archetypes of the Homo and the Negro in performing what some have been kind enough to dub “cultural criticism,”[1] it is perhaps time to remember that behind the Negro, hidden away, as always, is the darker, more sinister figure of the Judeo. The Negro is the shock troop; the Judeo is the ultimate beneficiary.

Sometimes, the Judeo hides in plain sight: you can hear him when the Christian speaks, and not only the really nutty ones that claim to be the “real Israelites” or want to enact Deuteronomy into positive law in their new kingdom.

Speaking of creating new kingdoms (while making sure that Judeos feel comfortable) you can hardly peruse the Comments sections of White Nationalist websites without eventually coming across something like:

Once our homeland has been set up, without any homos, then we can . . . I confess I find the mentality hard to understand. Now, I’ll admit that in the context, “no Jews” and “no negroes” go without saying, so, yes, literally, they aren’t said. But homos? Really, that’s your biggest concern as you look over your imaginary Whitopia?[2]

This sort of thing always reminds me of Alan Watts’ great insight that the Christian church had become first moralistic to the exclusion of any concern with spirituality (hence, the well-known “spiritual hunger” among the young); then obsessed specifically with sex:[3]
What can you get kicked out of the church for? Any church—Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, and the synagogue I think too. What’s the real thing for which people get kicked out, excommunicated?
For “envy, hatred, malice, and all un-charitableness”? “Pride, vainglory, and hardness of heart”? Owning shares in munitions factories? Profiting off slums? No sir. You can be a bishop and live in all those sins openly. [Or live in a White Nationalist homeland] But if you go to bed with the wrong person, you’re out.
So one has to conclude that, for all practical purposes, the church is a sexual regulation society; and it really isn’t interested in anything else. Christianity is more preoccupied with sex than even Priapism or Tantric Yoga [are]. Because that’s the thing that counts, that’s the sin, the really important sin.[4]
The parallel here is between elevating sexual etiquette into the sine qua non of being a good Christian as well as  being a good White citizen. Just as the all-too eager decline of Christianity into Protestantism and then into moralism is a tribute, or backhanded compliment, to Judaic subversion—Judaism itself being hardly a religion itself, being empty of all spiritual content; nor even a moralism, being, as Gilad Atzmon has pointed out,[5] dedicated to the anti-universalism of “Jews ueber alles,[6] but simply a form of obsessive compulsive disorder inculcated in the Jewish masses to facilitate the domination of the rabbis[7]—so is the decline of what we might call “cultural building” among White Nationalists, having, like the political Right and the Neo-cons, swallowed a whole lot of Judiac ideas—such as “No Homo!”—under the illusion that they represent “tough talk” and “serious thinking.”[8]

Since Jews and culture, in the context of delineating how to compose the ideal society, have come up, we might profitably look who T. S. Eliot, no mean traditionalist himself,[9] thought should be excluded. As the Forward describes it:
During a 1933 lecture in Virginia, published in 1934 as “After Strange Gods,” (which he later refused to reprint[10]) Eliot, following Maurras, stressed the importance of social “unity of religious background. . . . Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable,” Eliot declared.[11]
Now the phrase in question is certainly more than enough to brand Eliot an “anti-Semite” by today’s hair-trigger standards (as the Forward article attests[12]), which amount to nothing more than what Steve Sailer calls “noticing things.”

But looked at closely, as Eliot would advise us to read any poet’s work, the phrase is rather restrictive: “any large number” and “free-thinking Jews.” Eliot seems to be insinuating that a small number of Orthodox Jews would not be a problem,[13] perhaps would lend a little color to drab London.[14]
The ideas seems to be the old saw about the role of the Jew as cultural “outsider,” providing a needed, indeed a necessary, “objective” and “critical” perspective.[15] Needless to say, it’s a popular idea . . . among Jews.[16]

To suggest what might have been in the back of Eliot’s mind, preventing him from just calling for the summary expulsion of “the Jews,” consider one of his greatest epigones, Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan, though born on the Canadian prairie,[17] developed, after attending Oxford, a loathing for the Puritan provinciality he saw all around him, even—or especially—in Canada’s grand metropolis, Toronto—then a bastion of Presbyterian righteousness known semi-ironically as “Toronto the Good.”[18]

To deal with this cultural atrophy, McLuhan proposed a simple, sweeping remedy: the immediate importation of a couple million Jews.
In an unpublished article titled “Canada Needs More Jews,” he put forth a notion he had picked up from Wyndham Lewis that the importation of two million Jews might liven the place up.[19]
Now, in this, I think Eliot and McLuhan were quite wrong. One might only call their attention to the Elizabethan Golden Age, when writers not merely equal to Shakespeare but the man himself, flourished with not one Jewish foot trodding upon England’s green and pleasant land. And one also needs to add, if one is adding up the cultural accounts, the deficit produced by the deliberate subversion of Aryan culture by the Judaic elites; to say nothing of their other impudent and vicious distortions of politics, religion, etc.

But there is another, broader, sense in which they were quite right. To put it in terms the Right understands, all societies have elites; moreover, all societies need elites, to set standards of culture and even decorum. This is what McLuhan sensed was lacking is Canadian society of the 1950s, as did de Tocqueville when observing America a century before;[20] as did Henry James, and Eliot, who pulled up stakes to rejoin the British homeland, and H. P. Lovecraft, who lived in the 18th-century England of his dreams.

But why the Jews, of all people?[21] A glance at the complete lack of any development, to say nothing of dominance, in the arts, sciences or technology, from Biblical times to their post-Napoleonic civil emancipation,[22] would make them an odd choice to be our elite. But was it a “choice”?

In fact, evidence that our “elite” is basically devoted to the doctrine of “Kill Whitey” should give us a clue as to the problem — and the cause.

Watts, I think, was onto more than he seems to be; not just a diagnosis of Western religion but of Western, particularly American, society itself.

The lack of a natural elite, requiring the import of Jews, is itself a product of the same “family values” regime imposed—via Christianity—by the Jew.

We see, in all this, the hand of the Jew. First, replace the authentic initiatic Traditions of paganism with the pseudo-Tradition of Christianity, with its fake, phony initiatic substitute, the so-called “Eucharist”— thus robbing the West of its culture-creating abilities.[23] Then, having knocked out the esoteric props, reduce the exoteric shell to moralism, and ultimately, to the Judaic obsession, sex. And a large part of that obsession, coincidentally or not, is what’s come to be known as homophobia.[24] As a result, the natural elite of the Aryan peoples is rendered into un-persons, and waiting to fill the vacuum is . . . the Jew.[25]

Now, before everyone starts hootin’ and hollerin’, let me just make it, as William Burroughs would say, country-simple for ya’ll. The origin and the handing down (traditio) of culture, at least in the Aryan world, lies not in the family (the subject of the “family values” so dear to the Jews and their Neocon contingent, including the Christian Right), essential though it may be in itself, but in those who have broken from it and established their own groups for those purposes: the various Männerbünde of warriors, priests, scholars, vigilantes, etc.[26]

As Wulf Grimmson outlines it:
The Männerbund is a system of social ties found in traditional Indo European societies which is very difficult for men living in a modernist (and/or monotheistic) society to understand . . .[27]
Among our Germanic ancestors these groups were composed of sexually mature male youths who under guidance of an elder formed a closed cult or society. They were dedicated to Odin, had special rites of pedagogical training, initiation and esoteric practice and combined the functions of a sorcerer or shaman and a warrior. . . .
[T]he role of the blood brother and the Männerbund was seen as the foundation of Germanic society with the family unit of far less significance. This changes the whole structure of how we see archaic society when we realize that these societies held a virile warrior ethic based in male-male affection superior to family life.
The Männerbund was a unique social and initiatory institution, it stood at the centre of the hierarchy of archaic society offering a path to initiation into the esoteric Mysteries and providing stability to the tribe below it. In comparison to the Third Function of the tribe and family the Männerbund was certainly an outsider institution yet it was this outsidernesss that allowed it to take such a significant role within the traditional hierarchy. It was not swayed by nepotism or by tribal or familial pressures; it was a separate, distinct and unique structure. It had a warrior ethic yet also trained scribes, shamans, rune masters and many others; it combined the First and Second Functions in a very special and profound way.[28]
As Evola says,
It was this Männerbund, in which the qualification of “man” had simultaneously an initiatory (i.e. sacred) and a warrior meaning, that wielded the power in the social group or clan. This Männerbund was characterized by special tasks and responsibilities; it was different from all other societies to which members of the tribe belonged. In this primordial scheme we find the fundamental ‘categories’ differentiating the political order from the ‘social’ order. First among these is a special chrism — namely, that proper to ‘man’ in the highest sense of the word (vir was the term employed in Roman times) and not merely a generic homo: this condition is marked by a spiritual breakthrough and by detachment from the naturalistic and vegetative plane. Its integration is power, the principle of command belonging to the Männerbund. We could rightfully see in this one of the ‘constants’ (i.e. basic ideas) that in very different applications, formulations and derivations are uniformly found in theory or, better, in the metaphysics of the State that was professed even by the greatest civilizations of the past.[29]
Elsewhere, Evola is a little more explicit on the role of sexuality, like drugs, in the rites, rituals and mysteries designed to produce the desired “breakthrough”:
The defining trait of all sexuality is a kind of hyper-physical excitement not dissimilar from all the conditions that the ancient world regarded as potential paths leading to the direct experience of the super-sensible (as Plato himself clearly acknowledged).
Physical procreation weakens the impulse to pursue the highest aim of sexuality: the insignificant physical community of the species through the succession of perishable individuals [the essentially Judaic idea of “family values,” immortality through the survival of the race, etc.] here replaces the conception of a being capable of transcending the cycle of confined existence, and mere moral life.[30]
In sum, we see that in Aryan societies the family is superseded by (though not denigrated, in fact supported by) male groups formed by sexual and esoteric rites (the “mysteries” which undoubtedly involved entheogenic substances) that, living as outsiders, nevertheless created and sustained the cultural superstructure of each society.

And here we see the evil genius of the Judaic subversion; is it any surprise to see all this—basically, drugs and sex, both employed to escape the ties of family[31]— is on the Judeo-Christian hit list?

Having ensured that Aryans would only be able to form basic social groupings based on families (mere “societies” as Evola calls them) but not true, hierarchical States,[32] who then stands to benefit by stepping forward into the vacuum?

It’s important to realize that Jews make themselves all warm and snuggly within Western culture by a strategy of not only distortion but also deception or disguise. For example, take “open borders.” This policy both distorts the public life of the United States (over 90% native born White before the 1965 Immigration “Reform” Act) and disguises the Jew (just another one of dozens of loyal, patriotic immigrant groups).

In the same way, the Judiac acts to not only short-circuit the natural elite of Aryan society by imposing religiously based “family values,”[33] but also positions himself (one is tempted to say, “pushes himself forward”) as the “real “or at least “new” elite, while actually being a foreign, hostile elite.[34]

Thus is Athens transformed into Jerusalem, via Salt Lake City; we might call it the “Cuckoo Strategy.”

During the Cold War, man-in-the-street conservatives of the Archie Bunker variety were wont to sneer at their com-symp opponents that if Russia was so great, “why don’t you go live there?” Later, this would be extended to Cuba, Viet Nam, or whatever the latest Leftist Utopia was located.

In the same spirit, we might suggest to those who make “no homos” the knee jerking, word-association answering, Pavlovian responding sine qua non of their Whitopia, that it already exists; why don’t you move to Salt Lake City? Or perhaps a nice ultra-Orthodox settlement in Eretz Israel?[35]

So our problem is not that we have no elite, but that we have the wrong one. Rather than a natural elite we have an alien elite that means us harm.

Natural? Formed from the non-procreative—an evolutionary tactic essential to the evolutionary survival of homo sapiens[36]—H
omos indeed form a natural elite, being of the same race as the rest of (White) society, and even can show up in any family—spouse, child, cousin, etc.—thus giving every clan a tie to the elite, or at least a better chance than winning the lottery.[37]

Thus, when the people ask for the true bread of the entheogenic Mysteries, the Judeo gives them the stone of the Eucharist; when they ask for an elite, the Judeo gives them . . . himself.[38]
The point here is not to idolize or “liberate” the poor, downtrodden homosexual, but rather, that having made non-reproductive sexuality the Ultimate Sin, a process (not unlike what the rabbis call “building a fence around the Torah) ensues in which all “taint” of it must be avoided by manly men.  Thus, the male societies that comprise the culture-creating institutions of White society — from the Boy Scouts to the priesthood, from athletics to the arts to the military — are enveloped in a cloud of cultural sniggering, and any self-respecting White male looks to the promiscuous Negro for his self-validation.  One thing you can say about Detroit: it may not have any culture, but there’s no homos!Of course, it’s perfectly understandable that anyone would want to exclude and dissociate from the kind of people put forward by the Left and the Liberal Media as representatives of this minority.[39] But this, as I’ve argued elsewhere, is precisely because of the fake “gay” identity, manufactured by the Left in order to corral the homosexual into their Rainbow Coalition of culture-wreckers.[40]  The real interests of both homosexuals and White society in general are elsewhere:
The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable—and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children . . . This would be the rational thing to do.[41]

I would suggest that here is another case where the alt-Right would learn from the New Left, rather than from the Old Left or the Old Right.[42] To paraphrase Eliot, no White society could thrive without a small number of—tradition-minded—Homos.


[1] Published mostly here on Counter-Currents and periodically issued in such collections as The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012), The Eldritch Evola … & Others (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2014), and the forthcoming Green Nazis in Space!
[2] Jack Donovan figures that “the percentage of exclusive male homosexuals within the mainstream male population [is probably lessthan 3-5 . . . So everyone is talking about “expanding” the institution of marriage to benefit 50% of 5% of the male population. With some insanely generous rounding, that’s what — maybe 200,000 dudes, including male children and senior citizens;” hardly the biggest “problem” facing White America, especially since “Every day American culture is a little more like a Black Mass against nature and manhood and anything decent or beautiful or noble or worth saving. Western Civilization has become a Black Mass for Western Civilization. Everything our better fathers believed in has been spit on and placed like a tainted Host between the yeasty thighs of a giggling whore.” See “Gay Marriage: ‘What-The-Fuck-Ever’” by Jack Donovan, April 9, 2013, here: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/04/gay-marriage-what-the-fuck-ever/.
[3] Here, if nowhere else, Watts agrees with Evola: “Some people have sought to favor a watered-down idea of Tradition, marked by moralizing and religious [i.e., exoteric dogmas and ritualism] concerns” (The Path of Cinnabar [London: Arktos, 2013], p. 234); “As for the character of official Catholicism today—a parochial, moralistic, socialistic, politicizing, and frankly paternalistic Catholicism which abhors all ‘medieval-isms’ in its attempt to prove itself up-to-date—there is little to be said” (op. cit., p.133). And of course, there was nothing to be said about Protestantism. See, for example, Guénon’s “The Origins of Mormonism” in Miscellanea (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2004), and then try and take Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck seriously. While Guénon, for example, spent decades trying—rather like Breton with psychoanalysis, Marxism, occultism, etc.—to create a rapprochement with Catholicism, Evola simply dismissed Christianity as having been a pseudo-tradition from the get-go.
[4] Audio lecture, “Beyond Theology.”
[5] While Atzmon is no more than a pseudo-ally, Greg Johnson notes that “Atzmon’s first argument, of course, is correct: Jews are guilty of deception when they preach universalism to us and practice partiality among themselves.” See Greg Johnson’s review “The Self-Exterminating Jew: Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?” here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/10/the-self-exterminating-jew-gilad-atzmons-the-wandering-who/
[6] Atzmon writes: “Israel has always been the Jewish State, it has never been a liberal place nor has it been committed to justice or equality. The deepest truth is that universal humanism and ethical culture is [sic] foreign to Judaic thinking that is tribal and legalistic.”—“I Support Israel’s National Bill,” November 25, 2014; here: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2014/11/25/i-support-israels-national-bill
[7] “Rabbis quite literally rule the life of their congregants (this is particularly true in the case of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Judaism) as halakhah literally has thousands of rules based off of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) derived from the (Written) Torah. Thus it is necessary for the rabbi’s congregation to materially support him so that he can provide ‘expert guidance’ at a moment’s notice for his flock in all matters of religious law (halakhah) and custom (minhag).” See “Blogging the Jerusalem Talmud: Tractate Bikkurim,” here: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/11/blogging-jerusalem-talmud-tractate.html
[8] As well as “our proud Viking heritage”—MST3k Episode 810: The Giant Spider Invasion.
[9] It should be remembered that Eliot, Anglo-Catholic that he was, played a not inconsiderable role in the presentation of Traditionalism to the Anglosphere. His publishing house, Faber & Faber, produced both the first English translation of Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religion; trans. Peter Townsend (London: Faber and Faber, 1953), with a cover blurb from Eliot, and Watts’ The Supreme Identity: An Essay on Oriental Metaphysic and the Christian Religion (London: Faber and Faber, 1950); as well as Josef Pieper’s Leisure, the Basis of Culture, trans/ Alexander Dru, with an introduction by T. S. Eliot (London: Faber & Faber, 1952), which just happened to be the text of my Intro Philosophy class at Assumption.
[10] Though of course it’s on the internet, such as at archive.org.
[11] “T.S. Eliot’s On-Again, Off-Again Anti-Semitism: Letters to Friends and Colleagues Repeatedly Denigrate Jews” by Benjamin Ivry, September 23, 2011, here: http://forward.com/articles/142722/ts-eliots-on-again-off-again-anti-semitism/#ixzz3Kf6Jzua7
[12] As someone has said, “anti-Semite” no longer means “someone who hates all Jews” but “someone some Jew dislikes.”
[13] After writing this, I discovered (through idly searching new Kindle releases on Amazon) a similar reading: “The notorious passage in After Strange Gods is capable of the interpretation that a community of orthodox Jews would be socially desirable because of the strong social bonds established by Jewish solidarity.” Roger Kojecky, T. S. Eliot’s Social Criticism (London: Faber, 1971; Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing, 2014), “Introduction.” Of course, it all depends on what the aims of that “solidarity” (i.e., “ethnic networking”) are. Michael A. Hoffman, II—whose otherwise invaluable researches into Judaic subversion are vitiated by a typically Protestant insistence on stubbornly distinguishing evil Talmud Jews from God’s Chosen Ones of the Old Testament—would insist that Eliot “naively” accepts the claims of Rabbinic Judaism to be kosher.
[14] Similarly, editor Leslie Klinger seems puzzled by H. P. Lovecraft’s virulent antipathy to “the Jews” and other swarthy foreigners, while nevertheless enjoying trips to Chinatown and the Lower East Side and admiring the colorful native dress. See my “Notes on The New Edited Lovecraft,” here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/notes-on-the-new-annotated-h-p-lovecraft/
[15] I discussed this before in “The Eternal Outsider: Veblen on the Gentleman & the Jew,” reprinted in The Eldritch Evola, op. cit.
[16] I’ve frequently described this “culture of critique” (Kevin MacDonald) as producing “cockroach literature” due to the iconic role Kafka plays in it; however, recent a biography has led me to think the icon of Kafka himself, ironically, has been faked; see my review “Kafka, Our Folk-Comrade,” Chapter Four, below.
[17] “The graying professor from Canada’s western hinterlands . . .”—From “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan,” Playboy Magazine, March 1969, here: http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/
[18] While avoiding the excesses of Prohibition—though Quebequois Jews like Joseph Seagram were happy to sell whisky to Irish gangsters like Joe Kennedy—Canada, like England, enjoyed the restriction of drinking through a network of arcane rules and regulations (government-run stores, separate rooms for men without women, curtains on all windows to prevent ladies fainting after catching a sight of the debauchery, etc.). To see, in cultural terms, what McLuhan was up against, see Wyndham Lewis’ fictionalized memoir of the same period in the same cities, Toronto and Windsor, Self Condemned (Methuen, 1954; Voyageur Classics, Toronto: Dundurn, 2010). A generation later, Joyce Carol Oates wrote a series of inter-connected stories satirizing the desperate lives of her colleagues at the fictionalized “Hilberry College” where “everyone felt superior to the college, even to the country, Canada itself!” See Crossing the Border (New York: Vanguard Press, 1976) and The Hungry Ghosts: Seven Allusive Comedies (San Francisco: Black Sparrow, 1974). Significantly, two stories were published in Playboy Magazine and never collected by Oates, despite award-winning acclaim: “Saul Bird Says: Relate! Communicate! Liberate!” (Oct., 1971; Playboy Editorial Award, 1971; O Henry Award, 197; reprinted in Playboy Stories: The Best of Forty Years of Short Fiction 2, New York: Dutton, 1991), which portrays the destructive influence of what Kevin MacDonald would call a typical Jewish guru-type; and “Gay” (Playboy, Dec. 1976, reprinted only in The Best American Short Stories 1977) which details the self-destructive career arc of an English professor who seems to be the only person who “doesn’t realized he’s gay:” “Harvard, Oxford . . . somewhere in Canada? Impossible!” Both stories are relevant to our concerns here, of course.
[19] Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger: A Biography by Philip Marchand (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998), p. 82.
[20] De Tocqueville already noted that behind the much vaunted “individualism.” the lack of social stratification actually produced socially sanctioned conformity. In Kafka’s novel (usually known as) America, “What seems like popular democracy merely disguises the authoritarian rule of the political and economic elite.” Ritchie Robertson, “Introduction” to The Man Who Disappeared (America) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
[21] “How odd of God/To choose the Jews” wrote William Norman Ewer; interestingly, though he began as a Chestertonian sort of “guild socialist” he eventually became a Communist and a Soviet spy, according to Wikipedia (http://www.nextnature.net/2009/12/the-playboy-interview-marshall-mcluhan/)
[22] Documented by Israel Shahak, in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994). Shahak notes that Jews have simply recently colonized arts and sciences establish by non-Jews: “Except for a purely religious learning, which was itself in a debased and degenerate state, the Jews of Europe (and to a somewhat lesser extent also of the Arab countries) were dominated, before about 1780, by a supreme contempt and hate for all learning (excluding the Talmud and Jewish mysticism). . . . Study of all languages was strictly forbidden, as was the study of mathematics and science. Geography, history — even Jewish history — were completely unknown. The critical sense, which is supposedly so characteristic of Jews, was totally absent, and nothing was so forbidden, feared and therefore persecuted as the most modest innovation or the most innocent criticism.” Even the much vaunted “Jewish sense of humor” is an even more recent construct; there are no jokes anywhere in classical Jewish writings: “Not only is humor very rare in Hebrew literature before the 19th century . . . but humor and jokes are strictly forbidden by the Jewish religion — except, significantly, jokes against other religions. Satire against rabbis and leaders of the community was never internalized by Judaism, not even to a small extent, as it was in Latin Christianity. There were no Jewish comedies, just as there were no comedies in Sparta, and for a similar reason.” Op. cit., Chapter Two: “Prejudice and Prevarication.”
[23] On the role of entheogens in culture, see the extensive research of Michael Hoffman (not Michael A. Hoffman, II, though the fact that two Hoffmans, one of which is “II,” are involved in these areas is rather amusing) collected at his website, egodeath.com; for the role of drugs and drug-inspired Mysteries in creating classical culture, see D. C. A. Hillman, The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2008); for the Germanic tradition, see Christian Rätsch on “The Sacred Plants of our Ancestors,” TYR II.
[24] Yes, I know, the Right complains about “all our disagreements with the Left get pathologized and tagged with a diagnostic term” but here at least the virulence and single-mindedness does suggest something of a syndrome rather than an opinion.
[25] A similar process of cultural decapitation occurred under the name of “Denazification,” (to say nothing of the atrocities and deprivations visited upon Germany in the postwar years: see Thomas Goodrich: Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944—1947 (Sheridan, Colorado: Aberdeen Books, 2010) as well as in the wake of the Iraq War II. The latter purge was explicitly called, half-jokingly, “De-Ba’athification,” and it’s interesting to note that cultural destruction was an explicit element of it. When asked about the destruction of not just Iraq’s cultural heritage but that of the “cradle of Western civilization,” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld shrugged and mused that “ ‘Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things[‘] … Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. ‘Stuff happens,’ Rumsfeld said.”“Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq: ‘Stuff happens’; Administration asking countries for help with security” by Sean Loughlin, CNN Washington Bureau, April 12, 2003, here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/
[26] See generally the work of Wulf Grimmson, and my discussion of it in “A Band Apart: Wulf Grimsson’s Loki’s Way” and my use of it in “‘God, I’m with a heathen.’ The Rebirth of the Männerbund in Brian De Palma’s The Untouchables;” both are reprinted in The Homo and the Negro.
[27] And by “monotheist” read “Judeo-Christian”; however “anti-modernist” the White Nationalist may be, he tends, as we have seen, to remain a Judeo-Christian at heart; his conversion is only partial and inadequate.
[28] See Wulf Grimsson, Loki’s Way: The Path of the Sorcerer in Age of Iron, 2nd. ed. (Lulu.com, 2011), p. 7 and p. 89.
[29] See Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins, trans. Guido Stucco (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2002).
[30] Op. cit, p. 208. This is the usual displacement of verticality (transcendence) with horizontality (dispersion among the physical states of the world) that is the essential feature of modernity, “progress,” Lebensraum, etc., and is even lauded by propagandists of science or the Renaissance.
[31] See Erik Davis’s discussion of teenage drug use as a means of escape in his Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica (Portland, Or.: Yeti Publishing, 2010), which I reviewed on Counter-Currents here: http://www.counter-currents.com/tag/nomad-codes/
[32] Thus the Judaic fury directed against the SS Order State that was to be the ultimate goal of Himmler; this was the only element of National Socialism that maintained Evola’s interest; see his Notes on the Third Reich, trans. E. Christian Kopff (London: Arktos, 2013). Needless to say, the whole National Socialist project was vitiated from the start by a crypto-Judaic (and downright creepy) obsession with Master Races and “births”—“prole” notions whose “vulgarity” Evola appropriately scorned (see Evola, op. cit., Chapter III); paralleling in miniature the cultural distortion of Western society that we’ve been discussing here.
[33] Using the patented one-two, heads I win tail you lose Judaic strategy of rigging the debate to include only the false alternative of homophobia vs. gold lamé hot pants.
[34] See these articles posted at Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/category/jews-as-a-hostile-elite/
[35] And, by contrast, an actual Whitopia, if based on historical knowledge rather than Judaic-approved fantasies, would more closely resemble the camps of the eponymous warriors of Burroughs’ The Wild Boys: A Book of the Dead. (New York: Grove, 1971); and before anyone mentions it, let me point out that Burroughs’ Boys make full use of “modern technology” when useful and appropriate (including cloning and time machines).
[36] Contrary to man-in-the-street biology favored by bloggers of the Right, see James Neill’s The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2009) and my review/essay thereon (Amazon Kindle Single, 2013).
[37] After all, a race is, as Steve Sailer puts it, a partially inbred extended family. “A race is a family, and families tend to behave alike. In Ferguson, we’re seeing one kind of behavior—the same kind Darren Wilson faced when he met Michael Brown walking down the middle of the street.”—“Ferguson Fallout—Red Is Not The New Black” by James Fulford, November 27, 2014 (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-ferguson-fallout-red-is-not-the-new-black)
[38] “There is every reason to believe that “stone” is the code-word [in Biblical literature] for beast-man, ape.”—Dr. Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels, Theozoology, or the Science of the Sodomite Apelings and the Divine Electron (originally published 1905; Europa-House, 2004), and available for free online here: http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.theozoology.htm
[39] Jack Donovan, I believe, has observed that if most homosexuals weren’t annoying twerps, “‘fag’ wouldn’t be an insult in the first place.”
[40] See, of course, the title essay of my collection The Homo and the Negro as well as the late Alisdair Clarke’s seminal essay “Paris Shockwaves,” here: “the blandishments of the Gay-Liberationist-hucksters led us away from our Western civilization, our antecedents; Plato, Hadrian, Michelangelo and Tchaikovsky, turned our folk community into strangers, and deposited us in the heart of the enemy camp.”
[41] “Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate Among Whites” by Kevin MacDonald; Occidental Observer, October 7, 2014, here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/10/psychopathology-and-racial-self-hate-among-Whites/
[42] Just as, self-styled “radical” Leftists, who have learned how to recognize what Chomsky, Parenti or Petras have called “institutional analysis,” are more useful to our cause than “official” Rightists or “conservatives’ who have been taught (by Who?) that they must eschew what they call “conspiracy theories.”

A White Advocate's Exchange with an Anti-White 'Mainstream' Journalist

via BUGS

Anti-white Jewish Reuter's "journalist,"
Tom Polansek
BUGS Editor's Note: Here is a fantastic exchange between Genseric and anti-white journalist Mr Tom Polansek. Like Bob’s interview with CNN, Genseric has received nothing but silence to the questions he asked.


Hello Mr. Polansek,

You have my attention.


Daniel Genseric


Hi Daniel, Thanks for contacting me. I am trying to learn more about groups concerned with white genocide. I found your Twitter account and am trying to reach out to some of the other people you tweet with too.

Do you associate with a particular group, or are you a member of any groups? How did you become involved with this movement?

I am normally based in Chicago, but am in South Carolina now. Do you ever communicate with anyone here?

I’m glad to talk on the phone of you’re up for it.

Thanks again, Tom



Hi Tom,

Why don’t you explain to me what story you are writing, the angle, etc… and then we can take it from there with the Q and A.


Daniel Genseric


I am just trying to understand the basics of the movement against white genocide from those involved. I am talking to people in the movement to understand how they became involved with it and whether they work mainly by themselves or join established groups. It is unclear to me how often groups have actual meetings and rallies.

It would be helpful if you could help me understand how you joined the moment. Was there a particular event that inspired you? For Dylann Roof, it appears to have been the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting.

If you are in an organized group, which one? How did you become a part of it? Do you ever attend actual events in person?

How long have you been a part of he white genocide movement?

Some people have said the recent conflicts between blacks and police in Ferguson and Baltimore have strengthened the movement. Do you agree?

Has law enforcement ever contacted you about your posts online?

In his apparent manifesto, Dylann Roof complained that most people in the white nationalist moment only post comments online without taking any action.

How do you feel about that?

Thank you, Tom


Why would law enforcement bother to contact a movement (or its adherents) so firmly opposed to violence, i.e. genocide? Is that in the purview of law enforcement’s responsibilities these days? Can you help me understand that? Or, is it simply that the crime ceases to be genocide when the victims are White children and our heresy becomes dangerous when European Americans build any sort of semblance of community, whether online or offline?

United Nations resolution 260, article II clearly states that ANY program whose intent is to eliminate an ethnic group fits the bill for genocide. Have you bothered to read it yet?

Are you seriously attempting to create a link between Dylann Roof, a violent “White Supremacist”, and the White genocide movement whose very ethos is separatist and non-violent?

I think the concept of white genocide is a rather easy one to understand, don’t you? However, it seems most journalists and citizens elect to remain confused about it and misconstrue the facts on purpose. Perhaps their very livelihood is dependent upon maintaining this thin veneer of perpetual “misunderstanding”. Would anyone be confused about a program whose facilitators forced non-Black immigration and subsequently forced assimilation, i.e. intermarriage and status quo “anti-racist” sex, in Africa and only in Africa? Would anyone be confused about the psychological warfare being waged when they then screamed at anyone who disagreed with the program, “racist, nazi, supremacist!”, etc…? Would it ‘require further research’ were genocidal maniacs forcing non-Chinese into China and subsequently forcing them to “integrate” and “assimilate” until Chinese are a minority in their own country? Or, how about doing the same to Latinos in Latin America?

But, somehow when genocide happens to my people, Europid White people, and I dare oppose it, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a heretic, a racistwhitesupremacistwhowantstokillblacks. The Holy Anti-White Church of Political Correctness says its bible is anti-racist while they justify our genocide. Their minions say white genocide is “justified” because of this or that past indiscretion. It’s as if we are somehow uniquely evil. And these so-called ‘anti-racists’ sugarcoat this obvious program of genocide against whites with gumdrops and rainbow sprinkles like “Diversity, Multiculturalism, Inclusion, Normalization, etc…” What these mind control gurus really are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Sincerely, For and on behalf of European Americans,

Daniel Genseric


Thanks Daniel. I was asking whether law enforcement had ever contacted you out of curiosity. I would not know for sure if I didn’t ask.

Are you part of an established white nationalist group? If, so how did become involved with it? If not, why not?

I’m interested in your response.



You are welcome, Tom.

I’m also interested in your response. Why would you be curious about law enforcement contacting me? Why would that thought even occur to you? Also, how did you land in South Carolina when you are based in Illinois? Are you there only to cover the Dylann Roof story? Have you been permanently reassigned? Is it your goal to link the white genocide movement to Dylann Roof?

Will you be following up with the New Black Panther Party and their various members’ recent, credible threats on majority-White nurseries/daycare centers in retaliation for the AME church shooting? Maybe try researching the #WeWillShootBack hash? Whatever happened to the ANTI-WHITE TERRORISTS who burned alive nineteen year-old Jessica Chambers and fifteen year-old Desirae Jones last December? Where is the wall street media coverage of those anti-White atrocities?

On groups:
I exercise MY vanishing free speech rights on behalf of Europid Whites who are too saddled with silence imposed on them by The Holy Anti-White Church of Political Correctness’ priest-class and its Diversity Gospel to speak for themselves.

Diversity is a code word for White genocide