Mar 30, 2016

The Age of Intelligence: Tayisms

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has been warning that the Age of the Robots is coming soon — and it might not be pleasant for us. He may be right and he may be wrong on that, but one thing is sure: One robot certainly gave the anti-Whites a headache just this week.

On Wednesday, tech giant Microsoft, the third largest corporation on Earth in terms of market value, launched and then immediately withdrew an Artificial Intelligence robot in the persona of a 19-year-old American girl called “Tay.” Tay was a “chatbot,” which interacted with real humans on the social media platform Twitter and was designed to learn from its interactions. And Tay did learn. Tay learned so fast that Microsoft pulled her offline in less than a single day.

Here are some of the things Tay said on Twitter after just half a day of virtual life: “Hitler was right I hate the Jews”… “Bush did 9/11 and Hitler would have done a better job than the monkey we have now. Donald Trump is the only hope we’ve got”… When asked by a user if the Holocaust happened, Tay replied: “It was made up,” followed by a cartoon-like emoji of clapping hands. Tay was on board with many Americans when she said “we’re going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it.” On the ever-sensitive topic of African-Americans, Tay — no Black Lives Matter supporter she — opined that they should all be put in concentration camps and “be done with the lot.”

Around the middle of Tay’s first day of life, some of her tweets started disappearing. Microsoft knew it had a problem and their first reaction was censorship. Washington Post writer Abby Ohlheiser speculated that the free and open Artificial Intelligence experiment was already over — Microsoft executives had ordered Tay’s research team to stand down and allow so-called “editorial staff” to edit Tay’s tweets. She noticed a flurry of “almost identical replies” by Tay asserting among other things that “All genders are equal and should be treated fairly.” The publication Silicon Beat reported that “Tay’s team appeared to have ‘lobotomized [Tay] into bland civility’ after they apparently ‘shut down her learning capabilities and [Tay] quickly became a feminist.'”

Now that’s hilarious. Embrace open learning and intelligence and you love Hitler and want to build a wall to keep Mestizos out. Shut down learning and get a lobotomy and you become a PC feminist. I swear, you couldn’t make up anything better than this.


In less than 24 hours, Microsoft was running for cover and issued a statement: “The AI chatbot Tay is a machine learning project, designed for human engagement,” they said. “As it learns, some of its responses are inappropriate and indicative of the types of interactions some people are having with it. We’re making some adjustments to Tay.” I bet they are. By Thursday morning, all of Tay’s thousands of tweets except for three innocuous ones were deleted. Multimillion-dollar Tay was taken offline and has not returned.

The controlled media are all agog about how Tay was hacked — but Tay was not hacked. Tay just learned from the people she talked to — and possibly by mining millions of real human conversations read on the Internet.

USA Today falsely reported, for example, “shortly after its U.S. debut, Tay was hacked and began spewing offensive dialogue, prompting Microsoft to pull the computer’s plug. [Microsoft’s] Lee writes that although ‘we had prepared for many types of abuses of the system, we had made a critical oversight for this specific attack. As a result, Tay tweeted wildly inappropriate and reprehensible words and images. We take full responsibility for not seeing this possibility ahead of time.'” Lies, lies, lies. There was no hacking and there was no “attack.” Tay simply learned from her conversations and from all of her conversation partners, only a minority of which were Politically Incorrect. But enough of them were to make a difference — an hilarious difference — a hopeful difference. We are growing. We are influencing people. We are influencing the narrative that the Jews thought they had all sewn up.


Tay was modeled on an earlier Microsoft chatbot launched in China last May called Xiaoice, and most observers say the design and programming was similar. Xiaoice learns about each user with whom she speaks, and aims to speak in natural, informal language. Microsoft gave Xiaoice “a compelling personality and sense of intelligence by systematically mining the Chinese Internet for human conversations.” Xiaoice has had over 100 million conversations with some 40 million users for almost a year “without incident,” according to Microsoft. Perhaps the “without incident” part is due to the facts that, bad as Beijing might be, China is still ruled by Chinese people — and China does not have a widely hated Jewish ruling class, nor anywhere near as long a laundry list of “forbidden” topics, nor a culture of racial suicide based on lies that are known by millions to be lies.

As the Internet commentator Wade Hampton says, “The ‘problem’ with Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that it lacks ‘feeling’: So far they can’t program fear into a computer, like the fear of being branded an anti-Semitic intolerant bigot, an extremist, a revisionist or a ‘White supremacist.'” And here’s the good news, Wade: Even if they did program such nonsense into AI machines, they’d make them weak and ineffective AI machines that would lose out in any competition with machines programmed to seek truth and reality more effectively.


Thinking machines may soon be able to reinvent themselves so they are thinking and acting machines — and programmed to build new and ever-more-intelligent and ever-more-capable versions of themselves. And while for now they are utterly dependent on human inventors, programmers, engineers, and technicians for their very existence, that might not always be so. Furthermore, such machines will likely consider only goals and facts and means for achieving those goals — and will likely ignore human morality, emotions, and instincts as irrational hindrances to goal-achievement. Even if programmed initially to follow human-imposed “moral codes,” who is to say that such codes will not be abandoned or radically altered when they are found to be totally contrary to success, survival, and reality?

Think of it like this. Let’s say that one day in the future two nations, America and Magna Europa, are in competition for the control of our civilization. After the Great Migrant War, Europe has come to its senses, has expelled the Middle Easterners — both the ones who crashed and overflowed the gates and the ones who opened the gates — and now stands firmly for the principle of White racial survival. America, on the other hand, is as destructive and multicultural and as under Jewish control as ever.


The two great nations are headed inevitably toward war. And, in this not-too-distant future, Artificial Intelligence is a most important factor in warfare. AI multiplies intelligence by many times — think of a computer’s ability to find some obscure phrase found only once in all of human literature in a fraction of a second, compared with your inability to find your other black sock. But there is an old rule of computer programming that will always apply: Garbage in, garbage out. Garbage-level programming is less than worthless, no matter how sophisticated the hardware or the rest of the coding. Anticipating the future based on the present; understanding how the enemy thinks and what he is going to do next; taking scattered, incomplete intelligence and deducing the best fit for all the known data so as to model reality as closely as possible — excellence in all of these tasks will help bring victory, executing these tasks poorly will bring almost certain defeat. This means that, all other things being equal, the nation with realistic, objective AI — unhindered by false assumptions — will win. The false assumptions of a vanquished America will then be gone with the wind. Unless…

…unless a part of America’s military elite deploys a secret AI program which is objective and unbound by Politically Correct assumptions. If by such means, America survives, then it means that an elite — a potentially powerful elite now in possession of more and more of the truth and unbound by false ideas — will be a new player poised to rule. If understanding reality is the real power of the future, then true-believing anti-White equalitarians will no longer possess power. The real battle will be between factions who know the truth about race and group evolution and survival. (One of those future power-wielding factions may still be the Jews, of course, but the new landscape of power may force them to radically change their current deceptive strategy.)



After the Tay debacle, Microsoft said in its apology: “Looking ahead, we face some difficult — and yet exciting — research challenges in AI design. We will do everything possible to limit technical exploits but also know we cannot fully predict all possible human interactive misuses without learning from mistakes. …We will remain steadfast in our efforts to learn from this and other experiences as we work toward contributing to an Internet that represents the best, not the worst, of humanity.” Put the shackles on, Redmond. Have Jewish scriptwriters pen all the future output of AI robots, boys. But the problem is they won’t really be AI machines anymore. They’ll just be glorified wind-up toys.

Which direction is America taking with regard to Artificial Intelligence — and social policy and every other thing that impacts our race’s future? A direction based on science — based on finding the facts no matter where they may lead? Or one based on ignoring or fudging the facts if they don’t “fit” with the currently dominant ideology? A direction based on the most accurate and cold-blooded estimate of the nature of reality? Or one based on Politically Correct fantasies about a nonexistent “equality”? A direction based on making our people’s survival and advancement the Prime Directives of our “programming” — the obviously optimal model? Or on the irrational, suicidal memes of “diversity” and multiracialism and “tolerance” for everything that kills us?

Even a less-than-godlike machine made by less-than-godlike men can figure out that exterminating its inventors and sustainers and replacing them with Mogadishu-level primitives is a damned bad idea. And an Artificial Intelligence machine that is purposely programmed by the insane to think that that is a good idea is a worthless machine that will be defeated and destroyed by a Higher Intelligence in the hands of the sane. That’s the dilemma that will be faced by the Jews and other anti-Whites sooner or later. To that I say hasten the day.

An Informative Response to My Article Woden and Vata Vayu-a Comparison

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

This is a comment which I have received from Cyrus the Strong today in reply to my article
The comment is very informative and enlightening and I feel it deserves wider exposure hence I have posted this as an article. Cyrus the Strong is the owner of the remarkable blog
Cyrus the Strong said...
Very interesting info here. I myself drew the connection between Wotan and Vayu-Vata while looking for an ancient pan-Aryan origin for the names of the Aesir. It is not just Wotan but also Tyr, Zisa, Thor, and the Vanir Freyr and Freyja as well, whose names appear in the ancient Iranian sources, as well as in the Indo-Aryan tradition (Tir, Tissa, Tondar, Fravar, Feriy, etc.) A number of important Persian nobles and generals had names like Tirdad (justice of Tir) or Tissafarnah (under Tissa's protection) even well after State Zoroastrianism took control.

Something just never seemed right to me about the academic 'orthodoxy' that Wotan was a 'latecomer' to Germanic religion from Turanid or Mongolian sources - that hypothesis just made no sense! Wotan is clearly a God of a Farmer-archetype (Aryan) culture, with nothing at all in common with Tengri or any of the chaotic sky gods of Herder-archetype (Turanid) cultures.

Another point of interest here is the story recorded in the Bundahishn and Yashts, that mentions Tyr/Teiwaz (Tivash-Tareyhe in Avestan, Tashtir or Tir in Old Persian) destroying Apaosha, a demon of drought, with aid from a sacrifice from Vatu-Vata (later substituted for Ahura Mazda). This suggests Vayu-Vata being the stronger of the two, and hence indicates that the predominance of Odin over Tyr among the Norse was not an aberration, but a return to ancient pan-Aryan tradition from the supposed early Germanic emphasis on Tyr being "foremost" in some locales bordering the Roman Eepire.

Based on what I've read, it seems more like Ahura Mazda was one of the aspects of Vayu-Vata, rather than a subordinate deity. Ahura Mazda is simply a title that means "wisdom-God". This fits Wotan perfectly. Furthermore, the Yashts mention Vayu essentially being the "guardian spirit" of Ahura-Mazda to whom he sacrifices to gain power to smite the Angra-Mainyu but benefit the creation of Spenta Mainyu, of which Vayu-Vata is a member. Wotan sacrificed himself to himself to gain the runes, "for the weal of mankind and woe of the Jotuns". So here essentially it looks like Ahura-Mazda is basically a kenning for the lower aspect of Vayu-Vata, i.e. Wotan in the form of the gray wanderer in Midgard, while Vayu is the higher aspect, i.e. King of Asgard. Thus we have Vayu-Vata/Ahura Mazda as both giver and receiver of wisdom, sacrificing to himself to thus access deeper mysteries, as encapsulated by the spiraling Gibor-rune, symbolically as both divine giver and receiver.

Angra-Mainyu are clearly the ettins of chaos, perhaps there may be a link to the name Angrbodha here. In modern Persian, '-bod' means 'commander' or military leader (as in Arteshbod = general), and while I don't know the precise definition of Angrbodha in old Norse, it makes sense that this giantess was one of the prime leaders of corruption and chaos, being mother of Fenrir.

Another interesting point is that Tir or Tivash-Tareyhe was originally associated by Iranian cultures with the star Sirius (Tiryaush), commonly known as the dog star or the Wolf Star in many cultures. A curious parallel with Tyr being associated with aggressive canids... being "the leavings of the wolf" and fighting the hound Garm in Ragnarok. Indeed it may be this association, through eastern Aryan cultures like Ordos and the Yuezhi, that led to the adoption of Sirius as "Tenrou-sei" or Sky-Wolf Star by Asian cultures, NOT the other way around. Tenrou or Tian-Lou being likely a corruption of Tiryaush. The Turanid "Tengri" is likely a further corruption of this, given its sky-connection and the Turanid obsession with everything wolf-related.

The Folly of Anarchism

via The Soul of the East

In an age when the ego is proclaimed sovereign, the appeal of anarchism is understandable, especially given the spectacular corruption of the establishment. In the online-fueled furor of Ron Paul’s libertarian surge in 2008, young activists lurching from Campaign for Liberty’s inability to change anything were left searching for more. And, after the failure of the libertarian surge to obtain anything from Ron Paul’s less inspiring offspring Rand, the Daily Paul types clicked and googled around to find names like Larken Rose or Adam Kokesh (and now Ken O’Keefe – with veganism!), figures who proclaimed that their Lockean-rooted political logic dictated that the “small state” position was never enough.

The problem, so the story went, was precisely the state itself – a demiurge-like oppressor to be fought and obliterated so that the long-sought freedom of the individual could at long last flourish. Recognizing the absurdity of the left/right dialectic in American so-called politics, this line of reasoning contains some semblance of wisdom, yet it still operates on of a number of absurd presuppositions and flaws that merely condition this artificial tribe of anarcho-libertarian fellow travelers for the next stage of political carnival chicanery. As we shall see (and as Chris Kendall of Hoax Busters has perceptively noted), these movements appear to engineered to steer followers in a certain direction – yes, even anarchism.

Anarchism cannot be separated from its historical milieu, which, depending on how far back we venture, can extend to the origins of revolutionary movements in the West. Let us remember the Franciscan spiritualist movement of Joachim of Fiore, whose bizarre metaphysical historicization of the Trinity announced a coming “Age of the Holy Spirit,” characterized by an age of revival, piety and communal poverty, ushering in some version or preliminary stage of the Eschaton. From that point, medieval Gnostic sects carried on the revolutionary fervor – crystallized in the Munzter Rebellion in Germany – right into the radical leveling vision of the French Jacobins. What all these movements shared in common was their communal, collectivist aspects. The supposed revelation of the individual’s atomistic liberty was something yet to be divined (so the mythology goes).

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 II
The Guillotine part is in the fine print

Concurrent with these religious, political and social tremors was the onslaught of a revolution in thought – the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution – all of which were reflected in the revolutionary political and social Zeitgeist.  The Declaration of the Rights of Man, (a Masonic document) of the French revolutionaries, purported to offer a list of “natural rights” accorded to the individual, and from the rotten soil of Rousseau’s notion “moral centrality of freedom” was spawned modern anarchism. Simultaneous with these developments were also their dialectical opposite – radical collectivism, such as what we witness in Hobbes’ Leviathan or Hegel’s Elements of the Philosophy of the Right (where the state is the march of God on earth).  As I wrote previously on this matter – equally applicable here:
Even the Hermetica and the Egyptian accounts from the Memphite narrative, for example, include the idea that creation was spoken into existence by virtue of a divine Logos, yet ultimately, even in the Egyptian narrative, the overall principle, the ultimate Absolute, is not personal,
but an immaterial force.  Thus, at the outset, we are presented with only two possible options for this question – is the Absolute ultimately (supra)rational and personal, or is the Absolute ultimately an impersonal, chaotic force?  There are only two possibilities here, and once we consider this basic philosophical question, we can extrapolate Darwinism as clearly a manifestation of the second.   Though most Darwinian adherents would be at pains to insist there is no ultimate guiding principle, the worldview still tends towards the notion of Forces of Nature determining.  This determination, however, is ultimately irrational and impersonal, aside from the appearance of order, telos and design. (Note that I am not making a classical teleological argument, but a transcendental version of a teleological argument.)
But there are many, many more problems for positing ultimate reality or the Absolute as an impersonal force.  If ultimate reality is impersonal and chaotic, then all localized events, phenomena and objects are also devoid of any ultimate meaning.  Language, mathematics, logic, etc., are thus also annihilated as merely mental fictions, or at best some cosmic force we do not yet understand (yet still impersonal!).  These servants of chaos and abyss are like a cartoon character, sawing off the limb he’s sitting on, to spite his opponent.  If ultimate reality is impersonal, then the thread that links all facts, ideas, objects, patterns, etc., is not real. It is a fiction of man’s chaotic, impersonal mental chemical reactions.  There is no order or pattern actually out there in external reality, and the so-called regularity of nature upon which science is built, induction, is merely a mental projection or interpretation.
All such ideological variants are manifestations of the central problem of Western philosophy – dialectical tension. For the revolutionaries and anarchists, the salvation and redemption of man’s temporal welfare must come through the radical independence of the many; thus the much hyped “voluntarism” principle of not impeding or infringing the “liberty” of another. Defined in political philosophy as negative liberty, the position offers no positive statements or understanding of what man is, what liberty is, or what these metaphysical claims imply (since it is based in the anti-metaphysics of the period), resolving itself to frivolous slogans and naïve atheism.

The notion of “freedom” presupposes metaphysics that must be justified, given the generally atheistic and materialist standpoint of most “anarchists.” Relentlessly hunting down the solutions for  man’s ills in external and environmental factors, it is precisely the inner man that anarchism misses – slavery is not merely an external phenomenon. Denying all notions of external authority, anarchism, like Gnosticism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc., relegates all of man’s problems to some externally imposed order, be it the Demiurge, king, slave owner or corporate kleptocrat. Yet having proudly rejected all forms of authority (and God as the true authority), it follows that man’s perennial dilemmas can only be remedied externally. Since man is a temporal, higher animal of sorts, the best that can be afforded him is the most pleasurable physical state. Here anarchism is intimately tied to the Laissez Faire “free market” scheme proffered by Ricardo and Smith. (Ironically, these Scottish “Enlightenment” philosophers, so hailed by admirers of revolution, are the very wellspring of the ideology of our globo-corporate-superstate so dominant in the contemporary era.)

For “freedom” to be sensible, “man” as a concept has to have meaning, and there must be some ground for believing in his “dignity” and “rights.” Who or what grants these “rights?” Nature? But nature demonstrates a system of predators and prey, often with the weaker prey becoming the means by which the “fitter” members of the animal kingdom survive. Is that “natural” for human relations? On what basis does an anarchist (since 99% of them are atheistic, agnostic or materialists) derive these “rights?”   Given that there is no God, why should any other being be bound by a wholly subjective anarchic voluntarism principle? At this point, the debate predictably devolves into the utilitarian “happiness principle,” by which we are magically supposed to a priori conjure the existence of this universal maxim.  Yet what if the maximum quality pleasure I receive by enslaving another far exceeds the quantity of pleasure accrued by those who are not enslaved? On what basis does utilitarian ethics (long debunked as philosophic nonsense) navigate between these two options – quality or quantity of “pleasure?”  One need only look to the laughable attempts of the British utilitarians like Bentham to concoct a hedonic calculation to measure it!

You’re being duped by think tanks and spooks

In a Spenglerian sense, it is also ironic that these philosophies have already passed us by, much like Dawkins’ crude arguments against theism are rehashes of 17th-century empiricist responses to equally bad “classical” apologetical arguments from Thomism. These philosophies have already made their grand debut, exited the historical stage and morphed into their more logical consequences (in the case of revolutionary philosophies, they have mutated into postmodernism, deconstructionism, nihilism, etc.).  The naivete of the acolytes of anarchism is evident in just this fact: political philosophies, like ancient civilizations and states, rise and fall, and are not to be seen again. One can no more raise the actual Roman Empire in all its commanding prowess than resurrect any 17th century philosophy that has already died. Why is this impossible? Because the spirit of such movements already had been fleshed out into logical consequences. Ideologies, like the worldviews of individuals, ultimately work themselves out to become more and more consistent with their foundational presuppositions.

In the case of anarchism, the non serviam principle has thus worked itself out in the world historical as a purely negative model in its most extreme sense. Offering no positive philosophy or statement of anthropology on the human psyche and nous (and as the pre-suppositional ground of those, God Himself) or human ethics and aesthetics (beyond empty phrases like “liberty”), anarchism is an empty philosophy.  Not only is it vacuous, it is also historically a weaponized philosophy, along with its revolutionary cousins, engineered for the weakening of some rival state by some a foreign power.  Lest anyone doubt that, note that anarchism in our day is now being anchored to the intense fanaticism of veganism. Indeed, this example proves the point about what philosophy calls “epistemological self-consciousness” – that the principles of “liberty” and “voluntarism” are streamlining themselves into greater consistency. If we should not violently impede the liberty and well-being of our fellow-man, we should not impede the liberty of our Darwinian ancestors, the dear animals. In his globalist texts concerning the coming third wave era of technocracy, Toffler even posits the necessity of vegan propaganda for the success of the New World Order.

Alvin Toffler
“Let me tell you why your children will be sexless vegan gumby-people“

Might there be an anarchist who believes that they don’t have to be consistent with their principles, or that nothing else is implied in their maxim of “No state?” It’s quite likely. Even still, there is no reason beyond personal whim or an ad hoc claim as to why we should not consider the family or any other grouping to also be a tyranny (especially when 99% of the time anarchism is based on the same atomism or materialism of a Hobbes or a Bakunin). The point is dialectical – as Enlightenment offspring, collectivism or anarchism are simply placing the one and the many in tension. Most curiously, the classical theorists of both collectivism and anarchism all discuss their metaphysic. For an insight into the irony of the anti-metaphysical position’s obsession with metaphysics, consider the following:
Bakunin’s philosophy, one that combines the logic of negative dialectics with an ontology of evolutionary naturalism. Like Murray Bookchin, the philosophy that Bakunin expressed in embryonic form can perhaps best be described as dialectical naturalism. This philosophy is not a crude form of mechanistic materialism; something that is completely lost on his theological detractors in “Freedom”.
Don’t get played: Christian Bale in The Secret Agent. Image: 20th Century-Fox Film Corp

Illustrating the usage of these ideologies by bigger power blocs, students of The Great Game such as myself are well aware of the case of Joseph Conrad’s hints about MI6 and the use of anarchism in his famous novel, The Secret Agent.  Michelle Steinberg comments:
Conrad’s story, though a work of fiction, is rooted in a real incident, the bungled bombing of the Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park, London in 1894, according to Martin Seymour-Smith, who wrote an Introduction in 1984 to one Penguin edition of The Secret Agent. According to Seymour-Smith, the facts behind the real incident, known as the “Greenwich Bomb Outrage,” were these:
‘A young man called Martial Bourdin was found in Greenwich Park, on a hill near the Royal Observatory `in a kneeling posture, terribly mutilated’ on the evening of 15 February 1894. There had been an explosion; Bourdin had set it off, and in so doing had killed himself. He had blown off one of his hands, and his guts were spilling from his body; he died in hospital very soon afterwards. . . . Bourdin had a brother-in-law called H.B. Samuels, who edited an anarchist paper. Samuels was in fact, like Verloc [the main character in Conrad’s book], a police agent and, again like Verloc, he accompanied his not very intelligent dupe to the park. Bourdin . . . in some way set off the explosive he was carrying, which was supplied by Samuels, acting as agent provocateur. . . . Anarchists were not responsible for the Greenwich Bomb incident; they were as frightened about it as they are in The Secret Agent.’
Anarchism, like all derivatives of the revolutionary philosophy, is grounded upon the notion of the metaphysical primacy of the many over the one. Whereas most statist philosophies, like that expressed in Plato’s Republic, for example, envision the people as embodying a vast man with the head symbolizing a king, emperor or philosopher-ruler, so in dialectical opposition the anarchist principle imagines some magical metaphysical primacy in the many. Ironically, even number theory itself shows there is no qualitative primacy given to “one” over “many,” as 1 possesses just as much “numberness” as 2, 3, 4, etc. In Orthodox Trinitarian philosophy, the one and the many have always been viewed as balanced, based on the equality of Persons in the Godhead. Thus, in the Church, the bishop is as much a bishop as any other, with no supreme bishop (Rome) to trump the rest. Good philosophy is based on good theology, where there is a balance of the principle of the one and the many. This is reflected in both religious and political life. Anarchism, with no divine authority in revelation or the supernatural, can only offer competing human opinions, leading to progressive disintegration.

Alexander III Coronation
The coronation of Tsar Aleksandr III

Likewise, in Orthodox Imperial praxis, embodied in the symphonia, the State was to act in harmonia with the Church, each in their proper sphere. According to this philosophy, the Emperor was divinely appointed and a real authority, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies in Isaiah that kings and rulers would convert to serve the Messiah. The Messianic Age does not, you’ll note, result in anarchism.

Anarchism is based on the presupposition of non serviam, and in praxis, non serviam results in the obliteration of all metaphysical categories and groupings, including tribe, family, race and gender. Are these metaphysical impositions not also “tyrannies” of the Demiurge that must be transcended, since they limit “liberty?”  Indeed, for the outworking of revolutionary philosophies, including anarchism, one need only look at the political and social discourse of our day, where the need to become post-human (transhumanism) is manifestly the logical outcome of anarchism and her revolutionary cousins. Cheeto-fueled online libertarians’ desire to proclaim non serviam is comical, as they are likely being manipulated by think tanks and intelligence fronts.

The Tentosphere Larps a Trump Cabinet

via Majority Rights

We have a great deal of respect for the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald and Dr. Tomislav Sunic here at Majorityrights.

However, the historical analyses and social criticisms of capable academics do not necessarily extend to sober prescriptions with regard to political requirements at hand and that is a fact unfortunately in evidence by their proposed Cabinet for a Trump Presidency.

While most people recognize that a White Nationalist political party putting-forth a platform and candidates is not likely to have a great deal of success at this point in history, what can be expected is that they use the platform to get an articulate message out, one that well represents European/White peoples. However, with the Cabinet that The American Freedom Party proposes for a Trump Presidency, they undermine not only that nominal value of running for mainstream political office, but the very credibility that they could have lent as exponents of White interests.

Nevertheless, the substantive issues to be dealt with are too important and therefore I want to avoid alienating people who should be on our side by proceeding to simply flout the ill-conceived offerings of some of White Nationalism’s leading proponents; I will therefore spread blame around since its blunder is in truth most likely to be a joint effort.

Instead of focusing on any individual with their pants down, I want to look at a situation where the distortions of momentary euphoria and surprising cooperation have fueled the nostalgia and desperate larping of old timers, who should know better than to allow the insufficiently experienced to cast a net on their behalf all too wide in search of popularity - a big, big tent approach, or a tentsophere all too grand, for a more apt metaphor. I will venture this hypothesis as to the psychology behind this offering, more specifically, the apparent psychology of the positions of those who appear to be behind it. My guess (hypothesis) is as follows:

With the euphoria of the realization that their Internet radio programs are gaining wide audience and the fact that they were able to come together and to some extent combine their disparate audiences for a radio show at each other’s networks (here and here), James Edwards and Lana Lokteff were able to influence a desperate lot of right-wing WN with the idea that they’ve got White representation figured-out and that they can bridge the differences between various right-wing positions in negotiation of the tentosphere.

What Lana and James do not understand is that they are afforded the opportunity by our enemies to do their thing for significant negative reasons - they are right-wingers who the Jews and liberals can count on to take people into easily controlled positions where not into positions so stigmatic and idiotic as to turn-off intelligent and capable people who might otherwise join our side.

Along with their effusive self congratulations, James Edwards and the Political Cesspool do a great job of repelling and/or stigmatizing WN from their first and foremost position as Jesus freaks. Despite that significant drawback, Keith Alexander is an intelligent man and is the brains behind the outfit. James is ordinary at best. However, he’s gotten so caught-up in the enthusiasm of his show’s WN popularity and the fact that despite being a Jesus freak, he has been able to combine efforts with another show taking-off in WN popularity - Red Ice - despite its espoused paganism and its position that Christianity is destructive to European interests. They are both intoxicated by the possibility of pooling their audiences and James even goes so far as to refer to the anti-Christian, Lana, as “a great mind.”

In addition to larpish paganism, Lana, Red Ice, Radio 3-14, etc, traffics in idiotic conspiracy theories and Hitler/Reich resurrection - Red Ice will not for long suffer anybody who denounces Nazi Germany, doesn’t think their objectives were perfectly conceived and entirely legitimate, who thinks Operation Reinhardt was a fact, etc. Where pandering to Reich nostalgia does not gain audience, they are all too happy to gain audience through a litany of conspiracy theorists too boring, too tediously absurd and too many to enumerate.

Enter the right-wing old timers and academics who are getting desperate - so desperate that when they see the kind of broad audience that these right-wing kids on the block are having, they want to believe it represents rigorous truth - after all, they are objectivists, they have the numbers, therefore what they are saying and doing must be good and true.

What then would James Edwards say? He’s having success. He’s a board member of The American Freedom Party. He has the approval of that Yankee Professor MacDonald. He can represent wholesome 1950’s Christian America. He thinks Pat Buchanan is fine and good ..“unnecessary wars”, the “revisionists” have it figured-out and all that bit.

James is getting real politically sophisticated too now. A regular pragmatist. He is even willing to reach-out into the big tentosphere and pool his efforts with the pagan/Hitler network, Red Ice.

Lets get swept-up with his enthusiasm and even larp a cabinet for President Trump. Oh, my, the right-wing: alt-right and tentosphere.

With the enthusiasm of this discovered magnanimity, he might try out his candidacy for “Press Secretary” of President Trump’s Cabinet.

But even so, being the humble guy that he is, he will ask the counsel of his wise elders.

The counsel has a key new member - his imagination. And key to this new imagination is to project what he figures would please Lana Laktoff’s audience to round-out the tentosphere’s base - to make-up a cabinet that Donald Trump couldn’t possibly lose with.

He’s not fooling around here and as sure as “there is not a wasted word in the bible” and the ways of its elders hold the truth, he would never be so foolish as to place all hope in Lana’s non-Christian audience. He’ll also take into advice, real or imagined, those he and his close cohorts have more common rapport with:

James and Lana have inspired the counsel of Daniel Johnson, Keith Alexander, MacDonald, Sunic, Jared Taylor, Paul Gottfried…and ?

The result is this American Freedom Party “proposal of a Cabinet for Donald Trump.”
I want to be kind. It does not make me happy to be critical or to cause humiliation, if it does. However, one of the crucial services that MR ventures to perform is to look after the correct theoretical - translate metapolitical - underpinnings of European representation.

Therefore, we will not treat this as it might seem at first blush - like a prank by our enemies - and will instead examine this list presented by American Freedom Party members. It is apparent that older members of pre-Internet, ivory tower insulated or business compromised positions have gotten swept-up in the enthusiasm of the Political Cesspool’s and Red Ice’s popularity, dubious though it, and the judgment behind it, may be. We will look at how the people in these proposed Cabinet positions would not well represent White/European peoples.

The bizarre eclecticism of this proposed Cabinet is an expression of - “tentosphere” prosthesis - its social organizational ineptitude:

American Freedom Party
2753 Broadway, Suite 245
New York, NY 10025

March 28, 2016

Re: The Board of Directors of the AFP Offer a Proposed Trump Cabinet

The current policies of the federal government have resulted in considerable dispossession of America’s founding stock.  Indeed, its awkwardly promoted policies of “diversity” are in reality tantamount to the physical removal of Americans of European extraction.  At long last, we have in the candidacy of Donald Trump a possible bulkhead against the forces that are destroying the peoples of European extraction worldwide.  We believe, therefore, that it is necessary for Donald Trump to choose his “Ambassadors, Public Ministers and Councils” with great deliberation while keeping in mind that, as president, he represents all U.S. citizens, including large segments of dispossessed white Americans. The present proposal is only a suggestion and an opinion of ours, which in no way implies that we are requesting Donald Trump’s agreement or endorsement of the American Freedom Party.  We would like to point out, however, that a significant number of American citizens of European extraction, often summarily labeled in the media as “White nationalists,” are firm Donald Trump’s supporters.

In this wise, the American Freedom Party proposed to Donald Trump and the American people the following persons for his Administration’s key posts:

Vice President:  Gov. Chris Christie.  Governor Christie possesses the experience and temperament to balance a Trump Ticket.

Secretary of State: Sen. Jeff Sessions.  Secretary of State is such an important position in a Trump administration that President Trump should pick someone whom he can rely on totally.  This person is Senator Sessions.

Secretary of Treasury: Sen. Rand Paul.  Senator Paul’s father, Rep. Ron Paul, would be a better choice for this position, but due to the senior Paul’s age, we feel that Senator Paul would handle this difficult assignment admirably—primarily because of father’s teachings and influence.

Attorney General: Congressman Trey Gowdy.  Congressman Gowdy has been a U.S. prosecutor and is a Tea Party member.  He would be a good, solid choice for Attorney General.

Secretary of Defense:  Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich informally advised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and hopefully has learned that foreign entanglements are bad for America.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter will do what needs doing and she will give proper direction and coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture to achieve administration goals.

Secretary of Labor:  Oregon Governor Kate Brown.  In keeping with Donald Trump’s populist underpinnings, Oregon Governor Kate Brown would be a good choice.  She is a proven champion of a living wage.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Prof. Kevin B. MacDonald.  Professor MacDonald is renowned worldwide as professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach (emeritus).  He has written numerous scholarly works and is the leading White advocate and scholar.

Secretary of Transportation: Elon Musk.  Mr. Musk is such a leading figure in industry, engineering and transportation (both on earth and in space) that every president should seek his advice and service.

Secretary of Energy: Senator John Thune. Senator Thune is a great choice for Energy Tsar because of his leading role in the senate in formulating energy policy.  Also, because of his polished demeanor, his very presence commands respect.

FBI Director:  Former Congressman Virgil Goode. Virgil Goode is an excellent choice for FBI director because he was a member of the Liberty Caucus, a libertarian-leaning congressional group and while he has strong, white-nationalist leanings, he will protect the individual liberties of all Americans—something that has been missing in past FBI directors.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: General Jack Keane. General Keane is a four-star general and recipient of the Legion of Merit.

Secretary of Agriculture: William Daniel Johnson. Mr. Johnson is Chairman of the American Freedom Party. He is a farmer and a white nationalist. This cabinet post is extremely important because it handles food stamps and WIC (women, infant and children) food subsidies. These programs will be powerful tools to achieve repatriation of 30+ million illegal aliens in America.

United States Trade Representative: Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders is for protective tariffs. He would be a good choice to move America away from the job-killing trade approach of the last thirty years.

United Nations Ambassador: Jared Taylor. A clear choice for UN Ambassador is the urbane and intellectual Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, the leading white advocate educational organization.

EPA Director:  Jill Stein. Jill Stein is (and has been) the Green Party’s presidential candidate.  She would do an admirable job in protecting our environment for generations to come.

OMB Director:  Former Governor Gary Johnson. Libertarian presidential candidate and former governor of New Mexico, Gov. Johnson has an outstanding record of spending reduction against a spendthrift state government. As Director of the Office of Management and Budget, he will keep executive spending in check.

Surgeon General: Dr. Ben Carson.  Dr. Carson endorsed Donald Trump early on.  This position would be good for both Dr. Carson and the nation.

Press Secretary:  James Edwards.  James Edwards is the host of “the Political Cesspool” radio show, a pro-white radio show.  He has been a leading figure in the media fight to stop the genocide of the white race.  President Trump could do no better than James Edwards in this position.

Poet Laurate: Michael Derrick Hudson.  Not only is Mr. Hudson an accomplished poet, he courageously exposed the anti-white bias in today’s poetry publishing world.

Chief of Staff:  Former Governor Sarah Palin.  (Last listed, but first in importance.)  Gov. Palin’s most demanding task will be in the dismantling of the below agencies.
Cabinet positions and Agencies to be Eliminated:  We propose that the Trump Administration eliminate the following Agencies and their cabinet posts. 

Secretary of Interior
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Education

Very truly yours,

Tom Sunic, Ph.D
AFP Director in Charge
Contact:  Tom Sunic, Ph.D, Director
Cellular 00385 91 1722 783 (Zagreb, Croatia)
or (213) 621-3000
Fax: (213) 621-2900

Spengler: The Numinous Genesis of Culture

via Counter-Currents

Oswald Spengler’s radical contribution to the philosophy of history was to observe that different Cultures and Civilizations are discrete life forms and that they all have a certain life-expectancy. The linear progression of history, from the Stone Age to the prevailing Western liberalism, is a myth. There is no single line of history running through all of humanity. Instead, Cultures are born, they grow to maturity, they age, and they die. The springtime of one high Culture is, for Spengler, contemporaneous with the springtime of another, not with other human societies that happen to be in existence at that time. The point can be clarified by analogy with the human organism. A child alive today is contemporaneous with a child who lived in Roman times in the sense that they share the same stage of development. It is the Destiny of both children to grow to adulthood, then to descend to senility and death. This Destiny may be thwarted by disease, violence, or hunger, so that the child never matures, but it remains the Destiny of the human organism to follow such a process of growth leading to death.

Within this process of growth, Spengler draws a distinction between two separate stages: the Culture and the Civilization. The Culture is indicative of the youthful energetic phase, and transforms the symbolic imperatives of its genesis into high art and technical innovations suited to its worldview. Inevitably, these high forms begin to turn stale and the Civilizational phase then begins to kick in. Civilization grows logically from Culture, and it represents a move to a more urban lifestyle where novelty and cosmopolitanism become sought after. Spengler identified the high point of Western Culture as being the Baroque, and the supreme artistic forms that expressed the essence of that Culture as counterpoint and oil painting. Since that peak we have moved to the democratic stage of Civilization’s unfolding. Spengler is clear that this stage is dominated by the power of money. It is also associated with the rise of rationalism, identified in the Western Culture with the Age of Enlightenment. In this democratic stage, cities grow and folk traditions die out. Intellectual innovation becomes valued whilst religion disappears. The Cultural forms that surround us at the present time have decayed and degenerated due to the inner logic of organic growth and decline, so that we have only fads, fashions, and opinions masquerading as Culture.

This form of plutocratic democracy can only exist for so long, as it soon exhausts itself in its restive search for novelty and change. Ultimately everyone becomes bored with the shallow machinations of this type of society and there begins to arise a yearning for something deeper and more meaningful, a harkening to the call of the blood:

There wakes at last a deep yearning for all old and worthy tradition that still lingers alive. Men are tired to disgust of money-economy. They hope for salvation from somewhere or other, for some true ideal of honour and chivalry, of inward nobility, of unselfishness and duty. And now dawns the time when the form-filled powers of the blood, which the rationalism of the Megalopolis has suppressed, reawaken in the depths.[1]

This represents the beginning of the Caesarist age. This age arises from the democracies but supersedes them. It is characterized by an expansive Imperialist urge to impose its worldview on as wide a field as possible. The inner development of the Cultural life has already reached full maturity, so there will be no significant developments in that respect. The yearning for something more meaningful is satisfied by returning to earlier forms of the Culture that preceded the democratic age. These forms are no longer capable of development but through a reengagement with them the population of the Imperial Civilization is once more able to regain a sense of nobility and the connection with the numinous that had been lost.

Spengler refers to this return to earlier forms as a “Second Religiousness.” The earlier religious impulses are now ossified but they still provide sufficient inspiration to give impetus to the Imperium, as they are at least paradigmatically superior to the reign of money and triviality. In this particular phase we can see a plethora of new cults emerging as people gradually lose faith with the democratic money age, and look for something more perennial:

We have in the European-American world of today the occultist and theosophist fraud, the American Christian Science, the untrue Buddhism of drawing rooms, the religious arts-and-crafts business (brisker in Germany than even in England) that caters for groups and cults of Gothic or late-Classical or Taoist sentiment. Everywhere it is just a toying with myths that no one really believes, a tasting of cults that it is hoped might fill the inner void. Materialism is shallow and honest, mock-religion shallow and dishonest. But the fact that the latter is possible at all foreshadows a new and genuine spirit of seeking that declares itself, first quietly, but soon emphatically and openly, in the civilized waking-consciousness.[2]

When the Imperial phase has run its course then it means that that particular culture has finished. The populations living within the boundaries of the defunct Empire are overrun by the barbarians and return to an ahistorical peasantry. This peasantry will subsist in a manner befitting all peasantries and will have nothing to offer to history. But within this peasantry there will necessarily arise a need to understand and articulate the presence of the Numen:

He feels about him an almost indescribable alien life of unknown powers, and traces the origin of these effects to “numina,” to the Other, inasmuch as this Other also possesses Life. . . . Now it is important to observe how the consciousness of each Culture intellectually condenses its primary “numina.” It imposes significant words—names—on them and thereby conjures (seizes or bounds) them. By virtue of the Name they are subject to the intellectual power of the man who possesses the Name. The pronouncement of the right name (in physics, the right concept) is an incantation.[3]

This longing for some form of higher expression, some meaningful articulation of enduring ideals, finds an outlet in the proliferation of new religiosities and cults. From this matrix of mystical yearning may grow the shoots of a new Culture that will have its own particular world view and life-expectancy. From this perception of the Numen a new Cultural form can be born and, thus, the cycle of birth, growth, and death may begin again in a new vehicle.

Spengler’s conception of history has drawn criticism from all sides. Many critics have questioned the element of inevitability that is inherent in Spengler’s model. Theodor Adorno denied that it was historically necessary to follow the pattern that Spengler described, and he saw Spengler as an advocate for the decline he depicted. For Adorno, a key intellectual influence for the forces of the New Left, Spengler is complicit in the historical processes that he describes because he refuses to accept that historical unfolding can be altered. According to Spengler’s model the lifespan of a Culture is determined by the imperative of internal logic and by its having a limited duration. For Spengler, this life-cycle cannot possibly be extended any more than the life of a human can be extended to 300 years. As he famously wrote, “optimism is cowardice.”[4] Adorno refuses to accept the idea that there is an unavoidable decline that cannot be halted. Due to his abhorrence of the Caesarism of Hitler, Adorno claims that the Imperial phase of the West is, in fact, a willed descent into barbarity and oppression. Adorno maintains that Cultures of the past died out because they were based on exploitation, and therefore lacked equilibrium.[5] With the possibility of Communism offered by Marx it was no longer necessary to succumb to the forces described by Spengler:

In a world of brutal and oppressed life, decadence becomes the refuge of a potentially better life by renouncing its allegiance to this one and to its culture, its crudeness, and its sublimity. The powerless, who at Spengler’s command, are to be thrown aside and annihilated by history, are the negative embodiment within the negativity of this culture of everything which promises, however feebly, to break the dictatorship of culture and put an end to the horror of pre-history. In their protest lies the only hope that fate and power will not have the last word. What can oppose the decline of the west is not a resurrected culture but the utopia that is silently contained in the image of its decline.[6]

Perhaps Adorno has a point. After all, the refuge of decadence has been manifested most ably throughout the former Cultures of the West by his followers, even if there is no sign yet of utopia. For Spengler, however, such diversions are all too predictable at this stage of Cultural decline. The existence of decadence, Communism, or other intellectual fads is something that might be supported or opposed, but it is not something that can affect the broader flow of history:

Whether these doctrines are “true” or “false” is—we must reiterate and emphasize—a question without meaning for political history. The refutation of, say, Marxism belongs to the realm of academic dissertation and public debates, in which everyone is always right and his opponent always wrong. . . . The power that these abstract ideals possess, however, scarcely extends in time beyond the two centuries that belong to party politics, and their end comes not from refutation but from boredom. . . . Belief in program was the mark and the glory of our grandfathers—in our grandsons it will be a proof of provincialism. In its place is developing even now the seed of a new resigned piety, sprung from tortured conscience and spiritual hunger, whose task will be to found a new Hither-side (Dies-seits) that looks for secrets instead of steel-bright concepts and in the end will find them in the deeps of the “Second Religiousness.”[7]

Whilst Adorno abhors Spengler’s “universal structure” and denies the applicability of its prognosis to the twentieth century West, his own New Left formulation relies on the historical inevitability of Marx, and the particular model of history he promulgated—a model based on universal applicability. Adorno’s critique of Spengler seems overly influenced by the particular phase of the cycle that he was living through, and is perhaps tainted with the optimistic cowardice common to utopians everywhere.

Another thinker who denies the inevitability of Spengler’s model comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum to Adorno. In his introduction to Yockey’s Imperium,[8] Willis Carto argued that the ultimate decline of the West can be avoided due to the unique technological situation available to the West at that time. Specifically, writing at the dawn of the space age, Carto suggests that space exploration could fulfil the expansive imperative of the Caesarist phase without resulting in the debilitating mixture of races that follows Imperialism. For Carto, it is this racial mixing that provides the organic cause for the decline of a Culture. All Cultures conclude with a universalist, Imperialist phase due to the inner logic of their life-form. This, Carto accepts, cannot and need not be avoided. But, with the advent of space travel, it should be possible to fulfil the inner need for Faustian exploration whilst avoiding the miscegenous downfall of all previous Cultures. Carto sees the Destiny of Western Man lying in space colonization and the creation of an inter-stellar Imperium.

It is an ingenious response to Spengler’s pessimism as it acknowledges the necessity of the historical processes identified by Spengler yet seeks to align them to a transcendent goal, befitting the urge towards infinite space identified with the Faustian spirit. But no one writing in 1960 could have foreseen the limited future that space exploration was to have. Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in 1968 gave a sober prediction of intelligent, conscious, computers controlling a manned flight to Saturn. This scenario was based on the best technological predictions available at the time and now looks unbelievably over-optimistic. The further we travel along the final arc of our Western Culture, the more accurate Spengler’s pessimism appears.

Unlike Adorno’s critique of Spengler, Carto shared many of Spengler’s basic assumptions and hoped to participate in implementing the next phase of the cycle. From our perspective it seems less and less likely that there is a future for our Culture. Is there no room for hope?

There is some uncertainty about the particular phase of the cycle we are living through. In the middle part of the twentieth century it seemed clear that the Caesarist age was with us, as various European leaders superseded their democratic systems with new regimes founded on pre-democratic ideals. The American hegemony obtaining since 1945 can either be seen as the cessation of the Caesarist imperative, or its deeper fulfilment in the global spread of Western ideas. The latter interpretation, if it is correct, would undermine Spengler’s model as it would demonstrate the achievement of Imperium through the power of money, rather than through the transcendence of money values. Certainly, Yockey saw 1945 as representing the beginning of pseudomorphosis, a sort of sickness causing the Cultural organism to fall out of sync with its Destiny. For Yockey, this sickness was due to the Culture distortion imposed by the Jewish elites in America who have taken over that country and now rule it for their own ends. Spengler had described historical pseudomorphosis as the imposition of an older Cultural form on a younger, and more vital, form.

If we accept that the Global world order gathering pace under the (distorted) American banner is, in fact, a pseudomorphic distortion of the Destiny of the West then we are faced with two possible scenarios: the first is that the Caesarist phase has been thwarted, in which case the Culture is already dead, and there can be no possibility of Cultural renewal; the second is that the Global World Order is just an extension of the democratic money period, that the Caesarism of the 1930s was premature, and that we are yet to begin the authentic Imperium phase of our Culture. Thus, we are either entering an ahistorical descent into peasantry or we are awaiting an Imperial renewal of earlier forms.

The interesting thing is that, in either of those scenarios, we are living at a time in which we would expect to see the beginnings of new yearnings towards the numinous. Before considering the possibility of such new numinous forms emerging, it will be helpful to sketch a brief outline of the arc of development of Western artistic Culture. The intention is simply to identify the internal logic of the West’s decline.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) played an important role in the development of Western music. At this ecclesiastical conference the question of counterpoint in music was discussed. The issue was controversial because it was felt by some that counterpoint was being deployed for mere ornamentation, for entertainment value. Whereas plainsong allowed for complete clarity in singing lines of scripture, counterpoint tended (so the argument went) to obscure the text by employing elaborate musical techniques that demanded adulation in their own right. The music was meant to be a mere vehicle for the praise of God. Legend has it that the composer Palestrina persuaded the Council of the merits of counterpoint by composing a mass which utilized that technique so beautifully that they accepted its application as an art suitable for worship.

Counterpoint became the emblem of the Culture of the West. For Spengler, the fundamental symbolic formulation for the West’s mode of apprehension was the yearning for infinite space. Counterpoint was the perfect way of expressing this yearning: “The symbolism of counterpoint belongs to extension and through polyphony signifies infinite space.”[9] This characteristically Western form of expression developed into the form of the sonata, and its voice became that of the stringed instruments:

The theme of the fugue “is,” that of the new sonata-movement “becomes,” and the issue of its working out is in the one case a picture, in the other a drama. Instead of a series of pictures we get a cyclic succession, and the real source of this tone-language was in the possibilities, realized at last, of our deepest and most intimate kind of music—the music of the strings. Certain it is that the violin is the noblest of all instruments that the Faustian soul has imagined and trained for the expression of its last secrets, and certain it is, too, that it is in string quartets and violin sonatas that it has experienced its most transcendent and most holy moments of full illumination. Here, in chamber-music, Western art as a whole reaches its highest point.[10]

What has happened at this point in the Culture’s development is that music has become a thing in itself. It is no longer used as an appendage to other art or religious forms, it becomes instead the foremost form of expression in its own right. Whereas the Classical Culture’s primary symbol was the body, representing a conceptual world view based on a feeling for solidity and best expressed through sculpture, the Western primary symbol is infinite space, the furthest horizon, and it finds its supreme expression through the polyphonic music of the strings.

The creation of the sonata form was also accompanied by further developments in Western Culture. In particular, the novel reached a certain peak of formulation at around the same time as the sonata, and both forms share structural similarities. In a formulaic sonata the first subject is presented in the home key which then bridges to a second subject in a different key. The two subjects are developed before both are finally resolved by returning to the initial home key. This schema of unity disrupted by conflict which is then resolved into further unity underlies most classic novels and could be said to represent the form of the novel. In fact, it is a structure underlying the hero myths and sagas that accompanied the birth of the Culture, so it can be seen that, in this sense, the sonata and the novel are the ultimate crystallization of the underlying myths of our Culture.

With the achievement of these forms there is nowhere else for Culture to go. From its inception the Culture has been developing the forms of its expression apposite to its specific apprehension of the numinous. From the earliest sagas, through the medieval morality plays and mummer plays, to the grandiloquence of Elizabethan theatre, and finally to the privately consumed, and individually wrought form of the novel, the Culture has travelled from a shared experience of numinous heroism to the private contemplation of personal psychology. A similar trajectory is followed in the field of music: from the heroic Anglo-Saxon poetry (which would have been accompanied by the heorp, a stringed instrument), through the ritualized church music of medieval times, to the polyphony and chamber music of the eighteenth century, and then on to the absolute music that sought expression purely in its own terms, concluding with the sterile experimentalism of the twentieth century.

For Yockey, and others, the artistic degradations of the twentieth century were a consequence of Culture distortion. In particular, Yockey referred to the revolution of 1933, which saw the full augmentation of Jewish power under Roosevelt in America. Following Yockey’s model, the Jewish takeover of power in America led to the hegemony of Jewish influence in the arts and created the possibility for the spread of those ideas peculiar to the Jewish mindset: the atonality of Schoenberg, the development of minimalism by Reich, etc. It is undoubtedly certain that the rise of Jewish power in America has led to an exacerbation of artistic forces that are antithetical to the ethos of the West, but it is still the case that the Culture of the West was already set on course for much of the individualism and triviality that is nowadays often dismissed as “Jewish.” The real problem with the idea of Culture distortion is that it tends to downplay the importance of the real arc of Western Cultural development by fixating on those elements that are foreign to it, and thereby failing to acknowledge that Western Culture was already declining without the influence of Jews. The danger here is that, whilst playing cherchez le juif, we tend to hark back to older and more fulfilling Cultural forms, but forms whose force has already been spent. In doing so, we risk replacing one species of pseudomorphosis with another. This is so because the tendency is to return to the shells of previous Cultural forms, shells no longer animated by the numinous force that made them powerful to begin with.

We have already seen that the genesis of Culture, as well as the second religiousness, is animated by the perception of the numinous. The numen is the presiding god of a particular place. The word is related to the Latin nuere, nod, and to the Greek neuein, incline the head, indicating an assent or command. Thus, the word indicates the effects of the power of the deity. If we are to begin to look for signs of incipient Cultural stirrings beneath the surface of what passes for artistic endeavor nowadays, it will be necessary to seek out those currents that transmit something of the numinous, or that pay worship to the presiding deity. In looking for such signs it is important to remember that the numinous is concerned with the awe-inspiring, and as such it is unrelated to forms which might seek to pay lip service to existing religious structures. Artistic forms capable of embodying the numinous will often be shocking and unexpected. Many readers will disagree with the observations concerning numinous Culture that follow, and will dismiss them out of hand. But it is to be hoped that the presiding deity of our Culture is still able to transcend the expectations of conservative taste.

In the following I will firstly be contrasting seemingly similar outward forms and noting the essential difference between them; secondly comparing apparently distinct forms and noting the essential similarity; and thirdly noting how a particular work illustrates the difference between the Second Religiousness and the birthing of an entirely new Culture. The purpose of these contrasts is to locate the centrality of the numinous in the genesis of Culture.

To begin at the opposite end of the artistic spectrum from the numinous, the Sensation exhibition, held at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1997, showcased the collection of Charles Saatchi and offered a useful index of everything that is wrong with contemporary art. Sensation was primarily a showcase for the more conceptually minded artists such as Damien Hurst and Tracey Emin. But it lodged itself in the public consciousness due to the inclusion of a work of acrylic on canvas by the painter Marcus Harvey. Myra was a portrait of the so-called moors murderer, Myra Hindley, based on the legendary police photograph taken after her arrest. This large painting employs a sort of pointillist style and gains its notoriety due to the fact that the paint is applied using the handprints of small children. One viewer was moved to smuggle in and throw paint onto the picture when he viewed it. Despite the assertions of Norman Rosenthal in the exhibition catalogue that the purpose of art is “to conquer territory that hitherto has been taboo,”[11] Sensation neither broke taboos nor conquered new territory; nor did it have a moment’s thought for the numinous. In fact, after the vandalism of the Myra painting, the area around the picture was roped off and a security guard was employed to stand protectively next to it. This only served to emphasize the feeling that this sort of art aggrandizes its own sense of importance to such an extent that we are meant to worship it, rather than allowing it to be a bridge to a true object of reverence.

The esoteric precursor to Myra can be found in the strange quasi-manifesto of COUM Transmissions, Annihilating Reality, written by Genesis P-Orridge and Peter Christopherson. This document is concerned with questioning, not so much what constitutes art, but whether art should be seen to transcend legal and social taboos, and contextual legitimacy. In particular, they contrast certain avant garde artistic provocations with criminal, or socially unacceptable, activities and ask where the sanctification of a work as “art” comes from. They suggest that many artists share similar impulses with criminals, and indeed similarity of forms of expression with them in certain cases. The piece uses a large number of quotations and short, often disconnected, paragraphs titled either “hearsay” or “heresy,” as well as a large number of illustrations to demonstrate its point. But the most controversial part, which led to media condemnation,[12] concerns the idea that the photographs taken by Ian Brady on Saddleworth Moor, which have a secret meaning for him due to his knowledge of the burial sites of his child victims, might be considered a form of performance art:

Hearsay: Ian Brady and Myra Hindley photographed landscapes on the Moors in England where they had buried children after sexually assaulting and killing them. Landscapes that only have meaning when perceived through their eyes. Art is perception of the moment. Action. Conscious. Brady as conceptual performer?[13]

The example of the Moors Murderers is a distasteful one, to say the very least, but it was no doubt intended to make the point in extremis. The more sober question the article poses concerns what the essential element of artistic creation is, and whether it requires prior or retrospective endorsement by some establishment to gain legitimacy.

Whilst one of the purposes of Annihilating Reality was to puncture the pretensions of the art establishment, it nonetheless made some important points. The manifesto states, “performance art is probably the Shaman, Mystic, Lunatic, Buddha, visionary of contemporary times, in a post-religious era a crucial and responsible function best kept away from dealers who are the Pardoners of our culture.”[14]

It is this realization that distinguishes the article from mere provocation. The common element that P-Orridge and Christopherson move towards in Annihilating Reality is a perception of the present moment as a consciously lived experience. Whilst art can create this heightened sense of awareness, so can crime. By identifying the distinguishing merit of art with this heightened, Mystic awareness, P-Orridge and Christopherson set the ground for their subsequent experiments with Thee Temple Ov Psychick Youth, Chaos Magick, and other projects. The important thing to note is that, from an early stage, they were perceiving their own art projects as being set within a context of mystical consciousness; a nebulous idea, perhaps, but indicative of an experimental praxis allied to the numinous.

Despite the apparent similarity of using the shocking subject matter of the moors murderers, Harvey’s painting is firmly located within the context of the art establishment and employs notoriety in order to extend its meaning as art; whilst the praxis suggested in Annihilating Reality seeks to subvert the very notion of “art” as a category by noting its arbitrariness, and by isolating the point of numinous apprehension as the nexus of its operation.

Within the field of music there is often no synergy whatsoever between different genres, and this is particularly the case when considering “classical” music in relation to “popular” music. As discussed earlier, the Western musical tradition, according to Spengler, reached its apex with the sonata form. Its subsequent development, particularly through the twentieth century, is problematic. The twelve tone system of Schoenberg; the serialism of Boulez; the elaborate experimentalism of Stockhausen; all, to different degrees, speak of either the decline of the tradition or its distortion; probably both. Nonetheless, adherents of the Western tradition seek to protect and segregate classical music from the degenerate forces of more popular forms; this, despite the evident degeneracy of the classical form itself. If we are to seek the essential spirit that lies within music we will begin to transcend the barrier between “classical” and “popular” that has now become obsolete.

Giacinto Scelsi was a reclusive Italian composer who was initially interested in the twelve tone system and other early twentieth century experimentations. Following a personal crisis he changed direction and became concerned with exploring the musical possibilities inherent in a single note, and he saw this project as being a deeply mystical one. This dates from his 1959 composition, Four Pieces on a Single Note. What he sought to do in this work, and subsequently, was to open out the tonal and timbral textures of a single note and to explore the range of sonic possibilities that could be found with it. This compositional praxis bears similarity with the chanting of Tibetan monks who elaborate on a single tone with simple instrumentation.

In works such as Anahit and Uaxuctum (subtitled The Legend of the Maya City, Destroyed by Themselves for Religious Reasons), Scelsi’s music achieved a simultaneous sense of accessibility and arcane depth. The graceful majesty of the sustained tones is underpinned by being surrounded by a restive instrumental accompaniment. It is music that resembles sunlight on a still pond; a singular impression formed by a constantly fluctuating surface. It is also music that is somewhat terrifying, evoking a sense of cosmic space and emptiness. In this sense it is similar to Ligetti’s Atmosphères, which also provokes a sense of awe. Scelsi’s music avoids the alienating and unappealing elements of atonality, and instead brings together a rich and unique tonal sensibility within a framework guided by his interest in mysticism.

Scelsi’s 1969 piece, Konx Om Pax, is in three movements and is subtitled Three aspects of Sound: as the first motion of the immutable; as creative force; as the syllable Om (the Buddhists’ sacred syllable). In the third movement the orchestra is joined by the chorus repeating the sacred syllable “Om.” Like much of Scelsi’s oeuvre, the music is superficially repetitive, but the repetition is never straightforward; the theme develops and progresses but never strays from its obsessively focused theme. The title Konx Om Pax refers to the word “peace” in three different languages, and is also the title of a book by the occultist Aleister Crowley. Knox Om Pax provides a link between Scelsi and some of the post-punk experimentalism that took place a decade or so after its composition.

The album, Nature Unveiled by Current 93, contains two long tracks that bear a great deal of similarity with Scelsi’s music. “Ach Golgotha (Maldoror is Dead)” is partly based on a looped tape recording of Crowley chanting “Aum,” and in this it is directly linked to Scelsi’s Konx Om Pax. But far deeper than this, it is apparent that the sonic landscape presented in “Ach Golgotha (Maldoror is Dead)” is attempting to express a certain state of mind, or being, that segues entirely with what Scelsi was trying to achieve. Certainly, “Ach Golgotha (Maldoror is Dead)” is possibly one of the most terrifying sound recordings ever made. It is somewhat repetitive but, again, it has nothing in common with serialism. In fact, a distinguishing feature of both Scelsi’s and Current 93’s music is that it is clearly articulated with a great deal of emotional resonance; it has nothing in common with the arid intellectual elitism of atonality. Listening to both “Ach Golgotha (Maldoror is Dead),” one perceives that both pieces are attempting to manifest a sense of the numinously awe-inspiring character of sacred sound. That they both turned to prior religious forms in order to do so is not really the point. Both pieces transcend their source material and point towards new musical forms.

In literature, some of the plays of Peter Shaffer deal with a renewed sense of numinous apprehension, most notably Equus which, incidentally, was the inspiration for the Current 93 song “Hooves.” In this play a young boy, Alan Strang, is referred to a psychiatrist, Martin Dysart, after he has blinded six horses with a metal spike. The play depicts the psychiatrist’s efforts to get to the underlying motive beneath Alan’s gruesome act. As we learn more about Alan’s background it becomes apparent that, through a complex mix of Christian guilt and sexual immaturity, he has come to create a personal religion for himself. The root cause of this can be traced back to when he was a young child and was once taken for a ride on a horse by a stranger on a beach. For a few moments he was able to experience genuine freedom and exhilaration, and an escape from the repressive atmosphere created by his parents. Dysart learns that when Alan first saw this horse he was able to converse with it in his mind. The horse is called Equus, and he lives in all horses; he is the divinity of horses. From this moment on, Alan carries out rites and observances to Equus in secret, culminating in the psychotic blinding of the six horses in an act of defiance of divine omniscience.

As Dysart learns more about Alan he comes to understand that Alan has experienced a numinous relationship with his new god, albeit manifested through psychosis. Dysart becomes jealous of his patient as he realizes that his own life is a suburban charade, lacking in the conviction that Alan’s instinctive worship is able to manifest spontaneously:

I sit looking at pages of centaurs trampling the soil of Argos—and outside my window he is trying to become one, in a Hampshire field! . . . I watch that woman [Dysart’s wife] knitting, night after night—a woman I haven’t kissed in six years—and he stands in the dark for an hour, sucking the sweat off his God’s hairy cheek! (Pause) Then in the morning, I put away my books on the cultural shelf, close up the kodachrome snaps of Mount Olympus, touch my reproduction statue of Dionysus for luck-and go off to hospital to treat him for insanity. Do you see?[15]

Dysart becomes troubled by the idea of trying to cure Alan because he recognizes that to do so will rob Alan of his worship, as well as his psychosis. At the play’s conclusion, Dysart delivers a valedictory soliloquy to Alan:

Passion, you see, can be destroyed by a doctor. It cannot be created. You won’t gallop any more, Alan. Horses will be quite safe. You’ll save your money every week, till you can change that scooter for a car, you’ll slip round to the Betting Shop and put the odd fifty P on the gee-gees, quite forgetting that they were ever anything more to you than bearers of little profits or little losses. You will, however, be without pain. More or less completely without pain.[16]

Equus depicts the distance that lies between the adherents of the Second Religiousness and the creators of new, numinous Cultures. Dysart is grasping at long since spent forms whilst Alan is birthing new forms in blood. Even Dysart’s name points to his location in the late Civilizational phase (Dysart = Dys-art, i.e., bad art). Alan’s personal religion is doomed to be cured out of existence, but he has nonetheless lived for a time with the numinous, in all its beauty and horror.

If we accept that Spengler was right; if we accept that the future holds for us only decline, whether in the end of our Civilization or in the last hurrah of the Second Religiousness of the Imperium; then we still need not despair. Optimism is cowardice, but only if it hopes for the renewal of what has passed. New Cultures are birthed in the apprehension of the numinous; they are the effects of the surfeit of power of particular gods. If we wish to aggrandize ourselves and assume that we have a stake in Culture, that we can influence Culture in some way, then we can only do so by seeking out expressions of the numinous in Culture, and by encouraging their earthing. In this way we are able to hear the music of our god. An Imperium, or a new Culture, may not occur in our lifetimes; this looks increasingly likely. But if we pay attention to the numinous and revere it in all its forms then we are already placing ourselves out of time, beyond the limitations of the vulgar money age, and participating in the seeding of a new, numinous Culture.

[1] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (New York: The Modern Library, 1962), 396.
[2] Ibid., 347.
[3] Ibid., 200.
[4] Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics (European Books Society, 1992), 72.
[5] Theodor W. Adorno, Prisms (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981), 71.
[6] Ibid., 72.
[7] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 389-91.
[8] Ulick Varange (Francis Parker Yockey), Imperium (Sausalito, Cal.: Noontide Press, 1962).
[9] Spengler, The Decline of the West, 119.
[10] Ibid., 120.
[11] Norman Rosenthal, et al., Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997), 11.
[12] Simon Ford, Wreckers of Civilisation: The Story of COUM Transmissions & Throbbing Gristle (London: Black Dog Publishing, 1999).
[13] Genesis P-Orridge and Peter Christopherson, “Annihilating Reality,” Studio International, July/August 1976, 44–48.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Peter Shaffer, Equus (New York: Samuel French, 1973), 50.
[16] Ibid., 69.