Top

In Memoriam, Jonathan Bowden

April 26, 2012

Jonathan Bowden

It is with sadness that VoR notes the passing of Jonathan David Anthony Bowden (April 12, 1962 – March 29, 2012).

Jonathan Bowden was a British artist, speaker, writer, film maker, cultural critic, political figure, and chairman of the New Right, an organization in the UK. He will be perhaps best remembered for the riveting oratory that he delivered for the sake of the indigenous British peoples and of the greater White West. He will be missed by all who knew him or who heard him speak.

Jonathan Bowden on VoR:

Here’s a YouTube video that gives some indication of Bowden’s oratorical prowess:



You can find other videos via Web search.

Sex As Sacrament / Sex As Celebration, Part 1

January 9, 2012

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

“The whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints.”

Actually, the analogy is not far off from our present situation. In the disordered world, the anti-world, a “Babylon,” where Jewish unconcern for our class is the rule, sex disconfirms the worthy, destroys the precious and brings into being the vicious, the irresponsible at our expense. (1)

It isn’t funny.

. . . . .

If we can care about the preservation of rain forests, the hills of West Virginia, endangered species and the gulf of Mexico, and we certainly do care, very much, then we are assuredly warranted by any standard, left, right, or in-between, to care for our co-evolutionary people, our co-evolutionary women.

A pervasive ecological view, combining as it does the taxonomic system of class (as in the White race), acts as a corrective to Lockeatine empiricism – its Cartesian notion of individual rights being prone to rupture systemic, evolutionary process.

It also acts as a corrective to the toxicity of John Dewey’s instrumental pragmatism. That is of significance as Dewey was particularly resourceful with his instrumentalism, and with that, a large influence in promoting liberal democracy, despite his philosophy having serious flaws.

Despite its resource and influence his pragmatism de-emphasizes the significance of deep genetic and processual relationships. In being overstated, the facts of historical, co-evolutionary processes in the development of maturation and skill recede from consideration. Being overly practical thus, it promotes a disposition of progressing ever forward, in search of "ever more full and rich experience." As such, it devalues consideration of biological optimality – biological creatures do not need “more and more”, too much is toxic as is too little. Moreover, being quite so instrumental, it is not sufficiently respectful of natural processes and necessarily corresponding metaphors of reflection, gestation and digestion. It is not sufficiently respectful of ecological systems requirement for the flexibility of empty space and unused potentiality for change.

While the slow meandering of Heidegger’s philosophy makes it better in those regards, the ecological view acts as a corrective to his oversights as well – for example in regard to "own-most being toward death." This too would be toxic, a good last alternative, but not a proper day-to-day premise for White survival, as nature rarely works within lethal variables. It should be bad enough that miscegenation is possible. Black-on-White murder or the extinction of Whites would not even approach appreciable consideration before compelling action on an ecological basis.

Finally, the pervasive ecological view corrects the toxicity in Nietzsche’s perspective, his valuation of the "overman". His is a conception that panders, as it were, to a puerile female point of view toward men, wishing them to be impervious to social and natural environment and showing little appreciation for a man’s normal point of view toward beauty, caring, cooperation and social responsibility in women. Nietzsche goes so far as to admire Negroes, by analogy, for their ‘digestive tracts’, as they are quickly done with guilt and fret about problems. That, as compared to White men who are taken to be overwrought with sublimation and "resentment," should be a clue that his was not a perfect model for White men and the White class. Nobody, outside of stupid White women, who has had meaningful experience with Blacks, would want to model White male behavior after Blacks.

Toward regaining the ecological pattern of Whites on the gender interface, the most radical issue is not White men not being men enough. Neither is it particularly the matter that male sexuality has been inhibited by feminism. Clearly, women can be as sexually liberal as men, if not more. In fact, White men must be tactful enough to not let themselves to be incited into low, individual competition, for example with Blacks, who have nothing approaching equal exchange. Whites must not be instigated, whether by Jewish interests, or by ignorant men and women empowered with pseudo-objectivism. The most crucial matter in correction of gender relations is not even marriage or traditional values. What is required is that White people see their own interests in instantiation of the class and its viability through separatism. This will increase trust and reduce competition between the genders. Toward that end, Whites must fight to dis-empower those niches that maintain the Jewish-pseudo-objectivist system. Thereupon, they may rebuild that which is necessary to themselves, the deep pattern of The White Class. It will ensconce the significant value that individual recognition and relationships may provide.

However, I will argue in this essay that the instantiation and maintenance of the class requires that a most radical option of absolute monogamy be respected. A sacral provision for sex, including institution of absolute monogamy, will provide the White class with crucial value worth fighting for.

. . . . .

Sex as Sacrament Sex as Celebration

Anti-racism, whether derived of Jewish elites ethnocentrism, corporate interests, the upshot of scientism or the generally naïve, destroys the class, the biodiversity it affords, both within and without the class – biodiversity, a necessity for natural selection and the flexibility of ecological balance. Over and against that, the white class is warranted among pervasive ecology to contribute to the homeostasis of world systems.

For our own people, the white class is required to ensconce the freedom of our full systemic, developmental processes and evolution.

Thesis: Seminal and essential to instantiation of the class, its flexibility of ecological balance and accountability, is freedom of choice as maintained through voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls. It is ensconced in the notion of sex as sacrament: the sacrosanct reconstruction of an episode uniquely important to the survival of the cultural pattern.

How practical it is in reality is far less important than it being recognized, sanctioned as a viable option – available, respected, institutionalized, normalized as vitally important – sex as a sacrament.

. . . . .

While there are many ways to look upon sex and many "stories to tell", the dichotomy between the sacral and the celebratory serves to problematize the issue. It moves us beyond insufficient accounts AND beyond clichés, such as those of liberalism, which would disingenuously depict White advocates amidst non-Whites as sexual puritans, or hung-up conservatives who believe sex is dirty. On the other hand, it moves us beyond the destructive dismissiveness of scientism (2), which holds that sex is merely a natural and normal bodily function that allows for no cultural mediation, that sex is merely natural, and that we should have no objection to our sublime women being taken by (expletives) through the auspices of sex.

If we are within the class, and the rules are that the class is to be maintained, then sex as a celebration is perhaps valid within the class, where mutual survival is assured and valued.

In recent times, the criticism that Americans are too “puritanical” has been typical coming from Europeans. It is a highly irritating remark, particularly as Europe has been historically comprised of White nations. Thus, reflecting a terrible narcissism, taking for granted their deep grounding while ignoring the daunting rigors of America’s perilously mixed-up demographic and un-protective rule structure.

Old Europe, when and where the classes were stable, had a point for itself. In fact, those ensconced within the class might look upon sexual conservatism as dangerously snobbish, breeding bad blood between people otherwise in common. One of the benign aspects of “racism,” of class membership, as previously mentioned, is that it can allow us to transcend jealousy within the class as we are all providing for the same ends. We are all friends and on the same team within the class; have yourself a piece of ass and don’t be angry with others among the class who are making themselves happy. Is that a bit ideal, too idealistic? Yes, especially now, in a demographically disordered and barely accountable situation – the disordered situation of West Europe and America especially.

Sex as a celebration makes valid sense in a homogeneous White nation wherein the genetic stakes are not so great, but even there, as anything more than a limited option, it would be reckless; whereas it is absolutely reckless in a heterogeneous society.

By now, with the inundation of non-Whites into Western Europe, perhaps the wise are becoming a bit more "puritanical". But even at that, Europeans have always had an advantage over Americans, in that they have recourse to their ancient national heritages and lands. They can fall back on the notion that this is their country, their people, AND their history more easily than American Whites, whereas White Americans have been largely forced to identify themselves as "American", i.e., with its rule structure and brief history not providing recourse to a deep European heritage, they are "the same as non-Whites, all just Americans."

It is nonsense to dismiss as puritanical White Americans who are not free-loving and celebratory with their sex amidst Negroes and sundry non-Whites.

If you are not disposed to celebration at this point in time, especially not in such a demographically mixed situation, especially not with regard to something as important as sex, it is more than understandable.

Thus, for the purposes of this essay, sex as celebration versus sex as a sacrament serves as a problematizing distinction; it serves particularly to emphasize a willing suspension of belief in the innocence of sex as celebration. As a conceptual foil, it will hopefully serve to illustrate how obnoxious and destructive the celebrations can be. As they are flaunted in the face of those who exercise care, mocking the sacredness of the group’s deep resource, it is the purpose here to lend credence to sex as sacrament.

. . . . .

Sex is surely not merely a trivial matter of an episode. It concerns confirmation or disconfirmation of persons and their worth as socio-political decision makers. Even more fundamentally, it is the natural means by which people come into and populate the world in a responsible way or not; legacies set forth or not; at an appropriate age, or not; in reasonable numbers as resources, experience and wisdom afford, or not – and much more.

Two key aspects that makes sex as sacrament into a viable option is the fact that sex is sexy – that is to say, its mechanism. Another is the dimension of social control.

Let me first address its mechanism – sex is sexy. Its erotic mechanism is of two contrasts.

One contrast is that of human dignity (in patterns of relationship) contrasting with animal drive.

The other is a tension between human dignity as opposed to dominance and submission. (That is, providing that the roles are treated somewhat empathically; and that one role or the other is not taken too seriously).

This mechanism of tension that makes sex sexy in essence bodes for the possibility of sex as sacrament as opposed to a merely naturalistic argument that may dismiss sacrament as nonsense.

Sex as sacrament is naturally practical as it is not so contingent upon one’s being the most skilled or beautiful at all times. It is especially practical if class boundaries are enforced and/or a sacral attitude is socially normalized.

. . . . .

Apart from its mechanism thus, another aspect of sex that enables the possibility of sacrament is that its conduct can be relatively altered by social influence.

A social framework toward sex facilitates even greater rigor for the truth of the matter over scientistic treatment. It gives advantages as well. For example, if a sublime White woman gives herself to a Black, we are more attentive with the social framework to the precipitating aspects whereof her decision was not made alone. The circumstance has been arranged for, encouraged, manipulated and allowed for; those who would object have been silenced by social injunction. This result is not a mere no account matter of science, let alone religion.

By contrast, the scientistic view (2) would hold that sex is a merely natural fact, biologically determined and therefore, socially incorrigible. The episode and moment of sexual union would be very tightly linked with mere biological imperatives. Who, after all, could question that? It is just a scientific fact. That’s just the way it is, natural law. It has little to do with the mediation of the quality of life beyond that.  .

But if it is not merely determined that the women do this, if our behavior is not so determined, but rather to some extent negotiable of interactive patterns, a matter of conjoint social construction of the class, then it is corrigible, agentive and accountable – there is something that can be done about it, which is not necessarily to her detriment even, if the way of life is deemed at least as valuable and important as the moment.

Note this distinction: negotiable patterns of conjoint interaction as opposed to descriptions of it as caused, determined.

While the acknowledgment of our having some interactive relation to other races and environment is a small concession to a lack of purity, it has the large pay-off of providing for agentive control as opposed to our race being a mere force and accident of nature. This property of the White pattern’s contingency provides for the deliberate construction of our White class. It establishes our warrant, our credit to establish for ourselves how our history counts for us and how our future direction may proceed. Thus, the notion of conjoint negotiation of interactive patterns assists in establishing warrant in defending stable and profound patterns of Whites (e.g. our DNA). These determinations of how White patterns are to count and be constructed may also be applied to individual Whites within the life span and within the group. Moreover, this agency may be applied to negotiate our relation of how the White class counts and is to proceed in relation to other groups. Hence, this agentive social management facilitates coherence, accountability, warrant and choice to our agentive advantage and use, as and for Whites.

"Rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying." ~ Kenneth Burke

Let’s look at some of the other alternatives for a moment, at how the following stories that suggest that sex is a matter of mere causality and therefore nothing that can be done, neatly ignore accountability to 40,000 years of White evolution:

"Sex is always a ubiquitous tension to be resolved between defiling lust and purifying love" as John Money conceived it. Sex is almost assuredly not the ubiquitous tension as he conceived it to be because he parcels love and lust from the social, from the class too much: defilement and purifying supposedly having some fixed place above social contingency.

“It was just defiling lust.”

"We fell in love"

Ok, almost enough in the way of examples. We can all vomit already. That’s that for an account.

Rather, let’s move on.

"He was stronger" – We might ask, phenotypically, genotypically, in what historical unit of analysis, in combination with what allies?

Described by Frank Zappa as "a normal bodily function"  it is a sterile scientism, granting no importance to various levels of significance, relations and histories involved in sex.

The position that "it is just natural" that "it is just a natural fact of life" is prone to become a rogue’s way of avoiding accountability.

Even so eloquent a defender of White interests as Jared Taylor was hard pressed to respond to a Black who argued with him that if miscegenation was not natural then “why did there have to be laws against it in The U.S. for so long?”

This is a case where Jared’s scientifically oriented arguments fail his interests at least to some extent. An effective rejoinder may be in cast terms of there being laws against rape and pedophilia, and yet not many would dream of repealing laws against them just because these are inclinations for some. That is, social injunctions are meant to protect the class against those whose judgment is insufficient to its sustenance. Similarly, we cannot necessarily expect the young woman, such as the one involved with the Black who made this argument, to have sufficient judgment, having been immersed in the context of the pervasive disconfirmation of White interests through political correctness. Jared’s argument that spontaneous and voluntary lunchroom segregation may occur between Whites and Blacks fails to recognize that Jewish interests have a long-standing practice of elevating the status of those exceptions to the rule over and against the vast pattern; and they know that they can exploit social corrigibility, especially of the exceptions, to weaken White solidarity. Yet oddly, despite his attempts to gingerly side step the Jewish question, the fear that Jared’s objectivist arguments engender is to some extent understandable, as they also bypass accountability (as discussed in The White Left articles).

Thesis 2:  Sex as Sacrament can be sufficiently compelling to maintain itself in institution through the mechanism of sex being “sexy”, viz. through a tension between social dignity and animal drive; and a tension between social dignity as opposed to dominance and submission.

Lending more possibility to the institutionalization of sex as sacrament is the protracted negotiation that the social-historical unit of analysis affords over the moment and episode.

Sex being sexy through erotic tension with human dignity and its being socially corrigible, lend practicality its sacrament being institutionalized, normalized – an affordance which should be.

Elaborating the advantage to the sacral view of sex is where we will resume next time.

. . . . .

  1. It is hard to imagine a greater image of hell than to have our co-evolutionary women, whom we are born to love and worship, take delight in destroying us, believing that they are virtuous for doing so. It is time to take the phony halo off of such conduct. It can be a great relief to become confident that some behavior really does deserve the worst of fate.
  2. Scientism is the crass misuse of "scientific" thinking, decontextualiztion which would obfuscate its practitioners to and from accountability and their will to power with the pretext of objectivism, its reflex, severe relativism, supposedly beyond personal motives.

Non-Equality or Incommensurability

December 3, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz
Jacob Marley ghost

You bear the chains from centuries of Europeans questing after objective and universal foundations, equality lending itself as one of the most convenient abstractions in service of universal criteria. The chain breaks at the weakest link and non-equality is taken as the apparent response in correction of this conceptual error, its crisis.

Of course, quite the opposite of modern day Scrooge’s our chain has not been forged of niggardliness – quite the opposite, it was born in a spirit of charity and liberation, universal brotherhood of man, causing us to lose sight of patterns, of our own particularly.

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns. That is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” – G.B.

Non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, the paradigm, “the rubric under which we meet.”

. . . . .

Scrooge - Marley Ghost Most Appropriate

“Paradigm” emerges as yet another example of terms that have been abused. We have discussed the abuse and misuse of other terms, such as “leftism”, which is really open-borders, obsequious liberalism that is promoted to Whites by Jewish academics and political planners. “Social constructionism” is another example, promoted as idealist by Jewish academics, as opposed to its being the realist notion that it is meant to be – race is not a “mere” social construct; it is a real social construct. Vico, one of the fist proponents of social constructionism, was realist. In fact, he was also one of the first opponents of Cartesianism. As a similar result of abused terms, those who balk at the word “paradigm” perhaps need to be reminded that Jewish academia latches onto good concepts, obfuscates, abuses and deploys them to their ends.

Taking a social constructionist premise that a paradigm does not begin with an object of inquiry, but rather with a group of practitioners (“if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it”…), a paradigm is a pattern, a logic of meaning and action shared by a group of people. When the logic of meaning and action of one paradigm does not compare and mesh well with another, i.e., when the means and ends do not jibe between two paradigms, they are said to be incommensurate.

Though it is not the first time that I have known of the illustration of checkers and chess, the VoR’s Peter Schaenk used the analogy of Jews playing chess while Whites are playing checkers. Whites continually get routed as a result, as the chess player plans farther in advance. This is an example of incommensurate paradigms, incommensurate logics of meaning and action: Jews playing chess while Whites play checkers.

Christmas Carol, FZ 03

In reality, the matter is extremely serious and it is of urgent importance that we begin to understand and instantiate paradigmatic differences, differences that make a difference.

Thesis: The notion of non-equality entails false comparison, elitism, unnecessary conflict and destruction of our people. It is rectified by concern with paradigmatic differences, classifications (of race) which make a difference as they focus attention on qualitatively different processes that provide means of systemic cooperation among and between classifications.

Examples of detrimental blending of incommensurate paradigms are abundant, but the results are predictable – unnecessary destruction to vital class members and unnecessary conflict with other groups. On the other hand, by ongoing attention to maintenance of the qualitative difference of the White class, we are flexible to deal with various antagonists as need be while disputes over which is enemy is worst are kept to a minimum.

By way of examples, I have already engaged in discussion of how traditional and modern gender agendas are incommensurate; traditional women seek to maintain the base of the hierarchy of motives for themselves while traditional males tend to pursue the top. Reversing modernist males will seek the base of the hierarchy, existence and being, while overcompensating modernists, like Clinton, will pursue achievement, extending themselves beyond the interests of the class. Reversing modernist women will seek the top of the hierarchy, while overcompensating modernist women will perhaps undermine the class as some sort of radical Marxist type.

As mentioned last time, with the addition of some poor grammar, the Black Power movement, where it asserts that the Black man will rule, is seeking after the top of the hierarchy while a good portion of White men are seeking to warrant their existence, the base of the hierarchy.

Near the beginning of the incommensurate gender agendas article, I cite Philip Rushton’s analysis demonstrating different rates of sexual maturity between different peoples, such as Blacks, Whites and East Asians. This provides another example of incommensurate paradigms. Specifically, I use the example of the White girl who may in fact be a marginal within an earlier stage of her development and snapped-up by the earlier maturing and sexually aggressive Black, as a result, even though she is not defective, rather she would be something more like the ”cream of the class”, the paragon of White womanhood, in fully developed maturity. Her appropriately matching White partner would be left out of the equation because of his later sexual maturity, and with that, his greater sublimation, the attendant circumspection which might have so many corrective effects. This catastrophic meshing of incommensurate paradigms, disrupting and altering the co-evolution of millennia, is often perpetrated by other White men, on their high horse, out to show the little ladies how objective and “morally superior” that they are overcoming White male defense. But notice the loss of the girl who has become a mud-shark and the boy who is relegated to the beta male 86 list is not necessarily characterized by better or worse, but of ignored qualitative differences and processes. In truth these differences are profound, a tremendous loss suffered as a result of the attempted integration of incommensurate logics of sexual maturity.

Whites are taking more steps toward reproduction, learning more, cultivating resource and amenity along the way but often losing out to Blacks who are going right at it, while the Jews are playing chess, are given to be up-in-the-head wind-bags, continually misframing issues to the detriment of Whites. IF we can get the Jewish rule structure off of our backs, Blacks are a weekend operation (TT). In the meantime and nevertheless, Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example, ridiculous perhaps, of imposed incommensurability.

Human Biodiversity is not really right wing, but so long as others understand that the White Class claims the same turf, we may wish them well in promoting the idea. In fact, human biodiversity comports exactly with the notion of incommensurability as well. Otherwise, when variables, such as I.Q., are isolated, many important, evolutionary contingencies of the pattern are perhaps being removed. Cooperative functions of their level of development or niche would be ignored by false comparisons as “non-equal” instead of their being regarded as different qualitative functions from others within the class. Thus, isolating one sort of skill ought to be considered carefully so as not to be detrimental to the ecology of the class as a whole. Who is going to emerge to save the White class in a given instant can be a surprise, but it stands to reason that they may not emerge from the ranks of the most comfortable. As Cobb has pointed out, it could be somebody quite ordinary (or worse) who makes the difference, not necessarily the best chess player. It is possible to be too compassionate, but while recruiting to the ranks of White defense, for an indefinite time, in fact, focus need be on those who will fight; giving encouragement to a broad range of Whites to lend their agency with the notion that they may be of help, whatever their skills, so long as the end game is commensurate with the 14 words. My position is, who it is that will fight will sort out who is worthy.

Objectivity, as we have discussed, is another incommensurate logic to the relative interests of the White Class. In fact, objectivism is one of the chief culprits in leveling paradigms into universal criteria.

There are many examples of incommensurability bearing upon the class that may be explored farther, perhaps pursued in operational verification.

Now then, from the individual scale to White nations and states, the principle of qualitative difference holds true as well.

European from non-European is the more important, paradigmatic difference. Nevertheless, the nations, states and regions within the European peoples, which I am calling the White Class, are important as well, and need the freedom to be fully distinct and of their own population.

Cristmas Carol, large

The key is to distinguish indigenous native Europeans and non-native Europeans (especially elite) along with elite, White traitors. This is to distinguish a trivial difference from profound difference, and to avoid unnecessary ecological blunder: In maintaining a view toward the ecology of qualitative processes, of paradigmatic differences and the buffering of the European nations our White Class paradigm may be analogized to symbiotically functioning organs of a body; or take TT’s idea that the European nations and states might be looked upon as compartments of a ship. The Class ensconces relatively trivial differences from profound differences; those evolved in Europe over tens of thousands of years are within the class. Nevertheless, recognizing the profundity and potential acrimony of attempts to blend the European states, let us call them incommensurate paradigms, their distinctions needing to be maintained. We do not want to hear that Germany’s loans failed, about the Euro, about the E.U. Poles should not be inundating Britain – all broaching of paradigms. Nevertheless, with state sovereignties established, whether by analogy of the compartmentalized ship or the body and its parts, when speaking of the class, we include all native Europeans. No, they should not be imposing upon each other. But, in defending against non-Europeans, we have our most important common ground as the White Class, here in Europe, in the White States of America and elsewhere.

While understanding that the disastrous treaties that led one European country after another into WWI calls for significant caution, a basis of voluntary assistance as opposed to mandatory alliance can prevent that sort of overall disaster. Toward the end of avoiding inter-European war, Dr. Lowell’s focus on regions probably has merit as well.

So long as the focus continually comes back on the White Class and its needs there need be no inconsistency among the various challenges that we face. While I am persuaded that our two greatest enemies are elite Jews and elite traitorous Whites, that may appear absurd to Western Europeans faced with massive Muslim immigration. It may seem absurd to the American Southerner faced with masses of Blacks, with their long pre-evolution lending bio-power to pejorative characteristics, menacing characteristics thereof faced by South Africa as well. In fact their population growth, the fastest in world, combined with the negative aspects of their bio-power, are arguably among the greatest threats of all. In the U.S. South-West, it is the Mestizos invasion and population that emerges most urgent. Still others will rightfully claim that Chinese overpopulation, capacity for technology, economic hegemony, combined with an unsympathetic attitude are what’s most alarming. India’s population and economy can be the worry for others. Still others will see low ranking traitors to be the relevant concern. Pierce was not above critiques of popular culture. The truth is that they are all problems for us, and they all merit defense in an ongoing course of vigilance and tact. While some may wish to defend their particular state only; it is the White Class in full that can provide the numbers, skills and the territory to win the war; and thus should be our full organizational outlook. Secondly, we ought to be able to agree that it is the policy makers who impose immigration and integration upon us who are to be prioritized as enemies – they are apparently Jewish elites and elite White traitors. Whatever the case, whatever the contingency or the immediate enemy, we maintain coherence through the Class. With an ongoing focus on the White Class, its enemies will emerge and be implicated appropriately.

Jews do not always make sense to us. Why would they destroy America? Yet, they are largely responsible for doing so. While Muslims in Europe will hurt rank-and-file Jews, the Muslim presence suggests European alliance with Jewish elites. We should not have a good deal of faith in how that alliance will work out for Europeans.

. . . . .

All the more urgent it becomes to get to this matter of paradigmatic difference, “differences that make a difference” as opposed to throwing our hands in the air and saying that “nothing is equal.”

Corporations, the military industrial complex and Zionist elites would probably just as soon go with that, too.

Christmas Carol, 3d

I emphasize non-sameness as opposed to non-equality, while understanding the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eyes off the power, and who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict. Nevertheless, If we do not recognize broad paradigmatic differences of class (race), the back-and-forth in run-away effect is going to stay in pejorative homeostasis: after classificatory bounds are broken by those who do not care about our classification, “objective men”, perhaps resting on a notion of non-equality, are empowered to farther clear away White men of racial/class consciousness – that is, if paradigmatic difference is swept aside in favor of “non-equalitariansm”, and no critique is made of disingenuous positions and paradigmatic differences.

The equalitarian/non-equalitarian universalistic paradigm runs roughshod over our paradigmatic difference, our incommensurate logics of meaning and action. The narcissism of false comparison is apt to breed vain elitism, obnoxious, unnecessary competition and strife not only within the class, the race, the paradigm, but also between the classes. Hence, misusing and wasting people within and without the class, it breeds contempt. While I can agree that there is a such thing as too much compassion with and without the group, we must first adopt this answer of who we are and then determine how most effectively to deal with our own varying qualities, our traitors and our enemies. It would seem a maximum of cooperation and most efficient antagonisms would be achieved by recognizing paradigmatic difference.

Non-equality is not merely over-simplistic in not sufficiently characterizing the qualities of our White patterns in their varied, ecologically disbursed niches; by merely saying that we are quantifiably “better”, it engages competitions that we should not, as they are a misuse of particular qualities - not acknowledging relatedness, indebtedness, shared interests while instigating reciprocally escalating diatribe within the class.

Moreover, non-equality is not merely an insufficient emancipation from our chains. In fact, it reconstructs the very framework, “the rubric under which we meet,” the paradigm of universal criteria. Inasmuch, the argument of ‘non-equality’ sets in motion logics of competition, unnecessary competition, not only within the White Class but also with other groups – logically entailing the hubris, the narcissism of false comparison from which ensues unnecessary, poorly conceived dispute, reciprocally escalating diatribe, and ultimately, fairly arbitrary war.

Thus, the notion of paradigm becomes crucial in delineating the class as well. The paradigm characterizes its qualitative form and its logics of meaning and action – in this case, the cultural pattern, the class. It delimits our primary accountability and ecology from recognition of other classes in pervasive ecology. The logics of meaning and action of one pattern will match well enough, that is, be commensurate, while another will not, its logics being incommensurate.

Marley in air

To say that all are equal or none are equal, or to say that all races are equal or no races are equal, is overly simplistic and misleading in assuming that all peoples are working in accordance with the same fundamental logics of meaning and action: A logical consequence of this modernistic, universalistic narcissism and its not being true, is misunderstanding, vain comparisons and dispute, even where some parties were not intending to compete.

Equality and non-equality is contrasted with not being the same, sameness and difference as opposed to equality and inequality. Talk of sameness, difference and incommensurability creates patterns of cooperation and complementarity in sensitizing us to look for these qualitative differences that make a difference, incommensurate logics, rather than to ignore them with the didactic elitism, exploitation, power plays and the conflict of falsely compared criteria. This fosters more of an ecological outlook, toward cooperation within the class (race) and negotiation between classes (races).

. . . . .

Content footnotes:

Instigated to compete on an equalitarian basis, a fool would take the Black up on his dare to call him a nigger to his face. Though some Whites will be able to beat him, this sort of competition is incommensurate with our abilities – we can easily take recourse in various strategies, have sundry technology at our disposal, can easily build coalitions to offset his bio-power and defend our way of life –

As for the matter of I.Q. within the class; intelligence perhaps does not only function in the relative linearity of I.Q. but also in patterned ecological disbursement: one brother has a genius level I.Q., a sister passes her NY and NJ Bar exams upon first attempt, another brother contracts lucrative restoration projects of The Amex Building and NYC Post office, while still another has an artistic bent while being vigilant of racial issues.

Trauma of various kinds, both literal and as a matter of pervasive disconfirmation may also explain how assessment of intelligence can be trivial and not take into account re-routing in accordance with various deep, evolutionary pathways.

I have known people with high I.Q.’s who struck me as stupid in important ways – was unimpressed by the theories of the man said to have the world’s highest I.Q. I have seen very high I.Q. people losing track of important matters. Nevertheless, I do not want to take this issue too far, as I am happy for very high I.Q. people to do their thing providing that they do not destroy the ecology of the class

More, low I.Q. Whites, who may have significant qualities and abilities to contribute, may lose out with the argument that I.Q. is our singularly distinguishing attribute as opposed to our full, qualitative distinctions as a White Class.

Blacks are not so easy in all respects. Black musical ability, athletic ability, street smarts and sexual patterns as compared to the abilities that distinguish Whites provide still another example of incommensurability. These abilities are compelling to many and often cited as that which forgives a multitude of sins. Agreed, it is absurd, after all, would we rather have jazz and basketball as opposed to a lovely White woman, reasonable men and an amenable society? Nevertheless, this tendency suggests that one ought not to over-indulge the Blacks-are-so-stupid argument, particularly for the sake of the un-initiated; as there are different kinds of intelligence that are apt to make the argument look bad if unqualified. More, in the context of America, they know the ropes, having been there a long time. Thus, using the argument that they are stupid, you will find yourself saying of the mud-sharks, “she’s stupid, she’s stupid, she’s stupid”, and you will barely stop. Rather than proffering snobbery, probably better to add focus on Black violence, rape and societal decay in particular, in contrast to the safe and amenable White way of life. The broader pattern of White sublimation, its strength and intelligence in a protracted sense is incommensurate and as yet opaque, unarticulated to many.

Women Without Class

November 26, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

Woolworth's sign

It was the ultimate Jewish perversion of terms — civil rights, freedom and discrimination — that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even a cursory glance over its statutes reveals obsolescence, disingenuousness and evil.

It does not take so much as a glance at its statutes. One goes into an American institution and reads a sign declaring, “discrimination on the basis of race, creed or gender is prohibited.” Suddenly seeing discrimination rendered pejorative, illegal even, one experiences a vague feeling of dread.

You sense immediately that you are being told not to have eyeballs. You are to be utterly defenseless against biological antagonists, to the destruction of that which is most important.

Even freedom of association, as it does not account for full processual development of those within the class, would not be sufficiently deep by itself, were it allowed. But while that objectivist, rational blindness of “civil rights” was bad enough, Jewish interests perverted its meaning to violate that freedom of association even, with the Civil Rights Act.

Wallace and Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General Nicholas D. Katzenbach working alongside a Kennedy clan willing to sell out and open its country to catastrophic integration in order to gain power, along with a similarly disposed Lyndon B. Johnson, giving W. Bush a good run for worst president ever, sundry other Jews and objectivist Whites, oversaw departmental operations in desegregating the University of Mississippi in September 1962 and the University of Alabama in June 1963 – where he personally moved Governor Wallace aside to open the door for non-Whites; he also worked with Congress to ensure the passage of the Voting Rights Act and, with significant help from Emmanuel Celler, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Waiting at Woolworth's

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The ramifications of these prohibitions against discrimination were horrendous.

We have here in culmination, the ultimate in doublespeak terms: “civil rights” equals being told whose babies we have to pay for, with whom we must study (Brown vs. Board of Education), whose children we have to educate (with precious knowledge tortuously acquired), to whom we must rent, to whom we must sell, whom we must hire, and whom we must serve even in our private businesses – and this is called “freedom.”

Woolworth's sit-in counter

The related decision regarding the Woolworth’s Lunch Counter, telling a private business whom they must serve, was always one that caused my mind to glitch, even at a rather young age. M.L. King, with help from Jewish overlords organized Blacks and others, including a few no-class White women, such as Joan Trumpauer Mulholland, to “sit-in” at Woolworth’s and force a legal decision regarding desegregation of its lunch counters. The decision never made sense to me from the moment I heard about it – not in terms of anything that you can call freedom, anyway. Telling Woolworth’s whom they must serve, how, and whom they must hire – that is called “freedom”. It must be the Jewish definition. Yes, freedom marches, the freedom riders, civil rights – of course.

Mulholland and Dr. King

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial segregation “by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public.”

This would seem to be a clear violation of freedom, but Jews are skilled at promoting the self-destruction of others. Whites have been high on objectivism, and Blacks are hyper-assertive.

King and Malcolm X

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were at the U.S. Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met.

It is a civil right and its opposite is called illegal discrimination punishable by law. Do not discriminate; do not see the terror you are confronted with; do not see that you are in something like a monkey cage, a planet of the apes (I can tell whether one has or has not been around many Blacks, depending upon their response).

Sit-in

In the article on Kant’s moral system, I mentioned a kind of anguish bordering on torture that I experienced when I was groping after a moral order. That anguish stemmed in large part from America’s rule structure, such as the rules of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in combination with its demographic make-up. Having experienced more than enough of them through forced bussing to go to school with them, I was largely convinced that I did not want anything to do with Blacks. I assumed in my young age that it would be my prerogative one day, and that sane people would make the same choice. How could I believe that others, women even, could do other after seeing such things?

Riot in Newark

With Blacks rioting in Newark in the summer of 1967, my father’s generation repeating the “greatest generation” mantra ‘you can’t fight City Hall’, the Viet Nam War escalating unintelligibly so that no young person with a penis was immune from the draft, yes, I did have a certain yearning for the San Francisco version of that same summer of ‘67.

Beatle’s guitarist George Harrison did go there but came away with a bad impression of the Be-in. He saw these kids as hideously spotted and vacuum-cleaner faced. Of course, he had taken some bad L.S.D. From our perspective now, it does not seem like such a bad scene, certainly the better option in the tale of two cities, Newark and San Francisco 1967. No wonder I was a bit reluctant to let that go, particularly enchanting it was to me as a child. I was a little disappointed when traditional women and men would say that was “all nonsense” or “the source of our problems”; and I was disconcerted to experience similar antagonism from feminists particularly when the war had ended.

George Harrison - Summer of Love

While the dam had not burst through the 60s, 70s, or even into the early 80s, it was a period of ominous buildup, the implications of the rule structure and demographic make-up were pervasive and auguring catastrophic.

With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Newark Summer of Love

Great. You cannot discriminate against people that you do not like, whom you find immoral and dangerous.

Once the Viet Nam War had ended, feminism was rearing its ugly head (traditional women were rearing an ugly head too) while some of us men still had some need for being. I had just assumed that everyone would naturally reject forced integration and charges of “racism” but young women did not seem quite as inclined. Why?

interracial couple

Let’s qualify all statements made about young women below to mean, at their worst/most opportune, given defective social structure and pandering. It would be clearly wrong to say that there are not plenty of cool White women. (1)

Thesis: Within the disorder resulting from civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) emerges with increased significance.

a) Solicited from many directions, they typically become confirmed, articulate, confident and authoritative; let’s say sometimes beyond merit.

b) They have increased incentive to maintain their power as gatekeepers. With it, their natural tendency to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect.

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify, strengthening high contrast tropism toward those classifications, females and Blacks, too difficult to ignore.

. . . . . . . . . .

interracial dating

Within the disorder resulting from civil rights rupturing of classificatory (racial) bounds, the natural one-up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) emerges with increased significance. Thus, a female bias and selective preferences will be over-valued and not sufficiently corrected by the many ameliorative aspects of the male selective bias.

a) Solicited from many directions.

Absent class bounds the one-up position of young White females re-emerges with increased significance. Occupying a more “addressive” position, they are solicited from many directions, becoming relatively confirmed, oriented, articulate, confident, and authoritative. A young man would make a mistake by trying to clarify the rules through meta-communication (orientative talk about how talk counts) as that is stepping on her toes as gate-keeper. And she can easily take many a brutal recourse should her position be disrespected, weaker sex and all of that. He can barely do anything right if that’s how she wants to see it. She can do many things, arbitrarily, and get away with it. This is why one ought to exercise some caution when denouncing anti-racism. Nevertheless, whereas one perhaps used to seek out a priest, a scientist or a philosopher, now because of her increased one up position, one might as soon seek out a young woman to talk in hopes of appealing to her and salvaging a human world.

b) Gate keeper position and genetic incitement multiplies

Whether it is civil rights of the objectivist kind, or the perverted Jewish kind of the 1964 Act, its rupturing of class bounds, developmental processes and accountability thereof, the natural tendency of young females to incite genetic competition (E.O. Wilson) increases to runaway effect. Particularly absent class bounds, young females have increased incentive to maintain the power of their position as gatekeepers, irrespective of race, to the detriment of the White Class.

Moreover, they will empower men who prevent discrimination and maintain the disorder in order to maintain the position as gate-keepers to the extent they have it; they will even empower men otherwise disposed to racial consciousness inasmuch as they pooh-pooh the issue of race and the merit of White advocates.

Since miscegenation is among their greatest weapons, the same old yin-yang is going to go into effect as they empower “objective men” to clear away White men of racial/class consciousness.

The yin-yang has been in effect as long as I can remember, with the Democrats representing integrationist, mulatto supremacism, and the Republicans representing the dolts that women and Jews can control as if they were trying to say, “We’re so tough; racial consciousness is all nonsense”.

Therefore, sometime within the initial interaction episode, a young man is likely to get a litmus test as she asks what he thinks of Blacks and of racism. If he is honest enough to say that he does not like them, sees good reason for racial discrimination, he is likely to be ostracized. In fact, since miscegenation is one of the biggest threats at her disposal in maintaining that position, she may go to extremes to stigmatize those who challenge it. Naturally, she will be particularly fearful and aggressive to maintain the anti-racist taboo once she has crossed that line. Hence, it is not only Jews and men attempting to be innocent who hazard the White Class.

I understand the paranoia of those who do not want to take their eye off the power, who think that they are trying to divide and conquer by lowly racial conflict; but if the formalities of incommensurate logics of meaning and action, of qualitative, paradigmatic difference are swept aside in favor of the false comparisons of “non-equalitarianism” and no critique is made of disingenuous female positions, the same old cycle is going repeat largely to our detriment.

Okay, men have been inarticulate to their mandate for being – me too, somewhat. Having asserted early on in the gender agendas article that male being was warranted through co-evolution, I later fumbled a bit, speculating that perhaps women would not allow for it – doesn’t matter: White Male Being is warranted through survival and our co-evolution with our women for 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we co-create these women and children Blacks do not.

Nevertheless, even though women and objectivist men are rupturing classification, Jews are not merely pandering objectively to natural inclination, they are instrumental in preventing corrective action.

c) Jewish pandering and objectivist interests combine with de facto need to classify.

Pandering to the addressive position of females, while not exclusive to Jews, is of especial significance coming from them. Powerfully organized as a class, historically threatened by Whites, Jews pander to this interface in order to weaken and demoralize the White class. Thus, they play upon the objectivist upshot of disorder. Like women, Blacks represent a difference, a tropism, too different to ignore within disorder despite prohibition of classifications; yielding a classification that grants them strength in solidarity and coherence. This is farther bolstered by endless Jewish stories of women as victims, women as heroes for advocating Blacks, Blacks in victim status; combining with the fact that Blacks are often emboldened by having less to lose; combining with the fact that Blacks are the opposite of being disadvantaged in some important respects; viz., long standing victimizers, exploiters of Whites and likely to have biological hegemonies, having evolved some 200,000 years prior to the 40,000 years of European differentiation. Not only that, but having evolved in a primordial disorder, their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, leaving females inclined to them and all the more; especially as the orienting organization of classifications are both prohibited and humanly necessary; thus, the high contrast tropism of Black White, as hard to ignore as Male/Female, is farther exacerbated; women pandered to in torrents by Jews on that interface to keep the class disordered and its morale down.

vrazda-bratislava-alexandra-daniel-raca-avizo

Therefore, despite obvious, broad destruction to the class, ecology and accountability, and despite would-be corrective action, as most White men naturally, and with good reason, hate miscegenating White women, the pairing with this aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive people will increase, given the present rule structure. White men are prevented from doing anything about it largely due to the agency of Jewish machinations in interface with young females and objectivists within the disordered situation, absent racial classificatory bounds.

While Jews are not solely responsible for promoting miscegenation, they are largely so. Even more significantly, they are responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: “An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.”

Civil rights rupture developmental processes and the ecological pattern disbursement that would otherwise be managed and maintained by the class. With equality/non-equality being made central, as opposed to classification and maintenance of paradigmatic differences that make a formal difference, incommensurate logics of meaning and action are improperly meshed to the detriment of marginal Whites, and liable to create the narcissism of false comparison, unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating destruction.

For bringing to bear Black violence and destruction to the culmination of our 40,000 years of evolution, miscegenators and their instigators are no better; rather they are highly analogous to rapists and pedophiles; they might be considered accordingly. A scientistic view would say miscegenation is a naturally occurring fact. Rape and child molestation may be natural inclinations as well, but we do not accept them; rather we seek social injunction. In this example, the agency of a social constructionist view is superior to the mere causality of a scientistic view.

If people are going to keep going around making equality a straw man and non-equality the thing as opposed to paradigmatic difference(s) and race (class) being the matter, we’re going to create false comparisons and unnecessary, counter productive conflict; i.e., not that we should seek to avoid all conflict necessarily, but we do want the chips to fall on our side. (2)

White men are warranted to Be as the White Class is warranted to Be by dint of their survival and co-evolution over the course of 40,000 years. Innocent until proven guilty, we make White women and children. Moreover, males have an underrated selective bias, preferring cooperative and thoughtful woman (3). Even the asymmetry of White female beauty that White men have co-created is a sign of genetic advance and harmonious niche adaptation to environment.

Soda jerk making an ice cream, 1950-60's

Normal White men don’t create the unnecessary wars, aren’t the ones exploiting others with fortune 500 companies, are not the ones over populating the world. Nevertheless, White men who are in developmental stages, on basic motivational levels seeking being, are going to be out of luck absent the class bounds. Our White class is seeking Being as well. It is struggling to assert the warrant to exist. It is the righteous fight, but fight smart and look toward the power, White man.

Nevertheless, absent class bounds and subject to the throws of Jewish machinations, the large majority of White men are going to get screwed by those after “actualization” – like Malcolm X quoting Elijah Muhammad that the Black Man will rule – no thanks. The Black Power movement was after actualization and incommensurate with White male Being as well.

Malcolm X

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a rupturing of the White Class. After a laugh, cry or puke, settle down to see that it is evil.

Conclusion – Absent class bounds, women’s one-up position emerges with increased significance, often beyond merit. We need White women with White class. Civil rights rupture developmental processes within otherwise self-corrective patterns. Correction and advance requires the legitimacy of classification – The White Class.

* * * * *

(1) I love women, they are veritably my religion – 14 Words – especially in a racially homogeneous situation – though not as much in mixed one: With things being so foul, and their being so incredulous as to how I could be flustered over a rule structure and demographically mixed situation that was clearly auguring catastrophe, I had to think about it. While there are ways in which women can legitimately share power, many women, young in particular, do not merit the sort of power that they wield within the disordered context of modernity.

I am not promoting only traditional roles for women. Don’t you want more Virginia Abernethys? I do. It only requires the Class and that they undergo a bit more rigor on basic levels. Conversely, a bit more Being for men in exchange for maintaining the class – and it is warranted. White men’s existence warranted as is The White Class.

(2) In fact, encouraging the natural animosity that Black women have toward White women taking Black men is a good angle, not only in discouraging such pairings, but also in agitating to bring the Jewish system down which is so uncaring, having broached our most sacred and important human concern, our close personal relationships as they bear upon our survival. The beaming smiles of approval that I have received from Black women in those times when I antagonized interracial couples is an irony that stays with me. The “sisters” (Black women) obviously will not care too much about the White women who take their men. White men do not want Black women; we sense that it is going horribly backwards: their ugly symmetry a sign of primitive undifferentiation, imperviousness to environment and social concerns, dispensation to thoughtless overgrazing. I find it relatively effective to agree with interracial couples that Black women are indeed, ugly. It tends to confuse them as the insulted party is not there; after all, what is he doing with a White woman if Black women are so great? (obviously, exercise discretion – you may not want to say “ugly”, you might best say nothing in some cases). If they will, let these enraged Black women be allies in taking down the Jewish system {which has broached our most sacred, our close personal relationships – its total disregard for that which is most important to us, our co-evolutionary women. Nevertheless, when listening to David Duke interview Patricia McAllister, what struck me was her claim that Blacks ought to have half of America. Do you see what I mean by hyper-assertive? For all the money and treasures they have taken form us, the destruction wrought upon us, they should have half of America… hmm.

(3) As opposed to the female/Nietszchean perspective which values men big and strong exclusively, impervious and undaunted no matter what, Negroes with good digestive tracts. That may explain why the N word is prohibited by the female gate keeper’s union – the N word is not ok, but Himmler was well reasoned in wanting to genocide Poles – after all, the women are beautiful; we cannot have that when Black women have the humility to be so non-threatening – so often butt ugly.

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 2): The White Class

November 19, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

White Class

Dedicated to Charlotte Parker

When our advocates call our enemies “The Left” they are making a crucial mistake – obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

They are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations, such as perversion of the terms.

People within the class, contributing diverse skills could make it stronger – “diversity” might be “strength” in that way.

Biodiversity in terms of assuring genetic flexibility and the likelihood of survival through various contingencies is certainly advisable, including our separate difference and differences as Whites.

But the merit of biodiversity among our people and biodiversity from other groups within the world is transformed into a term “diversity”, which of course [?], means integration.

Multi-cultural”, a term that would seem to appeal to the sovereign maintenance of different cultures in the world is perverted into a term meaning integration into a mono-cultural world.

Marginals within the class could have more perspective on our systemic needs (knowing where the shoe pinches), and more of a vested interest in ecological, systemic maintenance of the class; but those outside or inasmuch induced to be antagonistic to the class are called, “marginals.”

Puerile female incitement to genetic competition might create friendly competition within the class, but is pandered to without the class and called White men’s incitement of racial hatred.

We would rather not be diverse from Asians, Arabs, Mestizos and Africans? Of course we would. We want to encourage them to integrate with us, become Westernized and envelop us? Of course Not. Nevertheless, Jewish academics and political planners have blurred the lines of diversity and marginals, particularly those outside the class – entailing their deleterious, non-ecological integration with us – putting the world on its present course of systemic runaway headed for catastrophe. Thus, the White Class serves the world as well as itself in performing the duty of maintaining the separate distinction of itself from other classes (i.e., races) in systemic corrective to Jewish machinations.

Though we cannot merely do as we will to non-Whites toward that end, we should work toward ways of their humane deportation and separation, as we are indeed, warranted to defend the relative interests of our class against population explosion and its incursion upon our people, our habitats. Nevertheless, while Jewish elitists are pandering, instigating and preventing us from taking up the relative interests of our classification; so too are pseudo objectivists.

When the Right talks in terms of quantities not accountable to qualitative differences, paradigmatic differences, ecological niches, relative interests of the class, it is culpable as well.

Taking our hermeneutic circle back to this second problem and making its distinction further -

In distinction from Rightist objectivism, The White Class.

So long as it serves the relative, relational interests of our class, rightist type preoccupation with disciplines pursuing objective abstractions beyond or within biological nature is valid, often yielding important “objective” scientific results. But as we’ve pointed out, in truth, it never fully exists for us; in particular as people are mammals, caring about relationships. But moreover, objectivity always needs to be gauged against the Left’s human sized classification as we must beware that the quantifying metaphors of physics not breach the optimal requirements of biology. As A and B observed: people are biological creatures, requiring optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction, quantifiable excesses and deficiencies becoming toxic. Biological nature rarely works within lethal variables; we do not eat because we are starving, we eat as we are hungry.

We do not even necessarily fight for the fact that extinction is forecast and because our race is subject to statistically more violence. As Habermas observed, we do not tend to learn and be motivated unless we can see our subjective interests involved. Our subjective interest, seeing what good it is for us to pursue the relative interests of the White Class, needs to connect. That is one reason why the 14 words is effective, it advocates White survival and subjective interests at the same time. We might rather, fight because our women, our co-evolutionary women, land and property are being taken by apes; because we would receive just reward by partaking in and fighting on behalf of our relative class.

Classification could provide the context for those subjective real life processes, ecology and accountability. However, while both Jews and disingenuous Rightists exploit and pervert objectivist values against our classification; Whites who demonize the Left, per se, are complicit, albeit perhaps unwittingly, with its obstruction as well. Thus, clarifying this central need of class falls in line with Dr. Sunic’s semantic disentangling project: since the necessary classification of our overall process, discrimination on its basis and acting accordingly is being blocked, stigmatized as ‘leftist’, critically analyzed as ‘ethnocentric’ and criminalized as ‘racist.’

 Upon “de-obfuscating” these attributions it becomes clear

While striving after White homelands (plural), we need to re-establish classification of Whites and assert our relative, relational interests in revolutionary contrast to our centuries long customs: pseudo objectivism, universalism, Christianity, scientism capitalism, liberalism, sheer individualism. These pursuits being void of context, void of class, broach accountability and ecology. They have us treating non-Whites as being the same as us, with interests that we value equally if not more to our own because we are supposedly innocent and objectively motivated, as opposed to relative, relational and particularly accountable to the White Class.

Unless we want to deny the out of Africa theory we are marking a distinguishing classification to some extent. However, it is not necessary to deny, as it is no compliment to them and no insult to us. We might just as well say that we have them in our past, their traits resurfacing where necessary and we do not want to go back (e.g., to their short sighted aggression and irresponsible breeding). Classifying in spite of the fact that we can, unfortunately, breed with other races, is not wrong to do, on the contrary, it is more than valid – that is our solution: the manageable means of accountability and ecology. It is not a mere construct – it is real - warrantably assertable and operationally verifiable.

Neither can we avoid classifying whether deliberately or de facto. In modernity’s disordering prohibition of classification that often devolves simply to male/female (subject next time). But unlike that rightist objectivism, in which classifications are an upshot caused by mere forces of nature, deliberate classification rather sets in motion the course of agency – the means to construct ourselves as a people: in classifying ourselves, we establish accountability, coherence, agency and warrant.

Nor is it arbitrary and superficial. Defining who we are, who our class is, is not difficult, especially if the national and regional boundaries are respected: We are persons evolved in the context of Europe (and Russia) over the course of 40,000 years, with a bit of Neanderthal, out of Africa for a longer time. In defining who ‘we’ and ‘they’ are, Giles made the good suggestion that we ought to call ourselves Europeans (meaning differentiated indigenously in the context of Europe), them Africans, Israelis, and various Asians. There was also a suggestion for a biological constitution. I concur. We may declare our DNA our nation and connect it to various points of land eventually, even if not contiguous, as Alaska is apart from the continental U.S. – in fact, that would be tactically better, safer. Better still, this biological nation should be based on an updated Articles of Confederation (TT). However small to begin, it is possible. We can easily get enough people to join, and it does not require relinquishing current citizenship, national or regional distinctions. Before long, our thinkers will find a way to ratify our nation before the world – we will become powerful and agile, managing a hermeneutic process between momentary observations of our DNA and its protracted expressions organized of The Class.

A non-Jewish Left, The White Class, is only an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners. Jews want us to be defined as Rightist – in the speculation of a universal religion, anti-social, pseudo-objective individualists – because it is weak and amoral; they want to portray us on the side of the corporate “individual” of U.S. law, us to seem like the force behind the military industrial complex and not the Zionists. They want us to be Rightists. Not Leftists who organize on the basis of the White Class as a full social group, with relative, relational accountability to and from those on top to those in more fundamental stages of developmental (within the life time) and evolutionary (beyond the lifetime), process.

Nevertheless, White traitors fall outside the class by dint of being traitors and are probably our worst enemy. The Right says I’m better therefore you can die, while the Left says you might be better at one thing, but your life is not mutually exclusive to mine, and I can do something else. The egghead who can invent a mathematical formula that facilitates space travel is providing an account, of sorts, but insufficient if he unnecessarily cuts himself off from the flexibility of a sustaining network and process: parentage, women, young, farmers, technicians, soldiers and environment. More, through evolution, his i.q. may in fact have mutated from the sublimation and corresponding cooperation which is as likely as that to be responsible for the relatively non-violent and amenable day to day White way of life – one of our strongest points.

There is nothing idealistic about it: accountability is entailed straight away in the moment we classify ourselves. Separatism is a first step, separatism is an ultimate aim and separatism is always possible. It is entirely possible to coordinate and it is entirely consistent, in sync with taking on Zog, the corporate plutocracy and the military industrial complex. It would call for manageable sub-classifications, of course: but neither are the nations, states, regions, unions, guilds and lone agents contradictory of White Leftism – on the contrary. More, so long as it does not transcend the well being of the class and its habitats, the White Left is not contradictory to morals or other intangibles, individualism, languages, creativity, achievement. Nor tangibles, such as public and private property, our mutual habitat, free enterprise and industry; a reasonable amount of wealth and a reasonable social safety net mutually. Further, in recognizing paradigmatic, qualitative difference of patterns among and between the classes (races) of people, we have the means of cooperative negotiation as opposed to a narcissistic vision of equality – non-equality that instigates reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. It is not that I personally care for non-Whites and traitors – I don’t; and punishment is indeed, in order – but one does have to pick their fights and there does come a point where fighting is impractical. Note that we are subsuming Darwinism under a broader naturalism of classificatory ecology.

Of our agency, The White Left is for us to define. It is not as much on an economic basis. Rich White people have bad will particularly as they are not accountable to Whites. While that might be almost all of the time, it has more to do with their being traitors than because they have money. The White Left could allow for reasonable wealth – maybe after 5 million, one would be taxed 75% ? We’ll work these matters out. See Bowery, for example, on homestead land tax exemptions; land ownership beyond that amount would be subject to a tax that could fund a space program, even. And we need not necessarily provide a safety net much beyond subsistence, food, shelter and heat; some training, a menial job.

The White Class does not contradict nationalism – excluding Jews from leftism and nationalism is NOT an oxymoron by definition. Can you say “national socialism?” It was leftist until the night of the long knives when they went over the top and became elitist, capitalist empire builders (see Matt Johnson on, “it’s empire building, not nationalism that makes war”); too bad coordinating the expulsion of Jews from Europe and Russia could not have been the extent of their dealings with the rest of Europe. The White Class is commensurate with RamzPaul’s emphasis here that nationalism can, in fact, resolve many issues. Having frequently been irritated myself, by the “northern” European thing, as in, only people above he 40th parallel are European, or “White”, I can agree, emphatically, that we can all be for Sweden being Swedish, southern European nations being discretely their own, etc.

This could also accommodate non-biological diversity as DeBenoist seeks; he apparently wants to preserve his language and the fine variety of his French culture; we can agree to that, but ultimately, we should not accept passive resignation for non-Europeans living within France or anywhere in the European continent. If one cherishes cultural expressions while accepting a situation that facilitates the disgusting pairing of French women with Africans, they are throwing the baby out with the bath water and we must side with French Whites more radical. We are willing to help greatly, but not for allowing that kind of diversity to spread to the rest of Europe. We value French women and men, not mulattos speaking French. At the same time, we need not exploit and destroy other peoples and environs; but may leave them alone providing they do not violate our (mutual) habitat and freedom from association with them. The nations and regions of Europe can have a similar scale and be coordinated with those White states among the freely chosen Laboratory of The States as Bowery proposes for The U.S.  However, the European nations need to provide for the slightly different function of accountability to the deep ecology of their indigenous peoples. Irrespective of expanse or obstacles, sovereign White nations, regions, and states may be coordinated among the White Class.

Conclusion

When our advocates go on about “the Left, the Left, the Left”, on the one hand, they are obfuscating the agency of our greatest antagonist, the agency of Jewish machination, whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC. And on the other hand they are driving us right where Jewish academic and political planners want us to go – into the Right – which is the other source of our destruction – the Rightist quest for objective innocence, whether naive or worse, a pretense of objective innocence in order to avoid accountability. Not being leftists blocks resolution to our problem, a problem that Kant had tried and failed to solve, that of empiricism’s upshot, overly severe relativism – which is rectified by the hermeneutic process, classifying the ongoing process by which we gauge our systemic pattern, delimiting our relative interests, and particular accountability as The White Class.

When we say the White Class, meaning people of native European extraction, not Jews and Mulattos with Passports, there is no mistaking, no ambiguity. We are radicals, connecting the radix of our roots to the extremities of our branches, our farther reaches.

We need a moral order of that – our race, our class, is our religion – it centers on the 14 Words – it is transcendent, forward looking, palpable and practical.

We may declare our nation – This is the end of the one world order and the beginning of White sovereignty. Our DNA is our nation.

* * * * *

Note: When listening to our advocates, you might try, for your own clarity (and sanity) substituting the word “liberal”, in terms of its function, openness and caring for outsiders, when you hear them use the word, “left”, and you’ll find that it works fine conceptually. Liberalism’s actual negative meaning is more correct than leftism in terms of describing our problem – as a liberal, one is either naively subject to integrationism at the behest of an elitist group or subject to the integration of bio-power elitists – note that elite may have a positive connotation for some, but not elitism, elitists. It is true, however, that charging others with Liberalism tends to render one stodgy; backward sounding and worse; it poses the continual ground yielding, reactive logic of old-fashioned conservatism as its response. Thus, in line with Kurtagic’s marketing program of image appeal, another word for its meaning, i.e. reckless openness to other cultures, should be supplied – agreed, but not the Left.

Up Next

  • Women without class
  • Paradigms, Incommensurability an Addendum on Classification

Leftism as a Code Word (Part 1): The White Left

November 6, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left. They still are on the Left when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.”

Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.

In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.

In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,”  and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; i.e., he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have. Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.

These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.

Naming the Jew can be risky business indeed and that assuredly accounts for why White advocates have used code words: e.g., liberals, non-Christians, leftists, etc. I submit that if one is in a situation where it is too dangerous to name the Jew, then liberal – at least in terms of its fundamental meaning, openness to other groups of people – is the better code word as it also encompasses those problems of ours that are truly not of Jewish making but of our own. And that the Left is the worst code word; that is the subject of this thesis, for reasons that I will elaborate shortly. Agreed, the charge of liberalism is too problematic, as I discuss in footnote (1), it has a decided image problem, stodgy and logically entails ground yielding conservatism in response; thus another term should be supplied – but not the Left.

When one does have to confront the Jewish question more directly, but is in danger, not free to speak in just any way, one of the best strategies for defending against charges of antisemitism should be to distinguish between “virulent” and “relatively benign” Jews in accordance with Faussette and Bowery’s theory regarding the cycle of Jewish virulence. Jews, long a people without a nation (nearly 2,000 years), developed an uncaring, parasitic relation to their host nations, particularly among the elites of their vested interest. After a period of consolidating the wealth of a nation to themselves, the most ‘virulent’ ones escape over the border for a new host country to exploit, while the relatively ‘benign’, situated and accountable ones are subject to the wrath of the host nation’s people who realize belatedly, “’the Jews’ did this to us!” This perpetuates the cycle as the virulent elite bribe their way into a new country, gain farther sympathy, critical absolution and pseudo-justification for their exploits as they point to what ‘they do to us’: the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the pogroms, the Roman occupation.

With this distinction however, we should be able to mitigate the charge of antisemitism, noting that our large grievance is with the virulent elite (as well as with White traitors, especially those in influential positions) not with those Jews normal, situated and accountable to a local culture. Nevertheless, as anybody who has experience will tell you, the pattern of antagonism and indifference to European interests exists not only among Jewish elitists, but in them as a whole. Thus, we need to discriminate, even if some are worse than others and should be looked upon as more criminally liable.

. . .

As most normal White people, liking my people and myself, I spent most of my life saying that I was neither Left nor Right, if those terms emerged as an issue

For good reason: as with all normal White people, I had been repulsed, had a very strong aversion to identifying as a leftist: I saw rabid Jewish advocates of non-Whites along with anti-White Whites and heard them called “THE Left” all my life. Yet, I looked at what was being called “the Right”, and I could not quite do that either – it meant that one would be an ignorant hole by definition. I use this vulgarism deliberately to demonstrate that you can indeed, define terms through the pattern of how people are using a term: Notice that a person will be called a hole when they harm others when they do not have to; or, when they let people harm them when they do not have to. That is characteristic of the Right for a reason – they are not accountable; they wish to believe in their sheer, objective innocence and not accountable to an encompassing, but delimited “we”, as such. With the Wall Street protests and our struggle’s growing recognition of the military industrial complex, the corporate plutocracy’s quest for cheap labor; its transgression of borders; its disregard of our people in more difficult circumstances, middle, working class and more; for our environment; growing recognition that this is not in our interest as Whites – our need to not identify as rightists becomes acute.

At the same time, with the population explosion threatening to overwhelm our demographic and our environment, it is also of acute importance not to identify with the phony “Left”, which is really just more catastrophic liberalism, if you look at it. That understood, I have come to the realization that saying one is neither Left nor Right is an inarticulate halfway point to extricating oneself from promulgated Jewish definition of the terms. That once one sorts out Jewish perversion and corruption of the terms, that the Left is the best way for us to identify as White advocates.

When our advocates call our enemies “the Left” they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.

Our advocates are obfuscating the agency of Jewish machinations – hiding behind a twisted definition of “the Left.” The Left has the moral high ground and the label, Left, has the appearance of that moral high ground because it is supposed to be socially accountable, even if it is a misnomer: which it is, in Jewish application of the term – leftist classification indeed, for Jews, non-Whites, and anti-White Whites, but prescribing obsequious, cataclysmic liberalism for Whites. With that, they are obfuscating the motive of Jews to define us as Rightists and their motivation to drive us there.

At the same time, our advocates are obfuscating our other large problem – our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability – that is Rightism.

While Jews will use this argument too, that they are simply better, meritorious, when it serves their interests, Jewish political planners and academics generally want to maneuver us into a rightist position because it leaves us naive, organizationally weak, amoral, and unaccountable to our own as a relational class of people. White traitors also want us to be rightists so that they can avoid accountability.

Finally, in calling “the Left” our enemy, our advocates also obfuscate the means of solution by creating an aversion to what we need – a social classification of ourselves as a people, a full class of people. The Left is always about social classification if you sort out abuse of the term.

When we refer to ourselves as a people, we are classifying. The Left is a function of systemic classification, designating a group of people the interests of whom are to be looked after as a class – protecting against outsiders, e.g. “scab” union busters and plutocratic exploitation of labor. Sound familiar? We classify ourselves as Whites for highly analogous reasons: to protect ourselves from opportunistic outsiders and from elitist exploitation and indifference.

If our philosophy is correct, as White advocates, we are leftists. Why? Because we are advocating a people, not objective facts, not simply describing facts, independent of interactive involvement and consequences. We are, if we are good White advocates, saying, “if a tree falls in the woods and there are no White people left to hear it, to talk about it, at least, it may make a noise, but may as well not for all it matters.” We are taking a people-centric perspective and a White-people-centric position, specifically. We are acknowledging that nothing exists outside of interaction and how facts count must be negotiated between people. And being mammals, caring about closer personal relationships, as we do, preferably by White people.

In fact, the moment we refer to ourselves as Whites, or indigenous Europeans, we are parceling a relative classification of ourselves socially and that is the reality. Whereas the Right, inasmuch as it pursues objectivity independent of interaction, social interaction, and a negotiation of how things count, is always something of an illusion.

If Kevin MacDonald looks at two DNA strands and says, this one is Jewish and this one is White, he must address at least one colleague with this information, in seeking agreement. In some cases, data will be agreed upon by nearly 100% of people and that will generally be called, “objective.” A few may disagree, but they will be considered crazy. Nevertheless, the data, the observation and how it counts, occurs in social interaction (or it may as well not occur at all).

Moreover, to identify who we are as a full social class would give us the moral high ground and powerful organizational function at once. The White Class: viz., persons of native European descent, with interests relative to our class as such, would entail two-way accountability to our class straight away, from those on top and from those in developmental, marginalized stages; i.e., our relative, relational interests, irrespective of whether White traitors and non-Whites, those outside The White Class, are more or less “objectively” capable. Non-Whites might be allies, but they are not in the class. White traitors are traitors, their abilities only making them more offensive. The White Class, The Indigenous European Class (with its subcategories, yes), would define who we are and to whom we are largely accountable

On the other hand, when we are made averse to Leftism, we are blocked from classifying ourselves as a people – a classification that takes into account processes, all stages of development (within the lifetime) and evolution (beyond the lifetime); a classification that makes an important difference as it takes into account and respects our paradigmatic difference, a differences that make a difference from  other groups, our qualitative form and function, systemic pattern, its ecological disbursement, niche differences, logics of meaning and action that can make us more cooperative among ourselves and less conflicting with non-Whites when practicality is the better part of valor.

Coming back to our first big problem in calling “them” the “Left.”

When our advocates attribute Leftism to our enemies, they are not addressing the agentive Jewish machinations against our people, but rather attributing the problem to an ideology or less, a devil word, the “Left.” This obfuscates the fact that Jews are classifying themselves and looking after their own interests, hiding their own agency in promoting hyperbolic liberal ideas and antagonism to Whites – promoting those outside or antagonistic to the White Class as “marginals” come to “enrich” us. Jewish agency is hidden behind the attribution of “the Left”whether the agency behind economic Marxism or the cultural Marxism of PC

Our second big problem obfuscated by calling our enemies, ‘the Left.’

Our wish for the “innocence” of objectivism or the appearance thereof, the pretense of such objectivism in order to avoid accountability

Whether of religious speculation which seeks to establish its pure innocence, a clique of scientistic elitists who seek to establish the pure objective warrant of their discoveries, or the pure might-makes-right of the quasi-individual and corporate “individual” of U.S. law, the Right is characterizable as a quest for objectivity which would make quick work of accountability – whether through a naïve whish to be innocent through objectivity or worse, through a cynical wish to avoid accountability through a pretense of objectivity.

While a White Leftist perspective would not begrudge persons who do some things better their due, their difference, so long as they are accountable to the relative interests of the class, people tend to want to believe their success is more a result of their sheer independence than it actually is – the Right is pseudo objectivist, faithfully, slavishly leaving nature to its own devices – we are caused, pseudo detached from the social, anti-social, unaccountable and inhumane as such – “that’s just the way it is”, according to nature, or seeking account in the elusive and insensible speculation of religion.

Michael O’Meara does make an excellent point that self-destruction is inherent within the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – I would say viz., objectivism, scientism, liberalism, Christianity, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as “innocent” are largely naïve or disingenuous by definition in not calling for accountability to relative and subjective interests as a White class; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians) as a class; we would thus be taken advantage of, it would lead to our destruction, Jews or not.

While understandable, the wish to transcend relative and relational interests of the class, into the innocence and power gambit of sheer objectivist pursuit creates a narcissistic, hyper-relativistic upshot. In pursuing innocence of pure criteria, void of relative, relational and subjective interests, we limit accountability, reduce comparisons between people to singular, non-qualitative criteria, comparing, blending what are in fact paradigmatic differences, incommensurate logics of meaning and action between various peoples – typically to disastrous effect.

The Right is enamored of enlightenment objectivism, which reached its height in Descartes’ quest for a fixed logic transcendent of nature; and its depth in the empiricism of Locke, trying to find fixed foundational laws within nature. Locke was motivated by empiricism as an argument against the English Aristocratic class, which he resented for its superior educational opportunities. He asserted thus, that as each individual has the same perceptions that social classifications are a fiction of the mind and should be prohibited in favor of civil individual rights – that prejudice against classification of peoples was written into the U.S. Constitution, rupturing relations and development processes, leaving us weak to collectively organized enemies, such as Jews.

The means of solution

Kant tried and failed to resolve the problems of Cartesianism and Lockeatine empiricism by integrating it on universal foundational principles. It is rectified indeed, however, with the hermeneutic process, an optimizing, tacking back and forth as need be between verification of smaller units of analysis, such as our DNA and its relation to our environment, to the more protracted and patterned facets of our DNA’s expressions, relations encompassed in social classification; the answer in a word, is to re-establish the relative and relational interests of social classification – a people centric perspective: a tree may make a noise when falling in the woods but if there are no (White) people left to hear it, or talk about it, may as well not make a noise for all it matters to us – thus, we re-assert Whites as a Classification in particular, The White Class comprehending those of native European extraction, their sub-nations, regions (and not others) as the means and the solution. At the same time, observing Bateson’s correction of Darwinism, that the organism plus environment is the unit of survival – the organism which destroys its environment, it’s habitat, destroys itself.

For Kant, who had not rid himself of Cartesianism, good will was to treat every individual as an end in them self; for us, rather, the White Class and its environment ought to be treated as the relational, relative end in itself – it is those who fight on behalf of Whites, who tactfully flee on behalf of Whites or who stealthily infiltrate on behalf of Whites; those who respect the quality of differences that make a cooperative difference among the White class and toward other peoples who are of good will; as opposed to narcissistic comparisons of equality which entail unnecessary competition, reciprocally escalating diatribe and war. Succinctly, a White Class would call for more accountability to and from our individual members; and a more general sort of accountability to environment and non-Whites as a class – that we neither exploit them nor abet their over-population and incursion upon us.

Relative, relational separatism is always possible, is a first step, as well as our ultimate aim. If some of our members are better in some ways, and it helps, great! But we do not need that argument for separatism. In essence, we want to be separate, not to lord ourselves over and exploit others. That is a difference between White elitists and White Leftist Separatists, The White Class.

Notes

1) I am indebted to TT Metzger for encouraging a leftist outlook; I had been stuck in the neither left nor right trap until he got me to thinking. He also made the best enhancement to the “ship of praxis” – that its big leading gun ought to be the issue of population as it relates to environment.

Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant

October 29, 2011

By Daniel Sienkiewicz

Kant's grave

In The Sunic Journal of October 18th, on Christian Zionism, Kevin MacDonald expressed frustration over Christianity’s hold on people, particularly being of concern as it tends to be a universalizing religion, not especially concerned for Whites as a group, thusly leaving Whites susceptible to a demographic decline perhaps into extinction even. That vulnerability is in part due to Christianity’s ties to Judaism; by contrast to Christianity’s being potentially about just anyone who might take it up, Judaism is a religion which is concerned basically for the well being of an exclusive nation – Israel, and an exclusive people, Jews – with that, they have undertaken machinations to use the vulnerability of Christianity; they have also been able to overcome what anti-Jewish defenses that exist in the text and tradition of Christianity.

In later weeks I will discuss non-religious facets to an overall quest for innocence – of which Christianity is a part – that leave us vulnerable as a group.

However, since Professor MacDonald is searching for means to encourage Whites to adopt religious ways that will conform to reality and serve their own interests as Whites, I will begin with some of the things that brought me around. You see, I went through the infamous “phase” in my early twenties; while people who are earnestly attempting to practice Christianity will hate to hear it called a phase, some of the things that brought me around were as follows:

I visited a few evangelical and fundamentalists churches and felt a bit foolish. But you know? Some things about life were so horrible to me that I almost had to believe that Christianity was true; some things about life were like some kind of torture. I needed some kind of agreement with people over the things that I cared about – things should be better, clearly. So I pressed on with my personal evangelizing for and of the true Christianity – making a fool of myself; would be more embarrassed: if I did not look back in empathy and realize that I could not simply shrug off 2,000 years of European tradition, all the sacrifice, all the devotion, as if it were nothing; and if I did not know that I was trying to do the right thing – as are you, Christian readership.

In a lecture by Professor Rom Harré from Oxford, he discussed morals with utmost sincerity. I was able to understand that morals are indeed, the most important thing in the world; and he added that people need moral orders – but moral orders, the plurality of the term, was a large clue in my liberation from mere tradition, custom and habit – it meant that there were different moral systems; and one might seek one out that serves those interests which they hope to realize. Ultimately, I would begin to consider a moral order that would circumscribe and serve the interests of Whites, and by that I mean persons of indigenous European descent.

But prior to that was another crucial step in liberating me from the customs and habits of traditional religion – The moral system of the Christian thinker, Immanuel Kant. It provided, in all honesty, a more clear, sensible, fair and intelligible rationale than what I had read in the Christian text; but one that did not in all ways correspond with what was in the Christian text. Since it helped me, I am hopeful that it will help others in taking a step to moral order conducive to their own interests as Whites, while not exactly being guilty to others, either. Now, do not beat me up because Kant was talking in those universalistic terms. First things first; all thinkers have to take Kant into account. I have updated his system with the contemporary philosophical considerations of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant; I will move toward more specifically native European interests in subsequent discussions.

Further interesting notes – When not obsequiously holding the door for the late Kara Kennedy after “Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy” classes at Tufts, I took religion classes as something I might cope with, if nothing else; including a class in critical bible study which I’d taken expecting my earnestness to be reinforced, not contradicted: but the obvious man made-ness of the Bible became apparent – for example, The Revelation had to have had at least four different authors. There are sundry other examples of obvious fabrication – i.e., definitely not the hand of god. One of my religion professors was not especially patient with my “phase”. He asked me flippantly, “Did you read all the Kant?” I answered “No, only the last chapter as you’d assigned, on ‘religious intolerance’ being the greatest ignorance.” He grunted and dismissed me in frustration. But you see, at that point I did not want to hear that my devotion could be considered ignorant, because I was well meaning indeed. Maybe with a little more patience, I’d have come back to it sooner. I cannot say that I did not try though, as some things were shining in that Kant – so, what did I do? I went to the library, looked at it again and realizing that it was something I’d need, in my rash state of mind, I attempted to steal the book. Electronic door security detectors-sensors were new then and the buzzer caught me – how embarrassing! And ironic – it is the one book that will tell you that you should never steal.

It was not until five years later that I picked up the book again and it made the worst of the torture stop. So, if you have not read it already, I can save you some time and anguish, having put it here in updated and capsule form.

Kant’s Moral System as Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency

It is vogue nowadays to deride Immanuel Kant as the quintessential “universalizer”, now that twentieth century science, mathematics and philosophy have sufficiently disproved what Kant considered to be “the imperative foundation of universal principles, always good for all people and all circumstances.” The disproving of Kant’s quest does not, however, eliminate the usefulness of his system as a practical topoi – or framework in simpler English. Here is a practical update of his framework, using the contemporary philosophical concerns of Coherence, Accountability, Warrant and Agency.

I. Principles versus Sensibilities: Principles are guidelines and ideal rules which persons maintain to give them character and coherence. Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; it means to make sense of things in a consistent manner. In following up upon principles set forth, one may be Accountable, viz. able to provide explanations of their actions for responsible, defensive reasons; and one may establish Warrant, the credibility for proactive endeavor. E.g., if one’s actions are misunderstood or worse, false and negative accusations are made against them, they can refer back to the principles that they following and be sure of them self. Kant calls this being sure of oneself, ‘freedom‘; as such, one is freed from Arbitrariness: the confusion of natural flux; false and negative accusations; trivialities; and, of especial importance, freed from natural inclinations which may pull them in a negative direction. Finally, in that regard, as has been pointed out since Kant’s time (e.g. by Rom Harré in personal conversation), in referring back to these principles, one establishes their self Agency, proving that they are the causal agents of their own actions. Now, if one gets carried away with principles, Speculation, to the point where they are not dealing with sensible reality, they can always refer back to sensible evidences. However, as it is easier to attend to sensible evidence than it is to abide by principles and to restore credibility in an un-kept principle, it is better to err in the direction of principles.

The most fundamental principle, “unanimity“, means to think in agreement with one’s self; e.g., if one comes to a conflict, one should think first of why one’s actions and words might be correct, not why they might be wrong. Coherence, Accountability and Agency are begun in this principle straight away.

II. A) Common Morals B) Popular Philosophy C) Principled Philosophy

A) Common Morals: As a matter of practical convenience, people usually start out accepting implicitly, “first principles” (e.g., don’t steal, don’t lie, be monogamous), common moral ideas that it is worthwhile to be good, fair and decent. Then myriad and pervasive influences tend to divert them from first principles. That, Kant calls -

B) Popular Philosophy: It is ubiquitous. People will cite many excuses for deviating from common morals: 1. Typical of these excuses is the statement, “everybody does it;” but the mere popularity of a notion, Kant would observe, does not provide an excuse to violate first principles (consensus can be wrong). Beyond mere conformity to popular consensus, however, there are more cynical and even less accountable deviations from first principles 2. Perhaps most venal is the claim of ‘scientific objectivity’, which disingenuously denies accountability for the personal choices of its practitioners and their subjects; e.g., ‘it’s just human nature.’ 3. People will cite religion, even, as in the statement, ‘it’s just god’s will” 4. Or, people may claim that the complex relativity of their existential situation would not allow them to act in accordance with first principles, when, in fact, they could have; 5. Finally, there is the practice of didactically reversing a first principle (as in teaching through reverse psychology) under the rubric of “teaching”, exemplified in the statement, “it was really for your own good”.

In any case, their arguments for breaking with common morals are of two kinds: “that’s just the [objective] way it is” or “that’s just my/their [relative] circumstances.” Inasmuch, for the brevity of their personal accountability (“that’s just”…), they are not well warranted, and typically not, in their assertions.

C) Principled Philosophy: To correct the negative effects of popular consensus, Kant would proffer that we re-establish our first principles on a universal foundation. Accordingly, we must test our principles by asking the universal question of them, ‘can this principle always be good for everyone?’ In practice, that means, treating people as ends in themselves – in contrast to ‘treating people as the mere means through which other things pass, as strict attendance to logics of nature, otherworldly ideas (Tillich, 1961) or technology would have it – Kant calls this, the most important principle, “good will“. Without good will: intelligence, beauty and fortune only make a person more terrible.

Despite this fine reasoning, it is true enough that Kant has been solidly refuted in seeking universal foundations. Nevertheless, as a practical outline, it is brilliant of itself and of practical use as criteria toward being Coherent, Accountable and establishing Warrant (all three necessary to establishing individuality and agency) in the confusing flux of contemporary society.

Part of what Kant tried and failed to do with his a-priori (universal foundations outside of nature) was to save the world from empiricism.

This is still one of our major problems, as Whites; as the empiricism of Kant’s predecessor, John Locke’s prejudice against classifications, his treating them as fictions which should give way to empirically based sensory impressions of individuals, was canonized as Civil Individual Rights in The U.S. Constitution. This sanctified rupturing of group responsibility – for prime example, “the White race” – has left us susceptible to exploitation and manipulation (especially by you know who).

It is to be corrected by hermeneutic tacking back and forth, managing the White Class from observations more closely read (sensible), such as D.N.A. sequences, to broader historical and temporal patterns, encompassed with narrative and other (speculative) conceptualization.

Look for my articles on coming Saturdays. I will be discussing:

  • “The Left” is a terribly mistaken code word for Jews
  • Addendum on Classification, Individuation and Gender
  • Sex as Sacrament vs. Sex as Celebration
  • …and more
Daniel Sienkiewicz is a White separatist expat from the Unite States lurking in Eastern Europe, a VoR writer and a guest of the Sunic Journal. Email him.

Tom Sunic to Speak in France on Oct. 22, 2011

October 17, 2011

Tom Sunic

VoR radio host Dr. Tom Sunic will give a lecture in French this coming Saturday, October 22, in France near the city of Saint Etienne. The title of his lecture is Le rôle des Etats-Unis dans la construction européenne (“The role of the US in the Construction of Europe”).

Should you or your friends be interested, contact Max: sangdragons@live.fr

Information in French:

Je vous informe que Tomislav Sunic
www.tomsunic.info tiendra une conférence sur « Le rôle des Etats-Unis dans la construction européenne », le samedi 22 octobre à 17 h 00 dans un salon de la banlieue stéphanoise. La participation sera de 7 €.

Il est possible de prendre ensuite un repas avec le conférencier pour 20 € en plus.

La date limite d’inscription est le 10 octobre. Inscription prise en compte après réception des divers règlements.
Pour plus d’infos pratiques, contactez :

Maxime: sangdragons@live.fr

Très cordialement.

Source: Terre et Peuple.

Tom Sunic to Speak in Germany on Oct. 1, 2011

September 28, 2011

Tom Sunic

Dr. Tom Sunic will speak at a seminar in Germany on Oct. 1, 2011. This literary seminar will feature several prominent German thinkers. The main theme of the event, which runs Sep. 30 and Oct 1-2, is Europa in Umbruch (“Europe in Upheaval”), exploring the role of Europe, Russia, and the idea of the Empire. Tom, in his speech Balkanisierung Europas; Umbruch oder die Endzeiten (“Balkanization of Europe; the Upheaval or the End Times”), will focus on “end times” as seen by a prominent German nationalist- conservative writer and novelist Ernst Juenger.

For more information about the event, contact Dr. Rigolf Hennig.

Information in German:

Volk in Bewegung und der Reichsbote / Verfasser- und Lesertreffen

Leitthema: „Europa in Umbruch“

Liebe Leser, Verfasser, Gäste und Vortragende,

Für Ihre Zusage, am vierten Verfasser- und Lesertreffen vom 30. September – 2. Oktober teilzunehmen danke ich Ihnen namens der Schriftleitung.

Tagungsort

Voranmeldung unter 036331/48125.

Programm

Voranmeldung unter 036331/48125.

Programm

30. September bis

  • 18 Uhr Anreise, Zimmervergabe
  • 18 Uhr gemeinsames Abendessen
  • 19 Uhr 30 Dr. Rigolf Hennig: Zur weltpolitischen Lage
  • Anschließend Liederabend

1. Oktober

  • 8 Uhr gemeinsames Frühstück
  • 9 Uhr gemeinsames Lied O Deutschland hoch in Ehren
  • 9 Uhr 10 Dr. Walter T. Rix: Deutschland und Rußland
  • 10 Uhr 15 Richard Melisch: Arabellion
  • 11 Uhr 30 Wolfgang Nahrath: politische Justiz
  • 13 Uhr gemeinsames Mittagessen
  • 15 Uhr Dr. Tomislav Sunic: Balkan oder die Balkanisierung Europas: Umbruch oder die Endzeiten?
  • 16 Uhr 30 Bernhard Schaub: Europäische Aktion
  • 18 Uhr gemeinsames Abendessen
  • 19 Ur 30 Liederabend mit Frank Rennicke

2. Oktober

  • 8 Uhr gemeinsames Frühstück
  • 9 Uhr gemeinsames Lied kein schöner Land
  • 9 Uhr 10 Uhr Alfred Zips: Zur Abschaffung der Wehrpflicht
  • 10 Uhr 30 Roland Wuttke: Rüstzeug im geistigen Endkampf
  • 12 Uhr Abschluß mit dem Deutschlandlied
  • Anschließend Abrechnung, Räumung der Zimmer, ggf. noch Mittagessen, Abreise.

Das Treffen findet gemeinsam mit der Tagung der Europäischen Aktion statt.

Diese tagt teilweise geschlossen in eigenen Räumen nach eigenem Programm.

Wir wünschen eine gute Anreise, empfehlen Fahrgemeinschaften und grüßen bestens bis zum 30. September.

A Multipolar World? China’s Role in Central Asia (2011)

September 27, 2011

By Matt Johnson

Shanghai Cooperation Organization leaders

The Shanghai Cooperation organization is China’s weapon in Central Asia, one of the world’s most strategic regions. Her goal is to build a political and economic bloc to challenge the West.

As Marxism fled the Soviet Union, Central Asia became the next set of partially developed states to be sought by the major powers. Central Asia remains significant due to its oil and natural gas reserves, and, just as important, the pipelines from Russia and Iran crossing the area, dumping out in China to the east and the Syrian port cities in the west. Whoever controls this region will become one of the globe’s energy brokers. System-instigated riots in Syria have to do with a) eliminating Israel’s primary local enemy, armed by the Russians and b) take the important, Russian outfitted port cities such as Lattakia.

The Syrian port cities are some of the most significant elements in that economy and connect the Syrian economy to the Iranian and other states in Central Asia. Not only are these of immense strategic importance, but they are also ultra-modern due to Russian investment in its infrastructure. Israel began to publicly worry in the early 1990s as Russo-Syrian scientific and industrial teams discovered more and more sources of petroleum in this country once thought to be almost totally devoid of oil. The state run Syrian oil firms operate three major transport hubs, two on the Mediterranean and one at Lattakia. When Syria began supplying oil and gas to Lebanon, hence solidifying her importance over that strategic country, Israel responded with threats, and eventually, the creation of riots and “civic protests.” Since the Syrian transport hubs and oil firms were state owned, System economists in the US began speaking of the “building of civil society” in Syria. As the industry of Syria grew, Bashar al-Assad went from “reformer” to “tyrant” almost overnight.

One would think that these facts, while significant in themselves, would have nothing to do with China or Central Asia. But these are central facts for the creation of a new trading bloc. The US never made “war” on the USSR. Most Soviet electricity, oil production and electronics were supplied by the US and NATO during the “Cold War.” The US only got upset when the Soviets threatened to create a new bloc of trade run by her, and not the US and her banks. Separating China from the USSR was quickly considered an important priority during the Eisenhower administration and after. The US sought to build up China to use as a counterweight against any threat of an alternative, non-US controlled trading bloc. Throughout this period of the “Cold War,” US-USSR-China trade reached trillions of dollars. Soon, the US sponsored China’s introduction to the UN Security Council as Taiwan was reduced to a “rogue state.”

Syria and her important port cities became central for Chinese penetration into Central Asia. This is partially because Syria, Russia, Iran and Kazakhstan were basically allies of the new Chinese empire since the mid 1990s or so, seeing her as a means of helping create the multi-polar world necessary to eliminate American hegemony. Iran, Armenia and Russia have been in the sights of both the American neocon and neolib movements since the end of the “Cold War.” But as of 2011, the Regime sees its worst fears being realized: a manifest alliance of what Bush laughably called the “Axis of Evil,” which refers to those states who a) actually want to control their own economic destiny, b) are enemies of Israel and the US, and are c) non-liberal in their governments.

China crated the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” in 2001 to institutionalize its role in Central Asia, and has Russia and most Central Asian states as members. Its purpose is to create the conditions for economic and military coordination and cooperation among its signatories and eventually, to create a single large trading bloc. Nothing could have been worse for the elites in industry, banking and oil in the west. A western world, largely bankrupt, is unable to defeat such a coalition militarily, diplomatically or economically. The only option was the media-academia alliance to pour scorn over these states and their tyranny. The west supplied weapons to Azerbaijan against Armenia, stoked civil unrest in Iran and Syria, and, according to NATO, is planning a suicidal military mission against Syria. Recent threats made by Iran against Azerbaijan are largely influenced by the strong Mossad/CIA presence in the former southern regions of the USSR.

Recent leaked documents speak volumes about the creation of an Islamic Central Asia by the CIA. The Turkish as well as Pakistani press reported on CIA activities in Turkey:

Last year, during an immigration court case involving Turkish Islamic Leader, Fetullah Gulen, US prosecutors exposed an illegal, covert, CIA operation involving the intentional Islamization of Central Asia. This operation has been ongoing since the fall of the Soviet Union in an ongoing Cold War to control the vast energy resources of the region – Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan – estimated to be worth $3 trillion.

Recent Russian intelligence documents also say the same. In fact, a Pakistani newspaper said this recently about the situation:

FSB head Nikolay Patrushev has mentioned the names of these companies and foundations, saying, ‘The brotherhood engages in anti-Russian activities via two companies, Serhad and Eflak, as well as foundations such as Toros, Tolerans and Ufuk.’ Patrushev has accused the brotherhood of conducting pan-Turkish propaganda, of trying to convert Russian youths to Islam by sowing the seeds of enmity, and of engaging in certain lobbying activities. These companies and foundations have turned up in the internet site of Fethullah Gulen, alleged leader of the Nurcu religious community currently living in the United States who is a defendant in several court cases in Turkey, accused of engaging in anti-secularist activities.

It is reasonable to suppose that this money is being aimed at China as much as Russia.

Both the Chinese and the Russians are active in the region, but Russia has the upper hand due to the fact that the Central Asian states were at one time a part of the Soviet Union. Political science professor Chien-peng Chung writes that the Chinese government seeks influence, if not control, in this region to battle the “three evils” of international politics: fundamentalism, separatism and terror. Given the large Islamic populations of these areas, such fears are not entirely unjustified.

Former FBI translator Sybel Edmunds recent stated to a reporter:

Given the history, and the distrust of the West, the US realized that it couldn’t get direct control, and therefore would need to use a proxy to gain control quickly and effectively. Turkey was the perfect proxy; a NATO ally and a puppet regime. Turkey shares the same heritage/race as the entire population of Central Asia, the same language (Turkic), the same religion (Sunni Islam), and of course, the strategic location and proximity.

This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.

At the same time, the Chinese are very concerned about terror attacks in the west of the country, a part of China that is largely Islamic and underdeveloped. The Chinese government has regularly accused terror groups of coming into the country from Central Asia with a separatist agenda. The Chinese, according to Chien-peng Chung, are primarily concerned with a pan-Turkish nationalist movement that seeks a unified Central Asian superstate at the expense of Chinese territory and security. NATO, needless to say, lies at the root of this movement. Turkey is a NATO member, and separatist groups in western China have been on the CIA payroll for many decades.

Contributor to the journal Global Research, Andrew G. Marshall, writes the following in 2008 on the Anglo-American obsession with destabilizing the Middle East and Central Asia as the last-ditch attempt to save the eternally bankrupt West:

One of the main targets in this project is Iran, for which the US and Britain have engaged in massive acts of terror and orchestrating large battles and conflicts from within the already-failed state of Iraq. The Anglo-American role as terrorist supporters and as covertly orchestrating terror attacks within Iraq is amply documented. To imagine that these same Anglo-American intelligence and covert networks are not using their long-time conduit, the ISI, for the same purposes in Central Asia, is a stretch of the imagination and logic. It is not merely the Middle East that is the target, but Central Asia, specifically for its geographical relationship to the rising giants such as India and China. This also follows in line with Anglo-American strategies in destabilizing the Central European region, specifically the former Yugoslavia, and more recently, Georgia, largely in an effort to target Russia.

For their part, the Central Asian states seek their own interests. Uzbekistan loves the idea that two major powers are jockeying for position in the area, and seeks to balance the competing powers in the region in good Realist fashion. The United States also seeks influence in the region for the sake of “combating terrorism.” The Chinese see this as merely an excuse for intervention to control the transportation of oil and gas. To a great extent, both Russia and China would like to keep the United States out of the region permanently. The result has been strings of “color revolutions” backed by CIA money and, due to budget constraints, the contributions of Soros and company.

What worries the United States is an alliance among Russia, China and Iran. Not only would a formal alliance be immensely powerful, but very large territorially and potentially very wealthy. Such an alliance could, for better or worse, destroy American influence in the region and create an alternative oil producing and transport organization that could use its power against the west.

Ultimately, both China and Russia seek a Central Asia that they can at least influence, for the minimal project of keeping the Americans out. The creation of a “multipolar” world, where regional hegemons, rather than a single powerful economy, can exercise governance and influence in the worlds regions.

References:

Chung, Chien-peng. (2004) “The Shanghai Co-Operation Organization: China’s Changing Influence in Central Asia.” The China Quarterly, 2004: 989-1009

Marshall, Andrew Gavin (September 2008) “Political Destabilization in South and Central Asia: The Role of the CIA-ISI Terror Network.” Global Research

Kucera, Joshua (January 2011) “Is the CIA Infiltrating Central Asia Via Turkish Muslims?” EurasiaNet.

Edmunds, Sybel (2009) “Illegal CIA Operations Using Islam and Madrassas.” National Security Whistleblower Coalition.

Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital

September 27, 2011

By Alain de Benoist

Translated from the French by Tom Sunic

North African immigrants arriving at Lampedusa

Immigrants from North Africa arriving daily on the Italian island of Lampedusa

In 1973, shortly before his death, the French President Georges Pompidou admitted to have opened the floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big businessmen, such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile and cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social struggle. This move was meant to exert downward pressure on the wages of French workers, reduce their protesting zeal, and in addition, break up the unity of the labor movement. Big bosses, he said, “always want more.”

Forty years later nothing has changed. At a time when no political party would dare to ask for further acceleration of the pace of immigration, only big employers seem to be in favor of it — simply because it is in their interest. The only difference is that the affected economic sectors are now more numerous, going beyond the industrial sector and the hotel and catering service sector — now to include once “protected” professions, such as engineers and computer scientists.

France, as we know, starting with the 19th century, massively reached out to foreign immigrants. The immigrating population was already 800,000 in 1876, only to reach 1.2 million in 1911. French industry was the prime center of attraction for Italian and Belgian immigrants, followed by Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants. “Such immigration, unskilled and non-unionized, allowed employers to evade increasing requirements pertaining to the labor law” (François-Laurent Balssa, « Un choix salarial pour les grandes entreprises » Le Spectacle du monde, Octobre, 2010).

In 1924, at the initiative of the Committee for Coalmining and big farmers from the Northeast of France, a “general agency for immigration” (Société générale d’immigration) was founded. It opened up employment bureaus in Europe, which operated as suction pumps. In 1931 there were 2.7 million foreigners in France, that is, 6.6 % of the total population. At that time France displayed the highest level of immigration in the world (515 persons on 100,000 inhabitants). “This was a handy way for a large number of big employers to exert downward pressure on wages. … From then on capitalism entered the competition of the workforce by reaching out to the reserve armies of wage earners.”

In the aftermath of World War II, immigrants began to arrive more and more frequently from Maghreb countries; first from Algeria, then from Morocco. Trucks chartered by large companies (especially in the automobile and construction industry) came by the hundreds to recruit immigrants on the spot. From 1962 to 1974, nearly two million additional immigrants arrived to France of whom 550,000 were recruited by the National Immigration Service (ONI), a state-run agency, yet controlled under the table by big business. Since then, the wave has continued to grow. François-Laurent Balssa notes that

when a workforce shortage in one sector occurs, out of the two possible choices one must either raise the salary, or one must reach out to foreign labor. Usually it was the latter option that was favored by the National Council of French Employers (CNPF) and as of 1998 by its successor, the Movement of Enterprises (MEDEF). That choice, which bears witness of the desire for short-term benefits, delayed advancement of production tools and industrial innovation. During the same period, however, as the example of Japan demonstrates, the rejection of foreign immigration and favoring of the domestic workforce enabled Japan to achieve its technological revolution, well ahead of most of its Western competitors.

Big Business and the Left; A Holy Alliance

At the beginning, immigration was a phenomenon linked to big business. It still continues to be that way. Those who clamor for always more immigration are big companies. This immigration is in accordance with the very spirit of capitalism, which aims at the erasure of borders (« laissez faire, laissez passer »). “While obeying the logic of social dumping, Balssa continues, a “low cost” labor market has thus been created with the “undocumented” and the “low-skilled,” functioning as stopgap “jack of all trades.” Thus, big business has reached its hand to the far-left, the former aiming at dismantling of the welfare state, considered to be too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state considered to be too archaic.” This is the reason why the French Communist Part (PCF) and the French Trade Union (CGT) (which have radically changed since then) had, until 1981, battled against the liberal principle of open borders, in the name of the defense of the working class interests.

For once a well-inspired Catholic liberal-conservative Philippe Nemo, only confirms these observations:

In Europe there are people in charge of the economy who dream about bringing to Europe cheap labor. Firstly, to do jobs for which the local workforce is in short supply; secondly, to exert considerable  downward pressure on the wages of other workers in Europe. These lobbies, which possess all necessary means to be listened to either by their governments or by the Commission in Brussels, are, generally speaking, both in favor of immigration and Europe’s enlargement — which would considerably facilitate labor migrations. They are right from their point of view — a view of a purely economic logic [...] The problem, however, is that one cannot reason about this matter in economic terms only, given that the inflow of the extra-Europe population has also severe sociological consequences. If these capitalists pay little attention to this problem, it is perhaps because they enjoy, by and large, economic benefits from immigration without however themselves suffering from its social setbacks. With the money earned by their companies, whose profitability is ensured in this manner, they can reside in handsome neighborhoods, leaving their less fortunate compatriots to cope on their own with alien population in poor suburban areas. (Philippe Nemo, Le Temps d’y penser, 2010)

According to official figures, immigrants living in regular households account for 5 million people, which was 8% of the French population in 2008. Children of immigrants, who are direct descendants of one or two immigrants, represent 6.5 million people, which is 11% of the population. The number of illegals is estimated to be between 300,000 to 550,000. (Expulsion of illegal immigrants cost 232 million Euros annually, i.e., 12,000 euro per case). For his part, Jean-Paul Gourevitch, estimates the population of foreign origin living in France in 2009 at 7.7 people million (out of which 3.4 million are from the Maghreb and 2.4 million from sub-Saharan Africa), that is, 12.2% of the metropolitan population. In 2006, the immigrating population accounted for 17% of births in France.

France is today experiencing migrant settlements, which is a direct consequence of   the family reunification policy. However, more than ever before immigrants represent the reserve army of capital.

In this sense it is amazing to observe how the networks on behalf of the “undocumented,” run by the far-left (which seems to have discovered in immigrants its “substitute proletariat”) serve the interests of big business. Criminal networks, smugglers of people and goods, big business, “human rights” activists, and under- the-table employers — all of them, by virtue of the global free market, have become cheerleaders for the abolition of frontiers.

For example, it is a revealing fact that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their books Empire and Multitude endorse “world citizenship ” when they call for the removal of borders, which must have as a first goal in developed countries the accelerated settlement of the masses of low-wage Third World workers. The fact that most migrants today owe their displacement to outsourcing, brought about by the endless logic of the global market, and that their displacement is precisely something capitalism strives for in order to fit everybody into the market, and finally, that each territorial attachment could be a part of human motivations — does not bother these two authors at all. On the contrary, they note with satisfaction that “capital itself requires increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration across national borders.” The world market should constitute, from their point of view, a natural framework for “world citizenship.” The market “requires a smooth space of uncoded and deterritorialized flux,” destined to serve the interests of the “masses”, because “mobility carries a price tag of capital, which means the enhanced desire for liberty.”

The trouble with such an apology of human displacement, seen as a first condition of “liberating nomadism,” is that it relies on a completely unreal outlook of the specific situation of migrants and displaced people. As Jacques Guigou and Jacques  Wajnsztejn write, “Hardt and Negri delude themselves with the capacity of the immigration flows, thought to be a source for new opportunities for capital valuation, as well as the basis for opportunity enhancement for the masses. Yet, migrations signify nothing else but a process of universal competition, whereas migrating has no more emancipating value than staying at home. A “nomadic” person is no more inclined to criticism or to revolt than a sedentary person.”  (L’évanescence de la valeur. Une présentation critique du groupe Krisis, 2004).

“As long as people keep abandoning their families, adds Robert Kurz, and look for work elsewhere, even at the risk of their own lives — only to be ultimately shredded by the treadmill of capitalism — they will be less the heralds of emancipation and more the self-congratulatory agents of the postmodern West.  In fact, they only represent its miserable version.”  (Robert Kurz, « L’Empire et ses théoriciens », 2003).

Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.

Alain de Benoist is a philosopher residing in France. The above article was first published in the  quarterly Eléments, “L’immigration; armée de réserve du capital” (April-June 2011, Nr. 139).

Charles Lindbergh: A Courageous American’s Prophetic Voice

September 21, 2011

By Mark Weber

Charles Lindbergh

In May 1927, a shy, handsome 25-year-old suddenly sprang from obscurity to instant world fame when he flew a small single-seat, single-engine airplane, called the “Spirit of St. Louis,” from Long Island, New York, to an airfield in Paris. In a grueling 33-hour flight that covered 3,600 miles, Charles A. Lindbergh became the first person to fly the Atlantic ocean, alone and non-stop. His daring flight, and his aviation pioneering afterwards, made him, for some years, the most admired man in America, and the most admired American in the world.

During his lifetime he made a mark not only as a pioneering global aviator, but also as an award-winning author, environmentalist and anti-war activist. Given the scarcity of truly heroic Americans during the past century, he towers as a man of exemplary accomplishment and courage. He deserves to be remembered today not only as an authentic American hero, but also because much of what he wrote and said is relevant in our own age. Indeed, some of his remarks have proven to be prophetic.

Charles Lindbergh was born in 1902 of Swedish, English, Irish and Scottish ancestry. He grew up in Minnesota in a family that was accomplished and well educated. His father was an attorney, a writer, a publisher and a U.S. Congressman.

Lindbergh travelled widely in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, as well as across the U.S. He met and spoke at length with many of the world’s most prominent personalities. And he carefully observed and thoughtfully remembered much of what he saw and experienced. During the 1930s he spent much time in Britain, France and Germany — three countries he admired. But he was particularly impressed by what he observed during his several visits to Germany in the years 1936 to 1939 — that is, during a period of dynamic change under the leadership of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Lindbergh did not approve of everything he saw there. In particular, he disagreed with the regime’s Jewish policy. All the same, he wrote at the time, he felt that Germany was “the most interesting nation in the world today, and that she is attempting to find a solution for some of our most fundamental problems.”

“While I still have many reservations,” he wrote to a U.S. Army officer who was also a personal friend, “I have come away with a feeling of great admiration for the German people. The condition of the country, and the appearance of the average person whom I saw, leaves with me the impression that Hitler must have far more character and vision than I thought existed in the German leader who has been painted in so many different ways by the accounts of America and England.”

In a letter to another American friend he wrote: “With all the things we criticize, he [Hitler] is undoubtedly a great man, and I believe has done much for the German people. He is fanatic in many ways, and any one can see that there is a certain amount of fanaticism in Germany today. It is less than I expected, but it is there. On the other hand, Hitler has accomplished results — good in addition to bad — which could hardly have been accomplished without some fanaticism.”

Lindbergh’s wife was Anne Morrow Lindbergh, a remarkable woman who was, in her own right, an accomplished aviator and a successful author. In a 1936 letter to her mother, she wrote: “Hitler, I am beginning to feel, is a very great man, like an inspired religious leader — and as such rather fanatical — but not scheming, not selfish, not greedy for power, but a mystic, a visionary who really wants the best for his country and, on the whole, has a rather broad view.”

Charles Lindbergh was so impressed with Hitler’s Germany that he seriously considered moving there with his family. “I did not feel real freedom until I came to Europe,” he remarked in 1939. “The strange thing is that of all the European countries, I found most personal freedom in Germany, with England next, and then France.” After a search for a suitable place to live, he found a property in a suburb of Berlin that he came close to buying. But as the threat of war grew in Europe, he abandoned those plans.

The outbreak of war in September 1939 distressed him greatly, and he resolved to do what he could to help keep the U.S. out of the conflict. During the next two years — that is, until the United States formally entered the conflict in December 1941 — he spoke out in a series of public statements and speeches.

In an address given in mid-September 1939 that was broadcast on nationwide radio and widely circulated in written form, Lindbergh said: “We must keep foreign propaganda from pushing our country blindly into another war … We should never enter a war unless it is absolutely essential to the future welfare of our nation.

“These wars in Europe are not wars in which our civilization is defending itself against some Asiatic intruder. There is no Genghis Khan nor Xerxes marching against our Western nations. This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one more of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations — a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war — from the failure of the victors of that war to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or of force.

“As a result, another war has begun, a war which is likely to be far more prostrating than the last, a war which will again kill off the best youth of Europe, a war which may even lead to the end of our Western civilization.

“Our safety does not lie in fighting European wars. It lies in our own internal strength, in the character of the American people and of American institutions. As long as we maintain an army, a navy and an air force worthy of the name, as long as America does not decay within, we need fear no invasion of this country.”

A few weeks later, he spoke again to the American people in another coast-to-coast broadcast. “Our bond with Europe,” he said, “is a bond of race and not of political ideology… It is the European race we must preserve; political progress will follow. Racial strength is vital; politics a luxury. If the white race is ever seriously threatened, it may then be time for us to take our part in its protection, to fight side by side with the English, French, and Germans, but not with one against the other for our mutual destruction.”

Lindbergh laid out similar views in an article, “Aviation, Geography and Race” that appeared in the November 1939 issue of Reader’s Digest, the most widely read American monthly periodical. He wrote: “We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization … We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood …”

For many Americans today, Lindbergh’s views on race and culture may seem offensive or outrageous. But for most of this nation’s history, they were not at all unusual. They were in accord with the outlook of such prominent Americans as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Such views were also shared by the vast majority of Americans during the 1930s — although it was already becoming unfashionable to express them openly.

In his address of August 4, 1940, Lindbergh spoke about how Americans had been badly misinformed about conditions abroad. “I found conditions in Europe to be very different from our concept of them here in the United States,” he said. “Anyone who takes the trouble to read through back issues of our newspapers cannot fail to realize what a false impression we had of the belligerent nations. We were told that Germany was ripe for revolution, that her rearmament was a bluff, that she lacked officers, that she flew her airplanes from one field to another so they would be counted again and again by foreign observers … Statements of this sort have issued forth in an endless stream from Europe, and anyone who questioned their accuracy was called a Nazi agent. These examples show how greatly we have been misled about the military conditions in Europe. If one goes still farther back, he will find that we have also been misled about political conditions.”

In a much-publicized appearance before a Congressional committee in early 1941, Lindbergh testified against further U.S. measures toward war. As he had on other occasions, he voiced the hope that the conflict between Britain and Germany might be resolved through a negotiated peace, and he expressed his view that the U.S. should not “police the world.”

Active during this period was the largest and most important peace group in U.S. history. With some 800,000 members, the America First Committee was a formidable and broad-based citizens’ organization. Lindbergh was its most popular, eloquent and influential spokesman. At a large rally in New York City in April 1941, he appealed for support.

“ … We have been led toward war by a minority of our people,” he said. “This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people … These people — the majority of hard-working American citizens — are with us. They are the true strength of our country … That is why the America First Committee has been formed — to give voice to the people who have no newspaper, or news reel, or radio station at their command; to the people who must do the paying, and the fighting, and the dying, if this country enters the war.

“… If you believe in an independent destiny for America, if you believe that this country should not enter the war in Europe, we ask you to join the America First Committee in its stand. We ask you to share our faith in the ability of this nation to defend itself, to develop its own civilization, and to contribute to the progress of mankind in a more constructive and intelligent way than has yet been found by the warring nations of Europe.”

Lindbergh’s most controversial — and courageous — public address was given at a large meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941. (It was on that same date 60 years later that the World Trade Center in New York was attacked and destroyed.) In this speech, Lindbergh for the first and only time spoke publicly about just who was pushing for war. He said:

“National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany in 1939, less than ten percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”

Lindbergh was careful to add these words: “I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.”

Lindbergh went on: “As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.”

With regard to Jewish efforts to get the U.S. into war, Lindbergh said: “Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.” He then said: “We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own best interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.”

He went on to explain the deceitful measures of those who were pressing for war. “They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of, course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

“Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms `fifth columnist,` ‘traitor,’ `Nazi,’ `anti-Semitic’ were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. … Propaganda was in full swing.”

This address unleashed a torrent of scathing criticism. Lindbergh was viciously attacked — above all, for his remarks about the Jewish role in the campaign for war — even though what he has said was measured and truthful.

Ten months before the outbreak of fighting in Europe, for example, the most influential U.S. illustrated weekly magazine was already psychologically preparing Americans for war with alarmist claims that Germany threatened the United States. A major article in the October 31, 1938, issue of Life magazine, headlined “America Gets Ready to Fight Germany, Italy, Japan,” told readers that Germany and Italy “covet … the rich resources of South America,” and warned that “fascist fleets and legions may swarm across the Atlantic.”

In fact, Hitler and all other high-level German officials were eager to avoid conflict with the U.S., Britain or France. But in September 1939 Britain and France — encouraged by the U.S. — declared war against Germany.

During this period, President Roosevelt and other high-ranking U.S. officials also sought to generate public support for the administration’s war measures with frightening allegations of fantastic German plans to conquer the world.

On the very day that Lindbergh gave his controversial address in Des Moines, President Roosevelt told the American people that Hitler and Germany were seeking “to abolish the freedom of the seas, and to acquire absolute control and domination of the sears for themselves” as part of a grand German strategy that aimed at “domination of the United States … [and of] the Western hemisphere by force.” With this justification, the President went on to announce a “shoot on sight” order to the U.S. Navy against German and Italian ships in the Atlantic — a provocative and completely illegal war measure.

And in an address to the American people on October 27, 1941, President Roosevelt announced that he had a “secret map” that proved Hitler’s intention to take over all of South America and reorganize it into German-dominated states. The President also revealed that he had in his possession “another document made in Germany by Hitler’s government. It is a detailed plan to abolish all existing religions — Catholic, Protestant, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish alike,” which Germany will impose “on a dominated world, if Hitler wins.”

Although millions of Americans believed these and similarly brazen falsehoods, seasoned foreign onlookers were not so credulous. One such observer was Poland’s ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki, who reported regularly to Warsaw on conditions in the United States. In a confidential dispatch of February 1938 — more than a year a half before the outbreak of war in Europe — he took note of the Jewish role in pushing for war.

“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful,” he wrote. “The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent … This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler who wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

“ … This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world’.”

In a confidential dispatch of January 9, 1939, the ambassador reported: “The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.”

The Polish envoy made similar points a few days later in his confidential report of January 12, 1939:

“The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world.

“… The American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.”

Twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, Lindbergh published his Wartime Journals. In an introduction to the book, which prompted much discussion and comment, he looked back on the conflict and its legacy.

“We won the war in a military sense,” he wrote, “but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China – which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”

As daring as Lindbergh’s famous trans-Atlantic flight had been, he showed greater courage and devotion to principle in his bold campaign against war. “We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction,” he warned on September 11, 1941. If Americans had heeded those words, the U.S. would not have suffered the horrors of the 9/11 attack sixty years later.

Source: IHR.

Ludwig F. Clauss: Racial Style, Racial Character (Part 2)

September 17, 2011

By Tom Sunic

Ludwig F. Clauss (1892-1974)
Ludwig F. Clauss (1892-1974)

Continuing from Part 1 with a translation of parts of the third edition (1943) of Rasse und Seele, by Ludwig F. Clauss.

“To each according to his kind, to each according to his style”

The movement of the body is the expression of the movement of the soul. This can best be seen in the interplay of facial muscles and in the gestures of the arms and hands with which the speaker accompanies his speech. Why is he moving his hands in such a way and why not differently?  Because the special way of his spiritual alertness will also determine the way his hands move. The style of spiritual movement determines the style of the bodily movement.

Here is a little example from day to day life that illuminates this matter. Who is more gifted to drive a motor vehicle, the Nordic man or the Mediterranean man? This question is also meaningless. Neither “the” Nordic man is endowed with this or that, nor is “the” Mediterranean man. There are many individuals of both races who are gifted to drive a car. If that’s the case, then the Nordics do that in a Nordic way and it is precisely by this that they are recognizable as Nordics.

The same goes for the Mediterranean who does it in the Mediterranean way. And it is precisely by this that he can be recognized. And this is how these two styles differ. The Mediterranean driver is the master of the moment: he is always there, always in perfect instantaneity. He drives with an abrupt change at lightning speed and at a sharp curve he yields and slams on the brakes with instantaneous effect — the more dangerous the driving, the more impressive is his game. At this stage the Nordic man is not comparable—not because he is a bad driver, but because the laws of his mental and physical movement compel him to a different driving style.

The Nordic man does not live in the world as it is; he lives always in the world as it will be. He is not the master of the instant, but rather the master of the distance. He is not cutting suddenly into the curve; he bends the curve. For him turning is “nice” if it can be predicted and then, if possible, played down. The Mediterranean driver loves surprise: only in it he can prove to be the master of the moment. The Nordic driver anticipates always ahead of the coming event, even a possible coming event. In this way he provides for himself some preplanned traffic regulations for all possible cases, which would likely irritate the Mediterranean driver, perhaps more so than it would make the driving easier for him. For the driver of the Mediterranean type there is no relief if the thrill of surprise is missing.

The third fallacy of L’Osservatore Romano is the allegation that the German people are equated with the Nordic race, whereas the Italian people are equated with the Mediterranean race. Although this is not explicitly mentioned it is tacitly suggested. The German people are composed of several races, where, of course, the Nordic race predominates. But there is also different blood among the German people, as for example, the Mediterranean blood. Likewise, the Italian people are also a mixture of several races, of which — at least in the southern part of the peninsula — the Mediterranean race predominates. But there is also different blood among the Italian people, such as Nordic blood. It is by no means true that these two peoples are separated by sharp racial boundaries; they have a good deal more in common in their blood.

This blood relationship stretches into the earliest Roman times and has been renewed many times ever since. And in both cultures, in the Germanic, as well as in the Roman, the play and counter-play of the Nordic and the Mediterranean operate; except that each culture shows different results. The Roman is older, whereas the Germanic is younger. Which one is worth more, the older or the younger? This question also seems to be wrongly put.

The attempt, to sow distrust between friendly nations, by suspecting German racial policies, can no longer be valid. Every step in the field of international politics and colonial politics confirms the findings of the psychology of race and proves it with practical usefulness when dealing with other types of people. Thegoal (of race psychology) is not to separate peoples, but to connect peoples insofar as it establishes between one type and the other a scientifically based mutual understanding. [Emphasis in text.]

The Gestalt: Psycho-Racial Anthropology

Clauss introduced new concepts, often using words and compound nouns that up until then had been nonexistent in the study of race. When translated today, these words may lend themselves to dangerous conceptual manipulations, which in turn, liberal masters of discourse will quickly label as “racist.”

This is generally the case with the German language, a stupendously rich language known for its numerous inflections. Very often Clauss uses the term ‘Gestalt’ when providing racial typologies, a word which in English can be translated as ‘shape’ or ‘form’. However, in the German language and depending on the subject matter, ‘Gestalt’, when used from the nationalist and politically conservative point of view, may refer to aesthetic and cultural perfection in the description of high forms of Western civilization. The German term ‘Gestalt’ was very popular in Germany in the first half of the 20th century, not just in the realm of race but also in other fields, such as literature and philosophy. Clauss’s contemporaries, the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler, or the novelist and essayist  Ernst Jünger, two scions of the pre-WWII “revolutionary-conservative intellectual revolution,” often used the term ‘Gestalt’ as a normative reference to aesthetic and political magnificence and as a radical opposite to the dreaded liberal–communist formless system permeated by the process of uglification and decadence.

Clauss’s focus on racial style and form, which he calls ‘Gestalt’, must not be confused with the school of psychology, known as “Gestalt psychology” that developed among some liberal German psychologists in the mid- 20’s—a school, that downplayed the racial factor.

For Clauss and for many racialist scholars of his time, every racial type and every racial subtype represents objective reality differently. Hence, there is no absolute truth but only a specific apprehension of the truth based on the individual’s own psycho-racial make-up.

Because everything that happens here — the way somebody looks at us, the way he behaves, or the way how he acts, that is to say, all living things altogether — have their racial traits.  A treasure trove of such fruitful examples is provided by history. One, of these motives in Germanic life, repeatedly mentioned by Tacitus, is “loyalty”, which is in contrast to the no less effective violation of Germanic loyalty: treason. ( Rasse und Seele, pp. 38–39)

Race is by no means only a physical expression relegated to a given spot on Earth, such as for instance the assumption that only the geographic areas of Scandinavia must house Nordic peoples. Clauss rejects the idea that racial anthropology must always match racial psychology. There are many individuals who can have Nordic physical traits (phenotype) but whose behavior is un- Nordic:

Some people understand this word as if the race (Nordic) can only be found in northern Germany. Both of it is not the meaning of the description “the Nordic race.” The Nordic race is also a creator and a carrier of the German spirit in southern parts of the German national territory, whereas in other parts of northern Germany – similar to the Scandinavian lands (except for Nordic blood), live also non-Nordic races. A definition, which could be useful in psychology, will acquire the denomination “Nordic” only when we manage to demonstrate the connection between the Nordic landscape and the lifestyle of that race. A psychologist should denominate races only according to the pattern which the process of his research brings under his eyes. To investigate into the psychology of races means first and foremost to discern the meaning of its bodily form (Gestalt). This meaning, however, can only be understood from its psychological form (Gestalt). (Rasse und Charakter, 1942, p. 43; emphasis in text).

This proves once again that the idea of national identity and nationality at large cannot be automatically equated with the extent to which one embodies a racial archetype. The following four photos illustrate three different German types and a Jewish type:

Schleswig woman

1. German woman from Schleswig. Predominately Nordic. Eye expression shows inborn sense of the tragic.

Westphalia woman

2. German woman from Westphalia. The “acquired” smile is typically “Germanic,” yet facial features and the shape of her nose show a sharp “Alpine” (“ostisch”) streak.

German Jewish woman

3. German born Jewish woman. Mixture of Sephardic and Ashkenazi facial traits. Her smile shows “acquired” ( mimicked ) restraint.

Tyrolian woman

4. A very tall German woman from the German speaking region of South Tyrol (northern Italy) (Mediterranean and Alpine streak). The lips alignment and the eyebrows configuration are common for the Dinaric race.

Clauss’s books have therefore a twofold purpose. He demolishes the liberal propagandistic lie that racial awareness means White man’s exclusion of non-Whites, carried through by an alleged blond German beast. Instead, his books teach us that it is precisely when admitting our racial and sub-racial differences, both in style and in character, that interracial hatred can be avoided. Moreover, his works are important insofar as they can be a good lesson for many troubled White nationalists who assume that their well-proportioned body must give them a certificate for bizarre, illicit, or criminal behavior. Who among us have not encountered self-congratulatory White conmen or White lowlifes whose behavior does more harm to the research on race than the palaver of all leftists and antiracists combined? Similar to his colleague Julius Evola, Clauss is aware that some White man may have a perfect race of the body, but whose race of the spirit may be mongrelized to monstrous proportion.

’Artrecht’ (“Being of his own kind”; of his in- group) is not a synonym for being “racially pure” in the original sense of the word.  Here we can see the difference between the “raciality” (‘Rassigkeit’) of man and the “raciality” of animal.  If somebody is racially pure, he is not automatically a man of his kind (‘artrecht’). To be Nordic, for example, does not have to mean to be a good man or a noble man. Not every Nordic man embodies Nordic values.  A man of the Nordic style can also be a crook or a criminal. A Nordic miscreant differs from a Mediterranean, Alpine, or a Middle Eastern miscreant as clearly as a righteous Nordic man differs in this sense from righteous people of these races. Both of them, the righteous man and his negative mirror-image, the miscreant, are bound by the same ethical laws respectively. With one exception: the one abides by it, the other breaks it. Pure heroes and pure crooks are rare; among all of us simmers a temptation to commit, at least once, an outrage against things that we consider right. Not that the race changes in us when we follow this temptation; only our racial system of value is disturbed. Race is race; in good and in bad. And the law remains the law even when it is infringed. (Rasse und Charakter, p. 78).

Clauss’s books are important because they delve into the hidden corners of human behavior as determined by race. His field of research may be labeled “psycho-racial anthropology,” a field which has been rejected for over a half a century by Freudian-Marxian scholars.  As long as the mystique of egalitarianism runs full steam in Western society — be it under the guise of Christian “love thy neighbor,” or under the label of the more secular liberal avatars like the “multicultural consensual society” — any serious effort to combat the danger of the multiracial experiment will be futile. Only when the current dominant ideas are successfully intellectually challenged, will the whole fraud of multicultural promiscuity fall apart overnight.

Tom Sunic (Web sites: [1], [2]) is an author ([1], [2]), translator, former US professor of political science, and former Croat diplomat. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position and a VoR radio host. Email him.

Lessons of 9/11: Looking Back, and Ahead

September 11, 2011

WTC twin towers on 9/11

By Mark Weber

On September 11, 2001, for the first time ever, terror attacks from the sky struck America with horrific, devastating suddenness.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks meant to harm the United States. But the response to those attacks by President George W. Bush and other American political leaders has proven to be even more harmful. The U.S. response has weakened this country’s security, undermined its economy, degraded its standing and credibility, and violated the principles it claims to uphold.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the President and other prominent Americans lied about a crucial aspect of the attacks: the motive. Along with much of the media, Bush and other political leaders promoted the “Big Lie” that the September 11 attacks were entirely unprovoked and unrelated to U.S. policy and actions.

On national television President Bush said that “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” The next day he said that “freedom and democracy are under attack,” and that the perpetrators had struck against “all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.” But if “democracy” and “freedom-loving people” were the targets, why didn’t the perpetrators attack Switzerland, Japan or Norway?

In fact, it’s clear that the men who carried out the 9/11 suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were motivated, at least in large measure, by rage over U.S. air strikes and economic warfare against Muslim and Arab countries, and by anger over decades-long U.S. support for Israel and its policies of aggression and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims.

The U.S. government’s official report on 9/11, issued in 2004, skirted the question of motive. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the two most senior officials of the commission that issued the report, later explained in a memoir: “This was sensitive ground. Commissioners who argued that al-Qaeda was motivated primarily by a religious ideology – and not by opposition to American policies – rejected mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the report. In their view, listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaeda’s opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy.”

The terror of 9/11 was predictable because it was not unprecedented. In 1993, for example, Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of “a real war against terrorism.” In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that “the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.”

In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush pledged a “crusade,” a “war against terrorism,” and a “sustained campaign” to “eradicate the evil of terrorism.” His successor, President Barack Obama, has continued the campaign. But such calls have sounded hollow given the U.S. government’s own record of support for terrorism. For example, American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Israeli prime ministers, such as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, with well-documented records as terrorists.

Following 9/11, Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American supporters, lost no time exploiting the national mood of fear, rage and revenge to press for new U.S. military action against Israel’s many enemies. U.S. government officials, with important backing in the media, claimed that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein regime had supported the perpetrators of 9/11. On the basis of this and other equally baseless allegations, the U.S. launched an illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq.

However justified the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 may have been as a response to 9/11, the subsequent U.S. bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq certainly was not. The key motive behind the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was not the official one.

Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently committed to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies. This was so widely understood by Washington insiders that U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the U.S. invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it.

Nearly 3,000 people perished in the September 11 attacks, but more Americans have been killed in the wars launched by the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. More than 4,000 U.S. military personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, and more than a million Iraqis (by some accounts) have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war.

For most Americans, modern war has largely been an abstraction — something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Pakistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq and other distant countries have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton’s administration, spoke in a memorable 1996 interview about the cost in human life of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the U.S. during the 1990s. During the interview she was asked: “We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima … Is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “ …We think the price is worth it.”

One positive consequence of the shock of 9/11 has been to encourage many more Americans to question official claims and re-think entrenched assumptions about their government’s arrogant “policeman” role in the world. Many more Americans have come to understand how political leaders of both parties have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist interests.

In the years since 9/11, there’s been no change in the basic character of U.S. foreign and military policy, in spite of a flurry of high hopes for change when Barack Obama became president. As a result, distrust and hatred of the United States around the world have persisted.

The calamity of September 11 was a consequence, above all, of the Jewish-Zionist grip on American political life and the U.S. media. Enduring security will therefore remain elusive as long as U.S. policy, especially in the Middle East, is set by a small but very influential minority with its own agenda and strong ethno-religious ties to a key protagonist in the region.

Real security for America will require radically different policies based on clear-eyed awareness of authentic American national interests and enlightened concern for the long-term good of the U.S. and the world.

Source: IHR.

More on the White Rioters in England

August 24, 2011

By Andrew Hamilton

UK Riots

There has recently been speculation about the involvement of whites in England’s racial riots, August 6–10, 2011. A partial explanation has emerged in the Establishment press.

The race riots began in London on August 6, quickly spreading to other sections of the city. On August 8 rioting and looting spread to Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham, Bristol, Medway and Leicester, and on August 9 to Manchester and Salford.

Richard Mannington Bowes

Richard Mannington Bowes after fatal mob attack

Many police officers were injured and at least five deaths were reported, including the vicious, fatal beating of Richard Mannington Bowes, a 68-year-old retired accountant described as quiet and shy. Ten years previously the government had fined him as a criminal for confronting “youths” who were urinating outside his home.

By August 11, total property damage was estimated at more than $320 million.

What Triggered the Riots

The race riots were triggered by the fatal shooting by police of a 29-year-old mulatto named Mark Duggan on August 4 in Tottenham, North London. The shooting occurred during a planned arrest that was part of Operation Trident, designed to combat gun crime connected with the illegal drug trade. Tottenham was the epicenter where the riots began and from which they spread to the rest of England.

Mark Duggan with cousin Kelvin Easton

Mark Duggan, right, with cousin Kelvin Easton, whose killing he sought to avenge

Nothing happened, however, until two days after the shooting, on August 6, when a “peaceful protest march” of 200 people ending at Tottenham police station was organized by Duggan’s “friends and family.” The crowd grew larger at dusk as people with weapons joined the group. Violence broke out, allegedly over a rumor that police had attacked a 16-year-old girl, and police vehicles were set afire. From there everything quickly spread.

Duggan was an alleged drug dealer and member of North London’s Star Gang. He was also the nephew-by-marriage of Irish gangster Desmond Noonan of Manchester, England, who was stabbed to death in 2005. The Noonans are a large clan regarded as one of the most notorious organized crime families in English history.

Desmond Noonan and the Noonan Crime Family

Mark Duggan’s uncle came from a family of 16 in which every one of the 14 children, boys and girls, had been christened with a name beginning with the letter D, after their father’s home city of Dublin. The Noonan gang, formerly run by brothers Desmond, Domenyk, Damian, and Derek (Desmond and Damian are both deceased), has dominated Manchester’s underworld for two decades.

The Noonan brothers built their criminal empire supplying private security for England’s night clubs.

In the 1980s and ’90s Desmond Noonan was aligned with the violent anti-white Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)/Red Action groups which attacked National Front and British National Party (BNP) members. The current Anti-Fascist Action, Ireland appears to be modelled on this British group.

In 1989 Desmond Noonan joined members of a Manchester anti-fascist squad in a brutal attack on a group of Ulster Loyalists (pro-Northern Irish). One of his cronies, Paddy Logan, bit the earlobe off one of the Loyalists.

Through complex, subterranean connections at that time, AFA/Red Action, in turn, had ties to Searchlight, a sort of analogue in Britain to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the US. Searchlight, in the words of Peter Rushton, a writer for Heritage and Destiny magazine, maintains “intimate connections with the Jewish establishment and with British police, security and intelligence agencies.”

Because of its Establishment nature, Searchlight felt compelled in the early ’90s to cosmetically sever its links with AFA after the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombed Harrods department store in London. One of the bombers, Patrick Hayes, was a leader of the anti-white Red Action group; less than two years earlier he had served as liaison with police for an AFA march through East London protesting John Tyndall’s BNP.

The South Manchester BNP collapsed in 1993 after its branch organizer was physically intimidated by an anti-white gang that included Manchester mobster Desmond Noonan, Mark Duggan’s uncle. Noonan personally threatened the BNP organizer, ordering him to tell AFA everything he knew about the party in the region.

At the time, Manchester’s Irish gangs controlled the ecstasy and amphetamine trades while the Negro gangs of Moss Side and Cheetham Hill dominated the heroin business. Desmond Noonan was part of a group that provided the Negro gangs with guns and other weapons.

The Noonan gang appears to exercise a Godfather-like influence over Manchester residents, which may embrace non-whites as well as whites. According to an older account:

People in Moston, a poor working-class district [in Manchester] whose residents complain of feeling abandoned by the authorities, including the police, have come to look to Dominic, Dessie and their gang for their own special kind of street justice. In the recent fly-on-the-wall documentary MacIntyre’s Underworld on Five [a British TV channel], Donal MacIntyre explained that when somebody was burgled, people would turn to Dominic Noonan to sort it out.

Noonan brothers Desmond and Dominic were glamorized in the British TV documentary made by Irish journalist MacIntyre in 2005.

Mark Duggan and His Uncle Desmond Were Close

In the words of the Sun (UK):

Dessie’s [Desmond's] second wife Julie, 50, is the sister of Duggan’s mum Pamela.

Duggan, 29, regularly visited his uncle and Julie—who he married in 1985—to babysit their children.

The pair divorced following Dessie’s 1993 acquittal for the murder of gangster Anthony “White Tony” Johnson [the white—presumably Irish—co-leader of a Manchester Negro gang] two years earlier. But Duggan continued to visit Desmond and [his brother] Domenyk [Noonan] for barbecues and family parties.

A source said: “They took Mark under their wing, they liked him, not just as a nephew, but as a mate. When he came to Manchester he’d see them, and if they went to London they’d have a night with him.”

Dominic Noonan and the Riots

While the English riots were of course primarily an expression of the racist dynamics of contemporary society, one cannot ignore the role of anti-white Irish mobsters in them. The original trigger for the riots was the Tottenham police protest organized by “friends and family” of Mark Duggan.

While specific information about the organizers of the initial protest march has not been revealed, the Noonans are certainly capable of gathering crowds.

When brother Damian Noonan was buried after his fatal motorbike accident in the Dominican Republic in 2003, thousands of mourners joined the procession. Due to the size of the crowd, parts of Manchester had to be closed off.

And after Desmond was knifed in 2005, hundreds of residents attended his funeral in South Manchester. Men from the family company, D. J. Noonan Security, wearing black jackets with the words “We serve to protect” written on the back were followed by an Irish pipe band and drummers. Behind them came a horse-drawn carriage topped with white flowers bearing Desmond’s coffin, and twelve black Daimlers filled with floral tributes.

Domenyk Noonan and associates during riots

Domenyk Noonan, left, and associates during riots

Another of the gangster brothers specifically mentioned by the Sun as being close to Mark Duggan is Dominic Noonan (a homosexual) who today goes by the name of Domenyk Lattlay Fottfoy. He was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder during the riots in Manchester city center on August 9, and subsequently charged with handling stolen goods and possession of marijuana. The camera caught him “chatting to a hoodie-wearing youth with a looted flat-screen TV.”

Indeed, the Telegraph‘s (UK) account strongly implies that the looting in Manchester was organized and orchestrated by Domenyk Noonan and his gang. Read the newspaper’s very revealing article for yourself.

According to the Sun,

Hundreds of “Noonan Boys”—youngsters allied to the crime boss—were allegedly among [Manchester] city centre rioters. The source added: “Domenyk made sure there was a big crowd of them rioting last night.”

Domenyk has more than 40 convictions for offences including armed robbery, police assault, attacks on prison officers, deception, firearms, jail escape and fraud, and has spent 22 years behind bars. He is suspected of being involved in several murders but has never been charged.

German translation here.

Source: Counter-Currents Publishing.

Who’s Behind the Arab Revolutions?

August 22, 2011

By Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D.

George Soros

The Privatization of Political Protest: Western Banks Against the New Islamic Banking Movement

While major media speak of the recent spate of riots throughout the Islamic world as “spontaneous,” the financing of these “opposition” movements by major banks over the last decade says otherwise. But why? The rise of Islamic banking as a challenge to the Rothschild empire serves as a clear financial reason why the present governments in the Islamic world must go.

The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s saw a fairly new phenomenon: the rise of privately funded opposition groups around the world. The financiers of these groups are, speaking generally, the Western banking community, seeking “democratic freedoms.” Usually, the remainder of the agenda is vague. It began in Serbia in the early 1990s, and continues in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011. However, a new player has emerged in the Islamic world that has got Western banks squirming, and that is the independent Islamic finance movement.

The groups involved in financing the opposition in Egypt and elsewhere include, most commonly, the George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the International Crisis Group (ICG) of the Rothschild family and their many offshoots. Major figures sitting on ICG’s board include George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator George Mitchell, Morton Abramowitz, Gen. Wesley Clark and Samuel Berger. They have donated millions of dollars to liberal groups operating against governments in strategic areas. The agenda is identical in each case: liberal democracy, secularism, feminism, and private banking. The mobilization of urban youth has long been an important aspect of Soros/ICG operations from Belarus to Bahrain.

More recently, the riots in Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Egypt are the result of many years of mobilization and funding of leftist organizations in urban areas since the late 1990s. In Tunisia, for example, the ICG has helped create and finance such organizations as Radio Kalima, the Andalus Institute for Tolerance and the Al-Jahedh Forum for Free Thought. The agenda of these groups is identical to that of the ICG and the Soros empire. Since 2000, the total amount of money funneled to “opposition” groups has topped $10 million.

Islamic Banking cartoon

The creation of political opposition is only part of the story. These organizations, according to news sources such as the British Daily Telegraph and the Global Islamic Finance News, have been involved in training teachers, judges, police officers and bureaucrats in North Africa and elsewhere. The ICG and others are attempting to create a society that is no longer Islamic, no longer religions or traditional, but liberal, urban and open to foreign investment and banking. Given the interests of the players involved, the central concept is to ensure the presence of Rothschild banking in areas where it is being challenged both by the state and independent Islamic banking.

The European Union is in a slow state of decomposition. Riots from Greece to Iceland have shown the bankruptcy of major European banks. On the other hand, Islamic banking operates with a total deposit base of over $1.5 trillion. In 2010, the British Daily Telegraph reported that the Islamic finance movement was challenging London for financial dominance through their investments in Bahrain, Egypt and Tunisia, using Tunis specifically as its new base. Back in 2008, the Washington Post wrote, “As big Western financial institutions have teetered one after the other in the crisis of recent weeks, another financial sector is gaining new confidence: Islamic banking.” The thrust of the article is that Islamic banks are more stable than Western banks, partially because of the refusal to charge interest or take excessive risks. This Post article sent warning signs to London, and the ICG stepped up its financing efforts in Islamic states in response.

The Telegraph admitted that the new Islamic banks were doing some damage to London’s banking profits. At a time when the banking industry struggles with debt, a major challenger such as the Tunis movement could do some grave harm.

The Financial Times reported in 2011 that Islamic banks are in the process of taking over Pakistan’s financial sector and are slowly replacing the IMF as that country’s economic aid partner.  This newspaper wrote, “In the past decade, Pakistan’s central bank has encouraged the growth of Islamic banks, as well as Islamic investment windows offered by conventional banks, in response to growing calls from Muslims seeking to deposit in and borrow from Islamic institutions.” Identical policies were in place in Cairo, Tunis and Manama, and was very bad news for the London financial community.

The removal of non-liberal states means the ability for Western banks to more easily penetrate places like Libya, that has a government controlled central bank. Strong states in this strategic part of the world make it far more difficult for Rothschild banks to control finance in these states, and as a result, the “opposition” is created as a financial investment.

Source: The Barnes Review, May/June 2011.

Ludwig F. Clauss: Racial Style, Racial Character (Part 1)

August 18, 2011

By Tom Sunic

Ludwig F. Clauss (1892-1974)
Ludwig F. Clauss (1892-1974)

The liberal-communist propaganda against Fascism and National-Socialism has produced results contrary to those originally anticipated. It has created the conceptual model of a value system that often defies the objective reality of the bygone Fascist and National-Socialist epochs. It has given birth to dangerous and subconscious infatuation with hyperreal would-be Fascism, best to be seen in modern mimicry of Hollywood Nazism, especially among troubled young White people. The decades-long antifascist propaganda has produced a peculiar type of infra-political narcissism among a number of estranged White nationalists who often conceive of Fascism as a life style or a vicarious Internet escapade. The deadly offshoots of such liberal propaganda are deranged Whites such as Anders Breivik who recently killed scores of innocent people in Norway.

After World War II, National-Socialism and Fascism were officially and normatively designated by the liberal system as the symbols of absolute evil. Consequently, if Fascism stands today for absolute evil, all other systems of beliefs, all other political regimes, or other political values—however aberrant they may be or will be in the future—must  be viewed as lesser evils. The history of Communist mass killings and the ongoing economic corruption and mendacity of the liberal system, however inhumane they are, or may be in the future, must willy-nilly be tolerated.

As was noted on several occasions in TOO articles (e.g., here), nowhere has the communist-liberal propaganda been as destructive as in higher education and in the media. Thousands of titles in the field of psychology, sociology and genetics, published in Europe and the USA in the 20s, 30s and 40s of the twentieth century, had to disappear from social science curriculum. Any dispassionate, unbiased and objective talk—for instance about race, especially if a researcher refers to scholarly titles from the Fascist and Nationalist-Socialist epoch—is met with suspicion, ostracism, smear campaigns and the occasional judiciary inquisition. The problem is further aggravated by the insufficient scope of analysis exhibited by many contemporary well-meaning racialist scholars, particularly in America, who oftentimes neglect other approaches in the study of race. Thus when the word ‘race’ is mentioned one is led to think about the structure of a person’s body, forgetting that the study of race can be addressed from a psychological and spiritual point of view as well.

There is also a considerable divide between American and European researchers regarding the race issue. American racialist scholars tend to use an empirically-based, quantitative approach; hence their penchant for Darwinism and the evolutionary theory and the inescapable measurement of IQ. In Europe, especially in the first part of the 20th century, the subject of race had a large following among scholars from different and often mutually conflicting disciplines, ranging from the field of biology to the field of religious mysticism. Among many others, mention should be made of the philosopher Julius Evola, whose study of race combines both the natural science and the social science approach.

Evola was hostile to Darwinism and in his books he argues that higher species (e.g., the White man), could not possibly evolve from other races (Blacks) or from lower animal species, such as African primates. If we concede that the White man evolved from lesser species, why panic today at the sight of interbreeding we are witnessing in modern multicultural society? Accordingly, sooner or later all of mankind (based on the liberal-communist dogma of progress) will end up being beautiful and the same and sport very high IQs. Evola argues, based on the legacy of Indo-European sagas and myths (all being replete with stories on demigods, magical, transcendental and invisible forces), that our predecessors, the antediluvian Hyperboreans represented our only true race. What we are witnessing today is involution resulting in racial chaos.

'Rasse und Seele' (1943) by Ludwig D. Clauss

Clauss was a highly influential  academic in National- Socialist Germany, a reputation which did not diminish after WWII. His later works on the psychology of Arabs are quite sympathetic to Islamic culture are widely quoted. Although a member of the National Socialist party, he helped his Jewish aide Margaret Landé, thus earning himself in Israel, after his death, the title of “righteous among the nations.”  What follows is my translation of his chapter and some excerpts from his books Rasse und Seele (Race and Soul) and Rasse und Character (Race and Character). The chapter was published in the third edition of Clauss’ Rasse und Seele, in 1943, a highly influential work in Germany back then, which, when perused today, does not sound “Nazi” (?) at all. Clauss’ books tells us that the enigma of race and racial psychology needs to be looked at over and over again — in a dispassionate, across-the-board, and interdisciplinary fashion.

“The question of value”

“When something new enters history it does not need to wait long in order to encounter fierce resistance. Whatever the German research on racial psychology encountered in Germany, a similar fate befell the entire German research on racial psychology from the rest of the world. Outrageous allegations were thrown all around, which in most cases were so clumsy and stupid, that with the passage of time they died of their own accord. Gradually, however, the fight against us became more refined. In most cases at the center of the argument, which had us as targets, surfaced the question of value: we were accused of viewing the Nordic race as the only valuable race while considering other races inferior. Wherever this “evidence” found credibility, it worked against us, all the more as the word ‘Nordic’, which among ignorant people is easily misinterpreted, causes all sorts of nonsense.

Unfortunately, the Vatican, in this campaign against the findings of racial psychology, leveled attacks against us in L’Osservatore Romano, April 30, 1938 — an attack using its usual methods. Given that my books are also targets of the attacks, it seems to be my duty to add a few words and put things in the right perspective, insofar as they are of concern to me. It won’t hurt if the explanations in this book are anticipated in advance. There are three fallacies by means of which each attack attempts to drive a wedge between us and our neighbors.

Firstly, the impression has been created that German science of race accords to each race a certain grade — as does the teacher to his pupils, i.e., placing, so to speak, races into hierarchical slots, whereby the first place must be awarded to the Nordic race. It follows from this that the Mediterranean race must reconcile itself with the second position, or worse, settle for an even lower one.

This is patently false. Undoubtedly, in Germany and elsewhere, books and booklets have been published that support such views. The psychology or race, however, which, in the last analysis, is the only qualified field to make decisions about  racial-psychological values, has taught from the very beginning and with a distinct precision:

Each race in itself represents the highest value. Each race carries in itself its own system of values and its own standard of values and must not be measured by the standards of another race.

It is absurd and unscientific to analyze the Mediterranean race through the eyes of the Nordic race and to evaluate it according to the Nordic system of values. The reverse process is also scientific. In practical life such things happen over and over again and it seems to be unavoidable. In science, however, it is contrary to simple logic. To make decisions about the value of a human race in an “objective” manner could only be done by a human being who stands above all races. But there is no such human being because to be human means to be racially conditioned.

Maybe God knows the hierarchy of races, but we do not.

The goal of science is to find laws that determine the mental and physical shape of each race. Only after the laws of each race are discovered can its inner value system be agreed upon. These value systems can be compared with each other: for instance the inner value system of the Nordic race with the inner value system of the Mediterranean race. Such comparisons are instructive because each thing in the world shows, in a clear fashion, what it is — if one sets it apart from other things that are different. But such value systems cannot be evaluated from a superior standpoint because there is no such standpoint.

The Nordic man should be Nordic; the Mediterranean man Mediterranean.
Only then can every man be real, only then can every man be good — each in his own way. This is the conviction I hold of German racial psychology, and it is the position which has also been adopted by the racial policies of the German government. The Office of Racial Policy of the NSDAP(Das Rassenpolitische Amt der NSDAP)has printed pictures and plaques and has distributed them in German schools, where we read in large letters the following words:  Each race in itself represents the highest value.

The second fallacy that the L’Osservatore Romano would like to promote is the following: according to German science each race differs from others insofar as each one has characteristics that the others don’t. Thus, the Nordic race is characterized by the ability to compare, and by energy, responsibility, diligence, and a sense of heroism. Other races do not have such characteristics. It cannot be denied that in some older anthropological works, but also in the German ones, such un-psychological statements can be found. Nevertheless, it is advisable to listen to a shoemaker when one talks about footgear, to a sailor about seafaring, to a psychologist about the laws of psychology — and not to an anatomist.

Since 1921 German racial psychology has been teaching with clear cut precision: the racial-psychological factor does not lie in this or that characteristic. Characteristics are a matter of each individual human being; somebody has such-and-such characteristics, somebody else has a different set of characteristics. The sense of heroism, for instance, can undoubtedly be encountered among many Nordic men; yet it can also be encountered among people of different races. The same is true concerning energy (will power), the ability for discernment, etc. The racial-psychological factor does not lie in such-and-such a characteristic, but rather in the manner in which these characteristics express themselves with each individual. The Heroism of the Nordic man and that of the Mediterranean man can be equally “great,” yet each looks different, i.e. expresses itself in a different way and with a different gesture.

The childlike attempt to put together individual characteristics, which are to be found among representatives of a particular race, as  for instance among the Nordic race, and then to assume that the racial factor lies in the possession of such-and-such a characteristic, is no wiser than an attempt at depicting someone’s physical appearance—for instance, Nordic racial appearance. Nordics have noses, mouths, arms, and hands.  But other races also have noses, mouths, arms, and hands. Therefore the racial factor does not lie in the possession of these body parts.  Race determines the shape of the nose, the shape of the mouth, and the way it is held and moved. Nobody who has eyes can dispute the fact that a man of the Mediterranean race moves differently than a Nordic man, that he walks differently, dances differently, accompanies his speech with different gestures. Who can now ask the question as to which sort of a movement, or what sort of a gesture is of more value: the Mediterranean or the Nordic? This question is pointless.”

Continue at Part 2.

Tom Sunic (Web sites: [1], [2]) is an author ([1], [2]), translator, former US professor of political science, and former Croat diplomat. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position and a VoR radio host. Email him.

America’s Massive Debt and the “Isolationist Threat”

August 17, 2011

America's global bases

By Stephen Sniegoski

With the United States mired in seeming never ending warfare in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with America’s real national security  imperiled by a gigantic  and ever growing debt,  a number of politicians, even in the hawkish Republican Party,  are following their constituents and advocating the diminution of America’s imperial presence.   People who were relatively unmoved by  geostrategic and moral reasons are  willing to oppose America’s costly empire at a time when the key concern is how to deal with America’s large and ever expanding debt.  A Pew poll conducted at the end of  May showed that 60 per cent of Americans attribute the increase in national debt to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a number that is significantly higher than those who lay the blame on  domestic spending (24 per cent) or  tax cuts (19 per cent). And 65 per cent advocate reducing U.S. military commitments.

Although a majority of Americans are now advocating a reduced American presence abroad, much of the establishment has been branding this position with the pejorative term “isolationism.”  It is not actually clear what the term “isolationism” actually means except that it connotes something negative.  Obviously, isolationism is not restricted to the complete or nearly complete elimination of all ties with the outside world–political, economic, and cultural.  Only a few countries have ever pursued such an extreme  policy:  for example, China (especially during the Ming  and Manchu dynasties–15th -19th centuries),  the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan (1641-1853), the Hermit Kingdom of Korea in the 19th century.  Those who brandish the term “isolationism,” while not formally defining it, usually apply it to the U.S. stance during the interwar period, in which the country refused to join the League of Nations, and especially to the staunch opponents of  America’s involvement in World War II in the period immediately  prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wayne S. Cole, who until his retirement was the pre-eminent historian of the American “isolationism” of the immediate pre-World War II era, provides the following description of the group commonly designated by that term: “Isolationists did not want the United States to cut itself off from the rest of the world or even from Europe . . . . Central themes in isolationist attitudes were ‘unilateralism’ and ‘noninterventionism.’ As ‘unilateralists’ they opposed ‘entangling alliances.’ They did not believe the United States could prevent wars through cooperation with European states.  They feared that international commitments would involve the United States unnecessarily in the wars that inevitably swept other parts of the world.  They determined to maintain maximum sovereignty and freedom of action for the United States.  Most of them opposed membership in the League of Nations and World Court.” (Cole, An Interpretative History of American Foreign Relations, Homewood, IL., Dorsey, 1968,  pp. 393)

Cole continues: “As ‘non-interventionists’ they believed the United States could and should have stayed out of World War I. . . . From 1939 to 1941 noninterventionists believed it was more important for the United States to stay out of the European war than it was to assure a British victory over the Axis.” (Cole, Interpretative History, pp. 393-94)

As Cole’s description should make clear, the critics of America’s wars today differ in significant ways from the pre-World War II isolationists.  Primarily, the current critics are not necessarily unilateralist opponents of international political cooperation, and often base some of their criticism of America’s wars on an internationalist standard and how such activities make enemies for the U. S. throughout the world.   It was the Bush administration, in contrast, that took a strictly unilateralist stance in invading Iraq without UN sanction.  And it was the Bush administration that showed indifference to the World Court and international law in its war policy, claiming that its citizens could not be prosecuted by the World Court for any war crimes.

In the mainstream media, the World War II isolationist position is portrayed as self-evidently wrong—selfish, short-sighted, and even, in some cases, treasonous.  As Patrick J. Buchanan points out in A Republic Not an Empire (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1999),  however, this view is not so self-evident, since the results of World War II simply replaced the danger of Nazi Germany with that of the Soviet Union, which in a number of respects  posed an even greater threat to the U.S.  And in terms of morality did the US intervention save lives? This is hardly obvious since millions of innocent civilians were killed in the war and its aftermath and millions more would be forced to live under totalitarian tyranny. [This argument is also made by Bruce M. Russett, No Clear And Present Danger: A Skeptical View Of The United States Entry Into World War II, New York, Harper & Row, 1972 ]

But even if the American isolationists had been wrong about World War II, this would hardly mean that all war interventionism is good.  Was it obviously beneficial for the United States to engage in a ground war in Indochina, invade Iraq and depose the democratic government in Iran in 1953.  Might not a policy of “isolationism” have been preferable in these cases?

Certainly during the latter part of the Cold War, mainstream liberals seriously questioned American interventionist policy.  The slogan of the Democratic candidate for president in 1972, George McGovern, was “Come Home, America.”  Even the architect of the policy of American “containment” of Soviet Communism, George F. Kennan, was highly critical of America’s global implementation of this strategy in areas that went far beyond what he considered America’s vital interests in Europe.  To add a personal note, during my undergraduate and graduate education in the 1960s and 1970s, I don’t recall one professor of history actually praising America’s global interventionism; they differed only in their degrees of criticism of U.S. policy and the motives behind it.

Yale historian Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” popularized the idea of “imperial overstretch” (also known as “imperial overreach”) among the educated public, which holds that an empire can extend itself to the point where it becomes so costly that it eventually overburdens the  economic base of the country, causing national decline. Such imperialist overcommitment, according to Kennedy, had brought about the decline of Spain in the early 18th century and Britain in the early twentieth century and now threatened the United States.  Since Kennedy expressed this view before the United States had begun its wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, one would think that the problem has become considerably worse.  Furthermore, it would seem that  America’s current economic crisis serves to validate this thesis.

Now to underscore the point that I have been attempting to make:   Before the fall of the Soviet Union, even much of mainstream opinion had turned decidedly against America’s global interventionism.  However, after the United States has engaged in destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers,  killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, turned  entire regions against the United States and contributed to the near, if not actual, bankruptcy of the US government, mainstream commentators are now ironically warning about the dangers of “isolationism.”   Illustrating this view, David Greenberg wrote in the New York Times:  “A healthy democracy needs critics, particularly when it engages in risky overseas adventures. But the doctrinaire call to drastically scale back our global leadership role has usually led us into error, making the world a more chaotic and dangerous place. Following the path of isolationism today won’t serve America well. Nor will it help the Republicans.”  Considering the expansiveness of America’s global military presence, warning about the dangers of “isolationism” is tantamount to warning a 400 pound man about the dangers of anorexia when he announces his intention to go on a diet!

But let us now look at the issue of “isolationism” through the lens of universalism.  How does a policy of “isolationism” apply to the external policies of other countries.  Would not it have been better if Germany and Japan had practiced a policy of “isolationism” in the 1930s and refrained from conquering their neighbors?  Does not the United States demand that Iran be “isolationist” and not get involved in affairs outside its borders?  As the late illimitable Joe Sobran wrote in the 1990s, “Americans who think America should behave like other countries are ‘isolationists,’ whereas other countries that behave like America are ‘rogue nations.’”

To better understand the situation, it would be more appropriate to refer to the critics of American global interventionism as anti-imperialists or anti-hegemonists rather than isolationists. For what America has created is hegemony or an empire. That is certainly how the rest of the world sees America’s global military presence.   And it is exactly what Americans would call comparable activities by other countries.

For example, the United States condemns Iran for intervening in the affairs of  Iraq, including its alleged support for Shi’ite militia groups there.  Iran, of course, borders Iraq and was invaded by it in 1980 in a war that lasted until 1988 in which it suffered heavy losses.  Iran obviously has an important security stake in the internal affairs of Iraq.  In contrast, according to the American view, the United States, although located roughly 8000 miles from Iraq, has a right to invade that country and replace its government with one it considers more palatable..  Similarly, Iran has provided support to  Hezbollah in Lebanon and to Hamas in Palestine to enable them to resist Israel. The U.S. condemns this as aiding “terrorism.”  When the United States has provided aid to innumerable rebel groups throughout the world, it’s presented as aiding “freedom fighters.”   It’s apparent the United States expects Iran to remain isolated within its borders, while the United States sees it to be its right to act as the global hegemon. The United States certainly does not abide by universalist standards.

The elite, including the media elite, are wedded to the existing situation either out of personal interest or by their obeisance to the regnant ideas.  Neocons and other members of the Israel lobby need an interventionist policy to enhance the security of their beneficiary.  Much of the traditional foreign policy establishment that was cool toward initiating  war in the Middle East nonetheless does not want to draw back from international intervention in general; in fact, its lack of ardor for the war in the Middle East rested on the  belief that such military involvement in that region was detrimental to America’s overall global military presence.    And certainly the military-industrial complex has a definite financial stake in maintaining America’s existing imperial order. Most of the media elite currently repeat the conventional wisdom. .

If these were normal times, it would be highly unlikely that the popular will would overcome this establishment power.  But these are not normal times.  The government cannot simply afford to maintain its global thrust by going farther and farther into debt. The American people along with much of the business community are unwilling to preserve military spending while drastically paring down domestic programs and increasing taxation.  Both the political right and left are looking at the military spending as an area to cut.

In short, the establishment’s desire to preserve America’s globalist imperialism has been mugged by economic reality. This policy cannot be maintained for long  since it must rest on a  strong economic base.  Economic decline, however, does not preclude the U.S. from launching shorter term, shock and awe attacks in the Middle East such as bombing Iran, which would fall short of the full scale occupation of Iraq but could exceed that invasion in terms of intensity.

Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D. earned his doctorate in American history, with a focus on American foreign policy, at the University of Maryland. He has had articles published in The World & I, Modern Age, Current Concerns, Zeit-Fragen, Telos, The Occidental Quarterly, Arab News, The Last Ditch, and elsewhere on subjects such as communism, political philosophy, World War II, and the American war on Iraq. He is the author of The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel (2008).

Homeless Jack on How He Came to His Core Beliefs

August 16, 2011

By H. Millard

“I’ve been around the movement for quite a while,” said Homeless Jack.

“One of the things I see from time to time is that someone who supposedly was generally on our side of things suddenly switches sides and starts making a living as a reformed ‘hater.’

“Usually, these sad types are neurotic and they came to our side for the wrong reasons. They thought we were all about hate, and since they were so full of irrational hate because of their neuroses they felt warm and comfortable among some on our side who tend in that direction.

“They hated their parents. They hated school. They hated everyone. And, instead of seeing other races as just other variations of the human type, they hated them. This set up a straw man in their minds that was easily knocked over once they realized that their comic book views of other types of humans weren’t always true.

“Now, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but maybe some others have come to our way of thinking as I have.

“You see, I’ve come to my beliefs not because of hate or false ideas, but because I have set out to understand the human condition and the ways of existence. My attitude toward other races is indifference.

“All my life, I’ve kept an open mind and I’ve tried to learn from all sources and from nature about why we’re here and what our purpose is and the other big questions of existence.

“I won’t bore you will everything right now, man, but let me tell you how I came to understand race.

“I believe that all life started on Earth from a single molecule of DNA–a simple core code composed of four basic chemicals–that in some unknown way made the leap from so-called non-living matter to living matter.

“That single molecule multiplied and expanded.

“As it did so, it constantly changed and adapted as it expanded into different environments. When the temperature changed for a long time, it changed to be more comfortable in the new temperature. When conditions became dry it changed. When they became wet, it changed. Where there was water, it developed gills. Where there was sky, it developed wings. You get the idea, man. It changed to be comfortable and to prosper under the new conditions.

“That core DNA code “wanted” to survive. It wanted to live. It wanted to be comfortable. Nature found a way to give it eternal life–by having it constantly make all sorts of life forms while remaining the same at its core.

“Those life forms that did the best job of carrying the core DNA code dominated their niches simply because they competed better and won the survival contest over other life forms.

“But, no life form can rest on its laurels. Nature–the eternal trial and error engineer and eternal tinkerer keeps changing things as it always does in our spinning existence.

“Nature is never satisfied with what it creates and it constantly changes the DNA code, which changes the genes, so that some form of life will always improve and expand and feel comfortable in every possible niche of existence. These processes of change we call evolution. And, they include mutations, adaptations, survival of the fittest, eternal struggle to dominate, and much more.

“Eventually, the natural processes of evolution led to human beings. But, the processes of evolution are never finished. Human beings began to branch off into different types as they adapted to different conditions. This led to the present sub-species of human beings which we call races.

“The White race is one of those sub-species. We evolved out of the dark masses and we adapted to the less sunny parts of the Earth by having white skin that allows us to produce more Vitamin D than other peoples. But, the thing about genes is that they often control more than one thing at a time. So, when our genes mutated to produce white skin, they also produced other things including the way we think and other unseen things.

“Now, the way it works is that all sub-species in nature will eventually become separate species if there is no gene transfer among the various sub-species.

“If there is gene transfer (miscegenation), a sub-species will blend back into the masses from which it evolved and will become extinct as a separate type.

“Whites, because we are a fairly recent splitting off, have many recessive genetic traits. Recessive just means that it takes two copies of the gene to produce a child with those traits. This means that it takes a White mother and a White father to produce a truly White child. A White parent and any other type of human will not produce one of us.

“Thus, we must live in lands only with our own people to prevent gene transfer. Allowing in vast numbers of others to our lands (no matter the content of their character) is a danger to our survival as a separate people.

“You see, man, other forms of humans are a danger to us even when they mean us no harm. This is because so many of our genes are recessive that we blend back in with them when we have children with them. We get reabsorbed into the darker masses, man.

“Now, you may think that’s not a problem because a human is produced when we mate with those unlike us, but if you believe that it is important for us to remain a white people with all our core characteristics, then you can see why we must remain a separate people and why we must bear children only with our own people. And, why we must bear many children.

“No hate, man, just a desire to evolve on the trajectory that some of us believe is right for us and our desire to survive as the distinct people that we are. We have that right to survive as we want man. That’s our natural right as human beings. Some want to kill us off as a distinct people, but they have no right to do that.

“I believe that we are at the point in our evolution that we must take a hand in how we not move forward. If we don’t, nature won’t care, we’ll just become extinct as we blend back in to the masses of humanity. It is us who must take personal and group responsibility to evolve in the way that is best for us.

“And, what is that way that is best for us, man? It is to become more “white” not less so. That is the way to the light. That is the way up.”

“Each of us has a slightly different version of the DNA code. And the principle of competition exists right within our own bodies as parts of the code in the form of genes try to be the dominant ones.

“This principle of competition exists throughout all of existence, man. So, the version of the DNA code that is me, wants to be dominant and this has me have as many children as possible in my lifetime.

“Those who are childless or who have too few children or who practice miscegenation are the losers, man. They are extinction walking. My DNA code carried by my descendants will dance on their graves and maybe in the future, all white people will be descended from me, man. Or, maybe from you if you have many, many children in your image.”

H. Millard is a contributor to New Nation News, and the author of the books Ourselves Alone & Homeless Jack’s Religion, Roaming the Wastelands, and The Outsider.

Tolkien versus the Frankfurt School : The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly of the Left

August 15, 2011

Bilbo Comes to the Huts of the Raft-Elves

By Robert Stark

I was listening to Tom Sunic’s recent interview with Counter-Currents Publishing editor Greg Johnson on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network, which also hosts my show, The Stark Truth. The topic of the interview was the New Right movement in Europe, which has recently made inroads within the American alternative Right. The New Right differentiates itself from the American conservative movement, which is thought to be based on classical liberalism rather than European traditionalism.

During the interview, Johnson pointed out that,

A lot of things that are conventionally left-wing by contemporary standards are not so different from things that were defended by traditionalists in Europe. So we tend to have a critical attitude about capitalism. We tend to be opposed to the despoiling of the environment or the destruction of history, [for] walkable communities, [against] processed crappy food and things like that. We tend to be, in many ways in terms of lifestyle and aesthetic taste and things like that, aligned with people that are contemporary leftists, but I would even say that the contemporary Left has roots, if you go back far enough, where things blend together with things that are more right-wing if you will, or let’s just say European traditional forms of society.

So one of the things that I talk about is what I like to call “West Coast White nationalism” because West Coast White nationalism, a lot of the people that I know on the West Coast who think in terms of a racially defined new order of society, you take one look at them and you think that they’re hippies or you think that they’re liberals. Their lifestyles and their attitudes embrace a lot of things like Eastern spirituality, and drinking fruit juice, and wearing sandals, and granola, and vegetarianism, and organic food and organic farming, all these sort of things that you think are kind of hippie things.

If you look at the roots of a lot of the West Coast hippie culture and also the hippie culture in Europe for that matter, a lot of it goes back to Tolkien. What doesn’t come from the New Left, let’s say the Frankfurt school and things like that, a lot of it comes from Tolkien which is pretty much directly connected with European Traditionalism.

Despite the fact that he lived before the modern environmental movement, Tolkien had a passionate love for nature, which he expressed in his work. He was personally disgusted by the greed and destruction of nature which occurred during the industrialization of Great Britain and often used the term “steward” in his work. There is a book by Matthew T. Dickerson called Ents, Elves and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien, which examines the message of stewardship of nature in his work. The author examines how the community the Hobbits is sustainable and self-sufficient, as well as how the Ents preserve the forest of Fangorn.

Rivendell

In an essay from 1968 entitled “The Hobbit and the Hippie” on the influence that Tolkien’s work had on the hippie movement, co-authors William Ratliff and Charles Flinn point out that “the great respect for the past found in the trilogy has already been noted, and it is this respect which in part supports the rejection of the idea of continual progress. For the hippies, however, continual progress is denied because it conflicts with the exaltation of undifferentiated experience and with the state more usually associated with madness.”

While in regards to issues such as preserving the environment there is truth to this, it’s obvious that the counterculture movement of the 1960s brought about great societal change, mainly due to the influence of cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

Critics of cultural Marxism have made the argument that it is an ideological tool to subvert traditional institutions and concepts such as Western Civilization, nationalism, Christianity, race, gender, and the family. In his book Death of the West, Pat Buchanan asserts that cultural Marxists have taken control of the American media and use it as a tool to infect the minds of Americans. Other traditional conservatives have made similar arguments. William S. Lind stated that “Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.” In his book The Strange Death of Marxism, Paul Gottfried argues the point that Marxism outlived communism in form of cultural Marxism rather than economics.

While they have vast differences in ideology and values, both Tolkien in his works and the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School laid the ideological ground work for the 1960s counterculture movement, which most political thinkers characterize as left-wing. Causes that were associated with the hippie movement include the anti-war, pro-environment, anti-racist, feminist, and anti-consumerist ones. More recently, the Left much like the modern Right has sold out many of the their principles to big capital and consumerism; however, the influence of the Frankfurt School remains and has influenced society though the media and academia.

Today, Hollywood, which is often described by social conservatives as a bastion of liberal elitism, is the perfect example of an unholy marriage between cultural Marxism and consumerism. While Hollywood continues to attack nationalism, Whites, men, Christianity, and the family, it also promotes mass consumption and conformity, despite conning the consumers into thinking they are being edgy. Working for the advertisement industry, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, who was an avowed cultural Marxist, implemented these ideas, using his uncle’s knowledge of psychological manipulation, on unsuspecting consumers. Obviously the main objective of those who run Hollywood is to make money, but even cultural Marxists figure that crony capitalist economics and consumer culture are the best way to make a profit as well as spread their ideas and warp the minds of billions of people throughout the world.

Ironically in response there is now a growing counterculture movement in the alternative Right that has revived a lot of the principles that are associated with Tolkien’s work as well as with the original counterculture Left. Greg Johnson, who stresses building a new political coalition that reaches beyond the Left-Right paradigm, wrote in essay titled “West Coast White Nationalism,” where he describes this counter culture movement which is primarily found on the West Coast.

He says that he has “noticed that today’s West Coast White Nationalists tend to be socially and even politically more left-wing than White Nationalists from other parts of the United States. I’ll never forget the evening in 2003 when, at a David Irving lecture in San Francisco, I met a daughter of the ’60s counterculture who told me that her two favorite books are The Lord of the Rings and Mein Kampf.”

He continues to list further characteristics:

  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to have higher SWPLQs (“Stuff White People Like” Quotients) than White Nationalists in other parts of the US. (I liked 122/150 SWPL in the first Stuff White People Like book, but only 41/92 SWPL in Whiter Shades of Pale.)
  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to be more strongly concerned with environmental preservation, healthy and sustainable lifestyles, and combating animal cruelty than White Nationalists in other parts of the US. If Savitri Devi were alive today, she would be smuggling stray cats into an organic gardening commune in Berkeley.
  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to be more critical of the workings of unrestrained global capitalism. We are pro-labor, protectionist, pro-zoning, and pro-small business.
  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to be more non-Christian and to be more honest about it than other White Nationalists. I know atheists, agnostics, neo-pagans, New Agers, and even some who have made extensive study and practice of Eastern philosophies and religions. Religious pluralism and tolerance would definitely be features of a West Coast White Republic.
  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to be more tolerant of homosexuals, bisexuals, “androphiles,” and “none of the aboves” who put their racial identity first.
  • West Coast White Nationalists tend to be more tolerant of drugs like marijuana and psychedelics.
  • West Coast White Nationalists are far less hung up on sub-racial distinctions and Old World feuds than White Nationalists in the East and South. We tend to think of ourselves as whites first and foremost.

While Johnson is a White nationalist, which of course is not for everyone, within the greater conservative movement, Rod Dreher, who is a journalist for National Review, has expressed similar ideas in his book titled “Crunchy Cons,” which also discusses this growing counterculture whose belief that “‘small is beautiful’ often puts them at odds with the mainstream corporate influenced conservative movement.” Dreher states “that being a truly committed conservative today” should mean “being as skeptical of big business as you are of big government.”

Bottom