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.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 :
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.
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 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, 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.
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, 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.
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.
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.”
Identitarian Idea announces their third identitarian seminar.
The third edition of Identitarian Idea will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on Saturday the 27th of August. A number of well-known authors and academics from the entire Western world will discuss themes such as ”Renewing Our Identity” and ”Towards the Paradigm Shift”. Fresh aspects and original perspectives are guaranteed as Dr Alexander Jacob, Dr Tomislav Sunic, Professor Andrew Fraser and Lars Holger Holm get the opportunity to present their points of view. More information about the participating lecturers can be found here.
In addition to lectures, art and music will again be offered as prominent features of the event. Popular Winglord takes the stage, and Alexander Jacob will treat us to selected piano pieces. The Russian artist Borislav Prangov will exhibit his art, and anyone who has missed the chance to view the paintings of Marcus Andersson can do so this time at another amazing exhibit.
Arktos will, of course, sell their books at the seminar. Anyone interested in partaking in what may be the most relevant literature of today should take the chance to stock up on the latest titles.
[Tom Sunic was recently interviewed in the Summer 2011 edition of the French cultural quarterly Réfléchir & Agir].
Entretien avec Tomislav Sunic
Homo americanus rejeton de l’ère post-moderne
R&A: Le grand dissident russe Alexandre Zinoviev, qui avait fui le communisme pour rejoindre le camp de la liberté dont les Etats-Unis étaient l’emblème, avait inventé le terme d’homo sovieticus. Vous parlez, vous, d’homo americanus. A priori, en quoi ces deux types d’hommes se ressemblent-ils ?
TS: C’est l’état d’esprit tout d’abord. Il y a de braves homini sovietici en France du coté de Paris qui sont connus sous le nom de Gauche caviar. C’est le Même et son Double qui changent de lieux en fonction des idées à la mode. Aujourd’hui c’est l’utopie libérale qui mène la dance. D’où le fait que les anciens soixante-huitards français, les ex-communistes yougos, ou bien les scribes postsoviétiques n’ont eu aucun problème à se recycler subitement en de bons apôtres de l’américanisme. Les idées de la parousie communiste sont beaucoup plus réalisables en mimant l’esprit de l’homo americanus. Les ressemblances ? Eh bien, c’est la croyance dans le progrès, l’esprit égalitaire, le faux sentimentalisme, soit sous sa forme biblique, soit sous sa forme eschatologique visant le meilleur des mondes. Bref, tous les deux sont dépourvus du sens du tragique. C’est le signifiant qui nous trompe. Le fond du signifié, pourtant est toujours – le Même.
R&A: Quels sont les piliers idéologiques de ces deux formes de régime ?
TS: Toujours les mêmes quant à l’idéologie du Même : l’égalitarisme, le mondialisme et l’économisme. Non, il ne s’agit pas de la trahison des clercs par la Gauche occidentale et par les anciens apparatchiks soviétiques. Il y a bien longtemps qu’ils s’étaient rendus compte que les grands récits égalitaires et progressistes seraient beaucoup mieux véhiculés par l’Amérique et sa classe politico-médiatique. Le discours sur la fin d l’histoire, la grande « partouze » multiethnique et multiraciale, autrement portée aux nues par les bolcheviks, est cette fois-ci devenue la réalité opérationnelle en Amérique. Il faut préciser que j’utilise les termes américanisme ou homo americanus comme synonymes de libéralisme et d’homo economicus. Ceci dit, il y a des homini americani plus acharnés en Europe qu’en Amérique
R&A: Ne trouvez-vous pas qu’il est un peu hardi de comparer la terreur d’état communiste et le totalitarisme américain ?
TS: Absolument. Je préfère boire du coca que d’imaginer porter le casque soviétique sur ma tête. Entre Guantanamo et le Goulag, chacun son choix ! Mais quelles sont les conséquences pour la survie de l’esprit libre dans l’américanisme à longue durée ?- voilà la question. L’américanisme a réussi à neutraliser la sphère politique d’une manière plus efficace. Même la notion de dissidence, voire l’idée d’une rébellion quelconque, n’a aucun sens dans l’américanosphère. Le mal physique infligé dans les taules communistes et la vie spartiate de l’univers communiste – peu nombreux sont ceux qui tout en se targuant d’antiaméricanisme seraient prêts à renoncer aux délices de l’American way of life ! Moi compris. Mais regardons les choses à l’inverse. Peu nombreux furent ceux, dans l’univers communiste, qui voulurent échanger leur comportement d’homo sovieticus contre celui d’homo americanus sans se rassurer au préalable grâce à l’image-miroir d’une Amérique riche et opulente. Ce fut la comparaison avec son homologue américain dans l’imaginaire de l’homo sovieticus qui conduisit l’Union soviétique à la débâcle. Imaginez un monde effrayant où l’on perd la notion de comparaison. L’Amérique, étant aujourd’hui le seul hégémon au monde, et n’ayant pour l’instant aucun double, y a bel et bien réussi.
R&A: La démocratie existe-t-elle en Amérique ?
TS: Le terme « démocratie » est la plus grande blague lexicale du dernier millénaire ! Quand quelqu’un s’écrie « vive la démocratie » !, je me demande à qui cela sert-il, cui bono, qui a intérêt à se parer de ce vocable ? Vous pensez à Tocqueville ou bien à Evola qui nous on décrit la démocratie en Amérique ? Ou bien à Kim Il Sung qui fut un démocrate à part entière comme son homologue Bush et d‘autres figures politiques plus récentes ? Nos ancêtres gaulois, islandais, et même les Illyriens ou proto-Slaves de ma région furent démocrates — chacun à sa façon. Peut–être le furent-ils même plus que nous-mêmes ? En effet, de quelle démocratie parle- t- on aujourd’hui? Plébiscitaire ? Totalitaire ? Représentative ? Ça me dépasse. L’Amérique est un pays qu’on pourrait qualifier de ploutocratie oligarchique au sommet, mais avec une base qui repose encore sur un fonds populaire et démocratique.
R&A: A mes yeux, il y a toutefois une énorme différence entre le communisme et l’américanisme: la liberté d’expression qui me parait totale en Amérique ?
TS: Cela va sans dire. L’Amérique avec ses grands espaces me manque. La Constitution américaine, bien loin de la fameuse loi Fabius -Gayssot, vous donne le droit de porter les armes et d’arborer sur votre poitrine n’importe quel signe distinctif, que ce soit la croix gammée, l’étoile rouge ou un médaillon de la Vierge Marie. Mais attention. Il faut distinguer entre le corpus législatif et les contre-pouvoirs médiatique et académique qui utilisent parfois des méthodes beaucoup plus répressives qu’en Europe pour faire taire les critiques. C’est la notion de ridicule dont les faiseurs d’opinion se servent pour faire taire les trouble-fête. On a beau être démonisé comme facho-monstre, comme c’est le cas en France, on vous accordera néanmoins une certaine dose de crédibilité. En Amérique, en revanche, une fois que vous et votre travail deviennent la cible du ridicule médiatique, vous n’existez plus. La plupart des mouvances racialistes et nationalistes en Amérique ne sont pas considérées comme sérieuses du fait même de leur mimétisme avec le Double paléo-fasciste de provenance hollywoodienne ; de ce fait, ils ne peuvent inspirer aucune crédibilité. On peut parler de grotesque infrapolitique. Le système américain a besoin de ces farfelus nazis hollywoodiens afin de montrer au monde que l’Amérique est le pays de la plus grande tolérance. C’est faux. Les usines à penser, les universités et les grands media fonctionnent d’une manière crypto-soviétique et utilisant le jeu du ridicule pour discréditer l’adversaire. A quoi bon posséder la protection de la loi quand l’esprit libre n’arrive jamais à rien dire au plus grand monde ? Tous les groupuscules dissidents sérieux, tous les partis politiques dès qu’ils acquièrent une certaine visibilité, sont immédiatement mis sous surveillance. De puissants lobbies tels le SPLC et l’ADL usent de leur poids auprès des universités et des maisons d’édition pour discréditer chaque idée non conformiste. Prenez le cas de Pat Buchanan ou du professeur Kevin Mac Donald qui furent mis au pas, ce sont deux bons exemples du procédé.
R&A: Existe-t-il des tabous au sein de la société américaine ?
TS: Il y a des tabous que les Américains ont eux- mêmes créés et qui sont typiques de l’autocensure paléo-puritaine. Mais il y a des tabous imposés par le système libéral, tels que la religion civique de l’Holocauste et le dogme de l’infaillibilité du système multiracial. Certes, par rapport à l’Europe, on peut parler ouvertement et d’une manière critique de n’importe quoi, mais en général, on ne peut s’exprimer que dans des groupes marginaux qui ont peu d’impact sur les idées dominantes.
R&A: Reconnaît-on l’existence des races aux Etats-Unis ou les nie-t-on comme en Europe ?
TS: A notre époque du politiquement correct, la notion de race ne peut avoir droit de cité. On trouve l’explication de cette éclipse dans les années d’après la Deuxième guerre mondiale, quand s’est instauré le nouvel ordre mondial. À titre privé, nous tous, de droite ou de gauche, et de n’importe quelle race, savons fort bien que les races existent bel et bien. Au niveau juridique, on fait semblant, en Europe et en Amérique, de considérer que les races sont uniquement une question exotique de peau différente et rien d’autre. Or dites- moi combien de Prix Nobel en sciences sont-ils décrochés chaque année par des Blancs et combien par des Nègres ? A l’heure actuelle et malgré l’idéologie du métissage qui règne en Occident, les Américains blancs ont une conscience raciale plus prononcée que les Européens blancs. C’est ce que mon collègue, le sociobiologiste Kevin Macdonald appelle « implicit whiteness ». N’oublions pas que les mythes fondateurs américains trouvèrent une base solide dans la pensée racialiste. Les penseurs des Lumières étaient à des années lumière de la pensée dominante supraracialiste qu’on prend aujourd’hui pour argent comptant.
R&A: Comment définiriez-vous l’américanisme ?
TS: Il y a eu un glissement sémantique avec ce vocable. En Europe, on utilise souvent ce terme et dans un sens nettement péjoratif. L’Américanisme signifie aujourd’hui un système-monde gouverné par le capital de façon métastatique. En ce qui concerne la fameuse Amérique profonde, notamment l’antebellum South qui persiste encore dans quelques contrées et que j’aime bien — c’est autre chose et cela n’a rien à voir avec l’américanisme d’aujourd’hui . Je renvoie vos lecteurs à Maurice Bardèche et à son beau livre Sparte et les Sudistes.
R&A: Quelles sont les origines du politiquement correct ?
TS: Les origines du politiquement correct sont à chercher dans les événements qui ont accompagné les purges d’intellectuels au lendemain de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, en France et en Allemagne. J’ai rédigé un long article sur la genèse du langage politiquement correct dans la revue Catholica. En Amérique, le politiquement correct trouve ses origines dans le mélange de la pensée vétérotestamentaire et de la pensée marxiste.
R&A: Quelles sont les sources du fondamentalisme américain ?
TS: La Bible. Où que l’on tourne les yeux en Amérique, à droite et à gauche, on s’aperçoit de l’hypermoralisme du langage. Et cet hypermoralimse provient directement de la Bible. La Bible donne une parfaite bonne conscience, même dans ses modalités séculières, aux élites américaines, surtout lorsqu’ elles se lancent dans des guerres incessantes contre la notion de Mal. Autrefois, ce Mal absolu fut incarné par le Sud ; ensuite ce fut le tour des Allemands et ensuite vinrent les communistes. Aujourd’hui, le Mal absolu est incarné par les Islamistes. L’Amérique est par excellence un pays dont la théologie politique est centrée sur la Bible.
R&A: En quoi les Juifs peuvent apparaître comme des facteurs dissolvants de l’Amérique traditionnelle ?
TS: On peut poser la même question concernant l’Europe. Il y a une tonne de livres qui vous expliquent ce malaise et notamment les ouvrages académiques de Kevin Macdonald qui rencontrent un grand écho chez les racialistes blancs aux Etats-Unis. Toujours le Même qui veut être le Double, à savoir le Goy qui se veut plus juif que les Juifs eux-mêmes. Le problème ne réside pas dans les Juifs mais bien dans le mimétisme monothéiste qui par le biais de l’avatar chrétien se manifeste chez tous les Européens. Ce sont les Chrétiens sionistes en Amérique (ou ici l’Europe catholique traditionnelle) qui n’arrivent pas à se débarrasser de cette névrose philosémite et de son Double antisémite. De nouveaux chaos nous attendent.
R&A: Vous parlez de l’Ecole de Francfort. Pourriez-vous nous rappeler qui sont ses promoteurs et leurs idées fondamentales ? Diriez-vous comme votre préfacier Kevin MacDonald qu’ils ont mis au point un programme de guerre ethnique ?
TS: Afin de comprendre les idées qui gouvernent le monde, et tracer la pathogenèse du politiquement correct, if faut absolument étudier à fond la pensée de la fameuse Ecole de Francfort. C’est là que réside le problème fondamental de notre époque. L’Ecole de Francfort et ses émules, comme les philosophes marxisants Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, ont complètement détruit par leurs écrits la notion de sacré chez les jeunes Européens et par-dessus tout imposé par le biais des victimologies surréelles un sentiment de culpabilité pathologique chez tous les peuples blancs.
R&A: Peut-on considérer que les oligarchies qui dirigent le monde ont fait des Etats-Unis un vaste laboratoire de leurs théories et idées comme préalable à la future société mondiale universalisée ?
TS: Les premières esquisses de ce monde universalisé nous furent déjà tracées par les théologiens chrétiens avec leur civitas dei. Donc rien de nouveau sous le soleil. Sauf que dans le monde des satellites et des ordinateurs, ce monde se rétrécit ; le sens de l’espace perd son sens. La bonne nouvelle, et j’espère que je ne me trompe pas, c’est que nous sommes déjà entrés dans l’implosion générale. Sauve qui peut !
R&A: L’Amérique n’est –elle pas en train de donner naissance au dernier homme dont parlait Nietzsche ?
TS: Tout à fait. Sauf que l’homo americanus n’est pas propre à la seule Amérique. C’est une figure transpolitique mondiale qui réside partout et surtout en Europe.
Tomislav (Tom) Sunic (TomSunic.info) est écrivain, traducteur, ancien professeur de sciences politiques aux États-Unis, et ancien diplomate croate. Il est le conseiller culturel de l’ American Third Party Position (American3P.org/leadership). Il a publié de nombreux articles en anglais, français, allemand et croate dans diverses publications. Il est auteur de Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right (Arktos, 1990, 2002, 2011), préfacé par Alain de Benoist et Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (BookSurge, 2007), préfacé par Kevin MacDonald. Ses livres en français, récemment parus, sont La Croatie; un pays par défaut ? (éd. Avatar 2010) et Homo americanus ; rejeton de l’ère postmoderne (éd. Akribea, 2010).
NPI’s 2011 conference will address the consequences of mass immigration into the United States from cultural, political, and biological perspectives. It will feature prominent experts, panel discussions, and ample time for speakers’ interaction with attendees.
This year’s presenters include Peter Brimelow, Sam Dickson, James Edwards, John Glad, Alex Kurtagić, Keith Preston, Byron Roth, Richard Spencer, Tomislav Sunić, Jared Taylor, Jonathan Bowden, and others.
When & Where
The National Policy Institute’s first public conference will take place in Washington, DC, on September 10, 2011 from 9am to 7:00pm EST in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, just north of the National Mall.
Peter Brimelow – The ‘Sailer Strategy’: Triumphant and Denied
Sam Dickson – The Idea and the Ideal of the Ethnostate
James Edwards – Obama and the “R Word”
John Glad – Mass Immigration and Dysgenics
Alex Kurtagić – Masters of the Universe
Keith Preston – Mass Immigration and Totalitarian Humanism
Byron Roth – Multiculturalism and Ethnic Activism
Richard Spencer – Why HBD is Necessary
Tomislav Sunić – Prospects for a Real Nationalist Right in America
American Third Position Demands More Action Against “Flash Mobs” Vicious Mob Assaults Targeting White Americans Must Cease
Social media technology is being used to plan and organize “flash mobs” and “flash robs” by groups of young teenagers.
In Chicago, four violent assaults and robberies occurred in Chicago’s upscale area of Streeterville. One white man was dragged into the street and beaten by a group of 15 to 20 teenage males after a baseball was thrown so hard at his head that his motor-scooter helmet was knocked off. Another man was robbed of his cell phone and camera after being knocked off his bike and punched by a group of teenage males. Three teenagers were recently arrested due to their alleged involvement with these strings of flash mob robberies, four of which occurred within a 10-minute span.
On July 4, a large mob of minority youths in the Lakeview neighborhood of Chicago targeted a man who was subsequently hospitalized with multiple stab wounds.
In Akron, Ohio, construction worker Marty Marshall and his family were attacked by 30 to 50 minority teens, who shouted ”This is our world” and ”This is a black world” as they confronted Marshall and his family of six. The assault, in which Marshall suffered extensive head injuries from repeated kicks and punches to his skull, has not yet been ruled a hate crime by Akron police. In a letter to the FBI, Mayor Don Plusquellic asked the federal agency’s local office to help determine whether any civil-rights violations or hate crimes occurred during the attack last month on Marty Marshall and his family.
And on June 9, Jesse Andersen, the 35-year-old brother of Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan, was punched in the face as his iPad and money were stolen by multiple perpetrators.
One week earlier, in Washington, D.C. workers at a retail store in Dupont Circle were caught off guard as a group of about 20 African American teenagers swarmed the store, stopping to look through sizes, taking over $20,000 worth of merchandise and promptly exiting the building.
In Las Vegas in May, 20 teens were caught on camera as they robbed a convenience store and stole about $600 worth of merchandise and the clerk’s cellphone.
We demand that the FBI and the Justice Department take more action against these “flash mob” and “flash rob” criminal attacks committed against white Americans and businesses.
# # #
For more information about this issue, or to schedule an interview with a representative of the American Third Position, please contact (561) 351-4424.
American Third Position • PO Box 5400 • Grand Forks, ND 58206
Filed under News | Tagged: | Posted by Mike Conner
Dr. Tom Sunic and Dr. Kevin MacDonald are holding a series of conferences in Sweden, from May 30 to June 2. The title of the conferences is Nationalism and Individualism in Modern Multicultural Society.
Modernity, disorder, de facto Classifications emerge
Outlook on this
Hermeneutic Turn – a liberation from mere objectivism
Paradigms and Incommensurability vs. non-equality
The Post Modern turn for Whites
A Moral Order for Whites
Pushing White allies away with Objectivism and false either/ors.
I grew up in New Jersey, not too far from New York – the Newark, New Jersey race riots of the late sixties and my being bussed to go to school with Blacks not long after forming the background of my racial awareness. My family were of Polish and Italian extraction, so it was not a perfectly clear, coherent identity to go up against the confusion of America and its hostility to Whites: kind of a gray area, White enough to be disingenuously classified along with guilt for Aristocratic privilege, Nazism and Slavery where convenient, yet not fully an insider track to the club of American elites. While I would not complain too much, and my family were good providers, including help with education, they were a bit antagonistic to intellectualism; which was frustrating, as I needed all the tools that I could get given the complexity of being this kind of White marginal. Yes, there are ivory towers and pseudo intellectuals, there are Jewish Marxist etc who are abusing intellectualism against Whites, but…
Self Assertion vs. Self Transcendence
But even though intellectualism was not considered cool in my circles, in the end, you have to do what you have to do to save yourself. Everything that I cared about most was being destroyed – so I had to try to make sense of these problems. One clue that I got early on was a distinction that I read in Hegel, between self transcendence and self assertion – it occurred to me that just about all White men who were attempting any sort of intellectual problem solving were doing self transcendence – and it was not working. Thus, if I was going to do any intellectualism, it was not going to be martyring objectivism, ostentatious showing off of varied erudition, it was going to be for practical purposes and to assert the interests of Whites.
Pervasive Ecology I have found, provides a good background to racial issues in its broadest scope – it is one exception as an idea that can serve as a benign universal truth largely because it does not require an ongoing quest for foundational truth – it cannot, in fact, be foundationalized, because it is non-Cartesian, that is to say, recognizing that all is some part of nature – because of that, it is always valid and potentially important to ask if something is ecological – but this concern does not seek to transcend nature in some fixed form or in any other way; rather, it is an engaged and interactive negotiation of optimal balance in relation to resources – being interactively engaged, we are then also dependent upon practical human judgment to assert balance and utility; nevertheless, valid judges, co-evolved as a part of nature as such to be – hence, we can rest content, to some extent, with our practical, human judgments.
It is rather the quest for universal foundational truths which is necessarily impervious to optimal, human needs, which runs rough-shod over the interests of our White race – Thus, it is important to distinguish universal from foundational. Because with the foundational quest you are getting away from the interactivity of our evolution, our concern for our White survival, our relative and optimal needs. Rather with a foundational quest you are going into the objectivity, or pseudo objectivity, of foundational and quantifiable statements like “that is just the way it is” – as such, you are radically cutting off accountability and agency
– that radical abridging which is corollary to the Cartesianism from which anti-racism and the prejudice against prejudice derive.
To say that racism in the form of discrimination is illegitimate, that all people have the same foundational requirements and therefore we should not discriminate, is far from innocent; to not discriminate is in fact impossible – it is prejudice against vital human qualities, systemic human relations. Anti-racism is not innocent. It is hurting people; it is not too far fetched to say that it is killing people
The upshot of anti racism is not multiculturalism and diversity – it is monoculturalism, a radical abridgment and subsuming of biodiversity.
On the other hand, it is operationally verifiable that the White race is a part of the world’s biodiversity, ecosystems and resources; that non-White populations are encroaching upon White populations and habitats. Perhaps in accordance to some universal truths we do not have to save it; but in accordance with pervasive ecology the importance of preserving and fostering the White race is a universally assertable warrant.
Unlike the Darwinian unit of analysis, which took organism plus group as its unit of survival, pervasive ecology takes organism + group + environment as its unit of survival – it does that because, naturally, the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself – that is part of what makes Blacks, corporations and Jews so dubious – they have demonstrably, verifiably, overgrazed. With pervasive ecology, we are using a powerful warrant to counteract that over grazing.
In other words, what is most fit, why Whites are as they are, has not as much to do with what is most fit as to how we fit the social and natural environment, over and against the lack of Jewish and corporate concern for our well being.
Anti racism is Cartesian – an impossible attempt to transcend nature and process – it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is not too far fetched to say that it is killing people.
Now, just a theory, but one that I’d like to believe, that all of Europe too, its native people, to which I include White Russians, is to some extent a whole ecological system, not only in conflict but to some extent interactive, symbiotic and buffering each other from non-Europeans. America, on the other hand, perhaps as a carryover from fights between European nations has not registered the same balance – and perhaps there is a lack of proportionate representation of continental Europeans, except for Germans, in America; this might make for some human ecological imbalance, as some of the buffering features that Southern and Eastern Europeans might otherwise bring to bear against Africans and Asians may be lacking in the US – leaving a somewhat awkward interface between those groups and Nordics.
I think the difference between Europeans is relatively trivial when compared to the difference from non Europeans, but that is more theoretical than of immediate importance. The more pressing needs are negative ecological metaphors which can capture the disaster we are up against and metaphors that will allow our European people to survive over all and as discreet nations.
Our story tellers need some Negative Ecological Metaphors which capture, with sufficient magnitude, what we are up against
Some negative ecological metaphors that I propose – and to capture the situation they have to be really bad to be accurate – to itemize a few that have worked fairly well: the science fiction nightmare, the mulatto cyborg, planet of the, well… mulatto supremacism is a good one because it accurately captures one of the worst upshots of what anti-racists are doing without putting either Blacks or Jews on direct defensive, as neither are being impugned directly; and it can use the leverage of their own potential indignation as to the matter.
Metaphors providing for an ecology of overall unity and discreet parts:
The compartmentalized ship: Metzger has a good one here – the compartmentalized ship. I like it because it is a metaphor that allows for the ecology and accountability of each nation, while recognizing an accurate degree of interdependence. With each compartment being relatively air tight, it is protected if another compartment gets flooded with non-Whites; and would hopefully be in a position to help them to conduct their deportation needs. This metaphor would also force us to ask, how many compartments can go down before the whole ship goes down? I believe that we cannot allow France, Holland, The UK and Sweden to go down.
The body and its parts: Another metaphor – one that I have thought up, is to liken The European nations and people to a body and its parts. It is wrong to try to quantify the value of one because they are serving fairly discreet, qualitative functions. If Germany is like the cerebral cortex, then it is relatively trivial without Belarus, which is functioning like the liver or France, which is like the gastrointestinal tract and so on. Mix and match this metaphor as you wish, it does not mean that there is not mind through the whole system, it is just to suggest that the nations may function as fairly discreet but symbiotically functioning organs.
Another good, ecological metaphor, is State Micro-Cultures: Those who are advocating secession and independent states to allow for different ways of White life are, of course, providing for another good, ecological way.
Race as Classification
When talking about race the central matter, the crucial matter that I have found, is the issue of Classification –
I’ve come to the conclusion that races are classifications, and that that is far from trivial – just a touch arbitrary, but very real and very important.
What got me to thinking about classification as a central matter when it comes to race were discussions of its problematic aspects – from there I went on to consider positive aspects of classification.
The first clue where classifications were being treated as a problem, was in an article called something like, “The paradoxic practices of racism, sexism and other isms” by Pearce and Wood. In that article they describe a paradox that even well meaning liberals are up against when dealing with the issue of discrimination against minorities: If, on the one hand, they say that they do not discriminate, that they judge everyone on their individual merit, then they can be charged with being disingenuous, ignoring the historical discrimination against that person’s group; on the other hand, if they take the line that people of a certain group should be given special help to overcome historical discrimination against them, then they are classifying them and racists, sexists or other ists by definition.
The second view that I learned of which looked upon classification as problematic, was that of the empirical philosopher John Locke.
Locke resented the superior educational opportunities of the English Aristocratic class. Thus, he was motivated to use an empirical view against it – with that he maintained that everybody had the same sense impressions and therefore classes were a fiction of the mind – they were not empirical, they had no physically reality – since everyone had the same sense impressions, everyone was, according to him, an equally valid judge of experience, and should be accorded equal rights.
Thomas Jefferson imbued The U.S. Constitution with this empirical notion of individual rights along with its antipathy to classification.
In trying to counteract this, however, the struggle, it seems, has been focused on the wrong unit of analysis, treating all as if they were working within the same paradigm – namely, by treating non-equality as the big deal. While it is true that nothing is equal, it is so abstract – like trying to apply what one sees under a microscope, or through a telescope to everyday reality – as to be almost meaningless, not altogether instructive, but destructive, even.
I got a clue from a linguist here, sorry about that, Lackoff, who wrote a book called “Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things.” That clued me onto the idea that people needed to categorize things in order to make sense. However, people do not do so in over particulars or in over generals, but in “human sized” categories – they do not say that there is a mammal on the porch, they do not say that there is an Irish Setter on the porch, they say that there is a dog on the porch. In other words the problem with regard to classification here is confusion and disorganization that results if you do not classify – people have to organize their experiences in optimal categories in order make sense.
So, I am getting the idea that people need to classify, even though classifying is prohibited by The Constitution’s notion of Individual Rights.
The last problem that got me to thinking of classification as pivotal was Russel and Whitehead’s Theory of Logical Types: which was meant to solve the classic paradox, “I am a Cretan, all Cretans are liars”: They asserted that the class cannot be a member of itself – thus the class was on a higher logical type than the individual – that can have practical and positive utility for our classifying when we say, for example, I have not been prejudiced but have rather sampled enough individuals of this non-White class to know that I neither want nor need to sample any more of their individuals; I can see their historical pattern as antagonistic, thus I place them under the higher logical type of a class and I discriminate against them as a class. Conversely, I give members of my White Class the benefit of the doubt. In fact, Whitehead said, one cannot continually investigate everything, but must be able to rest content taking some things for granted and proceed from a given state of partial knowledge; he called that a working hypothesis; I call it a functional classification.
So, here, with this notion of enough of a sample, I am beginning to shift in thinking to the positive purposes that might be served by classifying. Thereupon I could see another important purpose with classifying one’s own – it serves to transcend jealousy – once I classify a people as my family or on my side, then I am inclined to be glad for my brothers and sisters if they are doing well, providing that they are not otherwise terrible.
And with classification we become more able to assess relative merits or demerits of our people. When we subsume, give the benefit of the doubt to our people, they have more latitude under the rubric of the class to correct their behavior; and we have more complete information of them within the Class, its system, accountability thereof, making us better judges of the relative bad and more lenient on the relatively good amongst us – that as opposed to hyper criticism, trying to find tiny objective points, the arbitrary lashing out, the disorganization that inevitably results from the pseudo objectivism, of this de-contextualization, this de-classification. By subsuming within the class, we are better able to judge the relative good from the relatively bad person.
Ultimately, with classification, there is a means of accountability and ecology for our 40,000 years of native European evolution.
Conversely, the notion of empirical rights ruptures our White people from the very systemic class of resources that might otherwise go into their making.
By contrast, within the class we are more protected in the ecological disbursement of our niches as we qualitatively meander through different expressions, manifestations of the systemic whole; there are probably vital contributions to the system by many persons who are not at the top, cannot and should not be at the top of the game at this particular point in time; thus, when the leftists ask sarcastically, who’s rights are being protected? they have a point; as the interests of some are not particularly well served by individual rights; but can and should be included within the class: a child, a young mother; if I don’t have the same143 i.q. as my brother, I am not going to be eliminated because it will be understood that we are closely related, carrying similar genetic payloads, to be placed under the same White Class though moving into patterned disbursement, different ecological niches in its service. Classification, being a protracted frame of analysis, unlike rights, can include all stages of the developmental process of our White evolution both within a life span and in the history of our DNA.
Ok, so taking a step back – where is all this stuff coming from? Locke, empirical rights, and non-classification. Well, Tom is right, Christianity is one source in beginning to break down the importance of classifications. I look back to The Epicureans as another source; they were dead set against superstition; they tried to trace everything to physical causes – and they were forerunners of Locke’s empiricism. Their distrust of superstition would seem to be a precursor to a skepticism of racial classifications and the prejudice against prejudice.
Objectivism and The Prejudice against Prejudice
Now, that is where the prejudice against prejudice began to take popular form.
However, the prejudice against prejudice reached its apex in Carstesianism, whereby Rene Descartes tried to find unassailable, foundational truths outside and transcendent of nature. Still, there was another side of the Cartesian duality, which was the empirical end, in line with the Epicureans, trying to find foundational truths within nature. That is where the Empiricist, Locke, became a major exponent, and brought to bear his radical skepticism of classifications.
Cartesianism/ Empiricism are two sides of the objectivist criteria of these times called “The Enlightenment”
Besides the corporations, Jewish interests, religions, I suppose this sort of objectivism and other habits of the enlightenment are among the greatest obstacles of White men. Remember how I started out discussing self assertion and self transcendence – well, objectivism is a kind of self transcendence. Though its appeal is obvious: to be objectively warranted in our claims in pure and powerful innocence. The problem is, that it abrogates accountability – as if to say, that is just the way it is, no farther argument need apply. You are not taking responsibility. Not only that, but the reflexive effect of objectivism is extreme relativism which makes criteria of accountability difficult to find, even if you sought them.
Modernity, Disorder, De Facto Classifications Emerge
Now, Modernity was the characteristic, epochal direction that stemmed from the Enlightenment. Its radical skepticism of superstition, tradition, religion, custom, habit, its prejudice against prejudice and belief in empirical foundational truths, translated into lineal pursuit of – and the notion that change inevitably lead to progress to – foundational truths – moreover, it gained momentum as great progress, especially in regard to technology, was being made indeed.
However, these notions commenced what would ultimately run rough shod over everything in its path, including in the end, White people. Change led to progress, therefore it was always good, and any wreckage left in its wake was a necessary hazard. Besides, we are objective, just uncovering the truth, so we bear no responsibility for these consequences.
After a couple hundred years, it began to dawn on more and more people that the kinds of progress and changes that resulted were not necessarily what they might like.
These ideas of objectivism, the prejudice against prejudice, the prohibition of classification that spawned Modernity, its ensuing, epochal value of change and progress to foundational truths, whatever in the way be damned, was leaving America and the West profoundly disordered.
De facto classifications emerge – One upshot of this disorder, I propose, is that the one up position, classification, of females re-emerged with increased significance; a second is that Blacks become salient as a class as well.
Amidst modernity’s disordering effect on America, its prohibition of classifications, the naturally one up position of young females (you are so wonderful, may I have a date?) re-emerged with increased significance as they are being competed for from all sides, and even pandered to, absent class boundaries. Thus, she becomes more articulate and confident as people talk to and appeal more directly to her; whereas they used to talk to a priest, a scientists, a philosopher, she becomes authoritative even, often beyond merit.
Moreover, people, as we said, still having the need to classify despite its prohibition, will tend to fall back on de facto classifications too obvious to ignore. One being women another being Blacks. At the same time and above that, the Jewish as MacDonald notes, will classify themselves while maintaining the prohibition of classification for Whites.
In the case of Blacks, their difference, their classification, being too obvious too ignore is not the only feedback loop to their position and its clear and coherent identity as a class. Nor is it only their victim status as conferred by the civil wrongs movement, by Jewish activists with its supposed right to violate White freedom of association; nor only the high contrast tropism of Black and White, as highly contrasting sights and sounds are harder to ignore. But Africans will also be able to operate more normally within this kind of profound disorder as they had evolved in such primeval disorder.
Blacks have evolved some 250,000 years prior to European differentiation; as such were likely to have developed some biological hegemonies – not only that, but it is not too far fetched to say that their kind of selection has quantified and maxed-out masculinity, creating: an aggressive, presumptuous, hyper assertive kind of people, less sublimated, their most serious expressions being that they will have more sex partners, younger, single parent families, exponential population growth, disease, poverty, violence, arrogation and destruction of resources.
Nevertheless, and back to this disordered situation, in which these two de facto classifications are so one up – being manipulated and pandered to by Jewish interests, no doubt – with females being so one up, it exacerbates the natural tendency of theirs which sociobiologist E.O. Wilson points out – to incite genetic competition in order to judge the stronger males. Hence you are no longer surprised by the sickening litmus from females in initial interaction episodes, “what do you think of racism, of Blacks?”. Say that you don’t like them and you are typically ostracized – young girls probably sense that this maintains a certain power of their position as gate-keepers.
In this situation you have an over representation of female selective preferences. That, in exaggerated form, is not necessarily good: what does a woman tend to look for but what is strong, impervious, undaunted no matter what? Confident even while everything around, race, civilization, environment even, is being destroyed; whereas a man’s perspective might otherwise look toward beauty, sensitivity and cooperation – a perspective that has been flouted by the likes of Nietzsche. Not that we want men to be effeminate, but we should not wish for them to emulate the stupid, hyper masculinity of Blacks either.
Outlook on this
The difference ought to be plain enough to see and I suppose that more White women are becoming aware of the hazards – rape, violence, poverty – but not enough – what is happening to White boys and men – who are forced to deal with the brunt of this mess not of their choosing – and White children – who have no choice of the world they come into – to have to come into this hell; this planet of the apes scenario – I mean – that’s what it is – if you want to capture how bad it is you’ve got to use a science fiction nightmare analogy – Women who do this, who give away themselves as the crown of creation, the culmination of 40,000 years of White evolution and civilization, women who do this are to men what rapists are to women. The analogy is very appropriate, if you think about it – with how spitefulness and thoughtlessness is wreaking havoc upon 40,000 years of evolutionary choice and direction – and the people who promote this, who instigate and defend this, are of course, equally destructive accomplices, worse than drug pushers.
We create these women – having co-evolved with them over 40,000 years of evolution – Let it not be said that it is none of our business.
White children have no choice as to the kind of world that they come into and we cannot let them come into the hell, the science fiction nightmare come true – let it not be said that it is none of our business.
We are not denying evolution but asking, rather, how we would like to evolve. It would be quite stupid if we only used scientific tools that tell us, well, that is just the way it is, life changes, nothing agentive we can do to reverse it, women are inclined to Blacks, just like some men like to rape women from time to time because they do not want to hear no, figured the that she deserved it. No.
We’ve evolved from Blacks, and do not want to go back. We are a more sublimated, circumspect, far reaching people – interaction with them is not favorable to us. We do not need to go back. We have them in our past; their traits resurfacing where necessary. We do not need them for anything.No need to imitate them; we have White Class.
While the modernist idea of the prejudice against prejudice may have appeared innocent – the truth is that it was far from innocent – it is well short on accountability, ecology and agency, leaving us susceptible to exploitation of the self interested – at the expense of that which is most important to us – our close personal relationships, our co-evolutionaries of 40,000 years.
Anti-racism Cartesian, it is prejudice – it is not innocent, it is hurting and it is killing people.
The Hermeneutic Turn – a liberation from mere objectivism
While the Enlightenment and ensuing Modernity did provide for a liberation from superstition, mere tradition, religion, custom and habit, a second liberation has become necessary, the liberation from the mere facticity of the empirical view or the fixed speculations of the Cartesian quest to transcend nature. By taking the hermeneutic turn, turning back to a closer reading of facts where transcendence becomes overly speculative, or taking opportunity for occasional transcendent orientation, utilizing where necessary the narrative expanse of horizontal and historical frames of reference we gain coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.
So we are provided a liberation from the mere facts that while nature has certain properties and propensities, that non-Whites have certain abilities, can at times impose upon us, even interbreed with us, we need not be beholden to these mere, arbitrary facts or even inclinations.
For us, of course, that liberating coherence takes form in the hermeneutic classification of the 14 Words. Nevertheless, hermeneutics does not deny science. It is just not fixated on a singular hypothesis – rather, it frees its practitioners to consciously interact with the objects of investigation, to transcend to broader frames of reference, to view them within broader historical narratives where they provide useful orientation; then, as it is not a Cartesian quest, is free to go back, to concrete and scientific particulars when and where those broader frames become overly speculative; where particulars provide better orientation for the White Class. This anti-Cartesian notion, against its fixities, engaging us in process with the objects of our investigation, as Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem suggest we must – will save us from the scientism of pseudo objectivity, its lack of accountability; and also from the unaccountable farse of non-White religions.
As Paul Tillich noted so well, nature and ideals are alike in that they treat the individual, lets say our White race too, as the mere space through which other things pass – in hermeneutics, we have the method to liberate, elevate and maintain our White Class at the highest status of concern among nature and ideals.
While recognizing our necessary engagement in historical process, as individuals and as a class, we must assert The White class, the 14 Words.
Paradigms and Incommensurability vs. non-equality
The idea of paradigms and incommensurability also contributed to my thinking about classification – for example, the notion of paradigmatic conservatism, which would treat the borders of a people and nations very conservatively, but allow for relatively free individual liberties within. Bateson added that what is happening is the reverse – that our borders are allowed to run wild while individualism is pegged. By contrast there should be pretty conservative borders, can be some exchange between European peoples, but not too much; and individuals within borders should be fairly free to be who they are and say what they like.
Paradigms, as inspired by Thomas Khun, is another way of talking about classifications, and in a qualitative way – in that the rule structure of different paradigms may or may not match. Rule structures of a paradigm matching to another or not was what he called commensurability or incommensurability. Commensurability and incommensurability of our people’s logics of meaning and action as compared to others’ is crucial for us to understand. It is a particularly crucial theoretical, interpretive advantage over the notion of non-equality – non-equality assumes that the overall criteria of measurement, the aims of the races are the same and not qualitatively different – it assumes commensurability where it should not be assumed; it is far more articulate when you are comparing, for example, Blacks and Whites and Jews – to note that our rule structures, the aims of the logics of meaning and action that we follow are incommensurate to theirs – note that they do not match well at all rather than to say that we are not equal – we are not the same, we are radically different.
Being not the same is far more the matter than not being equal. To talk in terms of non-equality is to invite comparison by the same criteria; to invite openings for competition and enmeshments that should be avoided altogether; more, to focus on the quantitative measurement is to rigidly parcel out feedback and interactive sources; those that support, create and balance, our normalcy, our excellence.
Thus the crucial issue is not non-equality, a quantitative comparison, but non-sameness, a qualitative difference that makes a difference; commensurate and incommensurate logics.
Here again, unlike foundational scientism, which is susceptible to holding us all to a universal and singular criteria, hermeneutics liberates us to set forth rules for ourselves and then refer back to them in narrative coherence, accountability, agency and warrant of our difference.
Social Constructionism is Realist not Idealist
Toward these ends, we also need to talk about social constructionism.
One of the mistakes that the struggle is making is to continually chide that race is not a social construct like the social Marxists want to say.
Indeed, if we say that race is a mere social construct that is wrong; but if we say that race is a real social construct, that is accurate – mere, is the operative word.
Social constructionism, properly understood, and following the non-Cartesian premises set forth by one of its original progenitors, Vico, is realist, not idealist.
Social constructionism takes the very reasonable premise that nothing exists outside of interaction and that how facts count must be negotiated between people.
Social constructionism is like taking the classic philosophical question, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?” and saying, for all it matters to us, if there are no White people left to hear it, it may as well not make a noise. And if you think about it, that is the correct philosophical position for us to take. :
The reason why people in the struggle have been reluctant to adopt this view is the same reason that I was reluctant to adopt this view – I wanted the absolute and unassailable warrant of scientific objectivity, especially with regard to something so important as our race and our co-evolutionary women.
However, when we make what turns out to be fairly meager concessions that cannot be denied anyway, that we are a part of interaction and, for example, unfortunately, we can breed with any race on the earth – by dealing with a few mere facts of interaction we gain the tremendous benefits of being able to assert how these things count for us; in addition, by adopting social constructionist engagement and hermeneutic process, we gain coherence, accountability, agency and warrant. We are not completely beholden to objective facts of Darwinism, but we are able to turn more attention to the relative way of how we want these facts of evolution to count for us, how we want to evolve? We can say for example that yes, we can integrate with other races, but we can do better by going another way. We can invoke our agency against physics metaphors disingenuously applied to the biology of our class – for example, immigration “flows” – Immigration does not flow, like a soothing, calming river. Immigration is a hazard facilitated by human agency and it can be reversed by our human agency.
None of this abandons science; but merely acknowledges Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem, that even science is interactive, reflexive and mutable to some extent.
Theoria, Praxis and Poesis are Aristotle, not Jewish. Taking not only social matters, but even hard science as Vico and Heisenberg did, into praxis, suggests taking everything into the scrutiny of how it serves our interests as Whites. Theoria was the Cartesian, foundational way of doing sciences that social constructionism looks to get away from, courtesy the hints of Heisenberg, Godel, Vico et al. – it proposes taking all into the practical judgment – into the social realm, what Aristotle called Praxis, to serve our interests, as Whites.
Race is a social construct, but it is not a mere social construct; ours is a real social construction over 40,000 years and it is the most important thing in the world for us.
Now, there are Jewish academics and liberal/leftists who try to push the envelope of social constructionism to where race is a mere construct, yes, but they are doing something Cartesian again – not doing social constructionism proper, but rather a disingenuous misuse of the notion. It is a common mistake among White advocates to be so put off of by Jewish casuistry, abuse of certain ideas and platforms, as to lose sight that these ideas were most often drawn from those of ours to begin with. Not understanding our place within praxis is the mistake White advocates make when they reject whole important disciplines such as social constructionism, hermeneutics, sociology or rhetoric as “Jewish” – to be rejected in favor of “hard science”
However, the ultimate reflexive effect of the scientific quest for objectivity is no accountability – a hyper relativism– given the reality, that everything exists in interaction and reflexive effects, that how facts count must be negotiated between us, the radical implication is that everything must ultimately be assessed within praxis, that is, its practicality for us – thus, it would be very foolish for us to reject the tools of hermeneutics, rhetoric, so on, to preclude the means of agency, accountability, coherence and warrant that they afford.
The Post Modern Turn For Whites
I’ve heard White separatists criticize post modernity as if it is a notion that is detrimental to us, confusing, a motive of anything goes, whatever and never mind anyway.
Post Modernity is actually a very useful and important tool for Whites. In fact, when people complain about confusion, disorder, anything goes, that is not really Post Modernity, that is really just more Modernity – the reflexive effects of its impervious quest of progress and foundational knowledge; its valuing of change, maintaining that it will inevitably lead to progress and those foundational truths out there – let the chips fall where they may in the meantime; its prohibition of classification, to the extreme where it is now not only called “nationalism” but “racism”; the disordering that has resulted has profoundly disrupted systems of accountability and niche, ecological balance. That’s Modernity that is confused, not Post Modernity.
This prohibition of classification as enforced through The Constitution of The United States has left it and us vulnerable to the manipulations of The Israelis.
Post Modernity and a re- assertion of Classification through the hermeneutic turn rather, provide solutions to those disordering effects and non-accountability.
The Post Modern turn puts an end to the insane, insatiable call for change and imperviousness to its wreckage. The Post Modern turn facilitates the agency our people, Whites, in reconstructing our traditional practices, people and habitats as we choose, while advancing where we so choose, as well.
The Post Modernist White becomes Optimally Competent when he can control participation, engaging, reconstructing traditional practices and people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity; and, on the other hand, able to disengage from traditions where they are not useful in order to make innovations and advancements on behalf of White interests – in the broadest scope, he is stepping off the progress train of modernism as it heads toward the wreck of our White Class.
This would be opposed to the minimally competent person who cannot control engagement in either tradition or modernity; or the satisfactorily competent person of tradition, who would fall into the ranks of the minimally competent, there being little in the way of sufficiently stable traditional criteria for them to engage.
I have figured that this sort of balancing act works well with gender relations too, managing difficulties between modernist and traditional White men and women.
This is crucial to understand because, for example, it is not only feminists who are a problem within modernity / post modernity – it is not only feminist women who are mud-sharking, but traditional women too.
But before it seems like I am only being hard on women, all this talk of objectivism and its lack of accountability has largely resulted from a typical White man’s way out – the modernist way, as I have said, of self transcendence, for lacking the courage or ability to assert themselves they have taken recourse into the cowardly self transcendence of objectivism.
I do not want to blame White men too much however- given the prohibition of classification – their normal circumspect way has been short-circuited. White men have been desperately trying to compensate, with achievement, without the fostering ground of Being that White class boundaries would afford. They have been trying to compensate for their lack of Being; for the endless criticism of their supposed advantageous place atop; it supposedly having stemmed only from privilege; from a differentiation of fulfillment; when in fact, it has often stemmed from a sublimation of deprivation of that ground of Being that might have been afforded within the class – thus, to be ridiculed for achieving despite deprivation is particularly cruel – it is a wonder more White men have not gone off the deep end. (I talk about this as a misunderstood aspect of the late 1960’s epoch). To correct this, as I see it, White men need to be granted a little more ease of being so that they are not so crazy and over compensating when they reach positions of actualization – objectivism being this kind of insanity too; while women need to be up against a little more critique, test and skepticism on basic levels so that they are not overly liberal when reaching positions of actualization; thinking everything came to them and the White race more easily than it has; thus being prone to give things away too easily.
These incommensurate gender agendas in absence of classification in modernity are something that can be managed to some extent in optimal balance of the post modern turn as well – recognizing that just because something is new and a change does not mean that it is good, does not mean that it will necessarily lead to something better; does not mean that it is inevitable; does not mean that we have no agency and can do nothing about it. With accountability to classification we can manage the traditional direction of men, toward achievement, along with their modernist White male need for Being in the world. We can manage and negotiate that with the traditional female need of comfortable being in the world along with their modernist need to participate in achievement.
This is the coolest, to knowingly reconstruct our most advanced White people and their comfortable way of life.
Most radically, this management requires reassertion of classification. We must assert The White Class, its bounds and accountability.
Ours is not a no account objective concern, like a scientistic use of Darwinism, for example – ours is an accountable, relative concern for our people and our interests, which requires Whites to assert.
In line with observations based on Aristotle, progress and reconstruction of the White class can and should be managed in accordance with some measure of optimal balance in mind – and if not, nature has corrections in mind anyway.
A Moral Order For Whites
All of this talk of classification, the reconstruction of our White Class, how to deal with it in light of the disorder of modernity, the antagonism of corporate and Jewish interests, requires one last important framework.
When in my early twenties, I did a somewhat typical thing – I tried hard to practice Christianity. Why I tried so hard to practice something that had so little to do with reality became clear to me when I got a clue from an Oxford professor whom I spent an afternoon with some years later. He lectured on people requiring moral orders on top of their factual world. What was salient to me was the plurality of the term, “Moral Orders”. It made clear to me what I was looking for was a moral order and that Christianity was not the only moral order.
I feel bad when I think about the two thousand years and the lives martyred for this moral order of Christianity – the people were and are essentially trying to do the right thing in seeking a moral order. However, Christianity is obsolete. Clearly it is not serving our interests as Whites – is not particularly concerned with our reward in this world – if you doubt it, all you have to do is refer to the text.
We need a moral order, but one that truly serves our interests as Whites – that is to say, would be circumscribed by the fourteen words, having a degree of transcendence, but not Cartesian, managing processual and interactive involvement with the objects of investigation, as the hermeneutics turn allows, modifying but utilizing the best of Kant’s moral system as such, while including elements of pervasive ecology, biology, Aristotle’s optima and so on.
Whites need a moral order – let ours be circumscribed by the White Class, the 14 Words.
Scaring potential White allies away with objectivism and false either/ors.
I think that the right wing is scaring people – and well it should, because it maintains some rather foolish premises and several false either/ors.
Let’s characterize the left as classifying and relativism; and the right as objectivism and individualism that is blinding people to the very means by which their individualism is constructed – the class, the non Cartesian ways, such as Heidegger’s Dasein, there-being toward and with others (Michael O’Meara astutely adds Heidegger’s mit-Dasein, there being amidst our class). Their pretense of objectivity ignores accountability to that fact and responsibility of our interactive construction with others. Thus, when we hear talk of I.Q., the self made man emerging from a point within side his head and eugenics, we are afraid – first because we think it is disingenuous, not acknowledging the social resources that have gone into making these things, even if over the course of a couple generations; but we are also afraid because we think it is an unnecessary warrant for survival – If someone has a high i.q. and contributes great inventions, wonderful! As long as no other Whites interfere with them and they can have children, what is the problem? The authentic expanse and quality life is removed when criteria are narrowed to a quantifiable point of evaluation. When it is said that these things are just scientific facts– well, that’s that, nothing you can do – people are biologically determined – ok, biology does not change over a life time, but these things are ascribed different meanings and do evolve over time – it is scaring people because it takes away the agentive means and accountability by which they might rightfully defend themselves.
If a White person wants to fight for Whites and can live to an advanced age, with this kind of struggle, in a very important way they are good enough – even if not the biggest, brightest, most beautiful, even if they are old – in fact they might have less to lose and be better fighters because of it. Sometimes White talent can come from surprising places.
False either/ors in general are one of the biggest mistakes that the struggle is making – along with several I’ve mentioned, I’ll add a few more to which we need not be beholden:
It is not socialism or free enterprise – it is both. It is that way anyway – but should be based on the interests of the White Class. It is not hard or social sciences it is both. It is not environmentalism vs industry and jobs, it is both – we need to develop environmentally friendly industry and work. Talk about universals, I can’t see anybody thinking pollution is a good thing – oh hooray! Dioxin! Radiation!
It is not diplomatic spokesmen, free of profanity and epithets or enraged pragmatists cursing and spewing vitriol, it is both –
While we need our above ground, calm and rational advocates to show that we have dignity, discipline and sanity, appeals to peaceful, diplomatic, fair and persuasive means it is not all that we need. We need to show that we have sense too. This is an emergency. Losing White women is like having rain forests cut down – much worse, of course – we want to exist every bit and more – this calls for immediate confirmation of that rage among those sensible enough to be enraged – rising above the din, mystifying torrents of Jewish denial, antagonism and abuse of our people. We need our special operations, underground too, we need the occasional surprising rogue that the right would find uncouth – we need our self assertive underground responding in significant measure, not calmly looking at our destruction with detached, pseudo objectivism; pacifism is not enough, we need force and doing whatever it takes, agitating to bring down the system which oppresses us until they will finally relinquish White separatism – our freedom from association with non-Whites and our freedom of association with Whites.
The first account of the European New Right to appear in English, now on it’s third edition. Re-edited, with new forewords and including the ‘Manifesto for a European Renaissance’.
Against Democracy and Equality was the first book ever published in the English language on the European New Right, and it remains an indispensable introduction to a school of thought which remains a vibrant force in the understanding of European politics.
Dr. Sunic examines the principal themes which have concerned the thinkers of the New Right since its inception by Alain de Benoist in 1968, such as the problematic nature of the label ‘New Right’ for a school which sees itself as being beyond traditional concepts of both the left and the right; its revolutionary political philosophy; its conception of history in terms of cycles; its attitude toward democracy, capitalism and socialism; and its endorsement of ‘pagan’ spirituality.
He also discusses the significance of some of the older authors who have been particularly influential on the development of the movement, such as Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt and Vilfredo Pareto. This new edition of Against Democracy and Equality has been completely re-edited, and offers new prefaces by both Dr. Sunic and the principal theorist of the European New Right, Alain de Benoist. Also included for the first time is the Manifesto for a European Renaissance, which highlights the positions of the New Right as it enters a new millennium.
Full title: Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right
Preface to the Third Edition
The New Right: Forty Years After
Introduction and Acknowledgments to the Second Edition (2003)
Preface to the Second Edition
Preface to the First Edition (1990)
Part One: Introducing the New Right
I. Enter the New Right
II. The ‘Gramscianism’ of the Right
III. The Conservative Left or the Revolutionary Right?
IV. Carl Schmitt and Politics as Destiny
V. Oswald Spengler and History as Destiny
VI. Vilfredo Pareto and Political Pathology
VII. The Pagan Right
Part Two: The Egalitarian Mystique
I. The Metaphysics of Equality
II. The New Right and the Elusive Equality
III. Homo Economicus: The Battle of All Against All
IV. Totalitarianism and Egalitarianism
V. Homo Sovieticus: Communism as Egalitarian Entropy
Appendix I: Major Figures of the European New Right
Appendix II: Manifesto for a European Renaissance
About the Author
Dr. Tomislav Sunic was born in Zagreb, Croatia in 1953. He holds a doctorate in Political Science from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Dr. Sunic gives lectures around the world, and has his own weekly Internet radio show, The Sunic Journal, on the Voice of Reason network. He has also authored several other books, including Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007) and Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations of Postmodernity (2010), He continues to live in Zagreb.
The American Third Position Board of Directors, comprised of Mr. William Johnson, Mr. James Edwards, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Dr. Tom Sunic, and Mr. Don Wassall, have given a “State of the A3P 2011″ radio address on the occasion of the party’s one-year anniversary.
The Directors briefed listeners on the accomplishments of the A3P during its first year and the goals for the year to come, as well as discussing the issues of most urgent concern to the American people.
Dr. MacDonald talked about the challenges which may be faced by individuals who identify themselves as pro-White. “It’s very heartening that we have had so many people join up,” he said, considering the reprisals they may face by publicly identifying themselves as A3P members.
He continued by noting that anti-White organizations “are there to pounce on anybody who comes out (as pro-White) because they know (the stigma against White solidarity) is something that props up the current multicultural way of doing things. And they are terrified that there will be a powerful group of people who are well-educated and well-informed, that will actually take a position where being White is OK, where we have rights and interests that we should be pursuing.”
Antigone, a young woman in Sophocles’ drama was sentenced to death by Creon, the king of Thebes, for breaching the law of the land. Her “historical revisionism,” her individualism, her free spirit bordering on stubbornness, prompted her to challenge the positive laws of her times. She viewed divine laws of justice and her own moral integrity as more important than her own fleeting lifespan.
I know all too well I’m going to die—
how could I not?—it makes no difference
what you decree. And if I have to die
before my time, well, I count that a gain.
When someone has to live the way I do,
surrounded by so many evil things,
how can she fail to find a benefit
in death? (460-520)
Be it in European mythologies, be it European sagas, be it in real social and political life, White European women have always displayed an extraordinary amount of free will and bravery, which is not to be observed in any other race, culture, or civilization. In Homer’s Iliad goddesses share the same plight as their male counterparts; play the same tricks as male gods, often disputing the whims of their male companions. Never, ever does the reader get an idea of gods’ “sexism”, or “machismo”, nor does one read about the abuse of their female companions; nor, for that matter, does one encounter goddesses who desire to question their womanhood.
One thing has remained rock solid in either pagan or Christian West: Every White male, every White female, be he or she of higher or lower birth, knew very well where his or her place was. The idea of promiscuous egalitarianism or gender swapping was considered an abnormality. It is only with the appearance of strange Oriental beliefs and their secular offshoots, Marxism and Freudianism, followed after WWII by pathological feelings of guilt for being born White, that a strange verbal construct and a bizarre concept of “feminism” came into vogue. Feminism soon turned into an ugly drama with far reaching social and political consequences for both men and women all over the West.
Feminist and Marxist theoreticians over the last fifty years have produced torrents of books describing traditional White women as proverbial men’s slaves or kitchen attendants. The feminist liberal Marxist drivel has lead many White women to believe that because of their inferior social role they needed to make a radical change in their own biology and their behavior. As a result, many historical examples of White women as political decision makers, as warriors, as artists, as thinkers, have been shoved aside, forgotten, or deliberately covered up. Modern authors or scholars tackling critically the issue of modern femininity vs. feminism from the other side of the ideological spectrum have rarely had a chance to voice their side of the story.
Feminism vs. Femininity
Doctors, biologists, psychiatrists, and of course, modern sociobiologists are better able to decipher the unique nature of woman than countless leftist and feminist authors who usually take their wishful thinking for scientific truth. Research on sex differences within an evolutionary framework shows that men and women have many differences that are understandable within the evolutionary theory of sex.
Fiirst, the concept of feminism is very vague. It embraces legitimate rights of women to be treated like human beings, but it frequently denotes self-denial of women’s biology and a radical ideology of male bashing. It would be useful to apply sexual profiling to study the psychology of modern self-proclaimed feminists, particularly in American and German universities, and then raise a simple question: What are the motives of these feminist authors? The bottom line for an uninitiated White male should always be to ask a simple rhetorical question: Are White “emancipated” women today happier than their female predecessors one thousand years ago? If so, why do White women today marry more and more into non-White gene pools whose cultural and racial heritage ignores the very concepts of women’s rights and femininity?
Everything depends on one’s point of view on women’s claims. From the perspective of a rocket scientist or a military aircraft pilot one gets a different picture of a would-be liberated woman than from a point of a view of a mother tending to a large family. And so on. At the extreme, one might contemplate the famed German psychiatrist and philosopher Julius Möbius whose book, Über den physiologischen Schwachsinn des Weibes (On the physiological feeblemindedness of the woman), wreaked havoc in feminist circles in the early 20th century.
Accordingly, not only is feeblemindedness among women present; it should also be a necessity. It is not only a psychological fact, but also a physiological postulate. If we have a woman who accomplishes her maternal profession — in that case she cannot have the brains of a man. When feminine abilities develop in the same manner as among men, in that case her maternal organs atrophy, and then, what we have in front of us is a worthless hermaphrodite.
A woman becomes a woman only by virtue of contrast and comparison to her male companion, whom she may perceive either as a threat or a lover. Without the Other there cannot be the Same. These principles of “complementary polarity” can equally well apply to different races: one becomes proud of his own race only when acknowledging the uniqueness of each race. The main point here is that it is only through their respective differences that men’s and women’s complementarity can be achieved. In the rejection of the recognition of Alterity lies the entire modern political drama, which only spurs standard left-wing invectives about alleged White racism, sexism, and the so-called “anti-Semitisms”—themes of exclusion usually ascribed to Whites only. A well-known sociobiologist from France, close to the “European New Right,” Yves Christen summarizes this dilemma in the following way in his book L’égalité des sexes; l’un n’est pas l’autre. (Gender equality; one is not the other);
This is the reason why one must overcome the embittered and demanding feminism in order to be able to espouse femininity based on the recognition of values inherent to each gender (in the same manner as negritude does not deny the difference but only affirms it as a fundamental principle), which have nothing to fear from affirming their respective identity. This is the reason why the study of differences, or better yet the study of the differential relationship between the two sexes, is of such overriding importance (p. 141)
Messing with powerful vestal priestesses in ancient Rome was a serious offense punished by death. In ancient Rome, despite its patrilineal legal foundation, common to all old European tribes, the spiritual and political power of young vestals knew no bounds. They embodied the very symbol of racial heritage and were viewed as the guardians of home.
Over the next two millennia the political role of women in European civilization was noteworthy. Among countless women rulers one can encounter a few who, even according to our modern standards, held more political power in their hands than many of their female successors in our times.
The blonde and fair skinned Queen Isabella the Catholic of Spain, in the late 15th century, threw out Jews and Muslim Arabs from Spain and literally changed the course of history on the European continent. Then came Catherine de’ Medici, the Italian-born French regent queen with enormous political power. Mid-eighteenth century continental Europe was under the spell of the Hapsburg empress, Maria Theresa, who had 16 children and who was greatly revered by Flemish and Croat mercenaries long after her death.
Maria Theresa in 1727, by Andreas Moller
The list of mighty White women is endless; it goes on and on all the way to the prudish, stern looking queen Victoria of England, during whose times England reached her imperial zenith.
Queen Victoria in 1887
It was largely the Semitic religion of Judeo-Christianity with its concept of sinfulness that brought about the rift between woman and man that subsequently led to the subordinate role of women in the Christian West. However, one must make a sharp distinction between the Christian North and the Christian South. Even today, in highly secularized and disenchanted West, one can easily spot, particularly in the countryside of the more “pagan”-Protestant European North, such as Scandinavia and northern Germany, how women differently express their social status compared to women in the Southern or Eastern Europe. Consequently, various feminist movements that sprang up in Europe and the USA at the turn of the twentieth century had a different agenda and can be only studied separately within a different racial, socio-historic and religious context.
Enjoying equal voting rights or basking in the splendor of a well-paid job does not necessary mean that the modern emancipated woman is automatically spared from mistreatment inflicted by her violent male partner. One may sometimes justly feel sorry for the burdensome past of the more domesticated, household-bound women in the Christian Southern or Eastern Europe. However, one must also bear in mind that pathological feelings of loneliness, such as experienced by many modern White emancipated American and Northwestern European women, are unheard of among Amish women in Pennsylvania, or among peasant women in today’s Russia or Eastern Europe. What good is it to be free if freedom means facing rapidly encroaching old age and the absence of all community?
As a German “national-feminist” scholar “ Sigrid Hunke wrote, due to the polarity brought about by the Judeo-Christian religions, man, very early on, was designated to become the expert in reason and intellect, whereas woman became relegated to the hearth and to the realm of maternal feelings, taught to serve her man only. “And men or women who did not match the characteristics of their respective roles were forced to suppress their nature or turn themselves into “unmanly” or “unfeminine” laughing stock. (Sigrid Hunke, „Die Zukunft unseres unvergänglichen Erbes in Mann und Frau“, Elemente, July 1987.)
Unknown in the modern feminist and academic establishment today, Hunke, along with countless German women, was a prominent academic with close ties to the intellectual circles of the SS in the Third Reich. Under the tutorship of the famous German racialist scholar, Ludwig Clauss, her academic prestige, particularly in the study of Islamic religion and Arabic civilization, was so highly praised that early post-WWII German diplomacy could not shrug off her expertise and reputation. Short of a better label one could possibly describe her today as a “racial”–feminist,” or a “national feminist”. As was to be expected, her name, along with those of thousands of other White European and American women, scholars and activists of the same ilk, fell into oblivion or was shoved into the proverbial category of the “Nazi woman.”
Leni Riefenstahl (1902-2003)
Writing about any aspect of National Socialist Germany, or for that matter about women in Europe of the mid-thirties of the last century, poses an insurmountable problem for any objective contemporary researcher. Whether one wants to tackle the subject of horse breeding in Bavaria or the number of caged canaries in Schleswig Holstein during the Third Riech, the effects of the Gulf stream on the Spanish coast of Galicia during Franco’s rule, or the quality or wine in Tuscany during Mussolini’s rule — their prose must be subject to a strict polarity of “good democracy vs. evil fascism.”
Conceptually and verbally Nazism and Fascism have become in modern scholarship the symbols of cosmic evil. Academic presentations of any topic referring to that epoch, even if totally unrelated to politics, race or women, must be premised on forgone antifascist conclusions. Hence wine, women, birds, winds, canaries, everything smacking of the past Fascist or National Socialist epoch, must be depicted in terms of metaphysical evil. Hundreds of thousands of post-WWII academic books, dealing with the topic of Fascism and National Socialism—irrespective of their alleged academic objectivity—must contain millions of disclaimers.
This continues to the present. In order to get published, contemporary scholars dealing with that epoch must go to great lengths to spice up their prose with a flurry of antifascist qualifiers.
I have written elsewhere how modern Germany has become a laboratory of academic national-masochism, a holier-than-the-Pope case study of cultural engineering—a place where an entirely new human subspecies has been created. This has gone to the point that when one carefully observes the facial expressions of prominent German scholars in the USA, one will notice furtive and panic stricken eyes refusing any focused eye contact with the interlocutor. If one happens to blurt the word ‘Jew!’, even when talking about the gimmicks of Charlie Chaplin, or even if one ventures into disinterested historicizing of sheep grooming in Tyrol during the National Socialist epoch—it will predictably prompt the bewildered German resident scholar to start shrieking in horror and immediately vacate the premises.
German scholars are merely the most grotesque examples of this phenomenon. Abject brownnosing has become the prevailing spirit of our times, both literally and figuratively, extrapolating the academic narrative in order to best fit oneself into the safe category of the “antifa” posture. And it goes well beyone the academic world. Indeed, it has become the national sport in the elite media and political culture all over the West.
The same may be said when one studies the attitudes towards feminism and the role of women in ex-Fascist Europe, or the impressive role of women artists, scholars and soldiers in the Third Reich. The antifascist symbolism, which has been diligently handed down by liberal propaganda about carpet chewing Hitler or overweight German maids holding a cluster of newborns on their immense breasts, is still around. Short of this medical obstretic scene one can come across a pathogenetic scenario in which a seven-foot tall blonde broad, sort of a Nazi diesel dike, aka Ilse Koch, with her own suggestive family name, cooks young Jewish kids for the incoming Waffen SS meals.
Feminism and “Sexual Bolshevism”
And what did the other side have to say about feminism and “free love”? As was to be expected, early National Socialist and Fascist scholars and their sympathizers all over Europe, slammed Jewish pornography, criticized the overwhelming number of Jews in the medical profession and the movie industry in the Weimar Republic, while rejecting the liberal and Bolshevik artistic cry for “ free love.” And this was much earlier than the Frankfurt School and its European nationalist detractors came into being or appeared on the European radar screen. Thousands of books and brochures, some academic with impressive bibliography, some written in a popular propagandistic tone, attacked liberalism, cultural Marxism and the Jews, or as the late German National Socialist sexologist, DrFerdinand Hoffman put it, “Jewish sexual-bolshevism” (jüdischer Sexualbolschewismus, p, 55 ). Hoffman notes:
This moral decay is usually ascribed as a burden to the ever increasing civilization of European peoples and especially to our people, who seem to be always on top of everything. The emancipation of women, this typical product of the European epoch, has led, in complete disregard of the experience of motherhood, to the a rejection of children, ignoring, however, that with the decay of the family and with much vaunted rights to self-determination, women were taken away from their own fertile ground. Shrieking claims for tentative masculinization in all fields of life, including the field of eroticism, have not faded however. The freedom of the individual regarding this sensitive area is still being compared to “having total fun” (Sichausleben), whereby the marriage, let alone having children, had to play a secondary role. Sittliche Entartung und Geburtenschwund (1937, p. 15)
Most academic titles—tens of thousands of books from the fields of genetics, anthropology, but also from the fields of literature and political science—were banned by the victorious Allies in Europe, shortly after WWII. Today, scholars who do research in different areas of the National-Socialist or Fascist epoch, particularly if they deal with the tantalizing role of women, use, as noted above, the methods of “pick and chose.” In order to avoid being shut up with the classic obituary of “anti-Semite” or “fascist pig”, they must carefully make sure that their prose in no way remains unbiased and that it contains at least some sparse value judgments about the alleged morbid and criminal nature of Fascism. At best, especially when the literary and artistic achievements of “Nazi racial- feminists” are described, such as Pia Sophie Rogge-Börner or Lydia Gottschewski, or even Savitri Devi, many mainstream academics resort to parroting derisory slogans, often depicting them as a pack of libidinous sun and cat worshippers.
This continuing negative popularity of National-Socialism and Hitlerism only confirms the well founded thesis that mainstream antifascist scholars and media people are subconsciously under a spell of that bygone epoch. One can suspect that when and if different winds start blowing tomorrow in the West, their postured and faked antifascism and philo-Semitism will be replaced by vulgar anti-Semitic outbursts. Witness the recent phenomenon of Communist anti-American apparatchiks in Eastern Europe who, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, began emulating every aspect of capitalism and nodding to every wink of US foreign policy makers.
One could single out Gregor Schwartz Bostunitsch, a high ranking SS scholar of German-Russian and Serbian origin, with close ties to the German NS Ministry of Propaganda. Most of his books deal critically with Jewish attitude towards sex and the role of Jewish women in seducing and killing Gentile men, such as Esther and Judith from the Old Testament. He writes in his Jude und Weib (1939, p. 57):
Already in 1925 a National Socialist writer Herwig Harnter in his book Erotik und Rasse; Eine Untersuchung über gesellschaftliche, sittliche und geschlechtliche Frage, brought to a common denominator the Jewish attitudes toward woman. He starts from the correct standpoint: the essential issue of life is the relationship between the spiritual to the instinctive and he comes to the right conclusion: one of the most important features of Jewish sexuality consists in the fact that the Jew sees in woman primarily a gender (sex). … Here, a fundamental contrast to the Aryan man is being made who—in so far as he is healthy in his interior—searches first and foremost for a spiritual and emotional partner.
The Fascist “Femme Fatale”
Hundreds of thousands of women in National Socialist Germany and in Fascist Europe were active as artists, filmakers, actressess, or served in the military. The famous German artist Leni Riefenstahlhad a decisve role in creating the National Socialist cultural iconography and she instilled into the European masses a new sense of imagery in artistic expresion—which remained strong long after WWII.
Organized womenhood of that time was not a monolithic crowd as one comes across Catholic phalangist women in Spain and “pagan” or atheist women in Germany who differed hugely from each other in their life styles. Standard feminism was officially associated with liberal anomie and Jewish inspired decadence, and therefore destructive to the European cultural heritage. In her book about the Jewish role in early feminism, Paula Siber von Groote, a high official at the Ministry of the Interior of National Socialist Germany, wrote:
These women’s movements, regardless of which specific direction of a decayed social teaching they may belong to, have succeded in highlighting the single woman, which they endeavor to mention now as a proof of their progressive service in the field of the life of women—skirting, however, the big universalilty of “the woman.”
What good is individual progress and individual service in normal times and in popular perception when the whole thing falls apart?
The big question regarding the woman of our times: the demeaning of women, the humiliation of women, the deprivation of women of their rights, women in troubles at their work at home, or in the office, or in the warehouses, in millions of destroyed beings, and so on… is only the indictment of the failure of these women’s movements. This came to failure because the issue of women detached itself from the fact of the genuine being of the woman while starting to experiment with exaggerated and soulless intellectualism. (Die Frauenfrage und ihre Losung durch Nationalsozialismus, The question of women’s rights and its solution by National Socialism), 1933, p. 6).
Different forms of racial feminism could be observed in Europe, expressed by different authors in different states. A maverick and prolific poet, writer and a soldier of the Waffen SS, Kurt Eggers provides in his book Von der Heimat und ihren Frauen(1940, p 13), a eulogy of ancient Nordic femininity, which represented the true symbol of women’s liberation.
Everywhere in world literature, where we find praiseful descriptions of maternal women, we realize the influence of the North, of the great Aryan race. To Jews, it would be totally impossible to worship such a woman! Even the cult of the Virgin Mary, so often mentioned in the “New Testament,” has absolutely nothing “sacred” in itself, but only when it appears in the religion of Christianity when fused with certain Aryan myths! The women of the Bible are all throughout questionable figures, often they are clearly whores, like Esther. Never would a poet of the North have wasted his talent on describing the fate of a prostitute.…
On Mount Sinai dwelled a desert god Yahweh, who resorted to unbelievable means and nothing surrounded him but an ensnaring atmosphere of horror conducive to all-out superstition. On Mount Olympus in Greece, however, ruled goddesses, who were sometimes superior even to gods. In the land of the North, in the far North goddesses were flesh and blood!
In real life, though, there were many cases of German and other European women fighting until their dying breath for their lost cause. From a highly educated women of Greek, French, English background, Maximiani Portas aliasSavitri Devi, who after the war continued her literary and philosophical anticommunist campaign, all the way to many German women who after the war turned to farming.
Savitri Devi, born Maximine Portaz (1905-1982)
The idea of fascist femininity, held a definite spell on women of that time. One can single out a highly decorated, yet fragile looking female pilot Hanna Reitsch, who was a great admirer of Hitler, ready to die with him. As the best German pilot ever, surpassing in her acrobatic adventures even Charles Lindbergh, she offered Hitler to fly him out of the Berlin inferno. Hitler, of course, rejected the proposal.
Hanna Reitsch (1912-1979)
I close with a poem by my wife, Xenia Bakran Sunic, from her collection of poetry, The Old Life Is Dead. The message is clear: There are more important things than “trivial woman’s rights.” Western women, far more than the women of any other racial or ethnic group, have a history of relative independence and accomplishment. However, all of us–both men and women–must think in terms of collective racial interests, and that means submerging some of our natural Western individualism to higher goals.
Distant fire always tinges
At the mysterious abyss of existence.
The maddening lightness
Of the eastern sun rising
Puts its daily spell on us.
It appears like a treason to my race
To talk about Eastern Beauty
With such depths of love unheard!
The heaviness of subtlety unmeasured
Weighing sombre on your soul
For the love of that Eastern Beauty
Sounds unsurpassable with the sufferings
Of the young Werther .
Modern thrills so cheaply white!
Who are you? — A forgotten dragon or god
Who keeps memories of time abysmal blood deep
Where burning fires never die out
And you keep your Eastern Muse of music
So delicately in the warmest sleep.
Poor beauty of the woman of the West
Fallen in the shallowness
Of her breast’s white consciousness
Poor her soul without sources of fiery flow
The rivers wide and deep,
Extinguished fires of her long memory
Watery, bloodless veins murmur
Through the weakness of her too light,
Too white, too naked bodily beauty,
Brought through the artistry
Of conjuring from the east
Lifeless goddess in disguise.
Oh, raise you goddess
From the distant ashes
Primeval voices deep
Enthral the man of your race
Weave again mellifluous music
In his prolonged sleep.
To feel the sweet balm
On his heavy sores
Might it stir his lost heart in darkness
Of his endless arduous figh
To obliterate his manhood
Just to please your trivial woman’s rights.
Blood thinned out woman,
So in love with your actual self
Forgetting your man
Is swerving and falling apart
In his search of his lost shadows
And hot blooded roots,
That melt the body
Like in some mad orgasmic orgy
Forging emotions that pierce the heaven
He is looking for a woman elsewhere
—in the far eastern land of the friendlier sun
Where the resounding voices
And his black eyed Muse
Inspirationally illusion deep.
Hail, the woman of the West!
Blind and deaf to alluring sounds
Of the mysterious dark voices
Enthralling your man’s lost manhood
In the desert of the magic sands,
While her Eastern unpretentious charm
Seduces him in her soft skin and satin breast.
Tom Sunic’s classic book, Homo Americanus, has been translated into French. The following is a summary of the book in French:
Homo americanus 25.00EUR
Rejeton de l’ère postmoderne
« Ayant vécu sous le communisme et possédant une connaissance directe du fonctionnement de la terreur d’État, Tomislav Sunic se trouve dans une position unique pour décrire le glissement actuel de l’Amérique vers ce qu’il qualifie à juste titre de “totalitarisme mou”. Ce régime se maintient moins par la force brutale que par une campagne incessante, extrêmement sophistiquée et prodigieusement efficace qui vise à contenir l’activité politique et culturelle dans des limites très étroites. Les dissidents ne sont pas jetés en prison ou frappés à l’aide de matraques, mais sont tranquillement ignorés et marginalisés » (extrait de l’avant-propos de K. MacDonald).
Au sommaire : Américanisme et antiaméricanisme. — Homo sovieticus et Homo americanus. — Les origines du « «politiquement correct » et le rôle de l’Amérique dans son perfectionnement. — Les origines bibliques du fondamentalisme américain. — Nous croyons en Yahvé : une politique étrangère divine. — La post-Amérique et la postmodernité. — L’exit des Euro-Américains. — L’étrangeté de la démocratie américaine.
Tom Sunic was recently interviewed in the French nationalist weekly magazine Rivarol. The article was entitled Serbes et Croates face à un danger biologique bien plus grave que leur récent conflit (“Serbs and Croats facing a biological danger much more serious than their recent conflict”).
* * * * *
RIVAROL (Paris), Nr. 2972, le 29 Octobre 2010
Tomislav SUNIC : « Serbes et Croates face à un danger biologique bien plus grave que leur récent conflit »
RIVAROL : Tomislav Sunic, né en 1953 à Zagreb, vous avez de 1989 à 1993 professé dans différentes universités américaines où vous enseigniez la philosophie politique et la politique des pays communistes avant de rejoindre le ministère des Affaires Étrangères croate sous la présidence de Franjo Tudjman. Polyglotte, vous avez publié de nombreux articles textes (que l’on peut trouver sur les sites internet www.tomsunic.info; doctorsunic.netfirms.com) en croate, anglais, allemand et français, dans notre revue Ecrits de Paris notamment, et vous connaissez assez bien la scène politique française pour citer des auteurs bien connus de nos lecteurs tels Pierre Vial, Hervé Ryssen ou Robert Faurisson. Vous publiez aujourd’hui La Croatie : un pays par défaut ? (1), dont le seul titre doit être une provocation pour les nationalistes croates qui font volontiers remonter leur État au Xème siècle. Voulez-vous nous dire que ce que vous entendez par identité « par défaut » ou « par procuration » et nous dire aussi comment l’ouvrage a-t-il été reçu dans votre pays natal ?
T. Sunic : On a beau, une fois la première extase nationale terminée, faire l’éloge du décisionnisme en politique, il n’en reste pas moins que toute décision politique, a priori valable, sera fatalement modifiée par des circonstances ultérieures. Et peut-être n’aboutit-on pas au pays des merveilles mais à la désillusion ou même à la catastrophe nationale. La Croatie actuelle est un pays par défaut dans la mesure où avant 1990, très peu de Croates croyaient en la possibilité d’un Etat indépendant. D’ailleurs, du point de vue du droit international, l’indépendance n’était nullement envisageable, et ne paraissait pas possible. D’ailleurs, l’Occident fut pendant 45 ans opposé à toute forme de sécessionnisme croate et il rechignait à toute idée de dissolution de la Yougoslavie – pour des raisons géopolitiques qui remontent à Versailles et Potsdam. Même le père fondateur de la nouvelle Croatie, l’ex-président, ex-communiste, ex-titiste, ex-historien révisionniste devenu anticommuniste, Franjo Tudjman n’envisageait pas en1990 la création d’un pays indépendant. Ce furent la Serbie et l’armée yougoslave qui propulsèrent la Croatie sur la mappemonde. Compte tenu de l’éparpillement des Serbes dans les Balkans, de leur peur légitime face à la confédéralisation de la Yougoslavie et à la poussée démographique des Albanais du Kosovo, le nationalisme jacobin des Serbes n’a pas tardé à déclencher une envolée du nationalisme croate – ce qui a entraîné, par suite et par défaut, la naissance de la nouvelle Croatie. À ce sujet, il faut renvoyer vos lecteurs à l’important petit livre du philosophe Alain de Benoist, Nous et les Autres, où il dissèque la nature suicidaire des petits nationalismes européens. Quoique considérée comme une blague, il est une triste vérité qui circule encore à Zagreb : « On devrait ériger un monument à Milosevic parce qu’il a aidé à fonder la nouvelle Croatie. » Peut-on être un « bon » nationaliste croate sans être antiserbe ? Malheureusement, à l’heure actuelle, je crois que non.
R. : Point donnant justement matière à polémique : votre relative compréhension pour les « méchants Serbes » dont vous soulignez la parenté morphologique et linguistique (que récusent beaucoup de vos compatriotes) avec les Croates. Estimez-vous également ces “monstres”, les guillemets sont de vous, victimes des terribles turbulences de la Yougoslavie post-titiste, pire bain de sang qu’ait connu l’Europe depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale ?
T.S. : Contrairement a ce qu’on nous dit, plus les peuples se ressemblent plus ils se jalousent et détestent.Quoique grand adepte de la sociobiologie, je pense qu’il y a encore du travail à faire en matière d’étiologie des guerres civiles. Nous avons assisté à une boucherie intra-blanche lors de la guerre civile européenne de 1914 à 1945. Certes le monothéisme judéo-chrétien, avec ses retombées séculaires, a été le moteur principal du carnage entre les peuples blancs. Mais en dehors de nos incompatibles mythes nationaux, il nous reste à déchiffrer pourquoi les guerres intra-européennes sont si meurtrières. Chez les Croates et les Serbes, la dispute à propos de leur différence frise le grotesque. Dans l’optique de ces deux peuples, chacun apparaît comme le travesti de l’Un par rapport à l’Autre. Les Serbes et les Croates n’ont certes pas besoin d’interprète pour se comprendre. De surcroît, on aurait du mal à distinguerun phénotype croate qui serait différent de celui des Serbes. Certes, il y a des Croates de grande culture qui vont vous faire des exégèses sur les haplo-types croates ou bien vous parler savamment de la différence entre les vocables croates et serbes. N’empêche que les Serbes et les Croates sont deux vieux peuples européens qui vont bientôt faire face à un danger biologique autrement plus grave que leur récent conflit.
Tito, Bien plus criminel que Mladic et Karadjic
R. : Dans votre livre, vous insistez sur l’ethnocentrisme des différentes composantes ex-yougoslaves qui se sont obnubilées sur les épreuves subies en occultant par exemple le martyre concomitant des « Volksdeutsche » du Banat ou de Voïvodine et vous insistez sur une double responsabilité : celle des communistes et celle des « dictatures thalassocratiques », monde anglo-saxon et Israël, qui ont également falsifié l’histoire pour leur profit personnel. Pouvez-vous préciser ?
T.S. Votre question renvoie à la farce judicaire actuelle du Tribunal Pénal International de La Haye, où les prétendus criminels de guerre serbes et croates sont jugés. Or les récents crimes de guerre ont des antécédents bien plus graves. Les accusés serbes Ratko Mladic et Radovan Karadzic ne sont que de petits disciples du grand criminel communiste Josip Broz Tito dont les crimes en 1945 ne furent jamais ni jugés ni condamnés. On ignore en France qu’un demi-million d’Allemands de souche subirent, de 1945 à 1950, une gigantesque épuration ethnique en Yougoslavie titiste. Karadzic, Mladic et j’en passe, ont tout bonnement appliqué les principes qui furent en vigueur chez les titistes et leurs Alliés occidentaux.
Une démonisation organisée
Je trouve particulièrement grossier que les agences de voyage croates et françaises, ou bien la télévision française, montrent de la Croatie de belles images sous-titrées « un petit pays pour de grandes vacances ». En réalité et bien que la Croatie soit certes un beau coin d’Europe, c’est un pays ou chaque pierrerespirela mort ; la Croatie est le plus grand cimetière de toute l’Europe. Le massacre de plusieurs centaines de milliers de soldats et de civils croates – ce que l’on appelle « Bleiburg », [NDLR. Voir l’article de Christopher Dolbeau dans la livraison de mai 2010 d’Ecrits de Paris] d’après le nom d’un petit village d’Autriche du sud – a profondément traumatisé le peuple croate. Pire, le fonds génétique croate a été totalement épuisé – au point qu’on ne peut pas comprendre les événements de 1991 à nos jours, sans se pencher au préalable sur la toponymie des champs de la mort communistes. D’ailleurs, l’ancien chéri occidental, le très libéral Eduard Benes, n’a-t-il pas indiqué le bon chemin aux futurs épurateurs balkaniques en expulsant 3,2 millions d’Allemands des Sudètes en1945, en vertu de décrets qui sont toujours en vigueur en Tchéquie ? Ceux qui portent la responsabilité de la récente guerre des Balkans ne sont ni le peuple serbe ni le peuple croate mais leurs communistes respectifs, secondés par les milieux libéraux occidentaux et par une certaine Gauche divine. Tour à tour, ceux-là ont tous démonisé les Serbes et les Croates – tout en occultant leur propre passé génocidaire durant et après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale.
La cause immédiate de la guerre meurtrière entre les Serbes et les Croates est à chercher dans les livres et les propos de feu Tudjman juste avant l’éclatement de la Yougoslavie. Il avait, en effet, osé toucher aux récits communistes et à la victimologie serbe en faisant chuter le chiffre magique et officiel de Serbes tués pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale par les Oustachis croates de 600.000 à 60.000, voire 6.000 ! Ces propos révisionnistes ont par suite causé une panique chez les paysans serbes de Croatie avec les conséquences que l’on connait.
Le multiracialisme, facteur de haine interraciale
R. : Vous insistez également sur l’homogénéité raciale, exceptionnelle en Europe et à laquelle vous êtes très attaché, des anciens pays de l’Est et notamment de la Croatie. Pensez-vous que cette homogénéité soit menacée par la volonté d’adhésion de votre pays à tous les rouages de la « communauté internationale », dans la mesure où l’identité historique de la Croatie est fragile ?
T.S. Aujourd’hui, le terme de race est mal vu en Occident – sauf quand on parle d’émeutes raciales bien réelles, comme celles qui ont récemment eu lieu à Grenoble ou à Los Angeles. Certes j’utilise le terme race dans un sens évolien, en me référant à « la race d’esprit », tout en sachant parfaitement bien à quelle race appartenaient les femmes sculptées par Phidias ou celles que peignait Courbet. Grace à la poigne communiste, la Croatie, comme d’ailleurs tous les pays d’Europe de l’Est, est aujourd’hui plus européenne que la France ou l’Allemagne. Le multiracialisme, qui se cache derrière l’hypocrite euphémisme du « multiculturalisme », mène à la guerre civile et à la haine interraciale. Les Serbes et les Croates, toujours immergés dans leurs victimologies conflictuelles, ignorent toujours que l’Europe occidentale a franchi depuis belle lurette le cap du Camp de Saints et que nous, les Européens, nous sommes tous menacés par une mort raciale et culturelle.
L’UE, calque hyperréelle de l’URSS
R. : Pour l’ancien dissident soviétique Boukovski, l’Union Européenne est de nature aussi totalitaire que l’était la défunte URSS et aussi funeste par son acharnement à ligoter les peuples dans le même carcan administratif, économique et surtout idéologique afin de leur ôter toute spécificité et d’en faire un troupeau soumis. Partagez-vous cette analyse ?
T.S. L’Union Européenne, c’est le calque hyperréel de l’ancien réel soviétique – si je peux emprunter quelques mots à Jean Baudrillard. Tous ces jeux de mots exotiques tels que « multiculturalisme », « communautarisme », « diversité », qui ont abouti à une sanglante débâcle en ex-Yougoslavie sont à nouveau à la mode à Bruxelles. Charles Quint ou le Savoyard Prince Eugène avaient de l’Europe unie une vision plus réelle que tous les bureaucrates incultes de Bruxelles. En observant de près la laideur des visages de cette caste infra-européenne, ses tics langagiers, sa langue de bois exprimée en mauvais français ou en « broken English », je pense à l’ancien homo sovieticus et à son Double postmoderne.
R. : Est-ce pour cela que vous êtes si sévère pour l’Establishment politique croate actuel que vous décrivez comme un ramassis d’ex-apparatchiks communistes opportunistes et corrompus ?
T.S. Bien entendu. Ce sont, sans aucune exception, d’anciens apparatchiks yougo-communistes et leur progéniture qui se sont recyclés en en clin d’œil en braves apôtres de l’occidentalisme et du capitalisme. À l’époque titiste, ils faisaient le pèlerinage obligatoire de Belgrade en passant par Moscou et La Havane. Aujourd’hui, à l’instar des anciens soixante-huitards français, ils se rendent pieusement à Washington, à Bruxelles – et bien entendu à Tel Aviv, ne serait-ce que pour obtenir un certificat de « politiquement correct ».
R. : Pendant le match pour la troisième place de la Coupe du monde 1998, j’avais été surprise d’entendre des consommateurs serbes injurier les Croates (qui avaient finalement gagné), parce qu’ils… ne marquaient pas assez de buts contre les Pays-Bas ! Et en juillet dernier, la correspondante de Libération à Belgrade évoquait le resserrement des liens culturels et surtout économiques entre la Serbie, la Croatie et la Slovénie. Ce resserrement est-il avéré ? Et, si oui, traduit-il un certain désenchantement envers l’Oncle Sam et la Grande Sœur Europe dont les pays de l’Est attendaient tant ?
T.S. Au vu du recrutement des footballeurs français dans le djebel maghrébin ou dans le Sahel sénégalais, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les sportifs serbes et croates représentent mieux une vraie européanité. Qu’on le veuille ou non, force est de constater que c’est le sport aujourd’hui qui reste le seul domaine où on peut librement exprimer son identité raciale et sa conscience nationale. Quant à l’américanolâtrie et l’américanosphère, qui véhiculent un certain complexe d’infériorité chez tous les Européens de l’Est y compris les Croates – ce mimétisme va rester fort tant que la France et l’Allemagne ne se réveilleront pas pour constituer un bloc commun et faire bouger l’Europe.
R. : Quel avenir espérez-vous raisonnablement pour la Croatie et ses voisines ?
T.S. Le même que pour la France, la Serbie, l’Allemagne et n’importe quel autre peuple européen : rejet total du capitalisme, rejet total du multiculturalisme, et prise de conscience de nos racines culturelles et biologiques européennes !
(1) La Croatie : un pays par défaut ? 256 pages avec préface de Jure Vujic, 26,00€. Collection Heartland, éd. Avatar, BP 43, F-91151 Étampes cedex ou < www.avataredtions.com >.
Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same.
Sigmund Freud: “Sexual morality is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life….If only Americans knew, we are bringing them the plague!”
Toddlers are to be encouraged to indulge in “unlimited masturbation.” Their parents are expected to offer practical demonstrations if need be — the better to produce sexual precocity in their offspring. “Children should learn there is no such thing as shameful parts of the body,” the booklet advises. “The body is a home you should be proud of.”
Children, it is suggested, should be taught the movements of copulation as soon as they reach the age of four, giving them what virtually amounts to a crash course in the Kama Sutra as soon as they have learnt to walk.
In Holland, things have gone further. Here a political party, set up by convicted pedophiles, clamors for the legalization of child pornography and intergenerational sex between children of twelve and adults old enough to be their grandparents. I forgot to mention bestiality. They want to legalize that too. (See here for a full report).
Who is to blame for the sex addictions we see suppurating all round us? This licentiousness, growing by the day, thanks to the internet and the mass media, is far deadlier and more destructive than it was half a century ago, before the sexual revolution.
Those who are responsible for this sickening depravity are clearly the people who started the sexual revolution. They are the people, moreover, who control the mass media.
Who controls the media? Who determines the imagery and attitudes drip-feeding steadily into the minds of the public? Who runs Hollywood? Who contaminates mass consciousness? Who defiles the collective mind? Who pulls the puppet strings of marionette man? Who are the Bad Shepherds leading the sheeple astray?
Who are to blame, in short, for letting the world go to hell in a handcart?
I won’t bother to answer that question. More to the point, I dare not. If you don’t know who owns the media—lock, stock and barrel—you’re wasting your time reading this article.
Art and Sexual Subversion: The Vaginocentric Female Artist
Let me resume here my discussion of sexual depravity which formed the basis of my recent article Sex and the Jews; and let me begin by saying a few words on art, a subject I know something about. (See here and here). And then let me proceed to the subject of pornography and consider its deployment in the systematic demoralization of the masses.
First, ask yourself this question: is there anything intrinsically admirable or aesthetically pleasing about British painter Tracey Emin’s attention-seeking leg-and-vagina paintings?
If you were a man of taste, which of these two depictions of the Eternal Feminine would you prefer: this beautiful woman painted by Botticelli or the ugly feminist icon who appears below?
Feminist icon Tracey Emin: “I’ve got it all”
Consider only these titles by the outrageously untalented Emin and draw your own conclusions: Everyone I Have Ever Slept With, Fucking Down An Ally (sic), Asleep Alone With Legs Open (several large-scale canvases of her splayed legs and vagina), I’ve Got It All (legs splayed again, clutching banknotes to her crotch), Weird Sex, CV Cunt Vernacular, Is Anal Sex Legal, Masturbating, Get Ready For the Fuck Of Your Life.
With titles like these, Tracey Emin could hardly fail. Her rich Jewish patron, advertising mogul Charles Saatchi, knew he was on to a good thing.
As the Gadarene swine hurtle over the cliff top, Tracey Emin and her kind clearly lead the pack on their way down into the bottomless abyss. These are the dupes of organized Jewry. By doing exactly what appeals to art patrons (almost all Jewish; see below), these infinitely corrupt talentless opportunists know they will become rich and famous.
The sad truth is that so many female “artists” — almost all of them rabid feminists and sexual exhibitionists — have nothing to sell but vaginas.
Here are ten other vagina-obsessed females, apart from Tracey Emin and the notorious Annie Sprinkle (see my previous article), who use sex to sell their “art”: Karen Finley, Hannah Wilke, Carolee Schneeman, Andrea Fraser, Sarah Lucas, Marlene McCarty, Vanessa Beecroft, Malerie Marder, Katy Grannan, and Kembra Pfahler.
Being unable to paint properly or produce objects of lasting value, these exhibitionists like to display their vaginas to the world and call it “art”. Here is one such exhibitionist, Jewish performance artist Carolee Schneemann, pulling a paper scroll out of her vagina:
Carolee Schneemann: “I saw the vagina as enlivened by its passage from the visible to the invisible, a spiralled coil with the shape of desire and generative mysteries….”
Who helps to promote this pretentious claptrap? You don’t need three guesses to answer that question.
In 2001, ARTnews listed the world’s Top Ten Art Collectors. Eight of them were Jews. Ponder these staggering statistics: A people who constitute 0.2% of the world’s population make up 80% of the world’s richest art collectors. Out of every thousand people in the world, roughly two are Jews. To be precise, one in every 457 people are Jews. Yet go to a conference at which 1000 of the world’s wealthiest art collectors have gathered and you will find, to your amazement, that 800 of them are Jewish! Phenomenal, isn’t it? (See here)
Some of the vaginocentric exhibitionists mentioned above, like lesbian “performance artist” Annie Sprinkle, maintain websites blocked by porn filters. The aptly named Sprinkle—a nom de porn in honor of urolagnia — is the lady who douched her vagina onstage in 1991, before lying down and opening her legs so that members of the audience, mostly male, could inspect her cervix with the help of a flashlight and speculum.
Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg): performance artist, prostitute, porn actress, feminist icon, and lesbian diva of depravity. Her idea of “art” is to masturbate onstage with sex toys, her legs wide open, and invite members of a predominantly male audience to peer up her vagina with torchlight and speculum. Sprinkle’s show was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts, a mini-empire controlled by the hidden hand of organized Jewry.
If Sprinkle acquired fame and fortune by allowing dirty old men to peep between her legs, Hannah Wilke and Karen Finley sought variations in which the vulva was again put to good use. The Jewish Wilke, being sadly deficient in originality, molded bits of chewing gum into vulvas and stuck them all over her body, much to the delight of the dirty old men who could now examine an assortment of vulvas simultaneously instead of just one. Not to be outdone, Finley smeared her naked torso with chocolate syrup and performed public acts—using a yam—which I won’t describe in detail in case nuns are reading this article. Rape, flatulence and menstruation formed the least offensive items in her repertoire.
Andrea Fraser, however, deserves first prize for sheer chutzpah. This raunchy performance artist arranged to meet a man at the Royalton Hotel in Manhattan, owned by Jewish hotelier Ian Shrager. Above the bed, an overhead camera played Peeping Tom. The man was persuaded to part with $20,000 for the privilege of helping to create a “work of art” with the frisky Fraser, the said work of art being a pornographic video filming the two participants copulating on a Queen-size bed. This sex video, now available for posterity, is pretentiously called “Untitled”.
Since Jews are known to dominate the porn industry and comprise only 2% of America’s population, it is reasonable to suppose that most of the new sites being started up every hour are being started up by Jews.
Jewish pornographer Al Goldstein’s infamous words — “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks”—surely tell us all we need to know about the bitter hatred felt by so many Jews for the Western countries that have harboured them and given them hospitality for so long.
Jewish hatred for Christianity is legendary, spanning the Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. It can hardly be doubted, as the picture below makes only too clear.
Five years before I got my first part in an adult film. … I went to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, love and sex, which were Reich’s three principles. These things have got to be in balance or your life is going to be fucked.
Note that Pacheco had signed on to the radical left-Freudian views of Wilhelm Reich—the wackiest and most extreme of the subversive sexual ideologies that emerged from psychoanalysis. Jewish devotees of psychoanalysis typically saw it, first and foremost, as a blow against Christian sexual mores; hence, as a sneak attack on Christianity itself. For Jews, psychoanalysis placed Western culture on the couch. It was an assertion of Jewish contempt for Christian culture—the culture of the outgroup now destined for the dustbin of history.
Pacheco didn’t get the job, but he kept on auditioning, since all he really wanted was to screw gorgeous blonde shiksas—doubtless an atavistic expression of Jewish hatred for the goyim, every act of sex being an act of revenge.
Five years later I auditioned for another X-rated film. That very day, I also interviewed at Hebrew Union Seminary to do rabbinical study. I made the choice that the kind of rabbi I would be, if I became one, was one that could have been performing in sex films as part of his experience. (My emphasis, see here).
Mindboggling, isn’t it? This dupe of the sexual revolution couldn’t make up his mind whether to sing hymns to God or kiss the devil’s ass! In the end, it’s the devil who won out. Pacheco decided to build a career in pornography—with the full blessings, incidentally, of ADL chairman Abe Foxman who said that porn offered American Jews a valid and worthy way “to pursue the American dream.”
Richard Pacheco (b. 1948). Scion of an orthodox Jewish family from Pittsburg, Pacheco was attracted from an early age to the rabbinate and to porn in equal measure. Star of over 100 X-rated films and winner of countless awards for his sexual prowess in front of the cameras, Pacheco was lucky to receive the loyal support of his wife Ashley. Managing somehow to juggle a career in porn with a commitment to family life, Pacheco later had sex with Ashley “considerably less often after they had children and AIDS became a threat, but he credits his pornography career for giving him the opportunity to continue sexual encounters for a time without endangering his home life.”
Here is Pacheco being interviewed after his retirement from porn:
As a young husband, I had no idea how to ask my beloved wife to be my “fuck-your-ass whore”. Yeah, I wanted some of that kind of sex, some very, very selfish lust with a sex kitten. A “fuck-me-fuck-me” woman. There’d be corsets and leathers, high-heeled boots laced up to crotchless panties, breasts spilling out of nippleless bras in lush bordello bedrooms filled up with sex toys. Like blindfolds and vibrators, handcuffs and paddles. Yeah, and there’d be me with a genuine tarted up won’t-say-no-woman. All the best drugs and oils in the world and plenty of time. And there’d be no “I love you” in any of it! I would meet this X-rated woman at the hotel where they were holding the auditions…and I would have sex with her right there in the hotel elevator! And then I would go home to my wife.
Richard Pacheco (a recent photo). Asked if he still watched adult movies now that he was a Senior Citizen, the former rabbinical student replied: “Not much. Occasionally I’ll toss one on for masturbation if my wife ain’t around.” (See here).
In 1984, Pacheco won the Best Couples Sex Scene (video) with porn star Nina Hartley. In 1999, he was inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame with feminist porn diva Annie Sprinkle. In 2000, along with Sprinkle, he was given a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), an organization that had given Nina Hartley an award only a few months earlier. (See here).
In an important court case in 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the US Supreme Court decided in the Coalition’s favour, thereby making it easier for pornographers to demoralize Americans, corrupt their children, and promote a general debasement of values — all this in accordance, incidentally, with the Frankfurt School agenda of producing a “culture of pessimism” designed to foster anarchy and promote impotent anger and despair. (See here and here).
A great storm is brewing and only a military coup or revolution can now save America. Save it from what? From the spiritual cancer that is consuming it from within, and from the foreign wars into which it is being lured—Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon perhaps Iran—on behalf of another nation and its indefatigable agents in America.
Unless a miracle soon occurs and some charismatic leader comes to our rescue, an unimaginably bleak future surely awaits us: a future in which the only consolations left to us will be mindless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, sexual intoxication—and suicide.
Depravity appears to have no limits, as those who have surfed the internet have often discovered to their cost. The most appalling sexual addictions now render even children helpless. Many a marriage is blighted and ends in ruins amid these terrifying toxins.
And yet, we are only at the beginning. We have many a slime-green step to go before we reach rock bottom. Abyss yawns below bottomless abyss, and even to peer into these black moral chasms is to make us giddy with vertigo.
There is indeed no end to man’s depravity.
Things fall apart. The centre cannot hold. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born…?
— William Butler Yeats,The Second Coming
Dr Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 32, with higher degrees in Classics. She is also a published poet and translator whose verse can be sampled here. “Lasha Darkmoon” is a pen name.
I’ll never forget a painting I saw at a West Berlin youth hostel in 1985. The background depicted bombed-out ruins, presumably Dresden after the Allied firestorm. In the foreground were two women, their backs to us as they faced the charred, blown-out buildings. One woman was starting to lift her arm in a Sieg Heil salute, while the other rushed to grab her arm and stop her.
What a weird image it was, mixing national pride with national defeat and national self-loathing.
After World War II ended, no nation on Earth has been force-fed as many Guilt Sandwiches as the Germans, despite the fact that they’d lost seven to nine million of their own Volk in that conflict. One never hears about “the nine million.” It’s nearly verboten to even mention them.
When I saw that painting in 1985, Germany had already endured four decades of post-WWII shaming. Despite all that, I knew that sooner or later, that one lady would tire of holding down the other lady’s arm.
Sixty-five years after World War II’s end, Germany is finally becoming OK with being German again. On October 16 while addressing her Christian Democratic Union party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said:
In Frankfurt am Main, two out of three children under the age of five have an immigrant background.…This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and are happy about each other, this approach has failed, utterly failed.
Loud applause greeted that last sentence.
For five years running, the stout, doughy Merkel has been Nummer Eins on Forbes magazine’s list of “The World’s Most Powerful Women,” so her statement is no small potatoes. But only a month earlier, Merkel was telling Germans that they should get used to seeing more mosques in their country. She was also condemning Thilo Sarrazin’s “absurd, insane opinions” as expressed in his shockingly popular book Germany Abolishes Itself.
It’s unclear why Merkel has suddenly shifted her ample hips rightward. She could be responding to recent polls showing that six in ten Germans would like to see Islam restricted, three in ten say they feel their country is “overrun by foreigners,” seventeen percent say that Jews have an undue influence over German affairs [oops!], and thirteen percent say they’d welcome a new Führer [now hold it right there!].
There go those pesky Germans again, refusing to hate themselves. How dare a German say anything besides “I’m sorry” for the next thousand years?
Everyone expected the Germans to get an attitude sooner or later—after all, they’re the Germans. What seems more troubling, at least to the sworn enemies of All Things European, is that all of Europe seems to be getting the same attitude simultaneously.
What one might refer to as indigenous Europeans—you know, the palefaces, the Ice People, the Ghost Men, the Evil Aryans, the Abominable Snowmen—are beginning to chafe at the iron rainbow to which they’ve been yoked since World War II. Geert Wilders has blossomed into a political force solely by promising to protect Dutch culture from Islamofascism. An anti-immigration party just placed twenty anti-immigration asses into the Swedish Parliament’s seats. France is goin’ wild banning burqas and sending the Roma packing. The Swiss have flipped the bird at minarets. Putin’s brand of post-Soviet Russian nationalism is insanely popular, at least among insane Russians.
Even in the self-loathing, culturally obsequious, crushed-and-bleeding former empire that is the UK, comments in response to Merkel’s proclamation were lopsidedly in favor of what she said. Most of the anonymous online whisperers, presumably British nationals, agreed that multiculturalism was a colossal failure in their country as well.
Reading the comments, I saw parallels between Europe’s brand of “multiculturalism” and the American product. Both hither and yon, there’s anger about racial job quotas, oppressive speech codes, and double standards regarding who’s allowed to show ethnic pride.
What’s important is the way multikulti has unfolded and where. You don’t see such sensitivity training being forced upon anyone in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or South America. You don’t hear China, Japan, or Israel being lectured to swing open their doors to foreigners. Almost exclusively, multiculturalism is a psychological marketing program designed for majority-white countries. Often, it is sold with the idea that whites are paying a historic debt, are reaping what they’ve sown, that what goes around comes around, that the wheel has turned full-circle, the chickens are coming home to roost, and that it’s time to pay the swarthy piper his due.
Country by country, continent by continent, there’s a sense that the newer, darker arrivals are receiving preferential treatment over those who’ve been there for generations. In the UK, it’s called “Positive Discrimination.” In America, it’s called “affirmative action” and “amnesty.” And across every border where whites are a majority, there’s a creeping sense that politicians don’t give a  about how they feel. They never asked for these new waves of immigrants, and they had no choice in this odd social-engineering experiment that’s demolishing whatever they used to share as a common culture.
Suddenly, this doesn’t seem so much like a celebration of all cultures as it does punishment of a specific culture. And that doesn’t sound like such a swell recipe for having everyone get along.
We’ll be continually reminded that European satellite nations such as Canada, the USA, and Australia were settled atop indigenous skulls, so the land-grabbing descendants of those race-murderers have no right to whine about being gradually wiped out themselves by newcomers.
Once again, for Christ’s sake, whether he’s dead or alive: Two wrongs don’t make a right. If colonialism was wrong then, it’s wrong now. Multiculturalism is merely colonialism with a prettier name. I realize and concede the fact that it awards us with a dazzling array of ethnic restaurants unparalleled in their tastiness.
Under multiculturalism, we have a wider selection of food…and no one talks to anyone anymore. Many of us now speak different languages and wouldn’t even know how to talk to one another. Rather than erasing borders, multiculturalism has merely created new borders within borders. Rather than destroying nationalism, it creates mini-nations within nations.
If we’re going to push multiculturalism’s glories, shouldn’t we point out where has it worked in the past? If diversity is a strength, why did stretched-too-thin empires such as ancient Rome and the Soviet Union eventually fall from the weight of their own diversity?
Stop calling me a racist and shoot some believable answers at me. I really want to hear them.
As always, the “chattering classes” are working out their postcolonial guilt complexes at the lower classes’ expense. Either they’ve known what they were doing all along or they haven’t, and I’m not sure which is worse.
It’s dangerous to ignore the fact that all the technology in the world, the ceaseless multicultural brainwashing that’s been laser-beamed into our eyeballs over the past 65 years, has not eradicated the basic human tendency to be tribal. If they didn’t fully murder such instincts in the Germans—and God  knows they tried hard with the Germans—maybe such instincts can’t be killed.
Yes, I realize we’re all human. If that’s your point, you’ve already made it—and, I might add, at a tremendous expense. What you fail to realize is that humans tend to be tribal. And if you get too many tribes, you don’t have a nation anymore.
I guess we should celebrate the fact that even though no one speaks to one another anymore, at least the people who aren’t speaking to one another are more “multicultural” than they used to be back when people actually spoke to one another.
What kind of newly enriched and suddenly empowered American culture do I see when I drive on the highway near my house? I see Wal-Mart, Chili’s, Motel 6, Wendy’s, and Home Depot. It could be Indianapolis. It could be Omaha. It could be Seattle. It could be anywhere in America. It happens to be Stone Mountain, GA, but you’d have no idea you were even in the South. In 2010, the only cultural landscape we share consists of familiar corporate logos. There’s no local flavor, no sense of indigenous culture. Things don’t seem richer, livelier, and more colorful; they’re empty, listless, and dead.
At least that’s how it feels to me. I don’t feel as if there’s any glue, cohesion, or sense of belonging in this society anymore. I’m feeling the anomie something awful. I don’t see the upside to our newer, more multicultural America. The only thing we share is the currency, and maybe that was the point all along.
Multiculturalism has failed, but it has only begun to fail. Now what? After constant states of flux, our society now seems fluxed-up beyond repair. How do we sort out the mess while avoiding more Trails of Tears?
Multiculturalism is dead, sure, but what do we do with the body? I’ve yet to hear a good burial plan, and I fear we may need one.
And what makes me most nervous is that I’m not even sure who “we” are. Source:Taki Mag.
Filed under News | Tagged: | Posted by Mike Conner
The text below is the expanded version of Tom Sunic’s speech, delivered at the New Right conference in London, on October 23, 2010 (to be broadcast soon on VoR).
There is a danger in interpreting the text of some long gone author, let alone of some heavyweight philosopher, such as Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860). The interpreter tends to look at parts of the author’s prose that may best suit his own conclusions, while avoiding parts that other critics may find more relevant, and which the interpreter may consider either incomprehensible or irrelevant. This is true for Schopenhauer in so far as he deals in his multilayered work with diverse subject matters, ranging from the theories of knowledge, to the role of women, sex, eugenics, religion, etc., while offering aphoristic formulas on how to live a more or less liveable life. Moreover, in his entire work Schopenhauer deals extensively with the perception of objective reality, our self-perception, and how our self-perception reflects itself in the perception of the Other, for instance in the mind of my political foe or friend. It’s no wonder that when Schopenhauer is read along with some postmodern authors, his work can retrospectively yield some groundbreaking insights, of which even he was not aware.
The devil is often in the details, but harping on the details alone may often overshadow the whole. Just because Schopenhauer was critical of Jewish monotheism, or made some critical remarks about women, should not lead us to the conclusion that he was a standard-bearer of anti-Semitism or a hater of women. The fact that Adolf Hitler was one of his avid readers should not overshadow the fact that the father of modern psychoanalysis, the Jewish-born Austrian Sigmund Freud, learned a get deal from him on the how irrational will is expressed in sexual drive.
An Apolitical Meta-politician
How relevant is Arthur Schopenhauer? At first sight Schopenhauer’s prose may be dated for our understanding of the world today. Schopenhauer can be catalogued as a thinker of the so-called intellectual conservative revolution in so far as many thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Vilfredo Pareto, Julius Evola and others, one hundred years later, were heavily influenced by his writings. Neither can these authors be properly understood unless the reader becomes familiar with Schopenhauer’s writings first. Secondly, Schopenhauer’s teachings about the primacy of the will spearheading our perception of reality can also be of help in grasping the political hyperreality of the modern liberal system.
Schopenhauer’s name is usually associated with cultural pessimism. Nevertheless, he is far from the caricature of a suicidal author harping ceaselessly on the culture of death, as was the case with many of his 20th-century successors, including the magisterial Emile Cioran. In his aphorisms Schopenhauer provides some handy recipes as to how to minimize a life of pain and sorrow and how to discard the dangerous illusion of happiness. As a fine connoisseur of human psychology, Schopenhauer justly remarks that where there is a violent outburst of joy, a disaster looms just around the corner. It is therefore with maximum efforts that we need to curb shifts in our mood: anxiety is just the other side of ecstasy. One must not give vent to great jubilation or to great sorrow as the changeability of all things can transfigure those at any moment. By contrast, one must enjoy the “here and now,” possibly in a cheerful manner — this is the wisdom of life. (Die Kunst glücklich zu sein. C.H. Beck 1999, p. 56).
Schopenhauer does not deal with political treatises in his work, nor does he discuss the political sociology of the rapidly industrializing Europe, or governmental institutions of his time. The political changes he witnessed, however dramatic they were, such as the Napoleonic wars in Europe, the rise to power of America, and the post-Napoleonic era, were of no interest to him. Quite consistent with his misanthropic views about human nature, he stayed above the political and historical fray to the point of total disinterestedness.
Schopenhauer refuses any formula for any ontological, political, or ethical system whatsoever. Instead, he demolishes all doctrines and all systems, be they religious or political. He resented politics and he can be justly depicted as an “anti–intellectual” in a modern sense of the word.
For Schopenhauer, the world is fundamentally absurd and no political philosophy can alter its absurdity. A French theoretician of postmodernity, the philosopher Clément Rosset, is probably one of the best authors who summarized the significance of Schopenhauer for our times.
Man has forever been successful in passing off past events for new events. He has been thought to be able to act within free and regenerating time. In reality, though, he has been in the arms of the cadaver. A retrospective horror extends to his past, in which he has lived ever since, although, just like his future, that time had lapsed for good. This time-illness, a profound source of intuition about the absence of all finality, expresses itself in the obsessive theme of repetition. (Clément Rosset, Schopenhauer, Philosophe de l’Absurde, 1967, p. 97).
In other words, however much we may yearn to affect the flow of time or assign it some goal or purpose, its merciless cyclical nature always bring us to further delusions and the inevitable status quo.
Nowhere is this absurd repetitive will of living visible as in man’s sexual desire — which Schopenhauer describes in his famous chapter and essay “The Metaphysics of Sex.” Once a sexual appetite is assuaged, the will continues to manifest itself again and again in ceaseless sameness of sexual desire.
It follows from this absurd repetitiveness that the entire history of the human species is the entanglement of re-enactments. World affairs and political decision-making are manifestations of a self-inflicted desire for something new. Based on such perceptions of repetitive reality, Schopenhauer shows no interest in history, noting that it is always the same people who take the world stage, with the same ideas, albeit framed in a different rhetoric. In short, his target of criticism is the philosophy of optimism and the idea of progress which lay embedded in the eighteenth century teaching of the Enlightenment.
For Schopenhauer there is nothing new under the sun, as with every fleeting second the new becomes the old and the old becomes the new; the wheel of time turns forever. Time for Schopenhauer is devoid of historicity. Therefore, a study of some historical event, or of some political drama, is totally irrelevant. Schopenhauer advocates the abandoning of the illusory will to create a better world. He was a willy-nilly supporter of monarchical government because that form of rule offered some semblance of authority and stability.
Despite his static philosophy that rejected human and political betterment, Schopenhauer ventures often in his lengthy work into interesting and well-founded analyses, such as his brief study on the importance of heredity. But one must be careful not to extrapolate his scattered comments on race and heredity and assume that they make up the bulk of his work. He believed in the hereditary improvement of mankind and some of his remarks about biological betterment are right on target. Irrespective of the fact that he does not delve much into the subject of heredity, one must agree that Schopenhauer could be easily used as a weapon by modern sociobiologists or race realists.
If we could castrate all scoundrels, and shut up all stupid geese in monasteries and give persons of noble character a whole harem and provide men, and indeed complete men, for all maidens of mind and understanding, a generation would soon arise what would produce a better age than that of Pericles (The World as Will and Idea, p. 331, “Heredity.”)
Schopenhauer’s remarks on heredity are perfectly compatible with his teachings on the independence of the will. Just as we can never change the predetermined nature of our genes and our genealogy, we cannot change the predetermined nature of the will:
The only freedom that exists is of a metaphysical character. In the physical world freedom is an impossibility. .. [T]he will itself, as something that lies beyond time, and so long as it exists at all, never changes… Hence it is that every man achieves only that which is irrevocably established in his nature, or is born with him. (Free Will and Fatalism).
The Will vs. the Deceptive Reality
The main driving force of the entire university is the will. Ideas, concepts and images are merely the objectification of our will at different levels of perception. The will is a blind force; it is subject neither to time nor to space, neither does it obey the principles of causality, nor is it subject to accidents.
In this sense Schopenhauer represents a big break with the teachings of rationalists and idealists of his time, who were enamoured with the principles of causality, and henceforth viewed necessity as a cornerstone of life on Earth. Schopenhauer stood out as an oddity in his times which were imbued with the heritage of the Enlightenment.
The will is more important than the thought. However, at the conceptual level, as some scholars pointed out, one must carefully distinguish between the will and the instinct, as his later critical admirer and commentator, the National-Socialist Minister, Alfred Rosenberg, noted in his chapter “Will and Instinct” in his now famous book, The Myth of the 20th Century. “Will is always the opposite of instinct (“Trieb”), and not identical with it, as Schopenhauer seemed to teach.”
In other words contrary to Schopenhauer, Rosenberg objects that Schopenhauer uses the term “will” in an overly general manner. Similar to Nietzsche and his followers, Rosenberg argues for the “implementation” of the free will for Promethean and political goals while contrasting it to the primeval biological impulses which he calls the “instinct.” (Trieb).
Man is originally not a being of knowledge but a creature of instinct and will — a will that comes alive in cyclical time and in a non-linear way. Will is the fundamental reality of the world, the thing-in-itself, and its objectification is what is visible in external phenomena, such as objects or political events that we witness daily. In practical life the antagonism between the will and reason arises from the fact that the will is a metaphysical substance, whereas the reason is something accidental and secondary: an “appendage to the will. The will is an autonomous desire, that is to say, an irrational need to act or to do something. The will is free in every single thought process and action, but it need not and generally does not follow the precepts of reason.
Unlike the majority of philosophers of his time, including Hegel, Schopenhauer does not hold reason in high regard. Our illusions, based on self-serving perceptions, remain so entrenched despite the most sophisticated appeals to reason. Therefore, Schopenhauer can be justly labelled as the greatest anti-rationalist philosopher of all time. Only the genius has some capacity for objectivity in so far as he can harness his will and become the pure knowing subject.
The absurdity of Schopenhauer’s “free” will is that man is enslaved by it without ever knowing its origin and reason. Humans act but do not know why they act the way they do: apart from a few geniuses, their self perceptions are nothing more than illusions. This leads us to a dreadful life, full of anguish on the one hand and ecstatic expectations on the other. The absurdity of our will is not how to reach the river and quench our thirst: the absurdity consists in the will for being thirsty! The will has no cause and, given that it excludes causality, it does not have any necessity or purpose.
That the being is without any necessity is already a dreadful problem. But that this very being is in addition unhappy and miserable only emphasizes the absence of a raison d’être. (Rosset, p. 16)
Schopenhauer’s theories of representation and perception can easily rank him today in the category of the founding fathers of postmodern theory of the Double and the Hyperreal. Everything that we see is fleeting “representations” and not the actual physical phenomena. We dream even when we are awake. Well, how then tell the difference between the real political truth and the fabricated political truth?
Schopenhauer is a crucial source in understanding the psychopathological impact of religions, myths and systems of beliefs. At times he labels them “allegories” whereas in other places he describes them as the “metaphysics of the masses” or “people’s metaphysics” (Volksmetaphysik). Just as people have popular poetry and the popular wisdoms or proverbs, they also need popular metaphysics. They need an interpretation of life; and this interpretation must be suited for their comprehension. The great majority of humans have at best a weak faculty for weighing reasons and discriminating between the fact and the fiction. Does this sound familiar?
No belief system, no ideology, no religion is immune from self-serving delusional tenets linked to false perceptions of reality, although, in due time, each of them will undergo the process of demythologization and eventually become a laughing stock for those who see the illusions underlying these delusional myths.
We can illustrate this changing masquerade of history repeating itself when observing the mindset of modern opinion makers. People have always wished, by means of different allegories, to transcend their cursed reality and make frequent excursions into the spheres of the hyperreal, the unreal, or the surreal — in order to offset the absurdity of their existence. It is natural that they resort to religious and ideological devices, however aberrant or criminal these allegorical devices may subsequently turn out to be.
Accordingly, the motor of religious mass mimicry, which Schopenhauer describes, is again our objectified will. Consequently, the whole course of human life is patterned along the principle of imitation, where even the smallest thing in our perception is borrowed from that role model who is viewed now as a path-breaking innovator or a new messiah. Mimicry is the powerful motor of the will, the theme which was later expanded by Schopenhauer’s disciples, such as Gustave Le Bon.
Intelligent individuals amidst our modern rootless masses realize that some beliefs are fraudulent and harmful, but for the sake of social conformity they accept them. They will rather listen to others than trust their own head. As Schopenhauer writes, the bad thing about all religions is that instead of being able to admit their allegorical nature, they conceal it. Absurdities form an essential part of popular beliefs.
Schopenhauer’s teaching on religions, including his denunciation of the will to political power, was borrowed from the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. He has good words for Catholicism though, which for him is a religion of pessimism (The World as Will and Idea, p. 372). But it would be a serious error, based on a fragmentary reading of his work, to conclude that he was rejecting one religion at the expense of the other. Although Schopenhauer may be described as an atheist or agnostic, his sense of spirituality was very strong. Of all religions Judaism is the worst religion, notes Schopenhauer in his famous book Parerga und Paralipomena.
The genuine religion of the Jews … is the crudest of all religions (die roheste aller Religionen.) The ongoing contempt for Jews, amidst their contemporary peoples, may have been to a large degree due to the squalid (armsälig) qualities of their religion. … In any case the essence of any religion consists, as such, in its persuasion that it provides for us, namely that our actual existence is not only limited to our life, but that it remains timeless. The appalling (erbärmlich) Jewish region does not fulfil this; indeed, it does not even try to. … Therefore, this is the crudest and the worst of all religions consisting only in an absurd and outrageous (empörend) theism. … While all other religions endeavour to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry (Kriegsgeschrei) in the struggle with other nations” (pp. 136–137).
Some of Schopenhauer’s words about the power of the blind will can easily be applied to our postmodern times — for example, how the will to believe in something has been hijacked by liberal political elites.
The Hyperreal: The Denial and its Double
We can now jump over to the 20th and 21st century and observe how Schopenhauer’s ideas provide a good fit to the mass illusions accompanying the rising tide of the democratic mystique. How does the will objectify itself in the political arena today? As I wrote in my essay, Vilfredo Pareto and Political Irrationality, politicians are inclined to project their perception of the real world into its embellished Double.
Example: None of us is entirely happy with his looks; no political theorist is happy with the world as it is. We all strive to be someone else; we all wish to project either our physique or the present political order into its loftier, distant, and more romantic substitute. As a result, the masses, but also our politicians, assess values and objective reality not as they are, but rather as they’d like to see them. Our passionate need for a change, as a rule, results in inevitable disappointments and feelings of betrayal.
Following Schopenhauer’s logic, it is a serious error to assume that some contemporary politician in the US, the UK, or in Croatia is a liar or a crook just because we feel or think that we are being cheated or oppressed by him. More likely, such wicked political leaders, are themselves the victims of self-delusions. Their manic desire for world improvement is based on honest and self-proclaimed “scientific”, “reasonable,” and “truthful” wishful thinking, which they benevolently wish to share with us or with their subjects or constituents.
To illustrate the will for self-delusion, one may observe contemporary leftists and antifascist militants within Schopenhauer’s framework of analysis. What they say is already based on their prior self-persuasions, which are the reflections of the prevailing beliefs of their time. Pareto, as a valiant disciple of Schopenhauer’s methods, notes that “many people are not socialists because they have been persuaded by reasoning. Quite the contrary; these people acquiesce to such reasoning because they are (already) socialists.” Their will, however aberrantly it may objectify itself in the ravings for some communistic mystique, defies any empirical argument.
Schopenhauer is of paramount importance in understanding our perception of postmodern reality, or our hyperreality, as some authors call it. The surreal world of the liberal dogma — that is, the world in which we live — fits perfectly Schopenhauer’s teaching on the flawed perception of the real. Moreover, Schopenhauer’s work is a useful tool for deciphering liberal mendacity, which has become today the cornerstone of the new world order. The postmodern West is enveloped in the virtual reality of the electronic age (the “videosphere”) and media make-believe, which incessantly turn every real political event into a virtual image.
How does the liberal mystique or, to use Schopenhauer’s word, ‘allegory’, operate today? The process that started with the abstraction of the objective, as a result of the mass media, has ended now in integral reality, as the postmodern author Jean Baudrillard writes. The virtual itself is “negationist,” or denial-prone. The virtual takes away the substance of the real. “We are living in a society of historical denial by virtue of its virtuality.”
Disbelief reigns everywhere, even if there are solid and empirical proofs of the opposite. No longer is some historical or political event perceived as “real” or truthful. For instance the memory of the Holocaust functions today as the largest civic religion of the West. The Holocaust is a system of belief serving not only a commemorative goal; it is also a cognitive paradigm for interpreting all aspects of our contemporary society. The issue, however, is no longer the body count of people who died in the Holocaust; rather, the issue is the fact that the postmodern virtual world by definition minimizes or maximizes the hyperreal at the expense of the real.
This rule of the hyperreal or the double applies now to all grand narratives, especially those teeming with victimological themes. Even honest historians or social theorists can no longer be taken as real. Why? The big postmodern question will immediately start hovering over their heads: What if that guy is telling the lies? What if he does not tell the truth? Victimologies, and victimhoods no longer sound persuasive as they have found their media hyper-substitutes, which either re-enact, or deactivate the real past crime.
Therefore, the modern media and politicians must make post-prophylactic political decisions in a desperate attempt to dismantle the previous real, i.e., the previous bad decision, the previous inaction by making it up to the real victim with an overkill of repenting rhetoric and post-prophylactic decision making (massive security checks at airports, always new mass commemorations, etc). If the lives of the masses of people who perished cannot be restored, let us restore their memory by the hyperreal media! Why resuscitate the living, when the resuscitation of the dead is a far better business?
One can analyze the postmodern wars, the so-called Gulf War in 1991 and the war in Bosnia in 1995 using the concepts of the hyperreal and the double. When these wars were televised and commented on by talking heads on TV screens, their real and horrible reality was cancelled out. Spectators were therefore much more likely to support these wars.
Neither can our history writing be a matter of academic discussion any more. Historical narratives about real or surreal fascist crimes or White man crimes or the current mantra on White man guilt have attained a grotesque level of psychological saturation, to the point that for politically conscious Whites they soon sink into oblivion — and laughter — as they are deconstructed. Even if some past mass crimes are empirically verifiable, the masses will start reconstructing its negative Double — after first deconstructing its Real antecedent.
The Age of Postmodernity is basically the age of deconstruction, where no single verity can hold sway for a long time. Here is the vicious circle of the hyperreal. If one is encouraged to deconstruct the real world and denounce political beliefs as a passing allegory, as Schopenhauer did, why not deconstruct new contemporary civic religions, such the monotheism of the capitalist market or the civic religion of victimhood?
Spectral Verities, Viral Lies
We all live the hyperreal, as the French philosopher Rosset writes; we all crave for the Double—be it in its negative or the positive form. We all wish to be something we are not; the duplicate of ourselves. “In place of the world as it is, we invent a ‘duplicate’ or a ‘double,’ a parallel universe which functions as a phantom rival to the existing world.”
The disadvantage of living in the real world is that life in it is drab, frightening, or boring; the advantage of the “doubled” life lies not only in the fact that such life does not exist, but that such life doesn’t even have to exist in order for us to believe it to be true and real! In other words, this desire for a spectral world is not so much a desire for something different, as it is a desire to get rid of the real world.
Who are the new paradigms or role models of our hyperreal postmodernity? Once upon a time the role model for Western man was a rugged individual, a Prometheus unbound, a war hero, a conqueror like Cortez, Columbus, or General Lee. Today the will for the hyperreal requires his double or his denial, or better yet the “doubled denial.” As a result, the new role models for the West are the degenerates, the retards, the non-Whites, the pederasts, the pathetic and the perverts. Baudrillard: “The Courtier was the most remarkable figure of the aristocratic order. The Militant was the most remarkable figure of the social and revolutionary order. The Penitent is the most remarkable figure of our advanced postmodern democratic politicians.”
But these degenerate role models are in turn subject to deconstruction, especially by proud, psychologically healthy White people who are being victimized by the legitimization of these role models.
Granted, we are witnessing the end of the big narratives, such as antifascist victimology. However, the unresolved work of mourning the real (or hyperreal) victims of fascism or racism is in full swing. In other words, the antifascist, antiracist war (with all its political, media and legal prohibition) continues unabated. Even if real racism and fascism are dead and gone, they need to be resurrected in a negative doubled manner in order to give the mourners an opportunity to repent for the failed duty to prevent it from happening. Never again, never again! — this is a new war cry of our hyperreal discourse.
This strategy of the hyperreal “never again”, is directed not only at preventing similar events from happening again in the future — as expressed in the forms of a myriad of memorial centers commemorating the Holocaust. It is also meant to be a tool of unravelling, in a vicarious and imaginary way, of the real past historical disaster that befell the Jews or the non-Whites. Likewise, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are waged today as the post- prophylactic double; indeed, they are not just the wars for stopping the terror; they are the wars for removing the past sins of the political class, which led to the real terror of the dreadful 9/11! The goal is now to retroactively cancel out the inflicted national disgrace and humiliation of the ruling elites. This is why the actual wars and our public discourse all over the West are “non-events”. Never again, never again!
And this is why the hyperreal or the double are pure illusions. They cannot last. The violent and the objective real is waiting in the wings and it will soon take the upper hand. Is it for real?
This article, entitled Messianismus mit verheerenden Folgen (“Messianism with Devastating Consequences”) is a German language transcript of the speech given at a music festival in Germany, on Saturday, August 7, 2010, which was entitled Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan? (Who benefits from the War in Iraq and Afghanistan?).
The audio archive of Dr. Sunic’s live speech in German can be found here.
The English language transcript can be found here.
Ein Kapitel Hintergrundpolitik: Nutznießer und Drahtzieher der US-Kriege im Irak und Afghanistan
Statt der Frage »Wem nutzt der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak« kann man auch die Frage stellen: »Wer war der Anstifter dieser beiden Kriege?« Diese direkte Frage klingt aber nicht sachlich und stellt außerdem eine Fundgrube für Verschwörungstheoretiker dar.
Wilde Spekulationen über die wahren Motive dieser Kriege interessieren uns hier nicht, abgesehen von der Tatsache, wenngleich manche auch stimmen mögen. Was uns interessiert ist die Bilanz dieser Kriege, wie diese Kriege sprachlich und völkerrechtlich gerechtfertigt werden und wer von diesen Kriegen am meisten profitiert.
Übrigens sind Verschwörungstheorien keinesfalls Kennzeichen sogenannter »Rechtsradikaler« – wie liberalistische Medien oft unterstellen. Laut neuer liberaler Sprachregelung nutzt die herrschende Klasse im Westen gegen ihre politischen Feinde und Gegner auch Verschwörungsvokabeln, die auf Verteufelung und Kriminalisierung abzielen. Auch benutzen die Systempolitiker zur Rechtfertigung ihrer eigenen militärischen Aggressionen durchaus Verschwörungstheorien. Monate vor der Invasion Iraks hatten viele amerikanische Politiker und Medienleute mit vollem Ernst über die »irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen« schwadroniert. Es stellte sich bald heraus, daß die Iraker keine derartigen Waffen hatten, wie später von denselben Politikern auch zugegeben wurde.
Ähnliche Sprachregelungen sind heute im Wortschatz der EU-Systempolitiker zu bemerken, die freilich ihre politischen Mythen und Vorstellungen nicht mit dem Wort »Propaganda«, sondern mit den Vokabeln »Kulturarbeit« und »Menschenrechte« tarnen.
Feldzugsplan aus der Schublade
Im Falle des Irak und Afghanistans ist es wichtig zu analysieren, wie die Systempolitiker und die Kriegshetzer mit der Sprache umgehen. Einerseits hört man Horrorvokabeln wie »Kampf gegen den Terror«, »Islamofaschismus«, »Al Kaida-Terroristen«, und andererseits vernimmt man sentimentale Sprüche wie »Kampf für die Menschenrechte« »Multikulti-Toleranz« oder »Freiheit für afghanische Frauen«.
Die deutsche Kanzlerin klang dabei auch nicht glaubwürdig, als sie vor kurzem in Bezug auf den deutschen Einsatz in Afghanistan erklärte: »Unsere gefallenen Soldaten haben ihr Leben für Freiheit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie gegeben.« Ihre Worte stellen eine typisch theatralische Metasprache nach kommunistischer Machart dar.
Außer dieser hypermoralischen Seite aus dem liberalen Lexikon sind die empirischen Belege und Beweise für die vorgenannten Angaben, Aussagen und Wunschvorstellungen der Systempolitiker bezüglich des Irak und Afghanistans spärlich, wenn nicht völlig abwesend.
Zunächst eine Bilanz: Der Krieg in Afghanistan wurde drei Wochen nach dem Terroranschlag in New York am 11. September 2001 begonnen. Eine langfristige militärische Strategie für Afghanistan kann man nicht innerhalb von drei Wochen formulieren. Der Plan zum Sturz der Regime in Afghanistan und Irak war schon lange Zeit vorher medial und akademisch in Amerika vorbereitet worden. Die ersten Hinweise auf den kommenden Krieg im Nahen Osten hatten amerikanische Medien und pro-zionistische Kulturkreise in Amerika schon Anfang neunziger Jahren gegeben, nämlich nach dem unentschiedenen ersten Golfkrieg von 1991.
Viele pro-israelische Kreise in Amerika sowie bekannte amerikanisch-jüdische Akademiker und Journalisten entwarfen damals einen langfristigen Plan für die Umorganisation des Nahen Osten und Asiens. Besonders wichtig war die Rolle einer sogenannten Denkfabrik wie dem »American Enterprise Institute« und die Aufstellung des »Projektes für das neue amerikanische Jahrhundert« (PNAC).
Sehr bedeutende Namen waren unter diesem Firmenschild beteiligt. Diese sind unter der Selbsteinschätzung »Neokonservative« bekannt und pflegten dabei ihre eigenen fixen Wahnideen zur Weltverbesserung. Der 11. September kam ihnen wie von Gott gesandt.
Ein entscheidender Kulturkampf, oder in der heutigen Sprache ausgedrückt: eine Erfolgspropaganda, muß in der Regel immer den großen politischen Umwälzungen vorangehen. Der Krieg in Afghanistan und Irak begann zuerst als akademische Auseinadersetzung, die von den neokonservativen Intellektuellen in Amerika bestimmt wurde. Aber das soll nicht heißen, daß sich die Akademiker und die Befürworter dieser Kriege nicht irren konnten. Die ganze völkerrechtliche Architektur der Irakkriege ist heute brüchig geworden.
Schwache Europäer, korrupte Kommunisten
Die US-Neokonservativen wollten seit langem die irakische und iranische Regierung beseitigen. Auch die angebliche Terrorgruppe Al Kaida war eine nebulöse Unterstellung, an der vielleicht etwas dran sein kann, die aber auch falsch sein kann. Wir haben nämlich keine genauen Beweise dafür, daß diese Terrorgruppe wirklich existiert. Aber solche Unterstellungen, ob wahr oder falsch, sind oft ein perfektes Mittel zur Rechtfertigung endloser Kriege. Schlimmer noch: Sie sind heute ein ideales Alibi für die Errichtung eines Überwachungssystems.
Nach neun Jahren Krieg in Afghanistan, nach sieben Jahren im Irak, hat sich das Sicherheitsklima im Nahen Osten und in Afghanistan sowie in der ganzen Welt nicht verbessert, sondern verschlechtert. Darin stimmen fast alle Politiker in Europa und Amerika überein. Heute gibt es einer größere Terrorismusgefahr als vor acht oder neun Jahren. Man kann sagen, daß die Terrorismusgefahr in Europa seitens radikaler Islamisten in dem Maße steigt, wie der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan andauert.
Und was geschah mit den Europäern? Natürlich brauchten die Amerikaner 2001 die Zustimmung ihrer Verbündeten für die beiden Kriege. In Westeuropa war es dieses Mal ein bißchen schwieriger, da die meisten Systempolitiker in Europa, abgesehen von ihrer sonstigen Anbiederungspolitik gegenüber Washington, wußten, daß diese Kriege keine raschen Resultate erbringen würden. Das offizielle Deutschland war skeptisch, da es mehr muslimische Einwanderer beherbergt als die USA. Aber als europäisches NATO-Mitglied war es nicht leicht, den Amerikanern zu trotzen.
Politische Theologie der Amerikaner
Im Gegensatz zu Deutschland und Frankreich hatten die Amerikaner keine Probleme, Befürworter für ihre Expeditionen in Afghanistan und Irak in Osteuropa zu finden. Einer der Gründe dafür war, daß fast alle Etablierten und Akademiker vom Baltikum bis zum Balkan Überreste oder der Nachwuchs ehemaliger Kommunisten sind. Um ihre eigene kriminelle Vergangenheit aus den kommunistischen Terrorzeiten zu decken, müssen sie jetzt päpstlicher als der Papst sein, also amerikanischer als die Amerikaner selbst.
Die ersten Nutznießer der beiden Kriege waren, zumindest am Anfang der Kriege, wie schon erwähnt, die Neokonservativen und Israel. Aber es ist falsch zu behaupten, daß der Krieg nur von den amerikanischen Neokonservativen gerechtfertigt wurde. Um die wirklichen Motive der amerikanischen Außenpolitik zu begreifen, muß man die amerikanische politische Theologie gut verstehen, insbesondere die Überzeugung vieler amerikanischen Politiker von einer besonderen politischen Auserwähltheit. Die Nutznießer und die Architekten der Kriege sind ein tagespolitisches Phänomen, aber der Zeitgeist, der ihnen die Kriege rechtfertigt ist ein geistesgeschichtliches Phänomen. Dies kann man nicht voneinander trennen.
Uri Avnery, ein linker israelischer Schriftsteller, hat vor kurzem gesagt, daß »Israel ein kleines Amerika und die USA ein großes Israel« seien. Seit einhundert Jahren hat Amerika seine politischen Begriffe aus dem Alten Testament. Im Zuge dessen haben viele amerikanische Politiker ihre Mentalität von den alten Hebräern übernommen. Es ist auch kein Zufall, daß sich Amerika als Gottesbote mit einer universalistischen Botschaft für die ganze Welt wahrnimmt.
Vor 150 Jahren waren es die sezessionistischen Staaten des Südens, die das Sinnbild des absolut Bösen darstellten; später, Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, wurde das Sinnbild des »bösen Deutschen« bzw. »der Nazis« zum allgemeinen Feindbild; dann, während des Kalten Krieges, war eine Zeitlang der böse Kommunist in der Sowjetunion das Symbol des absolut Bösen. Heute gibt es keine Kommunisten, Konföderierten oder Faschisten mehr. Deswegen mußten die amerikanischen Weltverbesserer ein Ersatzfeindbild finden: nämlich den »Islamo-Faschisten« oder den islamistischen Terroristen.
In diese Kategorie des Bösen soll man die palästinensische Hamas, die libanesische Hisbollah und manche »Schurkenstaaten« wie Irak oder Iran einstufen. Geopolitisch sind diese Staaten von keinerlei Bedeutung für Amerika. Aber Amerikas religiös-ideologische Beziehungen zu Israel verpflichten die amerikanischen Politiker, Israels Feinde als ihre eigenen Feinde zu behandeln.
Es ist völlig falsch, nur die Israelis oder die Neokonservativen für die Kriege der USA verantwortlich zu machen. Sie sind zwar eindeutig die Nutznießer, aber die wahren Architekten dieser Weltverbesserungsideologie sind die Millionen amerikanischer christlicher Zionisten, die eine außerordentliche Rolle in Amerika spielen. Es ist auch falsch, über angebliche amerikanische »Heuchelei« zu reden, wie es oft üblich ist. Aufgrund ihres alttestamentarischen Geistes glauben viele amerikanische Christzionisten tatsächlich, daß Amerikas Militäreinsätze für alle Völker gut seien.
Die Verantwortung der Messianisten
Aus dieser Positionierung entspringt auch die Ideologie der »Menschenrechte«, die wir heute als etwas Selbstverständliches und Humanes hinnehmen. Aber gerade im Namen der Menschenrechte kann man ganze Völker bzw. viele nonkonformistische Intellektuelle kurzerhand auslöschen. Wenn jemand über »Menschenrechte« spricht, sollte man ihn immer fragen, was mit jenen passieren sollte, die nicht in die Kategorie der vorgesehenen Menschen passen. Das sind dann nämlich meist Bestien und Tiere, die nicht nur umerzogen, sondern kurzerhand physisch liquidiert werden sollten.
Fragen wir uns, welche Gedanken durch die Köpfe der amerikanischen Piloten gingen, die Köln oder Hamburg im Jahr 1943 niederbrannten. Ihrem Selbstverständnis nach waren sie keine Kriminellen. Sie hatten keine Gewissensbisse, da dort unten nach ihrer Auffassung keine Menschen, sondern die Verkörperung ganz besonders gefährlicher Tiere lebten.
Die amerikanischen Christ-Zionisten und viele andere biblische Fanatiker tragen die größte Verantwortung für die meisten der amerikanischen Kriege unserer Zeit. Der Außerwähltheitsgedanke führt nicht zu mehr Völkerverständigung, sondern zu endlosen Kriegen.
Unser Autor Dr. Tomislav (Tom) Sunic ist Schriftsteller und ehemaliger US-Professor für Politikwissenschaft. (TomSunic.info) Er ist Kulturberater der American Third Position Party. Sein neustes Buch erschien in Frankreich: La Croatie; un pays par défaut? (Ed Avatar, Paris, 2010)