Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent;
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class;
Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self;
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s;
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan;
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization.
I was actually quite happy with the theoretical discussion from last time – “Praxis: Getting the Ship of White Separatism on Course” – and that, to me, is surprising, unusual for a theoretical discussion – normally for a discussion of that length and complexity regarding theoretical matters, there would be something gnawing at me – that was not the case. There is nothing that I would change, only a few things that could use more clarification; after that, some ideas to expand upon.
Thus, it is not surprising that I was not quite as satisfied with my more recent discussion, on The Incommensurate Intersection of White Individuation and Gender Agendas.
First, to clarify matters of the prior discussion: the most fundamental point that we made is that anti-racism is Cartesian – it is not innocent; it is prejudice; it is hurting and it is killing people.
Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent
Now, how is that so? Well, in prohibiting the validity of racial classifications and discrimination on the basis of those classifications, systems of accountability and ecology are being abrogated such that those marginalized, for whatever reason, in the systemic process of what would have been, for example, the White class, are vulnerable to exploitation and to being killed off.
Ok, so we’ve asserted that anti racism is Cartesian, that it is not innocent, it is in fact prejudice, hurting and killing people It is prejudice against anybody who is not on top of the process at the moment; anybody who is the least bit reliant on their class. We may add that is operationally verifiable and warrantably assertable.
For a concrete example of its incursion upon the group evolutionary process of Whites; by breaking down The White class boundaries, the way is opened for opportunistic outsiders – as such, they can even take “the cream of the crop.” As happens for example, through Jewish propagandizing of young White girls, in earlier stages of their normal evolutionary process; put into interaction with Blacks, who have a faster sexual maturity as Rushton points out.
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class
This breaking down of class bounds is done largely by a phony notion of leftism promoted by Jews; normal leftism would be about the full white class, including, those marginalized within the class – marginals can be significant in that they have more of a vested interest in the maintenance of the class boundaries as they are somewhat less independent; and they also comprise some of those in earlier stages of development, such as the young White girl who will one day be the cream of the crop; developmental processes are not something handled well by the Cartesian and anti-social notion of civil individual rights – even within a life span, let alone a developmental unit of analysis that might recognize many generations. But Jewish elites, as usual, have perverted what would be the remedial leftist notion, instead defining marginals as those outside of the class, defining outside groups, non-whites, as marginals.
We’ve been blinded by Cartesianism and have thus allowed this hideous exploitation to be carried off, this distortion of individualism, civil rights, and gender relations.
We have asserted that this destruction of White class bounds results from modernity’s scientism leaving us vulnerable – as such a bit naively to the machinations of Jewish and other non-White group interests; as well as to the interests of the plutocrats, corporatists and the military industrial complex
To correct this, we propose the post modern turn to re-invoke the legitimacy of the White Class.
The management of that protracted scope, of the class, requires the analog capacity of metaphors to some extent; last time, I went rather abruptly into a discussion of the importance of metaphors without providing a little background that The Vienna School of Logical Positivism tried and failed to create a language free of metaphor. Just as well, since metaphors are apparently necessary for managing wider frames of analysis, such as patterns of the White Class.
The hermeneutic turn was an embracing of this, seeing that we could not and should not seek to free ourselves of narrative and historical perspective. We’ll show how that can work in moment.
The postmodern, social and hermeneutic notion of coherence is necessary to the management of our White class.
The failure of logical positivism, as it was trying to nail everything to a graspable empirical foundation, brings me to the next matter that would have called for more elaboration from last time – in focusing on the process of interactive engagement with the objects of inquiry, I neglected some the furtive, social aspect of scientific study as premisary – something that our friend Gregor reminded us of with this quote from Thomas Kuhn, underscoring that collegial and social aspect of scientific endeavor as preliminary: quote ‘a paradigm governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners.”
The articulation and definition attempted here corresponds well with Sunic’s project to disentangle useful notions – in this case disentangle them from Jewish corruption. For example, Leftism should be for us – since it should represent the interests of our full class, our relative concerns as a socially related group; as opposed to Rightist objectivism beyond accountability and beyond us. One thing that may cause Whites to flee to the right is the false attribution that it is the only harbor of truth and moral order. There has never been anarchy. On the contrary, there is no avoiding truth and moral order; there will always be things we can, might or cannot do; and these concerns are better managed and best consciously so with the class outlook of the left. For prime example, voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls, absolute monogamy, as a sacrament should be institutionalized as viable option for whomever would choose it. Another thing that may cause us to flee in the counter productive direction of the right, and against our full class interests as Whites, is the idea that we could lose our individuality – so important to us as Whites.
Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self
Since our culture maintains the importance of individuality for some good reasons we must tease it apart from right wing attributions that serve Jewish interests – in particular, the portrayal of us as inhumane.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world. The postmodern notion of coherence recognizes the contingent, interactive and relational aspects of individualism. This is not coherentism – coherentism would be the lineal, modern, Cartesian and impervious notion of coherence as it pursues a fixed Archimedean point beyond nature.
This “modernist”, Cartesian notion of coherence lent itself to individualism in the empirical conception of civil rights by Locke, in which individuals are tabula rasa – that is, out of context and process and therefore given an absurd attribution of sameness or equality to everyone; from whom they were otherwise detached – this is corrected with this hermeneutic notion of individualism wherein people do have some shared reference through the internal relation of co-evolution and language (there is no private language); however, everyone does not have the same and equal perceptions, but rather people occupy different positions in process and in situations; are immersed in different narrative reference, frames, history, different logics of meaning and action, stages in developmental process, conversations interacting in ways that can change their meaning, different social conversations attributing vastly different values, levels of importance, and thus can have vastly different evaluations of what they perceive. Though it is not absolutely necessary, if there is to be a successful notion of the individual, since we as White people like to invoke individuality for particular reasons, we go with the notion that there are two important aspects of individuality, the corporeal and the autobiographical. This has got to be managed in a non-Cartesian sense of connecting and managing a back and forth relation of self from the more empirical to the more narrative – thus, replacing a fixed location for the self with a self more like an on-going film reel.
Otherwise, as William James observed, with the Cartesian notion of self, absurdly, one would have to be in two places at once. Harré piled on that the “mind” is a four letter word and it should not be used; taking a page from Nietzsche, said that psychologists think that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are really only drawing maps of maps – not describing, but making interpretations of interpretations, taking out of context what is being done. By contrast, the autobiographical self is narrative, an ongoing process; not being a static monadic entity, one can negotiate obstacles such as paradoxes and apparent contradictions through various amendments in narrative; coming back to coherence through the tacking back and forth – such as post modern coherence affords in recognizing interaction and contingency.
While recognizing social construction and the class of Whites as preliminary to the individual, that nobody exists outside of interaction, relation and the negotiation of how things count with others – and any honest notion of individuality is accountable as such – there are certain aspects of what we may call individualism that are more than valid. I’ll share with you a few that I have gleaned from Harré, a professor from Oxford.
That is, that there are two kinds of self, a corporeal and an autobiographical.
Our corporeal, embodied selves are profound; Nietzsche might say, bound to be wiser than our conscious selves and intentions, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. This makes me a bit wary of eugenics; it is also why I would recommend that anyone pay attention to the clues that our biology is giving us rather than trying to alter it with chemicals or surgery – rather, one ought to turn critical attention outward to social expectations – who is reasonable, who is not.
But while there are aspects of agency to our corporeal, physical self, in say, a clasping action; deliberated, planned coherence, and the accountability, agency and warrant that go along with it require an autobiographical notion of self.
This second, autobiographical aspect of the self in the post modern is opposed to the modernist notion of self – the static and monadic self of Freudian psychology, unfolding toward its ultimate telos, detached from the social world and doing all sorts of horrible things; having hidden wishes, neuroses, latencies, or whatever one might libel you with.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; by establishing rules and coming back to the said course one can provide accounts against false and negative accusations.
Moreover, it is by interacting with others and receiving requests for accounts, Shotter explains, that one develops a narrative understanding of self – in fact, one depends upon these requests for an account – as there is no private language.
Thus, one is not only curing the maladies of Cartesianism through autobiographical coherence of self – in appropriating from the available conversations one may also establish agency by setting down these rules for one’s self; by referring back to them one has proof that one is following the rule of their own choice – thus, an agent.
Remember, we said that the optimally competent post modern individual can choose to participate in traditional forms, can reconstruct the White class without the pangs of self loathing for appearing as a conformist – appearing traditional or conformist being taboos to modernity – which over values change, innovation, being new and different – nevertheless, the post modern individual can choose to disengage from traditional practices in order to make innovations; while being above the modernist paradox – the paradox – be different so you can fit in.
The autobiographical self facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant through the establishment of rules; more, it enables the self to negotiate contradictions, paradoxes and obstacles because it is not lineal and strictly bound within the physical body. Unlike Africans, for example, who will often assert themselves episodically, momentarily, this autobiographical notion is particularly important to Europeans who are more sublimated and thus are normally, of their corporeality, not going to show their best attributes in an episode but rather over a pattern of behaviors in the protracted span that the class facilitates. Thus, if we are to capture our sublime features, which are not evident within the moment and episode, we especially require an autobiographical notion of self.
Finally, by following up on these rules set forth and yielding proof of positive results, the autobiographical self establishes warrant for proactive endeavor.
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s
Now then, the idea of a hermeneutic self is at least to some extent following through on Heidegger’s philosophy. For me, a crucial moment of understanding came when I took a bit of Heidegger’s advice and set my life into a historical, narrative perspective.
I set the autobiography of my early formative years against the background of The Viet Nam War, and a tension between hippies and feminists. From there things began to make sense.
Hippies were not a trivial movement in my assessment. They were against going to war out of habit – wars just seemed to be an endless thing taken for granted. By contrast, the hippies were about taking for granted the right of the male of the species to Be. My first clue that Being was a central issue to the Hippie movement was the January 1967 Be-In in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – sort of an inauguration to the Hippie movement in popular culture.
Then clues started forming a pattern. Most clarifying that it had to do with the Being of males as the essence of the Hippie movement – in particular, a song from the rock opera, “Hair”, called “My Conviction”, trivial on the surface of it, proposing that it was a legitimate expression for males to rebel against Spartan military terms and take on some of the attributes normally associated with females…long hair, elaborate attire and so on, to symbolize that their DNA had similar intrinsic genetic value to females…other songs from Hair made a similar point – Walking in Space: “pretending it’s a chore to ship us of to war.. ..in this great dive we rediscover sensation, how dare they try to end this beauty” – they weren’t shipping women off to war.
Paul Tillich, in his book “The Courage to Be” just before the onset of the hippie movement, suggested that one must love one’s self enough to accept in one’s self that which is unacceptable – that sounded like Being to me; a lot like Hippie Being. Now, before you say that I am promoting nihilism, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability, you must understand that Tillich’s existential project was to make our involvement in the world sufficiently relative – certainly enough so that we may begin to see that what we were told was unacceptable in no uncertain, objective terms, just may be more relative than we thought – in fact, may finally be relatively acceptable upon deeper thought – as are the interests of our White Class – relative to our class.
This notion of Being would also be related to a respect for the ordinary organic processes of the corporeal self, such as its need for food and sleep – as in Søren Kierkagaard’s statement that “sleeping is the highest genius”
Heidegger’s ongoing philosophical concern for the importance of Being provided for me a farther clue that the Hippies might be about something vital. Now, I take Heidegger’s talk of Being for this context in the more normal, organic sense, to be like a slow meandering, taking poetic forms, poesis, an unfolding that allows for a fully ruminated understanding, a taking to heart what is essential from that and giving thanks.
In Heidegger-like fashion, there was a corollary in being’s etymology; the notion of let me Be – as in, leave me alone; I do not want to go to Viet Nam to die for whatever perceived reasons.
Being is about the very struggle for existence that we as awakened Whites take as the vital cause for our people.
Rollo May described the hippie movement as a call for a right below rights – so we were looking at the most fundamental, radical part of the hierarchy of motives.
This was not trivial. It was a war protest against the background of the Viet Nam war, recognizing intrinsic value in males who were considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to Viet Nam and die for yet another in a succession of corporate, military industrial complex affairs, for tire rubber, whatever. Against that background, women were indeed, a bit more obliged than usual to allow White males to Be – understood in a sense related to the corporeal self, of fundamental organic pattern, attributing its intrinsic value to their evolution and DNA.
Now I am decidedly not recommending a return to hippie times; but I do want to cull the valid aspects, to some extent, in a way that I will discuss in moment, for the purpose of negotiating White gender relations.
I have rarely heard positive things said about the Hippies, and especially not by White Separatists. But let me tell you some things – look at Wood Stock, for example.. you can see my brother in one picture; he was there.. you’ll see some Blacks, but not many…and it was my experience as a child and a young adolescent during the later stages of those times, that the essence of the Hippie movement, had nothing to do with Black civil rights – that was peripheral at most. That stuff was imposed and co-opted by Jewish interests. It is yet another case of having to disentangle Jewish co-option from an idea. My friends and I had long hair, we did the Hippie thing, and none of us liked Blacks – some less than others; we saw the violent, destructive race riots, we saw them at school and were forced to recognize them as other people, with another agenda, behaving differently, aggressively, about their dignity or integrity, whatever…
Another thing – I would not say that it was accurate to characterize us as pacifists. Though we were too young to be subject to the draft, I am sure that what we would have been against having to go to these huge, nonsensical, corporate wars. Nevertheless, each of us would have fought and violently so, if necessary, for what was rightfully ours. It was about the Being, the intrinsic value of the White male and what was rightfully ours as established through co-evolution.
Nor was the Hippie movement about fee love. Not as it was a movement for male being, as I submit it was; free love was just neo-traditional incitement. We liked girls, of course; but what does it matter if a male announces he wants “free love”? I don’t think that is going to go over too big coming from many men. Now, if women say that they want free love, of course that can be meaningful. But, again, this was more a Jewish imposition, pandering to women and receiving impetus from Herbert Marcus’s Eros and Civilization, his call for polymorphous perversion; along with some aspects of the women’s liberation movement and so on. So again, we need to disentangle the Jewish influence from the idea of Hippies for those who would try to say it was all about free love and sexual revolution.
Now, the Hippies were guilty of some things – I do not believe that they were sufficiently intellectual or articulate as a group. I think that had to do with their very agenda – Being was not a theoretically ambitious, rigorous endeavor precisely because it was about natural, organic being. Even so prominent a Hippie as John Lennon was inarticulate as to the movement – saying things like, “it was a great way to pick up girls.” But it was not so shallow as a mere technique to do just that. Nevertheless, one can see the precariousness and vulnerability of males trying to assert their right, for lack of a better word, to Be (wimp, lazy bum). But I see hope in its requirement, as Being necessitates borders and action to reconstruct the White class boundaries somewhere along the line, in process – There is no being without that, for anybody.
Had Hippies been sufficiently articulate, they would have established that Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option, that unused potentiality for change, choice and freedom of being are enormously reduced
Drug experimentation and use was an aspect of the Hippie thing. And though I tend to agree with those who consider that a public health and not a criminal issue; and that it is more an effect than a cause of problems (specifically, one is searching for Being) I am not so uncritical of drugs as I once was.
It was a part of it though, of Being for males, because it was a way to have fun, elaborate, engage and tap into organic processes that did not the involve the sometimes stringent expectations of females.
However, before it sounds like I am the drug advocate: I would just say, alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms maybesometimes if you’ve developed yourself enough, your forebrain and a philosophical understanding of yourself enough – maybe, so long as that it does not make you neurotic, arbitrarily destructive, whatever – even so, be careful. Even with weed, you are still putting smoke in your lungs and they have bred it so that it is very strong nowadays. I’ve heard of people having bad experiences with mushrooms – though it was almost always the case that they took a massive over dose. Cocaine, I think is very dangerous; you’ve never felt better for 15 minutes and then you’ve never felt worse.. ..because your brain stopped producing all the endorphins that it took the cocaine crystal to be.. you lose all balance of pleasure….life is just utterly sad and miserable..so much so that when someone has committed suicide, it is my first hypothesis that they were coming down off of cocaine. I imagine other synthetic drugs are similar…crystal meth and so on..don’t know from experience; but, I want to go back to the corporeal and its profound evolution. when you mess with substances you are messing with profound evolution. which we should tend to believe is normally correct, not in need of alteration. However, I must say that people who have never used any mind alteration often turn out weird, superficial and inhumane. Nevertheless, by and large, better to err in the direction of dealing with your emotions and developing your intellect; rather be critical of the social realm, to look for problems there than in solution from drugs – intellectualism, which the hippies were short on, is better. Even so, despite drug use, that was not the essential issue of the Hippies – it was about Being, especially for the male of the species.
Pardon the digression – but the issue of Hippies was Being for White males. It was not trivial – in fact it is necessary and an issue that has not been resolved to this day – its incommensuration with the agendas of feminist and neo-traditional women.
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan
Getting back to the hermeneutic context of my narrative history…in the 60’s. While the Hippies were about the right of the White male of the species to Be the distinguishing aspect coming from feminists was in the opposite direction. Not about the base of the hierarchy, organic being, but about achievement.
In moving to the discussion of gender relations, to feminism, I want to begin by acknowledging that I think that Peter Schaenk has established a good starting point – citing Karl Marx’s statement that marriage is institutionalized slavery of women and therefore liberation of women is necessary to the liberation of human kind. That would characterize the agenda of radical feminists; their liberation would supposedly necessitate the destruction of the White Class. It is not that monogamy and marriage are not important, they are – our moral order requires the institutionalization of absolute monogamy (for life) and marriage as sacred – and must necessarily be defended against this – but the boundary of the class is even more fundamental. Otherwise, marriage is just a berth on a sinking ship. This was an attack on the White Class, its central, most vital alliance, between women and men; farther assaulted, of course, by the Authoritarian Personality, Adorno et al.
That is why it is so necessary to use the post modern turn, the decidedly non-Cartesian notion of our co-evolution as White men and Women, to reassert the validity of the White Class and its boundaries.
There are no White women or White children without White men – that is where the validity of White male Being, existence, gains more respect; but only if the troubling tautology on this level is over come – hard to acknowledge for its base simplicity: no White women and children without White men; I don’t like you because you do not like me; she rejects me and so, liking myself, I reject her and have freedom to seek another.
We are born to love women. What could be more painful and destructive than to have our co-evolutionary women pitted against us? We are mammals, despite the Jewish Matrix flouting of that notion, and as mammals we are deeply caring about relationships.
We can work out an all around fair and satisfying management of White gender relations if those bounds that recognize our mutual interests are made clear.
Back to the radical feminists attacking the White class. The first prominent exponent of feminism relevant to us as White separatists would be Simone de Beauvoir, 1948. She followed Marx’s line. As Sandrine Dauphin wrote:
[De Beauvoir] became more radical in the sense that the means of liberation became specific to women, they deal with individual experience: “I am for the abolition of the family. It is through the intermediary of the family that the patriarchal world exploits women.” She excludes feminism from institutional politics yet integrates it in revolutionary politics, which socially, economically and culturally overturns society. She made feminism into the avant-garde of the socialist revolution, recognizing that the suppression of the family and familial structures would upset capitalism. Since women constitute the primary oppressed group, their liberation, in a domino effect, would spur the liberation of other oppressed groups.
By eliminating the family, feminism would thus transform the structure of society. Simone de Beauvoir turns feminism into much more than the demand for equality between men and women. It has a political function, by proposing an alternative management of society. In this way, she remained quite socialist and refined her reflection to the point of giving feminism the magnitude of a true political movement. Socialism is a body of thought, and feminism as such, according to Simone de Beauvoir, is an integral part of socialism.
We might note first of all of de Beauvoir that her analysis of men focuses on male elites only, such as Leo Tolstoy. She pays no attention to ordinary men, let alone the ones really down on their luck. She has nothing to say here of the millions who have been considered so intrinsically valueless as to be required to die in war. Nevertheless, there is enough scholarly background in her work to have provided inspiration and apparatus for succeeding generations of feminists.
Exactly. Interestingly, I traced the two next important feminists each as having their inspirational source in a single line from de Beauvoir: Betty Friedan, Jewish, 1963, who took feminism in a modernist direction in the Feminine Mystique; and Carol Gilligan, 1983, from Harvard, who also took as her point of departure another line in de Beauvoir.
Don’t worry, we’re not getting off track, we’re going to show how this bears upon the post modern turn for Whites in their effort to reconstruct and advance the White class.
de Beauvoir was primarily paying attention to elite White men; and Friedan followed that lead, focusing on the top as well. Before discussing Friedan, the exemplar and probably most influential of the American feminists, I’d like to make some honorable mentions.
Helen Gurley Brown, Jewish – founding editor of the highly popular Cosmopolitan magazine: I could see that her book “Sex and the Single Girl” was based on Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or” – her gist being that a girl either remains ‘as virginal as a Sunkist orange’ or she goes ahead and has sex outside of marriage; she is going to suffer either way, so may as well have the enjoyment of sex – makes quick work of accountability; and any treatment of sex as being important, let alone an option to treat it as sacral; an option I would recommend as essential to freedom in allowing for choice; and toward the survival of Whites through a fair management of the White pattern.
An honorable mention also goes to Gloria Steinham – Jewish. Interestingly, 1973 was the only year that her magazine, Ms., made money. Another honorable mention to Elizabeth Holtzman, Jewish, whose popularity came at the same time, when she shockingly unseated the long term incumbent, the infamous Emmanuel Cellar – his already having achieved his dirty work destroying America’s White Class bounds as the architect of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, pushed through in of 1965 – which, MacDonald pointed out, transformed America’s demographic make up toward non-White – Holtzman ousting Cellar by running on an Equal Rights for Women Amendment. This also suspiciously marks an important time in our hermeneutic regarding the Hippies – As The Viet Nam War was just ending, the Hippie movement lost impetus almost over night. Suddenly the impetus behind male Being was completely gone; not having to shoulder the guilt of their clear expendability in the war, White male Being was eclipsed by the prerogatives of Jewish feminism.
Popular and radical feminism’s ascent was held in place by a paradox; by radical leftists gaining tenure at universities; set into systemic runaway by modernist feminists such as Friedan; and only slightly balanced later by neo-traditionalist feminists.
Feminism’s overtaking male being was strengthened through an important paradox – a problematic practice as noted by Pearce and Rossi in the early 80’s: Even well meaning males can always be put in the wrong within the problematic practices of feminism – Specifically, if he tries to treat her as an equal, just like one of the boys in accordance with modernist feminism, then he can be taken for a “male chauvinist pig” who sees the world only in male terms, not respecting the special qualities of her gender; on the other hand, if he attempts to treat her gingerly, with traditionalist deference and respect for the special qualities of her gender, then he can be construed as a ‘wimp’ and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her autonomy, choice and agency. Thus, a male can always be construed as “wimp” or a “pig”, no matter what he does.
Furthering this systemic runaway in gender relations was the Marxists long march through the institutions – with anti-White leftists gaining tenured professorships in the universities the runaway effect of gender estrangement gained velocity; these tenured professors pandering and being pandered to by 18-24 year olds, reconstructing the same anti-White world view in perpetuity. This was farther exacerbated by the fact that the university, being a big business, is largely in the big business of selling talk.
This, by itself, creates a need for abnormal talk – viz. something to say other than ordinary, stable White life – something “interesting”, exceptions to discuss as liberals (liberals leftists, those who do not have a problem with broaching White class bounds) like to do – perhaps they do not want to be bored – too low on the hierarchy; or perhaps the ordinary is not novel and entertaining enough to collect tuition dollars.
Backing up a bit, in order to further trace sources of this runaway effect and hopefully gain some control: despite its awkward match with men getting sent to Viet Nam to die, feminism was very prominent in the context of America beginning in the 60’s – with Helen Gurley Brown’s popular Sex and The Single Girl, 1962, and Betty Friedan’s academically backed “The Feminine Mystique”, 1963.
I noticed something interesting in Friedan – that not only was she as student of Abraham Maslow’s but she was actually using his Hierarchy of Motives, in proposing that women were being made neurotic by having their higher individual potentials denied by traditional gender roles – this was to my theoretical delight as I was already thinking in terms of setting gender relations into Maslow’s hierarchy in order to understand them and try to work them out fairly in a theoretical sense. Maslow’s hierarchy of motives proposed that people sought fulfillment on higher levels successively, as basic levels of need were satisfied – from survival and safety, the most basic, and ultimately to the quote, farther reaches, self-actualization as highest. With that, Friedan proposed that women needed individual actualization in order to be liberated from the limitations of their traditionally imposed gender role, which she called The Feminine Mystique; as it was causing misery and neuroses – something that was being foisted upon women by Madison Avenue image makers in order to sell them products as housewives, to keep them limited and out of the work force now that they were no longer necessary as workers with men having come back from World War II.
This is a distinctly modernist notion of individualism that she maintained – and of gender relations as well, with individual women having the same needs as men, culture irrespective.
I traced Friedan’s seminal influence to a single line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.” Thus, in the Feminine Mystique, she is doing something important in a negative sense, by going along with this rejection of Aristotle’s sage advice that human’s, being biological, are evolved for optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; she is advocating for the toxicity of quantification and runaway. This clued me farther to take a critical view toward reworking this modernist paradigm of Maslow’s, in favor of a framework providing for an optimal management of needs rather than a hierachical maximization and quantification of needs.
A typically American thing is self actualization and self maximization – .a be all you can be mentality that has undoubtedly contributed to America’s runaway. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise, like Marxists, to try to thwart human achievement; however, it should be taken back into the context of an optimal management; indeed, those moments of accomplishment and recognition prompting one to turn away from the toxicities of additional maximization; rather to turn attention to the fostering grounds, the processes of Being, Selfhood, and most especially, of Socialization to be as respected as Actualization. In fact, for us, as Whites now, the greatest measure of Self Actualization will be those who are able to effect Socialization of the White Class; its boundaries in securing the existence of our people and a future for White Children.
The post modern program is to manage qualitatively formed progress and reconstruction; to manage optimality as opposed to maximization, quantification and lineal progress
The most important thing that I have to do is to assist in the relative devaluing of actualization, and the establishment of Being’s importance along with the elevation of selfhood – that is, take ordinary routines to commensurate value, and first and foremost, of socialization.
Now again, the post modern, hermeneutic turn calls for a tacking back and forth as need be from close readings of physical facts then balanced with a protracted narrative, somewhat metaphoric frames of analysis – and then back again and so on, in a processual management – as opposed to a rigid and false quest for fixed, Archemedian points imagined outside of nature.
I do not aspire to do away with the notion of actualization, but to put it into balance; “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns”, Bateson said, “that is the rubric under which we meet, but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” In striving singularly after actualization and its maximization, there are going to be reflexive reversals and aberration – a calling back to pattern, in other words; as we were called back to our White pattern after being brain washed that we did not have to accept it.
“Patterns”, being a closer reading (but still open ended) of the corporeal side, and “narrative” on the more speculative and metaphoric side, are good ways of talking about the broader frames of reference of the class; in the post modern notion of coherence of the class. I am trying to get the notion of patterns in here as it is important, and think that it fits well as a heuristic on the more physical end of the hermeneutic.
Conservatives and right-wingers have not done patterns well; while Liberals are typically pointing to the exceptions as the important thing. I think of a man who cited the example of a questionnaire of five Russian men. They were asked if they preferred White or Black women. 4 of them said they preferred White. One said he preferred mulatto, even more than White, but did not approve of interracial couples. The man chuckled and said, where did he think mulattoes were supposed to come from? For him, this would seem to be a winning argument – paying attention to the exception and all the while ignoring the four other Russian men who said that they prefer White women. The pattern is more the issue.
Now then, we have modernist, feminist women seeking individuation and Actualization, expressing the “high grumbles”, as Maslow described it, of unfulfilled Self Actualization; at the same time, we have modernist males, Hippies, expressing “low grumbles”, a need for the basics on the Hierarchy of Needs, not to be considered so valueless as to be sent to die in Viet Nam – to Be, as I would call this level – but who knew and who hears to this day about these incommensurate gender agendas? The high grumbles of women look conceited in comparison to the low grumbles of men; perhaps they may have seemed ‘boring’ – even if those needs were more fundamental and more in turn. The conceitedness of having their basic needs called boring by women through their high grumbles must have driven more than a few men over the edge.
To make matters worse, the feminist critique, based on the paradigm of Maslow, was only looking at White men who were on top and was only treating them as if they were there as a result of a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of preceding, lower levels. In truth, a number of White men were on top as a result of a Freudian, rather a Nietzschean, sublimation of deprivation on lower levels. Their low grumbles were being dismissed. This made, makes criticizing White males at the top perverse at times, as they may have gotten there precisely as they were compelled by hardship and now they were being ridiculed for succeeding despite that. So, sometimes he is being punished on top of deprivation and sacrifice as if he’d gotten there by dint of oppressive advantage. More, it was often the case that men were on top simply because they were good, having been tested stringently on basic levels. Finally, there was the compensatory gesture of tradition, placing men in that role on top to balance off the sacrifices expected on basic levels, having to go to war and so on.
As we’ve said, de Beauvoir was only looking at and being critical of the lucky men who were at the top; having nothing to say about the legions of men who had just been slaughtered in World Wars one and two.
Nevertheless, you weren’t hearing about that from feminists within the Maslowian paradigm. Perhaps we were to feel more sorry for them for supposedly not making equal pay while men went off to Viet Nam to die. Or because they were subject to double standards on sex (as if the double standard did not have some fairness to balance women’s advantage in that realm off… as a woman can be a real bully in the realm of sex; similar as we have double standards regarding physical force so that men cannot bully women physically); but the focus was their being denied by the glass ceiling, the top of the hierarchy, self actualization. Nothing about the fact that men were denied the bottom and being deprived of the basics on the hierarchy, had been through tradition, with brutal rights of passage…and critically, nothing about how women occupied, were normally granted the basics and middle of the hierarchy, safety and security – and what I will call Selfhood, the acceptance as good enough, one’s engagement in orienting, stabilizing, normal routines – crucial values in life.
Now we know the traditional male agenda, of individual achievement and actualization; and the modernist feminist mirroring of those same goals by Friedan, but the neo traditional female agenda is a bit lesser known as it functions here, in Post Modernity
The neo-traditional female perspective did not aspire to the same things as men, but rather wanted her differences recognized and respected. Carol Gilligan, the next key figure in this four-way system of gender, emerged as the exemplar of the Neo Traditional female perspective with her book, In A Different Voice, 1982. Interestingly, she also took one line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure. I discovered this; and it was confirmed as true by a colleague of hers at Harvard.
de Beauvoir on Page 681 rejects what she calls male morality: de Beauvoir says “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.” In In A Different Voice, Gilligan would develop this into a notion of female morality that would bring into full circle the intersection of gender relations and individualism.
Though she set out, and did destroy Lawrence Kohlberg’s rendition of gender differences in morals, more deeply, what is being called male morality would seem to be characterized by Kant, more or less. On the other hand, Gilligan proposed that women have different moral concerns from men. Characteristically, male morality would not steal, was concerned for pure rights and justice. Female morality would steal medicine for a sick baby, etc. Female morality was more characterized by care and webs of relationship. She cited examples of how men and women responded differently to photos: shown a photo of a middle aged White man sitting alone at his desk, women were afraid, men were not; shown and woman and a man about to join hands in mid air of the flying trapeze act – women were not afraid, men were. Men, she submitted, were afraid when people were coming together while women were more afraid by people going apart.
With Gilligan we’ve come to a complete enough heuristic of gender relations: Neo Traditional men and Modernist women after Actualization; Hippies, being reversing Modernist men and Neo Traditional women seeking basic stability on the hierarchy of needs.
One of the beauties of a quaternary system is that it is too complicated in its interfaces to turn into runaway categories yet, simple enough to serve as a useful guideline.
So, we can pretty well understand these incommensurate gender agendas and mange them fairly perhaps if we can re-instantiate the full White class bounds. It would seem that we could afford female individual actualization if they are challenged and tested more on basic levels so that they are not so liberal when they reach positions of actualization, respecting the sacrifices and hardships that have gone into the full White Class and its bounds over the millennia, not giving things away too easily, not taking for granted battle and competition, after which they had to merely give sex to the winner, vanquished be damned, their ass not having been on the line. Conversely, it would seem that men ought to be granted a little more ease of Being, so that they are not so crazy as they strive after actualization – as Bateson described, “the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rights of passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As for the neo traditionalists, they, as post modernists, may participate in traditional gender roles without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity as they knowingly and by choice participate in reconstructing these practices and have the ability and choice for the modernist alternative should they wish.
Hence, this four way system in the post modern is a way to accommodate modernist and traditional gender needs both without necessary losses to either.
This is fairly theoretical, and maybe neither feminist nor traditional women will ever be fair and will only want hypergamy, the males on top – but while women in the heterogeneous society of America seem highly inclined to tall men, for example, I have seen women regularly taking men who are not tall in a homogeneous White society – perhaps that is an example that fairness is more possible in a homogeneous society.…in theory, things could be worked out fairly, should be…I think can be..but even if women are not so cooperative in letting men be, it is good for men to know, to have the raised consciousness, so to speak, that that is something that they need, and that it is right, non-trivial, and fair..
What could be more painful than having this Cartesian division from the women we are co evolved with through millennia? We need a new paradigmatic understanding of gender relations since a mess has been made of them – particularly exacerbated with the wreckage of White class bounds
Thus, I would like to propose a post modern alternative to the lineal, maximizing, quantifying, modernist hierarchy of motives to Actualiazation – that is, an optimal management of Being, Selfhood and Socialization are necessary to Actualization, from which men will not back down and to which the Actualized, when they are Actualized, are indebted, if they are honest.
While it may be charged that I am requiring that men be wimps, the answer is no. Fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) for Whites is the essence of good will. That is what determines intrinsic value, and I juxtapose it to right wing elitism. In line with Kant, if a person has a high i.q., wealth and beauty, but betrays Whites, these qualities only make them worse. If they are used on behalf of Whites, fine, wonderful, nobody should limit their horizons in any significant way. However, it is fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) on behalf of Whites, a horizontal thing, which establishes good will to the White Class.
Feminism is Cartesian. A disruption of the White Class that is an organic, ecological pattern, a means of accountability. The Genders are co-evolved. Co-evolution is a strictly non-Cartesian notion.
In sage contrast to de Beauvoir and Friedan’s modernist flouting of Aristotle’s recommendation of quest for the optimal, as opposed to the maximal, we need to get back to an optimal management of gender relations and individualism if we are to manage the White class properly, between the over compensating and reversing modernists men and women and neo traditionalist men and women; but first of all, it requires a return to the legitimacy of the White class, so that opportunistic exploitation of outsiders do not truncate the process. Note that it is possible to be an overcompensating modernist, in pursuit of actualization – Bill Clinton was a good example; actualization is not only the province of the a neo traditionalist male; but I don’t want to confuse the matter – overcompensation and reversal is not my idea anyway – but does wonderfully relate to the modernist paradox. It was a modernist requirement to be different – as opposed to being a participatory, conforming traditionalist. And, it resulted in a paradox – be different so you can fit in. The Hippies were very susceptible to this…being different was very important to them, part of the destruction of their movement.
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization
In order to get some control of the runaway effects of modernity’s and Jewish breaking down of our class bounds, as I noted last time, increasing the one up position of young females and their incitement, making competition toxic as opportunist outsiders truncate the developmental processes within the class; I have proposed looking at the hierarchy of needs in a new way and taking needs and motives out of hierarchy and into optimal management of needs between White individuals and the genders.
Now, I am proposing these four aspects of individualism as guidelines to the essential needs of White folks in optimal management. Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization.
Socialization: As a social constructionist – and I hasten to note that nothing I’ve heard causes me the least concern that social constructionism is insufficient, twin studies, Salutrean man, you name it – when discussing a management of individual and gender needs, Socialization is the only real feature of the four aspects I propose. Nothing and no individual exists in isolation, outside of interaction, relations; and how facts count must be negotiated with others. When we are talking about Socialization, we are of course talking about reconstruction of the White Class in ecological relation to our habitats. This is a much more severe and strict a notion of classification than is comported in the ad hoc empirical idea of freedom of association, or even freedom from association. We are assuming that patterns of DNA are deep and complex, their value not always available to casual observation. Hence, we are suspect of eugenics, as being superficial, figuring that is going to happen on some level anyway…Fight or tactical flight (which would include stealthy infiltration) is the measure of good will… As we have said, those less great or impaired for whatever reason, the old, may make better fighters as thy have less to lose. Socialization for us, good will for us, is fight or flight on behalf of Whites – without that, all other attributes, intelligence, wealth, beauty, strength, power, can only make a White person a worse traitor.
The marginals indeed, would often be inclined to maintain the system as they are more dependent upon the class than are the alphas, and more in keeping with environmental variables, perhaps less able to over-graze..of course they can be traitors and over grazers too..as can the narrow minded alphas. But let us understand that in negotiating a balance, there is going to be a moral order, whether we organize it or let it happen wily-nilly – there will always be things that we can, cannot or might do in social relations. There has never been anarchy. Thus, we ought to do it consciously; and balance things consciously rather than merely having nature balance things off through its catastrophe. We are talking about an optimal balance of these four aspects of individualism and gender within the socialization of the White Class
At any rate, socialization, in seeing the systemic interrelatedness, ecology and accountability to the class, allows for the qualitative and full processual development of various members of the class at various stages in the developmental process as they meander and occupy their niche functions; life, especially within the class, is more a matter of cooperation than competition. Humans are mammals, they care about relationships, I don’t care what the movie the Matrix says in its Jewish agenda to make that Aristotlean notion seem backward, evil, nerdy and White. There has never been an anarchy and never will be – there will always be some things you can, cannot or might do. Now to the other levels of White Socialization -
Being is the most fundamental level of the life process, the basic level of the hierarchy, so to speak. Being biological, people are dependent upon optimality, not maximizations; being is a deliberate turning back from the toxicities of quantification that are inherent in the Maslowian paradigm. It is characterized by a valuation of biological processes as in Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that “Sleeping is the highest genius”; as in Bateson’s observation that “Naven Ritual Rights of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As where Burke says, “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” It is a notion of wanting to be left alone, not exploited…let me be! As Heidegger says, being is a verb, therefore not entirely passive, rather it lends motives to the creation of cultural boundaries.. ..along with the non-Cartesian “there being”, finding one’s self “out there”, it is like poesis, a slow, qualitative meandering, setting out what is before and after optimal rumination, taking to heart what is essential, giving thanks. Kenneth Burke has another good one here – “rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying.” Being also implies that aspect of taking for granted, not being able to investigate everything we must take some things for granted, the borders of being, of our White Class…to be left alone…Again, Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – institutionalization of voluntary enclaves for those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option in life, choice and being are greatly reduced. This will provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism and Christianity. Being as tactical retreat necessary for White recovery and revival.
We want to move toward outer-space, but we need not reach there this instant – we move there deliberately, at an optimal pace. Having done something and lived our lives, it will always be, even if an asteroid hits the earth, even if a super volcano or man made cataclysm destroys everything.
Now, being, selfhood and socialization are proposed as hedges against going crazy, but I want to make a distinction here – fighting on behalf of Whites in an effective way is not crazy – for us, that is a part of socialization
Selfhood is perhaps an even more interesting aspect: it works well with Habermas’s suggestion that unless we are able to see our subjective interests in a project we will not learn. Thus, I must recommend that White advocates find their subjective reward in pursuing not only the fourteen words but in their every day routines and work. I put this as the next level, rather aspect of Actualization, abandoning the hierarchical paradigm in favor of an optimal, processual and reconstructing one…Selfhood would contain those attributes that I’d described in Autobiography – Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant – but not in unusual ways; on the contrary, by practicing reliable and every day routines, chores and work. People need routines to be happy and to make sense, patterns to gauge differences and that which is required next. How are we going to restore the valor and the esteem of this “blue collar” category? I have a suggestion – by imbuing it with a notion of the sacral. It works well with the sacral anyway, because the sacred is that which reconstructs in reverence the most essential episodes of our life and social functions. In this sense, we are placing it beyond, esteeming it beyond elitist values and the misplaced reverence for their potential exploitations [You can extol the virtues of Henry Ford’s assembly line, or you can look at New Jersey, ribboned with dirty highways going everywhere and nowhere because their destined point has been paved over]. The old craftsman’s guilds would seem to be a kind of sacral view of routine practice. This is something of a challenge, however, as Selfhood is not very esteemed in the west (perhaps for the paranoia of there being no White class boundaries). However, the Being of White Class boundaries and Sacralization of routine might go a long way toward curing the modernist pardox of “be different so you can fit in”
It is probably one of the most important tasks here to be critical of Self Actualization. My attention was focused on the hazard as relatively little attention has been paid to the dark side of self actualization. It got me to reflecting, not only on the disappointment and the narrow kind of hedonism that this quest might be prone to…but even worse, to reflexive reversal into aberration through the over stress of feeling obligated and toxically compelled to achievement …that is part of what makes a lot of men and probably women too, go crazy and do crazy things for sure. More, Jews, Black athletes and musicians are not good role models for Whites with their incommensurate ways. A White may betray Whites because he or she wants to be a hero and distinguish them self from the quote, lower levels – upon which actualization must depend anyway, aspects which should be accorded commensurate respect. Again, I am not proposing to do away with actualization, just looking to avert runaway and catastrophic reflexive effect, to place it within optimal systemic management of the temporal.
* If I may add a controversial suggestion: One of the things that I am most proud of from last time is the assertion that miscegenating White women are equivalent to men what rapists are for women. There may be a natural inclination to rape among some men, just as there may be a natural inclination to miscegenation among some women, but we need not accept it as necessary and good within the bounds of a nation. This is one of the advantages to social constructionism – we do not have to accept it as a merely natural cause and effect (as we do not, rape, for example), but can defer some to social evaluation. They are not only destroying 40,000 years of careful evolution, but they are putting us all at risk to degradation of our habitats, exploitation and violence.
The Jews may not be entirely responsible for miscegenation, although they have a large influence for sure – but they are certainly, largely responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it. Though rape is not necessarily, literally a violent crime, it is treated as such; and it certainly is right to classify it as such, to consider it a very serious offense. The same could be true with miscegenation.
There might be a wish in some men to have women as they would, even 9 year old girls and so on – but it has been mandated against by social decree, by consensus. So it could be with miscegenation – there is no absolute excuse for women to do this.
Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people. It is defined as a prohibition of classifying peoples and discriminating against them as such. It is not innocent; it is hurting people through the prohibition of classificatory boundaries of people; disabling the means of protection and accountability for those marginalized within the group systemic process; those, for whatever reason, not on top of the game at a moment within the systemically related pattern of the class – thus abetting their exploitation and destruction by opportunistic outsiders.
The Basque philosopher Unomuno said, in close approximation, that “one must have a vision of perfection”- for us a vision of our White Class perfectly sovereign – “and with that, the vicissitudes of chance and change are as waves crashing harmlessly upon the rocks” – of our White Class.
Separatism is a first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.
I would like to note a few things that I took for granted while originally writing this piece – first, I take for granted private property – although there should be plenty of public property too, of course; secondly, I do not appreciate effeminate men; but rather am advising some balance, as over the top masculine men are a real pain, and can be beyond stupid, downright cataclysmic – Blacks, for example, are characteristically too masculine. More, none of what I say is contradictory to nationalism and regionalism. It works fine with coordinated White separatisms – a plurality of White ethnostates.
1. Connection of Being to sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls – the idea being that freedom of choice is preserved with that option, no matter how few choose it.
This, along with the 14 Words, can provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism (viz., bad/misapplied science)
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.
There is no such thing as a spontaneous uprising. In fact, such a thing is generally impossible. In today’s political world, political movements must be well organized and financed in order to function. Demonstrations, campaigns, media blitzes, events, rallies, communication, funding and all the other elements of serious reform movements take time and much money to put together. These require faxes, mobile phones, computer networks, elite support, and dozens of other important and expensive variables rarely considered by the Western press in dealing with “spontaneous” uprisings. None of this can happen without organization and planning.
The “Russian” revolution was not spontaneous; neither was the French, British or American. All were based on money, power, competent leadership, foreign funding, crucial elite support, a coherent agenda, and, as always, abstract and vague sloganeering that could be interpreted in any number of ways. They, as well, also all claimed to be speaking for “the people.” Syria is no exception.
The facts are very clear. Israel and the United States are the only elements that stand to gain from the overthrow of the social nationalist government in Syria. Syria is a country that was well on her way to economic development and regional significance out of proportion to her size. A strong government is always necessary to keep all Arab, Islamic and Christian factions apart. Lebanon and Iraq are clear examples of this.
The script is all too familiar: a “despotic” government (almost always an enemy of Israel and liberalism), finally gets its “comeuppance” from “oppressed and heroic” people who just want “democracy” or some other vague demand. The American media have maintained the same script from Belarus to Egypt; from El Salvador to China; from Russia to East Timor. Nothing has changed.
The Islamic Committee in Russia, as well as the Russian government, has blamed the violence in Syria on Israel and the U.S., two countries seeking to control the world’s resources and manipulate its politics. The Islamic banking movement now has assets of over $1 trillion. All the states that have been the victims of “spontaneous revolution” are supporters of this new banking movement, one independent of both the European and Jewish banking cartels.
All the “peaceful demonstrations” reported by the biased Western media have been infiltrated with terror cells of all backgrounds that have fired at police. Only then was the army called out. Here are the facts:
There is nothing going on in Syria or in its government that is not daily fare in Israel and the occupied territories.
The Ba’ath party has engaged in substantial economic and political reforms for about a decade. These include freeing prices and stabilizing the currency. Bureaucratic and corporate level reforms have been legislated since the late 1980s. None of these are mentioned in the Western media.
The banking sector has been streamlined and so has the tax system. In fact, the IMF has praised Syria for her reforms since 2000, if not before.
The Ba’ath party government since the late 1970s has engaged in land reform that has given land to the peasants who till it. As a result, the farming class is strongly behind the Ba’ath movement.
The Syrian GDP since 2000 has more than doubled in size under the Ba’ath party.
The highest 10 percent of the Syrian population control only 28 percent of the wealth. In the United States, the top 10 percent control about 71 percent of the wealth. The Syrian system has worked—it has created strong growth plus a great degree of equality. The American system has not worked.
The state bank is actually owned by the state, which means that the Syrian pound is relatively immune to Western manipulation.
The U.S., in its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, banned any and all political parties that were anti-Western.
The Ba’ath government since 2000 has spent billions to repair the infrastructure, services and security in the cities.
Pro-government rallies far surpass the numbers of of the anti-government ones, both in the number of participants as well as their geographic dispersion, including the large Syrian community in Lebanon.
Syrian life expectancy is about 74, which is a first-world figure.
Syrian literacy stands at about 90 percent.
According to some figures, Syria was set to grow at about 10 percent a year prior to the violence.
The Syrian government has consistently asked the opposition groups to meet for talks. They have all refused.
Assad promised to lift all emergency laws, but as soon as the announcements had been made, more violence was imposed on the country. In other words, someone seems to need this “crackdown” to continue.
Russian FSB units, long active in Syria, reject the idea that these armed groups are anything other than Israeli-armed terror cells that represent no one but themselves and their sponsors.
Syrian farmers bringing food to the major cities have reported being fired upon by anti-government terror units.
Foreign media are not permitted into Syria. Thus, all Western reporting on the country is highly suspect, since none of it can be verified.
Many Western media “reports” allegedly coming out of Syria use pseudonyms, hence conveniently making it impossible to trace the source of any information.
No one can deny that the Ba’ath party has been a success in Syria. In a few years, the Ba’ath party took this impoverished, former colony of France and turned it into a regional power both in a military and an economic sense. Yet, this is precisely the problem. The Ba’ath party under Saddam in Iraq and under the Assads in Syria were on the cusp of becoming important, first-world powers. It was right around this time that they were branded as “evil” states in need of sanctions. Iraq, Iran and Syria have been growing at a great pace not just in terms of economics, but education, literacy, heath care, high-technology, infrastructure, banking, military and foreign affairs. Israel was not going to sit by and let its three greatest enemies become Middle Eastern versions of South Korea.
Some of the most damning indictments of the American academic and journalistic elites have come from Belgian professor Pierre Piccinin of the European School of Brussels. He has made himself clear, to the detriment of his own career, that the Western media “lack professional integrity” in their present coverage of the violence in Syria.
For example, Piccinin holds the Western media responsible for taking close-up shots of small protests and claiming that these represent “millions” of anti-government activists. He was at the anti-government demonstration in Hama, with, in his estimation, numbered about 15,000 people. The Western press without exception reported the numbers to be over 500,000 and a “broad cross section” of the Syrian population.
Former British Member of Parliament George Galloway was reported as saying that the “only reason” Syria is under foreign attack is that they “have supported the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance and rejected any surrender to Israel.” The Minister of State in Lebanon, Ali Quansu, said the same.
Here is just one example, from the BBC, of the biased reporting of the West in dealing with the Syrian protests. The title of the piece is “Syria’s Spontaneously Organized Protests.” The title itself is proof of the laughable bias of the BBC here, a long opponent of Syrian anti-Zionism. The very fact that the BBC needs to title the piece this way strongly suggests they are well aware that the truth is precisely the opposite. It’s like telling everyone how much you love your wife as you are cheating on her. The author of the piece is based in Beruit, and hence, is relatively far from the action. She writes:
Just like the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, the protests in Syria are a grassroots movement, with no real leaders but with a number of prominent activists who keep things going.
How many errors and verbal cues can you find in this paragraph? The use of the term “revolution” is strange, since apparently, these are just “grassroots” people who just want “democracy.” Revolution implies radicalism. If there are no leaders, then there is no articulated agenda, and hence, no way to figure out if they are “revolutionary” or not. How can something be spontaneous and organized at the same time? There is no proof—and none is offered—that this is just a “grassroots movement.” The use of this cliché, among many others, suggests a script rather than an actual report. What does “no real leaders” mean? Who is articulating demands, then? Who are these “prominent activists?”
One of these “prominent activists” who has been feeding information to the Western media is the “dissident” Ammar Abdulhami of Silver Spring, Maryland. Among other things, he has worked at the “Saban Center for Middle East Policy” at the Brookings Institution as a “research scholar.” Haim Saban, of course, is the Jewish media mogul who created this “Institute.” He is a right-wing Zionist worth about $4 billion. He controls most cartoon TV for kids in America. The “Institute” was headed by AIPAC head Martin Indyk for a time. Indyk was also U.S. ambassador to Israel as well, where he was stripped of his security clearance for leaking sensitive documents to the Zionist state. Predictably, it was restored to him by the Jewish Zionist Madeline Albright.
In addition, Abdulhami was instrumental in founding HAMSA, a left-leaning group which is identical to the American Islamic Congress (even their websites are the same). The members of the board of the AIC are very instructive. One is Hillel Fradkin, the Jewish head of the “Center for Islam” at the Hudson Institute. Another is Harriet Fulbright of the infamous “Fulbright Center” from whence come the money for the Fulbright Scholarships. Sa’ad Eddin Ibrahim worked for the Woodrow Wilson Institute. Not surprisingly, this group also as a branch in Cairo. The point is that this set of “prominent activists,” no different from Amnesty International or dozens of other “human rights” groups, turns out to be a mere front for the rich, well-connected, suburban, liberal SUV set.
Even more chilling is that this “dissident” group has partnered with the International Relief and Development Agency, financed by U.S. taxpayers, to, in their words, “service provider training, media, advocacy, and mobile unit service delivery, and will be implemented with and through local partners such as The American Islamic Congress, Erbil Emergency Hospital and Burn Unit, Childhood Care and Sponsorship Organization, Psycho-Social, Education, Treatment and Consulting Center, Kurdistan Institute for Political Issues, and Heartland.”
In one of the more outrageous acts of the concerted Western press, major media sources claimed that physician Dr. Golan al Rifaei was imprisoned by Syrian security forces. The corporate funded “human rights” organizations such as Amnesty International mobilized their university supporters to demand his release. They created expensive dinner parties, hit up the Ford Foundation for money and set up rallies on college campuses to agitate for his release. He was used as a symbol for the “tyranny” of the Syrian government. Unfortunately for these groups, the doctor had been living in Russia since 2006, and remains a supporter of the government. They simply chose his name, as if out of a hat, and invented a story about him. This, unfortunately, is not atypical of the media in this regard.
The spectacle of endless, a-critical and laudatory reporting on the “lesbian girl” in Syria was both comical and saddening. In hopes of mobilizing the corporate-financed, multibillion homosexual movement in America and Europe in favor of intervention in Syria, the American media helped create and invent the “Gay Girl in Damascus,” which turned out to be an American man, Thomas McMaster. McMaster spun a tale about being kidnapped by the tyrannical Syrian government and tortured because of “her lesbianism.” It was widely reported, used as an example of “Ba’ath tyranny,” and, again, turned out to be a crude fake.
On May 29 of 2011, The Russia Times wrote this about Syria:
And yet against this supposedly inauspicious backdrop, one can walk alone in Damascus at any time, day or night. There is no overt military or police presence on the streets. Not long ago, Syria was one of the safest countries in the world. No checkpoints on the roads, patrols, road-side inspections or other signs of a militarized society. Even now, Syria does not look much like the “bloody dictatorship” described by the foreign media.
The Times also makes clear that, in unbiased media reports from the area, the disturbances are exclusively coming from one group in the country, the radically Islamic Salafi groups. Salafi movements are strong in the Gaza Strip, and have received money from the IDF because they are seen as a counterweight to Hamas and—and as a result—both Iranian and Syrian influence in the area. These armed gunmen are the main focus of the “anti-government” movement in Syria.
In fact, the pro-Syrian Hamas broke up some Salafi demonstrations in and around Israeli settlements in Gaza. Mossad is very active in using the Salafi and sympathetic Brotherhood members to destabilize all the Islamic and secular governments in the area. Mossad support for Islamic radicals used for destabilization purposes, needless to say, is nowhere to be found in the Western press.
Ilan Chaim Grapel, an American Jew in the pay of the Mossad, goes by the name of “Illanhu Akbar,” and speaks fluent Arabic. He was a speaker in several Egyptian mosques prior to the eruption of the violence in that country. Several Arab media outlets had this to say:
Grapel also gave a speech at the Al-Azhar mosque in Egypt, in which he demanded that the Egyptian worshipers should target the military and to resist against them at Al-Tahrir Square and generally incited the audience to engage in violence. He gave other “Islamic” speeches in the Hussein area and at Tahrir Square and in front of Maspero. He recorded the events, his speeches and the audience in video and he even managed to recruit some young people and convince them to attack the armed forces who were at al-Tahrir Square securing the demonstrators.
Left-wing journalist Joyce Chediac, no friend of the Ba’ath Party, wrote this in May of 2011:
The Syrian government-run media is not saying much, while the Western corporate media as well as Al Jazeera have been accused of exaggerating both the protests and the Syrian government repression. Russia Today on April 30 quotes a travel agent living in Syria who says pro-Assad rallies were called “anti-Assad” by Al Jazeera; anti-government protests reported by Al Jazeera and Reuters did not take place; and protest footage from other countries has been attributed to Syria.
While front-page articles give the impression that most of Syria has taken to the streets against Assad, most establishment Middle East pundits admit that the Syrian government, at this point, is supported by most Syrians.
Press TV, a multilingual news source specializing in the Middle East, writes in June of 2011:
Hundreds of Syrian civilians have also crossed the northern border into Turkey after the Turkish government announced that its doors are open to those seeking refuge.
The developments come as the US Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta recently visited the border between Syria and Turkey in a secret visit to Turkey. The United States and some regional countries support civil war in Syria.
Syrian army units on Monday restored security and tranquility to the city of Jisr al-Shaghour after clearing it from the armed groups that terrorized locals, attacked public and private properties, and wrought havoc in the city.
In the latest attempts, Washington and Tel Aviv are hatching plots to reignite the flames of unrest in Syria through smuggling weapons into the Arab country via the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.
A young doctoral student in Middle Eastern studies, Vanessa Newby, spoke of her visit to Damascus as the riots began:
As I walked the streets of the city, I got the sense that demonstrators were looking for a fight. There was more than a whiff of aggression in the way they yelled out to me and in their demeanour. They were predominantly young men. It was discomfiting and I was glad to return to my home and get off the streets.
The media until recently, attributed the lack of revolutionary spirit in Syria to the popularity of the President. The large pro-government protests that I witnessed demonstrated to me that, in some parts of the country, this is true. The President has continued to resist US efforts to encourage him to abandon Syria’s links to Hizbollah and Hamas and he refuses to make peace with Israel over the Golan Heights. This certainly makes him popular with some locals.
The simple fact is that these “revolutions” have been financed by the same people. Both the U.S. government through its “Institute for Peace,” as well as billionaire investors, fronted by such groups as the Albert Einstein Foundation, the Ford Foundation and “Humanity in Action” have all been operating in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia for many years. The “International Crisis Group” and various fronts created by George Soros have also been involved with training cadres for rebellion in countries considered inconvenient by the U.S. Government and global capitalism.
Jafaria News, a pro-Islamic news source, writes:
At the outset, the White House and the Tel Aviv regime provoked anti-government protests in Syria’s southern city of Daraa near the border with Jordan.
There is now clear evidence that weapons, cell phones and terrorists from Jordan were transferred into the city to further complicate the situation on the ground, analysts say.
The Syrian army began withdrawing its forces from Daraa in early May after arresting scores of heavily-armed people and confiscating large amounts of sophisticated weapons and ammunition.
The US and Israel then sparked revolts in the cities of Baniyas, located on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and Talkalakh near the Lebanese border.
Outfitted with one of the strongest militaries in the region, armed rebellion against the Syrian government makes no sense, unless there are mercenaries, trained in advanced weaponry, at work in Syria.
Nothing makes sense, as always, about the Regime’s reporting on the Syrian riots. The Syrian economy has, by both regional and global standards, has been doing well and was predicted by the IMF to do better in coming years. The new president Bashir al-Assad came into office promising all manner of reforms, and was always considered, by the same Western press now condemning him, as a reformer. The Ba’ath party’s “no surrender” to Israel made it perennially popular. Bashir has repaired all ties with Russia, bringing in much Russian investment, money and technical experts in the high-tech sector.
Like it or not, slogans about “democracy” in Syria make about as much sense as democracy in Iraq. These countries are deeply divided by race, religion and ethnicity. In all likelihood, political parties, as in Iraq, Afghanistan or Bosnia, will develop along these lines. If so, Israel, Turkey, the U.S., Georgia and numerous other pro-Western states have an interest in arming all of them, so as to turn Israel’s enemy #1 into another Lebanon.
Ken Waltzer wrote in his comment on this blog on June 27th:
“More important, Elie Wiesel’s commentary in Night bears fairly close resemblance to the actual experiences he had at Buchenwald—as recorded in camp documents.” (my italics)
What are we to make of the words “fairly close resemblance?” According to Waltzer—and to Wiesel—Wiesel is writing down his own experience. “Every word is true!” Wiesel has said ofhis bookNight. Thus it should exactly resemble the actual experience he had. I’m going to examine closely what is written in Night about Buchenwald to see if that is the case.
It’s not too difficult because the newest English edition of Night1—a new translation by wife Marion Wiesel which changes (corrects) some of the more blatant “boo-boos” found in the original 1960 edition—comprises only 115 pages. Of that, Wiesel’s description of his time at Buchenwald begins on page 104, giving it only 11 pages (one page being blank).
Wiesel wrote a new preface for this new translation in which he tries to answer some of the more common criticisms of his book. His answer to the differences between the Yiddish And the World Remained Silent and Night is that he cut passages he thought might be superfluous … or “too personal, too private, perhaps.” Strange thing to say since he had already published it. Concerning Buchenwald, he quotes the original writing about the death of his father, where the club-wielder is called “an SS” three times! In Night, as you will see below, this person becomes simply “an officer.” Naturally I ask: Did this scene even happen? Wiesel also tries to explain why he cut out from the ending so much of what was in the Yiddish version, but in doing so he leaves unmentioned an extensive part of what he cut. I have quoted these two endings in Shadowy Origins of Night, Part II.
Wiesel begins his experience at Buchenwald by writing that upon reaching the entrance to the Buchenwald camp along with his father and all the new arrivals from his transport, the SS counted them and they were directed to the Appelplatz (roll call area inside the camp) where loudspeakers ordered “Form ranks of fives! Groups of one hundred! Five steps forward!” He then writes, “A veteran of Buchenwald (as he puts it), told us that we would be taking a shower and afterward be sent to different blocks.” He makes it sound as if it were one of those among them, but it actually had to be a Kapo.
He writes that hundreds of prisoners crowded the shower area and made it difficult to get in, therefore his father wanted to find a place to sit down and wait—which he did in a pile of snow where there were other ‘bodies’ sticking out. Dead or alive we’re not told. It’s one of those literary scenes wherein Eliezer confronts Death via his fear of his father’s death. He writes: “This discussion (with his father) continued for some time.” Then … “sirens began to wail … lights went out … guards chased us toward the blocks.” They obviously did not get a hot shower. Wiesel adds: “The cauldrons at the entrance found no takers.” 2
Are we to believe that the kapos, or “veterans of Buchenwald,” allowed non-disinfected, non-showered detainees into the barracks, possibly carrying lice and other vermin with them? No way could this have happened. Yet Wiesel writes: “We let ourselves sink into the floor. To sleep was all that mattered.” I guess it was okay because they didn’t get into the beds.
In the morning, having lost track of his father the night before, he went to search for him. What about the regimentation? What about the early morning roll call? Wiesel writes: “I walked for hours without finding him. Then I came to a block where they were distributing black ‘coffee.’ ” 3 He heard his father’s voice asking for some coffee. He brought it to him. “He was lying on the boards,” meaning, I suppose, a bare bunk. Then, “We had been ordered to go outside to allow for cleaning of the blocks (barracks). Only the sick could remain inside. (If that was the case, they were not fumigating.) We stayed outside for five hours. We were given soup. When they allowed us to return to the blocks, I rushed toward my father” … who told Eliezer he had not been given any soup because “they said we would die soon and it would be a waste of food.”
Apparently, he stayed with his father in that barracks, making sure he was fed. Were they allowed to live in whatever barracks they chose? Again, there is no explanation given for this. He then writes that on the third day after their arrival everybody had to go to the showers, even the sick. Having done that (with no description of the process at all), they again had to wait “a long time” outside the barracks while they were being cleaned.
He fills a couple of pages with scenes of watching his father deteriorate amidst all the heartlessness. Then, after a week, a Blockälteste (block warden) told him he couldn’t save his father and he should help himself by eating his father’s rations. Instead, he pretends to be sick so he can stay in the barracks with his father. He doesn’t go to roll call. Now comes the famous passage in which he writes: “In front of the block, the SS were giving orders. An officer passed between the bunks. My father was pleading: “My son, water…I’m burning up…My insides …” The officer shouts at him to be quiet, walks over with a club and hits him “a violent blow to the head.” On that night, January 28, 1945, his father allegedly died.
The main problems with reality in this passage are:
1) The SS is known to have not been active inside the camp; the prisoner-trustees, usually communists, took care of giving the prisoners their orders. So the SS would not be in front of the block giving orders.
2) “An officer” can only be an SS officer. But they never came inside the barracks. Inmates, no matter how much “in charge” they might be, were not called officers. So who was this mysterious “officer” who was inside the barracks? Not SS at all; just part of the fiction and another attempt to assign brutalities to the SS.
Eliezer says he did not weep for his father. He was numb. He was transferred to the children’s block, where he remained with 600 others until April 11. That’s two and a half months, yet he tells us nothing of that time except that he did have an appetite and his only interest was getting an extra ration of soup. On April 5 (he knew the exact date) “we were inside the block, waiting for an SS to come and count us. He was late. Such lateness was unprecedented in the history of Buchenwald.”
Same problem as above: the official story (and Waltzer’s story) tells us that the communist “veterans” had these boys hidden away in the “small camp” where they cared for them, keeping them away from the SS and the camp authorities. We know that the SS did not go inside the blocks. Yet Wiesel writes that they did every day because on this day they were late. Covering for Wiesel, Waltzer writes on his website:
…the 16-year old Wiesel was assigned to a special barracks that was created and maintained by the clandestine underground resistance in the camp as part of a strategy of saving youths. This block, Block 66, was located in the deepest part of the disease-infested little camp, a separate space below the main camp at Buchenwald that was beyond the normal Nazi SS gaze (the local SS officer actively cooperated and conducted appels inside the barracks).
The barracks was overseen by block elder Antonin Kalina, a Czech Communist from Prague, and his deputy, Gustav Schiller, a Polish-Jewish Communist originally from Lvov. Odon Gati, a Communist from Budapest, was stubendienst. Schiller, who appears briefly in “Night,”was a father figure and mentor, especially for the Polish-Jewish boys and many of the Czech-Jewish boys, but he was less liked, and even feared, by Hungarian- and Romanian-Jewish boys, especially religious boys, including Wiesel. He appears in “Night” as a menacing figure, armed with a truncheon.
First, Waltzer mentions the underground. But they did not have the power to hide away the youths who were assigned to the special barracks 66. It was a policy of the Camp Commandant to separate these children to keep them safe, to feed them as well as possible, and they were fully aware of the children’s barrack 66 where they were kept. Thus. there may have been a “local SS officer” assigned to look after Block 66 to make sure everything was being done according to regulations … that is, even to supervise, to some extent, the communist block leaders. The story that it was the communists who “saved these boys from death” is a fiction that was created later, after the liberation of the camp and the formation of the Buchenwald association which was made up of former prisoners of communist persuasion. It was the camp authorities who made the decision to place the “children” away and apart from the adult prisoners, not the underground resistance.
Second, Wiesel writes in Night, “Gustav, the Blockälteste, made it clear with his club” that they had to obey the order to gather in the Appelplatz. Doesn’t this imply that the communist overseers were not necessarily acting as “father-figures” and mentors, but simply as guards? Also note that the kapo Gustav was carrying a club and used it, while earlier it was an “officer” in the barracks who wielded a club against Eliezer’s father. Relative to this, Ferenc Kornfeld reports : “Without exception, the Kapos all had big sticks.” He also said a Kapo armband went with a double food ration. And, “They continually shouted and they hit people on the head and the neck.” Kornfeld wrote about Buchenwald: “There were common criminals, murderers and thieves, in concentration camps too. They were called the “Blockältesters”. They were the “Kapos” (bosses). As they were murderers, they had black triangles on their uniforms. The Kapos hit and slapped all of us.” So much for the idea of Blockälteste’s as mentors.
The abrupt ending of Night
Wiesel claims on pages 114-15 (the last two pages of the book) that on April 5 everyone, even the children, were ordered to gather in the Appelplatz. On the way, some prisoners told them to go back because the Germans planned to shoot them. They turned around and on the way back they learned that “the underground resistance of the camp had made the decision not to abandon the Jews and to prevent their liquidation.” What kind of nonsense is this? Well, it is “the story” which evolved that these communists at Buchenwald finally, on the very last day, fought the Germans. What really happened was the Germans were ready to abandon the camp on the 11th, which they did. Wiesel simply picks up that official fiction of the underground resistance and incorporates it into his narrative. I don’t think the Germans ever intended to evacuate the children and youths.
Apparently, after the 5th, blocks of prisoners were being evacuated to other camps. By April 10, Wiesel writes, “we had not eaten for nearly six days except for a few stalks of grass and some potato peels found on the grounds of the kitchen.” From whom did these potato peels come? Did their communist keepers gather them and bring them to the youths inside the barracks? Did the boys roam around freely and eat grass? At ten o’clock the next morning, he tells us, the SS positioned themselves around the camp and began to herd the remaining inmates toward the Appelplatz. At this point the underground resistance members appeared “from everywhere” with guns and grenades. Eliezer and the other children “remained flat on the floor of the block.” (Therefore they saw nothing.) By noon, the SS had fled and the resistance was in charge. The first American tank arrived at 6 p.m.
Wiesel now wastes no time in concluding the book. He says he became very ill from food poisoning three days later because they “threw themselves on the provisions.” He spent two weeks in the hospital “between life and death.” One day he got up and looked in a mirror and saw only a corpse gazing back at him. This was at the end of April or first of May 1945. Yet he recovered so well that we see a healthy, smiling boy in the picture supposedly taken of him at Ambloy in late 1945 … or is it early or mid 1946?
It’s interesting that Wiesel made such a point later on of maintaining he had vowed in 1945 to wait ten years to write down his experiences. The reasons given, including that his memory would be sharper after ten years, are completely bogus—especially since his book bears little resemblance to the actual camps as we know them to be. The much longer Yiddish version was published in 1955-56. The abridged French version La Nuit in 1958; the English Night in 1960.
I have to say Wiesel doesn’t describe Buchenwald at all. You don’t know anything about Buchenwald from reading Night. You don’t learn much about Eliezer or anyone else. You are given an impression of suffering, without rhyme or reason, so Buchenwald becomes synonymous with suffering, that’s about it. We don’t know what it looks like. We don’t know the name or the physical appearance of any person, not even Gustav carrying a club, who is said elsewhere to have had red hair. Wiesel makes up a story about “an officer” using a club in the barracks when it could only be a kapo (if it was anyone at all). He doesn’t tell us anything about the children in the barracks where he stayed for 2 ½ months. He doesn’t describe the few days after liberation, before he got sick. One did not have to be at Buchenwald to write what he wrote!
Ken Waltzer also writes at his website:
Elie Wiesel has acknowledged the role played by the clandestine underground and political prisoners in saving children and youth at Buchenwald, especially in his autobiography, but he did not attend to this in “Night.” It was not his purpose or focus in that book. Many of his fellow barracks members, however, who are still alive and remember very well their days and nights in Block 66; their relations with Kalina, Schiller and others; and the hope provided to them there, have been helping fill in the story.
You can see a couple of these fellow barracks members here: Scroll down for Excerpts from the “Boys of Buchenwald” discussion panel (7.45 minutes) You can judge for yourself how impressive they are…or not. Neither one mentions Elie Wiesel.
1. Elie Wiesel, Night, Hill and Wang, New York, 2006, 120 pgs.
2. This can only refer to soup being available at the entrance to the barracks. Obviously, Eliezer and his father dawdling by having their long conversation caused them to miss out on both shower and soup.
3. In the book, “coffee” is in quotes signifying it wasn’t real coffee. I left off the quote marks in the original writing because of the quote mark signifying the end of the sentence. Poor judgement on my part, but whether it was real coffee or not wasn’t the focus of my attention in this critique. However, the sharp attention of the author of the Scrapbookpages Blog picked up on this and wrote about Wiesel’s failure to know that real coffee was not served in the camps. My apology to “Furtherglory” for misleading him and to my readers also. I have added the quote marks since reading the blog at Scrapbookpages Blog.
[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).
While dealing with the vulgarities and deception of American “debates” on economic issues is normally not my thing, the recent discussions about American debt default have been more absurd than normal. If anything proves general illiteracy on basic economic topics, this typically media-crafted debate does. Yet, few have noticed.
Nothing makes sense about how the media have crafted this debate. Debt means two things relative to the federal government: debts owed to foreign investors, and debts owed to domestic ones. Hence, it is the global elite, by and large, who control this debt, including banks, corporations and states.
American debt, both public and private, amounts to about $60 trillion, with private sector debt being far higher than the government’s. The American taxpayer will not balance his books, so why should the federal government?
I wonder how much debt, in the broader sense of the word, the U.S. actually owes. I recall fevered discussions at the University of Nebraska about how much the U.S. owes to the United Nations. Professor David Forsythe would pontificate ad nauseam on how much is owed to the UN. I, a lowly graduate student at the time, made the error of raising my hand and asking, “Yet, David, did not the U.S. fight a large part of the war that made the UN possible?” In other words, since the U.S. lost almost 500,000 men and financed the war efforts of the Soviet Union and Britain in that conflict, how is it even remotely possible that we “owe” the UN anything?
Well, you don’t talk like that to tenured professors.
When we consider international political economy, we are speaking, of course, about the “rules of the game.” The global political and economic Regime is the creation of the United States and its post-World War II supremacy. Even the Soviet economy was largely the result of American and Western investment, though this topic has long been thrown down the memory hole. Israel is exclusively based on American dollars, as is Egypt, Taiwan and South Korea. Who owes what to whom?
The point is that the U.S. created the present global trading regime—for better or worse—and has spilled much blood and treasure in defending it. Trillions of dollars in foreign aid, low cost loans, security, legal enforcement, NATO operations, diplomatic missions, U.S. backed investment, infrastructure improvements and hundreds of other immensely expensive operations were financed by the endlessly bamboozled and clueless taxpayer. Yet we’re the ones in debt?
It is suspicious how none of this is considered as part of the American balance sheet. None of the monies were ever repaid for the U.S. role in World War II, or in any battles against the USSR. How many billions are owed to the U.S, by Great Britain or France? Why is this never considered as part of the American macroeconomic picture?
In fact, America remains a creditor nation in a very real sense. The world owes it its very existence – the U.S. created the present New World Order, while those who have profited from it hold that it owes the U.S. nothing, and—the very epitome of chutzpah—the lowly taxpayer owes them money.
The American taxpayer is considered an ignorant golem, a mercenary force that could be used to create and defend the new economic order. This order made a tiny percentage of the globe’s population wealthy, while the taxpayer was cast away into the dust to eke out a living paying the wealthy the cost of making them wealthy. Like it or not, this is the logic of modern capitalism.
How much did the U.S. taxpayer spend to defend the world since 1900? How many have died in the wars that made others wealthy? Why is this not even an issue? Where are the tin-pot patriots?
Debt? America has no debt—the world owes it an immense sum.
What made China wealthy? The American consumer. What made the EU wealthy? The American consumer, and this, after the Marshall Plan and the American efforts to rebuild a destroyed Europe with taxpayer cash. Has this been repaid with the requisite interest? Yet, their success could not have existed unless the U.S. a) created the system in which this trade could flourish and b) that the U.S. consumer bought and paid for every scrap of metal used in the Japanese, German, Korean and Chinese economy. Even more, it was largely American investors and scientists who created this technology that is making China and India rich in the first place.
This is the logic of capitalism: An American car is made in China. It is the product of American minds, technology, labor and consumption at every single step of its development and production. The result? The U.S. owes China money. This is how oligarchy works.
While the Chinese elite, for example, claim the U.S. is massively in debt to them, the fact remains that there is not an atom of their productive capacity that was not developed in the West and perfected by the United States. Nothing in the Chinese economy could exist unless American consumers did not themselves go into debt to pay for it and American technology went into creating it.
Yet, American labor remains passive while their children are handed a massive and unrepayable bill for wealth their parents created. If the minimum wage were equivalent to American labor’s productive power, it would be well over $50 an hour. Where does all that excess value go?
Needless to say, this is not an apologia for the New World Order. For all its injustice, it is an American creation root and branch. For better or worse, the current global trading system is based exclusively on American cash, blood and, just as important, its massive market that has kept global capitalism afloat even while the American consumer has gone into un-repayable debt. Britain, China, Japan, Korea, India, Taiwan, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, Germany, Malaysia and the rest of the global first-world could not have made a nickel without American protection, investment and consumption. Regardless of whether these elites deserve their power is a separate issue—their power is based on the sacrifices of the American taxpayer and consumer at all levels. Yet they dare lecture the U.S. on being “in debt.”
The fact that the U.S. can be considered “in debt” is the height of absurdity and shows the literal and metaphorical bankruptcy of modern economics. If the U.S. is “dependent” on foreign oil, just how long would these oil-producing states last without American protection?
The United States, if it were sane, would simply repudiate all its present public and private debt, at least to foreign creditors. She would announce that the American market is henceforth closed if there is even the threat of any financial retaliation. She would announce that this debt repudiation is a) a reward for the constant sacrifices of the American taxpayer and b) the price that China, Korea, Taiwan and the rest will have to pay to get the U.S. market back.
The fact that the U.S. market is the very linchpin of global capitalism and the only reason it still functions has yet to be introduced into this media controlled “debate” over American debt. The U.S. market, itself, is the American nuclear weapon in global economics, yet it has never been used. In fact, there is no “global economics” without the American market.
Since this alleged “debt” is held by the world’s elite, and this elite controls nearly every facet of American life, it is difficult to see how the world’s “sole superpower” is in any position to make demands at all. Yet, our own consumer dollars are the chief weapon that sits in the silo, collecting dust while the Regime figures out how to suck yet more from the ignorant and indebted American consumer.
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.
As far as the mainstream media was concerned, the American Renaissance Conference had been canceled. By all outward appearances, the conference had indeed been canceled. Hundreds who had planned to descend on Charlotte to privately and politely have a conversation about race were thwarted. Antifa thug Daryl Lamont Jenkins, anti-White hustler Leonard Zeskind, and the Charlotte Observer rejoiced. They basked in the respect of the small cohort of burned-out hippies and snot-nosed hipsters who showed up to take credit for having silenced their opponents in the only way they know how: intimidation and force.
Meanwhile, in two different hotels in Charlotte, two separate conferences were taking place: a secret conference and a shadow conference. The scheduled speakers were gathered with Jared Taylor of American Renaissance at the “secret conference” to record their speeches for an Internet audience several times greater than the number of people who would have attended. Those videos are being released through NPI TV, the National Policy Institute‘s recently debuted Internet video project.
A few blocks away, determined supporters of American Renaissance were meeting at a “shadow conference“. This conference, organized by a team effort of grassroots activists spearheaded by Jaenelle Antas’s Lighthouse Literature book store, included dozens of White Advocates and race realists. Some flew from as far as Canada, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Some drove from as far as Texas and Indiana. A few supporters from North Carolina dropped by, as well. Far fewer people were able to attend than wanted to attend, and the enemies of free assembly can go ahead and claim that as a win.
But while they were busy doing what they do best: congratulating one another for being winners, we were busy doing what we need to do: networking and devising winning strategies. Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists and I stayed up well past midnight the night before the conference comparing notes and brainstorming better ways to coordinate our advocacy initiatives across regional, organizational, and ideological boundaries. Gerald Martin, Reuben Hayat, and I stayed up well past midnight the night after the conference drawing protest signs on the floor of the hotel room for a street demonstration the following day.
Technical issues interfered with our original plan of simulcasting the speeches from the secret conference, so we improvised, delivering our own speeches. Voice of Reason’s very own Paul Fromm, a relentless Canadian free speech activist, was kind enough to deliver two excellent speeches – one on freedom of speech in America and one called “Numbers”, that applied race realism and common sense to some current events. Reuben Hayat, better known online as JewAmongYou, delivered a thought-provoking speech on the distinction between hate and resentment. Andrew Yeoman discussed his beliefs and activities in a very informative Q&A with our attendees.
Paul Fromm explores the impact of “foreign aid” on Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake, explaining how the unfortunate situation ultimately comes down to the numbers.
We would like to express our appreciation to Kevin Slaughter, who came with an impressive A/V setup and took charge of recording the speeches. We also enjoyed his amusing and provocative take on things both at lunch and at the bar after the conference. Thank you, Richard Smith, author of Religion of Macho, for delivering an interesting speech that we were not able to record. Thank you to the many more who can’t be thanked by name, including the benefactors who helped finance this project and the attendees who purchased books while there. There’s still time to show your support and help Jaenelle pay down the rest of her investment in this project by patronizing her online bookstore.
American Dark Age Shadow Conference
It’s satisfying to assemble with comrades who can join you in speaking and hearing the truth. It’s satisfying to defy the enemies of free expression and free association. But it’s important to remember that, for all the fun we had, our work is deadly serious. Our work, that of spreading our ideas, is the first step in a much larger struggle to assure a safe and successful future for ourselves and our future generations. It’s to ensure that our communities are safe to live in and our “leaders” are fighting for us instead of fighting us.
The Anti-Racist Activists would like you to believe that we’re the violent haters, but their death threats against the hotels, their threats against us, and their code of silence when hateful violence is actually committed betrays them. Bearing that in mind, I stopped by Channon Christian’s grave in Knoxville on the way home from the conference, placing a rose on her grave. We dedicate this conference to the legacy of a smart and beautiful young woman whose life was cut tragically short by senseless (but not random) violence. If advocacy efforts inspired by her trials can empower us to stop the epidemic of anti-White violence once and for all, then she will not have died in vain.
Note: This article was originally published in the American Journal of Russian and Slavic Studies in 2007.
The increasing violence and arrogance of the Regime is directly correlated to its insecurity. For all its ranting about its successes and, of course, its “inevitability,” the regime is facing some very difficult times. Overwhelming debt, a lost war in Iraq, outsourcing of some of its more satisfying jobs, alienation of rural areas, increasing fuel prices, and substantial foreign competition from the developing India-China-Russia axis, the Regime, like a spoiled child, lashes out in hatred.
The latest attack comes from a half-witted Congressman who I had not heard of until now, The Hon. John Shimkus (R-IL). He has come to my attention due to an outburst on the floor of the House, condemning Belarus. Reading from a script, he condemned Belarus for “violating democracy,” etc. etc.; everyone knows the drill. Shimkus also sits on something called the Congressional Baltic Caucus, something else I had not known of until now. As it turns out, Shimkus has made Belarus a major part of his legislative agenda, sponsoring and co-sponsoring numerous “resolutions” condemning Belarus for some “crime” or other. (See here for a few speeches).
Here are a few excerpts from some of his press releases over the last few years:
“Unfortunately, just today we have received word of potential harassment of opposition activists by the government, For the people of Belarus, I pray for the success of the ‘denim revolution.’ (2006)”
And this from a man who cheered the passage of the Patriot act and wishes to make it stronger.
Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois-19) introduced House Resolution 673 “expressing support for the efforts of the people of the Republic of Belarus to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and urging the Government of Belarus to conduct a free and fair presidential election on March 19, 2006.
Shimkus is a very good case study of legislative corruption. Why would an obscure congressman worry so much about a country the size of Kansas, a country that, in no conceivable respect, poses a threat to the U.S? Let’s take a look.
Shimkus is supported by a few telling organizations, led by Abbott Laboratories, the drug giant based in Illinois, and nearly every other major drug manufacturer. Also controlling his candidacy are the following corporations, the list itself is telling, and is provided by the disclosures of his campaign filed at the Federal Election Commission.
Shimkus and the neo-con republicans in general are financed by: Amazon.com, The American Bankers Association American, Express, Sugarbeet Growers, Time Warner, ADM, AT&T (huge contributions under various names), Bank of America, Boeing, Cargill, Citigroup, ConAgra, Chrysler, DTE, Energy Edison, Northrop Grumman, Enron, Exxon-Mobil (huge donations), a small army of sugar corporations another huge set of donations from coal interests in America.
Other major contributors to Shimkus include: General Atomics, GE, Halliburton, The Investment Company Institute, J.P. Morgan The Lithuanian-American PAC, McDonalds, Monsanto, Nuclear Energy PAC, Peabody Energy, The Petroleum Marketers Association, The Edison Electric Institute, Progress Energy, Reliant Energy Shell Oil, Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers, Southern Minnesota Beet Growers, Tejas Energy, Wal-Mart, Wisconsin Energy and Electric Power Supply PAC.
Proving that congressmen are financed by international corporations for the creation of a New Global Order is easy. Showing specific patterns–that is, connecting campaign donations to actual voting and speechmaking behavior–is another matter. The above list, however, is fairly self-explanatory, and is just a small sampling of corporate America that controls this hapless front man. The above companies, however, have provided for the majority of Shimkus’ funds, and the companies and fronts listed above have given very large donations individually.
The above list of corporate interest is telling also in that most of them are in direct economic competition with Russian interests. The top-heavy list of energy suppliers is telling enough, and the sugar interests are certainly curious, but rather obvious in that Russia grows beets in large quantities, from which one can process sugar, one easily competitive with American interests in Hawaii and Florida. The rest have specific interests in penetrating and controlling the Russian market. Russia has a hardworking population of well educated people, and also has a strong scientific and technological bent. Therefore, it makes sense that many communications and tech outfits finance the Republicans. Grumman and Boeing are also significant in that they are in direct competition with the high tech sector in Russia, both military and civilian.
The point of this is not merely to show that Shimkus is indeed a front man, and that all politicians in liberal democracies are puppets, and not even that he is controlled by energy interests (which he clearly is). More importantly, it proves that, by and large, the opinions of the likes of Shimkus are not his own, but are fed to him by the large PR organizations connected with corporate finance that have a direct interest in Russian and Belarussian life. As of 2011, Shimkus is heading several energy related committees and movements on Capitol Hill such as the Coal Caucus.
But there is more. Right around the time Shimkus made his House speech on Belarus’ “crimes,” several international agencies released their data on Belarussian life in 2006. The timing here is unmistakable. Some figures:
Socio-economic development of Belarus in 2006 demonstrated positive dynamics on virtually all most important parameters, thus proving the effectiveness of the socio-economic model chosen by the leadership of Belarus.
In comparison with 2005:
Gross domestic product grew 9.9 percent in Belarus as against 2005, which, according to the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects 2007 report, places Belarus among the most dynamically developing states of the world. In particular, in terms of GDP growth Belarus ranks 7th in the world (after Azerbaijan, Armenia, Latvia, Estonia, China and Kazakhstan).
Industrial production rose 11.3 percent. According to the Interstate Statistical Committee of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Belarus in terms of industrial production growth passed most of CIS states except Azerbaijan (36.6 percent).
Agricultural production rose 6.1 percent, which is much higher than the average level in CIS states (3 percent), and might have something to do with ADM and ConAgra heavily financing Shimkus and others who are anti-Belarus.
Consumer goods production increased by 10.5 percent.
The Embassy of Belarus in America writes: “Capital investments grew 31.4 percent. According to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2006, as of the end of 2005 Belarus was 10th among 19 countries of the South-Eastern Europe and CIS in terms of the level of direct foreign investments, and 4th among CIS countries (after Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan). In the report, Belarus is placed in the category of countries with high potential for attracting direct foreign investments, leading over most of the countries of South-Eastern Europe and CIS.”
Here’s a major reason why the Regime hates Lukashenko: Foreign trade grew 28.7 percent, including the growth of exports by 23.5 percent, as well as foreign trade in services, which saw a growth of 15.5 percent. Positive balance in the trade of services exceeded $1 billion. In other words, the pious condemnations of Belarus are just that. It does not stop many European firms from doing business with one of the healthiest economies in the developing world.
Unemployment still holds at just over 1% according to the UN World Economic Situation and Prospects Report. According to the same agency, real income grew 17.3%. According to the World Economic Forum Report of 2006, Belarus has the lowest infant mortality rate in the CIS. According to the World Bank, Belarus has one of the best records in combating corporate corruption.
And this is just a smattering of the major achievements of the Belarussian nation and President Lukashenko, all cataloged by overwhelmingly hostile sources. Now, why would this be a problem for the likes of Shimkus?
First of all, Belarus is not part of the global trading system in any official capacity. The Regime has done all in its power to harm Belarus, from threats to attempted sanctions, to an endless propaganda barrage directed against her. Belarus continues, by any standard, to prosper. Secondly, Belarus shows the prosperity that can be gained through regional, rather than global cooperation (in this case, with Russia). Belarus has proven that it does not need the global system, as have Malaysia and Venezuela, both regular targets from Republicans in Congress.
Thirdly, Belarus has proven that a strong state, in the case of a small country besieged by the powerful West, can control corruption and provide basic services better than Western style systems. While Belarus has free elections and very diverse media, presidential powers are substantially strong, a strength born out of necessity, to prevent the financial and economic meltdown suffered by Russia during the reign of the recently deceased Yeltsin. Belarus has prevented Western economic penetration, IMF dictates and global economists from running the country, and as a result, she prospers. This, more than anything else, leads corporate America and their front men to lash out regularly at Belarus.
Since this article was published in 2007, the Congressman has lashed out against this writer, writing (or having someone else write) attacks on me anonymously. He has called me “evil,” among other things, clearly showing he still believes in moral absolutes for his suburban neo-con constituents. Clearly, Shimkus sees some of this information being used by his opponents.
But what is more significant is how Belarus has fared since the liberal Regime has officially gone bankrupt both literally and metaphorically since 2008. Since that time, economic growth in Belarus, according to the World Bank, has averaged about 8 percent. In 2010, Belarus saw her economy grow by about 6 percent, with industrial production going up almost 10 percent. Real incomes in the country, in this same time frame, have gone up about 7 percent. As of this writing in 2011, Belarus has roughly 1 percent unemployment, a high savings rate, the lowest infant mortality in the former CIS, high incomes and a large budget and trade surplus. The state has been heavily involved in promoting high-tech investment and development, and cheap fuel from Russia has permitted the economy to thrive under harsh conditions.
Belarus is a living example in how the neo-conservative/neo-liberal “Washington Consensus” has not only failed, but has made life miserable for millions of Americans and Europeans. Only those states who follow their own interests, control their own currency and have a large state that can target investment such as Belarus, China and Vietnam have been able to develop and thrive while the liberal west cannot pay its bills. Individually, the western financed “opposition” to President Lukashenko cannot poll over 5 or 6 percent. Together they poll about 20 percent, according to both western and Russian polling agencies.
While the U.S. Places sanctions on Belarus and all states that it cannot control, the popularity of Lukashenko and Putin continues to rise, averaging about 70 percent approval for both politicians. Nationalist economics is at the root of this popularity. Making matters worse for both the EU and America, Germany, needing cheap fuel, has made separate deals with both Minsk and Moscow independently of the European Union. As Germany is being forced to pay for elite bailouts throughout Europe, she is responding by going to the sources of economic growth in the East. There is little the EU can do in response.
At the same time, since Moscow and Minsk are tightly connected to the Chinese economy, Western sanctions and the mindless, suburban blowhards like Congressman Shimkus can have no effect. What is more significant is the means by which the U.S., the EU and the Soros empire will use to lash out their contempt of statist economies. Tunisia and Egypt are two clear examples. English language signs, “new media” organization, total neo-con/neo-lib agreement, media clichés about the protesters, and a total lack of any public ideology or agenda for the protesters are tell tale signs of Soros and/or CIA influence in that area. Riots in Thailand last year are another example. While the CIA tried to foment riots in Minsk during the presidential elections, the “opposition” garnered about 20 percent of the vote, consistent with foreign polls of popularity among Belarussian politicians. The West then responds to its humiliating defeat by compensating among North African states. While this occurs, Hezbollah reaches a majority in the Lebanese diet and China buys more dollars.
There is a clear connection between multi-polarity among great powers and the intensification of economic dependency. Competition for resources and markets coming from Russia, India, China, Thailand, Venezuela, Vietnam and other high performing states is forcing the US and its Congressional front men to regain colonial or neo-colonial control over third world nations to compensate. This is the formal cause for the riots in Egypt or Shimkus’ endless tirades about a tiny country he knows nothing about.
Matthew Raphael Johnson, Ph.D. is a former history professor, a professional author, a priest of the Russo-Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and a VoR radio host. His Web site is The Orthodox Nationalist. Email him at fr_raphael yahoo.com.
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?