Alex Kurtagic

Revolution from Above

2012-01-23T02:43:00.000-08:00

Kerry Bolton

Revolution from Above

London: Arktos Media, 2011

The popular imagination conceives Marxism and capitalism as opposing forces, imagining that—obviously—Marxists want the capitalists’ money and capitalists do not want Marxists to take it from them.

Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above disproves this notion.

As it turns out, and as many readers probably already know, the Marxist revolutions in the East succeeded in many places thanks to the ample funds supplied to them—consciously and voluntarily—by finance-capitalists in the West.

With access to all the money they could wish for and more, the finance-capitalists in Bolton’s narrative were, and are, primarily motivated by a desire for power, and their ultimate aim was not even more money per se, but the enduring ability to shape the world to their convenience, which translates into a collectivised planet of producers and consumers.

Marxism was useful in as much as it was a materialistic ideology that destroyed traditional structures and values and turned citizens into secular, deracinated wage slaves, irrespective of race, gender, age, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

Capitalism was useful in as much as it made money the measure of all things and created a consumer culture that ultimately turned citizens into debt slaves, also irrespective of race, gender, and so on.

In this manner, Marxism and capitalism were seen as complementary, as well as a method of pacifying the citizenry: too busy labouring in the factory or in the cubicle, and too befuddled by daydreams of shopping and entertainment during their free time, the citizens of this global order, fearful of losing their jobs and not being able to buy things or satisfy their creditors, are left with little inclination to, or energy for, rebellion.

Bolton explains how the finance-capitalist oligarchy is the entity that truly runs our affairs, rather than the national governments. The latter are either financially dependent, or in partnership, with the financiers and the central bankers.

To illustrate this dependency he documents the United States’ government relationship with the Bolsheviks in Russia during the revolution, not to mention the similarity in their goals despite superficial appearances to the contrary and despite alarm or opposition from further down the hierarchy. Bolton shows how genuinely anti-communist efforts were frustrated during the Cold War. And he shows that the close relationship with communist regimes ended when Stalin decided to pursue his own agenda.

The book then goes on to describe the various mechanisms of plutocratic domination. Bolton documents the involvement of a network of prominent, immensely rich, tax-exempt, so-called ‘philanthropic’ organisations in funding subversive movements and think tanks. Marxism has already been mentioned, but it seems these foundations were also interested in promoting feminism and the student revolts of 1968.

Feminism was sold to women as a movement of emancipation. Bolton argues, and documents, that its funders’ real aim was to end women’s independence (from the bankers) and prevent the unregulated education of children: by turning women into wage-slaves they would become dependent on an entity controlled by the plutocrats, double the tax-base, double the size of the market, and create the need for children’s education to be controlled by the government—an entity that is, in turn, controlled by the plutocrats. Betty Friedan, who founded the second wave of feminism with her book The Feminine Mystique, and Gloria Steinem are named as having received avalanches of funding from ‘philanthropic’ foundations.

With regards to the university student revolts of 1968, the book highlights the irony of how, without the activists knowing it, they were backed by the same establishment they thought to be opposing. These students were but ‘useful idiots’ in a covert strategy of subversion and social engineering.

The subversion does not end there, for the plutocracy has global reach and is as actively engaged in global planning today as it ever was. Revolution from Above inevitably deals with George Soros’ involvement in the overthrow of governments or regimes not to his liking. According to Bolton’s account, the reader can take it for granted that any of the velvet or ‘colour revolutions’ we have seen in recent years have been funded in some way or another by George Soros through his extended network of instruments. ‘Regime-changes’ in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (orange revolution), Kyrgyszstan (pink revolution), Tunisia (jasmine revolution), Egypt (white revolution), Lybia (red, green, black revolution), and Iran (green revolution) were not the result of spontaneous uprisings. Anti-government parties, think tanks, media, campaigns, demonstrations, and even training courses for political agitation—all and in all cases received vast funding from finance-capitalism overseas, not from local collections of petty sums.

In other words, many a modern revolution has not come from below, but from above. And in the context of governments being in a dependent relationship to the stratospherical plutocracy, this aggregates into a pincer strategy, with pressure coming secretly from above and from below, with the pressure from below—however spontaneous and ‘messy’ it may seem when it hits the headlines—being the result of years of careful planning, financing, and preparation by overseas elites.

The reader must ask himself how it is that whenever we see one of these ‘colour revolutions’ somehow someone is able, almost overnight, to overwhelm the streets with a tsunami of well designed, professionally printed, and colour-coordinated merchandise: flags, scarves, placards, posters, leaflets, balloons, headbands, t-shirts, face-paint, you name it, it all seems very slick, aesthetically consistent, and fashion-conscious for uprisings that are supposedly spontaneous demonstrations of popular rage.

Overall Bolton crams in an enormous mass of information within 250 pages. The lists of names and figures—and some of the sums involved are truly staggering—are endless, and the persistent torrent of footnotes considerably expand on parts of the main narrative. The plutocrats’ web of influence and deceit is immensely complicated, not only as a structure but also as a process, since it thrives in double meaning, double think, and ambiguity. Those interested in a detailed knowledge of the machinations behind current and recent events, or even twentieth-century political history, would do well to read this book more than once—at least if they have ambitions of explaining it all to an educable third party.

One aspect of Bolton’s narrative that seems quite amazing is the superficially inoffensive tone of some of the enemy quotes provided. Were it not because Bolton’s findings flow in the same direction as other books uncovering the machinations of the oligarchs and their partners in Western governments, or because the answer to cui bono is provided unequivocally by the unfolding of current and historical events, it would be easy to think that the statements quoted came from deluded idealists. It may be that some truly believe in the goodness of their cause, yet such selfless altruism is hard to believe given the known absence of ethics among our current elite of super-financiers—the banking system they engineered, not to mention many of the opaque financial instruments we have come to known through the still unfolding financial crisis in the West, is a deception designed to obscure a practice of legalised theft.

The lessons are clear: firstly, modern ‘colour revolutions’ are not instigated by public desires for more democratic or liberal governance, but by private desires for increased global power and control; secondly, subversive movements can be given a name and a face—a name and a face averse that hides behind generic institutional names and orchestrates world events at the end of a complex money trail; and thirdly, the those seeking fundamental change should first become proficient capitalists or learn how to gain access to them. These are all obvious, of course, but Revolution from Above is less about teaching those lessons than about documenting how the world is run, by whom, and for what purpose. In other words, this is material with which to back up assertions likely to be challenged by, or in front of, the unaware. Sober and factual in tone, it is also good gift material for those who may benefit from a bit of education.

Interview with Dr. Kerry Bolton

2012-01-10T16:13:00.000-08:00

First published on Wermod and Wermod: Part 1, Part 2

My first contact with Kerry Bolton occurred on the back of my first article for The Occidental Observer, 'Memoirs of a Dissident Student in Post-Modern Academia', where I recounted my experiences in postgraduate school. At the time, and as we will see in the interview, Dr. Bolton was having a few unpleasant experiences of his own, so it is easy to see now why my piece resonated with him. A fellow at the Academy of Social and Political Research and of the Centre of Independent Studies, an extraordinarily prolific essayist and writer, publisher of the journal Ab Aeterno, and a contributor to publications such as Alternative Right, The Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents, and the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies among others, Dr. Bolton is the author of Thinkers of the Right and, more recently, Revolution from Above, which was published by Arktos last year. He holds two doctoratess: one in Theology and another in Historical Theology, while his writing deals with geopolitics, history, revolutions, conspiracy, religion, the occult, and Freemasonry. In this interview we explore Dr. Bolton's career, learn about his experiences in academia and the media, and get a sense of the man behind the legend. Because of the length the interview is in two parts: Part 1, Part 2.

Ron Paul as Both Denial and Possibility

2012-01-04T10:28:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/ron-paul-as-both-denial-and-possibility/

Back in 2008 I was excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy in the then forthcoming presidential elections.

His formula appealed to my individualism and my loathing for the system of fiscal predation and debt slavery. I also liked his rejection of neo-conservative foreign policy and his apparent rejection of America’s colonisation by Third World peoples.

I did not think he would fix everything, but he seemed a step forward.

Things look different in 2012.

I now think a Ron Paul presidency would accelerate existing trends, even if he successfully reformed the monetary system and ended America’s foreign wars.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve, rebasing the dollar, and ending wasteful wars, and government programmes would be a good step towards putting the American economy on a sounder footing.

To truly achieve this, however, he would have to decree a debt amnesty and institute a neo-mercantilist economy based on savings, investment, manufacturing, and exports.

And this, whether because of ideology or because of its impracticability, I doubt he would be able to do. At least within his allocated four years.

Yet this is not the main problem.

The main problem is the fact that, as a rationalist believer in free markets and sovereign individualism, he represents not fundamental change, but rather a more pure expression of the worldview that led the United States to its present predicament.

Americans suffer today not because they abandoned these values, but because they pursued them like no one else.

Ron Paul has grass-roots support because in American terms he is traditional. On the surface, his outlook is materialistic and secular, and the latter would appear untraditional; but this is not so, for his is a materialist theology, and in this sense he is consistent with both the English ethic of capitalism and Karl Marx, with whom he shares a common ideological origin.

Moreover, we can also conceive his campaigning brand of economism as a form of evangelical puritanism.
Ron Paul’s quantitative conception of life relies on rational arguments and empirical evidence, not on transcendent authority or spirituality, or millenarian tradition.

The modern secular bias may see this as a strength, but it is a weakness: arguments can be defeated with other arguments, data with other data. It is always possible to produce both abundantly in support of any point of view, irrespective of their relationship with the empirical world.

The radical Left has been doing this successfully for decades and having the data against has made no difference to the reigning intellectual paradigm.

Many think Ron Paul is anti-establishment because he attacks the Federal Reserve and wants to reduce the size of government. This is to ignore that the establishment has multiple facets, and his represents one that looks like change simply because it has not been dominant for a while and the popular imagination associates it with a time of prosperity.

And I say imagination, rather than memory, because many of Paul’s supporters are young and they were not around when government was small, money was sound, and taxes were low.

Many have turned to Ron Paul because, believing him to be anti-establishment, he is appealing in a time of instability, when it is clear the dominant paradigm has failed.

Yet, like Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, Ron Paul’s quantitative, rationalist, individualist outlook makes sense only in prosperous, stable, racially homogeneous societies.

In times of austerity, instability, and racial heterogeneity it poses an existential threat because the collectivism and authoritarian bias of competing non-White groups enable them better to exploit the opportunities opened to them by crises and uncertainty.

The White man wants to have a civilised reasoned debate, but neither Blacks nor Hispanics are interested in that.

As Jared Taylor amply illustrated in White Identity, Blacks want and practice Black Power, Hispanics want and practice Brown Power—legal or illegal, logical or illogical, whatever advances their cause, rationality, civility, equality, constitutionality, history, or logical consistency be damned.

What is more, the Anglo-American White is an island, fiercely concerned with his independence. He resists group memberships and when he does accept them they are always loose, distant, contingent, expedient relationships based on legal, contractual, or philosophical abstractions. In contrast, the coloured man from everywhere else is much more ready to combine with others of his kin, and the relationship is nearly always essential, biological, inescapable, not soluble through argumentation.

In times of crisis and uncertainty, Whites argue with each other, while the 'wretched of the Earth' unite against them.

Worse still, in times of crisis and uncertainty, people have demonstrated quite willing and capable of sacrificing freedom in exchange for security.

Thus, crises and uncertainty benefit whoever is more rigid, harsh, and intolerant, since authority and strength, or at least its appearance, provide a sense of security, and security is always preferable to uncertainty even when that security is unpleasant.

With his grandfatherly manner, open, free-for-all proposition, Ron Paul’s ideological purity would be no match for the brutal disturbances ahead.

In fact, since the crisis we face already means every White man for himself, squared, Paul would sanction the very condition that opens the way for a more frank and ruthless level of racial and economic predation.

It would be every White man for himself, cubed.

And every coloured man for his collective, also cubed.

In some ways, the Ron Paul phenomenon represents an act of denial: the tacit wish that things are not as far gone as they seem and that by electing the right Republican candidate, a return to traditional American values of small government, sound money, free markets, and sovereign individualism will put America back on course. It also represents the erroneous belief that America has ended up where it is because it went off course, when in reality it is where it is because it is exactly on course.

What we are witnessing is not a deviation, but a fulfillment of potentialities that go back even before the founding of the Republic.

Having said this, Americans desiring change would do well not to ignore Ron Paul or the tactical value of his campaign, for with his grass-roots support he offers an opportunity to attack the system from within, even if he represents a puritanical expression of the system.

The attacks on him by establishment opponents amount to more than a squabble between two Leftist factions, even if that is what it is, for they imply a recognition by the reigning establishment faction that he represents the thin end of a wedge able to operate on an area of shared discontent between an ill-informed public and the non-authorised, alternative Right.

The Ron Paul campagin against the Fed, war on Iran, neo-conservatism, big government, and the nanny state provide popular, socially acceptable critiques that contribute to weaken and discredit the dominant faction. In turn, he provides a popular but weak alternative made inappropriate by the ever-worsening crisis.

The reigning faction both fails to understand how Ron Paul could benefit them in the long run and fears, correctly, that a free-for-all opens the way for fundamental change in our direction. After all, free-for-all conditions, laissez faire competition, also opens the way for non-authorised factions to act without restriction.

From this standpoint Ron Paul offers both denial and possibility.

The Soul's Compass Points South: An Interview with Miguel Serrano (Translation)

2012-01-04T06:51:00.000-08:00

Translated for the first time in English, this is an interview with the Chilean author Miguel Serrano from around 1991. The interview was conducted by Francisco Vejar. Links to Parts 1 and 2 follow the excerpt below.

First posted published on Wermod and Wermod.

We are not the first ones to observe that Miguel Serrano’s country scrimps him deserved awards—he, an author published by prestigious British and American publishing houses, and published even in Farsi and Japanese translation. It’s not long since another of his works, C.G. Jung and Herman Hesse: A Record of Two Friendships, has come out in French (Geneva: Georg Editeur, 1991) and it is in the Belgian magazine Vouloir that essayist Bruno Dietsch reserves the following comment for the Chilean writer: Nemo propheta a acceptus est in patria (Ciudad de los Césares, No. 39, Year 1991). To this we must add that his work has been recently republished in France and Russia.

What memories have you from ’38?

Miguel Serrano: It was a secret generation. We lived thinking the world was us and nothing else. There other groups with whom we had no great contact. We got together in night cafés, where we talked. It was the era of the cafés. Our meetings were in the restaurant called Miss Universe . . .

Rest of Part 1, Part 2.

Ernest Shackleton's Farthest South and Faustian Man's Quest for Universal Conquest

2012-01-03T23:00:00.001-08:00

First published on The Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/01/ernest-shackletons-farthest-south-and-faustian-mans-quest-for-universal-conquest/

Last month, the Norwegian Prime Minister travelled to the Earth’s southernmost point to mark the centenary of the conquest of the South Pole, where Roald Amundsen and his team, having spent months travelling on the planet’s coldest and most hostile environment, planted their country’s flag on 14 December 1911.

Yet it is the story of Robert Falcon Scott that is best remembered: in the Antarctic Summer of 1911 the British explorer was also making a bid for the Pole—his second, after a failed attempt in 1902, when the extreme conditions on the Ross Ice Shelf forced him and his party to turn around at 82º17’S, variously afflicted by snowblindness, frostbite, and scurvy. Scott and his men reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, a month after Amundsen, and then perished on the return journey. Their tale, recorded in the explorers’ diaries, made Scott a tragic hero across the Empire—‘the Englishman who conquered the South Pole and who died as fine a death as any man has had the honour to die.’[1]

Advertisement

In 1911 Scott had followed a route to the central Antarctic pleateau that had been discovered by a team member in his first polar journey, Ernest Shackleton. Invalided home by the expedition leader after the team returned to base in February 1903, and much aggrieved by Scott’s decision, Shackleton soon organised an expedition of his own, announced at the time as the British Antarctic Expedition.

Ernest Shackleton

Polar historian Beau Riffenburgh’sNimrod is the author’s account of that expedition, which spanned the years 1907 to 1909. As such the account is both educational and entertaining, balancing readability with comprehensive scholarship. It also includes information excluded from Shackleton’s own account, The Heart of the Antarctic, such as his biography, the character of the Victorian era, anecdotal evidence of unrecorded events, the expedition’s aftermath, and the fate of his fellow expeditioners in later years.

Objectively, Shackleton was a failure. His participation in Scott’s British National Antarctic (now known as the Discovery) Expedition of 1901-1904 was terminated early. He failed to reach the pole during his own expedition seven years later. His subsequent trans-Antarctic crossing expedition failed before his ship even reached the continent, trapped in the pack ice of the Weddell Sea. And on his final expedition he died within a day of reaching the first stop of an intended (sub-)Antarctic circumnavigation. Moreover, none of his many business ventures and money-making schemes prospered, and his life outside exploration was restless, aimless, and unfulfilled. His financial affairs were muddled, and he died heavily in debt.

Indeed, although a hero and celebrity across the Empire during the first two decades of the 20th century, he was largely forgotten after his death in 1922, outshone by his former leader and then rival, Robert Scott. Scott’s diaries, on display until May this year at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge (a scan of the whole polar journey diary is also available online), had by then enjoyed numerous editions. And in 1948 Scott’s conquest of the South Pole was immortalised in a film, Scott of the Antarctic, while Shackleton’s achievements received no such treatment.

It was not until until Alfred Lansing’s Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage, published in 1959, that Anglo-Irish explorer’s reputation experienced a revival, which continued thereafter until it finally eclipsed Scott’s, which was by then suffering from cultural shifts and critical examinations of his legacy. By 2002, when asked to choose the 100 greatest Britons by the BBC, polls ranked Shackleton 11th and Scott 54th.

What makes Shackleton remarkable, now universally acknowledged, is his leadership, which shone brightest when adversity was greatest.

The British Antarctic Expedition was not as well funded as its predecessor. The ship after which it has since been named, Nimrod, was tiny, old, and at the time of acquisition woefully in need of repairs. What is more, Shackleton had promised Scott not to use the latter’s base on Ross Island, so he had to set up his own base at Cape Royds—a location still on Ross Island, and therefore in violation of the promise to Scott, but nonetheless farther away from the South Pole.

Shackleton's Hut in Cape Royds, Ross Island

Shackleton's base at Cape Royds, Ross Island

Shackleton’s main preoccupation was reaching 90ºS, and, unlike Scott, he was not interested in the science. All the same, because his funding depended on it, he assembled an impressive team of scientists, which included among others T.W. Edgeworth David and Douglas Mawson. Thus, the expedition included auxiliary goals, both of which were successful: conquering Mount Erebus, an active volcano in Ross Island, and conquering the magnetic South Pole, at the time located within Victoria Land.[2]

The centre piece of Riffenburgh’s book is the South Polar journey. Led by Shackleton, his was a party of four: Jameson Adams, a Royal Navy Reserve Lieutenant; Frank Wild, a Petty Officer in the Royal Navy; and Eric Marshall, a surgeon, being his team-mates. The size of the party was determined by the number of surviving ponies, four in total, which were the only non-human component of Shackleton’s transport strategy. As originally envisioned, the return journey was to involve a march of 1,719 statute miles (1,494 nautical miles; 2,767 kilometres) over 91 days. When they departed from their base at Ross Island, on 29 October 1908, they knew only that they would need get onto the ‘Great Ice Barrier’ (the Ross Ice Shelf), an structure hundreds of miles long and hundreds of feet deep, and walk due south; the route to the pole, and the geographical features of the pole itself, not to mention any obstacles that may exist in between, were unknown.

Ski tracks on the Ross Ice Shelf, or Great Ice Barrier

Once on the barrier, years earlier, Scott had imagined that he and his party would be able to walk on flat ice all the way to the South Pole. As they neared the end of their march they observed mountains first appearing and then nearing on their right hand side. Once Shackleton passed the previous expedition’s farthest South, using a route farther to the east of Scott’s in order to avoid the heavily crevassed terrain that had previously slowed down their progress, he found the mountains blocked the way south. These were the Trans-Antarctic Mountains, which divide the continent into East and West Antarctica. By the time he reached them, a slow start and difficult conditions on the barrier meant they had already lost three of their ponies, fallen behind schedule, cut their rations, and become weakened by the cold, the physical strain, and inadequate nutrition. Indeed, the Edwardians’ state of knowledge regarding human nutrition and of the demands imposed on the human body by Antarctic conditions meant that by the time the explorers found a route up the mountains and onto the elevated plateau beyond their daily caloric intake of 2,500 was less than half of what they needed.

Scott, Bowers, and co. sledging up the Beardmore Glacier in December 1911, following Shackleton's route.

On a starvation diet, Shackleton and his men ascended what they named the Great Glacier. The latter, subsequently renamed the Beardmore Glacier after the expedition’s biggest sponsor, happened to be also one of the largest in the world. Over the course of a month, the explorers pulled hundreds of pounds of food and equipment on wooden sledges along a fiendishly difficult and crevassed surface for what seemed an unending gradient, each hill revealing a new one behind it, their instruments revealing ever increasing altitude, day after day after day. Mid way up Shackleton found that their remaining food supplies would not last them to the pole, then still thousands of feet higher and still 287 miles away. He cut rations further.

The Antarctic Plateau

It was not until Boxing Day on 1908, 57 days into their journey, that the explorers reached the polar plateau, well over 10,000 feet above sea level. They stood at the edge of a miles-deep ice sheet extending out into the horizon. Riffenburgh is not as descriptive as Cherry-Garrard, who would be a member of Scott’s subsequent Terra Nova expedition and would later write the world’s best ever travel book, narrating his own and his fellow expeditioners’ incredible experiences on the White Continent. From Cherry-Garrard’s account of the conditions Scott found on the plateau two years later we can imagine what the Shackleton party witnessed for the first time in human history. The low temperatures on the Barrier already caused touching metal to give instant frostbite. At such temperatures the ice was iron hard. Back at base, photographic cameras had to be drained because the oil froze. The explorers generally considered a temperature of 32ºF (0ºC) boiling hot; -4ºF (-20ºC), at which boiling water freezes instantly when thrown up in the air, was very normal. Conditions on the plateau are much, much worse. On average it was colder still. Snow felt much harsher, the ice stickier; manhauling across it was like pulling heavy loads on sandpaper. The air was thin, due to the high altitude, but also loaded with ice crystals and thick to the sight, to the point where explorers often walked into a featureless whiteness that made invisible even a hand held before the face. The rarefied air caused respiration and heart rate to increase, in order to supply enough oxygen to the brain. For our standards, any diet had to be insanely high in fat: in 1909 a meal would consist of pemmican (50% pure pork fat, 50% dried meat) dissolved in a pannikin in a ‘hoosh’ with fortified biscuits, chocolate, and raisins; or months-old pony meat. Needless to say that when it is –50ºF outside, ones does not answer the call of nature in the open air.

Even this will be difficult for a city dweller to comprehend. Try doing a ten-mile walk. Then try it pulling a fifteen-foot-long wooden sledge on the asphalt, loaded with two hundred pounds of equipment—see if you complete even a mile like that. Then attempt it on a broken, uneven, undulating surface. Then attempt it again on that surface, going uphill, on a steep gradient. Then attempt it yet again in the rawest North Dakotan winter you have experienced or can imagine, and think even that was a mild day for the explorers. Now try that every day for sixteen hours every day for a week, breaking only once for lunch, and having to unpack and repack your tent and supplies ever time while getting freezer burns and having freezing gale-force winds blowing in your face. After all this, think about doing that while eating only a small fraction of what you need, from October until March. And then of doing it while you have the worst flu you’ve ever experienced. And then doing it with sleeping on a wet, frozen sleeping bag, in a tent so cold that your breath turns into a beard of ice around your face, separated by the rough rock-hard ice under your back by a piece of canvas. Finally, try to lead three men who do not take crap from anyone under these conditions on a journey to a theoretical and otherwise unknown location, with no certainty of success, low pay that may never be paid, likely death, away and cut off from everything and everyone you know, with no comforts, no means to contact anyone, no means for anyone to locate you, and no means to return home except via a ship that docks hundreds of miles away once a year and which will leave you behind if you are not there on the day that you are expected. If you are able to imagine all of this, you will have a sense of what made Shackleton so extraordinary, even for the much higher standards expected from the men of his day. But that is not all, as we will see shortly.

Robert Falcon Scott

On 4 January 1909, about ten days after reaching the plateau, Shackleton realised that conquering the South Pole would be possible only at the cost sacrificing their lives, for if they pressed on to claim their prize with supplies as low as they were, they would never survive the return journey. When other explorers would have chosen to plant the flag on the Pole and die in a blaze of personal glory, certain that their men would have followed loyally to their graves, Shackleton decided to put the safety of his men first and settle for simply extending their newly established farthest South record. Thus he led his men across the plateau, all of them knowing that the prize of months of toil and hardship was now irrevocably out of reach. Still, they went as far South as they possibly could. On the final day, leaving all their supplies behind, they made a final dash, even running at times, to the turnaround point. After several hours they achieved 88º23’S, 97 nautical miles from the Pole. So near, yet so far. It must have demanded enormous strength of character to resist going those final 97 miles—especially knowing that Scott was already planning an expedition for the following year, which would include a South Polar journey should Shackleton fail.

This was achievement in itself. Yet there was more to come. The explorers, much weaker and thinner than when they set out, now faced a return journey that they would have to complete in 50 days when the outward journey had taken them 73. The reason was not only food: they had a 1 March deadline; if they were not back at base by 1 March, their ship would sail home, leaving them for dead.

Although already skin-and-bone wraiths, the men achieved impressive distances. Supplies they had depoted along the way, however, were not enough and a pattern was established with one good meal at a depot, followed by many days surviving on biscuits until the next stash of supplies. By the end of January Wild had developed dysentery, and a week later the entire party was struck by severe enteritis, having eaten tainted pony meat. There was no choice but to press on.

Fortunately, wind in Antarctica blows outwardly from the plateau, so the explorers were able to use their sail to keep up the distances.

The men finally reached their forward base at Hut Point on 28 February. They found the place deserted. There was no sign of the ship. No note had been left. Hoping the ship may still be in the vicinity, Shackleton decided to burn the wooden hut used for magnetic observations in order to attract attention. At first cold made it impossible to set it on fire, but after further attempts they succeeded. Not long afterwards, their ship came into view, having been anchored at some distance, and three days later they were off the barrier and aboard the Nimrod, on their way home.

I enjoy reading about the heroic age of Antarctic exploration not only because it is about as extreme as it gets on our planet, but also because it is emblematic of who we are as a people. As Oswald Spengler wrote:

At the base of every culture lies an idea that is expressed by certain words of profound significance. In Chinese culture these words are tao and li; for the Apollonian Greeks this cultural idea was contained in the words logos and to on (“that which is”). In the languages of Faustian man the basic cultural idea is expressed by the words “will,” “strength,” and “space.” Faustian man differs from all others in his insatiable will to reach the infinite. He seeks to overcome with his telescope the dimensions of the universe, and the dimensions of the earth with his wires and iron tracks. With his machines he sets out to conquer nature. He uses his historical thinking to take hold of the past and integrate it into his own existence under the name of “world history.” With his long-range weapons he seeks to subdue the entire planet, including the remains of all older cultures, forcing them to conform to his own pattern of life.[3]

The feats of Robert Scott, Ernest Shackleton, and Douglas Mawson, express a desire to conquer the limits of the Earth. Spengler would argue that Faustian civilisation had already been in its twilight for a hundred years by the time these men claimed swathes of the southernmost continent for the British Empire, mapping and naming hitherto unknown geographical features, setting up scientific bases and communications, and for the first time undertaking—along with Germans, Norwegians, and other European explorers—the scientific study of its geology and climate. Yet this was also a time when the British Empire, and by extension Faustian man, were at their peak of territorial extension and cultural influence. There was a great deal of nervousness and worry about the prospect of decline and degeneration at the time, but these explorers not only thought in terms of national glory—they thought of themselves part of a superior race of men. This was a mentality that was partially destroyed with the First European Civil War of 1914-1918, and definitively obliterated with the Second one that ended 1945.

In terms of exploration, putting an American on the moon remains the crowning achievement for the United States. The Faustian men of 1969, however, were already thinking in terms it being a ‘great leap for mankind’. Only sixty years earlier the glory would have been for the ‘British race’ and the British Empire, not the whole of humanity. However, Spengler would have seen Neil Armstrong’s phrase as a more perfect actualisation of what the German metahistorian called ‘Faustian universalism’. Spengler wrote:

this instinct, totally directed to the outside world, still nourishes the old Faustian will to power and the infinite; now it has become the direful will to absolute domination of the world in the military, economic, and intellectual sense. It can be felt in the historical fact of the World War and in the concept of a world revolution, the idea of forging the swarming multitudes of humanity into a single whole. The imperialism of Babylon aimed only at control of the Near East, while that of the Indie people was limited to India itself; Greek and Roman imperialism was bounded by Britain, Mesopotamia, and the Sahara, and China’s empire extended no further than the Caspian Sea. Modern imperialism, on the other hand, aims at possessing the entire globe. We recognize no borders or limits at all. By means of a new Volkerwanderung we have made America a part of Western Europe. We have constructed on every continent our special kind of cities, and have subjected the native populations to our own way of life and thought. Such activity is the highest possible expression of our dynamic sense of world power. What we believe, what we desire, is meant to be binding on all. [my emphases][4]

The above reflections may highlight our Western universalist outlook in terms of explicit power, but it is entirely consistent with Armstrong’s mentally extending the franchise of the United State’s accomplishment in space exploration to the entire human race, by implication ascribing to every human on Earth America’s and Faustian man’s particular aspirations. Not every human wanted a man to walk on the moon, millions probably never even thought about it. What is more, among Americans only a tiny group was involved in the effort, while on the other side of the globe their rivals in the U.S.S.R. where hoping that an American would not walk on the moon—at least before the red flag had been planted on the lunar surface for the glory of Soviet man.

Amundsen's team at the South Pole from left to right: Roald Amundsen, Helmer Hanssen, Sverre Hassel, and Oscar Wisting in December 1911.

From left to right: Lawrence Oates, Henry Bowers, Robert Scott, Edward Wilson, and Edgar Evans at the South Pole, January 1912.

A hundred years since Amundsen and Scott planted their respective flags on the South Pole, the space has been controlled by the United States for fifty-five years, and Antarctica is held up as a model of international cooperation, all claims made during the early half of the 20th century having been put aside and all future claims having been prohibited by international treaty since 1959. While Brazil, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, and South Korea have research stations on the continent, Antarctic research remains a largely a White man’s affair, and its exploration an almost exclusively a White man’s enterprise for much of its history. The ideal of an apolitical spirit of human scientific cooperation transcending all borders remains a Faustian ideal. Yet humans are tribal, and we know full well that that which drove our greatest achievements in the history of exploration and science—the will to power and the infinite—also spells our doom. The same way that a hundred years ago Antarctic exploration and conquest was imbued with racial pride and a nationalist spirit, a hundred years from now this may well be the case again, although it may not be our descendants who dominate that part of the globe, or even of space exploration.

It does not have to be that way, of course, and, should we prove successful in our cause, the White race may rise again with a new civilisation, the way that the Faustians rose as the Graeco-Romans fell. But will they have the same will to power and the infinite? If so, the legacy of our early explorers will continue to be honoured in centuries to come, and it will be the names of our ancestors, our gods, and our heroes that name planets and celestial objects as we discover them. Let us hope that there are men of Shackleton’s calibre out there, or that we are still capable of producing them.

[1] Apsley Cherry-Garrard. The Worst Journey in the World. London: Constable & Company, 1922.

[2] It is now outside the Antarctic Circle altogether, off the coast of Adélie Land

[3] Oswald Spengler. Prussianism and Socialism.

[4] Ibid.

Happy New Year 2012

2012-01-01T09:09:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year 2012. On one of my favourite days of the year (because it is new), I would like to thank my readers for following my work online over the past twelve months. If you enjoy my writing, you will be pleased to know that I am aiming to write even more articles, blogs, and reviews in 2012 than I did in the year just ended. I will also be speaking at the American Renaissance conference in March (other engagements to be confirmed), and I will be doing more book covers (those I did in 2011 can be found on Lothrop Stoddard's The Revolt Agaisnt Civilization and The French Revolution in San Domingo, Francis Parker Yockey's The Proclamation of London, and Tito Perdue's The Node and Morning Crafts, which should be published soon). I look forward to giving opponents of quality, tradition, and elitism many headaches throughout the 2012.

My Predictions for 2012

2011-12-31T09:03:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/my-predictions-for-2012/

My predictions for 2011 were all fulfilled: over the past year there was indeed more debt, more taxes, higher taxes, more inflation, more immigration, more liberalism, more legislation, more surveillance, and more bureaucracies. Turbulent as it was, 2011 consisted of more of the same, and it was turbulent precisely for that reason. My predictions for 2012 are as follows:

More Debt

Efforts to solve the financial crisis—now entering its fifth year—will be made, but they will consist of finding ways to kick the can down the road, hold on to credit ratings, levitate the markets, resuscitate consumption, and prevent civil unrest, rather than on actually eliminating the problem. It seems that the only politically viable option is covertly to devalue the debt. The news services will keep the middle class on the edge of their seats dramatising the never-ending Euro crisis, which may provide some jolts.

More and Higher Taxes

Although debt reduction through currency devaluation will remain the preferred method of crisis containment this year, the political establishment is acutely aware of the need to pacify the populace. The White middle class has proven timid and, following the Tea Party experience in the United States, members of the establishment are satisfied that their most profitable constituency (the White middle class is the establishment’s open wallet) can be successfully neutralised by simply calling them racists. The establishment, however, worries about the lumpen proletariat. The Tottenham riots in London in August this year, albeit triggered by a police incident, offered a preview of the civil unrest that an economic shock could bring: the rioters did not demand equality or rights, they wanted iPhones and plasma television. So, more and higher taxes will be levied on the middle class (‘the rich’ in political parlance) in order to fund pacifying handouts for coloured immigrants and their descendants (‘the poor’). Some of the increases in the fiscal burden will be hidden, but some of them will be open, and will be justified in terms of the need for ‘the rich’ to do their bit for society. The system’s contrived pseudomorality will seek to bring tax avoidance further into convergence with tax evasion.

More Wasteful and Counter-Productive Government Measures

See above. In general: good spending will be cut, bad spending will increase. With the shutting down of the space shuttle programme and assorted NASA cutbacks, Americans in 2011 saw Obama end the space age in the United States.

More Money Printing

The money printing will continue, and efforts to conceal its true extent will also continue. Because banks have so far hoarded much of the money that has been printed since the crisis began, the true consequences of the money printing have yet to be felt. Consumer depression will also contain demand and therefore price increases, although the latter only partially. I suspect that parts of this containment will start to fail in 2012, even if consumption and consumer confidence is low. However, even if there is higher inflation, we are years away from the hyperinflationary apocalypse dreamt of by some. We will not see price tags printed on electric paper exponentially revising prices upwards in real time as we make your way to the till.

More Colonisation

Despite the millions of unemployed, ‘immigration’ policy will continue to focus on pacifying voters through deceptions. In the United Kingdom, wholly unsurprisingly, the same Conservative Party that promised drastically to cut ‘immigration’ has governed over a record increase over the past year. Instead of the tens of thousands annually that the promised, the Conservatives have governed over a quarter of a million settler colonists arriving in Britain. Of course, new measures were designed to work like sieves. The modern Conservatives will carry on being more Labour than Labour, the same way that Democrats and Republicans in the United States will carry on increasing their redshift values.

More Scams

A desperate consumer culture co-existing with an economic crisis means only one thing: glory for the Golden Age of the Scam. The ever-diminishing opportunities for legitimate wealth creation mean an ever growing necessity for illegitimate wealth redistribution. Corporations will focus more than ever on a model of planned obsolescence, slave labour, and government handouts. More small and medium entrepreneurs will drop out of the economy and get on the government teat. Cheap consumer products will break on the same day we buy them, forcing us to buy more expensive versions next, which will break after a week. True quality will still only be found in obsolete technology and goods, found in museums, eBay, attics, and antique shops.

More Obamanation

Obama is likely to win a second term, albeit by a narrow margin. The Anglo-American media will back him. All-White Republican candidates will pull their punches, any one of them afraid of being the one who ends the Afro-American dream. Should Obama lose, Afro-Americans will be enraged. If by a narrow margin, as I think likely in this scenario, accusations of racist electoral fraud may well surface. Obama’s post presidential career, whether it begins in 2013 or in 2017, will see him rise to the status of a secular saint. The Left’s historical revisionists will labour to recast him as an American Nelson Mandela, victim of racism, bad luck, and an insuperable legacy of mismanagement by his blue-eyed predecessors. Some way will be found to enumerate allegedly great or visionary achievements that were derided or underreported at the time.

On a Positive Note, However . . .

There will be positive developments on the fringes. Marxists will of course benefit from the continuing crisis because it is easy for them to point to banksters and Big Business as exploiters of the labour force. Yet, in this they share common ground with dissenters on the alternative Right, who are also likely benefit from the disturbances of 2012. Opportunities will continue to grow outside of the mainstream, and traditionalist dissenters will continue shifting away from quantitative gloom-and-doom analyses in favour of a more positive, subjective approach; away from simple forensics in favour of aggressive deconstruction and the active pursuit of new and original solutions, new ways of thinking, speaking, and operating.

In Sum

…more of the same, with some jolts, shocks, and possibly even a few changes along the way in the economic sphere that, although apparently dramatic, will not be fundamental, together with exciting opportunities on the fringes and beyond. The place to be will be on the outside.

Jamaican Patois Edition

2011-12-26T19:19:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/jamaican-patois-edition/

Language is always evolving, and the direction of a language’s evolution is a function of its users. In Jamaica this meant, first, the development of a creole by West African slaves after British rule in the 17^th century; and, secondly, with the island’s population being majority Black since the 1670s, said creole’s growing into an unofficial national language.

Because it was based on a White man’s language, and Whiteness had long been associated with high social status, Jamaican patois was traditionally looked down upon as a failure to attain the White Englishman’s educational standards.

This, however, is changing (at least in Jamaica), and linguists at the University of the West Indies in Kingston have been working on a translation of the Bible into Jamaican patois. The hope of supporters is officially to legitimise the creole as an authentic language in its own right.

The results are striking. What follows is from Luke’s Gospel—or, in patois, Jiizas—di buk we Luuk rait bout im:

Original: ‘And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.”’

Patois: ‘De angel go to Mary and say to ‘er, me have news we going to make you well ‘appy. God really, really, bless you and him a walk with you all de time.’

The BBC report on this development includes a film where a Jamaican cleric frames this in nationalist terms. His easy switch from patois to Standard English, from illiterate to literate English, as if they were different languages, is rather odd.

Jamaican patois’ literary pretensions may represent a more advanced stage in a development that has occurred in other former colonies.

In Singapore the local creole is known as Singlish. It is an accretion of words originating from English, Malay, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi, and, to a lesser extent, various other European, Indic, and Sinitic languages, with television-derived American and Australian slang thrown in for added global spice. Singlish is disglossic, meaning it has high (acrolectic) and low (basilectic) variants. The former is most similar to Standard English, the latter appears almost like a foreign language: compare ‘This person’s Singlish is very good’ with ‘Dis guy Singrish si beh zai sia.’

In Malaysia the English-based creole is called—somewhat appropriately—Manglish. The creole shares roots with Singlish, and West-coast Manglish is nearly identical to the former.

Closer to home, in the United Kingdom there is Hinglish (Hindi + English), which is spoken both in India and in the United Kingdom. Its usage in Britain is so widespread that some years ago Collin’s published a humorous dictionary, titled The Queen’s Hinglish, How to Speak Pukka.

Hinglish is not like Jamaican patois, Haitian creole, or Singlish, but operates more like Spanglish, with borrowed words thrown into the base language and occasionally rearranged grammar. Hinglish words include: airdash (travel by air), chaddis (underpants), chai (Indian tea), crore (10 million), dacoit (thief), desi (local), dicky (boot), gora (white person), jungli (uncouth), lakh (100,000), lumpen (thug), optical (spectacles), prepone (bring forward), stepney (spare tyre) and would-be (fiancé/e).

Sensing the rage of White citizens and the existential threat it poses to the status quo, British politicians have sought to keep the chanko stew in the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding through feinted acts of appeasement—purely cosmetic, if not outright deceptive, ‘changes’ in immigration policy. In the minds of many mainstream White politicians, immigration is inevitable, necessary, and will not fundamentally affect the power balance in the country. And in the minds of some such politicians, immigration might alter the outward complexion of the country, but will not change its fundamental values or institutions—Blacks and Asians will become ‘White’ inside. Thus, any rage coming from within the indigenous White majority (‘racism’ in the PC dictionary) is a nuisance that needs to be managed and controlled until ‘education’ and exposure eliminates it in time.

Yet, based on the experience of former colonies, a fundamental alteration of the ethnic and racial composition of the citizenry in the European territories now being colonised by settlers from Asia, Africa, an the Caribbean, will bring along with it the long-term decline of Standard English and the rise of creole variants, which, may in due course obtain official legitimation. In this sense, Jamaica may be affording us a preview of Europe’s future, rather than another emblem of the island’s further divergence from Britain and convergence with West Africa.

In this scenario, the traditional upper classes in Britain would gradually change complexion, becoming progressively Asian and Muslim. Whiteness retaining its link with high status would prescribe a period of mimesis, where the new upper class would initially use a variant of Standard English as a class demarcator. In time even this Standard English will likely be seen as an obsolete vestige from a superseded past under White hegemony. It will likely be said that ‘no one speaks like that anymore’, the same way that no American politician today sounds like Woodrow Wilson in 1912, William Taft before him, or William McKinley in 1896. The same way that the BBC abandoned Queen’s English, even a creolised form of our Standard English will give way to a full creole.

This is not to say that what we call Standard English would remain static in a scenario where Europeans regain control of their destiny. The various spelling reform efforts in English predate the era of mass immigration, and scientific and technological advances, along with the social structures and behaviours that they give rise to, are constantly adding terminology to our dictionaries. New words have legitimately entered the English language from non-Indo-European sources via, for example, American, South African, and Australian English. Language is and should be constantly evolving. The question here is how ours is likely to evolve, who it is that will influence its evolution, and for what reasons.

Anno Domini

2011-12-21T14:54:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/anno-domini/

I am a child of the Cold War, so I spent most of my life in an epoch where the Year 2000 was synonymous with ‘The Future’—a time when, provided we averted a thermonuclear apocalypse, people would be wearing silver spacesuits and bases would have been long established on the moon.

When the year 2000 finally came, however, it was anti-climatic: I spent New Years Eve in the company of investment executives, whose host never cared to keep track of the time in order to witness the year change at its precise moment. I was the only one to notice the stroke of midnight while sitting at the dinner table. When the date changed, I elbowed my neighbour to point out that we had entered the year 2000, but she only gave me a brief, distracted, half-lidded glance and an indifferent “Ah, yea… Hm.”

Twenty years earlier I would have been exasperated, but by 1999, amidst the hype surrounding the so-called “millennium” (which was not due until the following year anyway, since there was no year zero), I had began to think about the dating system we currently use in the West.

Said system is Christian, and its purpose is to mark the Christian era, beginning with Christ, whose birth will be celebrated again later this week: A.D., Anno Domini, is ‘the Year of Our Lord’. As, until relatively not so long ago, practically every Westerner was a Christian, few if any had any reason to think critically about the date on the calendar.

It may surprise some to learn that the Anno Domini dating system is neither accurate nor 2011 years old.

Anno Domini was invented in 525 by a Scythian monk, Dionysius Exiguus, based in Rome. Existing Easter tables in use at the time counted the years from the accession of Diocletian. Dionysius devised the system wishing not to continue the memory of persecutor of Christians. Thus the system, which counted from the incarnation of Christ (without specifying whether this meant nativity or conception), was meant originally as a method of enumerating Easter tables. At the time the new table was devised, the Julian calendar identified the years by naming the consuls who held office that year from the 1 January, a system we now call ‘consular dating’.

Subsequent scholars have not been able to agree on Dionysius’ calculations, variously proposing the birth of Jesus to have occurred on dates ranging from 18 B.C. to A.D. 6, which means it is likely we are not in the year we think we are at all: what we will call 2012 may in fact be 2030, or 2007.

Moreover, it took centuries before Anno Domini was widely adopted as a de facto dating system. Consular dating persisted long after the office of consul had ceased to have meaning; by the time the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I abolished consular elections in 541, consulships existed purely to mark the beginning of a new year. Not long after, Justinian I required the use of the imperial regnal year, although in Greece, according to Edward Gibbon, ‘the imperfect mode of distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate, was usefully supplied by the date of a permanent aera: the creation of the world [Anno Mundi], according to the Septuagint version’. This was what we call the Byzantine calendar.

Anno Domini was first adopted as a primary dating system by the 6th century North African chronicler Victor of Tunnuna. Bede, familiar with the work of Dyonisius, followed him in the 8th century, with his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, also introducing the B.C. formula and the omission of a year zero.
It was not until Alcuin of York (d. 804) adopted Dyonisius’ invention in continental Europe that Anno Domini gained legal sanction and popularity: Alcuin was Charlemagne’s principal advisor in ecclesiastical affairs, and the institutional sanction afforded by Charlemagne and his successors ensured the system’s prevalence into modern times.

Outside the Carolingian Empire, however, adoption was slow, and both Spain and the East had alternative calendars: in Hispania (Spain), the Era of the Caesars was used until the 14th century, while Portugal did not begin using Anno Domini until 1422.

In the East, Alexandrian Christians used the Era of the Martyrs, numbering years from the accession of Diocletian, while Eastern Orthodox countries only began discontinuing use of the Byzantine calendar when Russia adopted Anno Domini in 1700, with other countries following in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

With Dyonisius’ methodology in mind, it may be asked why we do not number the years from 25 December. In fact, that was the custom until modern times. 1 January was always New Years Day, but the year number always changed either on 25 December (the nativity of Christ), 25 March (the conception of Christ), or Easter. The year number was not synchronised with New Years Day until 17th century, although in Britain the practice persisted until she adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752.

Dominance of Darkness

The decline of Christianity across the West, as well as the adoption of the Gregorian calendar for civil matters by traditionally non-Christian peoples across the world, has led to a change of the nomenclature among some, with ‘Before Christ’ (B.C.) and ‘Anno Domini’ (A.D.) being dropped in favour of ‘Before Common Era’ (B.C.E.) and ‘Common Era’ (C.E.)

This may make sense for non-European cultures so long as the cognitive structures, systems, and practices of European man continue to define the dominant paradigm around the world. Should European man fail to reverse his global decline until he is reduced to an anthropological curiosity or relic, even the Common Era system may come to be seen as an irrelevant colonial residue in need of replacement.

Globalists and scientists would probably be attracted to a Human or Holocene Era system, which counts the years from the advent of the current geologic epoch, the Holocene. The Holocene Calendar adds 10,000 years to the present year. Proponents view this as a logical marker since the Holocene coincides roughly with the advent of human civilisation, in the shape of settlements, agriculture, and so on. They also prefer it on the basis that it is non-denominational and avoids the problem of earlier years having larger numbers when the event or individual in question span periods that traverse year 1.

However, this assumes a linear progression towards a universal human standard, where reason and global citizenship triumph over religion and ethnonationalism. The reality is that, with humans being tribal, control over the calendar, over the event from which we are to count our years and how we are to number or name them, has ethnic and political significance. A calendar is also an expression of power: hence, the French government of the First Republic adopting the ‘Republican Calendar’, forcing Lothrop Stoddard over a century later to include republican dates in The French Revolution in San Domingo’s bibliographical references. In a post-Christian, post-Caucasian world, it will be the dominant race that imposes its calendar, according to its dominant ideology of the moment, rather than a generic human dating system. The latter may in time be adopted by scientists, but that may be a possibility so long as there are scientists.

In the worst-case scenario, where humanity devolves into a primitive, ahistorical, illiterate state, enumerating the years may become an entirely forgotten practice, belonging to obsolete human adaptations long buried in the dust.

It may not come to that. Yet, it is possible that, provided European man succeeds in securing his continuance and prosperity as a unique biological category, whatever civilisation he creates after the collapse of Faustian (Christian) civilisation, will be founded on entirely different premises, even if rooted in the same millenarian tradition. Our descendants may find it quaint that we numbered our years the way we have been since Mediaeval times.

Don't Care About the Girl

2011-12-12T08:43:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/don-t-care-about-the-girl/

While we are on the topic of immigration and the sentiment it elicits among frustrated White folk everywhere, it is worth highlighting once again how the media reports collisions between communities.

Perhaps one of the most egregious recent example I have seen is a report on the Copenhagen Post, ‘Denmark’s leading source for news in English’.

Titled, ‘Fears of Vigilantism After Rape of Young Girl’, the report begins:

The rape of a ten-year-old has shocked the residents of a small town in Jutland, and led to fears residents would seek revenge against the suspect – a 16-year-old boy of Somalian descent.

A week ago last Saturday two girls were threatened at knife-point by a boy and led into a forest. While the nine-year-old girl managed to escape and sound the alarm, the ten-year-old was raped.

It took over a week for the police to make an arrest, and in the meantime the description of the culprit – an ‘African-looking’ male between the ages of 16 and 18 and with black curly hair – was circulated.

So far, so good, right? Mr. Stanner has reported the crime and identified the suspect, not neglecting to mention his race. Now let us examine how the rest of the article runs. The next sixteen paragraphs follow directly after the above three, without transition:

Some 40 percent of the town’s residents are immigrants and several boys and young men fit the description given by the girls. While the police began collecting evidence, rumours started circulating that groups of residents were looking to take matters into their own hands and young immigrant men were warned to stay indoors.

To help calm nerves, a meeting was held the following Tuesday in which a family member of one of the two girls urged residents to let the police do their job in apprehending the culprit.

One of those in attendance was Kaj Mortensen, the manager of a local housing association, who told the press that fears of a vigilante mob forming were overblown, though it was worth reminding residents of the consequences of vigilantism.

“It’s something we want to avoid, it’s the police who have to handle these things. We shouldn’t do anything ourselves,” Mortensen said. “Broadly speaking we discussed the need to talk to each other, regardless of which ethnicity you might have.”

While it seems residents did allow police to conduct their investigation in peace, a right-wing political organisation used the incident to spread their anti-Islamic agenda.

Twenty members of the Danish Defence League (DDL), were spotted in the nearby town of Herning on Thursday night on their way to Gullestrup, where the next day posters could be found declaring the town an ‘Sharia Free Zone’ and signed by the DDL.

The DDL admitted on its Facebook page to hanging the posters and called the act a ‘good effort’.

The group is tied to the British organisation English Defence League, which is made up largely of white males linked to the football hooligan community and who are responsible for violent anti-Islamic rallies across the country.

In a press release, the DDL declared it was prepared to take on the role of the police at times when they felt the Danish people were not being protected

“The Danish Defence League declares that we will take the streets in areas where the number of rapes are rising if the authorities in Denmark are not getting the situation under control. We take this position after the Danish police once again have shown that they either can’t or won’t – or don’t have the resources to – protect the Danish people from Muslim immigrants’ perverted desires.”

A 16-year-old was been arrested late last week after forensic evidence linked him to the crime.

The police would not confirm what the evidence was but one report suggests his fingerprint was found on a condom packet lying close to the scene of the crime.

According to information obtained by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, the 16-year-old had recently returned from a year in Somalia and had reportedly witnessed that country’s strife at close quarters.

Acquaintances of the suspect described how the experience has affected him.

“He was unrecognisable when he came home. He seemed hard and superficial and spoke very loudly, almost shouting all the time,” one source was quoted in Ekstra Bladet as saying.

The boy appeared in court last Saturday in a close door hearing.

He denies any involvement in the rape.

Interesting, is it not, how the report focuses entirely on worries about the feelings and safety of the immigrant residents, and spares not one word for the feelings of the 9-year old who was threatened with a knife, or of the 10-year-old girl who was raped at knifepoint, or of the families of these two girls, or of the Danish local residents who may be parents to young girls. The safety of local Danish girls does not fall under reporter Peter Stanner’s radar.

What does fall under his radar are the feelings of the young rapist thug. Some would want to point out that Mr. Stanner’s report is sympathetic to the rapist, for it spends five paragraphs attempting to, let us say, nuance, or add context, to the Somali youth’s despicable crime, so that readers may not rush to conclusions. It is the boy who is the real victim, not the girl who will be traumatised for the rest of her life. The villains are those irascible Danish barbarians living in the neighbourhood and of course the DDL.

We have seen ample evidence of how, for mainstream journalists, context is essential when attempting to understand attacks on White folk by coloured immigrants or their descendants, but wholly unimportant when attempting to understand the frustration of White folk who, Emma West or Darren Scully, decide they have had enough. For the likes of Mr. Stanner, the existence of the DDL has no context other than simple racism, and their reacting to this event is merely base opportunism, motivated by a mean-spirited desire to exploit an unfortunate incident for political gain. There is no legitimate reason to defend the Danish, of course.

Apology Not Accepted

2011-12-12T06:10:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/apology-not-accepted/

We have finally learnt why England crawls with working-class women willing to complain openly about immigration: it seems the United Kingdom is run by a secret cabal of Nazi sympathisers, lodged deep within the Conservative Party, and close to Prime Minister David Cameron.

On Sunday the nation stood still as the Daily Mail, in an epic and very detailed report, made the terrible revelation. Earlier this month, Conservative Member of Parliament Aiden Burley, attended a stag party, where 34-year-old Oxford-educated Mark Fournier, who works as an accountant and whose stag party it was, revealed his true colours—in public, in front of gay and Jewish eyes, and of those of respectable French citizens trying to enjoy a peaceful dinner with friends and family. Unable to bottle up his Nazism any longer, and eager to be as transgressive as possible, Mr. Fournier went around in full German Nazi SS uniform, complete with swastika armband, in proud and brazen defiance of French laws.

Fortunately, reporters from the Daily Mail happened to be in the same restaurant on that precise evening and at that precise time, and were able to document the outrage, filming it and photographing it conclusively. This is reporter Matt Sandy’s account [emphases here and further down are mine]:

Mail on Sunday photographer John McLellan and I were in Val Thorens working on an unrelated story last Saturday when we went to Restaurant La Fondue . . .

As we ordered drinks, we noticed a rowdy group of men at a table. Then we saw a man in an SS uniform walk past us to the toilet. We were surprised by the group’s brashness and their taunting of the waiters.

It was a small restaurant, with room for 50 diners, and was two-thirds full.

Watching other British people behaving as this group were in a foreign country was at the very least embarrassing.

Outside, we chatted to the men. Several agreed to pose for photos and, without prompting, did Nazi salutes. I have seen this happen only once before – at a football match.

The group invited us to join them at a British-themed pub later that evening. It was only at this stage that we discovered that one of their number was a Conservative MP.

In the bar, which was packed with holidaymakers enjoying apres-ski, they continued drinking, and their chanting became more frequent and uninhibited. It was hard to believe that an MP did nothing to halt this offensive behaviour.

This offensive behaviour included a toast that ran:

Let’s raise a toast to Tom for organising the stag do, and if we’re perfectly honest, to the ideology and thought process of the Third Reich.

Mr. Burley, who ‘[i]n an entry on [his] website, dated June 21 this year, . . . describes a visit to Israel’, witnessed this act, heard these words, and did . . . nothing. Worse, he was photographed paying the bill.
The British nation need not fear, however, for prompt action has been taken. According to the Daily Mail,

[a] French police spokesman confirmed that an investigation could be launched, and said: ‘Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi crimes are taken extremely seriously in France. Anyone suspected of breaking the law in this respect can and will be prosecuted.’

The news report clarifies that

[t]his is because under the French penal code it is a crime, unless required for a film, a play or a historical exhibition, to wear or exhibit in public anything reminiscent of what was worn or used by the Nazis.

Meanwhile, Mr. Burley released a statement (through Conservative Central Office), stating,

There was clearly inappropriate behaviour by some of the other guests and I deeply regret that this happened. I am extremely sorry for any offence that will undoubtedly have been caused.

And the BBC reports that

[a] Conservative Party spokesman confirmed there would be a full investigation into what had happened.

Unsatisfied with that, shadow transport minister and Labour MP John Zak Woodcock, who is chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel group, has ‘called for Mr. Burley to be sacked’.

Events are unfolding, so we will see where this leads. Mr. Burley and friends have good reason to worry, for some have had their careers ruined for less.

Last month, for example, one Mr. Darren Scully, another conservative politician and now former major of Naas, in Ireland, was forced to apologise, resign, endure days of abuse and public humiliation, and face a police investigation—and a possible prison sentence of up to two years—following a radio interview where he expressed frustration with the bad manners of his Black constituents and his decision earlier this year to direct them to colleagues better suited to take up their concerns.

With so many reports of racists and Nazis coming out into the open, claiming support of the BNP or wearing a costume as the ultimate act of defiance to the system, the inevitable conclusion must be that more ‘education and love’ are needed, because if love for multiracialism is not forthcoming, it must be that we need yet more of the same.

Emma West: When the Subaltern Speaks

2011-12-08T18:25:00.000-08:00

First published on The Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/12/emma-west-when-the-subaltern-speaks/

With her four-letter words and direct syntax, Emma West has truly focused the Leftist mind, for one remarkable aspect of the reaction to her critique of government immigration policy in Britain is the sudden regurgitation, in concentrated form, of Leftist clichés in support of the status quo.

For those of us who enjoy analysing those clichés, this reaction has simplified our work, since we now need only to look at any one single source to find them all helpfully collated for our convenience.

It hardly seems worth bothering responding to some of the most common assertions. The idea that Britain has a ‘tradition’ of welcoming every imaginable race because the island was invaded at various times by White folk with differently coloured hair is simply not a matter for serious debate.

So is the notion that being critical of immigrants and of the government-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism is the product of ignorance, bigotry, and delusional feelings of racial superiority. Like the notion that racial feelings are a disease cured through ‘education and love’, this is pure snobbery—the Leftist’s way of telling you that he thinks himself better than you. (It is always interesting how egalitarians are in fact great believers in hierarchy; the only difference between them and their opponents is that in egalitarianism, egalitarians are king.)

Leftist commentators who make reference to European colonialism in the effort to embarrass their White opponents are far more worthy of attention. When non-White commentators on the Left argue that Britain colonised Africa and Asia, ‘plundered their wealth’, and ‘oppressed’ the natives, they are effectively saying ‘you did it to us, so we’re now gonna do it to you!’, or more simply and accurately, ‘f**k you too!’—which is an interesting admission, is it not, that they are in the business of colonisation.
Advertisement

Equally interesting is the claim that Britain’s survival is to be credited entirely to immigrants, for this is not an argument, but an expectoration, it being simply a polite way of saying that British people are lazy and stupid.
Leftists also deny that there is such a thing as a British identity, or even such a thing as a White race, because of all those White people with different coloured hair that invaded—i.e., not welcomed into—the island over the centuries. These same Leftists would not deny that Indians have an identity, even though what we now call India is diverse and also the product of multiple invasions. When a White Leftist denies White identity, he is expressing self-hatred. When a non-White denies White identity, he is saying that Britain is for him nothing but a wallet—the natives are either a resource or an obstacle: a resource when they give money or change the laws to accommodate immigrants, an obstacle when they complain or prefer their own company.

There is a self-serving, self-reinforcing circularity in the Left’s denial of any European identity. They are quick to point out that the label ‘British’ comprises diverse people of diverse origin. This was true of any European nation state even when the continent was almost entirely White, but it was also the Left who pushed for a degree diversification that eventually rendered the ‘British’ label meaningless beyond a strictly legal sense. In essence, the Left manufactured the proof for its own argument, and then claimed the argument was correct because there was proof.

Circular reasoning characterises the conception of the legal process, contrived by the Left, that disenfranchises critics of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. A Leftist blogger, in a hate-filled open letter to Emma West, wrote

We have laws against your actions, and laws against your views, precisely because they are unacceptable in a civilised, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial society. The law sanctions them because they cannot and will not be tolerated in Britain.

This translates into: ‘you’re a criminal because we say so, and we say so because you’re a criminal’.
Self-serving, self-reinforcing circularity and circular reasoning also characterises the Left’s conception of government involvement in race relations: ‘anti-racist’ government policy is treated by the Left as external legitimation of their ‘anti-racism’, but the government is Leftist, ideologically if not nominally, so legitimation is not external but internal: the Left claims legitimacy on the basis that it has legitimated itself.

Much of the pontification from the Left has been hideously self-serving and mean-spirited. At best, commentators have used the incident to push for concessions: the White Leftists want to move forward with their experiment, and flagellate themselves some more; non-Whites want a completely open and unrestricted society where Whites have zero racial consciousness and place zero value on their heritage and identity. At worst, snobbish commentators, even politicians, have publicly gloated and indulged their cruelty by kicking the dog that’s already down.

It bears pointing this out: Emma West has already been publicly insulted and humiliated, arrested, deprived of her child, and remanded into custody; she will spend Christmas and New Years in a cell, where she will be at risk of attacks by coloured inmates. If convicted, she will spend up to two years in prison, after which her conviction will remain on her record for five years, barring her from a number of professions and making employment even more difficult. If she has credit card or other debts, she will face serious financial pressure. Note that not once did she use a racial slur.

Lashing out against random coloured folk on a tram will of course yield negative results. Yet just because some citizens express themselves less well than others, it does not mean their concerns are in all cases illegitimate and to be ignored—the sheer popularity of the video and the volume of commentary it has elicited from all quarters alone attests to the fact that Emma West has voiced what is in the minds of many—including, because she fits their narrative of omnipresent White racism, the non-White media professionals who have commentated on the issue (see here and here). Some working class folk know no other way to communicate their frustrations, and they certainly enjoy fewer options than most in a system where they, and not the Blacks or the postcolonial media commentators, are the subaltern.

Moreover, can those who are in the business of colonising our continent, pushing for permanent structural changes in their favour, including laws that disadvantage the natives, really expect not to experience at least some hostility? Even the diverse White invaders of yesteryear were fiercely resisted, despite being closely related members of the race. This is not to say that throwing cans and shouting slurs at Pakistanis passing by is a good way to behave; we may call such behaviour ignoble—un-Aryan. This is not to say, either, that all of those who do not trace their ancestors to Europe are in the business of colonising the continent; in some cases they, or their fathers, or their grandfathers were born here, and this is all they know. This is to say, rather, that resisting and expressing one’s rage at the present push for colonisation, especially by strangers who despise our culture, harbour historical resentments, and / or have a purely instrumental relationship to our society, is normal, moral, and legitimate, and this may affect not only the White politicians, mediacrats, and academics who are the instruments of colonisation, and who truly deserve our venom, but also those pushing to transform our living space to make it amenable for them. The expectation that Whites be pliant, cooperative, complicit, and enthusiastic about their dispossession and replacement is silly, perverse, and unjust, and we owe it to ourselves oppose it and provide appropriate means of channelling the rage.

The End of Americanism

2011-11-30T14:22:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-end-of-americanism/

Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is an apt follow-up to his 2002 volume, The Death of the West. Although the new book focuses on the United States, it restates and updates the narrative of the older book. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the former refers briefly to the latter early on.

Buchanan’s main thesis is this:

When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of our civilization.

Suicide has stirred some controversy in the mainstream media for stating what for many is, or should be, known and obvious, but which for the majority is either not so or taboo: the negative consequences of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Yet, the book has obtained wide coverage and seems widely available—last month, while travelling in the United States, it saw it prominently displayed in the bookshops of major airports. This is a significant achievement that must not pass without notice, for there are others who have been advancing identical theses without the same level of exposure.

Suicide, however, is not without significant limitations, and these merit detailed discussion, for they stem from an outlook that will need to be overcome if we are ever to move forward with an effective solution to the suicide of America and the rest of the West.

The Pluses

With 428 pages of meat in it, Suicide is divided into 11 chapters, each of which is in turn divided into shorter sections with lapidary titles. The chapters are: The Passing of a Superpower, The Death of Christian America, The Crisis of Catholicism, The End of White America, Demographic Winter, Equality or Freedom, The Diversity Cult, The Triumph of Tribalism, The ‘White’ Party, The Long Retreat, and The Last Chance.

In none does Buchanan flinch from presenting the facts as they are. And where there are lacunae, Kevin MacDonald has already filled them with his Culture of Critique. The first chapter is in tone apocalyptic, yet the sheer rapidity of the United State’s decline as a superpower justifies that tone; Rome’s decline in wealth and capability may have taken longer, but America’s is comparable and, as Buchanan presents it, suggests familiar buildings and everyday objects one day becoming ruins and broken artefacts in a continent abandoned to a dark age. Buchanan proposes solutions in the final chapter, but, besides flawed (and I get to that further down), they are conditional, which lends the trajectory of decline traced throughout most of the volume an aura of inevitability. This is not an indulgence on pessimism, because all previous empires eventually collapsed, and all previous great civilisations in history came to an end.

In his detailed discussion of Christianity’s role in the United State, and of the crisis of Catholicism, Buchanan acknowledges the importance of the transcendent. Many of the ills that afflict the West in our age are linked to, if not the result of, a materialist conception of life, and of the consequent subjection to a secular economist criterion of all matters of importance to a nation and a people. The dispossession and loss of moral authority of the White race in their own traditional homelands was to a significant degree achieved through, or caused by, economic arguments. It was not the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement in the United States that turned Detroit into a ruin; what turned it into a ruin was the reliance on economic arguments—so characteristic of the materialist liberal outlook—that enabled the decision to purchase Black slaves in African markets and ship them to North America. Similarly, the loss of moral and spiritual vigour, which has so enfeebled the White race and sapped its will to live, can be traced to the rise of secularism, to the severing of the race’s link to the transcendent. ‘Where are the martyrs for materialism?’ he asks.

To this Buchanan adds a helpful discussion about equality and freedom. He explodes the liberal conception of them as concomitant concepts, and convincingly presents them as polar opposites in a dichotomy: greater equality means less freedom, greater freedom means less equality. Buchanan makes clear that the only possible way to see these two concepts as concomitant is by ignoring human biodiversity, for, where inborn differences in physiology impose upper limits to human plasticity, equality—the elimination disparities in outcome—cannot be achieved without handicapping the cause of those disparities. Thus, the freedom to choose among the best universities is limited for bright White students when entry requirements are relaxed among less able non-White students in the effort to achieve equal outcomes among all racial groups.

The chapters on the diversity cult and tribalism re-state arguments that have for years been advanced by Jared Taylor. Taylor has done it in much greater detail, but Buchanan will reach a much wider audience, so this is a gain. Buchanan also echoes the Sailer Strategy—‘the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success’—in his discussion of his party’s prospects as Whites decline in the United States. And, like Taylor, he ridicules those who see this decline as a cause for celebration.

Also like Taylor, but in the economic area, Buchanan reveals some astonishing facts. Apparently, the United States military relies on equipment that cannot be made without parts manufactured by potential enemies and economic rivals. Did you know that?

Another helpful discussion is introduced in the final fourth of the book, where Buchanan, following Amy Chua, deals with the fatal design flaw that afflicts multiethnic nations that have embraced democracy and capitalism:

Free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of a market-capable ethnic minority. Democracy empowers the ethnic majority. When the latter begin to demand a larger share of the wealth, demagogues arise to meet those demands.

This is a reply to the economic argument for the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism in the West, repeated without proof and refuted by empirical studies everywhere, that supposedly boosts economic growth because diverse immigrants ‘bring in skills’ and foster greater creativity. In fact, said policy leads to Whites becoming dispossessed minorities, as they already did in a number of other former European colonies. Buchanan points out that people like Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, and Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, use ‘principles invented by white men—universal franchise and majority rule—to dispossess white men’. He also quotes 19^th century Rightist Louis Veuillot to describe how democrats are dispossessed by non- (or ‘instrumental’) democrats: ‘When I am the weaker I ask you for my freedom because that is my principle; but when I am the stronger I take away your freedom because that is my principle’. He asks: ‘What does the future hold for the West when people of European descent become a minority in nations they created, and people of color decide to vote themselves proportionate or larger shares of the national wealth?’

In terms of solutions, Buchanan offers common sense advice: the United States should live within its means and actively take steps to cut its deficits. For him this means pruning government and government expenditure, including social security benefits and military bases overseas; and instituting a policy of economic nationalism, levying tariffs on imports and cutting corporation tax to zero, so as to revive manufacturing in the United States, attract overseas investment, and reduce reliance on imports. I do not think even economists will agree on whether this would yield the desired results, but at least Buchanan is making concrete policy proposals that place the interests of his country first, and is willing to accept that ethnonationalism is an inescapable reality of the human condition.

The Minuses

There are fundamental flaws in Buchanan’s exposition.

Firstly, he equates European civilisation with Christianity. This is surprising, particularly coming from an American writer, advancing an Americanist position, given that some of the basic principles and practices upon which America was founded, such as the constitutional republic, originated or had their roots in Europe well before the dawn of Christianity. What about ancient Greece? What about ancient Rome? Were those not European civilisations? A more accurate statement is that the United States is a Christian country. This is defensible, even if the United States never had an established religion and even if not all Americans were Christian. Perhaps what Buchanan means is that Faustian civilisation—the civilisation of Northern Europe, of which North America is an extension—is a Christian civilisation.

Buchanan is correct to identify the decline of Christianity in America as one of the roots of its decline. In doing so, however, he has Edward Gibbon as his inverse counterpart, for Gibbon identified the rise of Christianity in Rome, that is, the decline of the Roman religion, as one of the causes of Rome’s fall. Gibbon would have sympathised, perhaps, with the statement, ‘When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.’ Yet, given that the fall of Rome did not mean the end of European man, and that if the rise of Christianity was linked to Rome’s fall, the rise of Christianity was also linked to the rise of Faustian civilisation. All this tells us, therefore, is that we may be witnessing the end of a cycle involving Christianity. However, even if it is Christianity’s fate to pass, as have other religions, or to become a ‘Third World religion’, as Buchanan puts it, European man will still be there, at least for a while, and, provided he survives as a race, he will give rise to a new civilisation, traceable to the Greek, the Roman, and the Faustian, but founded on somewhat different principles. This will bring no comfort to Christians, nevertheless, and Buchanan, as a Christian, is justified in his alarm.

Gibbon would concede that Buchanan makes a powerful argument for Christianity. A monotheistic religion with a personal god can be a potent unifying force, eliciting much stronger commitments from its followers. The Roman pagans were easygoing, and vis-à-vis other religions, the pagan outlook, as expressed by Nehru in a conversation with the former Chilean Ambassador in India, Miguel Serrano, is generally ‘live and let live’. One can easily accept that it is not difficult to decimate a people with that outlook, for, in as much as it resembles the multiculturalists’ easygoing attitude to all religions except Christianity, it is proving daily in our society an agent of dissolution. It may well be that in a world of intense ethnic competition, a high-tension—even totalitarian and intolerant—religion is the more adaptive group evolutionary strategy. Buchanan’s discussion on the growth and endurance of evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and militant Islam indicates he is of this view, and that is a plus consistent with his recognition of the importance of the transcendent. Yet he inadvertedly exposes a conundrum: if Christianity is a universal faith, accommodating every race and nationality, as he says, and if, as he also says, non-evangelical forms of Christianity have declined because they are accommodating, then, would this not suggest that Christianity will not survive in practice as the White man’s religion unless it becomes a non-accommodating faith?

Secondly, Suicide makes it clear that Buchanan cannot conceive of anything beyond the America of the 1950s. This is the most unfortunate aspect of this book. It is also the reason why Buchanan offers no real solutions, other than turning back the clock. Were his recommendations implemented in the United States, they would only retard the processes that are in place, achieving a temporary reprieve, a momentary stabilisation, before resuming their course, perhaps with renewed vigour and speed.

What Buchanan seems not to recognise is that, while the 1950s may have felt good for many, the conditions for the modern trends that he condemns were already in place then. They were simply masked by the transient prosperity, stability, and romanticism of the era. The 1950s led to the 1960s. And the upheavals of the 1960s had their roots in the academics of the 1930s, who in turn had their roots in Marxism, dating back to the 19^th century, which in turn had its roots in liberalism and the Enlightenment in the 18^th century. And this is not merely a question of there having always been a hostile faction within the American republic, seeking to undermine it with its insidious liberalism; the conservatives who opposed Marxism also had their intellectual roots in 18^th-century liberalism. Buchanan makes it seem as if the United States has been hijacked by liberals, but the fact is that it has always been in the hands of liberals, right from the beginning: the United States was founded and is predicated on the ideas of liberal intellectuals, and its Founding Fathers were liberals. If the United States seems to be spearheading the process of Western decline, bringing everyone down with it, it is because liberalism took stronger root there than anywhere else, due to a lack of opposition to liberal ideas.

From this perspective it can be argued that Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is not the result of the United States’ being ‘far off the course set by [the] Founding Fathers’, but rather of the United States’ being exactly on that course, even if the Founding Fathers never anticipated that it would lead where it has led.

As a conservative in a republic founded by liberals, Buchanan is by definition a liberal, defending a previous stage in the development of liberalism. Hence his failure to see beyond liberalism’s event horizon.

Liberals have a linear conception of history. Thus Buchanan hopes that by prescribing better liberal policies (what he would call conservative policies), the American republic can be set back on course and resume its trajectory of endless progress and economic growth. Unfortunately, treating the problem as if it were a disease in need of a cure is futile when the problem is a congenital defect. In such cases the best hope is genetic resequencing, a form of death and rebirth. Most likely it will mean certain death and a possible rebirth, elsewhere, as something else, perhaps in North America, but at first, if at all, only in a part of it. Concretely this means the break-up of the union into regions and the emergence among them of a dominant republic among weaker ones, with strength or weakness being a function of the dominant racial group in each case.

Similarly futile is the attempt to revert a civilisation to an earlier stage of development. In the Spenglerian view this would be like trying to turn an old dog back into a puppy, or an old tree back into a bush. Technology may make it possible one day to reverse the physical effects of ageing, but it will not erase the memories and conclusions of a lifetime, and therefore not rejuvenate the spirit. This applies even in the non-organic realm: we may be able to restore an old mechanical typewriter so that it looks and works like new, but it will still be obsolete technology, and its reason for being will shift from usable tool to unusable antique.

Unfortunately for those living today, reality is more in accord with the organic conception of history, whereby things go in cycles and slow build-ups lead to rapid changes in state. Following Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey argued that attempts to cause a reversion into an earlier state of development will at best yield temporary results, introducing distortions that will be magnified as the next stage of development indefectibly follows.

One can sympathise with the argument that it would be worse if the current political leadership in the United States managed to stabilise the economy and perform plastic surgery on the face of America, as this would buy said leadership more time and permit existing trends to remain in place until the possibility of a White rebirth in North America, even without United States, became extinct. A Spencerian collapse sooner may open up avenues that may be closed later.

Buchanan wonders whether the United States will implode by 2025. This was my own scenario inMister, where the United States disintegrates in a hyperinflationary chaos. But it is difficult to predict with accuracy and I would not want to speculate beyond a possible dismemberment along regional lines sometime this century. When it happens, whenever it may happen, those who remember the America we know today and who did not know better until it was too late will be amazed that people thought the United States would go on forever. They will also be amazed that people ever thought as they do now, despite the final outcome being so blatantly obvious. Buchanan’s diagnosis is mostly accurate, but his treatment, well intentioned as it is, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Balance

Despite its defects, there is no escaping it: Suicide of a Superpower is a punishing indictment of the United States’ post-war political leadership, authored by a prominent conservative who speaks as part of America’s mainstream establishment. Any White American fed up with the way things have been going in recent decades and looking for new politics beyond Democrat or Republican will find here solid justifications for going beyond convention and eventually adding his muscle to the struggle for fundamental change.

Suicide will not awaken the complacent, induce the fearful to speak up, or cause ideological enemies to change their views. The complacent is comfortable in his ignorance and does not want his world disrupted by inconvenient truths; in most cases he has the means to avoid them by insulating himself economically. The fearful, who knows but remains silent, will not be emboldened by Buchanan’s confirming him in his views; he will wait, as he has always waited, and then side with change once it looks like it is going to win. The ideological enemy is beyond convincing; the only solution is to crush him thoroughly.

Should you buy Suicide of a Superpower? The answer is yes. Not only is it brave, but it contains many helpful insights and bewildering facts to fuel a healthy debate. The fact that the book is everywhere has also infuriated the radical Left, who have renewed their efforts to have Buchanan fired by MSNBC. The radical Left does not want this kind of discussion to take place in a mainstream media forum. In fact, radical Leftists would like Buchanan to be banned from the networks, shunned by his publishers, phlebotomised by the taxman, prosecuted by the ICC, and sent to the gulags, to spend his old age in poverty, obscurity, and hard labour—surrounded, of course, by politically correct diversity. To his credit, Buchanan has not buckled in to criticism. Therefore, every copy that is sold is a kick to the radical Left, and added impetus for the book to reach more persuadables.

With enough manpower and talent it will be possible to survive the cataclysm and make it through to the other side. The other side is something entirely new; traditional, but different—it is not the White America of the 1950s, nor Reagan on steroids, nor is it a linear extrapolation of what is good about the 2010s minus what is bad. For Whites to survive in America, Americanism must end. Those who survive will be the architects of what comes after Americanism; they will not call themselves Americans—the designation may not even make sense for them. Viewed from the other side, with the old certainties gone and new ones in place, it will be impossible to think as we do today, even if future generations carry forward much of our knowledge, traditions, and cultural legacy.

Why the Epic Tram Lady?

2011-11-30T14:14:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/why-the-epic-tram-lady/

When I came across the Daily Telegraph’s first report about Emma West’s cri de coeur aboard the Croydon tramlink, I was reluctant to comment for the reasons already outlined in Andy Nowicki’s latest blog.

However, the Telegraph report—since updated—did suggest to me that any mainstream media coverage, especially if it went viral, would be worth commenting upon, and therefore worth keeping an eye on for developments.

My instinct was not wrong.

Mainstream media reports since have predictably emphasised the shock of West’s fellow commuters and YouTube viewers as well as the illegality of West’s speech. The early Telegraph report, preceding West’s arrest, suggested she was motivated by irrational hatred and even that she may not be in full possession of her faculties:

During the footage the mother - who at times appears to slur her words - begins by ranting

Nabeela Zahir, a 29-year-old journalist based in London, writing for the The Huffington Post, has since chipped in, deploying a familiar double tactic. With her opening sentence, hardly neutral in tone, she telegraphs that expressing views critical of immigrants and immigration has no place in decent society:

The racist torrent of abuse that spewed out of the mouth of a woman travelling on a London tram has left many Brits horrified.

Further down, Zahir, who describes herself as ‘British Asian’, repeats the tired old cliché of White racial identity being a mental illness and paints a picture of her adopted country as being riddled with nasty racism.

It seems not to matter that she was able to obtain a full education in British universities, or that she has been able to find ample professional opportunities in her chosen career as a news producer, documentary film researcher, television co-host, assistant broadcast journalist, writer and contributor, sub-editor, and communications press officer, who has worked for Channel 4, Channel 4 News, Waddell Media, the BBC, and ITN, among others, as well been published by The Guardian and received a George Viner scholarship. According to her narrative, Britain’s nasty racism is everywhere, always, under the surface, not only in violent forms, but also in all manner of subtle forms, sometimes finding expression in socially acceptable discourse.

This is more or less the message emanating from The Guardian, where Sunny Hundal, commentator on ‘British Asian’ identity politics and committed racial activist, who questions whether West should be arrested for expressing her views, but believes

there are still far too many Westminster commentators who think racism is a thing of the past

and that West is a product of ‘the opinions of the rightwing press’ and its ‘biased reporting’.

The Mirror, a Left-wing tabloid, lays it thick with its biased reporting, broadcasting at full volume the message that West’s views are objectionable (highlights are mine):

Viewers disgusted at her comments brought it to the attention of the British Transport Police . . . Disbelieving viewers left comments on the video sharing website . . . One said: “She makes me furious”, while another posted: “So much hate, actually ashamed to be British.” … The woman begins her x-rated outburst . . . She then ignores a polite request from a second traveller to stop swearing in front of the children on the tram. And the mum's sickening rant then goes into overdrive . . .

None of the coverage herein cited, and least of all the self-serving commentary from non-White commentators, attempts for a moment to explore the motive of West’s frustrations, even though they are not unique to her. Evidently, for the mainstream reporters there is nothing to explore: West is a sick racist and that is all there is to say about it; she needs to be prosecuted, as Colin Liddell says, ‘to the full extent of the law’, lest others feel emboldened also to express their rage.

But why do these expressions of White rage at the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism never have anything to do with the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism?

It seems obvious to me that if the rage follows a given pattern, comes from members of an identifiable group, flows in the same direction, there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting the assertions made, and politicians, both in Britain and elsewhere across the West, are so scared of it being seen or understood that they feel the need to suppress it with heavy spin and heavy-handed legislation, there must be something to it beyond mere psychosis or irrational emotion.

The sheer popularity of the video and the amount of commentary it has elicited in the mainstream press suggests awareness that there are very many of who, put off by West’s vulgarity, dare not admit to sharing her sentiments. After nearly 6.7 million views and nearly 160,000 comments on YouTubesince Monday, the evidence is clear.

Tito Perdue's The Node

2011-11-30T13:22:00.000-08:00

First published on The Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/11/tito-perdues-the-node/

Tito Perdue is best known for Lee, a 1991 novel about a misanthropic septuagenarian at war with the modern world. The novel introduced Lee Pefley, Perdue’s presumed alter ego, who has since appeared in other novels, at different ages and even after death (as in Fields of Asphodel).

The Node, his most recently published novel, now out on Nine-Banded Books, is a blend of literary and dystopian science fiction, and features what might be Lee’s grandson.

The action unfolds in a ridiculous mid-twenty-first-century America that is the outcome of generations of caucophobia, political correctness, degeneration, and dysgenics. It is an America where Caucasians (‘Cauks’) have been reduced to a dispossessed and legally disenfranchised minority, where pederasty is considered normal, where New York has been renamed Martin Luther King, where Whites suspected of ethnocentricity are imprisoned, and which is in every other respect profoundly dysfunctional, afflicted by crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime, ubiquitous pornography, environmental degradation, mass ignorance, ball-busting feminism, sartorial chaos, infantilisation, terminal multiculturalism, obsessive consumerism, and normalised self-mutilation.

The main character is a man of 44, who remains nameless and whom the author refers to as ‘the boy’, ‘the novice’, ‘the pilgrim’, and eventually as ‘our man’. Other than his absurdly eclectic CV, the pilgrim is, in fact, fairly ordinary. He does, however, possess a somewhat independent, self-sufficient spirit. The action begins when he is forced to abandon his homestead in Tennessee, on foot, in search of propane. His journey takes him through a devastated landscape and into a dirty, overpopulated, diverse, predatory, and crime-infested city, where he visits a group of vestigial Whites in what is termed a ‘node’. Their leader, Larry Schneider, has organised a clandestine movement based on the creation of a growing network of nodes—fortified ethnic enclaves—around the country, in an effort to regrow the White race, stage a cultural revival, and rebuild the world. After some time with this group, the pilgrim is charged with establishing his own node, in rural Alabama. The rest of the novel follows the boys’ adventures as he joins the group, assembles his colonists, or nodists, and fulfills his assignment.

Advertisement

The Node has a linear plot, peppered with amusing incidents as one follows the protagonist. The attraction is in Perdue’s deadpan humour, literary style, and reactionary critique.

After exchanging novels over the Summer, both Perdue and this author discovered surprising parallels in their work, even though their style and voices differ. The Node’s social critique is comparable to Mister in that both authors mock the consequences of the liberal project through grotesque exaggeration, ironically contrasting refined prose against the repulsive dystopia of their setting. And both novels also make use of postmodern self-referential devices (see below). Mister, however, is oppressive and supercilious, whereas The Nodeis wry and ostensibly lighthearted. The targets also differ: in Mister the primary target is the ‘respectable’ conservative, finally caught up with by the world his silence made possible; in The Node it is liberalism and its human product. Also, in Mister, the protagonist is sadistically subjected to torments and indignities, where as in The Node the protagonist is treated sympathetically.

Some of Perdue’s themes of critique recurr in The Node, to wit: the soul-destroying irrationalities of 9-5 employment; the hero’s aversion to it; comically ignorant, clownish, and aggressive degenerates; the unpleasant and degrading nature of urban life; the author’s romantic nostalgia for the Old America; the author’s love for vintage objects, which he sprinkles throughout the novel; contempt for materialism, standardisation, and what Guenon termed ‘the reign of quantity’.

Thus, when the pilgrim is required to work at a 9-5 job, filling in temporarily for a nodist, since the group needs money, he resents it and resists it. What is more, in order to blend in, he is required to attire himself as per the sartorial etiquette of the business district, which in Perdue’s degenerate world means shorts and mismatched running shoes, each worn on the wrong foot. On his way to work he is forced to navigate the muggers’ booby traps—one of the muggers’ favourite baits being a lone infant left in an upturned vehicle. And at work he is forced to submit to STRONG women—‘liberated’, ‘empowered’, misandristic, agro, chip-in-the-shoulder females so loud a telephone conversation with any of them can rupture a man’s eardrum. These women are typically skeletal, yet they, in accordance to fashion, walk around with an exposed breast.

In terms of style, Perdue favours an educated prose, occasionally with syntactically complex sentences, archaic inversions, and unusual vocabulary. His pace is glacial. The sporadic, brusque dialogue acts as counterpoint to the leisurely, extended narration. And, as in previous novels, there is a deliberate use of leitmotif, with recurring phrases and references to objects. Also, Perdue’s non-existent volcanoes of Alabama make another appearance here, except they now seem apt in this frigid world of lethal sunlight, oddly coloured skies, and brown snow. Another recurring theme are the links and references to the author’s own life and works: when the boy’s gorge rises, the trait is described as inherited from his grandfather (conceivably, Lee). The reference brings The Node into a network of other fiction by the author that partly / loosely fictionalises his life, his family, and his ancestors. Such fiction includes the forthcoming Morning Crafts, an unpublished manuscript of which is found in the novel. Perdue even engages in postmodern self-referencing, when he writes

Further down a comely woman dressed in blue was teaching her child the rudiments of what sounded liked the old-fashioned English of a hundred years before. Was this indeed the tongue that held sway in North America once, the dialect of Wolfe, Faulkner and Perdue?

The secondary characters in The Node also follow Perduesque patterns. None are truly normal. And neither are they wholly virtuous. Even the nodists, selected by the boy, are a mixed bag, individually and as a group. One speaks several languages, but is also part moth, having been victim of an embryologist’s prank. Another is a churlish, boneheaded nuisance, who is fond of beer. Yet another is persistently described as an ‘uninteresting woman’—although most seem so anyway, while the only one to attract the pilgrim’s attention in time proves a complete disappointment. And once established, moreover, the node emerges not as a paragon of Aryan supermanhood—old habits die hard. The boy’s mission may be to help rebuild the world, but for now he has to work with what he has, with exiguous promise:

Having programmed the vehicle toward a series of nearby restaurants listed in inverse correlation of cost, the girl almost immediately fell off into a slumber in which our boy could scrutinize her face in much better detail than at any time therebefore. He would have said she derived from North European ancestry, the most endangered of all ethnoses, save only for outright Norwegians. Could he, or not, get from her a renewal of that species, the West made new, a numerous people inhabiting everything between the Rockies and Appalachian mountain chains? He knew that he could not. The resumption of fine literature, star travel, Wagnerian opera houses? Not a chance of that.

Though The Node is largely comical, the atmosphere remains dark, much in line with other dystopian fiction. It is ultimately a profoundly pessimistic work. Perdue’s future America is analogous with the former Roman provinces after the fall of the empire—these were effectively abandoned to their fate, Rome having exhausted its coffers and depleted its manpower and therefore having become unable to maintain a meaningful presence beyond its core, or even in its core. InThe Node, large sections of the landscape have been abandoned, and the roads have become dangerous for travellers, peppered with unsavoury characters or crumbling outposts. Abandoned also are the formerly wealthy suburbs. The liberal upper middle class Whites that championed the liberal project have disappeared. The dollar is jocundly rejected everywhere. Perdue expects not a Spencerian collapse but a long, gradual decline—death with a whimper—for the United States, and economic preeminence for China. Moreover, he envisions any attempts at an American revival as a precarious, inglorious affair, riddled with uncertainty and frustrations, the outcome being an austere and archaic society, rather than a vibrant and futuristic utopia. Anything built upon that foundation will be leaner and harder—there is no utopia at the end of the road, but a return to old certainties, which ironically, and paradoxically, include old uncertainties too. This includes, in Perdue’s world, a return to the methods of the Old West, complete with authority founded on force and the gun:

Democracy was no good any longer, neither here nor in the country at large.

“Doesn’t work,” said he, orating to the crowd. “And can’t work when the people have fallen below a certain measure. That’s why you have me.”

The cheering stopped. One man was watching television on his wrist receiver while another had stretched out on the cold hard ground and seemed likely to fall off to sleep. The farmwives meantime had gathered in two separate knots and were gossiping happily about their trivia. Our boy could feel his gorge rising, an inherited characteristic of his.

“I’m not saying it’ll be easy.”

The tallest man in the crowd, the one in whom our man had vested his most exaggerated hopes, had turned away already and was trudging slowly homeward. Our boy counted just twenty-four subjects, all of them unproven and stupid except for himself and perhaps one or two others.

“You will notice,” he went on, “that I have begun to carry this whip around.”

“Yes, sir. We was just talking about that, sure was.” (The voice was frail and came from the back of the crowd.)

“You people. I have been here three months already and …”

His tongue fell out. He tried to sweep it up hurriedly and put it back where it belonged. Meantime the people were drifting back to their cozy, if dilapidated homes and three-hundred-inch television sets. The whole world rested in the balance, the quality of the culture, the fate of the West. Suddenly, extracting his silver-plated revolver, he fired twice into the air, bringing their indifference to a stop.

“OK, that finishes it. The time has come to build our wall. You there, you with the boils, go and fetch your wheelbarrow. Now! And you over yonder, you’re even worse. Come on back here right now and get to work!”

And yet they continued to disperse. Hingis turned and spat at them, casting an unlovely glob of expectorant to the ground. Put off balance by that, our novice said nothing at first. Until now, he had always thought an expectorant to be someone with an optimistic cast of mind. He decided to change his tact:

“What would Larry say? OK, I’ll tell you. He would say that all he had ever wanted was to bring the people back to mediocrity again. And that’s what I plan to do, too, even if I have to…” He raised his whip in one hand and ventilator in the other. It consoled him somewhat that the varlet had come to stand by his side, his primary support at this particular time.

“Let me have that gun.”

Slowly he brought them back again. He was good, the scapegrace, with threats and guns and our man began now to see just how indispensable he might eventually turn out to be.

In short, it is back to basics: making babies, raising cattle, and (hopefully, in time) developing a natural aristocracy, combining brute force with intellectual genius. Success is not to be measured by prosperity, ‘but by the quality of men’.

The limited hardback edition of The Node is currently available from the publishers (get it while you can). A paperback edition will follow in January.

Darren Scully's X-File

2011-11-24T08:27:00.000-08:00

Darren Scully, as of Tuesday night former mayor of the Irish town of Naas, has become yet another of those ‘respectable’ conservatives caught up with by the world they made possible with their appeasement of the Left.

On Tuesday morning, speaking live on the town’s Kildare radio station KFM, he candidly confessed to the frustrations that attend the performance of his duties in the multicultural society embraced by his party:

‘I have been met with aggressiveness, I have been met with bad manners,’ he said during the radio interview.

‘I have also been played the race card.

‘[They’ve] said: “Oh yeah you’ll help white people, but you don’t help black people.”’

Unfortunately, he made the mistake of also confessing to having had enough of the rude, aggressive, chip-in-the-shoulder Blacks in his constituency:

‘So after a while of this… I’ve been doing this now for six or seven years – I just made the decision, a conscious decision, earlier this year, that I just was not going to, myself personally, was not going to take on representations from black Africans.

‘I would be very courteous to them and I would pass on their queries to other representatives, who would take their concerns.’

Never missing an opportunity to gain political advantage, the reaction was swift. As reported by the Daily Mail,

Politicians and anti-racism groups . . . demanded Mr Scully’s expulsion, while a Labour MP . . . reported the father of two’s remarks to gardaí [Irish police] under the [Prohibition to] Incitement to Hatred Act.

Advertisement

And, like the ever-so-craven conservatives everywhere, Fine Gael, the party of which Scully is a member, threw him to the dogs within the hour:

‘The views expressed by Cllr Scully do not reflect the views of Fine Gael, and they are not party policy,’ the statement read.

‘Fine Gael is an inclusive party and we are trying to build a country that caters for all.’

Scully reacted by making the same mistake conservatives make in these situations: he issued an apology, complete with all the requisite clichés:

‘I realise now that my remarks were open to an interpretation that I did not intend,’ Mr Scully said in a statement.

‘I abhor racism in all its forms. I have been proud to be mayor of Naas and to represent all the people of the town.’

An apology was not enough, however, for by the time Scully issued it he had already caved in to pressure behind the scenes:

‘. . . as a result of the upset that I have caused, I feel it is appropriate that I step down from this position.’

Pious, ridiculous, opportunistic, hot-under-the-collar commentating and pontification poured in regardless. Note how much space the Daily Mail article is taken up by the reactions:

Former Labour MP Moosajee Bhamjee warned yesterday that comments such as those by Mr Scully would represent the ‘beginning of official racism’ in Ireland.

The country’s first Muslim MP, who served as a MP for Clare from 1992 to 1997, warned that such comments from a Government party councillor could lead to official State racism if left unchecked.

‘This is really, really frightening because it could be the beginning of State racism in this country,’ Dr Bhamjee said.

‘There is a small neo-Nazi following in this country you know, and this just adds to what they see as enlightenment. It’s important now more than ever that our racism laws be strengthened.’
The psychiatrist said he had been abused in the past himself and he called on the Government to introduce a new paper on racism as the law is clearly deficient in this area.

And even though Mr Scully resigned as mayor last night, Dr Bhamjee believes he should also be expelled from Fine Gael.

‘I’ve been abused myself in the past too, people feel they’re entitled to, but the law of the land says no.

‘Cllr Scully is still a public representative, he should be expelled from Fine Gael after this and I’m calling for that.’

The association campaigning for equality in sport, Show Racism The Red Card, was appalled by the comments and said it was clearly discrimination.

‘The qualification for Mr Scully’s comments that “I am not racist” is bizarre,’ Show Racism the Red Card co-ordinator Garrett Mullan said.

‘There cannot be an acceptance of racism within politics in Ireland.’
Sue Conlan, chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, said: ‘Negative stereotypes create racism, and as we saw earlier this week when a Nigerian taxi driver was assaulted, this can lead to violence.

‘We all have a role to play in counteracting negative stereotypes and our elected officials have a special role to play in promoting tolerance and inclusion throughout the community. Cllr Scully’s comments are outrageous and not worthy of an elected representative.’

Catherine Murphy, an Independent MP for Mr Scully’s constituency, Kildare North, said the remarks were ‘outrageous’ and ‘totally unacceptable’. She described as ‘unfathomable’ the reasons why he felt the need to make such a statement.

‘While listening to Kildare FM this morning I could scarcely believe what I was hearing.
‘It’s right and proper that Cllr Scully step down as Mayor of Naas immediately and I welcome his decision to do so.

‘However, it’s essential that if he remains as a public representative he must undertake to represent all of the people, without qualification or prejudice.’

Taxi driver Ola Akinsete, who is originally from Nigeria, met Mr Scully last month after he drove him home to Kerdiff Park in Naas.

The 44-year-old, who has lived in Naas since 2000, said: ‘The racial issue in Naas is becoming so bad for the past three years – it’s becoming an epidemic.

But it’s a big shock to me to hear him say those comments as a young man, it’s unbelievable.
‘What’s happening in Naas are discussions about what the black community is doing to the town. For instance, some people say we are taking their jobs and taking over the place. This should not be the attitude of some of the public. We are in a different century.

‘I came to Ireland for a better life but now my wife, Kate, and I just make sure our children are safe and have a better upbringing.

‘If this situation continues, how are my children able to live in a country where they have been brought up with such racial issues?’

For his remarks, Mr. Scully now faces six months to two years in jail or fines ranging from €1000 – €10,000 ($1337.54 – $13,375.40). The police are already investigating him. Wikipedia meanwhile has been quickly updated with references in several articles to Mr. Scully’s misdeeds and infamy.

So the question ought to be, rather, How are Mr. Scully’s children to live in a country where they cannot even complain about obnoxious Blacks? Where a person cannot say he has had it up to here with their bad behaviour?

Note that these Blacks were not being denied representation, and neither were they being deprived of courtesy, even when their behaviour made them undeserving; Mr. Scully had, in fact, been referring them elsewhere so that their concerns would be addressed by a more suitable representative.

Note also that Mr. Scully had not been acting out of prejudice. He had had first-hand experience with Black Africans throughout most of his thirties. If there are negative stereotypes about Blacks, why is it never anything to do with their behaviour? I suppose the Left will attempt to psychologise Mr. Scully’s experiences, theorising that he imagined the bad behaviour because he harboured ‘subterranean prejudices’ against Blacks; or else by theorising that it was Mr. Scully who elicited the bad behaviour in some subtle way, through his posture or word choices.

It is difficult to sympathise with a member of a conservative political party, since conservatives are always cowards and doubly guilty of leading us to where we are. Yet it is not only the likes of Mr. Scully who are persecuted for publicly making a fair and honest statement. Thus, even if we conclude that Mr. Scully is enjoying just desserts as a conservative politician, it is worth mentioning that, as is usually with reports of these types of incident, the consequences to Mr. Scully’s family are passed in silence. The best-case scenario for this family is that it will be left poorer by €1000, not a trivial sum in relation to a councillor’s salary in these difficult times; absent luck, Mr. Scully’s children could be left without a father for up to two years. The burden will fall on them and his wife, as previously did the stress on her husband caused by his Black constituents. Should her husband be fined the larger amount, it will be she who may have have to apply for a loan, with no guarantees of obtaining one, thanks to the tight credit markets of these past few years.

Let us explore what it will mean for Mr. Scully to be convicted, besides debts, public humiliation, and having to find a new line of work.

Job applications ask about convictions and employers routinely conduct checks, so, if convicted, Mr. Scully will be legally required to mention his, which may make employment difficult. Some convictions are considered ‘spent’ after five years, but no conviction is ever spent for people in the following professions: doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, layers, opticians, teachers, police officers, and child care. These professions will be barred to Mr. Scully.

And so would, potentially, retraining: convictions may lead to being refused a place at a university.
Convictions can also mean being excluded from a country, which means Mr. Scully may find future travel limited, particularly with the United States. Similarly, Mr. Scully would encounter difficulties obtaining a work or residential permit, since information about previous convictions and proof of good character are legally required.

Unless Mr. Scully already owns his house, he will be required to disclose his conviction when applying for a mortgage. Not doing so would cause problems as it would be considered a breach of the mortgage agreement.

A conviction will, in addition, make it almost impossible to get any kind of insurance. Unspent convictions must be disclosed and this may lead to his being refused or to sky-high premiums.

Again, perhaps just desserts for Mr. Scully, whose ‘centre-Right’ party, Fine Gael, governs in coalition with Labour, a party that made state-sponsored diversity an item in their 2011 election manifesto. But one has to wonder what kind of people do this to a man simply because he was honest and desired to do his job without being subjected to abuse. What is more, what kind of people do this to a family?

Still, for some this is insufficient, and the likes of Muslim Labour MP Moosajee Bhamjee still want even harsher punishments and penalties. I wonder how far he would like the laws to go? Life in prison? Cutting out the tongue?

Meanwhile, the likes of Mr. Ola Akinsete, who evidently was too happy to chip in and also kick Mr. Scully while he was down, does not want anyone to notice, think, or talk about the fact that Blacks are visibly altering the town and gaining housing and jobs at the expense of the natives, upon whom they have been imposed by politicians.

It is ironic for a country that fought a war of independence from Britain—still remembered by a few alive today—to create conditions that effectively put its own citizens at a disadvantage in the face of African and Muslim colonisation. Either liberty is a burden or else liberty means not liberty, but freedom to choose some form of slavery.

Ireland is not alone in this, of course, for the other Western nations have gone down the same route, with the enthusiastic support of many of its citizens as well—though not the majority.

This remains the unsolved X-file of the West as a whole.

Miguel Serrano: In Nehru's India (Pt. 2)

2011-11-10T01:57:00.000-08:00

First posted on Wermod and Wermod: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news101120111834.html

Cecilia Valdés Urrutia

(Translated by Alex Kurtagic)

Editor's Note: The following is an interview with Miguel Serrano, originally published in El Mercurio, in Santiago, Chile on 18 October 1998. The interview appeared as one piece, but we have broken it into two parts. What follows is part two. Part one was published yesterday.

C. G. Jung and Hermann Hesse

In India, you received a letter from Professor Carl Gustav Jung, who wrote a preface for one of your books, The Visits from the Queen of Sheba.

Yes. And in a recent biography about Jung that I found, by German professor Gerhard Wehr, the latter dedicates two chapters to refer to Jung’s relationship with me. He tells that Jung barely received visits from members of his family or his disciples, but that he did receive mine. And that he talked with me about things that he had not talked about with anyone else. It’s true. Because with him I touched a key point.

The Archetypes?

Yes. The Visit of the Queen the Sheba, the archetype of love, the archetype of the woman who had also visited him, the same as me. An impersonal relationship was established between us. And it was so certain, that Doctor Jacobi would ask me about what Jung thought about the Age of Aquarius . . . And when I passed this book along to Jung (The Visits of the Queen of Sheba), he said: you have touched the point. It was then that he revealed something to me with very great delicacy. He took out a book called The Transformations of the Libido[Psychology of the Unconscious: a study of the transformations and symbolisms of the libido, a contribution to the history of the evolution of thought] and showed me a series of paintings and drawings. He told me that he had done it with a woman he had known. And when I asked him about her he told me: she died many years ago and I am now very old . . . Later I knew it was Toni Woolff, which it seems was a great love that nearly destroyed his marriage. Years later, when I lived in the house that had been Hermann Hesse’s, I received a letter by a man who told me that the person to which I have referred is his wife’s grandmother, and that he was sending me something that that grandmother hand written. Its title was The Friend in the Unconscious.

And what happens with the letter that you received earlier, from Jung, about your work The Visits of the Queen of Sheba?

When I received it I was having lunch in Indian with Arnold Toynbee (a great British historian), who was arriving from Zurich having celebrated Jung’s birthday. Toynbee had confessed to me that it had been Jung’s conception of the archetype that led him to conceive his theory about the sudden start of civilisation. I showed him Jung’s letter and I told him about my intention to request it from Jung as a preface for my book. Toynbee said to me: how can you even think of doing that? That was enough for me to ask it from Jung. He replied to me in less than a week, telling me he felt honoured to give me that letter as a preface.

It was, I believe, the only preface by Jung to any work of literature.

Yes . . . And there is no other Chilean author who has been prefaced by Jung.

Jung wrote in there that it was dreams within dreams . . . and added about your book that ‘the unconscious or what we designate by this name, presents the author in his psychological aspect’.

In its aesthetic aspect, more than anything. Because for Jung, the unconscious was the root and basis for all differentiated phenomena: art, philosophy, music. And music he defined as ‘the archetypes of movement’. That preface by Jung is marvellous. He also told me in the letter that he had reached the point where what he had to do was to keep his treasure, for he could accomplish no more, because that could serve to illuminate the darkness of the creator.

How did your approach to Jung begin?

I was very interested in his work, in 1947, when I travelled to Antarctica. I took with me his book, The Relationship Between the Self and the Unconscious. There, for the first time, I came to know the idea of Jung’s archetypes. I was greatly impressed when he makes a wonderful interpretation of an esoteric Christianity, like when he says that Jesus was possessed by the spirit of the father . . . Later, in India, I read and read Jung. And there [in India] arrived the actress Jennifer Jones, who was being psychoanalysed by a Jungian doctor in Switzerland. I decided to go to Switzerland . . . Thanks to her I went to his house . . .

Jung, in the end, sent me a letter that is a veritable ‘ideological testament’. Where he refers to what he believed in, to his convictions, to his flying saucers, which for him were round as a symbol of totality . . . I donated it to Jung’s Library in Zurich.

And how was C. G. Jung’s personality?

He had an enormous sense of humour. It was he who said to me, in his house in Küsnacht: if you meet the queen of Sheba, don’t make the mistake of marrying her, because you will both destroy yourselves. The queen of Sheba is for love, not for marriage. She must be taken the way a glass of Cognac is taken in a single-gulp glass, because if it is taken in a beer glass it dies. And the solution, he added, is the harem, polygamy, but it turns out it’s too expensive, so we can’t do that now . . . And the queen of Sheba is polygamous. She lights up, enamours, men. She is not Beatrice, is not Margaret, is not Goethe’s ‘eternal feminine that leads to heaven’ . . . Jung was brilliant. And very deep. A poet. Out of the three or four intense encounters that we had (besides the letters) he said, in the end, leaning on a ceremonial Taoist Chinese walking stick: only poets will understand me.

It was such a deep relationship with Jung, that, upon his death, I sent a letter to Hermann Hesse and I said: ‘why have you hosted me with such deference, I who am nobody?’ At that point they asked Hesse for a contribution for a special issue of a Zurich daily dedicated to Jung. He sent my letter, saying: ‘I request that you publish this letter that has reached me by this Chilean writer’. And so it was.

Was Hermann Hesse very good friends with Jung?

Hermann Hesse changed his life because of Jung. Once he came to know Jung’s psychology of the depths, the relationship of the archetypes, and was psychoanalysed by Jung, he changed his literature completely and wrote Demian, which is all into Jungian psychology, of the mother, of the self. His came to be a deep, magic literature.

And which are your favourite books by Hesse?

…Narcissus and Goldmund, Demian, Siddharta, and The Glass Bead Game, of course . . .

Was the assimilation of Eastern thought in Hesse also a great point of encounter with you?

Yes. But I knew it before going to India. I arrived at his house in Montagnola, in 1953, as a pilgrim, with a rucksack on my back and a book in my hand . . . Searching for his house. He never received anyone and on his door there was a sign that read: ‘When a man has grown old and wants to be alone, walk past this house wayfarer as if there was no one here and he had died, carry on with your journey’ (signed with a Chinese name, but it was him). His employee, who had by chance travelled with me in the bus, helped me to have him receive me.

Miguel Serrano’s encounters and travels do not end there. In India he was also very close to the Dalai Lama, being the only foreigner who received him in the Himalayas, when he fled China’s invasion of Tibet. He spent time with Aldous Huxley and, what is more, Indian princes and pricesses, mythical, esoteric figures, who in this third volume of memoirs he commits to paper with the same fountain pen he used to write The Visits of the Queen of Sheba.

Notes:

The C. G. Jung Papers Collection, access to which is regulated by the Foundation for the Works of C. G. Jung. (Ed.)

Miguel Serrano: In Nehru's India - Pt. 1

2011-11-09T18:55:00.000-08:00

First posted on Wermod and Wermod: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news091120111456.html

Cecilia Valdés Urrutia

(Translated by Alex Kurtagic)

Editor's Note: The following is an interview with Miguel Serrano, originally published in El Mercurio, in Santiago, Chile on 18 October 1998. The interview appeared as one piece, but we have broken it into two parts. What follows is part one. Part two will follow in a day or so.

Like few and no other Chilean, Miguel Serrano walked around and worked in India (1953-1962) almost like a member of Prime Minister Nehru’s family. He interned himself in their lives, their beliefs, and India’s millenarian culture. His relationship with Indira Gandhi transcended national borders. For the first time he tells, here and in the third volume of his memoirs, something about the truth of his intimate closeness to her. Likewise he reveals aspects of his friendship with notable figures, like Professor Carl Gustav Jung, who hosted him, towards the end of his days, when he almost no longer spoke to anyone, and who prefaced one of his books, an event never before seen. Serrano also talks about his close contact with Hermann Hesse and many others, like Arnold Toynbee and the Dalai Lama.

Contrary to what many may believe, with great delicacy and sensibility, and his deep sky-blue eyes, the renowned writer Miguel Serrano left all controversial topics (like his esoteric conception of Hitlerism) out of the present encounter. He focused, instead, on one of the great values he believes in: friendship. That which he held with some of the personages that are already part of the pages of history.

With Nehru

Your relationship with Nehru, India’s Prime Minister, was it very special?

Yes. He was a very reserved, introverted person, who did not easily open himself to anyone. He was not like that with me. It was perhaps due to my spontaneity and lack of diplomatic experience. How did that happen? I never treated political matters with him. They noticed—Indians are like that—that I was genuinely interested in the person, in their world: in the ideas, in the tradition, in the history, in the religion, in the philosophy of India. Thus they opened up and gave me all their support.

How did your [first] encounter with Jawaharlal Nehru take place?

I met him when I presented my credentials. In him the defects and qualities of Indian man manifested themselves intensely. They are very difficult and mistrustful people at first, perhaps because of what they have suffered, imperialism and conquests. Nehru was a man whom diplomats were not allowed to see, save exceptionally. Often he did not open his mouth, regarding what they spoke about as piffle. Nehru, in addition, never looked at you in the eye. Indians consider it imprudent, a lack of respect, to look someone in the eye, and in this they resemble the pre-Columbian Indians of our America: they don’t look, they see the essential. Nehru was like that at first. Upon presenting my credentials, when I spoke about saltpetre and copper he showed no interest at all. But at one point I said something that a diplomat would have never allowed himself: ‘Your Excellency, in your visage there is the sadness of the world, perhaps like a trace of the suffering of humanity’. Nehru was touched. He closed his eyes. The chief of protocol grew uneasy, but not Nehru. From that moment on he distinguished me from the rest and I was not yet an ambassador, only someone in charge of business.

You say that Nehru ‘was a poet of life’.

He was truly a poet. It is enough to read excerpts from his will to realise. The way in which he refers to the rivers in India: it is an enormous poesy to the Ganges river. The regions he loved so much, the cities, the nature, the farmers, India’s great tradition. It is the testament of a great poet. In his desk drawer they found, in addition, a beautiful poem by Robert Frost, which he often read.

And Nehru, like you, greatly admired Carl Jung . . .

He admired him and read him. And it was Nehru that I first told of the death of Professor Jung. When I learnt about it, I immediately spoke to his secretary, and he told me that Nehru was not in that day because he was leaving for the valley of the gods… I got in my car and arrived at the airport at the moment when Nehru was boarding the aeroplane. They let me through, I told him, and he said to me, greatly affected: What can I do? He asked me to go on his behalf to the Ministry of External Affairs and to speak to the Foreign Secretary so that he may send on his behalf a telegram to Jung’s family. I did so. And when I later travelled to Zurich, Jung’s closest collaborator, an Englishwoman, and his secretary, told me that they had been very touched by Nehru’s telegram.

When did Indira, Nehru’s daughter, appear in your life?

At one point I desired to obtain India’s support for Chile, for the presidency of the United Nations. I resorted to him. My wife and children were returning to Chile, so I went with them and left them waiting outside. I told Nehru. He had them come in. My daughter had brought for him a great bouquet of flowers. It cheered him up greatly and he did not tire of patting my son. That same afternoon, during a homage ceremony to Burma’s Prime Minister, Nehru, with an enormous smile, presented me as Ambassador (I was not yet so) and later told me that he gave the bouquet of flowers to his daughter, Indira. There began a new relationship with Nehru.

But, How did you grow close to Indira?

I had noticed that Nehru’s heart was his daughter, and his grandchildren. And the matter developed all on its own. When Claudio Arrau’s representative sent me a telegram from New York asking me to have Arrau invited to India, he was still in the process of making himself known in the world. India’s Minister of Culture was a princess from Kapurthala, but again I bypassed protocol and went directly to ask for an audience with Gandhi’s daughter, who held no position in politics. It was she who ran Nehru’s house. But I already knew that Indira loved Western classical music, very different from that of India. She received me, very flattered. And she solved all my problems. I managed to get Arrau to hold a free concert for the victims. There our relationship began, little by little. Later I invited his children during the new year, Rajiv (who was later Prime Minister) to play with my children. Later Indira held a costume party and I sent my elder son, Cristián, dressed as a nurse and with bearing a small chamber pot. Thus it all wove itself and arrived at a greater relationship . . .

The Truth with Indira

You, who came to know Indira Gandhi so well, what would you say is the centre of fascination with her personality?

You can ask Gabriel Valdés in Chile: they brought in Indira in an official visit and said: one feels the urge to kiss her hands. Nevertheless, Indira could also be like her father: to enter silence, without a way to get her out of it. If she wanted to be unpleasant, she was the most unpleasant. She had a very special beauty, with a fine body, slender, fragile, with a wonderful skin, a very unique smile and a deep gaze. She was of a very ancient beauty, with a very great feminine charm, which occurs in women from India, as in the mystical Anandamayi, who I believe spoke about God with such coquetry that no one could stop believing in Him. Indira had, in addition, a great sense of humour. I have told of when I presented to her Roberto Rossellini, who at that time was in poor relations withIngrid Bergman and caused a Sikh’s wife to fall in love with him—from a warrior tribe in India, who were, at bottom, the ones who killed Indira, because they were the body of protection she had. Rossellini sought to get this woman out of India, on the pretext of a film, and Indira asked me what I thought what was happening with her. I asked Rossellini and I told her what he said: nothing. But upon leaving India that woman was expecting a child. When I next encountered Indira, ashamed, she told me, laughing: don’t worry, I know Italians well . . .

You say about Indira that you have ‘always admired her courage in facing life and her feelings, without regard for convention, or what rumours may come’.

For the first time I tell something about my true relationship with Indira. Because in Chile this matter ran and ran and when she was officially invited they did not want to bring me along out of that prudery thing… The radicals and even Allende himself would have brought me along for that same reason. But Chile had already been swept by a rumour of which the culprit was Carlos Basallo, former Under-Secretary of Foreign Relations, who was witness when Indira invited me to a dinner for the Emperor of Ethiopia, and I called her afterwards so that she may invite him. That, Basallo was not able to believe. He arrived in Chile saying that Chile’s Ambassador in India had a very particular relationship with Nehru’s daughter. The rumour also reached other parts of the world, even Russia. But there is more, and that is why I say that Indira took no care at all, because civil servants in India and even his son Rajiv realised that between Indira and I there was something very great. It is true there was one. But from there to . . . It is all delicately stated in my memoirs.

You confess ‘it was I who took care of her, but she imposed her affection for me on her country and the world’.

That’s correct. Like when he immediately received Margarita Ducci, because she had sent her a letter. And she granted her an audience, in the midst travelling, in order to ask her about my life and to tell her why I had not written to her in so long… Between us that so subtle and at the same time so eternal thing took place. Because relationships with the Indians are established in the realm of the impersonal, beyond the personal. It so happens that because they believe in reincarnation, they think that this relationship is not only of today, but also from before and for tomorrow, for always. Thus they will not give up something like that, out of fear of what people may say . . . But she was a woman for an eternal love, ‘not for a carnal passion, not for a love that becomes corrupt and passes. Love, not Liebe. And that love I could not give her, I had already given it…’ [as he relates in his book].

Serrano’s relationship with Nehru’s family was such that following his mission in India, upon attending the tragic funerals of Nehru and Indira Gandhi, they sought to place him next to the Nehru family. The chief of Eternal Affairs in India said: ‘You cannot imagine what Ambassador Serrano was for us during the 1950s. He was like a member of this family’.

Notes:
This was in 1953.

Dutch Halal Ban—A Lesson from Europe?

2011-11-06T03:24:00.000-08:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/dutch-halal-ban—a-lesson-from-europe/

The BBC reports:

Next month the Dutch parliament is expected to approve a ban on halal and kosher methods of slaughtering animals for food.
Those who proposed the ban say it is simply an issue of animal welfare, but it received strong support from the right-wing Freedom Party.
Many see it as a violation of their religious freedom, and among the Jewish community it is a worrying echo of a similar ban brought in by Hitler.

One of the Muslims interviewed moaned that the Dutch desire Muslims to be Muslims at home, but not in society. I think that is correct. And, what is more, I venture that many would also define 'home' as 'not in the Netherlands'—meaning, overseas, far away, where the Muslims came from originally and ought to have remained.

It is disappointing that the Nethelands' chief Rabbi, Benjamin Jacobs, hauls in Hitler and the Holocaust to bolster his complaint (see video in the BBC report). Could he not have voiced his displeasure without doing that?

Be that as it may, this ban on halal butchery shows what is still possible to achieve in contemporary politics, despite the state-sponsored policies of immigration and multiculturalism.

Animal welfare has preoccupied both the liberals and traditionalists, and because this common ground exists, it has been possible for anti-immigration politicians to use arguments processable by their opponents to slow down the damage caused… by their opponents.

This is not the only example of how the very ideology of the Left can be turned against them—with Leftists' approval.

Another has been criticism of Israel's human rights record, which has resulted in academic boycotts of Israel. Although progress on that front has been somewhat slow.

Yet another should be opposition to the debt racket ran by the banksters of Goldman Sachs and their ilk. There have been screams of disgust from both extremes of the political spectrum, but no tactical coalition has been formed in order to achieve fundamental reform in this area.

I bears noting, however, that policies or practices that indirectly exclude non-European immigrants and their descendants are, from the point of view of tactical politics, not entirely reliable, and ought to be formulated with care.

In December 2005, for example, Soulidarieta, a charity group with alleged links to Identity Bloc, began distributing pork soup to the needy at locations close to soup kitchens. Alsace Solidarity launched a similar initiative in Strasbourg a few weeks later. The traditional soup was designated 'Identity Soup' by its chefs.

Within less than two months officials banned the handouts in Strasbourg and the police closed down offending soup kitchens Paris. This, at the urging of an anti-racism group, the rather Orwellian Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, whose lobbyists urged the then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to impose a country-wide ban.

Strasbourg's mayor, alerted to the racial subtext, pontificated: 'Schemes with racial subtexts must be denounced'.

The weakness of this scheme was that the Left does not care about traditional cuisine or traditional anything, the way that they think they care about things like animal welfare and human rights. Thus, although the anti-racists' complaint was eventually rejected in the courts, it was easy initially to impose a ban.

It seems it has been less easy to argue against banning halal butchery, even if there is a racial subtext, when animal welfare is concerned. Note that a supporter of the Dutch ban is Marianne Thieme's Party for Animals, a party that for modern standards is considered to be of the 'centre-Left'.

Perhaps there are lessons for identity politicians here.

Tito Perdue's The Sweet-Scented Manuscript

2011-11-02T15:36:00.000-07:00

First published on Wermod and Wermod: http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news021120111800.html

The Sweet-Scented Manuscript is Tito Perdue's first novel, though not his debut, a status that the vicissitudes of fortune and of the publishing industry dictated would be Lee, his most critically acclaimed work. The latter shares the protagonist with the novel at hand, which recounts Leland (Lee) Pefley's first year at Antioch College, in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1956-57.

As it happens, that first year is also his last, because, somehow, despite the college turning out a cesspit of permissiveness and scruffy Marxist radicals, of students with—to use Tito's terminology—a 'glandular' conception of romance, Lee manages to get expelled, along with Judy, his stunning sweetheart, and their best friends.

The narrative progresses in linear fashion, and begins with Lee riding a bus en route to the college. The boy has left his native Alabama behind and is venturing into 'the North' for the first time. He is introspective, nervous, and absent-minded, surrounded by a bestiary of miserable fellow travellers, his bus driven by a gloomy and glowering driver, while his hand checks constantly that his wallet is still in his pocket. Lee the dreamer is wholly innocent of crowds and urban life. One of this preoccupations is identifying intellectual geniuses—for he imagines these are the type of people who attend university, and somehow expects them to have a particular look about them, which leads him, as he approaches his destination, to scrutinise those in his age group bearing books. These opening scenes dilate for many pages, crammed with detail and clever phrasing, setting a leisurely pace for and the ironic tone of the rest of the novel. This is one to be read slowly, relishing every sentence like a rich desert wine.

Of course, Lee, who by this time has experienced a whole series of petty indignities, has a moment of panic upon arrival, suddenly eager to hide and run straight back to Alabama. Instead, he puts on his bored expression and ploughs on towards the college campus. (Misanthropic that he is, he will not deny himself an experience.) There he meets Luke, a hyperactive, studious, loquacious, well-dressed Jewish student, who just about armwrings our suspicious hero into becoming his roommate. Lee is so self-absorbed and nervous that he, under his aloof veneer, forgets he is still carrying his suitcase as Luke leads him around the campus.

It is not long before Lee is disabused as to the nature of the college ecology, which pullulates with depressive existentialists, Marxist charlatans, and sex-crazed lazy philistines. Yet it is also not long before he encounters Judy, a short, busty brunette from New York, coveted by all the male students, and also an ice queen. Lee, hit as if by a crocket mallet to the face, recognises his destiny, and he seizes the moment boldly to go where no man has dared before, securing a dance with the belle—much to the outrage and despair of those less gifted in the testicular department than he. Young man that he is, however, and emboldened by his achievement in a single evening, Lee succumbs to hubris, and causes—with an attempted kiss—an abrupt retreat, which sets him up for a protracted game of cat and mouse with the capricious girl.

You will have to read the novel to discover what happens, but suffice it to say that this is a magical love story, cute, visceral, and absorbing, with a caliginous dreamlike atmosphere, a charismatic voice, clever dialogue, and endearing characters so real that they almost feel like personal friends. Indeed, one is almost able to inhale the distinctive air of that time and place, almost a witness to events, rather than a reader from cynical postmodernity, half a century removed.

And yet, this is more than a love story, for as the story migrates into Cleveland's slums and windy Chicago, the novel is riddled with amusing incidents, troubled characters, menacing creeps, and trenchant observations, immortalised in literature in the inimitable bookish fashion of a reactionary snob—of an amiable but misanthropic Southerner like Tito Perdue, who hates young people because 'they are always smiling'. Nostalgia for the romantic aspects of the 1950s in America combines with fascination for the corruption, the squalor, and the misery of the 'adult' world, as discovered by a dreamy 18-year-old boy—a boy who completely rejects and is ill-adapted for the modern system of wage slavery, hypocrisy, iracund mini-despots, and semi-catatonic drudgery. Because for him progress in life is a function of being kicked out of ever larger institutions.

The Sweet-Scented Manuscript is also riddled with all manner of idiosyncratic leitmotifs, phrasal and descriptive, deployed by Perdue to deadpan humourous effect, somehow in a manner that fuses Wagner with the dulcifluous 1950s ballads recurring throughout the novel. Bus drivers are always surly and sarcastic; journalists are always fat; and adults are always angry and miserable, or suppressing anger and misery. Suppressed aggression is a subtle thematic undercurrent.

The latter is organically linked to another despite its higher aspirations: Lee is obsessed with books. Books are the first thing he notices in a room, the library one of the first places he visits, and a reading list one of his first gifts for Judy. And yet, in his intellectual preoccupations, he combines the irreverent, agrestial naïvety of a rural upbringing with an uncompromising, cultured superciliousness. In a way he lives in and detached from a world that is not good enough for him, either in its bucolic or metropolitan facets, and which is progressively to get further and further removed from his ideals.

This being Perdue's first novel and largely autobiographical, it is afflicted by some of the expected traits of an incipient literary writer with superior talent and an archaic mind: the narration, for example, is hyper-real, recording every remembered detail, at times more for Perdue's benefit than for the reader. The dialogue can sometimes be confusing, as it is often reproduced without beats. Also there is vague evidence of this having been originally a much longer work—Tito tells me that his initial draft was 1,000 pages long, with double the final wordcount, and that he wrote the novel with a mechanical typewriter, in 1983, knowing nothing about novel writing except for the fact that novels were long.

All the same, the story is told in a terrifically amusing manner, and every page is a constellation of little gems. While immersed in this novel, for example, my wife asked me to read her a couple of pages. I ended up reading 27 because she kept laughing at Perdue's descriptions of trivial situations, and at the kind of things that made him, or Lee, indignant. For a modern reader, the America of the 1950s, or at least the parts of it that interested Perdue, is very quaint, particularly as seen through the eyes of someone who both is nostalgic for that era and was horrified by its decadence and lacking authenticity. This is especially true in the interactions between Lee and Judy, the starry-eyed competitive lovers, whose relationship has the charm of innocence associated with those times.

One is sad to reach the end.

As an author, Perdue says he admires Orwell, Faulkner, Hardy, and Dostoevsky, but contemporary readers will probably not fail to notice similarities between my work and Perdue's. In unusual ways, there are some astounding parallels, which neither he nor I failed to note after exchanging novels over the Summer, even though our voices and novels are different. I am also reminded somewhat of Alexander Theroux, another misanthropic, anti-modern, sesquipedalophiliac author of literary fiction. However, unlike Theroux, the pitiless satirist, or myself, the scientific artist, Perdue is a disgusted but amused romantic.

If you are interested in Perdue's work, it may be a good strategy to begin with The Sweet-Scented Manuscript, and then follow Lee's adventures chronologically: The New Austerities (Lee at 42), published in 1994; Journey to a Location (Lee at 70), to be published by Arktos; Materials for all Future Historians (Lee at 71), not yet published;Lee (Lee at 72), published in 1991; and Fields of Asphodel (Lee in the post-mortem world), published in 2007. Two other Lee novels exist, The Smut Book (Lee at 11) and Morning Crafts (Lee at 13). The latter will be published by Arktos, with specially commissioned cover artwork by yours truly.

You can purchase The Sweet-Scented Manuscript and Perdue's other extant novels from our online book shop here.

And What About the Pygmies, Bienvenu?

2011-10-27T17:21:00.000-07:00

First published in The Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/10/and-what-about-the-pygmies-bienvenu/

Those who read Mister will remember than in my future dystopia Herge’s Tintin in Congo circulated in the underground as a banned text. This was not entirely without reason, as in real life one Bienvenu Mbutu Mondondo, a Congolese citizen based in Belgium, has since at least 2007 been on a crusade to get the comic book banned.

According to the latest AFP report:

Lawyers for Bienvenu Mbutu Mondondo, a Congolese citizen who brought the charges, claim the book to be “a justification of colonisation and of white supremacy” that should be deemed racist under Belgian law and pulled off shelves.
Rejecting the charge as “a totally twisted reading” of the book, which has sold 10 million copies worldwide, the lawyer for the publisher and the copyright firm, Alain Berenboom, said Herge’s book was a mere reflection of his times.

While the publishers themselves

denied racism charges against the controversial comic book Friday, telling a Belgian court it reflected the “kind paternalism” of the 1930s, when it was penned.

Because, apparently,

Herge, who was only 23 when he wrote the comic, which was later revised in 1946, had never left Belgium and drew his inspiration from reports by missionaries, museum artefacts and articles in the “bourgeois and conservative press”.

And according to the Times,

… to today’s reader, many of the scenes range from politically incorrect to hideously offensive, including one in which a black woman bows before Tintin exclaiming, “White man very great. White mister is big juju man!”

The case is yet to be decided, but following the final hearing, a ruling is finally expected in February.

Advertisement

Either the comic will be banned, or Mr. Mbutu will have to pay damages for his frivoulous misuse of the judicial process.

Meanwhile,

copies sold in Britain now come with a band around the outside warning that it may be offensive.

To me, however, the important question is this: Why does a man from Congo think he can come and live in Belgium and tell Belgians what comics they may or may not read in their own home?

Answer: because he can.

Here we have yet another example of what happens when abstractions dreamt up by Whites, and which make sense in the context of a racially homogeneous European society, become a menace to that society if disseminated outside, or learnt by large numbers of outsiders residing inside, the native context of those abstractions. In this case, the offending abstraction is ‘equality’, a notion whose inner logic leads irremediably to this type of situation. If the message emanating from European and European-derived societies was that Whites come first and foremost by virtue of their being in their own homeland, and that from a legal point of view genetically distant foreigners come last, as Whites do in Black-ruled republics in Africa, Mr. Mbutu would have never chosen permanently to settle in Belgium nor would he have ever had the audacity or the pretension to tell Belgians what they are allowed to do in their own home.

In connection with the universalisation of Enlightenment abstractions, the French and the Americans have suffered the worst consequences.

France lost her most prosperous and profitable colony: Haiti, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and one of the most corrupt in the world, used to be called Saint-Domingue and known as ‘the jewel of the Antilles’. Lothrop Stoddard, in his 1914 book The French Revolution in San Domingo, tells how the news and the ideas of the revolution in France ended up inflaming the huge coloured population in the colony and triggering a fifteen-year race war, which concluded with Black rule and the extermination of all the remaining Whites in the newly formed republic.

The United States also ended up with Black rule, except that the gradual destruction of prosperity and the process of eliminating the Whites were by then well under way and the latter is being more slowly and more insidiously accomplished.

In both cases it was the Whites who provided the ideas, the funding, and much of the organising, and the Whites who most vehemently believed in the ideology of their own immolation.

Neither victim of universalised Enlightenment abstractions has learnt the lesson. On the contrary, they continue actively to pursue their application and meekly to yield to any demands made by extra-European ethnic activists who have appropriated these well-meaning abstractions for their own ends.

I say ‘appropriated’ because the aforementioned abstractions are not sincerely believed, let alone practiced, by non-White ethic activists, as is amply illustrated in Jared Taylor’s White Identity and Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group.

For a variety of reasons, ranging from cultural to sociobiological to physiological, Enlightenment abstractions and their consequent conception as universally applicable, are a quintessentially Northern European invention. Thus, it was the White Europeans, beginning with the British Empire, that first abolished slavery, while West African kingdoms were scandalised at the news.

It is rich for Mr. Mbutu, as a Congolese, to pontificate about racism, colonialism, and White Supremacy, while Congo remains conspicuous for the non-arrival of its golden age of human rights. The Bantus in the Republic of Congo practice slavery, today, with pygmies, while their neighbours in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been eating pygmies in a campaign of extermination—or at least they were as recently as 2003, according to the UN. Where is Mr. Mbutu’s outrage at this barbarism? While people are enslaved or eaten in his homeland, Mr. Mbutu resides comfortably in Belgium, pursuing a spurious lawsuit against a publisher on account of an eighty-year-old comic book.

Mr. Mbutu should shut up and be grateful for the opportunities he has been able to enjoy in Belgium. The very fact that he has the time and the tranquillity of mind to ensnare himself in legal battles over an old comic book is testimony to how much better life is for him in Europe, as opposed to in his native Congo, where he would face an entirely different order of problems. There, disease and famine are widespread; weapons-bearers kill civilians, destroy property, and commit sexual violence; corruption is among the highest in the world; elections are rigged; coup d’états are frequent; and life expectancy is less than 54 years.

Mr. Mbutu should also remember that under White Supremacy the Democratic Republic of Congo became the most industrialised country in the continent after South Africa. And that under Black Supremacy, it went from that to being nominally the second poorest country on the planet. This despite its being the richest in the world in terms of natural resources, worth $24,000,000,000,000, or the gross domestic product of the United States and Europe combined.

If only the Congo were as idyllic as in Herge’s Tintin!

This said, I am neither surprised by Mr. Mbutu’s actions, nor do I blame him for his choices: for a Congolese, they are rational.

My main problem is the ideas that made Mr. Mbutu’s crusade possible, as well as the unfinished business of post-colonialism.

Because it is clear that, while (at least in Europe) the ideas posed no existential threat when they were originally formulated, they do pose it in the age of global telecommunications and jet propulsion commercial aircraft, where these technologies are open to peoples who would never have had them were it not for the White man’s obsession with ‘developing’ (i.e., Westernising) peoples who were never meant to be ‘developed’.

And also because it is clear that the dismantling of the European empires was incomplete, in the sense that sovereignty was devolved to the natives while European institutions, infrastructure, education system, economic system, and Enlightenment ideology remained in place and actively encouraged by the Western powers—in other words, in the sense that European imperialism never really went away, but was sublimated into a series of European practices adopted by the non-European natives.

The end result is that Europe not only ends up being a target for peoples who do not love Europe, let alone ‘get’ what it takes to be European and create European-style societies, but who do love what Europe has to offer in terms of creature comforts, personal safety, material wealth, infrastructure, and government subsidies. That is to say, who see Europeans as wallets, left open and unattended by their trusting owners, for others to help themselves.

If we are to save ourselves from ourselves (because it is we who created Mr. Mbutu and we who made those who fund people like him prosper), we will need to jettison Enlightenment abstractions once and for all, and reformulate our national cultures upon different philosophical premises.

Therefore, understanding that the equality ideology of the modern West represents but one strand, or one possible expression of Western culture among others, is essential. It is an error to identify this strand as the culture itself simply because it is the dominant paradigm and there is no one alive that remembers how it was before. Cultural paradigms come and go in cycles, and in time liberalism will fall as something else will rise.

We just have to make sure that that something else is autochthonous, made by us and for us, rather than by us for someone else, or by someone else for them.

Going back to Tintin in Congo: I read this comic book when I was a child and found it entertaining. It did not by any means suddenly transform me into a fire-breathing White Supremacist. Rather, it has been the likes of Mr. Mbutu, or, more precisely, the ones who filled his head with all that rubbish about White Supremacism, who have transformed that smiley little boy into a fire-breathing commentator.

End of a Cycle

2011-10-26T17:18:00.000-07:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/end-of-a-cycle/

MacMillan has made available to us an excerpt of Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower audiobook. The atmosphere in this recording is, as you may expect, dark, grim, apocalyptic—one cannot help but imagine how this will sound on the other side of the catastrophe, once what we know today and once knew is gone, and this audio, surviving perhaps in fragments, found in some archeological site, petrified but somehow partially recovered and translated, provides the titans of the next manvantara with a glimpse of what it must have been like for people in the vanished American civilisation to live in the final slope of the Kali-Yuga.

You can hear the clip here.

The West as a Tomb

2011-10-19T03:51:00.000-07:00

First published on The Occidental Observer: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/10/the-west-as-a-tomb/

In earlier articles I discussed the negative culture within the racialist Right, focusing on two common examples: the ‘worse-is-better’ mantra, and ‘naysayerism’.

A third example is the insistence that the racialist Right, White Nationalism, White advocacy, whatever you may want to call it, is about ‘defending Western culture’.

It may seem strange to conceive the defence of Western culture as a negative, and it certainly does not have to be one. However, it is a negative when the movement that claims to be for it, the very nature of the struggle, is conceptualised in defensive terms.

The implication is that Western culture is static and that it is its enemies who are in motion—in this case by attacking it.

This leads to a further implication: that Western culture is not dynamic, that it has no outward thrust of its own, that it is therefore dead, essentially a tomb in need of preservationists, and is consequently faced with either holding out or being flattened by the enemy charge.

This makes the cause for Western civilisation not active, but reactive. It makes said cause a reaction against a dynamic enemy that has seized the initiative and is aggressively pursuing self-defined goals—a dynamic enemy that is expanding and therefore needs to make space at the expense of what stands in its way.

Zombie Civilisation

There is no denying that Western culture has come under attack—and not on one front, but on all fronts, from multiple enemies, who hate each other but who for now operate in a freakshow coalition.

Advertisement

There is also no denying that Western culture needs to be defended against its enemies.

But defence alone is insufficient if one is truly for Western culture, because to be content with just defending is to accept that Western culture has died, that it no longer has creative possibilities, that at least for us this is truly the end of history. That the West is a zombie civilisation.

By contrast, a dynamic force sees itself in a perpetual state of revolution.

Revolutions seek to destroy, but they seek to destroy in order to create, in order to replace what was with what is, and what is with what will be.

The initiative is always with the revolutionary, because he has a destiny, a project, and a vision of what could be. He is dissatisfied with the status quo and is actively involved in the process of creating something better—or at least different.

Therefore, if one is truly for Western culture, one is a revolutionary.

To see Westernism as revolution is to accept that Western culture is alive, that it is full of creative possibilities, that it is actively making history.

Mere preservationism, also called conservatism, or cheering the previous revolution, equals death.

Pathways to Revolution

Now, when we speak of revolution, we usually imagine youngsters in balaclavas hurling Molotov cocktails, raiding government buildings, and vociferous agitators shouting slogans through megaphones.

However, revolution is not only about Wall Street in flames and politicians hanging from lampposts.

There are also cultural revolutions, scientific revolutions, economic revolutions, and more.

There are also slower and less obvious but still profound revolutions, such as that brought about in painting by the development of perspective, or that caused by the introduction of agriculture.

And the same way that there are many types of revolution there are many types of revolutionary.

In a cultural revolution, which is the one that concerns us, since it is a prerequisite for viable identity politics, an author, a painter, a musician, a philosopher, an economist, or a mystic can be a revolutionary.

Past cultural revolutions have involved all of the above, since otherwise the citizenry would not have had the ideals, the images, or the sounds to animate them and direct their energy towards systemic change.

Without them, a mobilised citizenry produces merely a riot—a riot like the ones we saw in London back in August, where the uprising took the form of mindlessly smashing property and raiding shops for their consumer goods.

It is perhaps significant in understanding the difference to note that the only shop that was left alone was Waterstones, the bookshop.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Frustration with the persistence of modern trends in the face of the decades spent trying to resist them or reverse them is often voiced within the racialist Right.

‘It’s time to stop talking and start doing!’ they say.

Such frustration is understandable.

But the fact is that revolutions begin with words.

Marxism began with Karl Marx writing long, boring essays about economics and history.

Marx, in fact, wrote a lot of words: the English edition of Das Kapital contains nearly a million of them.

Freud was the same: all he did was produce words, without any scientific basis, so we can literally say he was all talk.

And yet, our entire academic establishment, particularly in the humanities, is in the grip of a Freudo-Marxist scholasticism: all of the required reading in universities is in some way or another part of a tradition founded on the vocables of these two word-mongers.

By the time the first Molotov cocktail is flying through the air on its way to a government office window, millions upon millions of words have been poured into people’s homes.

Indeed, the Molotov cocktail is propelled by a torrent of words, masses upon masses of them, which over time have been distilled into a few catchy slogans—slogans have been delivered alongside a specific imagery, iconography, and musical accompaniment.

Those who were old enough in the 1960s witnessed how it is done.

Sclerosis of the Left

I return to the phrase ‘the end of history’.

It is no surprise that it was coined by a neo-conservative.

In other words by a person that combines the worst of both worlds: a liberal who is also a conservative.

This is symptomatic of where the Left is today. As their paradigm accelerates towards its logical extreme, they are reaching the end of the line.

It is literally the end of history for them.

And it suits them to see the world this way, as it suggests there is nothing beyond, and certainly nothing better, than what they have put on the table.

However, to us it is a sign of their intellectual bankruptcy.

For them, everything that could be thought has been thought, and everything could be said has been said. They even admit to it themselves; see Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition.

They have not yet succeeded in doing everything they could do, but that does not matter because hardly any cultural revolution ever achieves all of its objectives. All that remains for them is to repeat themselves over and over again, ever more stridently, ever more insistently, and ever more desperately.

Hence, the progression towards totalitarian methods: the speech laws, the thought police, the prison terms, the CCTV, the limits on freedom of association, and so on.

Hence also the entrechment of an academic scholasticism, rather than the sweep of vibrant intellectual movements.

What we are witnessing is the scelotisation of their revolution, the exhaustion of its possibilities.

This sclerotisation has opened possibilities for another revolution, for, not only has the Left failed across the board, on every level, but the citizenry is manifestly tired of always the same faces, the same names, the same slogans, the same arguments, and things getting worse and worse, with the persistence of problems always being explained in terms there not being enough of the same.

If the citizenry is not rising up, and keeps voting for the same politicians, it is because they have yet to see an alternative that to them seems credible.

Pushing Outwards

Evidently, pushing that which is falling is not enough, anymore than defending the previous revolution is not enough.

Similarly, attacking simply in order to send enemies away is not enough because it is still a defensive strategy. It is still merely reactive in that the enemy is already at the gates.

Being for the West has to be a creative process—it has to involve the active production of culture, Western culture.

Only by actively producing culture—culture that is new, vibrant, relevant, unique, and of a high standard— will the West prosper and its enemies wither.

Only by pushing outwards through growth and densification will what is inside be safeguarded and increased, and the enemy outside forced to retrench or disperse.

A measure of success is when the enemy begins to define himself against what we are for—when the enemy goes from calling themselves liberal, modern, and egalitarian, to calling themselves anti-Traditional, anti-futurist, anti-elitist, and so on, because their own terms have already been discredited and all they have left is negation of the opposite.

Practical Implications

What does this mean for the person who is for the West?

The answer is different for each individual, because each individual is different, and has a different suit of traits—a different set of inclinations, skills, and natural abilities. Also a different national culture. What each individual can do for the Western cause is usually a function of what each individual is good at and enjoys doing, as well as a function in most cases of his national culture.

In a sense it is no different from what we already do in our daily lives. If we have musical ability, we make music; if we are intelligent and enjoy science, we become scientists; if we are French and like philosophy, we write philosophical tracts in French. And if we speak several languages and have specialised knowledge, we translate.

In another sense it is profoundly different, because many presently—out of ignorance or necessity—work for the enemy, either by lending the enemy their time or their talent or by letting the enemy to get all their money.

Each individual has to find his or her own way of channelling their time, their talent, and the resources they generate with them into endeavours that further the Western cause, and therefore the prosperity of the race.

For creative types the challenge is maintaining artistic and moral integrity, finding the way to make a living without having to sell out to the enemy’s system.

For others the challenge may be in fostering—through funding, organising, or both— the creation of alternative vehicles for the creative process, alternative structures that enable the production, promotion, distribution, delivery, and validation of creative output that operate outside of the establishment’s matrix.

The latter is just as important as the creative process, and ought to be regarded part of that creative process, because in Western societies the anti-Western enemy enforces compliance mainly through the citizen’s dependency on the resources it controls, be it money, employment, or status systems.

Ultimately, it boils down to each person recognising what is possible and enjoyable for him or her and having the initiative and the courage to follow through.

And in the majority of cases, talent, hard work, and a can-do mentality is more important than exceptional courage.

What is He Doing?

2011-10-19T02:57:00.000-07:00

First published on Alternative Right: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/what-is-he-doing/

Four years after the event, singer and former Smiths frontman, Steven Morrissey, has decided to sue the New Musical Express (NME) magazine for libel in connection with an article where he was criticised ‘for allegedly telling a reporter Britain had lost its identity due to high levels of immigration’.

According to The Guardian,

Lawyers for the former Smiths frontman told the high court on Monday that the singer “continues to suffer” reputational damage from a controversial interview he gave to NMEmagazine four years ago in which he complained about an “immigration explosion” leading to a loss of British identity.
In a written submission, Morrissey said his comments received “a barrage of press” at the time, and added: “Question marks over my being a racist have never since receded”.

This is the latest instalment of a

bitter standoff that spans almost two decades – in 1992 NME accused him of “flirting with disaster” and racist imagery after he wrapped a union flag around himself while on stage in Finsbury Park, north London . . . .

In the opposite corner, however, Catrin Evans, acting for the magazine, takes the view that:

“[t]he fact that [Morrissey] has spent the three years since March 2008 recording albums, touring, promoting his new work and presumably doing well enough commercially to be able now to contemplate funding this libel claim, shows that his reputation has been unaffected. His fans apparently still love him,” Evans told the court. She pointed out that the offending interview had never been published online and continues to exist “only in Morrissey fans’ bedrooms”.

In 2007 Morrissey was quoted by the NME as saying

Although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous.
If you travel to Germany, it’s still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity.
But travel to England and you have no idea where you are

Following which, in a follow-up interview, he

is alleged to have added that he did not think his comments were inflammatory, but were “a statement of fact”.

It says something about the Left, and indeed about the politics of the mainstream music industry, that even Morrissey’s perfectly reasonable and accurate observations were deemed, according to Tim Jonze, the journalist who interviewed Morrissey, ‘offensive’, and according to the NME, racist. These people are so far to the Left that they will only be seen when instruments able to detect the cosmic gravitational wave background are invented. (The predicted redshift is in excess of z > 10²⁵.)

Be that as it may, one cannot help but wonder why, if Morrissey believes that successive governments’ policy on immigration has had a negative impact in Britain, he cares about the opinions of those who supported that policy.

I certainly don’t. Do you?

On the other hand, it is difficult to ascertain Morrissey’s real attitudes an intentions, given that in 2004 he was a founding signatory of the violent terrorist group United Against Fascism, and that the year following his ‘offensive’ remarks he donated £75,000 (some $150,000 at the time) to a campaign sponsored by the aforementioned group, Love Music Hate Racism.

As to his politics, Morrissey is known to have criticised conservative politicians and to have been rooting for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry in the U.S. presidential elections of 2004.

Thus this seems the case of a Leftist suing other Leftists for using Leftist reputational weapons because of his criticism of Leftist policies.

Put another way, this seems a case of Leftists seeking to redistribute wealth among themselves and contribute a big chunk to fattening their lawyers.

I hope the legal process proves detailed and comprehensive, and that they spare no funds, and leave no stone unturned, unearthing every document, taking as many years as are needed, in their search for the truth.

Masters of the Universe

2011-10-17T14:42:00.000-07:00

You can now watch my speech for the National Policy Institute's conference, held at the Reagan Building in Washington D.C., on 10 September 2011.

Apparently, I was the highlight of the evening.

Other speakers included, Sam Dickson, Keith Preston, Byron Roth, Richard Spencer, Tomislav Sunic, and Jared Taylor.

To watch my speech, click here.

Becoming 'Masters of the Universe'

2011-10-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

You can now watch a new (video) interview on Alternative Right, hosted by Richard Spencer, where I discuss my recent speech for the National Policy Institute in Washington D.C., which took place in the Reagan Building on 10 September 2011.

To watch, click here.