Do you understand subversion?

Julius Evola was an Italian aristocrat, mystic and a genius who wrote about the subject of meta-history. 

The Tools of the Occult War
Julius Evola

Link

“The occult war is when the forces of worldwide subversion lead from behind the scenes, adopting means that almost always elude ordinary methods of investigation. The notion of an occult war belongs to a tridimensional vision of history, to a history considered not according to the two dimensional surface of apparent causes, events, and leaders, but otherwise, depending on the third dimension of depth, the subterranean direction, that retrieves the decisive forces and influences which are often not even ascribable to the simple human element, whether individual or collective.”

Read Full Post »

Patriotism: Good for Israel, Bad for Greece

Oh look its the Holocau$t card, as nations around the world are forbidden to enact the same kind of ethnocentric policies which Israel takes for granted.

Jewish leaders call for ban on Greek nationalism; Greek PM promises law against questioning the “Holocaust”
Link

“Antonis Samaras, traitor and current Prime Minister of Greece, promised Jewish leaders that he would introduce a new law to prevent parties which question the “Holocaust” from running for parliament in Greece.”

“WJC President Lauder called upon the Greek parliament to outlaw the Greek nationalist party, Golden Dawn.”

Read Full Post »

The mental universe of capitalism

Associated Press business reporter Pamela Sampson offers us a fascinating insight into the minds of the world’s capitalist elite.

Link

“Chavez invested Venezuela’s oil wealth into social programs including state-run food markets, cash benefits for poor families, free health clinics and education programs. But those gains were meager compared with the spectacular construction projects that oil riches spurred in glittering Middle Eastern cities, including the world’s tallest building in Dubai and plans for branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim museums in Abu Dhabi.”

Read Full Post »

I don’t hate eugenics, I hate eugenicists

According to the Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘eugenics’ is simply “a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed”. There exists no agenda in eugenics beyond the application of stock-breeding to humans, which means that some form of eugenics is probably compatible with all religions and cultures, indeed cultures have been practicing eugenics for thousands of years (often without a comparable term), and eugenics doesn’t prescribe a means or even in itself a definition of which traits are eugenic. Nonetheless, leaving aside value judgements out of the question as much as is possible, there is a value-neutral measure of what is eugenic – the fitness of the population, in the sense that would be understood by conservation biologists, is not a social construct.

Why, then, do eugenicists get my back up when I read them on the internet? It’s for three reasons that I can think of, which are their lack of understanding of the relevant science, they feel attracted to the famous anti-eugenic straw man of the ‘war against the weak’ and live in such an agenda-driven unreality that they can’t see eugenic programs would, if applied in the present social climate of Cultural Marxism, actually be used against themselves and their offspring.

Lets give online eugenics a reality check to see how well it stands up to scrutiny – the Spartans and the Nazis may not have valued all human lives equally but nonetheless the lives of their own people possessed value until it was demonstrated otherwise. Amazonian tribes practice infanticide to increase the fitness of the group, but it isn’t the general position – forcing a mother to kill her own baby is clearly a punishment inflicted for exceptional, inappropriate reproductive behaviour that threatens the survival of a subsistence society. When you get to pseudo-eugenicists decrying that human lives are assumed to have inherent value at all unless there’sa reason otherwise, which isn’t the belief that all human life has equal value, we’re dealing with the pathological and, if there’s an allele that predisposed them to think like that, with the dysgenic.

Much of the appeal of pseudo-eugenics is at the emotional rather than the rational level. Online eugenicists are famously outspoken in support of what are known as anti-dysgenic or negative eugenic measures, whilst they say next to nothing in support of positive eugenics. This is because poorly reasoned pseudo-eugenics is an outlet for them to vent frustration at society. There isn’t really a serious argument to consider there, just a boring and parrot-like repetition of Freakonomics-like half-truths by people unable to understand the sciences even at the most basic level. An informative irony here is that many of these people who talk about eugenics, which is related to breeding, never seem to have sex or offspring themselves. It must be very frustrating for such beta male basement dwellers, to see all those ‘cads’ out-reproducing dads whilst they’re watching porn on their computers. These people often see dominant, traditional alpha males as though they were omega thugs, one wonders why that might be.

Moving from psychology to philosophy, let us consider the following proposition as an analogy to common pseudo-eugenic thinking about social issues.

“Black people should be allowed to own guns, because black criminals mostly shoot one another, and therefore we should overlook the white victims of black gun criminals as a collateral damage of criminal blacks wiping themselves out. We should encourage blacks to own firearms (or, at the very least, tolerate the ready availability of firearms to black criminals).”

Most people would, hopefully, see the above logic as insane, especially if they are white advocates. Anyone who would argue for such a thing would be turning a blind eye to the damage being inflicted upon their own people, out of their irrational resentment towards outsiders. Yet this is precisely the thinking of people who follow the crazy Freakonomics line of argument even after the author admitted his argument was false. Even worse than gun violence, liberalised abortion particularly hollows out individuals with eugenic traits – either abortion should be very strictly regulated for the proper purposes (as it is in Iran), or access to the procedure should be forbidden at all costs. Effective modern contraception is also abused too often by those we wish to have more children.

As for the argument about single mothers (ie. regardless of race), this is quite clearly moral aggression and misplaced altruistic punishment. Regardless of intent, by downplaying the role of society as well as heredity in the life choices of individuals from a given background. Targeting entire communities for negative eugenics isn’t the same as targeting the more harmful members of those communities such as drug addicts, of course this is anti-white and offensive where the support for grassroots activism would be strongest. People who believe that perfectly healthy white children should be burned as hospital waste because it will save money for society are an undesirable artifact of a society that good people won’t wish to preserve. I don’t want to sound like a feminist here, but I’d choose honest single mothers signing on for state benefits over the genetic load of resentful basement dwellers, any time I might be forced to choose.

If we look at the strange logic of pseudo-eugenics, it commits a confusion along the lines of is and ought – their argument assumes (contra Galton, and history itself) that antinatalist measures will be taken up by those who they see as bad people, whilst those they see as good people will embrace their own way of thinking. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the error in this kind of thinking. Along the same lines they like to insist that, if the good people aren’t breeding, its because of indoctrination by feminism and related social movements which in turn, implicitly suggests that the desirable people would instantly start to behave as the pseudo-eugenicists think they should, if only they could be shown the light of pseudo-eugenics to set them free. There is no thought given to the possibility that societies might be predisposed to nonsense like feminism as a consequence of antinatalist trends. If all human behaviours are natural then tendencies that evolved as a means to control population size in the ancient past have now kicked into self-destructive overdrive because of excess affluence – Japan has a birthrate below replacement, but how many women in Japan have been exposed to feminist perspectives? Japan has however suffered from the same kind of excessive affluence disintegrating the west.

Those who support social approval for methods such as abortion that violate the organic bonds of parenthood, or amount to the pre-emptive executions of those who may not yet turn out criminal, are in outright violation of our culture and such people require their twisted values to be re-educated. Every life of one of our own people, who can at the very least contribute through inclusive fitness, really is ‘sacred’, for want of a better word, not for sentimental reasons but because we have an interest in our own survival. And this means that, when the time comes, those who have treated white offspring as trash will need to be ‘removed’ from the breeding stock.

Read Full Post »

Why I’m not a conservative

What do conservatives conserve, and who do their values help other than their egos?

Teaching Table Manners to Cannibals
Matt Parrott

Link

“Traditionalist conservative Roger Scruton recently penned an excellent article, “Bring Back Stigma,” which vividly chronicles the decline of social stigma and the absurd and insufferable consequences of living in a shameless society. It’s a fine read, but it’s also paleoconservative in the worst possible way. He dabbles in heresy with his lamentation that “the only binding law is the law of the market.” In doing so, he deserves credit for performing the revolutionary act of identifying capitalism as a cardinal cause of our misfortune rather than the solution contemporary “conservatives” and libertarians imagine it to be.

Imagine how infuriating it would be, though, to go to a hospital where the doctors eloquently opine on every symptom of the disease, describing each blister and boil with elegance and flair. Imagine sitting there on the table in the gown for hours and hours as they describe the similarities between your own condition and the condition of former patients, validating your suffering and even providing insightful perspectives and prognoses. Mr. Scruton fully agrees that the current social order is derelict and diseased, but he’ll never diagnose it. He’ll never prescribe a treatment. All he can do and all he will ever do is lament that things are not as they ought to be.

The time has long past for a Burkean retreat to the past. There’s no norm left to conform to. The wise old men and little old ladies of today formulated their politics during the height of the Sexual Revolution. To be conservative is to embrace vintage liberalism. Taboos against identitarianism, hierarchy, and antisemitism are baked into all but the most ancient and marginalized Western traditions. It would be nice if we could merely ape all the symptoms of a healthy and cohesive community, but you can’t cure a disease by willing away or suppressing its effects. Diseases are cured by isolating the root causes and the mechanisms, then resolving those problems.“

“In essence, his argument is that we must take risks and make sacrifices on behalf of a community which is virulently opposed to everything we stand for. His prescription is worse than useless, it’s harmful. It’s enabling a decadent and alienated anti-community. We set ourselves up as their prudish foils, expose ourselves to their contempt, and make their lives easier with our unreciprocated altruism. It’s like helping a whore put her skirt back on after each performance and fancying ourselves champions of modesty and virtue. It’s like trying to teach a cannibal table manners while he’s boiling you in his pot.”

 

Read Full Post »

England for the English or the Israelis?

 

Who are the rabble of pisshead football fans really defending?

The only good thing about the EDL mobs is that they help widen a crack in the system. Then again, you can say that about the anti-Semitism of the “British” Moslems themselves.

English Defence League & “Counter-Jihad” Exposed
Åke Blomdahl

Link

“In many countries in Europe opposition to mass immigration is growing, and several nationalist parties have won spots in democratic assemblies. In many cases these so-called nationalist parties have distinguished themselves as highly critical of Muslim immigration and Islamization, while calling themselves “anti-racists” and saying they accept immigration if the migrants adapt themselves to the European host nations’ cultures. The latest development is the so-called “Counter Jihad” movement, with grassroots organizations like the English Defence League, which brings together thousands of young people in spectacular, aggressive demonstrations against Islamization.

In parallel with this, older nationalist parties are demonized and attacked through infiltration and the spreading of rumors. In many places, competing “nationalist” parties have emerged. In England, the British Freedom Party has grown at the British National Party’s expense. In Belgium, the New Flemish Alliance (NVA) has grown at the expense of the Vlaams Belang.

Common to all the new parties is cultural nationalism, aggressive anti-Islamism, and strong support for Israel’s and America’s most aggressive Zionist forces.

We are not lovers of Muslim immigration and Islamization, but there would be major problems with mass immigration even if not a single Muslim came.

What’s going on?”

Read Full Post »

Babes, sucklings and racial differences

 

Unless someone thinks newborn children have been exposed to cultural influences, then this ought to count as a pretty good demonstration that racial differences are innate.

Dan Freedman’s babies

Gregory Cochran

Link

“Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago.  For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs.  He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies.”

“He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds.  Excuse me, different races. He looked at newborn babies in a hospital in San Francisco where his first child had been born. He compared Cantonese babies with babies of Northern European origin. The division of sexes was the same, the mothers were the same age, they had about the same number of previous children, and they had been administered the same drugs in the same amounts  during labor.”

“White babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed; for example, when placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as the Caucasian babies did. They briefly pressed the baby’s nose with a cloth, forcing him to breath with his mouth. Most white (and black) babies fight this maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands, and this is reported in Western pediatric textbooks as normal. While the average Chinese baby would simply lay on his back, breathing through the mouth, accepting the cloth without a fight.“

“Later, he looked at Navaho babies: they’re like Chinese, only more so.

Japanese babies are like Chinese, but less so: more irritable, but not as irritable as white kids.”

Read Full Post »

Some observations on politics (re: AltRight)

I don’t know whether I’m banned from AltRight or not because I can’t post there anymore, however someone named ‘ConantheContrarian’ has personally asked me a question so here’s my response in case they want a reply from me. I’ve also replied to someone else named ‘stormrung e’ who raised dome interesting points as a reply to me. Incidentally I have an anonymous mailbox if you have any questions to ask that you think might deserve my time replying, I won’t mind.

---

ConantheContrarian:
“Skadhi, if I read your comments correctly, you are not an American. Whatever the case, who would be your ideal candidate for president of the USA? Just curious.”

Me:
I’m British and I don’t follow American politics all that closely in the first place, besides all that I oppose electoral democracy on principle. However none of the big four American parties – Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green – actually appeal to me that much. Economically I’m a leftist because I support socially minded economic policies such as restrictions on banks and corporations, as well as state support for the most vulnerable in society. But on several social issues I’m closer to conservatives, especially as regards the family and reproduction. Out of the four I’m maybe closest to the Greens, but I still doubt I’m that close to them.

My perception of the UK and America is that lassez faire social liberalism has undermined the procreative and humanistic basis of our society whilst lassez faire ‘conservatives’ have undermined its economic basis simultaneously through their own parallel ideologies. Furthermore I see the social conservatism of Republicans/Tories and the social justice of the Democrats/Labour to be obviously insincere judging from their past records of empty promises. You could just say I’m not gullible.

---

Someone else named ‘stormrung e’ also replied to me about my ‘participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality’. So I had a think about that.

---

stormrung e:
“First, refer to what Roman Bernard has written above.

But let me answer your question: Because by joining in a critique of European colonialism, you are participating in what has become a line of thought dominated by agenda-driven unreality.

For European civilization, the Age of Empire was a golden age.The United States realized this and when they became strong enough and defeated the weakening Spanish, embarked upon influencing Asian countries for their national good. This decision by a majority white U.S. had long-lasting influence on the region, and may be the primary reason why many Asian countries are booming today. (Source: The Hungry World-America’s Cold War Battle Against Hunger in Asia.)

So, if you join in the shallow leftist critique of European colonialism you deny, like leftists, the many good things it brought to the colonized peoples. You also miss the fact that the Bolivarian Revolution, like its Soviet father, is an imperialist project itself.

And you completely miss the fact, which nationalists should intimately understand, that the Bolivarian Revolution and International Socialism funds, supports, and invigorates its brother movements for indigenous rights and anti-white ethnic nationalism in the guise as anti-colonialism. (Source: Frenchness and the African Diaspora and From Toussaint To Tupac-The Black International Since the Age of Revolution.)

This is a plague of vision, as there are even some pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin nationalists who hate Jews to the point they will defend Stalin’s empire even though it enslaved the white countries surrounding Russia. White countries who were more than happy to be rid of the Soviet mess.

But this is endemic in left-wing thinking, which white nationalism seems to be dominated by today. I am wondering if Greg Johnson will be defending the ANC next. He should, because Chavez is a protege of Castro and old Fidel (along with the KGB) threw a lot of support to the ANC and their intellectual and strategic vanguard, the South African Communist Party (SACP). I don’t think any of these left-wing nationalists want to make the argument that the ANC and the South Africa they have created is worthy of our alliance and sympathies, do they?

They may! But if they do, let me end with a quote by Joe Slovo, the head of the SACP, whose name is on a lot of buildings and housing projects in South Africa today.

From a 1986 interview with the BBC:

BBC: But, can I ask what is a legitimate target?

Slovo – I think a legitimate target is the enemy and enemy is basically in uniform, but not all in Uniform. For example in the rural areas, our judgement is that virtually the whole farming community is part of the South African Defence Force.

White – Is it the white farming community?

Slovo – The white farming community… They live with their wives, they live with their children, but I believe in that case it is not acting (against) civilian targets when one acts against those people who are part of the enemy’s military machine in the countryside.”

Me:
Besides the fact my ancestors were subject to European colonialism (against other white Europeans), and our liberation was supported by the Axis and also by Mosley, I don’t agree that the age of the European empires was a Golden Age for the peoples that supposedly benefited. In Victorian Britain, this was the age of child chimney sweeps, the Highland Clearances, and various other kinds of one-sided exploitation that hardly constitute a golden age for whites in my mind.

I don’t think that anyone fair would wish to deny that colonialism helped the colonised in many ways, or that the native people in vast parts of the world (especially Africa) were better off under imperialism than they have been under dictatorship since. Nonetheless, those same societies are now being contaminated by ideas from the west that arrived thanks to the introduction into their lands of a western culture that was becoming debased – the Age of Empires was an age of capitalism and the time of Marx and Engels. Clearly Devi’s observation that ‘their fight is also our fight’ if foreigners share our ideals has never been more true, precisely because of the political effects of globalism upon formerly unconnected societies.

In the white homelands and even in the former ‘white dominions’, ethnic conflicts and disputes with indigenous minorities are naturally very rare and, when they actually do occur, are about ‘whites vs. whites’ rather than of ‘us vs. them’. For example in Sweden, a fuss is made over the rights of Sami reindeer herders as a means to stir up the dog-whistle kind of ethnocentrism, creating a red herring to detract public anger from the more deserving target of race replacement and rape by far more recent arrivals than themselves.

I do however agree with ‘stormrung e’ mind you about the kneejerk anti-Semitic Stalinists and I concur that anyone who supports someone like Slovo is not someone who shares our fight in the way Savitri Devi would have approved of.

Incidentally, if anyone is curious, what Roman Bernard wrote and that ‘stormrung e’ refers to (and that I pretty much approve of) was that we shouldn’t dwell on victimhood and that any non-western ethnies who see our people as racial enemies of kind are not worth supporting.

Read Full Post »

Mircea Eliade as the Gandhi of the right

Mircea Eliade, although he was a brilliant scholar of comparative religion, was quite an odious individual in his private life. People like to present him as some kind of revolutionary right wing thinker, either to claim him as ‘one of ours’ or to denounce him as a fascist, as though any kind of involvement in right wing European circles during the 1930s or 1940s is tantamount to someone personally going round gassing six million Jews or something.

Yes, Eliade did have well known links to the Iron Guard both through his personal connections and political pragmatism but he was never a hardcore rightist or a great political thinker, and much his genuine thought was actually contrary to a lot of what the mainstream Romanian nationalist movements were saying at the time. People nowadays look back at Eliade with rose tinted spectacles to reclaim him as a nice respectable nationalist they can show to people, but because those rose tinted spectacles are unreliable lenses they form the subject of this piece.

In truthfulness, the source of Eliade’s borderline acceptability as a thinker is that he denounced racism and anti-Semitism, and was also a huge fan of Mohandas Gandhi, to whom we shall return later. Outside the political sphere, Eliade collaborated with known Marxist figures only to be accused and mauled by them later on as you might expect – they only sought to use him for entryism, you see. There is a lesson in here somewhere, but its only one we’re already familiar with a million times over. Politically, far from being a great thinker, Eliade was pretty damned naive and clues explaining Eliade’s present semi-respectability relative to well known but demonised figures (such as Devi or Evola) have to be found elsewhere than within his political insights.

Despite preaching Orthodox Christianity and all of its mores to he Kingdom of Romania, Saint Mircea knocked up his future wife Nina whilst they were still courting and he suggested that she ‘get rid of it’, which she did, following his advice – later causing her to die of uterine cancer as she deserved. In case anyone is wondering why Eliade suggested such a thing to a woman he would later marry, the pregnancy was actually inconvenient to him because he was fucking someone better looking at the same time. Would you want your own daughter to be dating a good Christian patriot like Mircea?

Of course its because Eliade talked a lot about ‘love’ that no one ever dwells upon what a jerk he actually was, it is simply acknowledged as a matter of mere biographical trivia that his selfishness and immaturity actually caused his own wife’s death. Such handwavium is quite unlike the readiness of people to judge his unsentimental friend Julius Evola who is merely alleged to have refused to support an illegitimate boy who was born to an Argentinian woman he once knew, and who was possibly his (but, the story goes, possibly not), this being purely on the allegations of Gelli’s very dubious biography that no one takes seriously as a source on Evola’s life regarding anything else.

Actually this brings up the subject of ‘Great Soul’ Gandhi again, because when Gandhi’s own wife was dying he refused on religious grounds to let her take the medicine that could have saved her life. Yet years later when it was Gandhi’s own turn to lie dying, he quaffed some quinine himself on the reasoning of ‘that’s different’. This completely odious bit of hypocrisy usually gets send down into the memory hole to present Gandhi in the best possible light, and the reasoning behind such a selective cultural memory seems to be because he spoke about nonviolence a lot.

A similar interpretation would explain why Eliade has a semi-respectability today that many of his contemporaries on the political right aren’t allowed to share in. Mohandas Gandhi was lovable because he said nice things, but the non-pacifist revolutionary Sunhas Chandra Bose didn’t. Baron Julius Evola wasn’t very lovable either, unlike Mircea Eliade who did say the kind of things that can earn one a pass from our leftist masters. The rule is that whenever someone is weak and sentimental in character and says only unthreatening things, all the shit in their life is guaranteed to get whitewashed after their death should anyone remember them, not unlike the way piss might run from a duck’s back.

But the facts speak for themselves. At the risk of sounding like a feminist, both Eliade and Gandhi controlled the lives of the women round them in ways that quite literally left them dead. And this is not spirituality but evil. And, at at the risk of sounding callous or sociopathic, their self-righteous messages of ‘love’ were nothing but sentimental and disgusting tools created to achieve a selfish end, as is any other such message for all morality, whether we wish it to be so or not, is ultimately a means of control.

Apart from Mircea Eliade’s contribution to the study of religion, as a character he had very few redeeming characteristics, making him indeed the Gandhi of the right.

Read Full Post »

There is no freedom in cults

Looking into a mirror can bring you out of your cave, and for Marxists and Libertarians their caves are their preferred secular cults of lies that opportunists created to fill the fill the hole left in society by the death of God.

Mussolini said that every anarchist is a baffled dictator.

Mussolini created briefly a Fascist empire, but for the ringleaders of the world’s sectarian kooks the power they seek is within their own guarded gate circlejerks rather in creating empires, revolutions or social change. To people with such a mentality their own irrelevance to the wider world even at the local level is no problem for their egos.

In A Mirror Darkly: Marxism and Libertarianism
Michael Enoch
Link

“This may surprise some people, but it really should not. Just because the two ideologies seem to be polar opposites in terms of doctrine and goals does not mean they do not attract essentially the same personality types.”

“Marxism and Libertarianism are essentially perverted mirror images of each other. Both are uncompromising, totalitarian, utopian and reject the status quo as morally intolerable according to their own esoteric philosophical constructs. These qualities are more likely to be attractive to a certain type of person than any particular point of dogma. Utopian idealogues are going to be attracted to revolutionary ideologies regardless of what turn out to be in reality rather minor differences in doctrine. It’s really just a matter of who gets to them first. Given the leftist nature of our culture, it will likely be the Marxists that make first contact.”

“I felt compelled to ragequit this leftist bizarro world when one Saturday afternoon I found myself in a run down YMCA in Brooklyn with a group of middle-aged Jewish public school teachers. They were discussing what the party line should be on radical Islam. On the one hand they found it to be a repugnant ideology, but on the other hand the Muslims were more effective at fighting US imperialism than any current socialist alternatives. And they were all taking it dead seriously as if it was anything other than a circle fap of epic proportions. I realized I had gone beyond full retard. An overwhelming sense of loathing washed over me like an awesome wave. The people I was around suddenly seemed twisted and horrible.”

“I started meeting the exact same kinds of people in the libertarian milieu that I encountered in the Marxist world. They tended to be younger and were therefore slightly less depressing, but many of them were well on their way to being the guy that holds meetings in the run down YMCA in Brooklyn and wears an out of style tweed jacket that smells vaguely of mothballs.”

“The same old narratives of oppression came back, just with the cast of characters shifted around a bit to suit a slightly different set of prejudices. The world really was the same dreary place after all. Oppression really was everywhere, it was just coming from a different direction. In this new world the workers are exploiting the capitalists rather than vice versa. Everyone really is equal, but in this narrative equality is never realized because of the state rather than corporations. Or maybe it really is corporations after all. Eh, whatever works. The evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy, unlike in the Marxist world where of course the evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy.“

Read Full Post »