In Defense Of Milo Yiannopoulos


Oi Vei!, the Alt Right struggles with self-definition yet again. Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos is befuddling the Left:

Following Out magazine’s recent profile of Breitbart Senior Editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, leftists have trotted out one of their favorite buzzwords: “white supremacist.”

Lucas Grindley of The Advocate, who can be seen in this piece’s header image, wrote an article reporting on an open letter signed by over forty LGBT reporters and media professionals condemning Out for their profile of Milo.

And the anime/neo-Nazi wing of the Right:

I have previously viewed Breitbart as a type of ally, as they are the only mainstream site which is presenting a relatively far-right narrative. It matters to me that they stood up against the likes of Shapiro and Michelle Fields. It matters to me that they give honest coverage of the migrant crisis, as well as Black Lives Matter. Their support for Trump is important to me.

However, any positives this site has are completely negated by the damage that Milo is doing.

Milo is the number one enemy of our movement. He is attempting to destroy us, and Breitbart is enabling him.

Let us consider this situation in realistic terms:

Yiannopoulos is a provocateur who delights in offending everyone as a means of subverting the culture of offense, or the idea that any speech which disturbs someone or anyone is bad and should be banned. He is the manifestation of the old ANUS motto “Say FVCK for FREEDOM” which was symbolic more than literal: whatever the herd fears must be spoken, loudly, to prevent the herd from demonizing it fully and banishing it from discussion.

He is granted this privilege by the fact that he is immune from attack. As a part-Jewish flamboyant gay man, he comes from two protected minority groups and can speak his mind without someone accusing him of being a privileged white male. He has minority privilege instead, which counts for a lot: Thomas Sowell wrote many things that a white man could not have written without ending his career. Yiannopoulos is bullet-proof and he uses that to divide the Left.

He does not claim to be Alt Right; he claims to be a cultural libertarian or some variation of the above, and yet he introduces gateway ideas that lead people to the Alt Right with every one of his speeches or writings. Some of these are quite advanced and combine conservative and libertarian thought. Often, he expresses a spectrum of Social Conservative through Traditionalist and Reactionary thought.

In other words, he does not attempt to speak for any group, but serves as a wedge splitting apart the Leftist lock on public discourse, and then kicks the Alt Right through that gap. He is a sapper, an advance vanguard, and on the whole, he has helped the Alt Right far more than he has hurt it.

As Out wrote:

A professional mischief maker and provocateur, he loves a grand entrance. Wherever Yiannopoulos goes, the Loki from London swoops in with rapid-fire talking points delivered in a playfulness so foreign—and intoxicating—to most journalists and Americans that they are left standing in the rubble, dumbfounded.

Is there a risk of entryism? Entryism is best measured in terms of ideas, not individuals, because individuals can camouflage themselves as extremists like the Hollywood White Nationalists who were 50% paid informers for the FBI. On the far right, the greatest threats come from people who are wearing Nazi uniforms and spouting extremist doctrine, but then use that to backdoor Leftist concepts as normal. Entryism through doorway-opening is not likely, although some who are clueless may use the doorway concepts as a defense to going further; this is where most of the resentment of Yiannopoulos comes from.

The Alt Right benefits from internal argument, dissent and disagreement not because these things are valuable in themselves, as the Left alleges, but because they reinforce the reasons for positions instead of — as uniformity can do — rewarding repetition of those positions as dogma. A healthy community will revisit its core ideas frequently to assess them again, and will find its conclusions were accurate, modifying details but not the substance as is necessary.

This dispenses with criticism of Yiannopoulos as a political figure.

His personal life also attracts criticism. He is indeed part Jewish, as this image from the BBC shows:


And if we take his carefully cultivated image at something approaching face value, he is also a flaming homosexual who enjoys the company of African-American males. If the symbolism of this caricature Otherness does not induce a smile, there may be no hope for you, really. Do we need more nagging nannies and uptight aunts on the Right? We all know how well that worked in the 1980s with the jihad against heavy metal and pornography. Most Rightists dislike those things, but find state-sponsored action against them to be the wrong solution, both for its calcified rigidity and its potential for abuse.

Homosexuals contribute to the Right, as do Jews, Asians, African-Americans and others. We have to ask at one point whether uniformity is more important, or whether having voices that understand and promote our ideas is more vital. The latter makes more sense, since these voices are not advocating for personal inclusion, but for the establishment of Alt Right ideas in the political discourse. They often do so from their own nations, where they are working for Rightist sanity against the overwhelming tide of Leftist lunacy, and are not attempting to subvert us.

As far as homosexuality goes, it has long been the position here that it should be tolerated in segregated gay communities. Pogroms against gays turn us into monsters and force gay men to go into the closet, at which point they attempt to have normal families, causing collateral and genetic damage. Acceptance of homosexuality as a norm or ideal is similarly unwise as it affects only about 2% of the population. A sensible middle path is to accept it where it belongs, in the gay neighborhoods and oyster bars of the world, so that gays have somewhere to go and the rest of us are separated from that activity.

In an ideal Alt Right state of the world, Yiannopoulos might end up in Israel living in a pink neighborhood in a port town. This is not a concern at this time, as that day is too far removed for thinking about it to be fruitful (no pun intended). However, right now we need allies, and any who can comprehend what we are on about and make a good case for it are good allies, and we should embrace them and relish the havoc they are wreaking upon the lunatics of the Left.

Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism


Now that the Alt Right is firmly established in the public mind, and media attempts to portray it as “white supremacy” have failed simply because it is more complex than that, the Alt Right faces an internal crisis: it must decide what it stands for, and what its goal is.

The Alt Right arose from the convergence of several postwar Rightist movements — the New Right, anti-modernists like Ted Kaczynski, the nationalism and Nietzscheanism of black metal, the anti-liberal critiques of Michel Houellebecq, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, revitalized Social Conservatism and Neoreaction — and still bears the internal conflicts between the differing methods and goals of each.

One large question it faces is whether it wants politics at all. The New Right made a convincing case that a cultural wave was needed to change politics, but Traditionalists rebutted that as long as we live in a society of mass opinion, the herd will always choose degenerate options. Mass opinion is the core of modernity and the root of all politics.

Sidestepping politics would act in accord with the founding idea of the Alt Right, which is that demography is destiny and genetics — not rules on paper or economic rewards — defines the nation and its future. That view is anti-egalitarian because it recognizes that we are not all equal in ability, either as groups or… and this part is unpopular… as individuals. Some are more fit to rule than others.

Richard Spencer of Alternative Right and Radix Journal fame recently gave a speech where he promoted the goal of a race-based state:

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family, and feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars. Before the onset of the “equality” sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dreams of equality and democracy—not so that we could “wake up” to reality; reality is boring—but so that we can take up the new dreams of channelling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of a new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic. We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

This image brilliantly describes why a homogeneous society provides the best option for us: with similarity of goal and abilities, we can not just be better on practical levels, but can also move toward a future that works for Us instead of facilitating the dreams of others. However, the question arises: is his vision homogeneous enough?

The American Conservative describes the roots of Americans:

By 1776, British colonists—mostly English, but with strong Scottish, Welsh, and Irish contingents, along with New York’s Dutch colonials and later German arrivals—had created an American branch of British civilization. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, they were long-settled: almost 170 years in Virginia, over 150 in Massachusetts. At great effort—and at the expense of the Indians they uprooted and the African slaves they imported—colonial Americans formed a nation in their own image. The diversity of their settlements reflected the variety of their British origins. David Hackett Fischer’s magisterial Albion’s Seed traces four great British colonial migrations that leave their mark still: Puritans from East Anglia to New England, Cavaliers from the West Country to Virginia, Quakers from the Midlands to the Delaware, and northern Britons, including the Scots-Irish, to the American backcountry.

Revolutionary Americans, the United States’ founders, were fairly homogeneous: 80 percent of British origin (60 percent English, 20 percent Scottish and Scots-Irish), most of the rest Dutch and German—the great majority American-born. Overwhelmingly Christian, 98 percent were Protestants.

This group made a fatal flaw in its plan: in its zeal for liberty, it forgot that civilization needs guardians.

As a result, it opened the doors to Europeans who were not Western European, and within forty years found itself embarking on a disastrous civil war in which these new Americans served a pivotal role.

The problem with White Nationalism — a variety of Race-Nationalism, as opposed to Ethno-Nationalism (the original definition of Nationalism) which designates a nation by ethnic group, such as “Germany for Germans” — is that it is a form of the proposition nation, or idea that we can combine dissimilar people and force our intent upon them to make them in our image through laws, economics and propaganda.

Proposition nations do not work. The failure of globalism that is currently roiling humanity is proof of that.

Our nation is still divided by pan-European immigration, causing division within the white voting base. The Southern and Eastern Europeans are disproportionately active in Leftist politics and most likely to support them, not because these non-Westerns are “bad” but because they see themselves as underdogs because they are not of the founding group, nor was this society designed for them. Their pride makes them committed to undermining the founding group.

If we are to restore Western Civilization, our goal must be to restore Western Civilization, which is defined by a population of Western peoples, or those from Western Europe who share a Nordic-Germanic root. Adulterating this will produce “ethno-Bolshevism,” or the creation of a generic white race which loses its Western character, and will also destroy that white race through mainstreaming of the trace admixture present in Southern/Irish and Eastern Europeans.

Spencer correctly gauges the magnitude of our task and the necessity of inspiration not just to “end problems” but to rebuild and rise higher than we have ever before. This is a statement of health and sanity. It shows us rising above the concerns of modern politics, and to make good on that quest, we must go further. As Dean Abbott writes in a scathing critique of those who demonize the “reactionary” label:

Reactionaries do not want to return to a “golden-age”. We want a future society consistent with the best of the past, that prizes spiritual riches over material ones, heritage over trinkets. Much reactionary thinking, far from being obsessed with returning to the past is quite vigorously focused on bringing that more humane future into being.

To be sane, we should take stock of where we are, what went wrong and how to create a plan which both avoids this pitfall and heads toward health. Starting with Generation X, our people have had to face the reality that the good and smart people are no longer in control, and that everything in nu-Western Civilization is corrupt and bad. Our task is Herculean, but our people perform best when faced with impossible odds. It is part of our DNA and our romantic mythos of ourselves.

One grim fact is that the ethno-Bolshevist state which triggered the Civil War will not save us; it will doom us, both politically by being unstable, and genetically through backdoored admixture. Instead, we must point our aspirations to the stars yet again, and go with what works: the ethno-state, not the race-state.

Freedom Is Slavery


If Neoreaction has a founding idea, it is that the mechanisms of power and not intent define the role of government; if the Alt Right has a core concept, it is that all things are merely what they are and act in self-interest. When we apply these ideas to our sacred cow institutions, we see something entirely different.

We might ask ourselves, for example, why the book 1984 is taught in every high school. Would a regime teach books that actually threaten it? Can a book, which is interpreted by its audience according to what they can understand and therefore limited in what it can express if it wants to reach a wide audience, ever threaten a regime, if understanding the power structure of that regime requires more than a one-dimensional emotional gloss?

To understand the nature of power is to validate the postmodern idea of the dichotomy of text and subtext. Text is the meaning of words as found in the dictionary, and the saying of publicly-acceptable things; subtext is the implications of the patterns found in words, and the articulation of that which will not make it past the social filter of public acceptance. In our society, nothing important is said in text because public opinion will destroy the speaker with ostracism, boycott and outright hostility.

What this means for the modern citizen is that what is said by government is not what it actually intends. What it intends is defined by its role, which in turn reflects who will be attracted to government. Those who want power without the legitimacy of ability will always be drawn to government. The competent will not.

In politics, the text is what government says it wants; the subtext is what government always wants, which is not optional or a choice, but what it needs to do in order to hold power. Those who understand this will rise in government, and those who do not will be shuttled off to somewhere else.

For this reason, government will always promise open-ended terms, or those which use the ambiguities of language to appear positive to us: equality, freedom, diversity, peace, love, friendship, empathy, compassion, kindness, and sympathy. These mean nothing, on the subtextual level, but have high importance on the textual level, and this alone tells us they are misleading.

These terms are open-ended because they do not indicate against what they are protecting. Equality, against what force of inequity? Peace, against what war? Love, against what hatred? Freedom, from what? — these questions are never answered. They want to use these terms which, linguistically, include all in their scope — freedom from everything to do anything — as a means of manipulating the human mind.

The root of this mentality is control. In any group, power belongs to the person who can hold the group together and direct them toward an objective, if for nothing else to keep them too busy to revolt or desert. Control is what holds the group together; it is equality, or the notion that every person must be motivated and threatened by the same forces. It appeals to the mentality of a powerful leader who wishes everyone else to fall in line and do his bidding, and flatters the individual, who believes he is receiving far treatment because everyone else gets exactly the same thing.

If human history has an Eternal Moron, it is the notion of equality/control. The two parts are inseparable: equality mandates equal treatment, which conveniently is what control demands, so that none threaten the hierarchy of two parts, comprised of a controlling agent and his minions.

A human group can always be held together by the notion of “everyone do the same thing.” This eliminates all internal conflict by assigning people the same rank, which allows the controller to directly micro-manage each person and avoids the need for secondary and tertiary ranks who could challenge the controller. Instead, each person has a choice: obey the herd, or face its wrath.

We call this “freedom” because we all have the same rights and obligations. On the other hand, this freedom requires us to give up most of our time to the process of being equal. We all truck on down to jobs that look about the same, which means that the fastest and smartest spend the same amount of time as the others, which flatters the others because then they do not feel inefficient.

In addition, because none have rank above any others, all face the same social problems. This means that instead of localizing the problems to those who cause them, all suffer alike. Similarly, any bureaucratic process is geared toward the lowest common denominator so that the least capable person can achieve it, but this means that the more capable wait through pointless tedium that they do not need.

1984 was a forgery. Written in respond to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, it posited a counter-theory to the Huxley idea, which was that societies destroy themselves through the selfish demands for power of individuals. Instead, Orwell argued, the problem is power itself, and the authoritarian systems it creates, ignoring the fact that there is a cause for the effect that is these authoritarian systems, and historically, it has been the notion of equality.

Our problem is not totalitarianism, but what creates totalitarianism, and that state suspiciously resembles “freedom.” The more different directions in which people move, the more strong authority is needed, until the point where only an all-powerful controller can keep the society together because it is so chaotic. Freedom is slavery. Huxley recognized the oppressive nature of groups with freedom, but Orwell tried to conceal it.

These groups form like tornadoes. At first, it is simply a few claiming victimhood who clash with the others, and then smarmy leaders arise to end that conflict. Their method is to reduce all to the same role. This mentality, called Crowdism and manifested in our time as Leftism, relies on self-pity: each person believes themselves to be a victim, and projects this onto others as a way of creating a group of victims who demand power.

In this way, we arrive at modernity. People spend all day at tedious jobs and bureaucratic functions in order to avoid poverty. They hide in their apartments and homes from the social decay exploding around them. They are told what they cannot think or say, and commanded to always do what the herd wants. Their oppressor is not the controller, but the herd, which is composed of pretense and vengeance.

Control kills civilization and replaces it with a type of slavery which goes unrecognized by the majority, who are oblivious to such concerns. Only the intelligent suffer, which is the point; the intelligent can challenge power, where everyone else is pretty much inert. With pleasant thoughts of freedom, the herd votes itself into slavery, and civilization dies, over and over again.

#WhiteLivesMatterLess In Berlin


A father was shot and killed by police for attacking the refugee who molested his daughter. According to The Local, the father rushed at the molester with a knife:

A 27-year-old man at a Berlin refugee home was accused of sexually abusing an eight-year-old girl. Witnesses said that the man lured the girl to a park near the home and then sexually abused her there.

Police responded to the report and arrested the man for sexual abuse. But after officers had handcuffed the suspect and were bringing him into a patrol car, a 29-year-old man – believed to be the girl’s father – ran at the suspect with a knife.

…Police said they shot at the father in order to prevent an attack. The 29-year-old died due to his gunshot wounds hours later at a hospital.

The law is blind, mechanical and usually idiotic. In this case, according to the law, the accused molester deserved a trial, and so the attack by the father had to be stopped with lethal force. On paper, it all makes sense. In a saner headspace, where we look at consequences, none of it makes sense.

This father was driven mad by the knowledge that refugees are rarely prosecuted for crimes and, if they are and are convicted, serve light sentences. As happened in Rotherham, police are afraid to look “racist” and so are slow to respond, if at all. The father had no expectation that the molester would be punished.

As a result, he took the law into his own hands. It may not have been right, but it was not wrong. Where penalties are light, grotesque crimes proliferate. And since the elected government has failed this man, he acted in the vacuum of power, and was killed for it.

This is the type of cruelty visited on our peoples every day because of a system based on egalitarianism where all are afraid to appear “racist,” and therefore, we extend every consideration to the Other and none to our own. The result is massive dysfunction and tragedy, as this story illustrates.

Hells Headbangers Metal Distro Now Has Copies Of “Nihilism”


One of the premium heavy metal distribution (or: mail order) sites in the world, Hell’s Headbangers, now has copies of Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity in stock and ready for ordering. This is a great place for metalheads and others to find reliable mail order service at good prices, now with extra nihilism!

Radical Traditionalism


Sometime around the year 2000, the work of Julius Evola reached public consciousness, and thanks to writers like Bill White, Radical Traditionalism entered the right-wing lexicon. This is a philosophy more than a political view, but fits neatly into the New Right idea that culture must be the generative actor for change which will manifest in politics and other areas.

Radical Traditionalism is based on the work of Réné Guénon and Aldous Huxley, and describes the eternal practice of humankind that creates an awareness of the metaphysical world around us in parallel with the physical, and from that, produces a type of civilization that is conducive to Golden Ages.

Those who have read this blog for some time know that it is concerned with two fronts: first, arresting the decline of the West by crushing the Left by any means necessary, and second, a zeal for restoring the greatness of Western Civilization at its height and surpassing it. Radical Traditionalism addresses the second more than the first, but serves as a useful target for those seeking a reason to undertake the first despite the near-suicidal risk.

One of the more compelling summaries of Radical Traditionalist thought comes to us from Tyr journal:

  1. Resacralization of the world versus materialism.
  2. Natural social hierarchy versus an artificial hierarchy based on wealth.
  3. The tribal community versus the nation-state.
  4. Stewardship of the earth versus the “maximization of resources.”
  5. A harmonious relationship between men and women versus the “war between the sexes.”
  6. Handicraft and artisanship versus industrial mass-production.

This corresponds to a definition of Tradition from Huxley:

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

  1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness–the world of things and animals and men and even gods–is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
  2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
  3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
  4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

How is it that a raging realist and nihilist can come to embrace the immanent? The basics are found in rejection of solely material existence, including social control, to discover that reality has qualitative dimension:

When we look at nihilism and radical traditionalism, what jumps out at us is that both are ways of negating the values we have in a modern time and returning to a cosmic order based on the actual function of our reality. There is no morality in either that places the individual higher than a noble task; the opposite is true, since a nihilist recognizes that morality is not inherent and basically wishful thinking by those who fear they might succumb to violence. Radical Traditionalism, like nihilism, emphasizes a quieting of the internal dialogue over how to value life, and takes life at face value: things are simply what they are.

The solution to modernity espoused here, used in abbreviated reference as the four pillars, incorporates Radical Traditionalism as it does the intersection of ideas found in the New Right, Alt Right, Reaction and Neoreaction. Its goal is to create the type of society that — independent of $current_year — creates a Golden Age for my people, the Western Europeans.

As with most things in life, there is no single theory which addresses all problems uniformly such that it can be applied at any level as if a universal truth. The only universal is reality, and its structures are known only to those who can pursue them. But what Radical Tradition suggests is that instead of reacting to material reality, and letting its immediate demands guide us, we strive for what is inconvenient but beautiful, eternal and excellent.

Through that mechanism, we gain access to the many different and visually dissimilar methods required to have a civilization which rises above the rest of history. There is no single ideology or system that can save us. But through discovery of Tradition, we can discover a wider reality and in that, find our answers.

Mythic Imagination


Writing with characteristic insight, Bruce Charlton writes a comprehensive metaphysics of knowledge:

The hierarchy of knowledge…From highest to lowest…

  • Imagination — attained by Intuition

  • Rationality — attained by Reasoning, including Logic ( ‘Philosophy’)

  • Empirical Evidence (‘facts’) — attained by Observation, including Experiment (‘Science’)

…What, then, validates ‘Imagination/ Intuition’? The further assumption of divine revelation – which needs to be both internal and external – we need to have something divine within in order to respond to divine revelations from without.

Some time ago, your author (writing under the pseudonym Vijay Prozak) crafted a an essay titled “Philosophical Essence of the Northern Traditions” for the first volume of Norther Traditions (now re-booted as Mimir: Journal Of North European Traditions) in which the concept of mythic imagination features heavily.

The essential idea of mythic imagination comes from Immanuel Kant, who wrote of the root of knowledge as being intuition; combined with other notions of the “acausal” or “synchronous” nature of metaphysical structure, this suggests a situation in which object and subject influence one another under certain conditions, possibly reifying the object through a convergence of both entities. In this way, the ancients were able to awaken a metaphorical style of imagination which connected them to intuition, and in doing so, brought about a world which came alive with the supernatural.

That disturbs our modern notion of material causes. For the modern person, gods must exist in some tangible form in order to be real, instead of being observed through a combination of insight and creativity. If we need to know why God has died and we have killed him, it is that our method of understanding precludes any possibility of the supernatural which rests on an informational “lattice of coincidence” perceived in the patterns found in objects more than their material order itself. This view is consistent with Germanic idealism, which holds that all of existence is information-based or thought-like, and therefore, that hermetic principles of attraction can render things incarnate — even those removed from us by time and space.

When we say that the universe is “infinite,” this applies to more than material dimensions; it is also informationally infinite, suggesting that possibilities which exist may not be directly present but can be induced to manifest. In this sense, the patterns of thoughts which match up to patterns of information can attract those, and bring them from non-existence into daily presence. This makes the ancient focus on honor and clarity of thought come to life as what it was: a method of maintaining connection to a metaphysical world which did not exist removed from our world, but immanent within it, like another dimension discovered through a qualitative improvement in thinking.

This concept was described in some detail as a leap of faith but also, an evolution in cognition:

When we get past the modern mindset of linear logic, called rationality, we can begin to think clearly again. The energy spent forcing complex data into simple data structures is over. Instead, we join it all at once. The process called “mythic imagination,” by which we use our imagination to construct metaphorical narratives around the whole of reality, comes from this.

Mythic imagination beats scientific analysis for anything but materials science. It allows us to see patterns, and not just in isolation, but across time and beyond even the material world. At this point, we see how linear causality is only part of the story, and a complex causal system must underlie all that we see and feel.

Joseph Campbell wrote most convincingly about mythic imagination and the possibilities it exposed, explaining both why those are inaccessible to us today and why the ancient experienced a world with more balance and purpose than modern people hope to experience. Fred Nietzsche describes this condition as being dreamlike and inspiring the greatness of ancient civilization more than need:

Pascal is right in maintaining that if the same dream came to us every night we would be just as occupied with it as we are with the things that we see every day. “If a workman were sure to dream for twelve straight hours every night that he was king,” said Pascal, “I believe that he would be just as happy as a king who dreamt for twelve hours every night that he was a workman. In fact, because of the way that myth takes it for granted that miracles are always happening, the waking life of a mythically inspired people — the ancient Greeks, for instance — more closely resembles a dream than it does the waking world of a scientifically disenchanted thinker. When every tree can suddenly speak as a nymph, when a god in the shape of a bull can drag away maidens, when even the goddess Athena herself is suddenly seen in the company of Peisastratus driving through the market place of Athens with a beautiful team of horses — and this is what the honest Athenian believed — then, as in a dream, anything is possible at each moment, and all of nature swarms around man as if it were nothing but a masquerade of the gods, who were merely amusing themselves by deceiving men in all these shapes.

Under this view reality becomes sychronous, or composed of manifestations which have not a single cause but a similarity of structure which makes them manifest independent of which is subject and which is object. This finds compatibility in another Kantian vision, in which he described our knowledge of reality as the product of a mental filter which reduces vast formless chaos to recognizable objects. Somewhere in that blaze of intensity are things we have overlooked, and with mythic imagination, we can give them metaphorical form and render them into existence as we know it.

While the modern world is based on reducing reality to symbols that make subsets of the whole stand for the whole (synecdoche), the ancient world is based on an integrative ideal where all parts of reality work in parallel and the patterns between them are the actuality, as opposed to the material substrate in which they are expressed. It is no surprise that this worldview leads to the discovery of forces beyond our “control,” or ability to force our intent on the world by reducing it to equal bite-size portions, and that these threaten the empire of the Ego which currently controls the West.

Dear Black People: It’s Not You; It’s Diversity


A riot is a form of protest. It is also a form of spontaneous criminal activity, or an emotional outburst. One might also see it as the failure of order, the loss of social structure, or a mass expression of a frustration that is so unspecified that the only tangible expression is to burn it all down.

From the people at Black Lives Matter riots across America, we hear the same message: institutional racism is keeping us down. However, this is after seventy years of the same forced inclusion policies that power affirmative action, civil rights, anti-discrimination laws, and the media push for “united colors” in all ads and movies.

Think of the last time you saw a movie where the entire cast was white. Or a presidential cabinet.

For that reason, the “institutional racism” explanation seems unlikely to most of us out here. We pay every day for diversity, you know. Every product is more expensive because of civil rights regulations and affirmative action lawsuits. Companies must hire minorities in order to avoid government interference, and so they do, and pass the costs right on to us. Plus we inherit the red tape, the constant riots, the no-fly areas, etc.

Since white people started to notice this, there have been two camps. The first is headed by a writer who is universally respect on the Right, John Derbyshire. He wrote a highly influential piece, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” in which he warned people about the dangers of African-Americans:

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

The second group includes your author, who has been writing about this idea since the middle-1990s: the problem is not African-Americans — and yes, that term has more meaning for Rightists than Leftists — but diversity itself.

Diversity is the notion that more than one identifiable group — race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religion, and most likely political alignment — can occupy the same space and work together to provide a government, economy and civilization.

Sometimes called “multiculturalism,” or by its original name “internationalism,” diversity relies on what legendary Right-wing writer Peter Brimelow calls the “proposition nation” and John Derbyshire describes as the “magic dirt” theory. This species of theory says that we must assume that all people are equal, and therefore when we subject them to the same laws and economic pressures, they perform the same way. It is an implicit argument for diversity, which Leftists view as a subset of class warfare designed to achieve equality.

The Alt-Right expresses one of its pillars as the idea that genetics, not laws and propaganda, determine the future of a nation. We cannot mold people into equal citizens. The first group would argue that is because of defects in certain groups; the second group argues that this is because different groups have different expressions of self-interest, starting with the need for identity and pride in who they are.

The question upon us then is whether diversity could work — that is, function as a policy which contributes more good than harm to society in accord with its goals — at all. Policies fail all the time; we implement them with good intentions, then realize that their goals are paradoxical or at least paradoxical to our goals, and then revoke them. Think of how Prohibition, which was more popular than diversity even, became enacted through a Constitutional Amendment and then repealed the exact same way.

The root of race realism is recognition that each group has its own ways, and that these do not apply to any other group; it also includes knowing that every group, like every individual, acts in self-interest, and that the interest of every group is to conquer all others and assert itself — culture, heritage, values, language, customs, calendar, cuisine and morality — through total control in as much territory as it can get. This is the Machiavellian realpolitik of ethnicity and is the only universal thing about humanity, mainly because it is not based on “human-ness” but on the needs of survival.

Diversity conflicts with this race realism. It supposes that you can dump random people into an area, enforce laws on them and bribe them with “good jobs,” and you will get the same results as you did with the people who invented those laws. This reverses causation: the original group created those laws as an expression of their culture, itself an expression of their ethnic makeup and values, and no other group will find itself compatible with those laws.

When seen through the lens of race realism, diversity cannot work because different groups are different and have different self-interests, therefore when combined in the same area, those self-interests will inevitably conflict. We all need different things, which is why we formed different ethnic groups in the first place, originating either from Hyperboreans (per the Traditionalists) or a migration from Africa and then parallel evolution as modern science alleges.

As a Southern man, one is more likely to be mugged by Mexicans than blacks — but the same is true for blacks, Asians and middle easterners. The orientals run rigged businesses which are notoriously good at extracting government aid; the Mexicans and South Asians steal by convenience and holdups; the blacks are known for violent muggings and gang violence; the middle easterners tend to run illusory businesses and focus on contraband and graft. These stereotypes exist for a reason, and they exist across ethnic groups; each perceives these behaviors in each other. This is not racism, but observation of generalities in our world.

Expanding from that however, what we see are conflicts between the type of society that people are genetically programmed for — an expression of their self-interest — and the society created here by Western Europeans. When one lives in the middle east, different behaviors are rewarded and these are handled by society there through designing itself to accommodate those enough to channel them toward somewhat productive results. The same is true of the other groups and their behaviors. When one lives in Africa, gang warfare is the norm.

We can verify that this is true because of stereotypes among different white groups. Western Europeans are perceived as priggish, moralistic and yet prone to deviance. The Irish are known for corruption as well as rigid and fanatical Catholicism. Southern Europeans are expected to participate in Mafia style activities, loud family fights and promiscuity. Eastern Europeans are known for missing the obvious, violent racketeering, and being willing to sell you their women for the right price (often, a Lexus with a gold package).

Even more, we have different castes. The Brahmins are known for being brainy, but also weak to social influences. The Kshatriya are known for their excellence in warfare and craft, but tendency to use pragmatic instead of realistic solutions. Our laborer-caste are known for needing to be told what to do, and requiring constant supervision to avoid slipping into day-to-day “white trash” behavior.

If we are going to be race realists, we must go all the way.

Among Western Europeans, there is little variation. We share Nordic-Germanic roots and are more similar to each other than to any other group. We like the same type of social order, use the same type of gut feeling to assess any action we might take, and have the same need for some kind of reverent or at least purposeful order. We are approximately the same, and other groups — including Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans — seem alien to us, even if less alien than (in decreasing order) blacks, middle easterners, South Asians and North Asians (Orientals).

Growing up in the South, one knows many good black people. They are not the same as us, but they share many of the same values, which they achieve through their own ends. Their Christianity is different; their cuisine is different (and alternatingly baffling and irresistible); their neighborhoods and social ways are different. But it would be hard for a Southern man to say that “all negroes are bad,” because he knows many good blacks, if not most of the blacks he encounters. Still, they need a different social order and as a group, cannot exist within the white order, which is why after emancipation the white man left the black man to run his own neighborhoods and have his own businesses, schools, police and even courts.

The same is true of any other group. In a massively multicultural majority-minority city such as are common on our Southern border, the average white person knows Jews, Mexicans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Iranians and members of every other group who are good people, that is, trying to do “the right thing” as best they can perceive it. And yet their needs are different and their methods are different in parallel, which reflects their self-interest as needing a society of their own.

The elephant in the room is pride. Every ethnic group needs to know it lives in a society of its own creation, designed for its ways and goals, which it guides. This gives it a chance to improve qualitatively to the point where the group can say it used its methods to overcome the challenges of nature both visible and invisible, and that its results are entirely the result of its work. This is the basis of pride, and it is part of self-interest.

Diversity takes away not just pride but recognition of self-interest from each group, and forces it to go to war with other groups in order to decide which values system will prevail. In the United States and Europe, the founding populations seem to assume that this issue is settled, and that our languages, laws, values, etc. will always be there. But those are negotiable. Diversity creates a battlefield where each group is forced to try to assert its values over those of other groups.

This is why members of the second group of race realists object to diversity itself, and not simply African-Americans. We do not want to live with even “model minority” groups like North Asians because that, too, is diversity. We recognize that it is unlikely that liberals and conservatives can co-exist for long, even within the same group, much as difference of religion — for example, Catholic versus Protestant — is unstable. We realize that any diversity, even one drop, destroys social trust and hope for the future.

We are what history refers to as “xenophobes.” Back in the day, we opposed slavery because it is a form of diversity. We opposed importation of Chinese workers not because we hate them, but because they would create diversity, and we know that any loss of unity leads to a death spiral of distrust, rebellion against the norm — some would say that the alarmingly teenage Leftist movement came from this — and struggle for power, culminating in social collapse.

The problem is diversity. Diversity does not work. It does not work because it cannot work. In any form — race, ethnicity, religion, politics — it fails and creates a ruin of society. This is why Leftists adore it: their goal is to create a dark organization in our society, attack it and subvert it, then dominate what is left and use that to transfer wealth and power to themselves. They are the parasites that arise when social trust is destroyed by diversity.

Our only future lies in ending diversity. This means that every person who is not of our founding group — Western Europeans in America, ethnic French in France, ethnic Germans in Germany, and so on — must go back to their continent of origin. If we end this as gentlemen, which we should because it is in our nature, we will do so by giving them reparations contingent upon repatriation, so that they may get a good start and we end this bad policy as friends and allies, not resentful enemies.

But it must end. Diversity is paradoxical; it is illogical; it is denial of obvious reality. Over the past 150 years, it has shattered America and over the past forty years, seriously damaged any integrity to Europe. The longshot of this is that it has deprived us of pride and made us into morose, angry, selfish and bitter individuals. Our only survival comes through ending diversity so that we can then tackle those other problems by ourselves, for ourselves, so that someday we may have pride again.

Let’s Burn Harvard, Before It Is Too Late


The ephemeral “transitory” nature of today’s communication became quite noticeable when Hillary exclaimed: “What difference does it make?”

At 3:00 am lives were on the line but four hours later no additional lives were affected. Within 4 hours even (and especially) American lives did not matter anymore, to such an extent, that in four years she has forgotten about Ambassador John Christopher Steven’s brutal rape and murder by Muslims.

An alternative option was experienced yesterday when my son was taught (at school) that Jesus just walked away when people spat on Him. That was deemed the right thing to do because time heals everything.

But today it is not an option because my son can’t in typical stubborn fashion shrug his shoulders and say, “I don’t care,” because “time” is not available anymore.

Hillary did not learn from her mistakes and the people that (will) spit on my son, will also not learn. Therefore, time is still important, not to heal, but to prepare, recuperate or to re-group: not to defend, but to attack.

Social media reduces “time available” to interact with normal people and as such cause mental effect on such users. But I would like to take a different approach to re-energize “time” in the #altright, towards politically motivated thinking of project schedules, milestones and deliveries.

Since the concept of time has been simplified into disconnected “transitory” snapshots (by media), the opportunity is herewith taken to re-construct two separated snapshots into a coherent time-based snapshot (as an illustration).

The first snapshot appeared on August 29, 2016 with the release of Robert Stuekers’ book  The European Enterprise: Geopolitical Essays, which hypothesies that that imperial “structures” are being replaced by rampant globalist structures, and argues for a renewed European approach.  Globalism has been going on for ages (actually) and it is therefore no wonder (from a project manager time-based perspective), that deliveries could be expected in the current year.

What few of us realized, is that we have been complicit. We are actually inside this project; we are not outside on some island philosophizing the merits of globalization. That was already done 20 years ago. The concept of globalization was formulated after WW2 resulting in slowly accelerated implementation schedules using technology. The acts and outcomes of this plan is (still) neatly categorized and filed (away) by historians under an assortment of bewildering categories.

But time is fleeting, because merely a month later in September 2016 (according to a next disconnected Twitter snapshot), Tom Bower published a book called Broken Vows, Tony Blair: The Tragedy of Power. This is categorized as a biographical book describing the working life of Tony Blair over thirty-odd years in 600 or so pages. The timing of its release may not bode well for the Presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, because Blair also failed at representing “labor,” used the same #PayforPlay strategy, had similar email problems and pushed the same open borders policies.

Tom Bower did us the favor of providing a practical view of the globalist project that we can digest in a re-constructed time-based snapshot. It provides actual proof of the Globalist Geopolitical project also discussed by Robert Stueker, and in doing so exposes The Bush Dynasty, the Clinton Dynasty, NATO, UN, World Bank and the British free-fall to Brexit. (Even the Russian drive to a multi-polar scenario)

And within all this, as Mike Cernovich said, “Yet, here we are.” Within one month, we had access to the written words describing sixty years of effort that does not show any sign of changing course. This is not a Titanic where everyone is going to die, it is a Dark Organization with the express objective to stifle dissent, destroy the middle-class and keep those dazed masses of any race or identity where they belong – away from the Establishment. In other words: screw civilization; the Elites will just keep whatever they have taken, thank you very much.

American common sense thinking has been totally undermined by this liberal-democratic ideology thereby affecting and literally scaring the average citizen into submission by psychologically using politics-of-fear such as “the Russians are coming” etc. This can be compared to being in a burning home where the owner just wants to run to the outside. The opportunity not to be missed however, is that many “owners” have realized is that this (right here, right now) is a creative burning platform galvanizing each citizen to start a dialogue on real issues.

The first thing to consider when thinking about the liberal Tony Blair, is that he was elected by the Labor Party which is similar to the US Democratic Party. But after his resignation his labor constituents refused to say “Thank you” essentially because he broke his vows.  Also, knowing that the New World Order push liberal-democratic ideology as their preferred political solution, makes a review of his “liberal mind” even more interesting.

According to the book The Liberal Mind: The psychological causes of political madness by Dr Lyle H Rossiter, the following deductions can be made:

  • The strength of the community is destroyed by Government usurpation of welfare.

  • The liberal state is a proper source from which to gratify the longings of the people for various forms of parental care.

  • Infantilizing people result in a broad based crippling of their competence to the detriment of those people.

It is clear that the reason the NWO is pushing liberal democracy is because they know they will benefit from its failure (e.g. Soros). That it will fail is certain, but then as Hillary said: “What difference does it make?”

When looking at Blair through a liberal lens, knowing, that he knows it is a flawed ideology, makes the revelations of his conduct even more insightful. Therefore, knowing that he is going to fail motivates comparison of his actions to those described in Jim Collins’ book How the Mighty Fall. In this sense it could serve as measurement of how civilizations fall as well.

The commonality between the Bower and Collins books is that they refer to a chronological order i.e. organizations fail in sequential fashion and biographies are also recorded in sequential fashion. What was found, incredibly, was that the biographical chapter headings reflected the same language, used as markers that indicate organizational failure.

Therefore, without requiring in depth evaluation, it is quite apparent, that strong language similarities exist between these two books, as can be seen in the table below:


Collins: Sequential Organization Failure Markers

Tony Blair Biography

Stage 1.1

Success entitlement, arrogance

Part 1: Chapter 1 The beginning (of “New” Labour 1997)
Note: The “exuberant” language preferred by Nr. 10 p 221
Note: the adopted “language” was used to disguise the reality of Government p 221

Stage 1.2

Neglect of primary flywheel

Part 2: Chapter 19 The same old tale (not fixing bureaucracy)
Part 3: Chapter 44 Targets vs Markets (it’s all been a failure 2006)

Stage 1.3

What replaces Why

Part 1: Chapter 7 Old King Coal (support uneconomic coal pits)

Stage 1.4

Decline in learning orientation

Part 1: Chapter 6 The Battle plan (unable to wage foreign wars)

Stage 1.5

Discounting the role of luck

Note the phrase “vainglory” on p 67 Blair selling military benefits he has no idea about.

Stage 2.1

Unsustainable quest for growth, confusing big with great

Part 1: Chapter 4 The Gospel

Stage 2.2

Undisciplined discontinuous leaps

Part 2: Chapter 20 The Blair “which?” project?

Stage 2.3

Declining proportion of right people in key seats

Part 2: Chapter 21 Instinct and belief (Appointing unqualified people based on loyalty)

Stage 2.4

Easy cash erodes cost discipline

Part 3: Chapter 43 Cash and consequences

Stage 2.5

Bureaucracy subverts discipline

Part 1” Chapter 8 The wall crumbles (migrant policy masking)
Part 1: Chapter 10 Frustration (teachers)

Stage 2.6

Problematic succession of power

Part 3: Chapter 47 Self-destruction (last 9 months of premiership)

Stage 2.7

Personal interests placed above organizational interests

(Blair did not see “one” organization)

Stage 3.1

Amplify the positive, discount the negative

Part 3: Chapter 41 The Great Game (Afghanistan/Iraq)

Stage 3.2

Big bets and bold goals without empirical validation

Part 2: Chapter 22 Hither and dither (Attacking Iraq)

Stage 3.3

Incurring huge downside risk based on ambiguous data

Part 2: Chapter 23 The bogus students (Migrants)

Stage 3.4

Erosion of healthy team dynamics

Part 1: Chapter 9 A Government adrift

Stage 3.5

Externalizing blame

(Blair never trusted officials)

Stage 3.6

Obsessive re-organization

(Blair was re-elected twice resulting in 3 re-organizations)

Stage 3.7

Imperious detachment

Part 2: Chapter 31 Knights and knaves

Stage 4.1

A series of silver bullets

Part 1: Chapter 13 Saving the NHS

Stage 4.2

Grasping for leader-as-savior

Part 2: Chapter 32 Restoring tradition

Stage 4.3

Panic and haste

Part 2: Chapter 33 Lies and damn’d lies

Stage 4.4

Radical change and revolution with fanfare

Part 2: Chapter 34 Sabotage and survival

Stage 4.5

Hype precedes results

Part 1: Chapter 14 Everything is PR

Stage 4.6

Initial upswing followed by disappointments

Part 1: Chapter 15 Clutching at straws

Stage 4.7

Confusion and cynicism

Part 1: Chapter 17 Unkind cuts
Part 2: Chapter 35 Confusion in the ranks

Stage 4.8

Chronic restructuring and erosion of financial strength

Part 2: Chapter 36 Managing the mess
Part 3: Chapter 42 The Cost of confusion

Stage 5.1

Hope (and leadership)

(Blair’s hope was always foreign)

Stage 5.2

Denial (or capitulation)

Part 2: Chapter 37 The Devil’s kiss
Part 4: Chapter 48 Gun for hire
Part 4: Chapter 49 Tragedy of power


If readers were to absorb the failure marker language before attempting to read the biography, they would be amazed how many more similarities exist within those chapters as well. However, in depth investigation to assess the state of British civilization would require a wider approach, to include the decline from Thatcher, Blair, Brown to Cameron and Brexit. For the purpose of this writing, it will suffice to show that we are still sitting in the same boiling pot Blair loved so much. (He loved it because we sat in it)

The question (for us) on how to get out of the boiling pot (not Blair or Hillary), is addressed by Jim Collins where he wrote as follows:

“Not all organizations deserve to last.”

“Institutional (global) self-perpetuation holds no legitimate place in the world.”

“You can be profitable and bankrupt”

“The point of the struggle is not just to survive, but to build an impact that makes a distinctive   impact on the world”

“To accomplish this requires leaders …that can find a way …in pursuit of a larger cause than mere survival (and larger than themselves), while also maintaining the stoic will needed to take whatever actions…”

Based on above it is possible (for us, not Blair) to get out of this dark civilization as described by the biography. But the following realistic psychological “adjustments” need to be attended to as well:

  • The infrastructure of human society consists of biological nature and personal relations.
  • Balance between freedom and safety is social cohesion
  • Social cohesion requires autonomy and mutuality
  • Social cooperation assumes voluntary basis and self-belief
  • Impaired people are not able to function towards social cohesion (e.g. should not vote), but despite this they will still vociferously claim social cohesion as a “right”. This is because their mere “biological” presence allows a claim to mutuality. The problem with this is that the typical rights conferred to a fully “democratic” citizen will now be conferred to someone void of autonomy.

In summary, the “negative” geopolitical and political status quo in Western civilization is ongoing since the Second World War. This has been recorded and is publicly available. In addition to this, psychological and management books published over the same timeframe advanced the requirements for “positive” conduct, confusing us into thinking “somebody” (like Blair) would act on it.

We thought our representatives would take care of all that because of “books”, but we missed the “negative” Elite dogma exemplified by Blair, because time and associated language was turned into disconnected snapshots.

Now that our platform is burning, especially reflecting our very own complicit life experiences, it will galvanize creative realism towards an implementation plan consisting of timeous psychological and organizational steps. This will include re-constructing time and burning the liberal language of Harvard, because losing it would leave no hole and won’t make any difference (to us).

Meme Versus Fact


Maggie’s Farm Blog gives us a look at the dissonance peddled over the riots in Emerald City.

From somewhere, re oppression in Charlotte:

There’s a Black President
There’s a Black Congressman
There’s a Black Chief of Police
There’s a Black District Attorney
There’s a Black Mayor until 2014 (Jailed)
There’s a Black Officer who pulled a trigger
There’s a Black Man Dead of that gunshot wound

In Tulsa, OK we have a case of a female officer shooting down a black man she thought might have been carrying a firearm. Or as Candidate Trump put it, she choked. Yet clearly, it’s the White, Cisgendered Male Oppression.

So much so that a UN Panel has volunteered to lecture us on American morals and Civil Rights. Yes, the international body that can’t bring itself to condemn the forced clitorectomy of teenaged girls is here to tell us all how Amerikan Cops are just porcine oppressors savagely recreating the murder of Emmett Till in the very streets.

Police killings of black people in the United States are reminiscent of lynchings and the government must do far more to protect them, a United Nations working group says in a report that will be debated at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday.

If we look at the composition of the UN Human Rights Council, I can’t help but laugh at the pompous, hypocritical bloviations that eminate from this body like GHG pollution from agricultural herd animal flatulence. Current members of this august body include Cuba, China, Congo, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Venezuela.

Needless to say, it’s been over 150 years since the US has traded any slaves like UN Human Rights Council Leader Saudi Arabia. We may charge our females with manslaughter when they panic and shoot somebody who may or may not be reaching for a gun, but we’ve never had our Federal Religious Police deliberately barricade the doors on a room full of women and burn them alive for getting too uppity. I haven’t noticed anyone getting necklaced by a US police force lately. Nor has the US ever quite managed a Cultural Revolution for disagreeing with the overarching zeitgeist.

The people supporting and pushing Black Lives Matter and accusing the City of Charlotte of systemic racism are detestable hypocrits who all deserve to have their souls become Beezelbub’s hot dogs. They could be toasted in the hereafter over a bonfire of their own pathetic pretensions. That goes for the wealthy white, cisgendered males who fund this terrorist organization as a leftist stalking horse against sane American communities.