Counter-Currents Publishing Books Against Time Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:12:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The Color Revolution Cook Book, Part 4:The Identitarians’ Fight against Halal Slaughter in France Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:09:51 +0000 Against Kosher and Halal Slaughter Marianne Thieme, Dutch MP        Party for the Animals

Against Kosher and Halal Slaughter Marianne Thieme, Dutch MP Party for the Animals

3,268 words

Part 4 of 4

This final installment of my review of From Dictatorship to DemocracyGene Sharp’s seminal work on nonviolent strategy and tactics for regime change, also looks at how the opposition to Halal and Kosher slaughter that began with tiny groups of Identitarians and Animal Rights activists who combined strengths became a transnational issue throughout Europe. The final three chapters of From Dictatorship to Democracy focus on Sharp’s three phases of nonviolent revolution: Selective Resistance, Mass Defiance, and Consolidation. 

Selective Resistance

In the beginning, the Movement is so weak that it must pick its battles. It is important to pick winnable minor fights. Gauge the kind of supporters you have, their level of risk and commitment, and the timeline to victory. If college students are your strength, do not plan campaigns that require sustained effort over the summer. If union workers are your strength pick an issue that touches “Kitchen Table Issues” and which is Black and White with no shades of grey. If women or the middle class families are your strength don’t use tactics that may put them in physical danger or even let that perception arise. Find out what peoples’ passions are and enable them to pursue these effectively with others.

The Identitaires have been focused on Halal since the beginning with their Pork soups offered to European homeless.  Here is a summation of activities in 2010: Renaming streets, Marching in Burqas, and occupation of a Quick in pig masks. Quick is a leading fast food chain in Western Europe that had just switched to 100% halal beef. The fact that personal choice was being removed from participation in Islamicization struck a chord with many youth.

Once engaged, constantly reassess the campaign’s progress towards victory, the effectiveness of various tactics, and the fluctuation of manpower and commitment. Use open intelligence like Gallup polls to measure progress with the general public and if that is not possible set objective milestones and measurements. Never depend on anecdotes or accounts from activists that “Everyone I know says . . .” And of course, as implied by the examples above, support pre-existing groups on their terms, if their success means achieving your goals.

One may be surprised at who is willing to work with people of our belief system when we credibly promise neither to proselytize nor to damage the image of a group when facing the public. That was certainly the case for many Identitarians who, after about 2 years of focusing on Halal slaughter began working building alliances with Animal Rights activists in a serious way in about 2012.

I hesitated to mention this, but frankly the Animal Rights activists face charges of racism on this issue whether Nationalists are involved or not. The important thing is to not give an excuse to the media and the kosher politicians to dismiss the groups and their leaders which are seeking an end to Ritual Slaughter in Our Lands. You won’t see any bomber jackets in the crowd at the protests, and when all the hippies raise their fist, its best to play along.

The Angel of Death made a brief appearance at Quick in Paris to denounce both Halal Slaughter and Americanization.

Build Support, Target the Regime’s Legitimacy

The first campaigns should build the number of supporters and reduce the legitimacy of the target. In our case this target may be “the System” or a certain groups’ presence in the Land of our Ancestors, but a Selective Resistance goal maybe the acceptability of certain practices of those whose presence we feel is illegitimate. The campaign against Halal slaughter is an example of this kind of limited, winnable campaign.

A Selective Resistance Campaign can coincide with the goals of socially acceptable groups, in this case the Animal Rights milieu.

In the past our activists have been involved in aiding anti-fur campaigns. (The sociology of the fur trade is probably the same around the world. Shutting down all of the furriers in your town would probably strike a blow for Aliyaah.)[1] With each store that shuts down, it is possible to hold a victory party and give the activists credit for changing the world. Keep people motivated.

Jeune Bretagne contre le Halal by Jeune Bretagne

The Identitarians of Bretagne launch the anti-Halal discourse in earnest with a humorous direct action.  Similar actions in supermarkets occurred across France.  Their President discussed this focus in my 2013 Counter-Currents interview with him.

A Selective Resistance Campaign such as the fight against Halal may attract broad support as the story plays out in the media, especially in a country as particular about defending its culinary traditions as France. This broad support raises awareness about the group and increases the number of active members, including from different walks of life than the original core. It also attracts supporters to single issue groups that are afraid to or are ideologically opposed to our revolutionary goals. A broader core membership opens up possibilities for different kinds of actions that play to the strengths of the new members, and active, non-core supporters bring more momentum to the movement. In fact they are the final key to success.

Activists hold Street Theater against ritualistic slaughter (Method 36) in Guéret where an existing slaughterhouse had expanded to include Halal Butchery... Impossible to know who is behind the mask, isn’t it?

Activists hold Street Theater against ritualistic slaughter (Method 36) in Guéret where an existing slaughterhouse had expanded to include Halal Butchery… Impossible to know who is behind the mask, isn’t it?

Identitarian involvement is focused both on the growth of Halal sections in grocery stores and also the switch to Halal-only beef in fast food chains. In 2012 it was revealed that all of the beef slaughtered in the Region of Paris, Ile de France, was Halal. Over 98% of the White and Christian inhabitants realized they eating meat from animals subject to this barbaric religious practice, and they were financially supporting a Muslim throat-slitter. The decision was made both to exploit a growing niche market, but also because it was about €0.50 cheaper per animal to slaughter without first making the animal unconscious. Most of the Halal meat was not labelled as such.

At this point, the more committed and opportunistic Animal Rights activists began focusing on an issue in which momentum was in their favor. Aurore Lenoir is just such an activist. She distanced herself from her previous Animal Rights commitments to start NARG (No to Ritual Slaughter) which was completely focused on this controversial issue. Needless to say, our Comrades were happy to lend a hand, very discretely.

A Passionate exchange between Aurore Lenoir, leader of NARG (No to Ritual Slaughter), and the Mayor of Guéret the week after she organized of the street theater event pictured above in the Place du Marché. One of her comrades records the exchange. She forced the meeting by having moles set off smoke bombs in the city hall. The mayor brought a stack of emails that were “racist and abusive” sent after Lenoir revealed he spent the community’s funds on a feasibility study of the slaughterhouse and planned to sell government owned land for facility expansion. A week after this meeting the slaughterhouse in that district ceased Halal Butchery. Within a week NARG members celebrated then the group transitioned to new campaigns.

A Passionate exchange between Aurore Lenoir, leader of NARG (No to Ritual Slaughter), and the Mayor of Guéret the week after she organized of the street theater event pictured above in the Place du Marché. One of her comrades records the exchange. She forced the meeting by having moles set off smoke bombs in the city hall. The mayor brought a stack of emails that were “racist and abusive” sent after Lenoir revealed he spent the community’s funds on a feasibility study of the slaughterhouse and planned to sell government owned land for facility expansion. A week after this meeting the slaughterhouse in that district ceased Halal butchery. Within a week NARG members celebrated then the group transitioned to new campaigns.

Cut Off Human Resources

After “Reducing Legitimacy,” Selective Resistance Campaigns work to “Cut off Human Resources.” This happened quite literally in Guéret, where city hall employees planted smoke bombs at their office in the effort to force the Mayor to meet with protesters.[2]

The anti-Halal Campaign also has a very unique and complex effect on the links between variously linked Human Resources of the System. Because of the legal structure set up by our controllers seeking our dissolution and destruction, it is not possible to only outlaw Halal slaughter. Laws can only be written in a way that also outlaws Kosher slaughter. Notice that the Identitarians avoided completely the issue of Kosher slaughter, but the Animal Rights activists did not hesitate to attack both practices that involve throat slitting and slow death without stunning the animal.


This creates new and interesting dynamics in the socio-political environment. Now, liberal Jews are forced to protect Orthodox Jews. Orthodox and religious Zionists find themselves fighting for the legitimacy of the much larger group of Muslims — the Muslims which target them for anti-Semitic violence and aggression and lionize Arab terrorists. When the Left-Liberal Jews succeed in steering the Social Democrat Parties of Europe away from supporting such laws, Environmentalists and Animal Rights activists are given a slap in the face and made to feel like the useful idiots of the coalition. Of course the Members of the Tribe placed at the head of so many of these groups will not have a problem, but their rank and file will. It is becoming clear that a group’s position on this issue is directly related to the presence of one of these Culture Distorters at the head of their group rather than reflecting the group’s stated mission.

Thus in the eyes of these honest Greens, the “assimilated” and secular Jews who proclaim objective universal values are unveiled as liars to a new and formerly naïve crowd. The claim to leadership positions these infiltrators hold, once seen as a birthright, are becoming as illegitimate as the throat-slitting animal torture for Allah they are now defending.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, one of the leaders of Europe-Ecology and an open pedophile, is in favor or Ritual Slaughter and removes its opponents from power . . . surprised?

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, one of the leaders of Europe-Ecology and an open pedophile, is in favor or Ritual Slaughter and removes its opponents from power . . . surprised?

If this issue plays through the next stages, then we will see the withdrawal of support for the System from true Greens. I don’t mean to say that the Europe-Ecology party will leave the coalition government, but on the popular level Greens will abandon the Kosher Environmentalist parties, and thought leaders in this milieu will not go along with the “green-washing” half measures that corrupt leftists often make. Without the legitimacy granted to the false “Green” initiatives, the State is denied one of its key methods of grabbing new powers in our time. The Green/Illegal alien mutual support activism being fostered by the Jewish pedophile Daniel Cohn-Bendit, among others, within Europe-Ecology is on its way to being broken. Other kinds of Human Resources that are lines of support for the system will be within our reach to cut as future Selective Resistance Campaigns are pursued.

Undermine the Security Services

Children affected by tear gas fired upon peaceful protesters at the Manif Pour Tous last year.

Children affected by tear gas fired upon peaceful protesters at the Manif Pour Tous last year.

The third kind of goal and the most important of the broad goals of a Selective Resistance Campaign is “Undermine the Security Services.” Obviously, this is another kind of Human Resource to be cut off, but its importance is so key to ultimate success it deserves special mention. Sharp does not mention this, but it is a key event in almost every revolution in history.

Sharp sees the key to winning over the security services as appealing to issues they care about. This may work well with people of Color, but the Imperial Guard of our time is overwhelmingly still composed of White Men. We ought to expect them to sacrifice their own self-interest for the higher ideals of their apolitical profession. This has occurred over and over again. Perhaps the most incredible was the fact that South Africa’s generals did not attempt a coup once the beginning of their rainbow future started coming into view. However, white soldiers will not stoop to do that which is shameful.

These men disagree with Manuel Valls and Bernard-Henri Levy on who comprises the “Avant Garde de la République”

These men disagree with Manuel Valls and Bernard-Henri Lévy on who comprises the “Avant Garde de la République”

We must force the state to use its security services to do the shameful and absurd as often as possible. We must lower their morale relentlessly to the point that they hate and resent their political and corporate masters. Already the security services have gassed children in the name of gay marriage. Last month they have detained patriots in ad hoc street prisons for protesting against the beatings of soldiers and soldier’s wives at the hands of Algerian soccer fans. And every weekend they spend hours sweating in riot vans near open air markets waiting for the inevitable riots to be started by our invaders from across the Mediterranean. What future absurdities must they accomplish? What atrocities will they commit against racially aware Europeans? This will come to pass, and the gassing of children will be just the beginning. However, the signs are clear that they are well on their way to abandoning the System.

Massive Resistance – Disintegrating the Dictatorship

The process of Selective Resistance may take 5 years, 25 years, or perhaps longer before mass resistance is possible. It is not only a question of expert planning and disciplined execution, but also of the accidents of history and our versatility in the face of rapid change. Which is to say, doing everything Gene Sharp says to do will not, even by his account, lead to a quick mobilization of Massive Resistance.

Massive Resistance cannot happen until Selective Resistance has made great progress. This requires the coordination and commitment of many different kinds of people who, in sum, are essential for the economy and/or government to function. This is a great challenge to accomplish because it requires the revolutionary organizers to bridge the gap between: unionized workers and small businesses, public and private sector workers, or the military and the counter culture.

The end result of Massive Resistance must be that the government is unable to collect taxes or enforce its unpopular measures and/or that the oligarchs are unable to extract value from the labor of others, guarantee the security of their inventories or investments, or their tranquil enjoyment of their wealth.

Consolidation – Creating a Durable Replacement Regime

When facing the end of their power, oligarchs — indigenous oligarchs and oligarchs par excellence – will attempt a Putsch. They will make cosmetic changes while leaving the same system of simmering genocide in place. Imagine a Sarkozy on steroids or perhaps even more so Ron Paul. In the case of other regimes, it is replacing a secular dictator with a religious one, or a military dictator with a domestic spy dictator. Gene Sharp has several preventative measures he recommends to keep this from arising.

Withhold Legitimacy and Cooperation

First and foremost, both Legitimacy and Cooperation must be denied the putschist government. They must be made to feel the same pressures as the toppled regime. In Egypt, the democratic activists avoided the same fate as the Iranians by pivoting to pressuring the Muslim Brotherhood one year after their original success in toppling Mubarak. Democracy Activists fault the previous regime for providing the false choice of “Religious Fascists or the same old Fascists,” in their words. The fact is Liberal Democratic and Social Democratic candidates were present in the first tour of their Presidential elections, and were less divided than Islamists, but failed to even come close to the top two placements.

White Nationalists have much to learn from both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Democracy Activists in terms of organizing to survive, but our position in the US and UK is more like that of the democrats of Egypt.

The Muslim Brotherhood was almost entirely absent from the first toppling of the government, with the exception of public prayer as a show of power. They relied on their reserve of social capital among the masses, particularly outside of Cairo, to win the election, once a true election was allowed to take place. We, unfortunately do not have such a reserve of social capital, but are seen at best as a bizarre untried system (like democracy in Egypt) and at worst naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews.

If such a revolution were to happen in France, we should expect a rehabilitated, criminal oligarch like Alain Juppé to take over. If such a thing were to happen in the US, perhaps the ex-Kibbutzer Michelle Bachmann or Christian Zionist Preacher John Haggee would be able to convince enough of the masses that they represent a true return to the Constitution or the Mayflower Compact.

Be ready for transition and to make alignments with former enemies to bring down the putchists. Democracy Activists in Egypt effectively did this in the fall of Morsi. Now they are allowing a grace period to the new President before restarting their revolutionary efforts.

Write a Simple Constitution

Sharp emphasizes that a Constitution should be ratified in a Plebiscite before a new leader is chosen. This constitution should be rather short and written in simple language for the people to understand. Avoid centralization and provide plenty of legal roadblocks to the dictatorship returning to power. Do not include promises that cannot be delivered.

This is a challenge, particularly in the US, because the new constitution must break up the centralization of media power. This means that the people who buy ink by the barrel will be utter enemies of the new constitution. It also means that the new constitution provides the government with more power over the individual. The people must be convinced that we are not all “individuals” equal before the government. This is a false presentation of the situation. Media oligarchs want us to think “objectively” and see encroachment on “their individual liberties” is an encroachment on “individual liberties” as such. This is only one aspect of the complicated challenges we would face in creating and selling a constitution to the masses. The US Constitution is impressive in its brevity and in the reverence held for it by a large number of Americans, but there are some blind spots that were impossible to be foreseen by the Founders which have, in living memory, become Tragic Flaws. The readers of Counter-Currents have the unpleasant role of Cassandra in this Tragedy.

Create a Democratic Defense Policy

This is a concept that Sharp does very little to expound upon. Perhaps other works of his provide the necessary detail or perhaps it is necessary to go to one of their CIA -sponsored workshops to learn this part of the plan.

Warning against Terrorism and Insurgency

Sharp, the committed pacifist, finishes by warning against turning to Terrorism and Guerrilla Insurgency against putchists. He believes that such a turn of event will only contribute to a cycle of violence that will prevent the emergence of anything but a succession of tyrants.


There are three major takeaways from this book:

  • Liberation from the System limiting our People’s potential is possible.
  • Very careful thought and strategic planning will be required to achieve it.
  • Vigilance, hard work, and disciplined struggle, often at great cost, will be needed.

It is not my hope to promote reading Gene Sharp or to promote pacifism. It is my sincere hope that serious discussions of strategy and organization will occur wherever our people are to be found, because everywhere we are under the yoke of the oligarchs and subjected to a concerted effort of cultural and genetic destruction.

Cast aside the failed strategies, the failed symbols, and the failed gods of the past. Reflect then act. Put aside several hours a week to work intelligently with a small cadre of comrades. Plan as a group how you will then work with allies. In this way we will bring forth the day of our liberation.


1. See “Jewish Demographics and Destiny” for an assessment of the voluntary departure of Jews from our White Homelands.

2. These articles in French provide an overview of events in the successful fight against Kosher/Halal Slaughter carried out by NARG and Aurore Lenoir:


]]> 0
Clickbait Country Tue, 22 Jul 2014 05:07:52 +0000 926 words

clickbaitYou may or may not be old enough to remember when the Internet was a new thing, but for a long time, web pages were not considered “credible” sources. If you were a serious person trying to make a serious point, you cited books, academic journals, established magazines and venerable old newspapers. 

Books are still books, but publishing is more accessible, and more people are aware that a publisher is just someone with a bank account and some means of printing and distribution who is willing to put up some money and do some of the work of publishing for a share of a book’s potential profit. Academic journals are still an arcane, exclusive racket, but a lot of them are just web sites now, too.

Newspapers and magazines have been forced to compete with web sites, and they are losing. Why would anyone bother to subscribe to a newspaper when they can read it online and get updated news in real-time, for free? For the ads and coupons? I’ll admit they are handy for getting coals started when I want to grill a steak, but that’s about it. Brown paper bags work just as well, and they probably burn cleaner.

Certain magazines are still worth keeping around if you have the space. National Geographic, or something special like Lapham’s Quarterly or even VICE. Glossy design magazines are still better than their online editions, if you’re into that sort of thing.

But major news magazines and newspapers have become printed slaves to their online editions. They have to compete for traffic every day with trashy click-bait sites like Upworthy, Gawker and Buzzfeed. Over the past year or so, this seems to have accelerated, and the old printed institutions are becoming indistinguishable from their yellow counterparts.

I have a copy of TIME from 1970 that shows Yukio Mishima’s death scene, with his severed head still sitting on the floor facing the door where he wanted it. The cover story was a forward-thinking report on the organic food movement. TIME famously explored the Nietzschean question, “Is God Dead?” in 1965, opening with a reference to Jean-Paul Sartre.  It was always a mainstream magazine, but it at least pretended to be a magazine for serious people.

Last week, one of the big stories at TIME online was “Dear White Gays: Stop Stealing Black Female Culture.” Reactions to this ridiculous screed about sassy faggots with stolen head snaps were published at New York MagazineNPRSlate (A Washington Post property), The Daily BeastHuffington Post, and every smaller web site that wanted to tap into the related “outrage traffic.”

Meanwhile, at The Wall Street Journal, we learn “Why We Need a Female Thor and a Black Batman.” This is now what passes for a “national conversation.”

I checked out the rest of the TIME site while I was writing this. There were some hard news items about politics and real human tragedies abroad, but among their top 10 most popular stories were “10 Excuses Unproductive People Basically Always Use,” “10 Things Millennials Won’t Spend Money On,” Credit Card Companies Really Hope You Don’t Notice This,” “Beyoncé Teases Fifty Shades of Grey Trailer on Instagram,” “The World’s Second-Richest Man Thinks You Should Work Only 3 Days a Week” and “How Overparenting Makes Kids Overweight.” I especially liked, “For Nerds, This Video Is Absolutely Everything.

As of this writing, The Atlantic seems to be having a semi-serious Sunday, but monthly cover stories this year have included “The Fraternity Problem,” “Closing the Confidence Gap” (On women in business), “The Overprotected Child,” and “A Case for Reparations.” Most of them have been designed to draw attention, surprise or provoke outrage, like any click-bait headline. I don’t even think most black people take the idea of reparations seriously, and with percentages of male enrollment in college lower than ever, an article about the trouble with frats is just another invitation for spoiled college girls to gossip about boys.

I have a hard time believing that the people who write this stuff are even sincere. They’re going for the big story, the most shares, the most tweets, the mention on late night television.

I’m not complaining. In fact, I welcome this development. I love that the mainstream media is getting trashier and easier to dismiss.

It makes people more willing to consider what non-mainstream writers have to say.

American newspapers and magazines started out as soap-boxes for entrepreneurs and ideologues. Hearst drove sales with sensational headlines. Every paper was as unapologetically skewed as The Huffington Post. For a few decades, journalism gained a veneer of respectability based on an assumption of objectivity that was probably always more of a charming fiction than a reality. Now the industry is returning to what it always was — a commercial enterprise catering to base elements of human nature and whipping up madness in crowds.

As the “reputable” papers and magazines become increasingly indistinguishable from TMZJezebel, Upworthy, or Thought Catalog, they burn credibility as legitimate sources and gatekeepers of ideas. They’re down here with the rest of us on the digital street corner, shouting, trying to get people’s attention. If everyone is spinning everything shamelessly and sensationally, people can just pick the spin they like the best, instead of looking to the mainstream media for “serious journalism” and “reasonable viewpoints.”

In 2012, one Gallup poll (whatever that’s worth) found that 60% of Americans don’t trust the mainstream media.

When no one trusts the mainstream media, what happens next could blow your mind . . .



]]> 0
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Mon, 21 Jul 2014 17:33:25 +0000 apes11,237 words

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the second movie in the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, establishes this as a superior franchise inviting comparisons with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy.

The movie begins exactly where Rise of the Planet of the Apes left off, with a tracker plotting flights around the globe showing the spread of “simian flu.” An accompanying news montage informs us that ten years have passed since the outbreak began and that almost all humans have been wiped out. The apes, who at the end of Rise had crossed the Golden Gate Bridge and founded a new order in the forest, have now established a settled community.

On the other side of the bridge a group of human survivors, who appear to be immune to the virus, have created a makeshift but well-armed fortress. When a small group of these survivors unwittingly trespasses into the ape territory intending to restart a hydroelectric dam, the stage is set for a fascinating examination of how two neighboring, but utterly distinct communities, might relate to each other.

One interesting contrast between the two communities (leaving aside the fact that they are different species) is that the apes are a newly founded, tribal community, based on principles of in-group loyalty and highly hierarchical. The humans are the last remaining remnants, on the point of extinction, and desperately seeking a source of electricity without which they cannot survive. Thus the apes are strong and autonomous whilst the humans are desperate and dependent. Both groups, however, are small communities who cannot afford to sustain significant casualties. This means that both humans and apes are depicted in a defensive mode, and the movie explores different responses to the need for self-defense.

As the action develops, it becomes clear that the majority on both sides are rather belligerent and see attack as the best form of defense. But Caesar, the leader of the apes, develops a relationship of trust with Malcolm, a member of the original human scouting party, and he allows the humans access to the dam. Malcolm similarly advocates for restraint among the humans and it is his influence that convinces Dreyfus, the leader of the human survivors, not to use their considerable weaponry to immediately wipe out all of the apes. This tentative truce is shown to be extremely fragile, and the tension in the movie derives from the inevitable, but unbearable, inevitability of its unfolding.

Caesar’s rival is Koba, an ape whose experience as a subject of vivisection has given him a lifelong and justified antipathy towards humanity. Koba resents Caesar’s alliance with the humans and challenges his position as alpha male. When his challenge is unsuccessful he resorts to more nefarious means and introduces the apes to the humans’ arsenal of weapons. Apes had previously had an abhorrence of guns and living an isolated existence had not needed to consider how to defend themselves against armed outsiders. The irony is that Koba’s high sense of in-group belonging leads him to adopt the superior technology of the out-group humans; by trying to remain ape he becomes more like a human.

I read this as a subtle comment on the impossibility of retaining a separated, traditional community in an age of technology. The apes live a self-contained, balanced, and peaceful existence but unfortunately for them their land happens to contain a resource valued highly by invading Americans. There are many, many humans around the world who would look on the apes’ plight with a great deal of empathy.

In Rise the symbol of the fasces was used to demonstrate the maxim that a single ape is weak but apes together are strong. In Dawn the overt fascist/Roman Imperial imagery has been toned down and distilled into the apes’ central credo: ape not kill ape. This more sanitised message is also in keeping with the apparent moral of the movie, which seems to indicate the truth (platitude) that there are good people in out-groups and bad people in in-groups. But in many ways, this overt moralizing is undercut by the logic of the movie itself.

For one thing, it is not at all clear that the doves on both sides have actually acted to protect their respective communities in the most effective way. Dreyfus’ original impulse was to wipe out all of the apes using the humans’ extensive weaponry. He makes a speech to the survivors, whipping up their antipathy to the apes and appealing to the shared suffering the community has undergone over the preceding years; classic appeals to in-group loyalty. It is Malcolm’s influence that persuades Dreyfus to allow a more peaceful approach. By the end of the movie it’s clear that this approach has led to many human deaths, however inadvertently. Malcolm’s and Caesar’s humanitarian diplomacy might be foregrounded as the most reasonable position to take in the movie, being a more rational and intelligent response to a new threat, but the movie does not pretend that it brings about a peaceful solution. The movie ends with a larger war between ape and human imminent, and Malcolm and Caesar both have to retreat back to their own sides.

Because the movie is so concerned with issues around in-group loyalty it is tempting to read it in a racial context, and I’m sure that some will do so. For me this is not the most interesting way to think about it because the apes and humans mirror each other in so many ways, even to the extent that they can both be seen as multicultural, the humans in an obvious sense and the apes due to the different simian sub-species who have banded together.

For me the most interesting way to read the conflict between man and ape was to see one group as a dying, late civilization, utterly dependent on technology, and the other as a newly emerging culture, reliant on physical strength and hierarchy. Both sides have particular vulnerabilities but there is no doubt which side history favors.

In its depiction of a technologically dependent humanity, decimated by a lethal virus, and struggling to adapt to harsher conditions, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes seems to have taken inspiration from the 1970s British TV series, Survivors. Survivors (which really demands an essay of its own) showed in relentless detail just how much we take the functioning of the modern state and economy for granted. Much of the series showed people coming to terms with how inept they were when there were no shops full of food and other goods. None of us is well equipped to begin from scratch, and Survivors gave an unflattering portrait of our dependency on state and commercial functions. It also managed to question whether its characters’ need to re-establish communities and get society functioning again was actually a desirable goal, or whether, in contrast, the collapse of society was a liberation. Dawn echoes Survivors in many ways, even to the extent that the last series of Survivors ended with a hydroelectric dam being brought back into use.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has taken the Christopher Nolan approach to blockbuster film making by embedding ambiguity and complexity into its otherwise very entertaining narrative. As the sickly, dying race of humans gives way to the new order of virile ape warriors I look forward to the next installment where, perhaps, the apes will discover their numen.


]]> 0
What We Don’t Know About Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 . . . Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:12:21 +0000 crashdebris2

Russian separatist in Ukraine holding stuffed toy of one of the 80 children killed on Malaysian Airlines Flight 17

1,605 words

. . . could kill us all.

It is astonishing what we do know about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which crashed in eastern Ukraine on Friday. We know that that all 298 humans on board — plus 2 dogs, 4 pigeons, and 5 other birds including at least 1 peacock and at least 1 chicken — were killed.

We know the nationalities of the victims, that most of them were white, most of them were Dutch, and that 80 were children. Thanks to smart phones and social media, we have countless poignant and horrifying images of the crash debris. It was a terrible loss, and our primary responsibility is to make sure that it is not the beginning of a greater catastrophe.

As of this writing, the wreckage and bodies are under the control of Russian separatists, who have chased off with gunfire the international investigators who are qualified to determine just what happened to the plane.

But that has not stopped “Western” governments and media from pushing the idea that the plane was downed with a surface-to-air missile fired by Russian separatists and provided by Putin’s Russia. I think that is the most likely story, given that the separatists have been shooting down other airplanes recently. But we don’t know. In fact, there is a long list of things that we don’t know.

  1. We don’t know that the plane was shot down. It could have exploded due to a bomb on board or due to some sort of catastrophic mechanical failure.
  2. If the plane was shot down, we don’t know whether it was shot down by a ground-based missile or a missile fired from an airplane.
  3. If the plane was shot down, we don’t know by whom: Ukraine, Russian separatists, and Russia herself are the main players in the area. Again, the most plausible culprits are the separatists, with Russian help, since they have been shooting down other planes recently.
  4. If the plane was shot down, we don’t know why: it could have been the intended target; it could have been a mistaken target; the trigger man might not have cared who was on the plane; it could even have been an accidental misfiring.

Not only don’t we know these things, we may never know some of them.

Thus the rush to blame Russia is not based on the facts of the case, most of which are yet to be determined. Nor is it based merely on likelihoods. It is based on a pre-existing anti-Russian narrative in the Western media. This narrative is not constructed by Ukrainians, who have legitimate grievances against Russia. Ukraine is only important to the West because it fits into the anti-Russian narrative as well.

Over the near quarter-century since the collapse of the USSR, the “West” has pursued a recklessly anti-Russian foreign policy. Instead of welcoming the Russians as a brother people that had finally liberated itself from Communist tyranny, US foreign policy was to kick Russia repeatedly when she was down in order to maintain America’s new “uni-polar” hegemony.

The autarkic Soviet industrial economy was dismantled. Russia now has the economic profile of a Third World country, dependent on exporting raw materials. Specifically, Russia’s economy depends largely on oil and gas exports — much like that of a Persian Gulf sheikdom, although there is far more poverty and inequality in Russia.

The USSR’s former satellites in Central and Eastern Europe and her former Republics in the Baltic were added to NATO and the EU. One can’t blame these countries for seeking NATO and EU security guarantees. They would have been crazy to have spurned them.

But for all of the indignities she has absorbed, Russia still maintains the world’s second most powerful military, with far higher quality soldiers than the browning biomass of the US military, and a nuclear arsenal that could wipe out a good chunk of life on earth. Although one would never guess it, given the abandon with which the US is pursuing a confrontation with Moscow.

Who are the gamblers who authored this policy, and what do they think they will gain? The architects of this policy are Jews. Neo-conservative Jews under the Bush I and Bush II administrations, “liberal” Jews under the Clinton and Obama administrations, but Jews nonetheless – although, of course, they are aided by schools of goy remoras like Barack Obama and John McCain who feast on their masters’ table scraps and droppings.

Fix your mind firmly on this fact: American’s policy toward Russia was authored by the same people who gave us the Iraq war, America’s greatest military fiasco (so far).

As for what they hope to gain: one could ask the same question about the current Gaza incursions. Those who claim that Jews are playing some sort of Machiavellian strategic long game may simply be fooling themselves to evade a much scarier possibility: that it is nothing but the sadistic revenge of power-mad, hate-crazed psychopaths — the same people who have hijacked our nation and steered it on a collision course with Russia and World War III.

Jews hate Russians almost as much as they hate Palestinians, and that reckless hate may be all that is dictating US policy. No matter how the current crisis plays out, the world will never be safe until whites in America and around the world understand the Jewish problem, stop listening to Jews, and start saying no to them.

Cui bono? is the only Latin phrase most Alex Jones fans know. (Reductio ad absurdum should be the next one they look up.) Who stands to benefit from the downing of the jet?

  1. Ukraine clearly benefits from the current narrative pinning it on the Russian separatists and their Kremlin sponsors, since this atrocity will mobilize world and Russian opinion against further support of the separatists.
  2. However, Vladimir Putin also stands to benefit from the same narrative. Putin clearly has little interest in the Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. He was willing to pay a high price to secure Crimea, which is an important strategic asset. To help gain Crimea, Putin was cynical enough to stoke nationalist sentiments among Crimean Russians. But when those same sentiments gave rise to separatism in less strategically valuable territory, Putin has given only desultory aid – perhaps merely because he cannot disappoint the intense Russian nationalists among his own supporters. Pinning this atrocity on the separatists will allow Putin to say “enough is enough” to the ultra-nationalists and stop Russian support of the separatists altogether.
  3. If this atrocity leads to a swift solution in eastern Ukraine, then the whole world benefits. Without Russian support to the separatists, Ukraine can pacify the region, and the Russians there who simply cannot abide Ukrainian rule can move to Russia, who should welcome them, given her current demographic crisis.

Of course the beneficiaries of events are not always their authors. Surprisingly few children, for example, murder their parents for their inheritances.

The US government and Jewish media are claiming, without proof, that Russia conspired with Russian separatists to provide them with advanced weaponry that shot down the Malaysian jet. They are selling this story because it fits in with their existing policy goals and the narrative that justifies it. Empirical evidence and rational inference mean nothing to them.

It is not a “conspiracy theory,” however. It is just the “news.” A “conspiracy theory” is an alternative explanation that does not advance the interest of people in power.

I despise conspiracy theories and the people who traffic in them.

The only “conspiracy theory” I believe in is the “international Jewish conspiracy,” which is no conspiracy theory at all, since Jewish power is a fact. And it is no secret. It is “hidden” in plain view, for all the world to see.

I despise conspiracy mongers not because they challenge the people in power, which is a good thing. I despise them because typically they are just as unscrupulous as the people in power. For instance, the lack of facts about the Ukraine crash has not deterred conspiracy theorists from spinning out alternative stories that advance their own agendas. Empirical evidence and rational inference mean nothing to them either.

It is frankly dismaying, for example, when otherwise sensible people claim that “the Jews” must have caused the crash because they wanted to distract the Western media from Gaza. This, mind you, comes from people who rightly believe that Jews effectively control the Western media and thus would not need such a distraction if they wanted to change the subject. Which also implies that current Gaza coverage suits Jews just fine. (Try wrapping your mind around that.)

As a general rule, I believe in “worse is better,” meaning: worse for the current system = better for whites. More people than ever are cynical about the political system and the mainstream media. They rightly sense that these people are liars and hypocrites. But when our people start turning to alternative media for information, they are too often greeted by cranky conspiracy theorists who are just as dishonest and cynical as the mainstream our people are fleeing.

When it comes to the media, there are three basic kinds of people: conformists who irrationally believe everything the authorities say, cranks who irrationally doubt everything the authorities say, and rational people whose only authorities are facts and reason. If people on the Right aspire to lead – first in the realm of opinion and then in the realm of politics – we need to make reason, reality, and sincerity our watchwords and to build up our credibility while that of our enemies continues to spiral downward.



]]> 11
Evolution, Eugenics, & God’s Will Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:09:14 +0000 2,691 words

Michelangelo,_Creation_of_Adam_04This famous scene from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel has recently been interpreted in a startling new way. After it was cleaned and restored, the original details were revealed. The vehicle in which God is traveling, along with God himself, all the angels, the sashes, etc., conform remarkably well to the structures of a human brain (turned sideways, facing Adam). 

It’s long been known that Michelangelo performed dissections so that he could fully understand the human body. Instead of the old interpretation of God giving life to Adam, it seems clear that Michelangelo’s intention was to portray God giving the highest form of intellect to Adam, a uniquely human gift which is the product of the human brain (Meshberger, 1990).

SistineBrain1 This painting provides a wonderful artistic illustration for the subject of this paper. If one understands the large genetic component to our very souls — not only our intelligence, but our honesty, our kindness, our courage, our creativity, and our unique personalities — then one can immediately grasp the potential of eugenics for evolving ourselves into better people, more fully in the image of God. Francis Galton envisioned eugenics as a large-scale humanitarian endeavor, firmly grounded in science, which also contained the seed of a new religion:

The chief result of these Inquiries has been to elicit the religious significance of the doctrine of evolution. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty. The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty which is supposed to be exercised concurrently with, and not in opposition to the old ones upon which the social fabric depends, is an endeavor to further evolution, especially that of the human race. Those who enjoy a sense of communion with God can dwell on the undoubted fact that there exists a solidarity between themselves and what surrounds them, through the endless reaction of physical laws among which the hereditary influences are to be included. They know that they are descended from an endless past, that they have a brotherhood with all that is, and have each his own share of responsibility in parentage of an endless future (Blacker, 1952).

Evolution is the Crown Jewel of Creation

Evolution by natural selection fashioned creatures with conscious awareness from one-celled animals over vast expanses of time. The consciousness of human beings has evolved to such a degree that we are able to love one another, to experience joy at the beauty of nature, to create, to explore, to struggle to comprehend the nature of God, and even to manifest glimmerings of divinity ourselves. If Creation can be said to have anything resembling a purpose or destiny in a spiritual sense, the evolution of conscious beings has got to be at the very heart of it. For this reason, evolution by natural selection can legitimately be regarded as the “crown jewel” of Creation.

And isn’t “the crown jewel of Creation” a far cry from how Darwin’s theory was first greeted by the public in the late 1800s?! Christianity’s vehement rejection of the theory of evolution was understandable since it contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible. Although it was a painful process, fraught with bitterness, in the long run this conflict was healthy. Now we think of the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, and a lovely one at that. We have sufficient understanding to welcome Darwin’s message because we recognize evolution as a vitally important key to life, to our consciousness, and ultimately to God.

All major religions say, in one way or another, that we are created in God’s image. In Genesis it is written, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God is within you.” An Indian proverb (East Indian) elegantly expresses a similar notion:

Divinity sleeps in stones,
breathes in plants,
dreams in animals,
and awakens in human beings.

Consider the fact that we were created in God’s image through the process of evolution — this can hardly be an insignificant fact. The creation story in the Bible may be lovely, but isn’t the way we actually evolved into ourselves more awesome and more overwhelmingly beautiful than God merely dictating by fiat the existence of the first man and woman? Science has established conclusively that evolution is true, and this is not in doubt. But perhaps evolution could also be said to surpass the story of the Garden of Eden as being more probably true purely on aesthetic grounds (just as in physics sometimes the more beautiful of two theories is given more credence).

Dysgenics: A Cosmic Sacrilege?

The process of evolution quite naturally evokes our deepest fascination and respect, but it is the product of evolution, our consciousness itself, which is precious — one might even say “divine.” Yet the shocking fact is that today, our evolution has shifted into reverse, and our precious consciousness — acquired at such an enormous cost in suffering and death, over so many millennia — is now deteriorating. Scientific studies have shown that we, as a species, are currently evolving to become less intelligent, more violent, less healthy, and more mentally disturbed (Van Court and Bean, 1985, Lynn and Van Court, 1996; Lynn 1995; Lynn, 1996; Comings, 1996). The word for this is “dysgenics,” which is the opposite of “eugenics.” Dysgenics means human genetic deterioration. It’s difficult to imagine worse news. If evolution by natural selection is the crown jewel of Creation — having produced human beings in the image of God — then dysgenics must constitute one cosmic sacrilege.

Un-natural Selection

How did dysgenics come about? Simple. By a process that might well be called “un-natural selection,” because it is a reversal of natural selection resulting from society’s corrupting influence. In a nutshell:

  1. Modern societies quite understandably take care of sickly people who previously would have died, but then these people go on to have children with a high incidence of the same illnesses, and
  2. although contraception is available to everyone, it’s more consistently and effectively used by all of the “best” and the most admirable people, i.e., the smartest, most responsible, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to the larger society.

A high percentage of the “worst” and least-admirable people either don’t know, or don’t care, that unprotected sex brings babies into the world, so they have sex with little or no thought of contraception. They include: psychopaths, sociopaths, criminals, psychologically disturbed people of all varieties, alcoholics, drug addicts, irresponsible, short-sighted, and selfish people, the mentally retarded, just-plain-dumb people, and people who are too lazy to take a trip to the corner drugstore. Because of their negligence, they contribute a disproportionate share of their least-admirable genes to future generations.

Professor Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster conducted a study in which he found that despite lengthy sojourns in prison, London criminals still managed to produce more children on average than ordinary, law-abiding citizens (Lynn, 1995). Lynn calculated the increase in crime that would be expected, given the degree to which criminal behavior is a function of heredity, and estimated the increase in crime which should result (other factors being equal) by the excess fertility of criminals. His excellent book, Dysgenics (reviewed here) is the most comprehensive and authoritative work on the issue of eugenics and dysgenics to date.

Instead of implementing a eugenics program of incentives and disincentives in order to rectify the problem of dysgenics, most governments are making it worse by subsidizing the reproduction of the least-productive segment of society, and taxing heavily the most productive segment.

Farmers and breeders have utilized the principle of “select the best” for their crops, livestock, and pets, and this has given us bountiful crops of every variety, high-yield milk cows, fast, beautiful, and gentle horses. Yet we take far less care when it comes to human beings, and in effect, we “select the worst.” It would be unconscionable to breed stupid, sickly, and vicious dogs – surely it’s at least as cruel to do this to human beings.


It’s not necessary, nor even possible, to do away with contraception entirely because the technologies and information for preventing conception are “out,” and only a severely repressive government could keep them from the people, and then only partially. However, we can reverse dysgenics and continue the process of improving the human species by implementing a eugenics program. We can once again evolve in a positive direction with self-directed evolution. From a spiritual point of view, when we take on the mantle of eugenics, we insure that our evolution will be guided more directly by God, who lives and breathes within us.

The word “eugenics” conjures up draconian images of Nazis and death camps, but even a cursory examination of the issues shows that this association is unwarranted. Eugenics has been practiced since ancient times, and in the 20th century Sweden had a eugenics program that lasted for 40 years (Broberg and Roll-Hansen, 1996). In fact, a total of 28 countries practiced eugenics in the 20th century, and one country, Germany, committed genocide, so despite Marxist propaganda to the contrary, it’s apparent that no causal association can be drawn between eugenics and mass murder. (For a more detailed discussion of these important issues, see the review of Dysgenics.)

Critics of eugenics often argue that we will never agree upon which traits we want, so therefore, the entire enterprise is hopeless. But this argument is utterly without merit. It’s perfectly predictable that we will choose health, beauty, intelligence, talent, courage, kindness, and honesty for our children because these are universally valued traits. All over the world parents value them today, just as parents valued them a hundred years ago, and a thousand years ago.

Is Dysgenics God’s Will? Three Fundamental Truths

Scientists entering the realm of theology for the first time suddenly find themselves on very shaky ground, indeed. How does one know this or that is true? Where’s the evidence? In this paper, I have assumed only that many readers believe in God. Now, given this assumption, at least it becomes possible to say, “If one accepts this statement about God, then such-and-such logically follows.”

Is the current genetic deterioration of the human species “God’s will?” I hope to address this question in a such a way that it will be applicable to Christians and devotees of other religions, as well as to most people who believe in God but don’t adhere to any particular religious creed. First I’ll state three fundamental truths about the nature of God upon which all major religions agree. Then I’ll attempt to draw inferences from them about dysgenics.

  1. God loves us. All major religions hold that this is so.
  2. God wants us to be kind to one another. Jesus said “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” The current Dalai Lama (spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists) says, “Be kind to one another.” Kindness to others is one of the most important — if not the most important — teaching of all religions.
  3. God has accorded human beings a special place in the animal kingdom, with a distinct destiny. All major religions believe that human beings are the pinnacle of God’s creation. In Genesis, God said, “[L]et [man] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepith upon the earth.” In Hindu writings about reincarnation, people are considered the highest and most spiritually advanced creatures. No major religion teaches that we are indistinguishable from lower animals.

Now we get to the heart of the matter — namely, what inferences can we draw from these three fundamental truths? Is dysgenics God’s will? Is dysgenics contrary to God’s will? Or, is dysgenics simply irrelevant to God?

Let’s take the first statement, that God loves us. If God loves us, then he doesn’t want us to suffer unnecessarily. That certainly follows, doesn’t it? Dysgenics means that our children’s generation will be less well-endowed genetically than our generation is, and it’s inescapable that they will suffer as a result. To be sickly, to be retarded, to suffer psychiatric illness — these are all things we definitely do not want for our children, nor for anyone else we love. It hardly requires a giant leap of faith to conclude that if God loves us, he doesn’t want us to suffer needlessly.

With regard to the second point, that God wants us to be kind to one another – is it kind for us to leave the next generation genetically stupider, more sickly mentally and physically, and worse people morally? Inflicting pain and suffering on enormous numbers of innocent beings is hardly the definition of kindness. I challenge the reader: can you think of anything that is more cruel, on such a vast scale? Communism certainly comes to mind as a possible contender, but I would argue it ranks second to dysgenics. At any rate, we know what our health means to us — it means everything. And we know how much our intelligence means. Imagine what life would be like if you had been born mentally retarded — you wouldn’t even be you! These traits are profoundly important to everyone, past, present and future.

In addition to leaving our children’s generation a poorer genetic legacy, if we do nothing about dysgenics, we will also bequeath to them the same cultural taboo against eugenics which we have inherited — the taboo which has paralyzed the Western world for the past 50 years on the vitally important issue of our own biological evolution. Until dysgenics is reversed, each generation will become successively less and less capable of solving the problem of dysgenics — or any problem, for that matter.

Third, God has accorded human beings a special place in the animal kingdom, with a distinct destiny. Could our “distinct destiny” possibly be to evolve closer and closer in the image of God for hundreds of thousands of years — more intelligent, more loving and kind, healthier and more civilized — and then suddenly to reverse direction, to squander all the hard-won gains, and evolve backwards, less in the image of God, more like lower animals? How could this be God’s will? It’s inconceivable.

By examining three fundamental truths upon which all major religions agree, a very short and sure step of reasoning leads us, in each case, to the conclusion that dysgenics must be against God’s will.


Our biology and our spirituality are inextricably linked, and they evolve (or de-volve) hand in hand. From the standpoint of Christianity, it’s fascinating to realize that as we de-volve to become more criminal, more stupid, and more primitive, there will inevitably be (1) a large increase in the total amount of sin, and therefore (2) a higher percentage of people condemned to Hell! Amazing though it may seem, science has proven that Good and Evil have roots in biology, and we ignore this fact at our peril.

In conclusion, the most capable of our small, ape-like ancestors survived and reproduced in greater numbers so that our species gradually evolved larger brains, higher intelligence, and greater humanness, and the result of this extraordinary Creation is us. However, “we” aren’t the end of the story!! “Creation” is still in motion, and now we are participants in it, whether for good or for ill. We can, and we must, reverse the current process of dysgenics if we are to carry out God’s will, and if we feel any love or compassion for all those who come after us.


Blacker, C. P., 1952, Eugenics: Galton and After, Gerald Duckworth & Co, London

Broberg, Gunnar, & Nills Roll-Hansen, 1996, Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, Michigan University Press, East Lansing

Comings, David, 1996, The Gene Bomb, Hope Press, Duarte, CA Meshberger, Frank L., 1990, “An Interpretation of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam Based on Neuroanatomy,” JAMA, Oct. 10, 1990, vol. 264, No. 14

Lynn, Richard, 1996, Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut

Lynn, Richard, 1995, “Dysgenic fertility for crime,” Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, p. 405-408

Van Court, Marian, and Frank Bean, 1985, “Intelligence and Fertility in the United States: 1912-1982,” Intelligence, vol. 8, p. 23-32



]]> 5
False Flags & Dull Facts Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:53:46 +0000 TOPSHOTS-UKRAINE-RUSSIA-POLITICS-CRISIS-MALAYSIA-NETHERLANDS-PLA1,010 words

The shooting down/crash of a Malaysia Airlines (yes, them again) plane over the disputed Eastern Ukraine has got the conspiracy theory bandwagons rolling again. There are three main theories:

  1. It was an accident
  2. Russia did it
  3. The Ukrainians did it

Whichever view you are drawn to, will of course simply be reflecting your emotional disposition to the various actors in the above list.

If you think that Malaysia is a racist society that uses a system of affirmative action to reserve pilot jobs for ethnic Malays, then Number One looms larger. The main objection with this and the accident theory in general – or even with theories that it may just have been the usual Muslim passenger blowing himself up – is the location.

The crash occurred very precisely in a comparative sliver of rebel held territory close to the Russian border. As Bogart says in Casablanca, “Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the World . . .” Weird coincidences sometimes happen, but they only allow us an awed silence. They are not suitable material to base our deductions on.

This leaves the other two possibilities – the Russians or the Ukrainians. This inevitably will be the real Rorschach test. Most debates on this matter will grab at factoids, snatches of news, technical details to “prove” that their side couldn’t have done it:  “They simply didn’t have the right kinds of missiles on that particular Thursday” or “The smoke plume from the crash site couldn’t possibly have been caused by the plane being hit by one of our missiles,” etc., etc. Yes, it will get that tedious – and then it’ll get tedious some more.

The fact is that both Russia and the Ukraine have the clear possibility of having missiles or other devices that could shoot down a Boeing 777. Technical details will simply serve to obfuscate the issue.

Next, we have to state just what is meant by each of these groups. The Russians are the Russian state (presumably under Putin’s direct control although he may have been bear wrestling at that precise moment), but it also includes the separatist rebels, supported by Russia but having a certain degree of freedom of action.

The Ukrainians are a trickier problem, as the Ukrainian state is looked on by those who loathe it as a mere puppet of America – and even of Israel! One of the main memes to emerge already is the synchronicity of the plane crash with the Israeli ground offensive against Gaza.

We can perhaps shear off some of the wilder excrescences of the theory that the Ukrainians did it by stating that Israel has never previously felt the need to start WWIII in the past just to cover up its minor border wars, and that, anyway, with Iraq and Syria falling apart, there is plenty of other Middle Eastern noise to offset Israeli brutality in the media.

Now, even if we concede that the Ukrainian government is part of a wider Western conspiracy, what purpose does shooting down a 777 full largely of Dutch people have for them?

There are two possibilities:

  1. To cause a rift between the Russian state and the Russian separatists in the Ukraine
  2. To serve as a false flag justifying Western action

Causing a rift between the Russian state and the Russian separatists in the Ukraine, could lead to a lessening of military support or at least supplies of certain weapons, so there is a rationale behind this theory, although wiping out a planeload of innocent passengers seems too high a price to pay even in the deepest pits of Realpolitik for this marginal gain.

Also, with Russia being very well informed of who has what among the rebels, as well as excellent surveillance of the area, it is unlikely that such an effect could be achieved in the first place.

More intriguing is the second possibility, a false flag in order to launch Western action. The only problem here is that apart from sanctions, which they can step up anytime, and which are constrained by wider economic interests, the West clearly has no will to involve itself militarily in the Ukraine. There is no point in having a false flag unless you have your panzer columns parked over the border revving their engines or your mighty fleet vectoring in on the enemy shore.

The only conditions under which the West engages in war these days is when a state is so weak, destabilized, and Third World that they can’t lose. There also seems to be a sensible racial rule in play. Arabs, Africans – yes! Whites, East Asians – no! Persians – maybe. But even here – as we saw with Syria last year – there is a skittishness and trepidation when it comes to hard action rather than soft destabilization.

If the West is currently engaged in an active struggle against Russia, the frontline will not be the frontline. The West is losing the qualities that once suited it to fight on frontlines. Instead its efforts will be aimed at destabilization in Russia or in supporting one clique against another. Escalating the conflict in the Ukraine in a way which directly pits NATO against Russia is simply not on the menu.

“Cui bono?” must be our guide here. Apart from a little PR – offset by a thousand and one conspiracy theories – the Ukraine and the West gain little from this tragic incident.

This leaves the Russians. The Eastern Ukraine has been transformed into a war zone, whether rightly or wrongly, thanks to the policies of Vladimir Putin. The shooting down of a Malaysian jet over the area reminds us of this but serves no Russian interest. They clearly lack a nefarious motive. But in warfare, once it is under way, most actions happen with a brutal randomness that no one fully intended. In this case the airline was either mistaken for an enemy plane or was just shot at by some ill-disciplined irregular because it was there. Fact sometimes is a lot duller than fiction.


]]> 14
Now in Stock!Generation Identity:A Declaration of War Against the ’68ers Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:27:34 +0000 generation_identity_front_1527 words

Markus Willinger
Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ’68ers
London: Arktos, 2013
104 pages

paperback only: $17

Read Gregory Hood’s review here.

The denial of the European peoples’ right to their own heritage, history and even their physical homelands has become part of the cultural fundament of the modern West. Mass immigration, selective and vilifying propaganda, and a constant barrage of perverse or, at best, pointless consumer culture all contribute to the transformation of Europe into a non-entity. Her native population consists mostly of atomistic individuals, lacking any semblance of purpose or direction, increasingly victimized by a political system with no interest in the people it governs.

There are many views on how this came to be, but the revolt of May 1968 was certainly of singular importance in creating the apolitical, self-destructive situation that postmodern Europe is in today. This, however, is no history book. It is not primarily about how this came to be, but rather what can and should be done about it and, more to the point, who will do it. After the treachery of the political, journalistic and academic pseudo-elites and the complacency of an entire generation of Europeans which enabled it, it falls upon the young – the foremost victims of the derailing of Western society – to turn the tide.

In Generation Identity, activist Markus Willinger presents his take on the ideology of the budding identitarian movement in 41 brief and direct chapters. Willinger presents a crystal-clear image of what has gone wrong, and indicates the direction in which we should look for our solutions. Moving seamlessly between the spheres of radical politics and existential philosophy, Generation Identity explains in a succinct, yet poetic fashion what young Europeans must say – or should say – to the corrupt representatives of the decrepit social structures dominating our continent. This is not a manifesto, it is a declaration of war.

This book also contains an original Foreword by Philippe Vardon, one of the leaders of Bloc Identitaire and the French identitarian youth movement.


Foreword: The Front Line by Philippe Vardon
Editor’s Note
1. Generation Identity
2. On Loneliness
3. On Religion
4. On Politics
5. On Idyllic Family Life
6. On the Sexes
7. On the Unborn Children
8. On the Economy
9. On Critical Thinking
10. On Ecology
11. On the Multicultural Society
12. On Universalism
13. On Democracy
14. On Diversity
15. On National Socialism
16. On the End of the World
17. On Foreign Affairs
18. On the European Union
19. On Death
20. On Sexuality
21. On Racism
22. On the New Year
23. On the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
24. On Islam
25. On Body and Mind
26. On Freedom
27. On Ethnopluralism
28. On Responsibility
29. On the Globalised World
30. On Escapism
31. On the Zeitgeist
32. On the Longing for Identity
33. On Compulsory Military Service
34. On Integration
35. On a World Without Identities
36. On the Conflict in the Middle East
37. On Art
38. Aurea aetas: The Golden Era
39. Our Decision
40. Our Weapons
41. The Declaration of War


Markus Willinger was born in 1992 and grew up in Schärding am Inn, Austria. He has been politically active on the alternative Right since he was fifteen years old, and is now a student of history and political science at the University of Stuttgart. He is also the author of A Europe of Nations (London: Arktos, 2014).

paperback only: $17.00


]]> 0
From the EditorSlavoj Žižek Does Not Write for Counter-Currents as Gregory Hood Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:33:46 +0000 Slavoj Žižek at his home in Lubljana.580 words

In response to hypothetical questions based on the following list of ten incredible quotes that Slavoj Žižek didn’t actually write, I wish to deny that Slavoj Žižek writes for Counter-Currents as Gregory Hood. Let’s nip this vicious rumor in the bud.

Greg Johnson

1. “There is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive.”

2. “A woman can drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she just ends up living in an apartment full of cats.”

3. “True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.”

4. “The masses are feminine. Academics especially so.”

5. “Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be ‘The One’ or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is ‘your everything.’ She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.”

6. “Civilization comes at a cost of manliness. It comes at a cost of wildness, of risk, of strife. It comes at a cost of strength, of courage, of mastery. It comes at a cost of honor. Increased civilization exacts a toll of virility, forcing manliness into further redoubts of vicariousness and abstraction”

7. “While the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Jewish state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”

8. “Jewishness is a universal backstage pass.”

9. “Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. . . . [Its victory] crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men.”

10. “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”


]]> 7
America: Imagine a World Without Her Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:50:15 +0000 The huckster D’Souza

The huckster D’Souza

2,879 words

There’s no easier way to make a living than as a non-white activist in the American conservative movement. Simply offer well-meaning whites the nectar of racial absolution and say you care about their country, and they will throw money at you no matter what else you tell them. 

The recognized master of this unique form of hucksterism is Dinesh D’Souza, who specializes in capitalizing on implicit white identity while making sure it is funneled into ideological dead ends. D’Souza is worthy of special opprobrium because of his actions against Sam Francis and Jared Taylor. D’Souza’s hostile, sensationalistic, and dishonest coverage of the 1994 American Renaissance conference was one of the main factors in the dismissal of Sam Francis from the Washington Times.

Of course, D’Souza also stole the writings of Jared Taylor without attribution — as Slavoj Žižek can testify, something that seems to be going around these days. His effort at positioning himself between multiculturalists and evil white racists, The End of Racism, was so filled with distortions and smears that the entire first run had to be pulped by the publisher. Needless to say, his deeply dishonest game of “I’m not a racist, those guys over there are the racists!” has not protected him from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, something impossible to view without at least some schadenfreude.

D’Souza’s shamelessness continues to the present day. After his last documentary, he was caught in a scandal over alleged adultery and had an ignominious exit from the presidency of a Christian college. But after only the briefest respite, he has resurfaced with his latest documentary America, and continues trolling both Left and Right with flimsy narratives of persecution and liberal bias against virtuous, colorblind conservatives.

America is subtitled Imagine a World Without Her. It begins with an alternate history where George Washington is killed in battle. Several supposedly negative scenarios are outlined, from a Southern victory in the War of the Northern Aggression to Germany winning World War II.

But instead of exploring these, D’Souza spends the bulk of the movie defending America against the charges that it is racist and exploitative. He concocts a theory that America has transcended a “conquest ethic” in favor of a production ethic of wealth creation. D’Souza thus smoothly transforms the race-driven hatred of anti-American leftists into an economic dispute over resources.

D’Souza ends the movie with an exploration of the career of Saul Alinsky, whose career was defined by “rubbing raw the resentments of the people” in order to create socialist revolution. D’Souza gives us a hilarious scene where the extremely Jewish Alinsky leers at the residents of a white middle class neighborhood, gleefully pondering how to ruin their lives. However, D’Souza leaves aside the racial element of Alinsky’s shaming tactics and his identification of the “white” middle class as the enemy, instead transforming Alinsky’s entire motivation simply into “socialism.”

Wave the flag, roll credits, vote Republican.

From the perspective of interest and entertainment, D’Souza squanders the promising premise of the film. A history of the world without America could have been genuinely provocative. However, he can’t do that because what his left wing critics hate is not “America” but the white people who created her. He has to transform the visceral racial politics of American history into a policy dispute over Obamacare. That’s how the scam known as Conservatism Inc. operates.

But there’s a deeper question here for Traditionalists. All of D’Souza’s “charges” against America come from the Left. Perhaps the film that needs to be made is a critique of America from the Right. America, Imagine a World Without Her: From Our Eyes.

Four Charges Against America

“The United States represents the reductio ad absurdum of the negative and the most senile aspects of Western civilization” – Julius Evola

1. America replaced Tradition and Identity with Equality

Is there any phrase in history that has been more destructive in its effects, unlimited in its implications, and self-evidently false in its content than “all men are created equal?”

As our leaders are never tired of telling us, America is an idea, not a nation, and the idea is that human beings are born with certain unalienable rights. Government exists only protect the rights of individuals, leaving them free to pursue the American Dream – which usually consists of working pointless jobs in order to buy more disposable goods in the Lockean shopping mall we call a country.

But the American Revolution was a mistake. The result was not a free nation, but a random collection of rootless, powerless, deracinated consumers ruled more despotically by financiers and the media than any peasant under the Stuarts. The ideological foundation of America was rotten from the beginning. What’s worse is that even as Americans move away from traditional American “patriotism,” they believe ever more frantically that more democracy and equality is the answer. Sarah Albers notes in The American Conservative that recent polling shows,

Young Americans are emphatically committed to the principles upon which America was founded, but will sometimes reject the country itself as well as the wisdom and history embodied in its establishment. It is fealty to an idea, not loyalty to a nation, that they profess.

America is playing out to its logical conclusion. The horrible truth of America’s founding ideology is that it is both the problem and the only permitted solution. There can never be a society that is equal, free, or “happy.”

D’Souza is fond of quoting Alexis de Toqueville in his film but leaves out his observation that “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.” Joseph Sobran once said that conservatives should ask liberals if there was any society in which they would be conservative. He missed the point. The endless march towards the impossible ideal is the American story, an absurd quest doomed to failure and destined only to lead to a continual destruction of everything worthwhile. The only escape is to say from the beginning that the ideal itself is absurd.

Had the forces of King George III succeeded, perhaps this sinister spectre of “rights” would not have been unleashed into the world. We can imagine a world where the “age of sophists, economists, and calculators” that heralded the end of the “glory of Europe” was postponed, if not prevented. And while a monarch still reigns in the Court of St. James, it is but hollow symbolism. The annihilation of the aristocratic principle heralded by Yorktown has transformed the royal houses of Europe into a tourist attractions for decadent democracies rather than bulwarks of Tradition.

Unfortunately, the colonials were saved by Louis XVI of France, who – in foreshadowing of the West’s entire history over the next few centuries – would be slain by the very egalitarian forces he unleashed in the interest of petty power politics.

2. America Destroyed Europe

America defined itself as a rejection of the Old World with its kings, traditions, and nations.

Occasionally, this was even taken to the extent of dreaming of an anti-European bloc in opposition to the Continent. As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1820, “Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own.”

Jefferson’s primary concern was keeping aloof from what he called the “ferocious and sanguinary” contests of Europe, but this was more than just policy. It reflected a core element of American nationalism, which defined itself as a negation, the “anti-Europe.” To this day, “European” is a slur among the “patriots” of the American Right. And this eventually manifested itself in an interventionist foreign policy, rather than the nonintervention of the early Republic. As Michael O’Meara, commenting on the work of Francis Parker Yockey, put it,

During the 19th century, the rising commercial and business classes, communicating vessels of the liberal ethos, allied with the cosmopolitan capitalism of the British Empire and the ascending economic might of America’s new low-church empire — an alliance ideologically arrayed under the banner of “Anglo-Saxonism” and implicitly opposed to continental Europeans attached to Listian economics, landed property, authority, and tradition . . .

Though the “true America,” transplant of Europe, shared her destiny, Yockey believed modern liberal America had become an anti-Europe endeavoring not only to subjugate, occupy, and oppress her, but to destroy her unique heritage of blood and spirit.

This eventually expressed itself in a remarkably consistent opposition to European attempts to re-establish a link with Tradition. In what Revilo Oliver termed the “Crusade to Save the Soviets” of World War II, America ensured that Eastern Europe would be handed over to the Soviet Union – and then turned its attention to dismantling what Western European empires and white settler states remained.

The anti-Communist Cold War that followed, rather than a jihad against the global Left, made racial egalitarianism a strategic necessity and established it as an American moral principle as the United States battled the Soviet Union around the world. Ironically, it is the United States that has emerged as the great champion of cultural Marxism even as post-Cold War Russia moves in a more conservative direction, raising the question for the American Right whether they actually lost the Cold War.

Through culture, through economics, and through military interventions like that against Serbia, the United States is committed to preventing the rise of a truly European Europe. In the words of General Wesley Clark during the NATO offensive to secure Muslim Kosovo, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

It’s the American idea of a deracinated state founded upon human rights that triumphed in postwar Europe. It’s that idea that needs to be destroyed if Europe is to be liberated. And the only thing those Americans who are truly loyal to the Western Culture may be able to do today is prevent America from attacking, bombing, and occupying Europe if it rediscovers herself.

In the world without America, Europe would have remained true to herself. The mother continent of the West would not be faced with the choice of being either a soulless museum or conquered province of the Dar al-Islam. And the identity of Western Man would not have been deconstructed in order to make the world safe for McDonalds. Which brings us to . . .

3. America Replaced Culture with Consumerism

One of D’Souza’s main points is that capitalism has created more wealth and has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system. He points to nations like India and China as examples of the power of the free market.

It’s easy to say that vulgar American materialism is jeopardizing spiritual values, even though it’s true. Most people have little time for spiritual values if they can’t provide for their families. The problem is that D’Souza’s thesis fails on its own merits.

The rising Asian Tigers that will dominate the economy of the near future follow a nationalist form of state capitalism. It’s easy enough to say centrally planned Soviet Communism is a proven failure. It’s far harder to say that American style free trade, and debt driven, financial capitalism is somehow superior to that practiced by the other economic powers, especially considering how different our current system is from the original “American System” of tariffs, internal improvements, manufacturing, and high wages.

The modern American outlook on economics holds that the nation exists to serve the economy, rather than the economy serving the nation. For example, ALL employment growth since 2000 in the United States has gone to benefit immigrants. From a nationalist perspective, this means that Americans have essentially been treading water for fifteen years. However, from an American financier’s perspective, an abstraction called the “economy” is growing, and therefore, the country is on the right track.

Instead of examining issues like quality of life, the cost of raising a family, or whether employees enjoy job security, the American financial system focuses on the all-important issue of growing GDP, propping up the system through ever increasing debt and using the dollar’s status as the “reserve currency” to just keep printing more money to keep the charade going.

The result is a something that cannot really be called a “culture” – just a market selling junk. The American economic system prioritizes spending over investment, consumption over creation, and cheap labor over efficiency and quality. While the “economy” is growing, the quality of life for most Americans is decreasing as living in a “nice” (white) neighborhood requires absurd amounts of resources. What a one income household could do on a union job not long ago now costs $130,000 a year.

But that’s not the real crime. The real crime is not just that everything is a commodity, it’s that everything is a cheap throwaway commodity. Everything is disposable. Nothing is sacred and everything is shoddy.

The government subsidizes harmful junk food while raiding families that try to produce their own milk or grow their own food. Irresponsible sexual behavior is rewarded and traditional families punished. High paying jobs are actually targeted for destruction by the government, the better for them to be replaced by foreign helot labor. It’s as if our rulers read Marx’s taunt that capitalism turns even family life into brutal economic calculation and thought, “That’s sounds like a great idea.”

What was the alternative? The organic society, the Volksgemeinschaft where the economy serves the nation and serves culture. Economic policy is formulated with the consideration of what will improve the quality of life for the community and the upward development of the race. Efficiency, quality, and beauty are priorities. Companies invest in workers and are tied to particular communities – a system which continues in Germany today, the powerhouse of the European Union. Instead of an economy that subsidizes the worst in people, we could have had something which promotes the best.

But we didn’t. And when every community is destroyed, every worker ground into the dirt, and every neoliberal policy prized as holy writ, what is the result? A nation of unhappy consumers, addicted to prescription drugs, who build their lives around the accumulation of plastic junk. What’s more, even though materialism is all American culture has to offer, somehow, everyone is broke and in debt – as is the country itself.

4. America Destroys the People Who Built Her

Having destroyed the European culture that created her, America is now fulfilling her destiny as an eternal revolutionary state by eating her own children. Even as this is written, the President of the United States is ignoring his responsibility to enforce the law to gleefully ship in immigrants from Central America. Some are gang-members, some are carrying diseases, and none have anything to offer the United States except the open hand of a beggar or the clenched fist of an enemy.

The effects of America’s own government are indistinguishable from that of military conquest by a foreign enemy. But millions of Americans support their own displacement because they see it as the fulfillment of their own national mission. And they are right.

If America is an “idea,” and the pursuit of a “better life” is all that matters, why not let in the needy? After all, they would have a better life here. We won’t, of course, but it it’s not about us. White people have no particular claim to this land – which is, after all, simply an administrative unit for the management of the economy and the protection of “rights” – so why not let everyone in?

The obvious answer retort is that the historic American nation and its accomplishments was a European creation. In the immortal words of Sam Francis:

The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

However, the American ideology is not capable of making that argument. Self-conscious American patriots lack the vocabulary for a defense of their national existence, identified as it is with explicitly universal ideas.

Thus America is the Spenglerian cycle of nations in accelerated form. The hardy pioneers, conquerors and settlers swiftly surrender their moral right to existence and collapse into decadence. And why shouldn’t they? After all, America isn’t a people and a history – it’s a flag and a piece of paper.


These are the charges against America from the Traditionalist Right. And the truth of the indictment can be seen in the world around us – the world America built, the world that is killing us.

D’Souza loves this country because it is the greatest defender of the classical liberalism that makes people like him possible. It is also the greatest enemy of white survival, and the greatest engine of white degradation. These two truths are complimentary because when all is said and done, America, like D’Souza, is a scam. But every con has its end.

The only way white Americans can survive is without America and it begins by “imagining a world without her.” It’s easy if you try.


]]> 14
Now in Stock!Convergence of Catastrophes Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:39:11 +0000 convergence702 words

Guillaume Faye
Convergence of Catastrophes
Foreword by Jared Taylor
Translated by E. Christian Kopff
London: Arktos, 2012
216 pages

paperback only: $27

The thesis of this book is a terrifying one: our present global civilisation will collapse within twenty years, and it is too late to stop it. We shall regress to a ‘New Middle Ages’ akin to the fall of the Roman Empire, only much more destructive. 

For the first time in the whole of human history, certain ‘dramatic lines’, giant crises and catastrophes of immense proportions – already tangible – have emerged. They are converging and will most likely reach their zenith by 2020. Up to that time, as we have already been witnessing, their effects will continue to get worse, until a breaking point is reached.

Guillaume Faye rigorously examines these escalating crises one by one: environmental damage and climate change; the breakdown of a speculative and debt-ridden globalist economy; the return of global epidemics; the depletion of fossil fuels and of agricultural and fishing resources; the rise of mass immigration, terrorism and nuclear proliferation; the worsening of the rupture between Islam and the West; and the dramatic explosion of a population of the elderly in the wealthy countries – all of it leading to an unprecedented worldwide economic recession, an increase in localised and possibly large-scale armed conflicts . . . and perhaps worse.

Still, Faye reminds us, we should not give in to pessimism: what we are experiencing is not an apocalypse, but a metamorphosis of humanity. We might have reached the end of what the Hindu traditions refer to as the Kali Yuga, the ‘age of iron’ marked by materialism and selfishness, but those who survive the catastrophe and chaos will perhaps build a new and better humanity.


A Note from the Editor
Foreword by Jared Taylor

Introduction: An Explosive Cocktail
Believing in Miracles
Man, a Sick Animal
The Golem Paradigm, or the Machine That Went Mad
The ‘Billiard Ball’ Theory
‘Catastrophe Theory’ and ‘Discrete Structural Metamorphoses’
We Must Stop Believing in Sorcerers: Techno-science Gone Mad

1. Toward the Collapse of the Terrestrial Ecosystem
It is Already Too Late
How Times Have Changed!
Countdown to the Climate Bomb
Confronted by Global Warming, the Utopias of the Ecologists
Violent Climate Change Is Going to Provoke Geopolitical Earthquakes
The Spectre of Shortages
Examples of Ecological Disasters
And Let’s Not Forget Epidemics

2. Toward the Clash of Civilisations
The Globalisation of War
Toward the Most Bellicose Century in History
Terror as Art of Living
Is It a Question of War between Islam and the West?
China against the USA
When Everyone Has Nuclear Weapons
Israel’s Tears
Two Examples to Make Us Think
The Return of the Titans

3. Toward Chaos in Europe
In the Eye of the Cyclone
The Horrible Spectre of Ethnic Civil War
Economy: Tomorrow, the Great European Depression
The Demographic Coma
The Cancer of Decadence
The European Union: The Shattered Dream

4. Toward a Giant Economic Crisis
The End of the Paradigm of ‘Economic Development’
The Impending Death of World Economic Development
Toward a ‘Civilisational Break-up’
There Is No Reason to Believe That Traditional Economies Are ‘Underdeveloped’
Is the Techno-scientific Economy Viable?
The Neo-global Economy of the Post-Catastrophe Age
A Non-egalitarian Economy
Techno-science as Esoteric Alchemy
When the Worst is Probable
The End of ‘Growth’
Economism is Condemned
The Fraud of the ‘New Economy’
The Dangerous Fragility of Globalised Liberal Capitalism
Some Small but Worrying Signals
The Spectre of Poverty
Cancelling the Debts of Poor Countries Is a Farce

Conclusion: A New Middle Ages
- Chaos and Post-Chaos
- Humanity, the ‘Adjustment Variable’
- The Drunken Boat
- Catastrophe Scenarios
1) The Soft Scenario
2) The ‘Hard’ Scenario
3) The ‘Very Hard’ Scenario
The End of Contemporary Humanity, Predicted by Tradition
Out of Chaos into the Light


Guillaume Faye With a doctorate in political science from Paris’ Institute of Political Science, the essayist Guillaume Faye was one of the principal theoreticians of the French Nouvelle Droite in the 1970s and ’80s prior to his growing sympathy for the identitarian movement. He has also been a journalist at Figaro-Magazine, Paris-Match, Magazine-Hebdo, Valeurs Actuelles, and a radio commentator. For several years he was the editor of J’ai tout compris (I Understood Everything), a private newsletter which is now a blog:

paperback only: $27.00


]]> 0
Agora Thu, 17 Jul 2014 04:45:07 +0000 Agoraposter091,636 words

Agora (2009) should simply be called Hypatia, for it tells the story of Hypatia of Alexandria, the philosopher and mathematician who was murdered by a Christian mob in 415 CE. Hypatia’s life coincides with the destruction of ancient paganism by Christianity, thus her murder symbolizes the death of a whole civilization.

After the death of Julian “the Apostate” in 363 CE, Rome was ruled by Christians to the very end. Jovian, Julian’s ephemeral successor, set the tone, ordering the library of Antioch burned to the ground and instituting the death penalty for worshiping pagan gods. From that point forward, pagan civilization was slowly ground to dust between totalitarian edicts from the imperial throne and Taliban-style mob violence in the streets.

In 391 CE, when Agora opens, Theodosius “the Great,” who reigned from 379 to 395, is Emperor in Constantinople and Alexandria is divided between Christians, pagans, and Jews, who are locked in constant violence. A Christian mob, which had taken over a temple of Dionysus, paraded the sacred cult objects in the street and mocked them. Pagans, enraged at the profanation of the mysteries, attacked them, and rioting spread through the city. The pagans found that they were outnumbered and took refuge in the Serapeum.

The Serapeum was the temple of Serapis, a late Egyptian combination of Osiris and the Apis bull who, portrayed in Greek fashion, was the patron god of Alexandria. The Serapeum had been built by the Macedonian Pharaoh Ptolemy III and continuously adorned by Macedonian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors for 600 years. The Serapeum also housed a satellite collection of the Library of Alexandria, all that remained of the great library which may have ceased to exist more than a century before. The Serapeum, therefore, could reasonably likened to the Vatican of antiquity. Ammianus Marcellinus, the 4th-century CE historian, who could only have seen it in decay, described it as follows:

The Serapeum, splendid to a point that words would only diminish its beauty, has such spacious rooms flanked by columns, filled with such life-like statues and a multitude of other works of such art, that nothing, except the Capitolium, which attests to Rome’s venerable eternity, can be considered as ambitious in the whole world. (Res Gestae, XXII, 16)

Theodosius ended the siege of the Serapeum by granting pardons to the besieged pagans. Once they departed, a Christian mob looted and demolished the structure. Theodosius closed all pagan temples, and the Serapeum was not the only one destroyed. In 393, Theodosius also banned the Olympic games.


What remains today of the Serapeum of Alexandria

In 415 CE, Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, clashed with Orestes, the Imperial Prefect, and Alexandria’s large Jewish community. Christians protested Jewish exhibitions of dancing. To keep the peace, Orestes banned the exhibitions, but he also publicly tortured a Christian, Hierax, who used the ban as a pretext to incite the crowd against the Jews. Cyril fulminated anew against the Jews, who retaliated by luring Christians into a church and stoning them to death. Christian mobs retaliated by killing and plundering Jews, then expelling them from the city. This hardened the opposition between Cyril and Orestes. When Orestes rebuffed Cyril, he was stoned by a monk, Ammonius, whom Orestes had arrested and tortured to death. Cyril then declared Ammonius a saint.

As you might have guessed, this did not end well.


Charles William Mitchell, Hypatia

Unable to avenge themselves on Orestes directly, the Christians decided to strike at Hypatia, a highly regarded and well-connected member of the Alexandrian elite and one of its last pagans. Orestes was known to seek her guidance, thus she was a convenient scapegoat for his obstinacy, and since she was both a woman and a pagan, it was easy incite the crowd against her. She was accused of witchcraft. One day, she was seized by a mob of Christians, taken to a church, stripped naked, and flayed alive with broken tiles. Then her body was dismembered (like Osiris) and burned. Orestes resigned in disgust or was recalled to Constantinople, leaving Cyril — and Christianity — in control of Alexandria.

Agora is the fifth feature film directed by Chilean-Spanish auteur Alejandro Amenábar (who also composed the score and co-authored the script). (Amenábar’s best-known film is The Others [2001] starring Nicole Kidman; another film, Abre los Ojos [Open Your Eyes, 1997], was remade as Vanilla Sky [2001].)

Although Agora is generally true to the spirit of the events it depicts, Amenábar took some liberties with facts to bring Hypatia’s story to the screen. (For a brief and readable summa of Hypatia’s life and legend by an imaginative but sober scholar, see Maria Dzielska’s Hypatia of Alexandria, trans. F. Lyra [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995].)

First, Hypatia is portrayed as a young woman throughout, even though the story spans a period of 25 years, and Hypatia was a woman in her 60s when she died. (Jewish actress Rachel Weisz is quite good in the role of Hypatia. She is entirely convincing as an intellectual, with adorable touches of girlishness.)

Second, Orestes is portrayed as her student and would-be lover, although he was probably many years her junior, and there is no evidence that he studied with her or knew her before he arrived in Alexandria as Prefect. (Hypatia’s rebuff — her soiled menstrual rag — really did happen, but to another suitor.) (Oscar Isaac is quite good in the role of Orestes.)

Third, Synesius, the Bishop of Cyrene (now in Libya) actually was Hypatia’s student, but again he would have been considerably younger than her, and he died in 413 CE, two years before Hypatia. (In the movie he is well-played by Rupert Evans.)

Fourth, Hypatia’s father Theon (played by Michael Lonsdale, a.k.a. Sir Hugo Drax) is accurately portrayed as a mathematician and astronomer who was a leading figure in the Library of Alexandria, but there is no evidence that he died during the riots of 391.

Fifth, Hypatia’s work on the heliocentric hypothesis, including the elliptical orbits of the planets, is of course fictional, but it does illustrate her primary focus on mathematics and astronomy and the terrible loss to science and culture caused not just by her death, but by the death of classical antiquity.

Sixth, the character of the slave Davus (played by Max Minghella) is entirely fictional, but he is an almost Nietzschean portrait of the typical demographic profile and resentful motives of Christian converts. But Hypatia’s casually patronizing attitude toward him also shows why slaves had good reason to resent their masters.

Hypatia in Raphael's The School of Athens

Hypatia in Raphael’s The School of Athens

Seventh, Amenábar’s vision of the Serapeum is impressive. One can quibble about details — it is shown as a blend of Ptolemaic Egyptian and Greek architecture, which may be correct — but the feel is right. And the movie’s depiction of the siege and despoilation of the temple and its library is very moving. But although there is no way these events can make Christians look good, the movie actually skews the picture in favor of the Christians by portraying their provocation of the pagans as trivial (pelting statues with fruit) and depicting the Serapeum as being vandalized but not destroyed. (It is turned into a church and a stable.)

Eighth, when an Alexandrian dignitary accuses Hypatia of believing in “nothing at all,” her retort is that she believes in “philosophy,” which seems to be an expression of the 18th-century Enlightenment view popularized by John Toland, Gibbon, and Voltaire of Hypatia as an advocate of reason and science against religious superstition. But that dichotomy meant nothing in ancient Alexandria. Hypatia’s father Theon was not just an astronomer and mathematician, he also was a student of the Hermetic and Orphic mysteries, and there is no reason to suppose that Hypatia was any less mystically inclined. Hypatia was apparently not devoted to the public cults of Alexandria. But she was not irreligious; she was simply not Christian.

Ninth, Hypatia’s death was so horrible that it cannot be portrayed in a movie. It was far more horrible than the crucifixion of Jesus, and that already pushes the limits of representability in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. The proper solution, of course, would be simply not to show it. But instead Amenábar elects to show something that never happened, and he transforms Hypatia’s death from an act of Christian savagery to an act of Christian mercy. Again, it is impossible for Christians to come off well in this tale, but Amenábar is repeatedly willing to falsify facts to put Christians in a less bad light.

Tenth and finally, like most movies today, Agora casts blacks against type. There are black students in the Serapeum and black dignitaries in the Alexandrian Senate. This is highly unlikely. However, Amenábar’s casting of the monk Ammonius (Ashraf Barhom) and the Bishop Cyril (Sami Samir) verges on the Politically Incorrect, because their two swarthy, Semitic countenances will make any European think of ISIS, the Taliban, and the Salafists hawking falafel on the corner, in other words: those who long to do to the Vatican and Notre Dame today what the Christians did to the Serapeum and Library of Alexandria so long ago.

One of the most striking scenes in Agora is during the siege of the Serapeum. One of the pagans, who up to that moment had thought that this was his civilization, looks down at the vast mob of angry Christians and asks, “Since when were there so many Christians?” By then, however, it was too late. Our job, as White Nationalists, is to wake up our people while there is still time.

I highly recommend Agora to all my readers, particularly to lovers of antiquity, to neo-pagans who want a glimpse of paganism without barbarism, and to defenders of European civilization from the next wave of Biblical monotheism.


]]> 7
Emptying the World Cup Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:26:17 +0000 world cup1,470 words

“Football now has an immense social responsibility, which it must meet.”

– Anti-discrimination sociologist and “fan researcher” Gerd Dembowski

A recent spate of articles celebrating multiculturalism and FIFA’s World Cup argue that more diverse football squads do better.[1] But one has to ask: Better for whom and for what?

The World Cup offers people from competing nations a chance to display their national pride with minimal bloodshed. It is a safe substitute for war. As Cormac McCarthy’s diabolical character Judge Holden says:

“Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all . . . This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at least a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”[2]

Clearly, Ernst Jünger would have been a sportsman had he no avenue for war, but then he would not have been Ernst Jünger. His metaphysical transcendence would have been replaced with the ersatz glory of a Nike commercial. Sport (especially team sport) not only mimics war, it requires some of the same virtues – strength, discipline, hard work, honor, self-sacrifice, solidarity – although without the risks. Thus the team is a substitute for the tribal warrior band. The team represents its nation. The nation is represented by its team.

This simulacrum of war sometimes culminates in real violence, usually from the fans, in the same way that the World Cup’s simulacrum of nationalism may actually lead to real instances of nationalism. Occasionally, the multibillion dollar “say no to racism” spectacle concedes something to reality, to history, to continuity, to genuine community.

The media in Germany claim that “Most of Germany’s soccer hooligans are now neo-Nazis,” distinguishing between “Ultras” and the right-wing Hooligans, while it also systematically ignores Left-wing acts of violence, aggression, and baiting.

“In the leaflet, there are neo-Nazi codes and how to decode them. In this way, fans can be more aware of [meaning able to snitch on] far-right activities in the stadium. . . . Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, has spoken of a 15 percent overlap between football-affiliated hooligans and right-wing extremists. However, security officials in the Ruhr region of western Germany say the real figure is likely to be much higher.”

And indeed, a leaflet stating football hooligans’ goals is explicitly political: “Top priority: ‘Re-establishing old values.’ Second goal: ‘No anti-fascists in the stadium.’ Third goal: ‘Win back freedom of speech.’”[3]

“At the same time that the football federation was diversifying the national team, the German government was changing its citizenship laws, leading to a more diverse German citizenry.”[4]

While the Center-Left media praised the “diverse” players as adding their ethnic “flair” to the team, the Center-Right media transformed the “diverse” players into “good Germans” because of their hard work and commitment to the team – thus taking a utilitarian approach to identity. If it talks and walks like a German but looks like an African – it’s a German. While columnist Jacqueline S. Gehring, the biased Leftist who wrote the article, has the gall to complain that even though both Center-Left and Center-Right make no bone about the “Germanness” of these players, it is still discriminatory because they have to justify their German identity.

These two perspectives dominate all PC discussion about “diversity”: either it is good because it adds flavor (more falafels in Berlin, more curry in London) or it is good because it is useful, meaning more wage-slave jobs taken from the indigenous population.

dregsOne bit of Leftist trickery is to pose as apolitical common sense: “Whoever plays well should play in the team, whether they have an immigrant background or not,” said Hassan, 42. “It is about football and shouldn’t be about politics.” Thus Leftist ideology is invisible, it is seamless, it is the norm. Only challenges to Leftist hegemony are “political.” Of course the fact that “Hassan” lives in Germany is already political. The fact that his opinion matters is already political.

When Italian nationalism began to form in the 19th century, a phrase began to circulate:  “We’ve created the Italian state. Now we must create Italians.”[5] At various times, it has been attributed to Count Camillo Cavour and Benito Mussolini. “Creating Italians” was similar to other nationalist projects, like Ataturk’s creation of “the Turks” or Bismarck’s creation of “the Germans.” Italians were divided linguistically, ethnically, socially, economically, politically — almost completely. What brought Italians together, partially at least, is the treat of an outside force.

Now that a global political order is being created, we must create global citizens. There must no longer be an “us” and “them.” International sporting events are a problem for globalism, because it is all about “us” and “them.” That is why the establishment is pushing for “diversity” on teams — “diversity” being a code word being indistinguishable, interchangeable, all the same.

Italy's Mario Ballotelli

Italy’s Mario Ballotelli

They’d like to think that the social values of universal humanism and meritocracy are winning out over narrow-minded national bigotry. We’re supposed to act shocked and appalled when an irate fan yells out “fucking nigger”[6] to Mario Balotelli. Why can’t these backwards racists join us in our global consumer paradise?

Balotelli fundamentally challenges the notion of what it means to be an Italian. And this questioning challenges what it means to be a fan of your national sports team. We can draw a parallel from the Roman Empire. When the Romans started to use mercenaries to fight their wars it was a sure bet that the Empire would collapse. And this is exactly what Balotelli represents, a collapse of the 19th-century nation-state towards the triumph of the 21st-century Internationalist Corporate State – a movement that entails deeply chaotic displacements of identity and self.

It is not just that nation-states have become divorced from their ethnic makeup, but also they have become entwined with the processes of globalism, which seeks to undermine any sovereignty, any border, any group, in favor of the free flow of capital and the global marketplace.

Balotelli does not just represent himself or the changing face of Italian identity, but the unsettling of the world in favor of internationalist corporate values. These values want to hollow out culture and identity and replace it with popular culture and individualism – which really is a lack of identity.

Stewardship is a valuable concept. It is the idea that the land does not belong to “one” but to “us.” One cannot use it up for one’s own private interest. One can make a living on it. But one has to improve it and pass it on. Because we are only one generation among many. Cultivation and culture are two concepts that arise out of the same desire: to make something of the world we are thrown into, and to pass it on. If one’s grandfather builds a house, doesn’t he hope that it will be the home of his descendants, not some tribesman from Ghana?[7]

A nation is an extended house for an extended family. It was not created so our generation can throw it away out of short-sighted greed or self-indulgent moralism. We owe it to our ancestors and our descendants to keep it in the family.



[2] For the full text.



[5] The phrase was actually written by Massimo d’Azeglio, a noble of the Piedmont House, so it might as well be attributed to Cavour or Victor Emmanuel.


[7] Clint Eastwood’s Grand Torino was a film which dealt with the idea of family inheritance. In the end the self-sacrificing converted racist white man gives his most prized possession to his Asian neighbor and snubs his family — in part because they have grown apart and see their relationship in materialistic terms, and those traditional qualities of family and kinship ties, homemaking, and hard work that Eastwood’s Polish character identifies with are absent with his own kin. We must rediscover these values!


]]> 3
Beyond the Bush Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:56:24 +0000 BeyondtheBush1,321 words

Robert Ignatius Dillon
Beyond the Bush: A Hopeless Satire
Chicago: Hopeless Books, 2013

Beyond the Bush is the third release from Ann Sterzinger’s Hopeless Books, and the first not from her own pen. Like Sterzinger’s own The Talkative Corpse [1] it reveals its Chicago origins by the frequent use of various derivatives of ‘jag-off’, and one might be tempted to christen it part of a ‘jag off lit’ movement, did it not sound so entirely like I was dismissing it as desultory and self-indulgent. 

Indeed, this is a slight work — we’re obviously not talking Imperium here, but not even Confederacy of Dunces, despite the author sharing a name with Ignatius Reilly. But it’s short and cheap and amusing enough to invest an afternoon in.

But first, however, the reader has to survive what is usually the kiss of death for a book, especially what is apparently a first novel — the long, dull prologue.

See, what Dillon seems to be trying to do is re-create the “too-hip to believe in but aren’t they fun” conspiracy humor of Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s ’70s Illuminatus! Trilogy, but updated with some post-Wilson genetic paranoia courtesy of Philip K. Dick’s later, equally vast Valis Trilogy,[2] and perversely boiled down to less than 200 pages — for the attention spans of today’s Twitter readers?

The prologue, like the Blazes Boylan section of Ulysses, is really an attempt to introduce his paranoiac themes — James Bond, “23,” etc. — as if they were musical materials in an overture, leaving the reader to appreciate their reappearance and working out in the main text.

The prologue also establishes the writing style, appropriate for the theme and variations method — short sentences, low on descriptive prose, heavy on dialogue and stage directions; at best, punchy, at worst, monotonous. (Kindle readers are advised to switch to a smaller font, so as to give each sentence its own line, lest the book seem like a failed attempt to write a contemporary blank verse comedy).

It’s here that the intention and audience clash; not only are modern readers impatient with such long-term methods, Dillon has chosen — no doubt for personal reasons — to highlight the least relevant Illuminatus! theme: James Bond as a rogue paranoid. Although the recent 50th anniversary of the movie franchise, and the Daniel Craig reboot, have shown Bond to still have some cultural importance, it hardly has the same punch it did in the ’60s and ’70s. Dillon’s long discourse on the various Bonds has, to reverse chronology, the flavor of a Tolkien nerd’s dissertation on some aspect of the canon in the ’60s, before the movies made the books cool.[3]

Even on its own merits, it’s not a very interesting use of Bond, with its stale Moore vs. Connery juxtapositions.[4] Given Dillon’s interests in parody, the impact of different actors in the same role, or the same actors in different roles, etc., he might have found more fertile, and fresher, material by bringing in the Bond ripoffs of the period; for example, the Italian O.K. Connery (a.k.a. Operation Kid Brother, Operation Double 007 and Secret Agent 00) which uses (in many senses of the word) Sean’s brother Neil to play 007’s hypnotist/plastic surgeon brother, as well as placing known Bond actors in similar roles, both good guys (Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell) and bad guys (Adolpho Celli, Daniela Bianchi, and the ubiquitous Anthony Dawson). It’s a far more promising doubling than Dillon’s take on Never Say Never Again, and given his discussion of John Barry’s role in “saving” Bond though his soundtrack music, one would also like to hear Dillon deal with a production that, half-assed as it is, features what is surely the best Bond theme song, produced by no less than Ennio Morricone himself.[5]

The plot, such as it is, is just enough to assemble a random bunch of names and eventually meet them all up in the Oval Office on January 22, 2008. At exactly the halfway mark, according to my kindle, the story takes a sort of magic realist turn, though not much is made of it. Although Obama — or his clone — gets his share of slagging, most of the bad guys are familiar creatures of the Right, such as the eponymous Bushes and Dick Cheney; the humor is not so much alt-Right as post-political (“wised-up”) anarchist, like Shea and Wilson, or indeed most good comedy; after all, there are so many tempting targets, aren’t there?

As the last chapters arrive, the Bond themes from the prologue begin to reappear, revealing that the novel (is it a novel?) not only has the musical structure of a sonata — theme and variations — but is cyclical as well.

This characteristic – a structure both cyclical (if not cynical) and theme and variations — might remind one of Furtwängler’s Second Symphony.[6] Such a comparison could be considered both perverse — apart from being in a different medium, the work is hardly slight, almost 90 minutes in length[7] — and unfair, since the symphony is universally judged to be an eclectic failure that only demonstrated, rather than refuted, the “death of tonality.” However, the conductor’s protégé, Daniel Barenboim, once described the derivative nature of the material by saying that when listening, one must wear a hat, so as to doff it as one by one Brahms, Wagner, Liszt, etc. come strolling along.[8]

In a similar way, one of Dillon’s comic techniques is the random introduction of pop culture figures into the narrative. The reviewer’s problem here is that I can’t give any examples, as the effect depends on surprise, and your mileage may vary anyway, but trust me, you’ll find a least a couple to be laugh out loud funny, so be careful where you’re reading this.

Does the alt-Right have beach lit? Well, it does now. Enjoy!


1. See my review here.

2. Actually, most of the material comes from Blade Runner, the movie, though the character of Fat Guy is no doubt a nod to Dick’s legendarily unreliable narrator of Valis, Horselover Fat.

3. Though it must be admitted that the National Lampoon did produce parodies of both Bond (Alligator) and LOTR (Bored of the Rings) in the ’60s. See That’s Not Funny, That’s Sick: The National Lampoon and the Comedy Insurgents Who Captured the Mainstream by Ellin Stein (Norton, 2013), here and here. However, as a respectable young adult, although I read both parodies, I also read all the Bond books, while Bored remained by only exposure to LOTR until the movies. Could anyone imagine Kennedy, “youthful” as he was projected to be, admitting to reading Tolkien as he did to reading Bond?

4. And I say this as someone who himself frequently re-reads, and even cites, Kingsley Amis’s James Bond Dossier (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965) as not only an excellent critical work but a model for serious study of pop or genre works.

5. Oddly enough, Joel Hodgson, in his introduction to the MST3K DVD version (Vol. XXV), hits on exactly what differentiates the Bond era of Shea and Wilson (who produced Illuminatus! whilst working for Playboy, no less) from our own day: the Bond films showed “us” (Boomers) what we could look forward to as adults: alcohol, cigarettes, cars, and chicks.

6. See the liner notes to the first recording on Deutsche Grammophon, 1951, reissued on CD in 1998.

7. I first encountered it, and Furtwängler, in Colin Wilson’s The Philosopher’s Stone (1971, republished by Valancourt in 2013), where a character listens to such elephantine works precisely to enjoy the mental challenge of holding a musical thought together for great lengths of time.

8. Barenboim has been a tireless advocate of the work, even getting his Chicago Symphony to record it –and even release it on two discs (Teldec, 2002), with plenty of blank space, like Johnny Winter’s Second Winter. The irony is sweet, as the Chicago Symphony had rescinded Furtwängler’s appointment as conductor after the War due to the usual Judaic cries of “war criminal”; as an Israeli, Barenboim no doubt had sufficient moral capital to get his way.


]]> 1
Now in Stock!Nietzsche’s Coming God:Or the Redemption of the Divine Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:13:56 +0000 Taha535 words

Abir Taha
Nietzsche’s Coming God: Or the Redemption of the Divine
London: Arktos, 2013
108 pages

paperback only: $17 

Read Michael O’Meara’s review of the French edition here.

In Nietzsche’s Coming God, the author demonstrates that the “destructive” and “nihilistic” side of Nietzsche’s thought was in fact only a hammer that Nietzsche used in order to destroy the “millenarian lies” of Judeo-Christianity, a necessary — albeit transitory — stage that preceded his ultimate creation: the Superman, an incarnation of the god in the making . . . the coming god. Contrary to popular belief, Nietzsche was both a free spirit and a deeply spiritual thinker who welcomed the death of the false god — the god who curses and denies life — not as an end in itself, but as a prelude to the rebirth of the divine.

Indeed, although Nietzsche was an avowed atheist, he was also “the most pious of the godless,” as he described himself in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche dreamt of, and augured, a new mode of divinity and a new hope for mankind which, having rejected both religious obscurantist dogma as well as Cartesian rationalist dogma, would be the search for eternal self-perfection and self-overcoming.

The death of the god of monotheism thus paved the way for a new, pantheistic and pagan vision of the divine, heralding a “god to come” beyond good and evil, a god who affirms and blesses life. Nietzsche’s coming god is none other than Dionysus reborn, or the redemption of the divine.


Introduction: The Real Nietzsche

1. The Death of God, or the “End of the Longest Error”
-I- Symptom of decadence: The death of God as the outcome and culmination of nihilism
-II- The roots of nihilism: Christian life-denying morality
-III- The death of God, or the end of the millenarian lie: End or perpetuation of nihilism?

2. Beyond the Death of God: Nihilism Vanquished by Itself
-I- Beyond good and evil: Life as will to power
-II- The will to power as self-overcoming: The new nobility, prelude to the Superman

3. Nietzsche’s Spiritual Atheism: The Superman, a New Goal for Humanity
-I- The death of God, or spiritual atheism, prelude to the rebirth of the divine
-II- The new mode of divinity, a “coming god” beyond good and evil
-III- The Superman, a new goal for humanity
-IV- Dionysus reincarnated: A promise of noontide and eternity

Conclusion: The Redemption of the Divine


Abir Taha holds a postgraduate degree in philosophy from the Sorbonne, and is a career diplomat for the government of Lebanon, having previously served as the Consul at the Lebanese embassy in Paris. A thinker and a poet as well, she has spent years conducting in-depth research and analysis into Nietzsche’s thought, which has led her to assert the importance of the spiritual dimension of his philosophy, derived from the Vedic tradition of India as well as ancient Greek philosophy. Unlike other Nietzsche scholars, who treat him as a purely secular philosopher, Taha believes that this spirituality lies at the very heart of his thought. In English she has previously published Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Culture of the Superman. Unveiling the Nazi Secret Doctrine (2005) and The Epic of Arya: In Search of the Sacred Light (2009).

paperback only: $17


]]> 0
Now in Stock!The Conservative:The Complete Issues 1915–1923 Wed, 16 Jul 2014 04:22:39 +0000 theconservative-frontcover302 words

H. P. Lovecraft
The Conservative: The Complete Issues 1915–1923
London: Arktos, 2013
216 pages

paperback only: $23

The Conservative was a journal edited and self-published sporadically by H. P. Lovecraft between 1915 and 1923. Some of its pieces were written by Lovecraft himself, but many of them were written by others, and included not just political and social commentary on the issues of the day, but also poetry, short stories and literary criticism.

In spite of the journal’s name, Lovecraft’s style of conservatism bore little resemblance to what goes by that name in America today, and instead was first and foremost a call for a cultural revival — an appeal to a return to the deepest wellsprings that had inspired Western culture from its origins.

The period covered by The Conservative coincided with some of the most tumultuous events of the 20th century, including the First World War and the Russian Revolution. For Lovecraft and his fellow authors, however, the answer to navigating the chaos of their time was not crude nationalism or socioeconomic policies, but could only be understood in terms of race, culture and a strong sense of morality. An opponent of both democracy and liberalism, Lovecraft desired a return to the aristocratic values of earlier ages.

Whether one reads these texts as a record of Lovecraft’s own worldview, or as a window into the times in which they were written, The Conservative remains a fascinating document. This edition includes a special introduction placing it within the context of Lovecraft’s life and career by Alex Kurtagic.


Howard Phillips Lovecraft (1890–1937) was an American writer. An heir of Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne and a pioneer of supernatural and science fiction, Lovecraft was a master of the short story, but also wrote novellas, poems, essays, criticism, and countless letters.

paperback only: $23

]]> 0
From the EditorShopping Cart Problem Fixed Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:59:32 +0000 180 words

ConsumeristRealismIn the past week, some of our readers have had difficulty purchasing new titles announced on our front page. Apparently, when they clicked “Add to Cart” they received “error” or “website offline” messages. Lacking the technical knowledge to really fix this problem, I “fixed” it by removing the “Add to Cart” buttons from the front page. 

So, if you want to order one of the new books announced on our front page or on our News or Distributed Titles tabs, you can click the post title, you can click the price of the book, or you can click Read More. These links will take you to a page on our secure server where you can fill your shopping cart to your heart’s content.

To order the books whose covers appear on the right hand side of our screen, just click the cover images and you will be taken to a secure transaction page.

We will be adding many exciting new titles to Counter-Currents in the coming weeks.

Thank you for your readership and support.

Greg Johnson


]]> 0
Jack Donovan’s A Sky Without Eagles Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:08:12 +0000 DonovanEagles4,595 words

Jack Donovan
A Sky Without Eagles: Selected Essays and Speeches 2010-2014 
Milwaukie, Or.: Dissonant Hum, 2014

A Sky Without Eagles is Jack Donovan’s eagerly anticipated follow-up to The Way of Men (2012) – which has now sold an astonishing ten thousand copies. This anthology collects a number of essays and talks Donovan has given since 2010. In the earlier essays we encounter glimmers of the ideas that later wound up in The Way of Men. And in the essays written since that book’s publication we find him developing and expanding upon those ideas. It therefore seems fitting to begin with a very brief summary of the argument of The Way of Men.

Eschewing all the fashionable, politically correct claptrap about “redefining masculinity” (i.e., feminizing it) Donovan suggests an ingenious thought experiment designed to lay bare the core of what real manliness consists in. Let us cast our minds back to what life would have been like in the most ancient and primitive of human societies. They would have been concerned with very little more than surviving day-to-day. Since men are physically stronger and more aggressive than women, they would naturally have assumed the role of hunters and warriors (i.e., defenders of the territory, and of the women and children, against outsiders).

Needless to say, the men of the tribe would have to have banded together in order to play this role. And it is when they formed together in such bands (which Donovan simply calls “gangs”) that masculine virtue must first have manifested itself, and been reflected upon, and cultivated consciously by men. How do we know what those primal masculine virtues were — i.e., what was primal, authentic masculinity? Simple. They would have been the qualities men had to have possessed in order to be defenders of the tribe.

Donovan lists four primary male virtues: strength, courage, mastery, and honor. Now, some women can achieve some or all of these virtues. But Donovan makes the simple point that when men lack these virtues we think less of them, even perhaps going so far as to say they are not “real men.” But if women lack these same virtues we generally do not think less of them, and do not doubt that they are “real women.”

As I pointed out in my review of The Way of Men: “nobody thinks Martha is less of a woman if she needs help changing a tire. We never observe physical weakness in a woman and think ‘she’s unwomanly.’ Sally may defeat Martha in an arm-wrestling contest, but no observer thinks ‘Wow, Martha isn’t half the woman Sally is!’” Result? Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are not just the primary masculine virtues – they are primarily masculine virtues.

You will have to read The Way of Men to get the rest, including Donovan’s extensive discussion of the four virtues. Really, it’s a brilliant book and it is clearly making an impact within the “manosphere” and without.

Donovan opens A Sky Without Eagles by telling us how his thought has evolved over time:

When I started writing for Alternative Right in 2010, I was advocating for ‘a resurgence of masculine virtue in the West,’ and, specifically, in America. As my investigation of masculinity deepened and The Way of Men took shape, I realized that contemporary American and Western ideas and institutions were actually causes of man’s decline and inseparable from it. [pp. 13-14]

Indeed, much of Donovan’s writing has been devoted to an analysis of the sorry state of modern American manliness, and its causes.

“Everyone a Harlot” is the essay that probably best typifies this strand of Donovan’s thinking. It is tucked roughly in the middle of the anthology. With a great deal of wit and incisiveness, Donovan here skewers the repulsive narcissism of today’s “new masculinity”: “No one cares how much Tatum Channing [sic] or Brad Pitt lifts, or how fast they can run, or what they can build, or how many men they could defeat in combat. They’re admired for being desirable” (p. 90). Today’s typical “metrosexual” male sees this and aspires to be desired as well. He desires the desire of others, and that is all. For him, this is achievement enough.

There’s an easy transition from this essay to “Train for Honor,” which was written especially for the volume (and is one of my favorites). When the metrosexual works out he is merely building muscle in order to be sexually desirable. But Donovan states, correctly, that this makes him fundamentally effeminate: no different from women concerned with getting their makeup right, showing off their cleavage, and making sure they are not badly lit. Again, no one thinks less of women for doing this, because femininity consists, fundamentally, in two and only two elements: being attractive to men, and being nurturing (to children and others).[1] Homosexual men, Donovan points out, were the vanguard here. Think of the “gay clone look” of the 1970s and ’80s, which essentially involved creating a hyper-masculine, blue collar, “tough guy” look (mustache, sideburns, Levis, leather, work boots, etc.) – sans any underlying, achieved masculinity or actual blue collar toughness.

The metro/homosexuals hit the gym in order to be desirable (hence “everyone a harlot”). But why else should we work out? Most modern people don’t need big muscles, or the ability to run fast. It’s seldom that I am called upon to carry a wounded comrade on my shoulders, or to outrun a hungry cheetah (which is probably impossible anyway). “Ah,” some may say, “we must make ready for the coming collapse! For the war of all against all, when we’ll be stalking elk through the damp forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center, wearing leather clothes that’ll last the rest of our lives, and climbing the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower.” Or something like that. But this may just be wishful thinking; it might never happen in our lifetimes.

And why train a body that’s just going to get old and ugly and die anyway? Donovan’s answer: train for honor. Train because the modern world – in which the average man needn’t be stronger than the average woman – is unworthy of you. Set your sights higher than what is required for life in the modern world. Train as if you needed strength to carry wounded comrades on your shoulders, and the endurance and agility necessary to outrun predators, or enemies. With this mindset, working out becomes a rejection of the modern world; a revolutionary act. Every set, every rep is an act of defiance, a repudiation of what Donovan calls the “Bonobo Masturbation Society.” (If this doesn’t motivate readers of this website to get off the couch and go to the gym, I don’t think anything else will.)

Donovan writes, “the male machine wants, at the apex of its potential, to be hurled in a warp spasm of muscular inertia at danger and, ultimately, death” (p. 110). Few of us are able to fulfill that potential, in the real and true sense. So instead we hurl ourselves at barbells and treadmills, at CrossFit and jiu-jitsu. No external signs may distinguish the man on the treadmill who trains for honor, and the gay or straight queen on the treadmill next to him, who trains to be “hot.” What counts is the motivation or the mindset they bring to their training.

Now, for Donovan training for honor is not simply about holding oneself to a higher standard than the present world requires. It also has to do with one’s relationship to the past. He writes:

I train because I imagine the disgust and contempt our ancestors would have for us all if they lined up modern men on the street. I train to be less of an embarrassment to their memory. I train because most modern men dishonor all of the men who came before them. I train “as if” they were watching and judging us. I train “as if ” I might one day be called to join them, or to strive and thrive as they once did, in a better world — a greater age. I train because it is better to imagine oneself as a soldier in a spiritual army training for a war that may never come than it is to shrug, slouch and shuffle forward into a dysgenic and dystopian future. [p. 110]

This is a very interesting statement, and it dovetails nicely with the final essay in the volume, “The Brotherhood.” It’s the final essay here but not because it is least important; arguably it’s the most important one of all, and it appears in print for the first time. Donovan describes The Brotherhood as “my sacred, guiding dream” (p. 152). What it is, quite simply, is the Männerbund: a voluntary alliance (or, as he puts it – significantly – “voluntary kinship”) between men based on honor – though there is a bit more to it, as we will see.

In modern society, brotherhoods have almost completely disappeared. War is reserved for professional soldiers, who see themselves (or are told to see themselves) as fighting for the preservation of the family – women and children, in other words. In days of yore, however, it was the Brotherhood that took a special kind of preeminence over family. Now, if we recall the argument of The Way of Men, we may be puzzled by these ideas. After all, didn’t Donovan tell us that male bands originate from the need to protect the vulnerable members of the tribe and its territory – and didn’t he tell us that this is the way that masculine virtue first manifests itself?

Yes, but the important thing to understand here is that while the Männerbund may originate in this way, it becomes – for its members – an end in itself. And those masculine virtues that are supposed to be cultivated by the members become ends in themselves. Of course, if the Männerbund became, in some fashion, antagonistic towards the tribe and the family, it would become a perversion of itself, and a cancer in the tribe. For, as Donovan notes, “without family, the Brotherhood has no future. The family is the second most sacred idea. The family is a means for the continuation of The Brotherhood, and gives a sacred role to women in The Brotherhood” (p. 153; i.e., because women give birth to the men who make up the Brotherhood, they have a sacred role to play in the tribe).

A lot of readers may miss the real significance of what Donovan means here. Essentially what he is saying is that the family exists so that the Brotherhood may exist. The coming into being of the Brotherhood, and its realization of the ideal and striving after it, justify the existence of the family. And he is also basically saying that, fundamentally, women exist in order to bring men into the world. Donovan writes, “The ideal woman is Queen Gorgo of Sparta, proud of her role in The Brotherhood, boasting that only women of her tribe give birth to worthy men” (p. 153). (Note to married men: Hide this book from your wives. Hide all Donovan’s books. Especially Androphilia.)

With his insistence that the family exists for the sake of the Brotherhood, Donovan turns modern reductionist biology on its head. His position is not unlike that of Hegel: the end of nature is to give rise to Spirit. The perfection of the human being is the realization of the ideal, but this happens in overcoming nature, including the nature in us. We begin as “natural beings,” but we become truly human when we turn ourselves towards the ideal and are willing to risk our bodily being in the service of it. For Hegel, this first displays itself in the struggle over honor. For Donovan, honor is an ideal that is first realized in the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood begins as something in the service of the natural (protection of women and progeny) but then disengages itself from the natural. It is in the Brotherhood that consciousness of the ideal is formed. It is in the Brotherhood that what is truly human is born.

Donovan tells us that, in fact, the Brotherhood is constituted by a triangle of values. Its uppermost point, aimed at the heavens, is the Brotherhood itself and “manly honor,” “but family and ancestry make up the two points across its base” (p. 155). “Family,” because without the family as such there would be no Brotherhood; and without my family there would be no me. I must therefore honor and defend the family – and protect my own family’s honor. Why “ancestry”? Donovan writes:

I have never been a believer or a religious man, but ancestor worship can bridge the gap between old religion and new science. The best we can do for the dead is remember them, and every man and woman wants to be remembered. This sacred cult of remembering the dead is also what makes women so important, and makes a strong argument for the majority of men to marry — even when they are not particularly inclined to — and continue their lines. Young men should grow up knowing what their great-grandfathers and great-great-grandfathers did, and who they were, and what they believed. [pp. 155-56]

And later he restates the Brotherhood’s triad of values as “The Brotherhood, The Family, and the Dead.” The members of the Brotherhood must look to who has come before them, to their ancestors. They must honor them, must become worthy to carry their name. Recall that Donovan tells us he trains “to be less of an embarrassment” to his ancestors. And – significant words here – “I train ‘as if’ I might one day be called to join them.” The members of the Brotherhood see themselves as one with the dead. And in real warrior Brotherhoods, they go out each day prepared to die – as if they were already dead. And they act with full awareness of trying to live a life worthy of being recalled in fables and songs. Their future is consciously constituted in relation to their past: the past of their ancestors, and the “past” they would create for themselves, in the memory of others.

Donovan’s essay “Anarcho-Fascism” expands upon some of these themes. There is a great deal of confusion about what the term “fascism” really means. Usually, for example, it is treated as a synonym for “totalitarianism,” which, of course, would make it indistinguishable from communism. Donovan goes back to basics in order to recover the meaning of fascism in its most basic sense. He says that the fasces “symbolizes a distinctly male worldview” (p. 42). It represents, needless to say, the Brotherhood. And Donovan is undoubtedly right about the “distinctly male” character of fascism and the central role it gives to the Brotherhood. The German scholar Hans-Peter Hasenfratz, writing of modern, “degenerated” forms of the Männerbund states:

The fascist movement, with its paramilitary groups (the Wehrwolf, the SA, the SS), provides examples of such degenerated forms in recent times. Further, in the political theory of National Socialism, the binding system that formed and sustained the state was considered not to be the symbiosis of man and woman in the family but rather the military association of man and man together in the Männerbund. In Alfred Rosenberg’s view, the Prussian, and later the German, army was “one of the most grandiose examples of the architectonic [transcending of lineage and family, state-forming] Männerbund, built upon honor and duty and corresponding to the Nordic man.”[2]

But why anarcho-fascism? Short answer: think Fight Club. Traditionally (with a capital T), The Brotherhood is a fascistic Männerbund bringing fascistic order to the tribe or nation. Today, the Brotherhood is – or must be – a fascistic “gang” (to use Donovan’s favored term) existing in “anarchic opposition” to the feminized, degenerated modern world. “Manhood can only be rebooted by the destruction of their future, and the creation of new futures for new or reborn tribes of men. . . .The way of men can only be rediscovered in Night and Chaos” (pp. 44-45, my italics). Shades of Hesiod in that last bit. Donovan is saying we must crank it all back to the beginning.

Of course, the rebooting of manhood will bring with it simultaneously, or shortly thereafter, the rebooting of Traditional culture. The Brotherhood’s internal policy: fascism. It’s policy toward the outside world: anarchy. Anarchy now, fascism later. Bring on Project Mayhem, in other words. (The Way of Men arrives at a similar result.) Donovan opens the “Anarcho-Fascism” essay with an anonymous graffito from the late 1960s: “In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure the only adventure that remains is to abolish that society.”

He writes:

The fasces symbolizes the moment when men create order from chaos. This pure, primal manliness can only be realized under stress. It can only rise out of chaos, as a reaction to external forces. From there it matures, shaped by time, into an honor culture, and from that culture — that combination of collective history and custom that characterize the identity of a people — comes Tradition. [p. 44]

This is a passage pregnant with significance. Through the Brotherhood, culture is created. These were the men who painted the caves in the Upper Paleolithic. From “manly honor,” that one small, noble seed, has sprouted the mighty ash of the human spirit, with its three great branches: art, religion, and philosophy. Through the Brotherhood, a people constitutes its culture, and knows itself. The Brotherhood is the pride of the tribe, embodying its highest values. The Brotherhood is the holy of holies at the center of the nation. Donovan writes: “The blood of dire necessity that binds the band of brothers becomes the blood of heritage and duty that ties the family, the tribe, the nation” (p. 42).

Arising from natural necessity, the Brotherhood forms itself. Its members must exhibit and cultivate certain virtues. These values thus come to be reflected upon, theorized, and represented in stories and songs. And they come to be personified. They become, in short, the stuff of myth, which is the foundation of Tradition. It would be incorrect to say that these ideals become “objectified” or “hypostatized,” because these ideals are already real, already objective. But that is a tale for another time. Briefly: through the Brotherhood, men do not “make up” ideals and they certainly do not “make up” gods. They become aware of them. The gods are as real and as objective as the Pythagorean Theorem (and no more so – though they are closer in nature to the dynamic logoi spermatikoi of the Stoics, than to Pythagorean or Platonic ideas).

Donovan’s Brotherhood, fully actualized, is always a religious brotherhood. It is always, consciously or unconsciously, oriented toward the ideal – toward the divine. But its awareness of the divine is always simultaneously its own self-awareness.

This brings us to Crom. “Crom” is the title of another of the essays written especially for this volume, and it’s the second to last essay (before “The Brotherhood”), which has got to mean something as well. Crom is the fictional god in Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories. And this is Jack Donovan’s god – or so he says, but his tongue is in cheek here (sort of). In the preface, he tells us that this essay “pretty well sums up my ‘spiritual’ perspective.” And earlier I quoted him telling us that “I have never been a believer or a religious man.” Well, in the conventional sense of “believer” and “religious” man, yes. But in the unconventional sense Donovan definitely qualifies as God-intoxicated.[3]

Donovan is actually pretty serious about Crom. He’s had his name tattooed on his knuckles. If I had the name of someone’s fictitious god tattooed on my knuckles I’d have to be pretty serious about him. So, what does Crom offer the faithful? Nothing. And that’s precisely why he appeals to Donovan. Crom does not care about you. He does not think you are a beautiful and unique snowflake. If he thinks about you at all, however briefly, he considers you to be the same decaying organic matter as everything else. Because in his eyes we are all part of the same compost heap.

“CROM only cares about one thing, and that one thing is VALOR,” Donovan writes. And further,

CROM is a god beyond good and evil. CROM is a god of self-overcoming, and self-commanding, of self-obedience and the summoning of strength in the service of will. Even if you triumph, CROM probably won’t be impressed. He only cares about winners, not “survivors,” and he doesn’t pretend to be interested in hearing your excuses or rationalizations. Words like “fairness” and “equality” probably send him into thunderous fits of laughter. . . . CROM symbolizes the part of myself I need to tap into to push myself out of the nurturing womb of false affirmation that surrounds us all, and strive out into hostile territory. [pp. 145-147]

Hmm. Sounds sort of like . . . Odin.

As Bart Simpson might say, Odin is a perfectly cromulent god. (And he too is a knuckle-ready god of four letters.) Indeed, Donovan does tell us that, as gods go, he prefers “the European pagan gods to the Christian god or Asian religious figures because the European pagan gods were the native gods of my ancestors, and I like their stories better, and they inspire me in a way that I want to be inspired” (p. 144). So far so good, but then Donovan writes:

In an age where the gods have been driven into the shadows by the light of SCIENCE!, men must find inspiration where they can. If the old gods have become mere stories — ideas — then men are free to choose whatever story inspires them to become what they believe they should become. [p. 147]

But this isn’t really true. We are not entirely free to choose “whatever” story inspires us. The larger reason for this is that we’re never entirely free to do anything. Nurture and – more importantly, we’re finding out – nature (i.e., genetics) will pull us in certain directions. And Donovan admits that he finds himself pulled toward the “pagan European gods.” They are a better fit for him. But that’s not a matter of “choice.” So, why is he not sporting “ODIN” on his knuckles? Probably because so many self-proclaimed “Odinists” and “Ásatrúar” are basically just playing dress-up.

Believe me, I understand that. But the genuine article is out there. I know, I’ve met some. (And I hope I am some.) And now, interestingly enough, Jack Donovan has met them as well. Around the time of the publication of A Sky Without Eagles Donovan journeyed to Lynchburg, Virginia to visit the Wolves of Vinland, a self-described “tribe of folkish heathens” – Odin-worshipping, Germanic heathens. I won’t summarize the result, because you can read about it yourself. I will simply say that I think the reader will come away with the same impression I did: that Mr. Donovan had a religious experience in Lynchburg.

And if one reads A Sky Without Eagles with Donovan’s essay on the Wolves of Vinland in mind, as I did, it’s hard to resist seeing how the various strands of thought woven throughout these seventeen essays are all clues, leading Donovan back to the Northern European traditions of his ancestors.

If we could go back far enough in Donovan’s lineage, we would find men who were members of precisely the sorts of brotherhoods he idealizes. Initiated members of Männerbünde, followers of Odin, the “first initiate” and the leader of the Männerbünde. Odin is a god beyond good and evil, who doesn’t “care about you.” And he is preeminently a god of self-overcoming. He is “the god of the battle ecstasy (of the ‘berserker rage’).”[4] He only cares about valor.

The Germanic Männerbund was (to use Donovan’s words) a “voluntary kinship.” In the words of Hans-Peter Hasenfratz, it was “Sib-like (and yet Sib-transcending).”[5] It was devoted to valor and to honor – to living up to an ideal, and being remembered for it. Hasenfratz writes, “Through their initiation, the young members of the Männerbund are also counted among the heavenly ghost warriors of Odin (the einherjar); their ecstatic actions are reflected in the myth of Wotan’s ‘Wild Army’ [i.e, the “Wild Hunt”].”[6] And: “Because Odin was also the leader of the ‘Wild Army’ of the dead, in certain instances the members of the Männerbünde represented the dead among the living population of the community.”[7]

These men really wanted “to be hurled in a warp spasm of muscular inertia at danger and, ultimately, death.” Indeed, they were already dead: identified with Odin’s ghostly army. One thinks immediately not just of Donovan’s “sacred cult of remembering the dead,” but of his admonition that one should “imagine oneself as a soldier in a spiritual army.” And his telling us that he trains “as if I might one day be called upon to join [my ancestors].”

The orientation of Donovan’s ancestors was solidly “vertical,” to borrow the term he uses in the essay from which this volume takes its title. The skies of Donovan’s ancestors were full of eagles. Even Donovan’s belief in “hierarchy through meritocracy” (and his dismissal of the obsession with “caste” found among many Traditionalists) is characteristically Northern European. Our ancestors had their royal and noble houses. But a man could be elevated into a higher station through proving his worth. And the king or chieftain was always “first among equals.”

In my review essay of The Way of Men, I wrote that

I don’t really want to bring down the modern world to save “men” in general. I do sympathize with the men of other tribes, in so far as men are men and have much the same problems and concerns. But it’s the men of my tribe that I am really concerned with — just because my primary concern is with the survival of my tribe and my culture. Jack Donovan has taught us that masculinity first displays itself in this concern with the survival of the tribe — of our tribe, not theirs; with “us” not “them.” Fundamentally, what he has taught us is that to be a man means to be at odds with the men of the other tribe. If Donovan really gets his way and “gangs” proliferate, they’re not going to all go bowling together. They’re going to begin history again. And it’s going to be intense.

That this is Donovan’s own position is made crystal clear in this new volume. For I have not yet even mentioned what will be, for some, the most controversial of these essays: “Mighty White,” in which Donovan (sort of) endorses White Nationalism. The Brotherhood Donovan dreams of is not all shades of the rainbow.

This completes the picture, as far as I am concerned. It’s safe to say that Donovan has earned himself a place at Odin’s table; membership in the einherjar. And Odin won’t even mind if Donovan still wants to call him Crom. For Odin has many names.


[1] This is not the same thing as saying that a woman has these two features and only these two. Women may achieve a wide variety of virtues, but the specific virtue of “femininity” consists primarily in these two aspects.

[2] Hans-Peter Hasenfratz, Barbarian Rites: The Spiritual World of the Vikings and the Germanic Tribes, trans. Michael Moynihan (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2011), 51.

[3] See Derek Hawthorne’s review of Androphilia for another discussion of Donovan’s religious side.

[4] Hasenfratz, 49.

[5] Hasenfratz, 50.

[6] Hasenfratz, 73.

[7] Hasenfratz, 49.


]]> 14
Now in Stock!A Sky Without Eagles Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:01:14 +0000 DonovanEagles773 words

Jack Donovan
A Sky Without Eagles: Selected Essays and Speeches 2010-2014 
Milwaukie, Or.: Dissonant Hum, 2014
166 pages

hardcover only: $30

Read Jef Costello’s review here.

A Sky Without Eagles is the first printed collection of The Way of Men author Jack Donovan’s essays and speeches. Beginning with his viral hit, “Violence is Golden,” A Sky Without Eagles assembles Donovan’s best standalone commentary from 2010 through 2014. In his straightforward but disarmingly sincere style, Donovan channels the widespread disillusionment and frustration of men in the increasingly restrictive developed world. A Sky Without Eagles covers race realism, criticizes feminism’s degenerative influence on masculinity, and in the title speech, laments the lack of virtue and nobility in American leadership.

Donovan wrote three new essays for A Sky Without Eagles. The first, “Train For Honor,” deals with his search for meaning in strength training.”CROM!” sums up Donovan’s agnostic take on what kind of religion men need today. This collection concludes with “The Brotherhood” — Donovan’s imagining of a better, manlier and more spiritually unified tribe of men.


Violence Is Golden
A Sky Without Eagles
Mighty White
Vote With Your Ass
The Grievance Table
There Is No Honor In Competition With Women
Mother May I? Masculinity
Draw The Line
Everyone A Harlot
Train For Honor
The Physical Challenge
Principles of Convenience
The Manly Barbarian
Becoming The New Barbarians
The Brotherhood


“I loved reading “Violence is Golden”. It was provocative and inspiring. I enjoyed it so much that I shared it online and was stunned by how much controversy it created. [I'm sure that those that "violently" opposed the views of Mr. Donovan, missed the irony of their anger]. Embracing violence doesn’t mean you must be violent … as a self-defense consultant, it means you must understand violence so that you can do your best to intercept it. In a real fight, when you are the target, it’s not who’s right that matters, its who’s left.”
– Tony Blauer, CEO & Founder, Blauer Tactical Systems

“With this collection, Jack Donovan clearly demonstrates his deep and prescient understanding of a very particular type of man: at once revolutionary and traditional – an outsider amongst outsiders. But Donovan goes further than mere understanding, for in his use of physiological warfare against epistemological enslavement, he offers each of us an escape route from the promise of a deracinated and emasculated future.”
– Mark Dyal, Ph.D., author of Ultras Contra Modernity: Romans in Revolt (Arktos, 2014).

“Jack Donovan has produced a fascinating collection of straightforward essays that leave no sacred icon of contemporary times unassailed. The contents of this book represent the nightmares of every self-assured Marxist professor, shrill feminist ideologue, or smarmy liberal journalist. Jack’s ideas are Kryptonite to the chattering classes. This is the book to hand out to baby faced university freshmen who have had the misfortune of being forced to sit through totalitarian humanist indoctrination sessions.”
– Keith Preston, author of Attack the System: A New Anarchist Perspective for the 21st Century

“I first heard of Jack by way of his essay ‘Violence is Golden.’ I was so impressed that I immediately contacted him to request his permission to reprint the article for our audience of warriors, and he was kind enough to oblige. The unvarnished truth and deep insight on the subject of violence by-proxy instantly struck a chord with me (as I am sure it will with you), and I knew then that I had to dig deeper into Jack’s other writings. I am glad I did. . . . It is my sincere hope that Jack’s compilation of some of his most popular essays (including the wildly popular ‘Violence is Golden’) and the new materials contained in A Sky Without Eagles, will inspire many more warriors to think for themselves and free their minds from the programming that all to often binds them in servitude to the political class.”
– Ron Danielowski, Chief Instructor and Principle, Pulse Firearms Training

“Knowing the truth means little if you lack the courage to express it in a world built on lies. Expressing it means little either if you lack the skill to capture and convince an audience. The essays in A Sky Without Eagles teem with ancient truths and new insights delivered with courage, humor, and compelling logic. Truth + courage + style = the latest Jack Donovan book.”
– Greg Johnson, author of New Right vs. Old Right


Jack Donovan is a writer and artist who lives and works near Portland, Oregon. His books include The Way of Men (2012), Blood-Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Alliance (with Nathan Miller, 2010), and Androphilia (2007). For his latest work, visit

hardcover only: $30


]]> 0
Now in Stock!The Way of Men Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:00:26 +0000 DonovanWayofMen288 words

Jack Donovan
The Way of Men
Milwaukie, Or.: Dissonant Hum, 2012
170 pages

paperback only: $14

Read Jef Costello’s review here.

“Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men is an essential book on the nature of masculinity and why it is under assault in the modern world. But it is much more than that, for understanding masculinity is essential to understanding politics and the dynamics of human history. Thus, despite its accessible and unassuming style, The Way of Men is also a work of political philosophy. Indeed, it is a profound critique of liberal modernity. Hegel claimed that history began when men dueled to the death over honor. According to Donovan, the ‘end of history’ is not merely a global, homogeneous consumer society, for the defining characteristic of modernity is emasculation. The recovery of masculinity, therefore, requires unplugging from modern society, forming small-scale, bonded male groups (which Donovan calls gangs), and ultimately starting history and politics all over again. The Way of Men is revolutionary in the true sense of the word. This is the best book on masculinity since Fight Club.”

– Greg Johnson, author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater


The Way of Men is the Way of the Gang
The Perimeter
The Tactical Virtues
On Being a Good Man
Thug Life: The Story of Rome
A Check to Civilization
The Bonobo Masturbation Society
What is Best in Life
Start the World
How to Start a Gang


Jack Donovan is a writer and artist who lives and works near Portland, Oregon. His books include A Sky Without Eagles (2014), Blood-Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Alliance (with Nathan Miller, 2010), and Androphilia (2007). For his latest work, visit

hardcover only: $14


]]> 0
Conscience as a Weapon Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:18:37 +0000 Keep Families Together On the Other Side of the Border

Keep Families Together on the Other Side of the Border

1,450 words

There’s no surer sign of a scam than an appeal to conscience by a politician – unless it’s one by a journalist.

The “humanitarian crisis” on the Southern border is instructive because the usual suspects aren’t bothering with the standard propaganda. No one is pretending that that the Children’s Crusade will “be good for the economy” or “help America compete in a globalized world.” Instead, we are simply told that in order to be good people, we are obligated to accept a seemingly unlimited number of Hispanic immigrants on the grounds that they “need” it.

Indeed, this is even framed as a punishment – Central America is poor because of American foreign policy, with reporters getting to drag out references to Ronald Reagan, Oscar Romero, and even John Foster Dulles. Having to deal with an influx of helpless Hispanics is just our “chickens coming home to roost.” One would think Central Americans would be insulted. But they know their place.

It would be unimaginable for a white migrants, however poor, to brag about using their existence as a tool to drag down a host country, or exploiting their own children as a moral weapon precisely because of their helplessness. This must be more of those “family values” south of the Rio Grande that George W. Bush loved so much. Yet it’s not just liberal reporters or Reconquista ideologues pushing this. Even a “senior representative” of the Honduran President vowed, “As long as [U.S.] immigration reform is not approved, the exodus of children to the United States will continue.”

ImmigrationMeme1It is a strange kind of patriotism they practice in Central America, where pride is expressed by fleeing the country and enemies are punished by sending them your own people. And how giving more people legal status would somehow halt the influx was left unclear.

Of course, hypocrisy is a major part of this. Nancy Pelosi pried herself away from Botox long enough to announce, “We are all Americans–North and South in this hemisphere,” a major step forward in the forthcoming linguistic campaign for force citizens of the United States to relinquish the name “Americans.” She also added that she wished she could “take them all home,” though needless to say there will be no anchor babiespopulating her estates any more than there are union workers in her vineyards. Nor does the billionaires’ consortium of Adelson, Bloomberg, or Gates seem likely to trouble themselves about the fate of the “children.”

But that doesn’t mean that the problem is simply limited to limousine liberals. The first stage of the “children” were welcomed by hysterical white liberal women, always eager to moral preen with their beloved non-white pets. There are inquiries from around the country from people who want to adopt the “children.” Although the conservative media has revealed that this surge was largely planned, most conservative leaders have accepted the frame that this is a “humanitarian crisis” and that Obama is wrong precisely because he is endangering the precious “children.” Even when there are timid mutterings that Obama should enforce the law, they are prefaced by a monologue about how important it is to take care of the poor dears.

Needless to say, many of the children are teenagers or much older. Some are well over 30 – and trying to be let into American high schools. MS-13 is already using the processing center as a recruitment and coordination hub. Instead of “fleeing” gang violence, the planned influx of refugees is spreading it. Even those who are minors are absorbing resources and spreading diseases, one of which has already incapacitated a Border Patrol agent, who will suffer the effects for the rest of his life.

Oddly enough, we aren’t seeing much in the way of cute pictures of bambinos y bambinas clutching teddy bears and American flags. This is probably because the truth is far less photogenic than the propaganda. After all, even Congressmen trying to see what is going on are being turned away. The American towns who are being forced to deal with the illegals are not even receiving the courtesy of a notification. The “Intolerable Acts” that prompted colonial Bostonians to start the American Revolution have nothing on the President’s actions — but Sam Adams didn’t have to compete with Xbox One.

What President Obama, Eric Holder, and all the rest of the ruling clique are doing is simply pushing on an open door. To speak of “law” when the President casually ignores the ones he doesn’t like is to proves oneself irrelevant.

ImmigrationMeme2The critical issue is moral. Americans lack the vocabulary to say why it is morally permissible to limit the people who are let into the United States of America for any reason whatsoever. The fact that it is mostly (but not solely) white people leading protests against the influx is taken as prima facie evidence that the invasion is good.

White advocates fondly hope that there will be some catalyst that will force whites en masse to “wake up” and confront the truth of their own dispossession. The truth is that many whites know they are being dispossessed, support it, and will fight against those who wish to save them. White victims of crime are eager to “forgive” their indifferent perpetrators. The parents of those murdered often seem angrier at white advocates promoting a story than nonwhites who butchered family members. The Amy Biehl Foundation exists, and will continue to exist for some time to come.

Part of this is pathological altruism, a bona fide mental disorder in its own right. And part of it is Christianity – though it is revealing that Christianity apparently a valid moral consideration when it comes to immigration, but not with abortion, sex, or gender roles. The greater problem behind all of it is a universal moral imperative which holds that someone’s suffering, anywhere in the world, constitutes a claim on us. This now has a racial element as whites – all whites—are held to be in a privileged position and responsible for both the suffering and the salvation of the nonwhite world.

There are easy rebuttals to this. The only thing we can do with the “suffering” of the “children” is share it by admitting them. Their own corrupt leaders (either in the state or in gangs) are simply exporting their problems in order to seek domestic advantage. And Obama’s talk about ceasing deportations is what’s leading to the deaths of children, not white American protesters.

But ultimately, morality isn’t about them. It’s about us. And what is happening throughout the Western world is one giant piece of performance art constituting a reductio ad absurdum that our moral code is a scam. Luis Gutierrez and Nancy Pelosi are making no sacrifices. It’s only the useful idiots of Christian America who are being condemned by their own sense of decency, what Ayn Rand called the “Sanction of the Victim.”

They will receive no gratitude for their charity – only more fury, as shown by the likes of Gutierrez, José Antonio Vargas, or the innumerable others who spend their lives taking revenge on a society that permitted them to enter. From the banlieues of Paris to the barrios of the American Southwest, the nonwhite masses seethe at the Europeans and their descendants who have built a world with wonders they could never achieve over millennia. And yet whites will continue to blame themselves, even though we are hated not for what we do, but for what we are.

Let us be clear, as the President would say. We owe these people nothing. The American government has a duty to its own citizens and no one else. And if the government has decided to abandon that duty, then the European-Americans who created, built, and sustain this country only owe concern and allegiance to our own people. Those who wish to abandon us in the name of universal moralism and egalitarianism are free to do so, but they may find their new pets rather angry at their decades of patronizing.

Yet the fundamental challenge is still before us. Whatever reasoning people can develop from the Bible, philosophy, or just common sense, most people would concede that moral idealism is on the other side and what we offer is practicality. It remains to develop a systematic moral philosophy that can speak to issues like this and be both emotionally compelling and logically defensible. Otherwise, we will continue to be held hostage by moral blackmail. If a moral code demands we must destroy ourselves, then it is that that code which needs to be destroyed – not us.


]]> 8